One more request, to you or anyone: If someone can tell me where does Hinduism the religion ends and Hinduism the way of life starts, It will be very helpful.
No difference. They are both the same. The Hindu way of life is the Religion.
This question (and the answer) are crucial to the understanding of relations between Hinduism and other religions.
Hinduism covers a very broad area. It tramples on every single one of the areas that Islam seeks to cover - and Islam too covers a broad area and claims to be a way of life.
The only Islamic areas that Hinduism does not cover and lay claim to as its own are the need to worship just one God, the near-deification of just one man (Mohammad), and the rigid inflexible rules. That apart Hinduism fills up every nook and cranny of knowledge space into which Islam neither enters, nor dares to enter, primarily because Islam (at least the Islam of the Quran and Hadiths) get destroyed by entering areas where Hinduism has entered and left its footprint or at the very least allows access to without feeling threatened.
In fact the two paragraphs above this one can be represented in a Venn diagram showing the footprint of Islam and Hinduism. You can then see how dhimmitude still allowed Hinduism to survive. The restriction of Hindus to the small footprint of Islam did not restrict Hinduism much.
When Islam demanded that there be only one God, Hinduism responded by the rationalization that only Hinduism is capable of. It said "OK one God is fine because all paths lead to one"
When Islam demanded that idols should not be worshipped and went on and destroyed the "homes" for idols - the temples, it did not cramp Hinduism because the idols and temples were secondary to the fact that every rock, mountain, river, tree, animal and anthill serves as an "idol" for Hindus to find God.
One of the steps in the process of reconciling Islamic belief and Hindus belief is the understanding on each side of what the other accepts and providing the secular space for it.
In my review of Omar Khalidi's book in BRM I have pointed out one such instance of what appears to be Islamist bigotry on the part of Omar Khalidi. In his book Khalidi expresses takleef
at the appearance of Hindu religions icons in police stations. What has to be understood is that in a Hindu majority land, everything is sacred. Every table, chair, leaf and stone are sacred. Khalidi has no business complaining. I don't hear Khalidi complaining about Christmas decorations in the US where he lives.
Khalidi also fails to point out that the wearing of a cross or the bowing for prayer in some corner by a Muslim is equally easily allowed in India.
Here is the relevant excerpt from my review:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... andv2.html
On page 103 Khalidi says: "More than one observer has noticed the appearance of Hindu temples and Hindu religious images in police stations to the exclusion of those of the minority faiths". It is not clear whether the author objects to Hindu icons in police stations, or whether he is objecting to the lack of non-Hindu religious icons. Khalidi himself says why there are few Muslims in many police forces, and under the circumstances, a police station manned largely by Hindus cannot be expected to set up icons for those who are not present. Khalidi makes no attempt to ask if police personnel of religious minorities are prevented from performing minor acts of religious significance in the few police stations that do have them, such as the wearing of a cross or observance of an afternoon prayer or religious fast.
One difference between post independence India and Mughal India is that in the latter, any islamic objection to a Hindu practice resulted in the Hindu practice being relegated to the background so that it would not cause takleef to the Muslim. That is no longer necessary. Hinduism will reclaim its lost space. Islam will have to adjust. It was the prospect of that adjustment, and fear of that adjustment that led to partition.
Most Muslims are as adjusted to Hindu practices as Hindus accept Muslim practices. It is only when needless non-dharmic insinuations are made by Khalidi type scholars that we start getting the seeds of conflict.