I see, thanks for digging. This would be like a court saying "violent conquest, and religious discrimination in the tax system, are inherent parts of Islam ensh

I see, thanks for digging. This would be like a court saying "violent conquest, and religious discrimination in the tax system, are inherent parts of Islam enshrined in the Quran", or "theocratic Zionism and the killing of gentiles are core parts of Judaism that are sanctioned in the Torah". In both cases, with a fundamentalist reading, you'd be right, but it's really up to Muslims and to Jews to interpret their own religions (and to interpret their way away from bad parts of their texts), not for the legal system to do. And it's kind of anti-Hindu to choose the most unsympathetic (to an American) reading of Hinduism to be the "official" one. It would be like saying that right-wing "Christian nationalism" is the "true" Christianity. The only people who would agree would be people outside Christianity who hate it, and the right wingers themselves. And in the case of "Hinduism" this is extra complicated, because there is no central authority, and barely even a core "religion" in the manner of monotheisms. "Hinduism" barely exists (some people say it's just a word invented by the Britishers); it's a loose confederation of Shaivism, Vaishnavism, etc; it's amorphous. It's hard to say what is and isn't a "core belief". Whenever you try to grasp it, it will slip out of your hand.