On Indians and Hinduism

India, largely a country of immigrants says a Bench of the Supreme Court of India:
"A Supreme Court judgment projects the historical thesis that India is largely a country of old immigrants and that pre-Dravidian aborigines, ancestors of the present Adivasis, rather than Dravidians, were the original inhabitants of India."
Full Text of the judgement here.

Valerian Rodrigues describes Gandhi's version of Hinduism in Reading Texts and Traditions: The Ambedkar-Gandhi Debate . Just one passage from the very interesting article:
"Generally, Gandhi argued, reason and enlightened conscience remained the sine qua non for any understanding of the sacred scriptures. In 1920, he had clashed in this regard with the Vaishnava Maharajashri, to whom the adherents of the sect had gone demanding that a directive be issued that Antyajas (untouchables)cannot attend the school with their children. Against the argument of the Maharajashri that in the interpretation of the shastras reason, has no scope (a reiteration of Manu’s injunction) Gandhi argued that which reason could not understand and that which the heart does not accept can be no shastras and anybody who wanted to follow Dharma cannot but admit this principle. Otherwise, one would get into endorsing violence in instances, such as, “Rama killing Ravana”, or considering eating meat as sanctioned
by the shastras (Navjivan, 12 December 1920), positions which, according to him, went against the very fundamentals of Hinduism. In fact from the traditional criteria of authoritative understanding based on Sruti, Smruti, Achara and the understanding of Sadvipra, Gandhi eliminates the first three, by the law of lapse, and retains only the last in the form of enlightened conscience. The former are now internal to the latter as informing and constituting it and not independent of it or prior to it. Ambedkar did not contest the criteria that Gandhi employed directly. But he said that they could be merely formal. How does one know that a conscience is
enlightened? It could be highly prejudiced. In such a case we will be left with nothing but personal testimony without any objective criteria of validation. Ambedkar thought that there were few believing Hindus who were prepared to give up the textual authority of the shastras just because a “mahatma” tells them that religious authority rests in the mode of one’s life. Besides, in a context like that of India there were many who hailed from traditional strata and claimed good reason and enlightened conscience for their stances, although they were refurbished versions of orthodoxy."