Here how about this. What do you think of the term "dharma" being used in the context of the corporate form/guilds in India? It is a well documented fact that Srenis would have to declare their Dharma by which they, and their members, had to abide by, and was sanctioned by the Monarch. This was simply called Sreni-Dharma.

Furthermore that's a false equivalence as they do not use the same vocabulary. I challenge you to find any of the Sanskrit based word in any other religions around the world other than the ones found in India, and no translations do not count. That is to say Indic religions have their own jargon.

So no. Not ALL religions are closer to each other. Just the ones in India. There's NOT a single unifying factor that united Indian religions. So yah. There's a great difference between Vaishnavs, Shaivites, Mimamska, Nyaya-kins, Shaivites in Kashmir, Tantrics of Himalayas, Lingayats, Arya-samaj, Bhakti, ISKON, etc. There's, I believe, literal thousands of philosophically nuanced schools of thought that are incredibly different from each other. So again, please tell me where Hindus are the same. Again the ONLY thing, remember, ONLY, is the vocabulary, ideas, etc. that these philosophically distinct ideas share. That's it.

>>It is a well documented fact that Srenis would have to declare their Dharma by which they, and their members, had to abide by, and was sanctioned by the Monarch. This was simply called Sreni-Dharma.

I am not sure as to how this is relevant. Shrenis were guilds and shrenidharma obviously refers to a code of conduct for members. This could have been relevant to use in this context except that it is clearly half assed attempt to use an ancient word. Dharma should have been used as suffix in this context; shrenidharma = guild + rules. Other exmaples of use are atithidharma, kuladharma etc... So not only are they appropriating "Dharma" to make themselves look cool, they are also using it incorrectly.

>>There's NOT a single unifying factor that united Indian religions...so again, please tell me where Hindus are the same

This is simply not true. Take tantra for example ( I am not sure about Himalayan Tantra ) Tantrik traditions and scriptures are derived from both Shaivites and and Vaishnavs, with neither schools laying exclusive claims on Tantrik tradtions. I am not alluding to Buddhist Mahayana 's tantrik traditions.

Arya Samaj grew as a reformation of the 19th century Hinduism. My grandfather was a Arya Samaji but not my grandmother who was a vaishnav. The one thing that western scholars of Hinduism often miss is the fluidity of devotion -- by that I mean Hindus are equally at ease in perfoming pujas of deities from diffent schools. In hindu households, you will find Rama, Shiva , Ganesha , Durga and Krishna and they would all be worshipped. The differences of interpretation of Geeta and Vedas are left to scholars to argue but to claim that they have nothing in common is just wild exaggeration.

Sikhs worship Shakti and Gurunanak makes references, even praises, "Hindu" gods, ideas, and symbols. Does that make them Hindus as well?

Furthermore, you do agree that Dharma isn't just a religious term. Right?

But I do agree with you on appropriation. Indians need to own the term, and define what it is, so that Sanskritic/Indic terms used in the west are well defined. In that sense a sort of sanskritization* of English can take place, just as there's a latinization of Indian languages.

Perhaps you are conflating the relationship between Sikhism and Hinduism with relationship between Vaishnavs and Shaivites. Sikhism categorically rejects Hinduism and I would respect their wishes. Vaishnavs, Shaivites, ISKON jostle/debate to be viewed as the true interpreters of the scriptures. They do not reject their relationship. And that makes them Hindus.