It's an interesting thesis, and certainly an easy one to apply to Indian society, but it seems like a simplistic interpretation of Hinduism, that moves largely away from its basic tenets towards its more tenuous derivative practices. That makes it easy to pick and choose individual aspects of Indian society and pain the wider social fabric a dark shade of gray. What about our moral conscience as a nation when we act as the single largest contributor towards U.N. peacekeeping operations around the world, enact a no-first-strike military policy in the face of a 2500 mile hostile border, etc.? What about the philantrophic activities of corporations like the Tata Group? What of the various laws we instituted that offered constitutional rights to every echelon of society, regardless of their social status as defined by the very same Hinduism the article purports as a cause of the nation's ills. The list on either side of the argument is unending and equally vacuous. There is no direct justifiable correlation between the nation being majority Hindu, and the I-me-myself free-for-all this article purports to analyse. I, like most Indians, would love to find that Holy Grail of an explanation that finally answers the question of "Why are we like that only?", but I'd prefer to keep my views to myself until I have an answer that a little less specious that this one.