What Tharoor regards as Indian “capaciousness” is a valorization of our failure to develop a criteria of independent judgement of what is right or wrong for us and merely to keep shaping ourselves in accordance with the latest intellectual fashion in the West. Thus, in the 19th century, instead of mounting a critique of monotheism, Hindu thinkers imagined their dharma in the image of Protestant Christianity, as a monotheistic religion gone awry. And at that time too, the protests by traditional Hindus of the denigration of their customs was pooh-poohed by the avant-garde camp as the defense of a false idea of culture. We are in the same mess today in which our liberal thinkers believe that in endorsing the sexual freedoms upheld in the West they are resurrecting an ancient Indian practice while those objecting to it in the name of tradition are ignorant of the very tradition they are defending. Ironically, it is the liberal scholarly establishment itself which traces the roots of Hindutva to the colonial construction of a Vedanta-based unified Hindu religion – or should it now be read as an instance of Indian “capaciousness”?