I have one friend who's very expert in rigveda , he says Raam never existed and curses Ramayan and his author over the villain-ization of Indra. Indra in rig veda is one of the most prominent gods , but in Puranas he runs around haplessly , often having his heavenly position snatched by the demons , and everytime vishnu rescues him. Whereas in vedas , indra "orders" vishnu.
My rigvedic friend didn't like it , and he claims modern day hinduism has NOTHING to do with vedas at all. That puranas are incredibly anti-vedic in their tone and that the krishna in mahabharat is essentially what is indra in rig veda.
Beware of hindu nationalists though who try to make their scriptures sound older than what they really are.
We can't entirely blame sikhs for that. The big brother is arrogant.
Indian religions have had a hard time flourishing in the subcontinent , because the insidious big daddy always wants to call the shots.
Don't forget Buddhism was once a heavily patronized religion in india , and despite originating in india , its not present there anymore, except maybe 0.5% of the population whereas in neighboring countries like sri lanka, thailand, bhutan, and even tibet , its a MAJORITY religion. How could a religion achieve to influence masses in neighboring countries while being deprived of considerable following in its country of birth. Many say there was a mass persecution of buddhists some 1500 yrs back during the era of brahminical resurgence. Brahminical kings like pushyamitra shunga were believed to have kept bounties on head of brahmins (reminiscent of what happened to sikhs during mir mannu period) , their monks butchered, their monasteries burnt , and then very conveniently buddha was included as a 9th avatar of vishnu , but even that as a deceiver. Meaning buddha avatar was someone who deceived people from vedic religion.
Jainism is another religion that failed to flourish , despite being perhaps as old as hinduism . They number no more than 40 lacs today and jains themselves have considerable confusion over their identities , more than half of the ones i know think they're simply a sect of hindus. There's a minority in them who can see the clever schemes being done against them by the 'big brother' but apparently are voiceless in a sea of other jains who're in bed with the larger brahminical demography.
Sikh leaders knew the 'elder bro' doesn't let any other survive because he's arrogant and egoistic of his antiquity and of his culture. How often do you hear the phrase "But sikhism is just 500 yrs old , we're 5000 years old"
Sikh leaders were aware that sikhism will meet same fate as that of buddhism and jainism if sikhs don't manage to wrestle back the control of gurudwaras from the hand of mahants. And with waheguru kirpa, same happened via the holy grace of Singh Sabha movement , a movement which saved sikhi for us , else you are aware of history as I told you.
No wonder then the 'elder bro' gang doesn't like the singh sabha and tat khalsa movement of the 90s and continuously bad mouth them. There are many on this forum itself who bad-mouth the singh sabha movement without realizing it did us a huge favor when we needed it the most.
Yes, Singh sabha had its own shortfalls , one being what you feel , the loss of intellectual, deeper-wisdom , but that can be achieved by studying gurbani and other indian scriptures if you like. Beware though, there're very subtle differences between sikhi and these other thoughts that may not be recognizable to the naive eye.
PS : Did you find any mention of islam, "evil mughal empire" in this entire post. nope , they came later, the naked dance of breaking each other was already going on in the subcontinent , something they would like you to not believe