It's all demented, idiotically simplicist ****.
I am sorry for being so blunt but it really is.
It is irritating because it starts with a huge fallacy, a fallacy Lekhraj Kirpalani himself goes on to state is false, and gets worse from there.
Question: If there is no such religion as HInduism, why would it need a single individual to establish it?
I don't know when this "yukti" entered BKism but it has been their con trick to hook people for decades.
"Who was the founder of Hinduism ... ah, you don't know, see ... we do ... our god man spirit is!!!".
See how it works by knocking people into a position of doubt and not knowing, then sticking their hook in.
Let's break it down further.
Firstly, the BKs have a theory that every religion must have a "divine Father" (as originally stated), which is an idea stolen from the Abrahamic tradition, probably even just the Christo-Islamic continuum because Lekhraj and his inner circle did not know anything about Judaism and did not even name it in their tree of religion.
Therefore, ”If Christians have Jesus, we must have Lekhraj".
But, as Pink states, there is no such religion as "Hinduism". There are a multiplicity of religions (and irreligious/athiestic traditions) within India, all with their own schools, founders and - most importantly - lineages.
Nor did the Islamic or British rulers, who named it as Hindusim, consider there to be one such religion. It was just a shorthand for "not Christian/not Muslim" or whatever. People who lived in the Indus River area.
India was not called Bharat. Again, there was not such single nation, pretty much until the British made it so. There were many kingdoms.
At that time, to those people, Bharat meant the whole world ... but emperor Bharata, after which it is named, probably never existed. In mythology, Bharata was supposed to be the ancestor of both the Pandavas and the Kauravas in the Mahabharata (
in another version, the "Bhāratas" were a prominent Vedic tribe in the Punjab at the time of the Rigveda, circa 1500 and 1200 BC when, according to BKs, they could not have existed).
It's all based on jumbled mythologies, of which Lekhraj Kirpalani really did not understand or know much about, dosed with his own brand of Indian nationalism, and then manipulated to his and the cult's own self-interest.
Bhārata was only selected as the name of the country of India in 1950, from which I am guessing we can date Lekhraj Kirpalani's adoption of it.
Earlier uses, such as Bhāratavarṣa or Bharata Khanda, in a geographical sense, applied only to a restrained area of northern India (part of the Gangetic Valley West of Magadha) or to "the known or inhabited world" (after the legendary emperor Bharata) not India. There's interesting discussion of its roots,
here.
Something else in it interests me, how Lekhraj Kirpalani swung from adoring the British rulers (
and calling Gandhi a traitor and insulting Congress as "the Crow Race" who were only going to experience temporary status ... because crow **** looks big but disappears quickly) to becoming anti-foreigner, as stated here ... after the British royalty, to whom he sent numerous books, posters and presents, and government ignored his godhood.
"Bharat Mata Ki Jai", was actually the slogan of Hindus participating in the freedom struggle that he criticised!
The problem with Hinduism is it is as huge and messy as one might expect of 1 billion people scattered over a huge sub-continent and thousands of years of different traditions, so Lekhraj Kirpalani and the BKs "win" by teaching uneducated, stupid or, quite simply, lazy minded people a rudimentary kindergarten version they call "The Truth". (The Knowledge™) thereby excusing them from having to make any effort to understand, to study, to learn, to think, to accept the confusion of conflicts and contradictions that is life.
Hindu is just Persian for Sindhu (the Indus River region), so one might even see a little Sindhi supremacism present in the cult at that time.
*
NB, all the above, however, is also merely just one partial view, and a tiny sketch of a broad and ancient discussion. It is just a handful of scattered bullet points.