Balagangadhara argues that as a conceptual category "religion" as understood by the West does not and cannot apply to traditions outside of the West. Even for the pagan Romans and Greeks "religion" just meant "performing the rites of my ancestors." There were atheists that professed "religion," because "religion" was not belief or doctrine or whatever, it was practice and tradition. Christians in the Roman Empire were critiqued as "having no religion" because they weren't practicing the rites of their ancestors, they had nothing connecting them to their past. So Christians kind of turned the turn around, and instead redefined "religion" to mean faith and belief in a coherent set of ideology and doctrine, often submitting to a central authority that determines this doctrine, and from a holy book. This idea of "religion" maps very well onto Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. But other cultures it is nonsensical. Asking somebody from ancient India "do you believe in Krishna" makes no sense. The terms of the question are irrelevant. There's no "belief system," there's no "holy book" or "faith" or "doctrine" or whatever. It's not a question of faith or belief at all. Hinduism as a term didn't even exist until the 19th century, and it was invented by Western scholars attempting to make sense of Indian thought. Similarly, Chinese thought also has no sense of "religion" in any sense that Westerners can make sense of, and to apply the term to existing social and cultural practices elsewhere attempts to pigeonhole entirely different systems of thought into a colonial framework.