Why, you may ask...
1 - The Indian Constitution, by its very nature, puts Hindus and Hinduism at a disadvantage while offering preferential treatment to Abrahamics.
For instance, Hindu temples are under government control while other religious places of worship aren't. Hindu Priests who work in government temples get paid anywhere between Rs 50 -- Rs 250 a day while [REDACTED] clerics get stipends to the tune of Rs 10,000 a month. Indian Courts actively interfere in the functioning of Hindu temples by citing "social progress" (ref - Sabarimala Temple) while they dare not do so elsewhere.
The Keshavananda Bharati Case and the Calcutta Quran Petition act as stellar examples of the Anti-Hindu bias present in Indian Law and the Constitution of India.
2 - Hindus are also more willing to make compromises and see all religions as the same, while Abrahamics typically see only their religion as the Truth (since it is sanctioned so by their scriptures). You are more likely to see a Hindu visiting Ajmer Sharif than a [REDACTED] visiting a Hanuman Temple.
3 - OP also seems to have forgotten that Bhārata has been trifurcated into what are today the Nation-States of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. For Hindus to regain those lost lands is again impossible.
So, for all practical purposes, there can never be a "Hindu Rāṣṭra". The land of Bhārata is best-forgotten by the Hindus.