And what makes you believe that? Literally the people who introduced and promotes it are the people who promote its use by extremists. I've told you so already. What makes you believe the term still don't carry such meanings?

India haven't stopped using the swastika, actually. But the context of its use typically makes it obvious they do not use it to support nazi ideology.

You haven't read the president's Twitter stream? Because it's pretty blatant.

There's literally academic studies on it. You believe otherwise requires ignorance.

Extremists by definition are a small fringe faction. This situation is similar to thousands of other gestures and symbols, even though the vast majority do not recognize or care about what some extremists use. Literally everything has a extremist use somewhere.

Also I'm from India and as I just explained, the Indian swastika is a different design and direction. The Nazi swastika is not used by anyone else, they made it for themselves which is why it's only associated with them.

If you won't listen to the majority group that uses the term telling you it's positive for them, and instead apply the extremist interpretation, then what exactly do you need to hear as a counter position? Seems like it's not open to any other understanding.

No it's not. It's literally any faction with hardline dogmatic views. An extremist faction that manage to kill all their opponents doesn't suddenly become non-extremist when they're the new majority.

I have seen the arguments for "why it's positive for them" and they're bullshit. They're using it to justify racism and corruption and to defend politicians on their own side that even break the law (like a certain raid of a certain meeting concerning classified information).

I'm open to actual evidence, not just mere statements of disbelief. Can you provide counterevidence?