Thread by @TrueIndology

American historian @audreytruschke claims that the word "Hindu" referred to any non-Muslim Indian and did not denote any specific religious community until 19th century. This is a blatant lie. It is a very widespread myth that in Pre-modern India "Hindu" meant any non-Muslim (1)

Many people claim that the word Hindu in Medieval Muslim Chronicle refers to any Non Muslim and Non Christian. This myth has also been lapped up by Hindu nationalists who claim that "Hindu" referred to any to any Non-Muslim Non-Christian Pagan of India. Is that really so? (2)

As always, primary sources debunk the whole myth on first look.Take the description of Arakan(Rakhine) on Bengal border in the medieval Indo- Muslim historical chronicle "Riyaz Us Salatin"

He describes the population of Chittagong hills,who are primarily Buddhist even today. (3)

The medieval author very clearly, and very correctly, says Buddhists of Bengal Hills are "neither Hindus nor Muslims".

He also describes the customs followed by Hill Buddhists (such as those followed by Brokpa in Lakakh even today) and differentiates them from Hindus (4)

The sheer ignorance of this statement is mind-boggling. This "scholar" would not have dared to make such remarks had she read primary sources like Al-Beruni's account of Hindus. I wonder how they call themselves scholars and write such utter trash. (5)

1000 years ago, Muslim scholar Al Beruni describes classifies Hindus as those who
1)Follow Vedas, Puranas and the Gita
2)Have philosophies such as Yoga ,Samkhya and Vedanta

And we have ignorant scholars @audreytruschke who say "Hinduism did not denote any religious community"

Most important, Al Beruni does not include Buddhists among Hindus. He clearly differentiates them from Hindus and calls them Shamaniya. He describes them as wearing red robes and different from both Hindus and Muslims. AlBeruni doesn't include animist practices in Hindu religion