Did colonial scholars invent "Hinduism"?

Scholars disagree, and the disagreement is the lesson. One side argues that the idea of Hinduism as one world religion was shaped by colonial-era missionaries, officials and Indologists. Another argues that the shared theology, ritual grammar and way of life it names are far older.

The case for "colonial shaping" starts with words and identities. From the 17th century, European merchants and colonists adopted "Hindu" (often "Hindoo") to refer to residents of India as a religious community. The first Indian to use "Hinduism" may have been Raja Ram Mohan Roy in 1816-17. Before the British categorised communities strictly by religion, Indians generally did not define themselves exclusively by belief: identities were segmented by locality, language, varna, jati, occupation and sect. And the idea of a "single world religious tradition" was popularised by 19th-century missionaries and European Indologists, who relied on texts preserved by Brahmins.

Other scholars reject "invention". Pennington agrees that the study of Hinduism as a world religion began in the colonial era, but disagrees that it is a colonial invention: shared theology, ritual grammar and way of life are traceable to ancient times. Alexis Sanderson notes that before Islam arrived, Sanskrit sources had no name for Vaidika, Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta and Saura traditions as a collective entity over against Buddhism and Jainism, but says that does not mean the concept did not exist. Lorenzen traces a distinct Hindu identity to Hindu-Muslim interaction well before 1800.

And Indians were not bystanders. Between 1789 and 1832 British perceptions of India were reversed, and the sources say this was not a one-sided fabrication, since self-identified Hindus reappropriated "Hinduism" and defended their own culture.