Pankaj Mishra writes in the Boston Globe, repeating the canard that there was no such thing as Hinduism before the British came.

“Indeed, there was no such thing as ”Hinduism” before the British invented the catch-all category in the early 19th century and made India seem the home of a ”world religion” that was as organized and theologically coherent as Christianity and Islam. The word ”Hindu” itself was first used by the ancient Persians to refer to the people living near the river Indus (”Sindhu” in Sanskrit). It later became a convenient shorthand for those who weren’t Muslims or Christians.”

His failure to describe Hinduism is reminiscent of Shankaracharya’s failure to describe the soul – the Neti Neti philosophy.
Is Hinduism a universalist religion like Islam or Christianity? No.
Was the Vedic religion the same as Hinduism? No.
Are any of the various sects of Hinduism Hinduism? No.
There are various philosophical streams in India. Is any one of them Hinduism? No.

Whatever the question, the answer would be no. Because it cannot be described, there is no such thing as Hinduism.