What is Hindu?

The people of the Indian subcontinent are mostly referred to as the Hindus. Any person, who is born with the religious, philosophical and cultural system of Hinduism, is known as a Hindu. Unlike most other religions, only a born Hindu is a Hindu in the true sense, but it is a religion to which one cannot be converted.

The etymological origin of the Hindus has too many theories. In the 2nd century BC, the Chinese people used the term "Hein-tu" to refer to the people of the North India. On the other hand, the Sanskrit term Sindhu has cognate to the use of Indus right from the era of the Indus Valley civilization. The Old Persian name of the Indus River was also known as the Hindus, with a stress on the ‘u’. Therefore, it can be well defined that the term might have originated from the Indus Valley civilization from which the people of the Indian subcontinent have expended.

However, if you are looking for a deeper insight into the origin of the Hindus and where they come from, the religious aspect of Hinduism has to be considered. When it is compared to the other religious beliefs, and then the question is espoused as to who a Hindu is, then the real answer would be complicated. Just as a Christian is a person, who follows the scriptures of Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ and as the Muslims are people, who follow the teachings of Hazrat Mohammed, Hindus are those, who follow the teachings and guidelines that are mentioned in the scriptures of Vedas.

The religious texts of Vedas that were written, or rather created in the 1500 BCE, are the sacred and religious texts or scriptures for the Hindus. Hence, a Hindu is a person, who follows these teachings from the religious texts of the Vedas, Vedanta, Upanishad as well as the later religious text of Bhagavad Gita.

From the time immemorial, the Hindus have existed and that is the belief that the Hindus have always believed and considered themselves to be. According to Hinduism, Hindus have Brahma as everything and everything in the world, the entire mankind is divine. The Hindus have atman within their bodies and it is believed to be one with the supreme power or Brahman. Hence, a Hindu is considered to be a manifestation of the God in the human self.

However, the Hindus have an entirely different feature that not any of the other religions have consisted and that is the inability of the people from other religions to be transformed into Hinduism. Only a born Hindu is considered to be a Hindu in the true sense. And the self of the Hindu will always continue to be reincarnated on this earth until he or she gets Moksha or freedom of the individual self. This aspect of reincarnation is one of the most important one for a Hindu and is considered to be the way that the religion of Hinduism continues on earth.

 

I agree Indian and Hindu ancestry Hindus brains are handled by media ...even i have few friends that are converts..
biggest problem with hindus is that indian hindus take hinduism as their sole property...they forget nepal, bangladesh , pakistan , Indonesia etc.

 

The true name of Hinduism is actually Sanatana Dharma. The adherent of one can be termed as a Sanatana Dharmik.

True name of India is also Bharat , which is the term used in all native Indian languages.

 

Definition of the word 'Hindu' as given by Veer Savarkar in Hindu Rashtra Darshan
The definition of the word 'Hindu'

As a whole superstructure of the mission and the function of the Hindu Mahasabha rests on the correct definition of the word 'Hindu,' we must first of all make it clear what 'Hindutva' really means. Once the scope and the meaning of the world is defined and understood, a number of misgivings in our own camp are easily removed, a number of misunderstandings and objections raised against us from the camp of our opponents are met and silenced. Fortunately for us, after a lot of wandering in wilderness, a definition of the word Hindu which is not only historically and logically as sound as is possible in the cases of such comprehensive terms, but is also eminently workable is already hit upon when 'Hindutva' was defined as :-

।। आिसंधूिसंधूपयता यःय भारतभूिमका ।।
।। पतृ भूःपुयभूयैैव स वै हंदरितःमृतःु ।।

'Everyone who regards and claims this Bharatbhoomi from, the Indus to the Seas as his Fatherland and Holyland is a Hindu. Here I must point out that it is rather loose to say that any person professing any religion of Indian origin is a Hindu. Because that is only one aspect of Hindutva. The second and equally essential constituent of the concept of Hindutva cannot be ignored if we want to save the definition from getting overlapping and unreal. It is not enough that a person should profess any religion of Indian origin, i.e., Hindusthan as his पुयभू his Holyland, but he must also recognise it as his पतृ भू too, his Fatherland as well. As this is no place for going into the whole discussion of the pros and cons of the question, all I can do here is to refer to my book 'Hindutva' in which I have set forth all arguments and expounded the proposition at great length. I shall content myself at present by stating that Hindudom is bound and marked out as a people and a nation by themselves not by the only tie of a common Holyland in which their religion took birth but by the ties of a common culture, a common language, a common history and essentially of a common fatherland as well.

It is these two constituents taken together that constitute our Hindutva and distinguish us form any other people in the world. That is why the Japanese and the Chinese, for example, do not and cannot regard themselves as fully identified with the Hindus. Both of them regard our Hindusthan as their Holyland, the land which was the cradle of their religion, but they do not and cannot look upon Hindusthan as their fatherland too. They are our co-religionists; but are not and cannot be our countrymen too. We Hindus are not only co-religionists, but even countrymen of each other. The Japanese and the Chinese have a different ancestry, language, culture, history and country of their own, which are not so integrally bound up with us as to constitute a common national life. In a religious assembly of the Hindus, in any Hindu Dharma-Mahasabha they can join with us as our brothers-in-faith having a common Holyland. But they will not and cannot take a common part or have a common interest in a Hindu Mahasabha which unites Hindus together and represent their national life. A definition must in the main respond to reality. Just as by the first constituent of Hindutva, the possession if a common Holyland-the Indian Mahommedans, Jews, Christians, Parsees, etc. are excluded from claiming themselves as Hindus which in reality also they do not,-in spite of their recognising Hindusthan as their fatherland, so also on the other hand the second constituent of the definition that of possessing a common fatherland exclude the Japanese, the Chinese and others from the Hindu fold in spite of the fact of their having a Holyland in common with us.

The above definition had already been adopted by number of prominent Hindu-sabhas such as the Nagpur, Poona, Ratnagiri Hindu-sabhas, and others. The Hindu Mahasabha also had in view this very definition when the word Hindu was rather loosely explained in its present constitution as ' one who profess any religion of Indian origin.' I submit that the time has come when we should be more accurate and replace that partial description by regular definition and incorporate in the constitution the full verse itself translating it in the precise terms as rendered above.

Avoid the loose and harmful misuse of the word 'Hindu'

From this correct definition of Hindutva it necessarily follows that we should take all possible care to restrict the use of the word 'Hindu' to its defined and definite general meaning only and avoid misusing it in any sectarian sense. In common parlance even our esteemed leaders and writers who on the one hand are very particular in emphasizing that our non-Vedic religious schools are also included in the common Hindu brotherhood, commit on the other hand, the serious mistake if using such expressions as 'Hindus and Sikhs', 'Hindus and Jains' denoting thereby unconsciously that the Vaidiks or the Sanatanists only are Hindus and thus quite unawares inculcate the deadly virus of separation in the minds of the different coustituents of our religious brotherhood, defeating our own eager desire to consolidate them all into a harmonious and organic whole. Confusion in words leads to confusion in thoughts. If we take good care not to identify the term ' Hindu ' with the major Vedic section of our people alone, our non-Vedic brethren such as the Sikhs, the Jains and others will find no just reason to resent the application of the word ' Hindu ' in their case also. Those who hold to the opinion that Sikhis, Jainism and such other religion that go to form our Hindu brotherhood are neither the branches of nor originated from the Vedas but are independent religions by themselves need not cherish any fear or suspicion of losing their independence as a religious school by being called Hindus if that application is rightly used only to denote all those who won India, this Bharatbhoomi, as their Holyland and fatherland.

Whenever we want to discriminate the constituents of Hindudom as a whole we should designate them as 'Vaidiks and Sikhs', 'Vaidiks and Jains' etc. But to say 'Hindus and Sikhs', 'Hindus and Jains' is as self-contradictory and misleading as to say 'Hindus and Brahmins' or 'Jains and Digambers' or 'Sikhs and Akalees.' Such a harmful misuse of the word Hindu should be carefully avoided especially in the speeches, resolutions and records.