The term "Hindu" was never used as a self-identifier before 1800s. People identified themselves by sect (e.g., Shaivites), or caste. So the terms Hindu/Hinduism have no history. To say Hindu/Hinduism was opposed by Buddhism/Jainism 2000 years ago is ahistorical.

What Buddhists, Jains, Lingayats, etc. opposed was Vaidik brahminism. "Hindu" was an outsider label to those who lived beyond Sindhu R. Using it as a relgious identity label to pre-1800 peoples is problematic. It forces our ancestors to belong to a religion that never existed.

A request: If RWs respond to this thread, I'll try my best to have a reasoned debate if they are willing & if they don't resort to name calling. Any assistance is welcome, but please don't indulge in mocking, trollling. Let's use the opportunity to try counter-arguments.