1 - Adoption of foreign belief systems:
The early history for some beliefs in Hinduism is well known: they started in the IVC and north Gangetic plains. Anyone outside these regions in India who hold these beliefs is a "convert".
Wrong - to be precise, that is the Vedic Hinduism you are talking about. How difficult is it to understand that Vedic Hinduism is just one facet of Hinduism and not its
entirety ? for instance I follow much of Shaivite Hinduism and not the Vedic one. Many northerners are also Shaivites. So what makes of them ?
This is what I've been telling. Unlike Semitic religions which have a well defined area of origin and in the case of two even well defined founders, Hinduism is a term that was given by the invading Semitic kings who got their panties in a bunch seeing such diverse conglomeration of native faith systems, each with their quirky little differences, but all encompassing the same Dharmic values, deities and thus gave one single name: Hinduism to it.
Even before that some of our books have references to gods like Lord Muruga (who is our patron god and is supposed to have established the Tamil Sangam) who was the son of Lord Shiva (who is considered to have given the Tamil language to Tamils).
As I previously explained, what happened was a cultural interchange between two sub-cultures and not invasion/conversion business you are talking about.
Hinduism is what you people called us - we called it Sanatan Dharma.
2 - Loss of indigenous belief systems:
Kupgal:
https://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/palaeolithic
south India's equally remarkable prehistoric period remains have only rarely received the attention they deserve.
[...]
These settlements date from the Neolithic period (3000 BC – to the beginning of the Christian era)
[...]
evidence of rituals and social ceremonies involving ringing rocks
How does that support any of your claim or deny any of mine ?
Bhimbetka:
Rock Shelters of Bhimbhetka India | ARTHISTORYWORLDS
These images are painted mainly in red, white, and yellow and are mostly of riders, religious symbols and a highly stylized script. Some religious elements include tree gods, tree spirits, or yakshas and sky chariots.
Now, before people dismiss these as just 'primitive rock paintings', keep in mind that we are talking the early period of Hinduism, circa 2nd millenium BCE, so, in the contemporary context, these were state-of-the-art indigenous religions which have now disappeared.
Who said they disappeared ?
Have you ever visited South India, for starters ? I can't believe how you are typing these things with a straight face ! Perhaps you think this online title you have makes you qualified on subjects you assuredly have no knowledge of !
3 - Reverence of invaders who replaced indigenous beliefs with the foreign concepts:
The Adastya (standardized spelling) myth is crystal clear: it talks about a northern deity who crossed over to the south, killed 'evil' indignous Rakshasas, and brought enlightenment. Again, from
Agastya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Agastya the Muni, was born of both Gods, Mitra and Varuna, from Urvashi and is believed to be the first Brahman to cross the Vindhya Range and travel to southern India.
Now Agathiyar (Kurumuni) has become a North Indian invader. Wikipedia again.
Strawman argument. I never claimed Hinduism is monolithic or homogenous. Perhaps you can try reading the actual posts rather than assuming what you want to read.
No it is not strawman. It is actually the
crux of the argument.
You are used to the thought that a religion
should have one point of origin from which it spreads outwards and cannot think otherwise. Hence your argument that Hinduism was first practised in Sindhu Valley and from there sages/invaders/mickey mouse took it to different part of India.
That in itself is a blunder. There is no defined point of origin for the faith system you call as Hinduism.
What you are referring to is Vedic Hinduism which is just one aspect of today's Hinduism. As I said Hinduism was the name the outsiders who got confused by all the diversity of the faith strucutres gave to the Sanatan Dharma. It was not what we ourselves called us.