Understanding Hindutva: Ideology and Modern Misinterpretations.

In 1866, Rishi Raj Narayana Bose expressed early thoughts on Hindu revivalism and nationalism, inspiring figures like Swami Dayanand and Bankim Chandra and leading to the annual Hindu Mela.
Bengali thinker Chandra Nath Basu first used the term in 1892, advocating Advaita Vedanta and Hindus’ unique spiritual consciousness.
Lokmanya Tilak attempted to define Hindutva based on the infallibility of the Vedas and multiple paths to spirituality but faced criticism for excluding diverse beliefs within Hinduism.
Veer Savarkar’s work distinguished Hindu Dharma from Hindutva, emphasizing the cultural, linguistic, social, and political dimensions, aiming to unify and inspire Hindus globally.

Hindutva is one of the most reviled terms associated with Hindus, often decried as a Hindu-centric right-wing political ideology that allegedly promotes violence against minorities, especially Muslims. This is how Wikipedia chooses to describe this term [1]:

Hindutva is a political ideology encompassing the cultural justification of Hindu nationalism and the belief in establishing Hindu hegemony within India. The political ideology was formulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1922… Inspired by European fascism, the Hindutva movement has been described as a variant of right-wing extremism, and as “almost fascist in the classical sense”, adhering to a concept of homogenized majority and cultural hegemony. Some have also described Hindutva as a separatist ideology. Some analysts dispute the identification of Hindutva with fascism and suggest Hindutva is an extreme form of conservatism or ethno-nationalism.

By contrast, Wikipedia has this to say about Islamism [2]:

Islamism (also often called political Islam) is a religio-political ideology. The advocates of Islamism, also known as “al-Islamiyyun,” are dedicated to realizing their ideological interpretation of Islam within the context of the state or society. The majority of them are affiliated with Islamic institutions or social mobilization movements, often designated as “al-harakat al-Islamiyyah.” Islamists emphasize the implementation of sharia, pan-Islamic political unity, the creation of Islamic states, (eventually unified), and rejection of non-Muslim influences—particularly Western or universal economic, military, political, social, or cultural. In its original formulation, Islamism described an ideology seeking to revive Islam to its past assertiveness and glory, purifying it of foreign elements, reasserting its role into “social and political as well as personal life”; and in particular “reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam” (i.e. Sharia).

Notice the stark difference in the words used to describe these two concepts. Islamism, despite its long history of violence and terrorism, is presented as a harmless effort to revive Islam’s past glory, whereas Hindutva, with no history of organized violence, is depicted as a fascist ideology to establish Hindu cultural dominance.

Against this backdrop, we trace the history of the term, explore the key figures who contributed to its development, and examine their motivations.

[Note: This article is inspired by a 2021 panel discussion featuring Dr. Shreerang Godbole and Saumitra Gokhale. A complete video recording of the discussion can be accessed here]

Key Figures Shaping Hindutva

There are a number of prominent personalities who have contributed to the philosophy of the Hindutva movement. First, we have Rishi Raj Narayana Bose (1826-1899)[3], a notable thinker and writer. Following him is Swami Dayanand Saraswati (1824-1883)[4], the founder of the Arya Samaj, a reform movement advocating a return to the Vedas. Next is Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902)[5], renowned for his role in introducing the Indian philosophies of Vedanta and Yoga to the Western world. Lokmanya Tilak (1856-1920)[6], a prominent independence activist, also significantly influenced Hindutva philosophy.

Yogi Aurobindo (1872-1950)[7], the maternal grandson of Rishi Raj Narayana Bose, was a revolutionary, philosopher, and spiritual leader. Ganesh Damodar (1879-1945)[8], also known as Babarao Savarkar, was a revolutionary and the elder brother of the more famous Vir Savarkar (1883-1966), a key proponent of Hindutva. Lastly, we have M.S. Golwalkar (1906-1973)[9], commonly known as Guruji, who was the second chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and a co-founder of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

Chandra Nath Basu first used the term “Hindutva” In his book (in Bengali), “Hindutva: Hindur Prakrita Itihas,” written in 1892.

These figures collectively contributed to the development and propagation of Hindutva, each bringing their unique perspectives and efforts to the movement. These individuals significantly shaped the philosophy of the Hindutva movement, but none of them actually coined the term “Hindutva.” The credit for that goes to a Bengali thinker and author named Chandra Nath Basu (1844-1910)[10]. He first used the term “Hindutva” In his book (in Bengali), “Hindutva: Hindur Prakrita Itihas,” written in 1892. Chandra Basu advocated an Advaita Vedanta form of thought and believed that Hindus were unique in achieving spiritual consciousness, realizing that humanity is a form of divinity.

Historical Context and Evolution

Long before Chandra Basu, in 1866, Rishi Raj Narayana Bose, who was the headmaster of a school in Kolkata, expressed his thoughts on Hindu revivalism and Hindu nationalism in the Indian context. He was an influential thinker who inspired others like Swami Dayanand and Bankim Chandra. He also influenced his grandson, Yogi Aurobindo, and two young men, Navagopal Mitra [11] and Vijendranath Tagore [12], the brother of Rabindranath Tagore. Together, they founded the Hindu Mela [13] in 1867, an event held annually for 13 years until 1880.

This was during a time when India was under British colonial rule, and the British believed it was their duty to civilize the “heathens,” including the Hindus of India. Imagine the stir caused when Raj Narayana Bose organized a lecture in 1866 in Kolkata, the capital of British India, asserting the superiority of Hinduism over other religions.

In his lecture, Raj Narayana Bose outlined 12 points highlighting why he believed Hinduism was superior to other religions. He argued that Hinduism owes its name to no single person and has no mediator between God and man. Hindus worship God at all times, whether during business or pleasure, and they worship God for the sake of God, practicing virtue for the sake of virtue, not for eternal happiness in an imaginary heaven. He also stated that Hinduism promotes universal benevolence and is non-sectarian, non-proselytizing, and preeminently tolerant. Its history dates back to ancient times.

The next significant attempt to define a Hindu came from Lokmanya Tilak. He provided a definition in six Sanskrit lines, but these lines were not created simultaneously. The first two lines were part of a speech he gave at a British festival in 1900. In this speech, he defined Hindu Dharma based on three key attributes: the infallibility of the Vedas, the acceptance of multiple paths to spirituality, and the non-insistence of any single mode of worship.

In 1915, Tilak added four more lines in a magazine, further describing a Hindu individual. He stated that a Hindu is someone who accepts the Dharma defined in the earlier lines, follows rituals according to the Shruti, Smriti, and Puranas, acts with faith and devotion, and adheres to conduct prescribed by the Shastras. This, according to Tilak, constitutes a Sanatana Dharma Hindu.

However, Tilak’s definition had a significant flaw: it failed to take into account the diversity of beliefs within Hinduism. By insisting on the infallibility of the Vedas, he excluded many communities that are considered part of the Hindu fold, such as Jains, Buddhists, and Lingayats, but did not regard the Vedas as infallible.

Many prominent figures have contributed to the philosophical contours of Hindutva, but only three have authored notable books on the subject. We’ll focus on one central figure but also briefly mention the others. Babarao Savarkar (Ganesh Damodar Savarkar) wrote a Marathi book called “Rashtra Mimansa” [14] in 1934, meaning “Elucidation of the Nation.” This 78-page book influenced many, including M.S. Golwalkar (Guruji), who in 1939 abridged and translated it into a 78-page book titled “We, or Our Nationhood Defined.” [15] Contrary to popular belief, Golwalkar’s book is not just a translation of Rashta Mimansa but includes his own thoughts as well.

Vir Sarvarkar

Finally, we focus on Vir Savarkar, a pivotal figure in Hindutva. His writings and thoughts significantly shaped the ideology, making his contributions essential for understanding Hindutva’s evolution. Examining Savarkar’s influence offers deeper insights into Hindutva’s complex nature, historical context, and its impact on contemporary Indian society.

Although Savarkar’s literary work fills more than 10,000 pages, his key Hindutva writings can be found mainly in three books. The first and most important is his seminal book, “Hindutva,”[16] which is freely available online and highly recommended for reading. The second book, “Hindu Rashtra Darshan,” [17] is a collection of his six presidential speeches to the Hindu Mahasabha sessions from 1937 to 1942. The third book is a Marathi work titled “Hindutvache Panch Pran,” which covers the points made in the first two books.

Savarkar’s fascination with the question of “Who is a Hindu?” began even when he was a revolutionary in London between 1906 and 1910. However, he was preoccupied with other pressing issues at the time. It was only during his imprisonment in the Cellular Jail in the Andamans that he devoted significant energy and thought to this question, engaging in discussions with fellow political prisoners. Later, in Ratnagiri Jail in Maharashtra, after his release from the Cellular Jail, he secretly wrote his book “Hindutva” under the pseudonym “Maratha.” The first edition of the book was published in May 1923.

“Hindutva” is a seminal work that continues to be the intellectual foundation of the contemporary Hindu movement nearly 100 years after it was written. Savarkar, being a poet and a great author, opens the book by quoting Shakespeare, “What’s in a name?” He argues that names are significant and cannot be arbitrarily changed. For instance, Ayodhya cannot be called Honolulu, and George Washington cannot be called Genghis Khan. Similarly, the name Hindutva carries profound meaning and significance, which is why many have fought to preserve it.

Savarkar, also a skilled barrister, emphasizes the importance of precise language. He famously said, “Confusion in words leads to confusion in thoughts.” Therefore, he distinguishes between two related terms: Hindu and Hindutva. According to him, Hindu Dharma is a theory or code based on spiritual or religious systems. It is a collective term for the spiritual traditions and sects that consider Bharat (India) to be their fatherland (Pitrubhumi) and holy land (Punyabhumi).

(Savarkar) envisioned a unified Hindu community that embodies the spirit and principles of Hindutva, encompassing all aspects of their identity and heritage.

However, Hindutva is even more comprehensive. While Hindu Dharma is broad, it is still a subset of the wider term Hindutva. Hindutva encompasses not only the religious aspects of the Hindu people but also their cultural, linguistic, social, and political dimensions. It is akin to Hindu polity, and if one were to translate it into English, the closest term would be “Hinduness,” capturing the essence of being Hindu.

In addressing a global Hindu diaspora, Savarkar referred to the collective Hindu world as “Hindudom.” He envisioned a unified Hindu community that embodies the spirit and principles of Hindutva, encompassing all aspects of their identity and heritage.

Understanding Savarkar’s distinction between Hindu, Hindutva, and Hindudom helps us appreciate the depth and breadth of his vision for a unified Hindu identity rooted in cultural and spiritual heritage yet inclusive of all facets of life.

Savarkar on HIndu Identity

Right at the beginning, Savarkar asserts that the word “Hindu” is not of foreign origin, contrary to the common belief that it was given to us by Arabs or Persians. He explains that our ancestors’ civilization flourished along the banks of the seven rivers, known as Saptasindhu. Of these rivers, the Sindhu or Indus River was a prominent symbol of their shared nationality and culture. In gratitude to these rivers, particularly the Sindhu, Savarkar says our ancestors named their nation and people after it.

Savarkar points out some linguistic rules: in Prakrit, a language from which many of our sister languages derive, the syllable “Sah” becomes “Hah.” For example, “saptaha” becomes “haptaha.” Similarly, “Sindhu” became “Hindu.” He argues that if Prakrit is older, then “Hindu” could be an older term than “Sindhu.” Other nations, including the Persians, called us Hindus, the Greeks called us Indos, and the Chinese called us Indu. Therefore, “Hindu” is a geographical concept with cultural connotations.

According to Savarkar, there are two criteria for defining a person as a Hindu. First, a Hindu is someone whose origins can be traced to the land that extends from the Sindhu River to the seas. Second, a Hindu regards this land as their holy land and has inherited and claimed the Hindu civilization with its history, heroes, literature, art, law, festivals, rites, and rituals.

Savarkar beautifully encapsulates this definition in a Sanskrit verse, highlighting that anyone who considers this land their fatherland and holy land is a Hindu. He emphasizes that the definition of Hindutva should not exclude any significant section of the people. Therefore, Hindutva includes not only those who follow the Vedas but also Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Arya Samajis, Vaishnavas, Shaivas, Lingayats, and even so-called animists.

Savarkar is also against the misuse of the term Hindu. He insists that the definition should reflect reality and cannot be too rigid or too elastic. He acknowledges that some Indians, originally Hindus, have been forcibly converted to non-Hindu religions. He suggests that they can be considered Hindus again if they return to their original faith, but until then, they cannot be recognized as Hindus because their new faiths prioritize other holy lands above their fatherland.

Regarding the Hindu diaspora, Savarkar states that living outside India does not disqualify someone from being a Hindu. He encourages Hindus to contribute positively to humanity wherever they live. Hindutva, he says, does not limit their aspirations but rather urges them to expand their influence globally.

Savarkar recognizes that his definition of Hindutva cannot be too rigid but must have some boundaries. He admits there are exceptions, such as Sister Nivedita and Dr. Annie Besant, who do not fit his strict definition but are still considered Hindus. Despite these nuances, Savarkar was first and foremost a humanist. He concludes his seminal book with a hopeful message that Hindutva will eventually merge into humanism.

Savarkar’s work on Hindutva provides a broad yet precise definition of what it means to be a Hindu. He emphasizes the cultural, geographical, and spiritual dimensions of Hindu identity, ensuring that it is inclusive of various sects and beliefs within the broader Hindu civilization.

He envisions a future where the principles of the Gita and the teachings of Buddha guide the world. Savarkar believes that a Hindu is most truly a Hindu when he embraces universal humanism. He cites the Maharashtrian saint Tukaram, who said, “The limits of the universe are the frontiers of my country.”

It is a testament to Savarkar’s insight that the Indian Constitution, while not explicitly defining a Hindu, describes who is a Hindu in a manner similar to Savarkar’s definition. His inclusive definition has influenced organizations like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America, which uses it to admit members.

In summary, Savarkar’s work on Hindutva provides a broad yet precise definition of what it means to be a Hindu. He emphasizes the cultural, geographical, and spiritual dimensions of Hindu identity, ensuring that it is inclusive of various sects and beliefs within the broader Hindu civilization. His vision was not only to define Hindutva but to unite and inspire Hindus globally, promoting a sense of shared heritage and common purpose. Thank you for your time and attention.

Dr. K.B. Hedgewar, Guru ji (M.S. Golwalkar) and RSS

Dr. Hedgewar[18], having experienced the independence struggle as a revolutionary, Congress worker, and imprisoned leader, recognized that mainstream Hindu society was fragmented, suffering from historical amnesia, and embroiled in conflicts based on foreign terms and internal sectarian lines. In 1925, he founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the largest movement dedicated to addressing these divisions within Hindu society. He did not focus on rigid definitions of who qualifies as a Hindu; when asked, he often dismissed the question, emphasizing unity over semantics.

Savarkar’s definition of Hindutva, encompassing cultural and social aspects rather than purely religious ones, deeply resonated with him. Dr. Hedgewar saw Hindutva as Rashtriyatva, the essence of being Hindu intrinsic to the nation’s essence. This concept did not stem from Western notions of nationhood but from the Vedas, which frequently use terms like Rashtra (nation), Sabha (assembly), Samiti (council), and Janapada (territory).

Guruji (M. S. Golwalkar)[19], who succeeded Hedgewar, carried forward this vision. After the partition’s turmoil in 1957, Guruji emphasized the need for Gharwapsi (homecoming), urging those who had left Hinduism to return. He believed conversion alienates people from their roots and traditions, creating a disconnect between Indian culture and the nation.

Guruji expanded Hindutva’s concept. In 1972, shortly before his death, he articulated an inclusive vision, welcoming those with common ancestors, history, and cultural roots, regardless of their current religious practices. He advocated for the Indianization of Muslims and other minorities, promoting unity based on shared heritage rather than religious uniformity.

His inclusive approach extended to all indigenous faiths born from Vedic thought, suggesting they be integrated into mainstream Hindu society and temples be opened to them. Guruji continued to champion Gharwapsi, reinforcing the idea that Dharma and religion are distinct. Dharma sustains society, family, and individuals, transcending the narrower concept of religion.

Hindutva’s Dharmic Underpinnings

Hindutva leaders consistently emphasized the distinction between Dharma and religion. Derived from the Sanskrit root “dhri,” Dharma means “that which upholds,” representing principles that sustain social order, family structure, and individual conduct. This understanding of Dharma as a unifying force central to Hindutva philosophy is devoid of religious connotations.

The Supreme Court of India defines Hindutva as a way of life, a sentiment echoed by Swami Vivekananda in his famous Chicago address, quoting “Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti” (“the truth is one, the wise call it by many names”). This principle emphasizes respect for all faiths beyond mere tolerance.

Key tenets of Hindu thought include Karma, which asserts that our actions determine our fate, dismissing the idea of an external judgment day. The concept of rebirth and reincarnation, also based on Karma, is common across all Vedic traditions. Hindus respect and worship nature, not out of superstition, but due to the understanding that all life depends on natural forces like the sun.

Concepts such as Mukti, Nirvana, and Shunya are central to Bhartiya traditions. Whether one is Astik (theist) or Nastik (atheist), believes in Sakar (form) or Nirakar (formless), all are considered Hindus. The notion of a singular God or sole right path is alien to Indian philosophy. Terms like Vedic, Indic, Bhartiya, Sanatani, and Hindutva are interchangeable, reflecting a unified worldview.

Rooted in Civilizational Values

The concept of Hinduness, or the cultural essence of the Indian subcontinent, encompasses many elements beyond the strictly religious or spiritual. For instance, Hindus deeply revere their places of work, often performing Bhoomi Pooja (worship of the land) before starting a new venture. This practice, far from being mere superstition, reflects an acknowledgment of the debt owed to nature. Farmers worship the earth before plowing, recognizing it as a source of life. Similarly, performers touch the stage reverently, recognizing it as a sacred space where they reveal their talents and connect with a higher purpose.

The idea of providing water for free as an act of “Punya” (virtue) is another uniquely Indian practice. Even today, in remote villages, people offer food and water to visitors without expecting payment, embodying the sense of duty and service central to Indian culture.

This sense of duty is rooted in the concepts of “Rin” (debt) and “Dharma” (duty). Indians speak of various debts: Pitrurin (debt to ancestors), Matrurin (debt to mother), Gururin (debt to teacher), and Samajikrin (social debt). This culture emphasizes duties over rights, a concept deeply embedded in Dharmic traditions.

Understanding these practices helps clarify that a “Hindu Rashtra” (Hindu nation) is not a theocratic concept. Dharma itself is not theocratic; it represents a set of duties and ethical guidelines. In ancient Indian governance, kings followed “Raja Dharma” (the king’s duty), while subjects followed their own respective Dharmas.

The beauty of Hindutva lies in its embrace of civilizational values that encompass a wide array of cultural, social, and ethical principles rather than being confined to purely religious doctrines. It integrates diverse traditions, practices, and philosophies, reflecting the holistic essence of Indian civilization. This inclusiveness allows for a shared cultural heritage that transcends religious boundaries, fostering unity and continuity among people of different beliefs while preserving their unique identities. Those who believe in these civilizational values, regardless of their global location, can be considered Hindus.

Concluding thoughts

Hindutva is often criticized as a Hindu-centric right-wing ideology promoting violence against minorities, especially Muslims. This article attempts to describe the concept of Hindutva from the perspectives of its framers, exploring the history and key figures to provide a clearer understanding.

Prominent figures like Rishi Raj Narayana Bose, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Swami Vivekananda, and Lokmanya Tilak significantly contributed to the philosophy of Hindutva by emphasizing the cultural and social dimensions of Hindu identity. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s seminal work, “Hindutva,” presents a comprehensive vision that encompasses religious, cultural, linguistic, social, and political aspects.

Dr. K.B. Hedgewar, who founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to address the fragmentation of Hindu society, and his successor, M.S. Golwalkar (Guruji), promoted an inclusive vision of Hindutva. These thought leaders viewed Hindutva as rooted in civilizational values rather than purely religious doctrines, emphasizing Dharma (duty) over religion. This reflects principles that sustain social order, family, and individual conduct. Hindutva integrates diverse traditions, fostering unity and continuity among people of different beliefs while preserving their unique identities.