Hindu Nationalism and Hindutva

Hindutva and Hindu Nationalism

Now this is one of the most if not most mispercieved concepts in contemporary India.

Hindutva is “originally: the state or quality of being Hindu; ‘Hinduness’.

According to Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions, Hindutva is a concept of “Indian cultural, national, and religious identity”. The term “conflates a geographically based religious, cultural, and national identity: a true ‘Indian’ is one who partakes of this ‘Hindu-ness’. Some Indians insist, however, that Hindutva is primarily a cultural term to refer to the traditional and indigenous heritage of the Indian nation-state. This view, as summarized by Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions, holds that “even those who are not considered religiously Hindu but whose religions originated in India — Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, and others — share in this historical, cultural, and national essence. Those whose religions were imported to India, meaning primarily the country’s Muslim and Christian communities, may fall within the boundaries of Hindutva only if they subsume themselves into the majority culture”

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations, “Hindutva, translated as ‘Hinduness,’ refers to the ideology of Hindu nationalists, stressing the common native culture of the inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent. According to A Political and Economic Dictionary of South Asia, “One of the main purposes behind the concept of Hindutva was to construct a collective identity to support the cause of ‘Hindu-unity’ (Hindu Sanghatan) and to avoid too narrow a definition of Hinduism, which had the consequence of excluding Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains from the Hindu community.

According to Prabhu Bapu, a historian and scholar of Oriental Studies, the term and the contextual meaning of Hindutva emerged from the Indian experience in the colonial era, memories of its religious wars as the Mughal Empire decayed, an era of Muslim and Christian proselytization, a feeling that their traditions and cultures were being insulted, whereby the Hindu intellectuals formulated Hindutva as a “Hindu identity” as a prelude to a national resurgence and a unified Indian nation against the “foreign invaders”. The development of “religious nationalism” and the demand by the Muslim leaders on the Indian subcontinent for the partition of British India into Muslim and non-Muslim nations during the first half of the 20th-century, confirmed its narrative of geographical and cultural nationalism based on Indian culture and religions.

For Savarkar, in his treatise on Hindu identity,he identifies the two core issues- who is a Hindu, and what it Hindutva. The two issues are connected. He defines a Hindu as one who (1) regards the entire subcontinent as his (or her) motherland/fatherland; (2) is descended of Hindu parents; and (3) and considers this land holy. He described Hindutva as an inclusive term of everything Indic. At the very outset, he made it very clear that it had nothing to do with religion or rituals or what is commonly considered Hinduism in particular. The term in English which came closest to the one he was using, he wrote, was perhaps Hinduness. As a principle, Hindutva formed the basis of India’s national character, he maintained, and, to provide greater clarity, offered his own definition of who was a Hindu. The three essentials of Hindutva in Savarkar’s definition were the common nation (Rāṣṭra), common race (Jāti), and common culture or civilisation (Saṃskṛti). Savarkar used the words “Hindu” and “Sindhu” interchangeably. Those terms were at the foundation of his Hindutva, as geographic, cultural and ethnic concepts, and “religion did not figure in his ensemble”, and the “actual essentials of Hindutva are … also the ideal essentials of nationality”. His elaboration of Hindutva included all Indian religions and traditions. Savarkar restricted “Hindu nationality” to “Indian religions” in the sense that they shared a common culture and fondness for the land of their origin.

Modern Hindu Nationalism or Hindutva were risen as a reaction to semitic abrahamic faiths like Christianity and Islam, which inherently are exlusivist, predatory and prosetilyzing in nature, and particularly Pan-Islamist movements like Khilafat, and Demands for seperate nation for muslims. There needed to be a response by a non-exclusive inclusive intellectual thought , which can be called the commonwealth of Indian Spiritual and cultural traditions, to therefore respond to the aggression, predation and the prosetilyzing attempts made by abrahamic faiths.

There are several misconceptions about Hindutva and Hindu Nationalism.

Hindu Rāṣṭra means Hindu Pakistan?

Now this is based on the premise that Hindu Nationalists want to establish a theocratic Hindu State, like the Muslim League wanted Pakistan. This assumption is wrong on all grounds. The primary and original goal of Hindu Nationalism was an undivided India or Akhaṇḍa Bhārata, not theocracy, which was risen as a response to Islamist Seperatism by Muslim League. Savarkar wasn’t really setting out to create a Hindu nation. India was, he asserted, citing some ancient and medieval texts, a Hindu nation in an organic sense. What Hindu Nationalism aims for is a Hindu Polity. Pakistan was conceptualized as a Sharia ruled state, whereas Hindu Nationalists demand for UCC. And moreover the basic structure of Hinduism and definition of Hindutva will always contradict to the idea of Hindu Theocracy. A hindu rashtra or state would inherently be secular in truest sense. Since belief in a god was never a central idea of Hindu Nationalism. Even if we take what is contemporarily considered Hinduism, then also a theocracy is impossible, because even the contemporarily considered Hinduism doesn’t have a single uniform theology. So this is absolutely false equivalence!!! Those who say Hindu Nationalism is about establishing Hindu theocracy, lack the very basic understanding of Hinduism and Indian ethos.

Hindu Nationalism or Hindutva is a ethno-Geo-cultural Nationalism, not a theologically motivated movement. It is the collectively self aware extension of the concept of sacred geography (of the Indian Subcontinent or Bharata khanda) mentioned in the indian/hindu literature.

Exclusion of Abrahamics!!! Is Hindutva anti-muslim?

Yes it is anti muslim, because it is rooted in a reactionary response to Pan Islamic Nationalism for a Caliph in West Asia and Islamic fundamentalism.

“However, although he would concede that many Muslims and Christians living in India were true nationalists and saw the land of the Sapta Sindhus as their fatherland, their holy land lay elsewhere, in Arabia or Palestine. So were they excluded altogether from a nation which had Hindutva as its base? ‘Their love is divided,’ stated Savarkar, and they would have no choice if they were asked to pick between their fatherland and holy land. It was ‘natural’ that they should choose the holy land, he stated, adding that he was ‘neither condemning nor lamenting’, merely being matter-of-fact. A fact which is elaborately stated by Ambedkar as well. He wanted to keep the door open for them, nevertheless, for ‘the Bohras and such other Mohammedan and Christian communities possess all the essential qualifications of Hindutva’, he said, even if ‘they do not look upon India as their holy land’. The ‘patriotic’ Bohra or Khoja, he argued, ‘loves our land . . . as the Fatherland’, ‘possesses’, in certain cases, ‘pure Hindu blood’, particularly ‘if he is the first convert to Mohammedanism’, is ‘an intelligent and reasonable man, loves our history and our heroes’, and ‘in fact the Bohras and Khojas as a community worship as heroes our great ten Avatars, only adding Mohammad as the eleventh’. Most of them thus shared with Hindus a common race; after all, their forefathers had been forcibly converted, according to Savarkar. He urged such ‘long lost kith and kin’, ‘so cruelly snatched away at the point of the sword’, to come back to the fold, and told them that their brothers and sisters ‘with arms extended are standing at the open gate to welcome you’. There was nowhere else they would find greater freedom of worship as in the land ‘where a Charvak could praise atheism from the steps of the temple of Mahakal’, he said. If only they recognized ‘our common Mother’ not only as their fatherland but their holy land, they would be ‘most welcome to the Hindu fold’, he stated.

Hindutva is monolithic, homogenous?

Now this is just gross distortion of facts. Both Savarkar & Golwalkar were very well aware of the inclusiveness , pluralist, and diversity of Hinduism. Savarkar, declaring himself as an atheist, “minimizes the importance of religion in his definition of Hindu”, and instead emphasizes an ethnic group with a shared culture and cherished geography. Savarkar, a Hindu is “first and foremost someone who lives in the area beyond the Indus river, between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean”. Golwalkar was also well aware about the nontheistic traditions of India. Now How can such a broad definition be monolithic homogenous. To say Hindutva as monolithic can either be due to sheer ignorance or deliberate distortions.

Hindutva has one central text(i.e. Savarkar’s Book)

This arguement was put forward by Shashi Tharoor, to posit Hindutva as something contrasting to Indian Culture which has a plethora of scriptures and is also not that book oriented like the abrahamics. Shashi Tharoor wanted to posit Hindutva as in those who subscribe to Savarakar’s viewpoint, only those are hindu. But Hindutva and Savarkar’s treatise are descriptive in nature and not at all prescriptive. The essence of Hindutva and Savarkar’s treatise is self definition, not some commandments. Savarkar doesn’t mandate any commandments. Savarkar isn’t mandating anything to be believed or dictating any instructions. He only tries to answer the millenium old question, that What exaclty is the collective unified Indian identity, What exactly does India stands for ? So this criticism is pretty much misplaced.

Hindutva is against meat?

Savarkar was an open nonvegetarian. He even had several arguments with Gandhi, a staunch proponent of vegetarianism, over it. Swami Vivekananda , an icon widely appropriated by Hindutvavadis , was also a non-vegetarian. Savarkar didn’t consider cow as divine. He said to focus more on the Economic and Scientific Importance of Cattle like in USA, instead of some superstitious beliefs on it. Savarkar opposed any voilence in the name of Cow, He valued Human life more than animal’s life. Yes, Savarkar didnt consider cow anything more than an animal.

Hindutva is Casteist, hates dalits and supports Brahminical Hegemony?

Both Savarkar and Golwalkar shunned Casteism and social hiearchy. Savarkar implemented many caste reforms, dined with Dalits, celeberated festivals with outcastes, advocated for their access to public places like temples, with the Upper castes. Golwalkar stated, “Hindavaha sadoraha, na Hindu patito bhavet” (All Hindus are born out of the same womb (of Mother India). Therefore, they are brothers and no Hindu can be treated as untouchable. Even Godse threw away his Janeu, worked for anti-caste reforms in Maharashtra, Gandhi on the other hand staunchly supported the Quadrapled Varna System and Vaishnava orthodoxy. The major criticism from the traditionalists for Hindutva is this only that Hindutva rejects caste and Varna orthdoxy. On Caste and how to deal with it, if anyone has the most agreement with Ambedkar, its none other than Savarkar.

Savarkar conceptualized this Hindu self identity in reaction to the “pan-Islamic mobilization of the Khilafat movement”, where Indian Muslims were pledging support to the Istanbul-based Caliph of the Ottoman Empire and to Islamic symbols, massacring Kaffirs in India for a West-Asian Caliph. Hindutva by its very nature cannot be aggressive in nature, because it is primarily an over-arching intellectual, socio-political response of the Indians, to prevent itself and themselves against abrahamic aggression and then later against Communists.

Hindutva was also invoked by Congress leaders, like Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

Hindu were divided into various clusters, as I’ve already stated in previous parts. Savarkar envisioned beyond these factional divisions , he declared,

“Let Hinduism concern itself with the salvation of life after death, the concept of god and the universe. Let individuals be free to form opinions about the trio. The whole universe from one end to the other is the real book of religion. But so far as the materialistic and secular aspect is concerned, the Hindus are a nation hound by a common culture, a common history, a common language, a common country and a common religion.”

For Savarkar then, the secular cultural, linguistic, historical, elements that bind the Hindus constituted hindutva as “hinduhood” or the hindu identity or the hindudom. itself is only a derivative and a small part of Hindutva. Hindutva, for Savarkar was not particularly theocratic, a religious dogma or a creed. It embraces all the departments of thought and activity of the whole being of the Hindu “race”, also including the tribal religions of India. Savarkar had a civilizational view for the Hindu. Hindu or Hindutva for him was never about which god to worship, it was a political concept, unlike Islamic nationalism which was all about theology and a separate theocratic state.

The definition and the use of Hindutva and its relationship with Hinduism has been a part of several court cases in India. In 1966, the Chief Justice Gajendragadkar wrote for the Supreme Court of India in Yagnapurushdasji (AIR 1966 SC 1127), that “Hinduism is impossible to define”. The court adopted Radhakrishnan’s submission that Hinduism is complex and “the theist and atheist, the skeptic and agnostic, may all be Hindus if they accept the Hindu system of culture and life”. The Court judged that Hinduism historically has had an “inclusive nature” and it may “broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more”.

The 1966 decision has influenced how the term Hindutva has been understood in later cases, in particular the seven decisions of the Supreme Court in the 1990s that are now called the “Hindutva judgments”. In 1995 , the Supreme Court passed out a verdict, that stated

Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism … it is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption … that the use of words “Hindutva” or “Hinduism” per se depicts an attitude hostile to all persons practising any religion other than the Hindu religion … It may well be that these words(Hinduism and Hindutva) are used in a speech to promote secularism or to emphasise the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos, or to criticise the policy of any political party as discriminatory or intolerant.”

Hinduism is a chaos of conflicting and contradicting views, Hindutva is what gives some collective self aware, self-identity to that, while acknowledging all the diiferent diverse viewpoints , and letting them to grow on their own , within a collective identity.

Throughout the history, people have pondered upon what is a hindu, and ended up in messed up standardized definitions. Hindutva is about “who is a hindu”. Hindus/Indians have mostly been unified or clubber together by external factor. Hindutva gives an internal basis which is deeply rooted in the Indian culture for Hindu/Indian Unity.

Savarkar’s take on Hindu/Indian identity or Hindutva as a whole was unlike any other. It was mainly political and racial , which encompassed within it the entire Indian history, culture, civilization as it is. And it is also perfectly inline with the definition of Hindu mentioned in the Constitution of India.

The identity of Hindu as per Hindutva, is derived from pluralistic, inclusive nature of Hinduism. Thus we can say, if Hinduism is potential inclusivity of indegenous thought of India, then Hindutva can be a kinetic effect , which is primarily is to defend, define Hindu or Indianism against the aggression from Abrahamics and Leftists.

Note: I am aware that Hinduism has several practices such as casteism, etc which are exclusivist in nature to certain extent, but here I am talking about the inclusivity of different thoughts, and also Hindutva rejects caste system outrightly.

And that’s what makes it unique . It is a blend of progressivism for within and regression for outsiders. Hindutva thinkers or people who influenced hindutva were all modernists and personally discarded traditions (upto varying degrees), and also advocated for reforms , but were vehemently defensively against the abrahamic predatory threat.

Hindutva, as per me, is the first pragamatic attempt, from a native to describe, define the Indian identity.

Now, I may not agree with everything what Savarkar or Golwalkar said and I definitely don’t agree with most of the things of the modern day self proclaimed Hindutva groups, but the purpose of this blog is to just clear some misconceptions about hindutva.