A section from the journey

A Word and a Debate: Hindutva and Hinduism

There is a word people argue over fiercely today: Hindutva. It is not the same as Hinduism. Hinduism is the religion we have walked together for this whole journey. Hindutva is a political idea, coined in 1923 by V. D. Savarkar. Scholars, supporters, and critics describe it in sharply different ways. This is a living debate among living people, so here the rishi only lays out who says what, honestly and with sources, and takes no side at all.

We come now to one of the most argued-over words of our own day. And here, more than almost anywhere, your guide must walk softly and fairly. For this is a living debate among living people, and it is not the rishi's place to settle it. It is only his place to show you, honestly, that it exists, and who says what.

The word is . And the very first thing to hold is this. Hindutva is not the same thing as Hinduism. Keep the two clearly apart, for confusing them is where most of the heat comes from. Hinduism is the great religion and way of life we have walked together for this whole long journey.

Hindutva, by contrast, is a modern political idea. It was given its name in the year 1923, in a pamphlet by a writer named V. D. Savarkar. He defined a Hindu not mainly by faith, but by three things shared: a common homeland, a common ancestry, and a common culture. That is the bare historical fact, and on it most people agree.

Beyond that fact, the agreement ends, and the descriptions split sharply. So here your guide steps to the . He will set out several honest views side by side, each named and attributed, and he will not choose among them. Read them slowly, and make your own quiet mind.

One thing more, before the views. Many scholars stress that not all Hindus hold to Hindutva, and that a person can be deeply Hindu in faith and feel no connection to it at all. A religion of a billion people is not a single political camp. Hold that, too, as we cross.

Now let us lay the views down together, calmly, with no heat and no taking of sides.

The rishi steps to the Threshold — where accounts differWhat is Hindutva, and how do scholars, its supporters, and its critics describe its relationship to Hinduism the religion?

What scholars find

Mainstream scholarship draws a clear distinction between Hindutva as a political ideology and Hinduism as a religion. Christophe Jaffrelot notes that Savarkar, the term's framer, was himself an avowed atheist who minimised the importance of religion and defined Hindu-ness in ethnic and cultural terms; Chetan Bhatt similarly observes that Savarkar distanced Hindutva from Hinduism. Arvind Sharma describes Savarkar's three essentials as a common nation, a common race or descent, and a common culture. Scholars also emphasise that not all Hindus subscribe to Hindutva, so the two should not be equated. Some scholars go further and use strongly critical characterisations of the ideology, calling it ethnic nationalism or ethnic absolutism, with one even using the word fascist; these are presented here as attributed scholarly opinions, and adherents reject such comparisons. The agreed scholarly point is the distinction itself: an ideology of cultural-national identity is not the same as the religion.

As its proponents describe it

Those who hold to Hindutva describe it, in their own words, not as hostility to anyone but as cultural nationalism and civilisational pride: a sense of shared homeland, heritage, and history among the peoples of the subcontinent. Following Savarkar, many proponents present it as broader than religion, a bond of culture and belonging that can include those who look to this land as both fatherland and holy land, rather than a narrow creed. They reject the harsher scholarly labels as unfair caricature. This self-description is presented here as the proponents' own attributed view, set out so the reader hears it directly, and without any endorsement by your guide. It is one voice in a contested debate, neither adopted nor dismissed.

What the courts said, and their critics

There is also a legal thread, which belongs in the record. In a set of election-law rulings in 1995 and 1996, the Supreme Court of India described the terms Hindutva and Hinduism broadly as a way of life or a state of mind, rather than a narrow religious or political label. This judicial gloss was itself sharply criticised by jurists and historians, among them A. G. Noorani and Mukul Kesavan, who argued that the Court had blurred an important distinction and given the terms too generous a reading. Both the ruling and the criticism are presented here, each attributed, so the reader sees the legal characterisation and the serious objection to it together. Your guide reports both and judges neither.

And let us end where we began. This is a live political matter, fought over by living people right now. Your guide has shown you the main voices as fairly as he can. He has not told you which is right, because that is not his task, and never will be. He hands the question to you, whole and open.

It is tempting, when people argue hotly, to rush in and pick a team. There is a rarer skill in listening to every side first, fully, before deciding anything. How does it feel to hold a charged question open in your hands, without yet closing it one way or the other?