By Promod Puri
The expression Hindutva emerged from Hinduism which simply means a
state or quality of being a Hindu. However, going through its etymology
Hindutva sought a wider demarcation to move free from Hinduism but
keeping a bonded identity with it as well.
The
Hindutva ideology was first introduced in 1923 by Maharashtra-based
Hindu social and political activist Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. As an
advocate of sovereignty Savarkar started his public life as a radical
freedom fighter for liberation of India from the British rule. In this
stint he spent several years in jail, including the infamous and
torturous cells of Andaman Islands from where he sought clemency with
promise to renounce revolutionary activities. After the release
Savarkar’s temperament turned to creating Hindu nationalism by
identifying and promoting its heritage and civilization.
Savarkar had inherent conservative vision of
Hindu social and political consciousness in order to perceive a
Hindu Rashtra (nation). His Hindutva doctrine is based on the hypothesis
that India’s religious and cultural diversities are fundamentally
rooted in its collective Hindu identity.
“Common rashtra, common race and common culture” are the three cardinals identifying Hindutva nationalism
In line with the Hindutva’s concept Hindu means a nationality of
Hindu Rashtra, a motherland or fatherland with its geographical
boundaries. And in terms of “common race and common culture” Hindu means
a correlative genealogy or ancestry, sharing its cultural heritage,
beliefs and ethics.
Correspondent to that the followers of all the India-born religions
and sects are included in the Hindutva fold. But it excludes those who
belong to foreign-born faiths like Islam, Christianity, Judaism and
Zoroastrianism.
Hindutva tries to portray itself as a cultural and nationalistic
conception to mark itself as India’s identity. Still it does not assume a
theological categorization. In its expansive role Hindutva believes in
the existence of a collective Hindu culture or way of life which is also
being shared and practiced by compatible non-Hindu communities. In
social environs Hindutva is everything which is Indic.
Savarkar explicitly proclaimed, “Hindutva is not a word but a
history. Not only the spiritual or religious history of our people as at
times it is mistaken to be by being confounded with the other cognate
term Hinduism, but a history in full”.
Savarkar’s approach incidentally confined Hinduism within its
religious and spiritual order. And let Hindutva play a wider role to
define India’s nationalism, its people, history, culture and traditions.
Savarkar argued “Hindutva is not identical with what is vaguely
indicated by the term Hinduism. By an ‘ism’ it is generally meant a
theory or a code more or less based on spiritual or religious dogma or
creed. Had not linguistic usage stood in our way then ‘Hinduness’ would
have certainly been a better word than Hinduism as a near parallel to
Hindutva”.
He declared “Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of
Hindutva. … Hindutva embraces all the departments of thought and
activity of the whole Being of our Hindu race”.
In India’s cultural, linguistic and religious diversities, Savarkar
believed an existence of a strong underlying Indian tradition based on
his vision of Hindu values. In his views Hindu reflects a cultural and
political nationality of India.
With that premise Savarkar tried to secularized Hindutva. Under that
platform he could include Muslims, Christians and Parsis believing these
communities were Hindus too from cultural and historical perspectives.
According to Hindutva, being a Hindu is more than a religious
engagement. It is a cultural concept not only of Hindus but of other
communities as well residing within the Hindu social order irrespective
of their religious affiliations.
Inspired by Hinduism but having its fundamentals in culture, history
and civilization Hindutva finds some parallel with existing Bharatiya
and Hindustani appellations. The latter represent the diverse cultural
and social values of India in more secular and unequivocal terms than
Hindutva.
While restricting it in theological domain, Savarkar’s attempt to
whip Hindutva ideology from Hinduism is perplexing to Hindu mind.
Neither it can be classified a reform movement in Hinduism.
With his literary background in Indology it is confusing why Savarkar
was unable to realize that the uniqueness of Hinduism lies in its
totality which covers not only rituals, philosophies and spirituality,
but its traditions, cultural and social trends also.
Hinduism is not merely a religion. And it is not only a way of life
either. It goes beyond rituals, customs and traditions. The depth and
vastness of Hinduism touch every aspect of human observation and
activity.
From rituals to murti-puja, mantra and metaphysics, karma and moksha,
to meditation and yoga, and all its recreational aspects like music,
dance and drama, Hinduism is a disciplinary as well as a comprehensive
experience of spiritual development in liberal and progressive regime.
This expanded definition covers the cultural, religious and
philosophical aspects to present a collective identity of Hinduism for
ritualistic, theological and academic pursuits. Taking out the social
segment or any other aspect from it goes against the very spirit and
integrated constitution of Hinduism.
Besides treading through its rituals, customs and traditions, being a
Hindu is an engagement in philosophies for analytical debate about life
and our relationship with nature and the universe. It is a fascinating
journey in spiritual knowledge.
This pilgrimage offers a meaningful perspective of the religion which
recognizes the universal connectivity existing in the nature including
our relationship with fellow human beings. Savarkar’s fenced Hindutva
ideology, which bars non-Hindus, denies that universal connectivity.
The Upnishadic vision of our togetherness as one human race
irrespective of our color, creed or religious beliefs is very wisely
expressed in the following mantra:
“ Om purnam adah purnam idam
purnat purnam udachyate
purnasya purnam adaya
purnam evavashishyate”.
The mantra affirms that the universe is a totality, indivisible and
an organic whole where plants, birds, animals, humans, mountains and
stars are all together in His manifestation
The mantra’s accent is on complete balance in all of His universal
creations from the elements of nature to mankind. For humanity the
mantra conveys a message that every human being is equal in his or her
completeness as manifested by Him.
Savarkar talks about the exclusivity of membership in Hindutva who
shares “common rashtra, common race and common culture”. In all these
commonalities the underlying link is a separate rashtra, a separate race
and a separate culture of Hindutva.
Culture is a distinctive feature of one group of people comprising of
several aspects. One of them is religion, and the others are language,
cuisine, social habits, music and arts. Obviously, one aspect of a
culture does not represent the whole.
The expression “Hindu culture” is as vague as saying Hindu cuisine
(except by international airlines referring to “Hindu meal”). And it is
as much eluding as trying to contrive a language, music, arts, customs,
etc. with suffix of Hindu like saying Hindu music or Hindu language.
Culture in most cases is secular in nature.
When we talk about a cultural community, we mean an all-inclusive
explicit way of life. It represents all of the group of people sharing
common identities despite belonging to different religious
denominations. But all speaking the same language and sharing the same
social and cultural traits.
Often people of one cultural community have several religions.
The unity of India lies in its cultural plurality. The denial of that
plurality and imposing a monolithic Hindutva hegemony fragments the
multicultural fabric of the nation. Social unity and coherence are the
natural needs and dependencies of an advancing society.
In its present avatar Hindutva ideology of non-inclusiveness
conflicts with the secular, liberal and democratic spirit of Hinduism.
Hindutva needs an ideological reconstruction which can be an effective
and dedicated institution in the service of Hinduism.
But if it does not, and sticks to its stand that “Hinduism is only a
derivative, a fraction, a part of Hindutva”, then it can find some
archive space in Hinduism. In its vast open structure Hinduism has
always accommodated diverse ideologies. And kept them as part of its
history and ever evolving constitution. That is the tradition in
Hinduism. Hindutva can rest in that tradition.
(Promod Puri lives in Vancouver, Canada. He is a writer and
former editor and publisher of the South Asian Canadian newspaper, The
Link, and ex editor of Native Indian newspaper, The New Nation. He is
author of recently published book titled “Hinduism beyond rituals,
customs and traditions”). His website: promodpuri.com
