Hindutva and Hinduism have often confused the masses. I will first briefly explain Hinduism and Hindutva. Comparing them is like comparing chalk with cheese as they are not even candidates for comparison but given the level of ignorance around it, I have reluctantly attempted to compare. For the sake of clarity, I am referring to Hinduism as a religion that is practiced in India and elsewhere and Hindutva as a cult suggested by Savarkar on the basis Nation, Race and Civilization. The Supreme Court of India has stated in the judgment Manohar Joshi vs Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr on 11 December 1995 -“It cannot be held that in the abstract the mere word “Hindutva” by itself invariably must mean Hindu religion.”
Hinduism
Hinduism is generally attributed as a religion by people who follow the Vedas. Vedas contain Hymns, Brahmanas which prescribe rituals, and Upanishads which are ultimate knowledge of Vedas and meant for those who had higher intellectual and cognitive capabilities. It is debatable however that how much modern Hindus follow Vedas.
In essence, the word “Hindu” has not been mentioned in ancient Hindu religious texts. The religious texts only considered Arya, which Vedic Aryans used to refer to each other indicating “O superior human”. Hinduism was called “Dharma” which means a way of life and not an identity. In one place, Mahabharat talks about Santana Dharma (Lord Krishna in Bhagwat Geeta) which is conceived of as not only transcendent of history and unchanging but also as indivisible and ultimately nonsectarian.
Hindutva
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’. Hindutva was articulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923 in his book Hindutva which I studied to understand.
After going through the book of Hindutva, I was able to understand the meaning of Hindutva and its contrast with Hinduism. Let us discuss them here: -
Differences Between Hinduism and Hindutva
Inclusive versus Exclusive: Hinduism is a way of life and does not revolve around any identity. It has no precise definition and no exclusion and inclusion criteria. Hence it has inclusivity as it does not materially differentiate or give an identity. Wherein Hindutva is all about the identity of people who can claim the land as their fatherland and who cannot. Hindutva believes and creates exclusivity by giving identity.
Jurisdiction: Hinduism does not believe in boundaries and does not restrict and confine itself to land or consider India as its origin wherein Hindutva is confined to land — Fatherland, Cradleland, Holy land, and Borderland. The land has been discussed the most and in detail, while Hinduism has praised the land without associating and dissociating itself or creating ownership or entitlement.
Entitlement: Hinduism does not deny the entitlement of the land to anyone and neither does it talk about restricting itself from anyone. Exchanges of people and concepts were part of evolution. Many exchanges between civilizations happened and best practices were exchanged. Hindutva is about ferocious entitlement and association of a community who are natural heirs (fatherland).
Religion and Philosophy: Hinduism is a religion and it consists of four Vedas, 108 Upanishads, and 36 Puranas which depict various events, stories, and history. There are many more like laws in the form of Samhitas etc. Wherein Hindutva, founded by Savarkar is a concept that tries to piggyback on Hinduism as a religion and creates an envelope around it by claiming that Hinduism is just a subset of Hindutva.
Identity: Hinduism does not create an identity or give a certificate of entitlement. This word is not mentioned even anywhere in religious texts. It refers to it Dharma as a way of life. The identity was given by foreign invaders from Persia. Wherein Hindutva is all about distributing identity to chosen few who are entitled to be called Hindu and become part of the larger Hindutva. Savarkar has clearly defined the rules of who can and cannot claim it in his book Hindutva.
Nationalism: Hinduism is not about nationalism in the name of religion or nationalistic ideas. It believes in the concept of “vashudhaiva kutumbakam” (वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम् whole world is a family). The concept of Rashtra Hinduism started in Yajurveda which talks about the jurisdiction of the kingdom and not about nationalism around a belief or a cult. Hinduism believes in love, affection, and harmony not just between humans but also extends to every entity in nature including animals. Forests, mountains, rivers, etc. Hindutva is about Hindu Nationalism which believes in differentiation and hatred and riddled with communal overtones. Savarkar has tried to define the connection between state and religious identity.
Ambiguity: While Hinduism has wisdom, philosophy, science, medicine, wellbeing, education, governance, art, warfare, worship, etc which were an integral part of life, Hindutva has a lot of ambiguity. For example, the concept of fatherland comes into conflict with Aryan migration which is scientifically established now. Besides, Tilak in his book arctic home Vedas indicated that 8000 years ago, the followers of Vedic philosophy lived near the north pole. To accommodate this fatherland, another Hindutva supporter and RSS founder Golwalkar published a book that indicates the north pole ran away from India in a zig-zag fashion. This is the most absurd theory anyone can prescribe.
Militancy: Love, affection, and devotion play an integral part of Hinduism and it does not give any form of ideological militancy although warfare is a separate subject as a part of governance. Horse and chariot played an integral part and Mahabharata and Ramayana are some of the greatest contributions, but they have ethics and basics as an integral part of governance. Bhagwat Geeta has preaching which is nothing but Vedanta philosophy. Hindutva believes in militancy and dominance of Hindus in the land which was inhabited by the region which is on the east of the Sindhu river and some nearby parts (borderland).
Theocracy: Hinduism did not believe in theocratic society and religion kept an arm’s length from politics. The wars were fought to establish jurisdiction or rule of law or a larger cause. Neither Mahabharat was a religious war nor Ramayana. Scores of examples of how tribes and even different species were involved in that war are known to us. Hindus were never led by any supreme leader. Vedas have also evolved, and many philosophers contributed to the verses without even telling their identity, we know only compilers. Hindutva ideology though not directly but indirectly wants to influence the power and intertwines religion and politics to create Hindu dominance and racial influence on the land much like the concept followed by Nazis.
Evolution: Hinduism is a philosophy and not a cult or a belief. I am not sure whether we can even call it a religion. It evolved and hence it is “Sanatan” and it believes in continuous evolution and change. It believes in the superiority of thoughts. Over the period it accommodated thoughts that are alien to it. It has remarkable similarities with the Avestan (Zend) and Greek civilizations. The exchange of views and facts to identify a superior thought has been an integral part. It accommodated disagreements and disagreements were allowed to give rise to a new body of knowledge (Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, or even Tantra) deviating from Vedas. There are many sects and many ways of perusing the truth. Hindutva is a rigid and vague ideology that does not give any room to maneuver giving rise to militancy which has a lesser affinity to thought leadership propagated by Hinduism.
This only indicates that a concept called “Hindutva” coined in the 19th century tries to put a wrapper around Hinduism. The more I read Hindutva, the more confused I was. Hindutva thus appears to restrict the visibility of inherent wider appeal, attempts to confine its flexibility and thought leadership with the narrow identity-based concepts for political and ideological beliefs without contributing anything to the existing body of knowledge. One may ask — Is Hindutva a paradox or is it an oxymoron? As a practicing Hindu, “tatva” of Hindutva is not conceptually clear to me to date though I understood what it is. I may be ignorant though!
This is an evolving story. I am sure many informed people may have genuine concerns about some facts or may have arguments contrary to what has been stated here. I encourage them to respond so that I can leverage their insights to drive more improvements.
