This is a continuation of our discussion from Part-2, where we discussed Savarkar’s dilemma of Hindu and Shindu and the inhibition for the choice of an identity given by Persians.
This section revolves around our Savarkarji’s understanding of our religion which is widely known as Hinduism. Again, I would say this is extremely exciting and we should not miss the fabulous explanation he has given about his understanding of what Hinduism stands for. In the initial part, Savarkaji has asked the fundamental question “What is in a name?” where he tried to connect the name connects to an entity. He has associated it with the famous question asked by “Maid of Verona” in “Romeo and Juliet” in Shakespearean Drama: -
“Tis but thy name that is my enemy.
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.
(2.1.80–86)
Juliet loves Romeo because he is Romeo, but the power of her love cannot remove from him his last name of Montague or all that it stands for. Romeo belonged to the Montague family which was the enemy of Juliet’s father in Shakespearean Drama. In the privacy of the garden, the language of love is triumphant. But in the social world, the language of society holds sway. Hence NAME and ENTITY are interconnected. To that part it is interesting and now let us understand how Savarkar connects the relationship of name and entity with Hinduism and Hindutva. He extends it further to establish that if we call Ayodhya Honolulu or persuade Muslims to call themselves Jew, we will understand the truth (“Open Sesame” as he calls it). So, it is not about the name, everything that associates with that name or brand makes sense. To this point it is brilliant.
He then moves on to define Hinduism and Hindutva which are completely different as per him. As per him, Hindutva is all-encompassing the culture, the wars, the wisdom, science, the history, and everything and the chain of events or history. A brilliant establishment of a brand called Hindutva.
As per Savarkar, Hinduism is a small subset of Hindutva. He goes on to say “Hinduism is only a derivative, a faction, a part of Hindutva” (p 19, Hinduvtva by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, 2020 edition). I am sure as a reader many will be shocked and surprised. Let us hold our excitement. Many of the Hindutva believers though it might have thought so far that it is the other way around. The question which comes to my mind is that Hinduism is also a name or identity given by someone at some point in time. In essence, this identity never existed as it was a way of life devoid of any identity. At the most we know it is “Sanatan Dharma” the oldest religion which has neither the beginning nor the end. So just to define and establish the ideology of Hindutva, the entire Hinduism or whatever we may call that way of life got a definitive identity, a ringfenced scope, and a big brother in the name of Hindutva, neither of which seems to be a fair understanding of the conundrum of Hindu and Hinduism.
My question here starts — Should I subscribe to Hinduism or Hindutva? Hinduism and Hindutva may not have everything in common and hence it takes a different approach. As per Savarkar, the concept of Hinduism has created confusion in our society which he is trying to fix with Hindutva. Savarkar’s discomfort with Hinduism was visible that he even went on to express that “Hinduness” is a better word than “Hinduism”. In essence, he seems to have been confused or deliberately tried to suppress what Hinduism is. He surprisingly called Sanatan Dharma a sect of Hinduism. (p 108, Hinduvtva by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar). Encyclopedia Britannica has a better explanation for Sanatan Dharma — which says “Sanatana dharma, in Hinduism, a term used to denote the “eternal” or absolute set of duties or religiously ordained practices incumbent upon all Hindus, regardless of class, caste, or sect.” Savarkar’s refusal to acknowledge Sanatan Dharma can be understood by the reforms going on during that period. Arya Samaj was involved in reforming Hindu society around the principles of Santan Dharma. Sanatan Dharma practices an inclusive concept which accommodates everyone and may come in conflict with the narrow and exclusive identity which Savarkar’s was seeking.
Can we conclude then Hinduism thus is an oxymoron as per Savarkar? I leave it as a question here for obvious reasons.
My understanding from the book indicates that he had a challenge with Hinduism. His brand Hindutva cannot be accommodated alongside Hinduism established for centuries and built around love, devotion, knowledge, peace, inclusivity, and flexibility. Two swords cannot be contained in one sheath. One must be built on the ruins of the other. I too have discomfort with the identity given in the form of “Hinduism” which contradicts an identity-less concept of “Santan Dharma” to “Ism” but that does not mean I will create something different for people to follow which annihilates a beautiful way of life which we have cherished for years and survived for centuries. If Hindutva was built around the flawed understanding of Hinduism, going against the basic tenets of Hinduism, I leave it to the readers to chose between the two as one does not complement or supplement the other. An inclusive Hindusim as a part of exclusive Hindutva can be an oxymoron but certainly not a paradox.
Part 4 will have a deeper conversation on who is a Hindu and who all can subscribe to Hindutva. Savarkarji has clearly articulated the distinction.
