The document explores the term 'Hindutva', tracing its origins from the Sanskrit word related to the cultural identity of people in the Indus Valley, highlighting its meaning as a way of life rather than a strict religious concept. It argues that the term should promote cultural nationalism and inclusivity, encompassing various communities within India, while emphasizing that the focus on Hindutva should unite rather than divide the nation. The author suggests that recognizing Hindutva as synonymous with Indian nationalism could foster unity and progress, particularly involving minority groups.

1. Hindutva and Rashtriyata
Group Captain Johnson Chacko
Ever since the word Hindutva loomed on our political landscape, I have been wondering
as to what it actually means. It is a Sanskrit word, a combination of Hindu and -tva and can be
translated variously as the Hindu way of life or Hindu-ness. To understand this we need to
understand the origins and the meaning of the word Hindu.
In the ancient times when people started travelling away from their homes, villages and
their kingdoms over hills and crossing valleys they started to know other civilizations that
existed in river basins of distant lands. When people of the region of what is today’s Iran came
into the Indus valley, they came across an advanced civilization in the Indus valley. The river
was known as Sindhu Nadi in the local language. The people who lived in the valley were
called Sindhus. The people who came spoke the Avestanlanguage, the language of the region at
the time of Zarathustra. In that language the syllable ‘S’ is pronounced as ‘H’ and
so Sidhusbecame Hindus in their pronunciation and it stuck. Over a period of time the word
Hindu was applied to all people who live in the Indus valley and beyond till the next
geographical barriers such as the Himalayas in the North, the dense jungles to the East and the
seas to the South. It is essentially a name for an Ethnic group of people who lived in this area.
The word India originated from the Greeks who came up to the Sindhu River and called it Indus.
It seems they had a penchant for shifting the beginning to the end and so ‘S’ came to the end.
They called the people living in the valley as Indoi. The Europeans have variations of this word.
The British called it India.
The name of our country “India” and the people who live in it “Hindu” have the origins in
“Sindhu” River, 93 percent of which flows through Pakistan, 2% through Tibet and only 5%
through India. It does not matter that the origins of the name of our country and the name of
the people are of foreign origin, as long as it unites us.
The word Hindu refers to the ethnicity of a group of people within clear geographical
boundaries and has nothing to do with religion. The word Hidutva relates to the way these
people live or Hindu-ness or broadly the culture.
This is enunciated in various opinions form VD Savarkar in “The Essentials of Hindutva”
and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS). RSS is one of the main votaries of Hindutva and it
propagates "The term Hindu in the conviction as well as in the constitution of the RSS is a
cultural and civilizational concept and not a political or religious dogma. The term as a cultural
concept will include and did always include all including Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains. The cultural
nationality of India, in the conviction of the RSS, is Hindu and it was inclusive of all who are born
and who have adopted Bharat as their Motherland, including Muslims, Christians and Parsis. It
is a fact borne out by history that the Muslims, Christians and Parsis too are Hindus by culture
although as religions they are not so." It has stated that it believes in a cultural connotation of
the term Hindu.

2. The Supreme Court ruling in 1995 states, "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 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.”
What then is the Hindu Religion?
This ethnic group of people in this geographically secure land was exposed to various
religions followed by people who came to trade, propagate their religion or plain invasion to
plunder the wealth of our country that was once upon a time not too long ago, known as “The
Golden Bird”, “Jewel of the British Crown” etc – the most advanced civilization and the most
prosperous economy. Some of them adopted our country as their homeland but practiced their
own religion. Some of the ethnic people accepted to follow the religions brought in by these
people either voluntarily or by force. Specific religions such a Budhism and Jainism took root. All
those who did not follow any of these religions were said to follow the Hindu Religion.
The popular perception of the lay people is that propagation of Hindutva in its present
form would essentially lead to domination of the minorities by the people following the Hindu
religion. Since the words India and Hindu have a predominant meaning of unifying the sub-
continent culturally, do we deserve to be divided by religion? This intended division can only
benefit the Anti- National elements that are keen to ensure that India does not progress and
become a formidable Nation in the comity of Nations, thereby denying us the rightful place that
we deserve. The proponents of Hindutva need to do a service to the Nation by declaring openly
that they mean Rashtriyatha or Indian Nationalism when they talk about Hindutva. This would
unify the Nation and take us forward to realize our dreams. This would earn the respect of
minority religious groups and the downtrodden, that they also form a part of the Nation and
can contribute to the progress of the country on equal terms. The minorities and dis-
advantaged sections of our society are too proud to accept a few unsustainable sops, originated
by divisive politics, in return for their valuable say in deciding who should govern them.