Religious political thought

Hindutva

c. 1923– · also: Hindu nationalism
Depth
Open in the Navigator →

Hindutva ('Hindu-ness') holds that Indian nationhood is founded on a shared Hindu civilization, and that those whose sacred geography and cultural origins lie within the subcontinent constitute the true nation in a way religious minorities of external origin — chiefly Muslims and Christians — do not.

Its founding text, Savarkar's Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu? (1923), is cultural and territorial more than strictly theological. It defines the nation by common fatherland (pitrbhu), blood, and civilization, and by treating India as one's holy land (punyabhu) — a test that, by design, includes Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains while placing Muslims and Christians outside the national core, so the doctrine functions as a religious nationalism even as it calls itself civilizational.

It is not a fringe idea but the organizing ideology of a mass movement — the RSS, founded in 1925, and its political and social affiliates — which has grown from the margins into a dominant force in Indian public life, shaping government, education, and culture across a nation of over a billion people.

Its adherents present it as a long-overdue assertion of the majority's culture against colonial and secular elites who, they argue, disparaged it; the movement spans a spectrum from cultural revivalists to hard-line activists.

Its critics — and much of India's founding generation — see it in direct tension with the secular, pluralist constitution of 1950, and warn that defining the nation by religion structurally subordinates some 200 million Muslims and other minorities; India's independence itself was scarred by the communal violence of Partition.

Like other identity doctrines, its defining question is who belongs to the nation, which every axis here — measuring instead how a nation should be governed — is unequipped to ask; and it deliberately blurs the religion-and-politics line the instrument assumes.

Why it is placed here — Econ × Social

Authority-side with a wide economic range, having accommodated both self-reliant and market-oriented economic programmes.

Why it is placed here — Liberty × Equality

State-as-guarantor of a civilizational order, with equality defined within the national community rather than across all citizens.

Why it is placed here — Order × Change

Presents itself as restoring an ancient civilization while pursuing substantial transformation of the existing constitutional settlement — hence the vertical spread.

Why it is placed here — Universal × Particular

Strongly particularist and thick: nationhood is defined by a specific civilization, land, and inheritance.

Why it is placed here — Individual × Collective

The civilizational community is the unit of concern, with duties owed to its continuity and cohesion.

What the whole instrument misses
Like other identity doctrines, its defining question is who counts as a member of the nation, and every axis here measures instead how the nation should be governed. The instrument also assumes the religion–politics distinction that this civilizational nationalism blurs on purpose.
Sources
  • V. D. Savarkar, Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?, 1923