From: sungokha@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Sunil Gokhale)
Subject: Re: WE ARE ALL 'KAR SEVAKS' NOW by Swapan Dasgupta
Status: OR
Apparently-To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
Originator: editor@rbhatnagar
Keywords: Hinduism, Hindutva, Savarkar
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:33:06 GMT
Return-Path: <sungokha@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>

In article <1ji65tINN3g3@bigboote.WPI.EDU> rajesh@juniper.WPI.EDU (Rajesh Raman) writes:
>Alok Agarwal (aagarwal@Cadence.COM) wrote:
>: 
>: Veer Savarkar grasped this distinction as early as in 1923. "Hindutva", he
>: wrote, "is not a word but a history. Not only the religious and spiritual
>: history of our people as at times it is mistaken to be by being confounded
>: with the other cognate term, Hinduism... Hinduism is only a derivative,
>: a fraction, a part of Hindutva... Failure to distinguish between these two
>: concepts has given rise to much misunderstanding".
>
>  What is Hindutva ? What is Hinduism ? Is it what is generally
>  understoood as Hinduism or is it something else you wanted to say ?
>  What is the difference between Hindutva and Hinduism ? 
>
>  I ask all this  out of ignorance. 
>
>--
>
>Rajesh Raman


		Hindutva and Hinduism for Savarkar

("Hindutva" of Savarkar is one of the most important books on 
the topic of 'Hindu', Hinduism etc. I don't have it with me 
now, so I am writing this based on my memory and based on some
other book that I do have. The 'other' book is an excellent book 
written in Marathi on Savarkar, the Rationalist).

For Savarkar, the word 'Hindutva' was analogous with the Nationhood
of Bharat. In other words, 'Hindutva IS Rashtriyatva'. And Hinduism is
the religion/s of the Hindu people. Hence 'Hinduism is a derivative, a
fraction of Hindutva' as quoted by Swapan Dasgupta in the original
article.

But who is a Hindu?
There are a number of definitions of this word.
He created a new, (yet not so new) definiton. His original definition is
a Sanskrit verse of four lines. My translaton is:

He is a Hindu for whom
This land of Bharat from Sindhu (river)
To the Sindhusagar (Arabian Ocean)
Is Pitrubhu (Fatherland)
And Punyabhu. (Holy Land)

		(brackets mine)

This definiton includes people of all the different paths evolved in
the land called Bahrat. From Vaidic Hindu to Jain, Budhist even
Charvakpanthi.

And it excludes Christians, Muslims etc. Because for them this land
is not considered a Holy Land, it lies elsewhere in Jerusalem or in
Mecca. He even urged Muslims that India is already their Fatherland, if
they also consider it as their Holy Land, then they would come
under the 'Hindu' circle. There is a long discussion on the two words, 
Pitrubhu and Punyabhu but his translations, Holy Land and Fatherland
pretty much sum it all.

Today, the constitution of India considers someone as a Hindu if he is
not a Christian, Not a Muslim, Not a Jew etc. Hence the constitution
reaches the same point, albeit in a negative sense.

Of couse this definition does not mean that his India would consider Non
Hinus as secondary citizens. It only states the fact that, as England is
a nation of English people, France is a Nation of French, so similarly
India is a Nation of Hindus. Here he was just reiteraing the history,
because from ancient times the people living in this land have been
called Hindus no matter what was their religious persuation, whether it
was Vaidic or Budhist or back to Vaidic again after Shankara. The
(unfortunate) associaton of this word with religion is a recent development.

And this Hindu nation has been around since time immemorial, even when
it was ruled by more than one king at any one time. That Natinhood
is what is called Hindutva. It encompasses the religion and much more.


It is to be noted that this definition is not based on a particular
way of worship because for him whether/how the people worship
was their personal matter and of secondary importance compared to 
the existence of the Hindu Nation.

Sunil Gokhale
sungokha@lynx.northeastern.edu


Newsgroups: alt.hindu