The term Hindutva is well known in India today though not really understood by even many of those who claim to speak in its name. The term was originally coined by none other than Savarkar in a thesis written by him, in 1923 while undergoing rigorous imprisonment at Ratnagiri. In this thesis, he was forthright about his views. These views need to be understood in the context of the place where this thesis was written. By 1923, Savarkar had been denied a normal life for over a decade – made to work like an animal; compelled to live amongst hard core criminals, many of whom were no better than animals. Quite a few of them rabidly communal Muslims. Indeed, some of them had even tried to kill Savarkar in an engineered prison riot in Ratnagiri. It is amazing that by this time, Savarkar was alive and astounding that he retained his razor sharp Intellect.

In his thesis, Hindutva, Savarkar defined Hindus as those who loved the land of SaptSindhu – as their own Fatherland. Those, who claimed the history and culture of this land as their own. The SaptSindhu being the seven rivers, Sindhu (Indus), Ganga, Yamuna, Saraswati, Narmada, Kaveri and Godavari. Brahmaputra is not separately mentioned as it is considered as the eastward flow of Sindhu itself. The final test of being a Hindu in the opinion of Savarkar was that the person should also recognise this land as his Holy land. Based on this final qualification, he was categorical that Muslims, Christians, Parsees, Jews and all others, whose religion required them to worship lands other than the land of SaptSindhu – were therefore not eligible to be called Hindus.

By itself, this is not an assertion that would be contested by anyone. One doubts if any Christian or a Muslim would be particularly keen to be called a Hindu. Each one of us has every right to be proud of our religion. Different religions may share some common values but some of the values are unique and dear. Any assertion that Indian Muslims and Christians are somehow Hindus can not but be therefore deeply offending to them. Savarkar was therefore quite correct in defining who is a Hindu and who is not.

In the context of the place, he wrote this thesis – a place infested with hard core criminals; the time – 1923, when India was racked by communal disturbances in the aftermath of the infamous Khilafat movement; it is easy to understand his other views. He held forth that Hindus alone could provide the real foundation for the Indian nation.

In the context of the time, we live in – a new millennium, we should define the term Sindhu. They are those who love the land of SaptSindhu as their own, those who claim the rich and diverse history and culture as their own. These are the people – who should be called Sindhus. They may or may not necessarily consider this land as their Holy land – that being the criterion for being called Hindus – not Sindhus.  It is the Sindhus, who alone can provide the real foundation for building a nation worthy of the potential of the land of SaptSindhus. The honour thus belongs equally to Muslims, Christians, Jews, Parsees, Sikhs, Jains, Hindus and others. It can-not be the monopoly of the Hindus. This to me is what Sindhutva all about.

Dr Pankaj K Phadnis, Ph.D.