Hindutva Is Different from Hinduism: Sri Veer Savarkar

Hindutva is different from Hinduism

To this category of names which have been to mankind a subtle source of life and inspiration belongs the word Hindutva, the essential nature and significance of which we have to investigate into. The ideas and ideals, the systems and societies, the thoughts and sentiments which have centered round this name are so varied and rich, so powerful and so subtle, so elusive and yet so vived that the term Hindutva defies all attempts at analysis.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hinduism/23829-hindutva-different-hinduism-sri-veer-savarkar.html

Forty centuries, if not more, had been at work to mould it as it is. Prophets and poets, lawyers and law-givers, heroes and historians, have thought, lived, fought and died just to have it spelled thus. For indeed, is it not the resultant of countless actions- now conflicting, now commingling, now cooperating- of our whole race? Hindutva is not a word but a history.

Not only the spiritual or religious history of our people as at times it is mistaken to be by being confounded with the other cognate term Hinduism, but a history in full. Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of Hindutva. Unless it is made clear what is meant by the latter the first remains unintelligible and vague. Failure to distinguish between these two terms has given rise to much misunderstanding and mutual suspicion between some of those sister communities that have inherited this inestimable and common treasure of our Hindu civilization.

What is the fundamental difference in the meaning of these two words would be clear as our arguement proceeds. Here it is enough to point out that Hindutva is not identical with what is vaguely indicated by the term Hinduism. By an 'ism' it is generally meant a theory or a code more or less based on spiritual or religious dogma or creed. Had not linguistic usage stood in our way then 'Hinduness' would have certainly been a better word than Hinduism as a near parallel to Hindutva.

Hindutva embraces all the departments of thought and activity of the whole Being of our Hindu race. Therefore, to understand the significance of this term Hindutva, we must first understand the essential meaning of the word Hindu itself and realize how it came to exercise such imperial sway over the hearts of millions of mankind and won a loving allegiance from the bravest and best of them. But before we can do that, it is imperative to point out that we are by no means attemption a definition or even a description of the more limited, less satisfactory and essentially sectarian term Hinduism. How far we can succeed or are justified in doing that would appear as we proceed

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

rajkhalsa ji

This is an excellent topic but should not be in this thread. I am going to move it to General Discussions.

To get the most out of the discussion, we should also focus on what is meant by "Hindu." Hindu can be meant as any one of these ideas: a geographical, political, spiritual, religious, cultural, and/or historical term. Hindu is used in various ways depending on the context. As a religion it can refer to a wide variety of paths. It has broad applications in discussion and some times they are very different.

These differences in meaning make the comparison of Hindu with Hindutva a highway to confusion, and at times hostility, if we are not clear in how we mean to use the word "Hindu."

One thing "Hindu" is not: it is not a "race" but the author above states that it is a race. Right away we start with an inaccuracy that reveals the biases of the author. A statement that can lead to needless conflict. That should be pointed out. There are other errors in the article. "Hinduism" existed long before the idea of "Hindutva" was coined. So Hinduism cannot be part of Hindutva. The are related but one does not encompass the other.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=23829
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=23829

Sat Nam

Hindu + Tatva = Hindutva i.e. The essence of Hindu. Hindu is a geographical term and has no direct relation to Religion.

Sri Veer Savarkar has defined Hindutva as

“Aa Sindhu Sindhu paryanta, yasya Bharat bhumika;
Pitrubhuh punyabhushchaiva sa vai Hinduriti smritah.”

There is a vast land between river Sindhu (Indus River) and Indian Ocean (Hind Mahasagar) called Bharat and those who accept that this is their fatherland or / and holy land, land of pilgrimage are all Hindu.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=23829

Thus Hindu has nothing to do with one set of beliefs or practices

Hinduism is not older than 150 years. It has been coined by the British writers. This Hinduism is defined as a religion consisting of many Gods and Goddesses and having brahmin priests to provide guidence.

Unfortunately the people who call themselves Hindus align with the British defined Hinduism rather than what has been their cultural identity and the actual defination. What the Vedas say is just the opposite.

Rajkhalsa ji

How come this word is coined by the British? It has been floating around centuries earlier describing the people and their religious beliefs
Please explain me the following Guru Bachanas about Hindu written a away before 150 years

ਪੰਨਾ 237, ਸਤਰ 12
ਜਾਤਿ ਵਰਨ ਤੁਰਕ ਅਰੁਹਿੰਦੂ॥
जाति वरन तुरक अरु हिंदू ॥
Jāṯ varan ṯurak ar hinḏū.
Social classes, races, Muslims and Hindus;
ਮਃ 5
ਪੰਨਾ 340, ਸਤਰ 6
ਤੁਰਕ ਤਰੀਕਤਿ ਜਾਨੀਐਹਿੰਦੂਬੇਦ ਪੁਰਾਨ ॥
तुरक तरीकति जानीऐ हिंदू बेद पुरान ॥
Ŧurak ṯarīkaṯ jānī▫ai hinḏū beḏ purān.
The Muslim knows the Muslim way of life; the Hindu knows the Vedas and Puraanas.
ਭਗਤ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀ

Well i think you misunderstood Pk70 ji ..the word 'Hinduism' is 150 years old ..The word 'Hindu' is still older since the invasions happened, however i shall not call it Puratan.

Rah Khalsa Ji, They have just used a word to define a group of people having their beliefs, as “Ism means “a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice” So they did nothing wrong by defining already existing doctrine being practiced by a group of people, so my stress was already existing doctrine and its practice through out centuries.. Now lets have look at an idea, I think you like it( I may have assumed, if I am incorrect, forgive me) that is to call Hindu who lives in Hindustan. Literally that is also incorrect, that is why I disagree with it; but let me say for a second, in stead of calling our country India, we should force the world to call it “Hindustan”, right? It is not a bad idea; I will go for that as other countries did it. Then, people living in Hindustan should be called” Hindustani” not Hindu. People living in Pakistan are known as Pakistani, etc. Even the short form is”Hindi” not “Hindu”( Ham Hindi hain, hai ye Hindustan Hamara..)So I feel, unnecessarily this word Hindu that defines people having a doctrine and already they have been practicing it over centuries is being forced upon people who feel uncomfortable with it due to their different faiths and literally its incorrect use in this context. Why so many efforts are put to label citizens with a word that doesn’t match with the word” Hindustan and people living in it are Hindustani” concept? To progress and make a country a winner in the world competition, mature leaders always think about improving the unity of the country than labeling its citizen with some ones’ dreamed word to dent the unity.

The emotions which people have in the word 'Hindu' is quite different related to other name. Now America is a land of multiple faith and culture. If people who are migrants or who are converts to another faith object to the name 'AMERICA' will the native americans want to change the name of the country ??? This is ridiculous.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=23829

I am quoting John Howard ..read this speech ..and this is a message to all who feel Hindustan is not Bharat and want to change..be it people of any faith ..this goes for all of you



Prime Minister John Howard - Australia

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=23829

'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'

'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'

'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,

'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'

'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American and Canadian citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths.

If you agree ... please SEND THIS ON

Hindu race.

Rajkhalsa ji

What is a Hindu "race." If as you say, that "Hindu" as a term has only been around for 100 years, then how can the word Hindu denote a "race?" If this were true, then we would have some very fast-moving gene pools in India.

I do agree that the word "Hindu" is inappropriately applied as if it were a single religion.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=23829
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=23829

Are you also arguing that Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists in India are part of the Hindu race? Or are you headed in this direction?

Raj Khalsa Ji

What all this has to do with a concept of calling people Hindus who live in Hindustan (a country officially known only as Bharat or India?) What John Howard is saying is not relevant in this context; I wonder even why you have quoted him in this context. He is against those who try to dent the unity of the country in their own agendas, people from all faiths are happy to be called Indians or Bharti. India is no where close to Australia and America in context of immigration pursuits therefore such problem is not inevitable at all, so issue is totally different Raj Khalsa ji. The word “American” has no religious doctrine attached to it as the word “Hindu” has save for its primitive resident’s identity and they are well distinguished by addressing them Native Americans. There English has been used for centuries, does it applicable to Hindi in India? Answer is no. Still Hindi is accepted as a national language and it can never be mother tongue of all Indians. My point is very simple, why a person living in HINDUSTAN needs to be called HINDU instead of HINDUSTANI or HINDI? In those countries you mentioned, there are no fourteen languages existed for centuries with full fledged grammars either. Hindu, a term used for people practicing a doctrine for centuries, can how be justified to be used as nationality- expression. There is not a single valid reason for its justification as it is even incorrect in its use.