Hindutva

by V.D. Savarkar

'हिंदुत्व' एक ऐसा शब्द है, जो संपूर्ण मानवजाति के लिए आज भी अपूर्व स्फूर्ति तथा चैतन्य का स्रोत बना हुआ है। इस शब्द से संबद्ध विचार, महान् ध्येय, रीति-रिवाज तथा भावनाएँ कितनी विविध तथा श्रेष्ठ हैं। 'हिंदुत्व' कोई सामान्य शब्द नहीं है। यह एक परंपरा है। एक इतिहास है। यह इतिहास केवल धार्मिक अथवा आध्यात्मिक इतिहास नहीं है। अनेक बार 'हिंदुत्व' शब्द को उसी के समान किसी अन्य शब्द के समतुल्य मानकर बड़ी भूल की जाती है। वैसे यह इतिहास मात्र नहीं है, वरन् एक सर्वसंग्रही इतिहास है। 'हिंदू धर्म', यह शब्द 'हिंदुत्व' से ही उपजा उसी का एक रूप है, उसी का एक अंश है। 'हिंदुत्व' शब्द में एक राष्ट्र, हिंदूजाति के अस्तित्व तथा पराक्रम के सम्मिलित होने का बोध होता है। इसीलिए 'हिंदुत्व' शब्द का निश्चित आशय ज्ञात करने के लिए पहले हम लोगों को यह समझना आवश्यक है कि 'हिंदू' किसे कहते हैं। इस शब्द ने लाखों लोगों के मानस को किस प्रकार प्रभावित किया है तथा समाज के उत्तमोत्तम पुरुषों ने, शूर तथा साहसी वीरों ने इसी नाम के लिए अपनी भक्तिपूर्ण निष्ठा क्यों अर्पित की, इसका रहस्य ज्ञात करना भी आवश्यक है। प्रखर राष्ट्रचिंतक एवं ध्येयनिष्ठ क्रांतिधर्मा वीर सावरकर की लेखनी से निःसृत 'हिंदुत्व' को संपूर्णता में परिभाषित करती अत्यंत चिंतनपरक एवं पठनीय पुस्तक।

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, India, Philosophy, Religion, History, Hinduism

141 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2003

About the author

He was the proponent of liberty as the ultimate ideal. Savarkar was a poet, writer and playwright. He launched a movement for religious reform advocating dismantling the system of caste in Hindu culture, and reconversion of the converted Hindus back to Hindu religion. Savarkar created the term Hindutva, and emphasized its distinctiveness from Hinduism which he associated with social and political disunity. Savarkar’s Hindutva sought to create an inclusive collective identity. The five elements of Savarkar's philosophy were Utilitarianism, Rationalism and Positivism, Humanism and Universalism, Pragmatism and Realism.

Savarkar's revolutionary activities began when studying in India and England, where he was associated with the India House and founded student societies including Abhinav Bharat Society and the Free India Society, as well as publications espousing the cause of complete Indian independence by revolutionary means. Savarkar published The Indian War of Independence about the Indian rebellion of 1857 that was banned by British authorities. He was arrested in 1910 for his connections with the revolutionary group India House.

Following a failed attempt to escape while being transported from Marseilles, Savarkar was sentenced to two life terms amounting to 50 years' imprisonment and moved to the Cellular Jail in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

While in jail, Savarkar wrote the work describing Hindutva, openly espousing Hindu nationalism. He was released in 1921 under restrictions after signing a plea for clemency in which he renounced revolutionary activities. Travelling widely, Savarkar became a forceful orator and writer, advocating Hindu political and social unity. Serving as the president of the Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar endorsed the ideal of India as a Hindu Rashtra and opposed the Quit India struggle in 1942, calling it a "Quit India but keep your army" movement. He became a fierce critic of the Indian National Congress and its acceptance of India's partition, and was one of those accused in the assassination of Indian leader Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He was acquitted as the charges could not be proven.
The airport at Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar's capital, has been named Veer Savarkar International Airport.The commemorative blue plaque on India House fixed by the Historic Building and Monuments Commission for England reads "Vinayak Damodar Savarkar 1883-1966 Indian patriot and philosopher lived here".

Reviews

[Nandakishore Mridula · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unbelievably dangerous right-wing fanaticism. My short review is...

YUCK!!!

Long review is given below.
--------------------------------------------------

Okay, here is the longer review as promised.

Most non-Indians do not know that there are Hindu fundamentalists. For those favourably inclined to it, Hinduism is a religion of tolerance and pluralism, of lofty philosophy preached by serene swamis: for those antagonistic, it is a loony faith which includes yogis lying on beds of nails and people who worship snakes. But try telling them that it can be as intolerant as Christianity or Islam and set out to destroy non-believers, they shake their heads in disbelief.

They are right and wrong at the same time. Hinduism, defined as the set of beliefs which loosely connect the people of the subcontinent, is as tolerant as a religion can be. All gods are accepted as the expression of one supreme essence (the Brahman) which resides within oneself, the realisation of which is the ultimate aim of life. But one need not necessarily strive for it - one can be quite happy worshipping whatever god one likes, and live out a full life.

However, at the end of the last century, a dangerous new idea was brewing in India - that of Hindu nationalism, of carving India out as a "Hindu Rashtra" (Hindu Nation). This found its most fully developed incarnation in the concept of "Hindutva" (Hindu-ness) as expounded by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar ("Veer" Savarkar). This idea , having a strong resemblance to the National Socialism of Hitler is as fanatic as they come. This philosophy is the basic ideology of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), currently in power in India. So while Hinduism is largely tolerant, all Hindus evidently are not.

--------------------------------------------------

As a student, I was attracted towards the BJP: in an aggressively secular democracy which stressed non-religiosity of the government to the extent of purposefully rejecting the common Hindu culture, fearing that it might hurt the sentiments of the minority, perhaps it was only natural. At that time, I understood Hindutva to mean the common inclusive culture of India, which was rejected by many aggressive Muslim clerics. I was upset at this, and did not want the rich literature, art and culture of our country (which is Hindu in nature) to be abandoned to favour minority sentiments.

However, as the ruling centrist-right Indian National Congress weakened, the BJP grew in power: and its cries of Hindu pride grew shriller. Riots started happening sporadically across the country. In 1992, the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, a centuries-old Muslim Mosque was destroyed by a Hindu mob, alleging that it was built by the Mughal emperor Babur on the site of a destroyed temple of the Hindu deity Rama. Atrocities against minorities increased in frequency and ultimately peaked in the mindless carnage of Gujarat in 2002. As I watched, I slowly moved away from the party which contained the Hindu fanatics responsible for this atrocities.

The writing was on the wall, however. The Indian National Congress, lacking any coherent political ideology or leadership was thrashed soundly in the recent parliamentary elections. The BJP swept to power under the man who was Chief Minister of Gujarat during the 2002 riots. For all practical purposes, the ideology of Hindutva had triumphed.

In this context, I thought I should read the slim book which is the root of it all - Hindutva by V. D. Savarkar. Understanding a fascist philosophy is the first step in defending oneself against it.

--------------------------------------------------

For Savarkar, Indian civilisation starts with the arrival of the Aryans. In fact, he dismisses all those existing in the Indian subcontinent at the time of their arrival as "scattered tribes", whose languages were the "Prakrits" (uncultured tongues) which evolved from the immigrants' Sanskrit, which means "cultured". He is also at pains to establish that these original inhabitants were also most probably known as Hindus because Hindu is derived from "Sindhu", the river Indus. Thus, at the outset itself, he establishes Hindutva as tied inseparably to the land. He also makes the astonishing statement that it is certain to have predated Egypt and Babylonia!

Although it would be hazardous at the present stage of oriental research to state definitely the period when the foremost band of intrepid Aryans made it their home and lighted their first sacrificial fire on the banks of the Sindhu, the Indus, yet certain it is that long before the ancient Egyptians, and Babylonians, had built their magnificent celebration, the holy waters of the Indus were daily witnessing the lucid and curling columns of scented sacrificial smokes and the valleys resounding with the chants of Vedic hymns – the spiritual fervour that animated their souls.

Emphasis mine.

Savarkar conveniently forgets the Indus Valley civilisation which had a settled city life, apparently some kind of government, and complex art and religious belief; and which was born, thrived and perished much before the nomadic Aryans ever reached anywhere near India!

(Also, India had a rich collection of Dravidian languages which was in no way linked to Sanskrit. A language of Dravidian origin, Brahui, is still existing in modern-day Pakistan! So the claim that all the languages of India are uncultured versions of Sanskrit is offensive and silly.)

Thus at the outset itself, the intention is clear – the falsification of history to create a false identity for the “Hindu” – the purposeful rejection of pluralism in favour of an identification based on a fabricated story of a mythical “fatherland”. And Savarkar says that he is treading on the “solid ground of recorded facts”!

But it is when the author veers off into areas of conjecture that the whole thing becomes seriously eccentric. He first of all sets out to discredit the Maurya civilisation as the first great Indian civilisation: for him, a great Hindu civilisation as delineated in the Hindu myths preceded it. Recorded history means nothing to Savarkar: he considers it all misreadings (at best) or outright fabrications (at worst) by the West. Rather, he considers the Buddhist era a period of decadence (!) when Hindus were totally enervated by the concept of Ahimsa which left them easy fodder for the Muslim invaders.

(For his examination of the “history” of the Hindu people, Savarkar uses dubious sources like the “Bhavishya Purana”. It seems that he accepts any text which is supportive of Vedic Brahmanism as the gospel (!) truth. Whether this is due to genuine belief or political agenda, we can only conjecture.)

Now the author goes on to establish that, in spite of all the differences of caste, creed and colour, Indians are one people – which is true and what is beneficial for the country, anyway – but then, puts the final spin on the ball when his fundamentalist agenda suddenly comes out baring its claws and teeth, casting aside its mask of patriotism. Savarkar writes:

But can we, who here are concerned with investigating into facts as they are and not as they should be, recognise these Mohammedans as Hindus? Many a Mohammedan community in Kashmir and other parts of India as well as the Christians in South India observe our caste rules to such an extent as to marry within the pale of their castes alone; yet, it is clear that though their Hindu blood is thus almost unaffected by alien adulteration, yet they cannot be called Hindus in the sense in which that term is actually understood, because we Hindus are bound together not only by the tie of love we bear to a common fatherland and by the common blood which courses through our veins and keeps our hearts throbbing and our affections warm, but also by the tie of common homage we pay to our great civilisation – our Hindu culture, which could not be better rendered than by the word Sanskriti suggestive as it is of that language, Sanskrit, which has been the chosen means of expression and preservation of that culture, of all that was best and worth preserving in the history of our race.

In short – Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains are in: Christians and Muslims out. Why? Because they don’t consider India as their “Holy-land” (Punyabhumi) in addition to their fatherland: for them, the Holy Land is Jerusalem or Mecca. So, as long as they remain tied to their Abrahamic religion which traces their origin from the Levant, they cannot be accepted as Hindus.

(Interestingly, Savarkar leaves the Jews and Farsis out of it. Jews mostly, I think, because the RSS have been supporters of Zionism since day one, and vice versa: also because Jews and Farsis were not proselytising religions so he did not perceive them as threat.)

Now Savarkar launches into his real agenda. He says that he is not criticising or lamenting, but stating a simple fact. Christians and Muslims cannot be accepted as Hindus (according him, this means Indians) unless they accept India as their Holy Land, by forswearing their allegiance to their “foreign” origins – this effectively means abandoning their religion in the current format.

-------------------------------------------------

Thus, the philosophy strikes at the roots of secularism. If India adopts “Hindutva” as its guiding principle and starts rewriting the constitution, Hinduism may not become its official religion: minorities may be allowed to practice their beliefs in private. But the nation will be governed by laws based on the principles set forth in this venomous tract . All people who do not toe the “Hindutva” line will have to live as second class citizens.

From that to the concentration camps is only a minor step.

Think I am overreacting? The statements by certain elected representatives during the past six-plus months of the BJP government, leave aside the war-chants of the Hindu fundamentalist groups, should set every intelligent Indian thinking.

Update (04/10/2015)

Some recent news items from India.

Hindu Mob Lynches Muslim Man Suspected Of Killing And Eating A Cow

Choice of ICHR chief reignites saffronisation debate

HRD Ministry set to spark another controversy; proposes rewriting Vedic chronology

Intimidation of a minority by mob "justice".

Takeover of cultural institutions.

Rewriting history to suit political ends.

Does it remind you of anything, folks?

[Hariprasad · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book. An absolute must read for all Hindus. Crystal clear conception of who a Hindu is, what Hinduism is, and how Hindutva is the over-arching umbrella for the former two.

[Jennifer Jacobs · Rating 1 out of 5]

It's a hate manual.After reading this book,I smell Nazism and I hate that smell!
Hindutva is a maligned version of Hinduism!And this book in particular reeks of Xenophobia!Muslims and Xtians should not be considered as equal to Hindus as they have their holylands elsewhere??Welp,that makes NO sense and I hope BJP doesn't follow this line in the future in India's national policy!
Hinduism is a much benign religion and confined to Indian subcontinent where 94% of Hindus live,there's no prosetylzation in Hinduism,no 'Holybook' inspired idiotic homophobia,no scorn for humanists/atheist etc and that makes it unique!Unfortunately this distortion of Hinduism leads to same dreadful extremism of Islamist Jihad and Christian crusades and it's really unfortunate!
In the end,any1 who agrees with 'Aryans' and Nazism doesnt have my sympathies!So 0 stars!

[Ashish Iyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book really gave me something to think about. Shatter so many thinking or assumption of mine.
There is a common misunderstanding to use the term Hindutva interchangeably with Hinduism, which should not be done. Hinduism is only a derivative of Hindutva. At best it is a sectarian term, with a positive connotation. Even if one is an atheist, as long as one agrees that this land is his pitrubhumi (Father land) he is still Hindu. Hence, Hindutva is an inclusive concept.
In this book Savarkar talks about loyalty to Pitrabhumi(Fatherland) and punyabhumi(holy land). He ask those who are loyal to fatherland and holy land are hindus. If the holy land and Father land are different ones, then loyalty toward India is not there. For Hindus India is their Holy land and also their Father land. Same case is for other religion like Sikhism, Jainism or Buddhism etc. Many of foreign belief are still loyal to our fatherland like parsi (Zoroastrianism) and jews (Judasim). But the problem is for some of those people who converted to foreign belief, their holy land outside India have temptation to place allegiance towards their holy-land over and above their father land is possible, it is precisely for this reason we have today Pakistan and Bangladesh which is created out of India.

Remember Tukde Tukde gang(communism), that’s what he is talking about. There are so many elements who wants to divide India. He wrote this book before Independence. Now you can see Pakistan and Bangladesh is long gone.

Kashmir is still an issue. Some separatist are trying to divide Kashmir from India, of course with the help of sympathizer who are living in India.
Look for Khalistan movement. Some Indians are involve in separating Punjab from India. Funding from foreign and with the help of Pakistan. Recently Aam Aadmi Party have link in this movement.

Look for Dravida Nadu. There were some Dravidian parties who wanted to separate south Indian states from India. The movement for Dravida Nadu was at its height from the 1940s to 1960s, it failed to find any support outside Tamil Nadu. Thank god many tamilians were loyal to India.

So yes, Look beyond this book and everything. This book mentioned hard facts. Communist, pseudo secular and separatist hate this book, they will give 1 ratings. I don’t give a damn about them. Country always comes first.

That’s why Veer Savarkar ask Indians to stay united, stay as one race, stay together. He ask for allegiance towards holy land as well as fatherland.

You will always see low rating in this book. So read this book on your own without any others opinion. Because history is always written by winner. By winner I mean 1st govt was created by left wing and they slowly erased history of Veer Savarkar and now some of them even trying stained his name. He was great thinker. The problem in India is history is never written from neutral point of view.

Must read for every Indian.

[Sathyanarayanan D · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful exposition and original thinking by Sarvarkar on theorizing Hindutva.

Few important themes in my opinion.

1. If the holy land and Father land are different ones for the people living in India or for that matter for the people of any Nation, the allegiance of such groups is torn between these two extremes. For Hindus India is their Holy land and also their Father land. This is also not a problem with the Sister communities of Hindus like Sikhism, Jainism or Buddhism etc., But this is especially a problem with people who were converted to foreign belief systems through sword and through other means of duress like Muslims and Christians because their holy land is lying else where in the middle eastern deserts and the temptation to place allegiance towards their holy-land over and above their father land is possible, it is precisely for this reason we have today Pakistan which is created out of India.

2. That it is a common misunderstanding to use the term Hindutva interchangeably with Hinduism, which should not be done. Hinduism is only a derivative of Hindutva. At best it is a sectarian term, with a positive connotation. Even if one is an atheist, as long as one agrees that this land is his pitrubhumi (Father land) he is still Hindu. Hence, Hindutva is an inclusive concept.

[Hindu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book of hindu culture

[Vipin Sirigiri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hindutva believes in the concept of Hindu nationalism wherein by modern day definitions, all Indian religious communities except Islam, Christianity and Parsis are Hindus and thereby India has always been a de facto Hindu nation.

Anyone whose ancestors are from Hindustan (thereby making it their Pitrubhumi), their cultures and traditions are similar, acknowledges Hindu history (Ramayana and Mahabharata) and believes that Hindustan is their holy land (of gods, thereby Punya Bhumi) is defined as a Hindu.

The book runs on a compelling narrative invoking various battles of Hindus protecting their motherland against external attacks and calls for unifying again to become a superpower. It goes on to share essentials implications of Hindutva, difference between Hindu, Hinduism and Hindutva; the foundations of Hindu nation, commingling of races, importance of Vedas in shorter essays. There is absolutely no uncertainty regarding extensive cherry picking of examples to suit the narrative wherein certain religions communities could qualify for being Hindu and others would be out-rightly rejected. The ease, conviction and confidence of the text and author in re-defining, manufacturing or tailoring believes is certainly very amusing.

How do you rate such a book? On author's storytelling or your own prejudice? I chose to rate it based on author's convincing power that certainly could make gullible masses become its hardliner followers! Everyone should read it, either to become it's proponents or reluctant opponents.

[The Conch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Future of Hindus are grim. Whether Hindus could survive another 100 years? Can they resist attacks from slimy christianity and violent islam? Hindus must consolidate by throwing away all nonsense secularism, all religions equal bla bla... and stand to establish Hindu Rashtra. The words of these books, the thoughts of Shri Savarkarji is becoming more crucial day by day.

[Guruprasad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must Read Book for all the Hindu/Indic People , Such a Clarity of thoughts expressed in this Book makes us realize why Savarkar is hated by Left Liberals and Congress .

[Surender Negi · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very well articulate book on Political unification of Hinduism and myth-breaker for those who wanted to hate any other ideology than pseudo-secularism.

while we agree on what Savarkar said on this book or not? The question of dissent and expression of freedom shall be upheld by any civilized society. Unfortunately, in recent "War of Ideas", right wings fail to accumulate the general sympathy and branded as "manic""xenophobe""racist" slangs. However, for me who has been neutral on many topics, consider such books as the catalyst who always save a civilization to diluted in nothing.

Hinduism has faced wrath of religious expansion more than 1000 years by Mughals and 300 years mental and physical slavery of white supremacist. A common Hindu is a display of "broken and mentally slave" child of British and Mugal.
Savarkar in is book, analyze the reason behind this defeat and he comes up with a unified ideology- Hindutva

This is must read book for every Hindu or Indian (you agree or not.)

[S.Ach · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pongalswamy : No No. You are getting it wrong. Hinduism is different. Hindutva is different. You tell her. You just read the book (looking at me).

Sarah : He doesn't need to tell me. I know. Hinduism is all encompassing liberal religion. Hindutva is just hating Muslims.

PongalSwamy : You are prejudiced. Brainwashed by leftists. Hindutva is a way of life. The way of life of all Hindus. Tell her (Giving an angry look now).

Me : Well I am still confused.

Pongalswamy : That you are always. It is such a clear and concise book. The best book on the subject ever written. What is the confusion?

Me : Who is a Hindu and who is not? What is the purpose of the book? Why major portion (more than 2/3rd of the book is devoted to justify that the term Hindu has been there in India from Vedic times and not originated from Iranian or Western sources?

Pongalswamy : Let's go one by one. First about the word 'Hindu'. Of course, it is our own word. Sindhu.

Me : So we are Sindhus? And our country is Sindhusthan?

Pongalswamy : According to Vedic scriptures - Yes.

Me : But Savarkar mainly quotes from Bhavishya Puran from the ancient times. Isn't that the most controversial of all the scriptures, authenticity of which is questioned by scholars?

Pongalswamy : Only by the western Mlechhas and leftist idiots. Who cares what they think? Sindhu is a common term to denote all people of Indus valley civilizaiton from Vedic times.

Me : Then why not quote its reference from the Vedas or Upanishads or Mahabharat or Ramayan?

Pongalswamy : Doesn't matter. It is written in Bhabisya Purana. Sindhu is an eternal word. As Veer Savarkarjee said, S has been mispronounced as H.

Me : Then why stick to the mis-pronouncement? Since, there is clear distinction between religious Hindus and Hindutva Hindus, why not call the latter as Sindhus?

Sarah : I am telling you, the word is used just to confuse people.

Pongalswamy : Hindu is now more accepted term.

Sarah : But what you call Hindu and what world calls Hindu is different.

Pongalswamy : Of course. But where is the confusion? According to Veer, Hindus are 'All those who love the land that stretches from Sindhu to Sindhu, from the Indus to the Seas, as their fatherland and consequently claim to inherit the blood of the race that has evolved by incorparation and adaptation, from the ancient Saptasindhus.'

Me : So my friend Vikram Jain is a Hindu?

Pongalswamy : Religion point of view, he is a Jain. But Hindutva point of view, he is Hindu.

Me : What about Dilabar Singh?

Pongalswamy : Sikh. But Hindutva Hindu.

Me : How about our gardener Murmu uncle? He is from tribal part of Odisha. Ancestors tribal. Culture very different. Rituals very different. Completely none political. Doesn't understand much of modern ways of life.

Pongalswamy : We will take him as Hindu. Both religion and Hindutva.

Me : Hussain Mir?

Pongalswamy : Grrr… Of course Non Hindu.

Me : But, he is born between Sindhu to Sindhu. All his ancestors have been here as long as he remembers. And of course he loves this land. And clearly he inherits the blood. He also celebrates Holi with me.

Pongalswamy : He has a different blood. Different culture.

Me : What are you talking about? He is of the same race. I am sure some of his ancestor would have converted from Hinduism to Islam.

Pongalswamy : Does he admit that?

Me : How can he deny that?

Pongalswamy : But still he is not Hindutva Hindu. Cause he violates one big tenet. And that is he has to consider this has his Holy Land. And not Arab. So no Muslims can be ever Hindutva Hindu

Sarah : I am telling you, the whole definition is formed to exclude Muslims.

Pongalswamy : Even Christians are not Hindus. As they pray to Vatican.

Me : OK. Fine. Tell me what about Sarah. Is she Hindu?

Pongalswamy : Of course, Not. She is a communist. She is left liberal. She is completely westernized. She eats beef. She is not Hindu.

Sarah : Thank you. I don't need that label. You keep it to yourself. I am happy being a non Hindu. I am a law abiding patriotic Indian citizen. And that's all I want. I am proud of my Indian heritage which included Hindus and Non Hindus.

Pongalswamy : All Hindus will unite and throw away all non Hindus one day.

Sarah : In your dreams.

Me : Hold on. Hold on. Let's not fight. We are not in a TV show. We are trying to understand the book. So, what about my friend Nangpung Ling. He is from Bali. Observes Hinduism. But parentage Indonesian.

Pongalswamy : Religion - Hindu. Hindutva - non Hindu.

Me : Julia Roberts?

Pongalswamy : Religion - converted Hindu. Hindutva - well if she loves India, we will accept her as we did to Sister Nibedita or Annie Besant. But she has to marry a Hindu. Possibly me.

Sarah : Sure. She is coming to you in the next flight.

Me : What about your brother's son who is born and brought up in US, who is an ardent follower of Hinduism, but an US citizen, nevertheless?

Pongalswamy : Hindu. Hindu. Sweet boy.

Me : But she is marrying a Christian girl. What about their kid?

Pongalswamy : I agree, his blood becomes impure. When he grows up, we will ask him. If he loves India, then yes. else Non Hindu.

Me : But my friend Safina loves India. She is more Indian than anyone I know. Wears only Saree. Hates western food and culture. She is married to Ravi who is an atheist though. Is she Hindu?

Pongalswamy : Ravi Yes. Safina - Never in this life time.

Sarah : Told you. Segregation. Racist, hate manual.

Pongalswamy : You commiee libtard pseudo-intellecutal anti-Hindus, who don't have guts to condemn the Islamic extremism and you call yourself seculars? You can never understand. Those who consider this as Fatherland and Holy land and inherit the blood and consider the sadhus as their Gurus are Hindus. Rest are ……… The book doesn't divide, but unites. All hindus. There is not a single line in the book that talks against Muslims or any other communities. Is there?

Me : So, what do you think is the purpose of the book?

Pongalswamy : To bring back our lost identity. To make us feel proud once again. To show the world who we are and who we are not. Who are us and who are them. What is part of our history and what is not. Our civilization was the best. No one has the past that we had. What our saints invented, the current so called nobel laureates can't even understand. Our scriptures are the best. So scientific. Our philosophies were superior. Our kings were the most powerful. Our people were the richest.

Me : You use the past tense to describe us. Isn't it even more crude form of 'Janta hai mera baap kaun hai?' It is good to be proud of your past, but shouldn't we see what we are today and how can we be better tomorrow - ....(together?)....?

Pongalswamy : Hindus will unite under one nationalism. Hindu Rashtra will rule the world. We will be the no. 1 nation. Wait and see. Process has already started. You just wait and see.

Sarah : My head is reeling. I need a drink.

Pongalswamy : Jai Shri Ram. Jai Hindu Rashtra.

[Abhinav Singh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read the original work of Savarkar for first time. One thing is sure that he was brilliant par excellence. The way he connected the nation as the holy land is great. It took me 3 days to understand the very first page.
Shri Savarkar is a true prophet of Hindutva, the ideology given by him which paved way for many of his followers.

[Surender Negi · Rating 3 out of 5]

"A Hindu means a person who regards this land of Bharat Varsha, from Indus to the seas as his father land as well as his holy land that is the cradle land of his religion" - By Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

"Hindutva", yes !! the same term which being beaten thousand times by leftist, communist, regionalism bigot, Dravid ideologist and western pseudo liberals as a communal ideology. This book is about "Hindutva". Moreover, I think this book about more than that.

Many leftist and western Indologist tried hard to define this term with Hitler ideology or create something religious communism out of it. but failed to prove it. I believe that "Action louder than words" work for Hindutva.

In this book which had been written by Savarkar with help of a coal piece and white washed wall of a cellular jail under British rule has become one of the most influential books for millions in India. " "Swatantra" is another book which has been written by the same writer.
Moreover, the portrayal of that ideology (Hindutva) which is being imposed on Indian subconscious mind as a communal ideology slowly getting shaped in something as a National identity. The hard work of socialist, secularist movement to over come Dalit atrocities been failed in last 70 years. These movements have not solved the problem but even spread communal hatred towards "Brahman" community which has been seen some time on the surface of India. deconstruction of India (in name of post modern reforms) has been played under the garb of reformation of Hinduism in name of region, language and communities. India has tried everything for becoming look alike west but everything is failed due to wrong analytical theories of communist and leftist. Let's start the show:-

Savarkar "Hindutva" gives a unique answer for the problems of India which is a regionalism, language diversities, Dalit atrocities. Savarkar ideas of Unified identity under the Hindutva says "Everyone who is born in India, should acknowledge the facts of roots of India itself. They must acknowledge the cross culture welding during the time of Buddhist and Hinduism. he said Hindutva should be taken as national identity of ancient India and foundation shall be built on truth. He said, Islam and Christianity shall be identified as foreign religion and adherent of both faiths has to be welded with Indian ness like Jews, Parsis been welded during the course of time. Acknowledgement of their ancestor faith as Hinduism will over come to the identity crises amongst people of Islam and Christianity.

May leftist can argue that it is the imposition of faith. But I bluntly denied. we all know from the diaries and biography of invaders that both religions were foreigners to this land. And people who converted mostly were Hindus. Accepting the truth will allow them welding as an another sect of Hinduism with the culture they hybrid in India. An assumption that they came from outside irrespective of blunt truth in front of them, will give the identity crises which can lead to extremism to prove their identity in this framework of India. Moreover, they can be easy tools of the influence of foreign ideology like Wahabism, Christan jingoism etc.

[mahesh · Rating 4 out of 5]

After finishing reading this book, I am confused about whether to agree or disagree with his revolutionary opinion which protected us from fanatics of Europe and Arab nations. Though I don't have any reason to disagree with his opinion, I have my skepticism to agree with his opinion due to my lack of knowledge on this unexplored idea.

Reading this book is not an easy task, Excessive rich vocabulary is a bit daunting for readers because it is difficult to stay focused or attentive between the sentence. Due to that, I was able to grasp only important concepts and with the rest, I was lost.

He has used puranic stories, the Hindhu ruler's valor, and social changes across India to convince the readers of the importance of Hindutva and its existence from ancient times. His convincing skills are really powerful and inspiring.



Sarvakar clearly points out the distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva from the beginning of the book. Hindutva term is new to me, so I am not knowledgeable enough to write a review on Hindutva or on this book. Maybe after exploring the core ideas of Hindutva.

This is a must-read book for every Hindhu who wants to understand Hindutva and the ideas of being a Hindu.



The way he has conveyed his ideas, Ignite the fire of nationhood and prepare every nerve of you to sacrifice for your motherland.

Below two ideas are worth consideration. But I do suggest you read an entire book to understand these two below ideas to avoid considering them as radical.

"If the holy land and Fatherland are different ones for the people living in India or for that matter for the people of any Nation, the allegiance of such groups is torn between these two extremes. For Hindus, India is their Holy land and also their Fatherland. This is also not a problem with the Sister communities of Hindus like Sikhism, Jainism or Buddhism, etc., But this is especially a problem with people who were converted to foreign belief systems through sword and through other means of duress like Muslims and Christians because their holy land is lying elsewhere in the middle eastern deserts and the temptation to place allegiance towards their holy-land over and above their fatherland is possible, it is precisely for this reason we have today Pakistan which is created out of India."

" That it is a common misunderstanding to use the term Hindutva interchangeably with Hinduism, which should not be done. Hinduism is only a derivative of Hindutva. At best it is a sectarian term, with a positive connotation. Even if one is an atheist, as long as one agrees that this land is his pitrubhumi (Fatherland) he is still Hindu. Hence, Hindutva is an inclusive concept."

[avahardyam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every time I read Savarkar, I feel him come alive, such is his writing. And what clarity he does possess, to express his thoughts in such excellent prose and detail; calls himself an atheist, but indulges in much less reductionism of Hindu culture. But, Savarkar's ideals are a good initiator for a sleeping Hindu, but not an end. There's much more to learn and change.

I disagree with his definition of Hindu. His definition is "the feels" one, which is absurd. Will सनातन धर्म be alive if the traditions (among which are the शास्त्र, इतिहास-पुराण and वेदs) aren't a foundation of being Hindu? He includes even hedonists and atheists, which is strictly excluded as per स्मृतिs.

Savarkar moreover gives examples of वेदव्यास, kunti माता, कर्ण, Ghatotkacha etc as examples of various inter-varna marriages, all of which can be argued against or proved wrong (but i won't here because I'm tired).

Anyway, his 6 epochs is an excellent book too, and he's written things I find surprising coming from him.

[Vanshika Gaur · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wish everyone was made to read this book in school. We have been misguided to accept each sect of the Indian society to be different from one another. But, in reality we are all one. We are all Hindus of Hindustan. We are one nation, one race , one culture. We are one blood. The blood that runs through our veins is the same that ran through those of our common forefathers. We are the descendants of one civilisation that evolved on the banks of Sindhu River and from whose breast our forefathers drank the milk of life. More than Bharatwaasis , we are all Hindus. Let that identity we hold keep us United in all respects and press us to become a leading race in the world. The land of Hindustan extending form Sindhu to Sindhu is our Matribhu, Pitribhu and Punyabhu. We are one. 'Hindus we are and love to remain so!'

[Pradeep Rajput · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gives a complete idea of who Hindu is, Hindu a nation first

[Sumallya Mukhopadhyay · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Essentials of Hindutva, Savarkar
In order to resist your enemies, it is important to know everything about them.
That’s why I decided to read Savarkar’s “The Essentials of Hindutva”. Interestingly, I was reading Savarkar and Kancha Ilaiah at the same time. Though different in their approach, both these individuals were driven by a sense of urgency that is reflected in their writings. Savarkar’s politics is intrinsically laced with him being a Hindu—he proudly asserts this in the opening section—while Ilaiah’s brand of political thought springs from his Dalit identity. A fruitful comparative study of these two figures is beyond the scope of this review. So, I will stick to Savarkar’s text that I finished.
Savarkar is not concerned with religion though his main argument is associated with his religious identity. Moving well beyond the ethno-religious paradigm, his nationalism is defined by three key ingredients: Sanskriti (Culture), Rashtriya (State) and Jati (People). His focus is on the history of the Hindus where he introduces the term “Hindutva” to differentiate the political movement from the religious-centric exclusive definition of Hinduism. Despite being critical of the ways Buddhism tried to gain territorial possession in Bharat/Sindhusthan/Hindusthan, Savarkar bends in obeisance before the Buddha. Intriguing as it might seem, Savarkar’s Hindutva rhetoric appears quite inclusive as opposed to the ways it is preached and practised these days in South Asia. Ilaiah’s scathing attack on the Hindutva forces in 20th century India rested on its exclusivist politics that moved to the fringes of the societal set-up the minorities, especially the Dalits. Savarkar, however, recognizes the presence of tribes were settled in Bharat and admits that many a times they offered themselves as guides to the Aryans (p.6). He categorically avers that all institution, such as the caste system, are part of the society, but societies should not be moulded to accommodate a particular institution. For instance, religions that do not recognize caste system are well and truly Hindus according to Savarkar on account of considering Hindusthan/Sindhusthan as their Pitri Bhoomi (father Land) and also their Puniya Land (Sacred Land). “That a man can be as truly a Hindu as any without believing even in the Vedas as an independent religious authority is quite clear from the fact that thousands of our Jain brethren, not to mention others, are for generations calling themselves Hindus and would even to this day feel hurt if they be called otherwise” (p.29). Thus, in a way, he goes on to construct, what can be called, the “Generic Enemies”—that is, Muslims. A Muslim would rather consider Mecca to be his sacred land than attributing it to be India. The same applies to a Christian too. Savarkar’s invocation of the Muslim invaders in the section “Foreign Invaders” has a definite purpose of constructing an image of the Muslim “Other” against the Hindu “Self”.
It is not possible to judge a manifesto for it is just not a piece of literature. Though it does not align with my brand of politics, I’ll recommend the book to all those who want to read about the initiation of the right-wing Hindutva movement in Indian subcontinent.

[Aaditya · Rating 4 out of 5]

For those who want to understand the true meaning of hindutva. It explains the idea of Hindutva and binds it in a really nice way the true idea and reason behind the ideology is presented in beautiful way. It explicitly explain the essentials of being a hindu and who is a hindu and explore the racial and national aspects of it.

A nice book to understand the real meaning of Hindutva from its formulator which changes the readers perspective upon the original ideas and the reasons and logic behind it explained fairly short in order to no loose the true essence but at the same time not going to much in detail so that anyone who recently started learning on topic could understand

Although the time it was written at is reflected by him mentioning about Aryans invasion but he seems skeptical or had mixed thought upon that and dosent supports it completely thats a bit outdated part, other than everything else stands true even today.

I started reading it after learning about the religious and cultural philosophy of V.D. Savarkar and would recommend it to anyone seeking to understand Hindutva as it is.

[Suparnkumar Sathe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great presentation of a philosophy, backed by humongous research work. A Must read for every Indian and every Hindu!

[Yoganand Kulkarni · Rating 5 out of 5]

Only true patriot pen can go this far. His writing is ahead of his time and this time is now.
S A L U T E !

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

My trysts with my Master

There are books one simply reads, books one wrestles with, and books that silently infiltrate the bloodstream until one day they become indistinguishable from the self. ‘Hindutva’ by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar belongs to this last category for me, though I did not arrive at this acceptance easily or blindly. I tested him the way a student tests a philosopher, the way a pilgrim tests a mountain: circling, measuring, challenging, doubting, returning.

And after years of this long interior tapas, I found myself bowing to him not as an icon, not as an unquestionable authority, but as ‘‘Karmaguru’’—the guru of action, discipline, clarity, and civilizational remembrance.

In the same vein that one accepts Swami Vivekananda, not as a momentary fascination but as a karmic inheritance.

Reading ‘Hindutva’ is like stepping into a paradox: a book written during the tremors of modernity but breathing with rhythms older than history itself. In the postmodern sense, I see it now as a palimpsest—layer upon layer of anxiety, memory, myth, geography, and philosophical yearning.

Beneath the polemics are buried centuries of civilizational instinct; beneath the definitions are the ghosts of a thousand migrations; beneath the urgency is a dreadful loneliness, the loneliness of a man who tried to bind a scattered nation with words forged in the furnace of his own suffering.

The first time I read it, I thought I was encountering a political tract. Years later, I understood I was encountering a man.

Savarkar begins by insisting that Hindutva is not a word but a history. The ‘simplicity’ of that line belies the radical philosophical gesture underlying it. Nation not as an administrative entity, not as a religious grouping, not as a racial category—but as an accumulated cultural samskāra. ‘“यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह”‘—’where words fall back, unable to grasp the essence.’

Reading him through that Upanishadic lens, I realised he was not proposing a crisp, frozen definition. He was proposing a horizon—something one moves toward, knowing that articulation will always fall slightly short.

He imagines the nation the way Heraclitus imagines the river:

“No man ever steps in the same river twice.”

But Savarkar adds silently: ‘Yet the river remains ours.’

What fascinates me is how modern and ancient this gesture is at once. It is Benedict Anderson’s “imagined community,” Derrida’s spectral hauntology, Homi Bhabha’s “nation as narration”—and simultaneously it is the Mahabharata’s sense of continuity, the Rig Veda’s civilizational hum vibrating across millennia. When he speaks of “Fatherland, Motherland, Holyland,” he is not drawing a boundary; he is drawing a mandala.

I have come to read Savarkar not as a nationalist in the narrow sense, but as one of the last philosophers of civilizational unity. The Greeks understood this. Aeschylus wrote, “We suffer into truth.”

Savarkar suffered into his doctrine.

In Andaman’s darkness he turned pain into clarity, isolation into introspection, despair into intellectual rebellion. It is impossible to forget that while writing the ideas that would later become ‘Hindutva’, he was a prisoner, reduced almost to pure mind.

“‘उद्धरेदात्मनाऽत्मानं’”—’raise yourself by yourself’—the Gītā whispers. Savarkar embodied it in the most literal way any modern Indian ever has.

But the most startling experience of ‘Hindutva’ for me was discovering that beneath the combative sentences lies a profound rationalist. The caricature of Savarkar—angry, rigid, doctrinaire—crumbles the moment one actually reads him. Here is a man who mocks miracle, rejects superstition, questions ritual excess, insists on historical method, and scoffs at metaphysical literalism.

“‘न हि ज्ञानेन सदृशं पवित्रमिह विद्यते’”—’there is no purifier like knowledge’ (Gītā 4.38).

Most political ideologues use scripture to protect belief; Savarkar uses it to protect reason.

His use of myth is equally misrepresented and misunderstood. He never presents myth as theology; he presents it as what Nietzsche would call ‘metaphysical comfort’, as a cultural archive, a repository of collective memory. Like T. S. Eliot stitching fragments into the tapestry of ‘The Waste Land’, Savarkar stitches ancient stories into the broken psyche of colonised India to restore continuity.

When he tells the story of Rama or Krishna or the Vedic wanderers, he is not asking me to believe the literal; he is asking me to recognise the psychological inheritance that binds millions who have never met each other. Myth, for him, is civilizational glue.

The postmodern complexity lies precisely here: a doctrine that appears rigid on the surface is actually fluid beneath it, drawing from anthropology, philology, history, geography, psychology, and epic imagination. The man is not simplifying India; he is attempting to articulate the subtle vibration that holds India together despite its maddening multiplicity. ‘“एकोऽहम् बहुस्याम्”‘—’I am one, may I become many.’

Savarkar is merely reversing the equation: the many must recognise their underlying one-ness.

There is something deeply Upanishadic about this gesture. There is also something profoundly Greek. Plato believed in a Form behind every form, an Ideal behind every manifestation. Savarkar seeks the Form of Indian identity—not a theological form, not a racial form, but a civilizational one.

Critics who accuse him of narrowness have not understood that his project is actually an expansion: he is widening identity beyond sect, creed, ritual, language, and theology to something more primal—the feeling of belonging to a continuous historical arc. Shakespeare knew this sentiment when he wrote, “What’s past is prologue.”

But Savarkar improves upon it: the past is not prologue; it is infrastructure.

Of course, the contentious aspect of ‘Hindutva’ cannot be wished away. Its definitions have consequences; its boundaries have implications. In the intemperance of my youth, I have read him with suspicion, with argument. I have wondered whether his categories exclude too much, whether his civilizational insistence risks erasing lived fluidity. But each time I returned to him, I found not dogma but a man in a historical crisis trying to rescue a civilization he saw slipping into amnesia. If one reads him not as a prophet but as a prisoner-turned-theorist, the moral landscape shifts.

He is not speaking from power; he is speaking from precarity.

No one who reads the Andaman letters, or the poetry scratched in charcoal, or the descriptions of forced labour and chains, can accuse Savarkar of constructing identity out of arrogance. He constructs it out of desperation, courage, and a feverish sense of duty. Shakespeare’s Lear on the heath comes to mind:

“I will do such things—
What they are, yet I know not; but they shall be
The terrors of the earth.”

Savarkar, however, is not threatening history; he is begging it to hold together.

My own relationship with ‘Hindutva’ turned from opposition to interrogation to reluctant respect to, finally, acceptance. Not acceptance of every line—no great thinker deserves blind acceptance—but of the central ethic that binds the text: the ethic of karma. “‘कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन’”—’You have the right only to action, not to its fruits.’

Savarkar lives in that shloka far more than in any polemic written in his name.

And that is how he became ‘‘Karmaguru’’ for me:

Not through ideology.

Not through identity.

Not through political convenience.

But through the sheer integrity of a life lived in relentless action.

A life that refused passivity.

A life that kept moving even when the world shrank to the size of a dungeon cell.

Marcus Aurelius would have approved. “Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.” Savarkar did not argue identity; he enacted it. He built institutions, wrote histories, revived memory, organised social reform, fought caste injustice, imagined unity, mobilised people, mastered languages, mastered suffering, mastered himself.

The modern world, obsessed with posture, cannot comprehend a man who believed that work was worship long before it became a slogan.

As I read ‘Hindutva’ now, I see that it is less a doctrine and more a mirror. Some see nationalism; some see exclusion; some see cultural pride; some see historical anxiety. I saw, gradually, my own questions reflected back at me:

Who am I within the civilizational arc?

What am I heir to?

What am I responsible for?

What binds me to those who lived a thousand years before me and those who will live a thousand years after me?

“‘तमेव विदित्वाऽतिमृत्युमेति’”—’Knowing that alone, one transcends death.’

Savarkar’s quest was for civilizational transcendence, not personal immortality.

If a text survives a century of violent debate, it means it still has sparks buried in its pages. ‘Hindutva’ is such a text—not because it answers everything, but because it provokes everything. It compels me to rethink identity, belonging, unity, history, myth, memory, responsibility. It demands engagement, not obedience.

It forces one to wrestle with it and, in wrestling, to discover one’s own muscles.

And so here I stand, after years of circling Savarkar, after doubting him, resisting him, arguing with him, returning to him, and finally recognising the clarity he offered—not as dogma but as discipline.

He is not my idol; he is my Karmaguru. A companion on the path of work, courage, and civilizational remembering. A reminder that nations, like humans, survive not by miracle but by effort.

And a voice, still resonant after a hundred years, telling me what Krishna once told Arjuna: “‘स्वधर्मे निधनं श्रेयः’”—’Better to die in one’s own dharma.’

That is how ‘Hindutva’ lives within me—not as a slogan, not as a politics, but as a call to action. A fire in the chest. A continuity in the bloodstream. A hard, luminous truth:

That the work remains.

That the karma remains.

And therefore, so must I.

A Savarkarite to the end.

[Vijay · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great !!

[J · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful book and a must-read for every Hindu to understand one's own history and origin.

[नीलाभ · Rating 5 out of 5]

हिन्दुत्व व हिन्दू राष्ट्रवाद के सिद्धान्तों पर इससे उत्कृष्ट पुस्तक कदाचित् ही अन्य होगी। यदि कहा जाये कि प्रस्तुत लघु ग्रंथ में श्री सावरकर ने "गागर में सागर" भरने का कार्य किया है, तो यह कथन किञ्चित् मात्र भी अतिश्योक्ति न होगा।

ई० १९३७ में रचित यह ग्रंथ सर्वप्रथम 'हिन्दू' व 'हिन्दुत्व', इन शब्दों को अकाट्य रूप से परिभाषित करते हुए रूढ़िवादी जाति-व्यवस्था व अस्पृश्यता के उन्मूलन, संख्याबल के महत्त्व व एतदर्थ शुद्धि-आन्दोलन की आवश्यकता, आत्यन्तिक अहिंसावाद की विद्रूपता के सत्य इत्यादि चिर-प्रासंगिक विषयों पर प्रकाश डालता है; साथ ही साथ उल्लिखित समस्याओं के समीचीन हल हेतु रूपरेखा प्रस्तुत कर मार्गदर्शिका का अत्यावश्यक कार्य भी करता है।

मेरे अनुसार तो, यह पुस्तक ही नहीं अपितु स्वातन्त्र्यवीर श्री सावरकर कृत सम्पूर्ण साहित्य राष्ट्र की अमूल्य निधि है। इन पुस्तकों को प्रत्येक राष्ट्रभक्त को न केवल पढ़ना-पढ़ाना चाहिए प्रत्युत् इनमें उल्लिखित बातों का अनुसरण कर राष्ट्रहितार्थ यज्ञ में आहूति भी अवश्य देनी चाहिए।

[Sanhi · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a Hindu, this short book gave me a better and deeper understanding of what it means to be Hindu.
Hindutva translates to hinduness. Not what some have conveniently distorted it to mean( fundamental fascism).
My take away is the if one is born in India and one feels that the geography of this land in sacred and one's allegiance is to this holy land, then one can be termed a Hindu.
Exceptions to the rule are there. Especially when it comes to the geography being one's pitr bhoomi.
No where did I get a sense that this means hatred for anyone else.

[Kimiyeto · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ok

[Vineet Singh · Rating 5 out of 5]

मैं अमेज़न और goodreads पर इस पुस्तक का रिव्यु पढ़ रहा थ। कुछ लोगों ने इस पुस्तक के बारे में अच्छा नहीं लिखा थ। उनके लिए मैं यही कहना चाहूंगा कि निश्चय ही उनलोगों ने पुस्तक को बिना पढ़े ही रिव्यु किया ह। मैंने स्वयं इस बात का अनुभव किया है कि पूरा पढ़े इस पुस्तक के भाव को समझा नहीं जा सकता है।
हिन्दू , हिंदुत्व की ऐसी व्याख्या शायद ही किसी ने की होगी। सावरकर ऐसे व्यक्तित्व हैं जिनमें हिन्दू चेतना , हिन्दू भाव कूट - कूट कर भरा था। उनकी प्रेरणा का स्रोत शिवाजी और जोजफ मेज़नी थे। जो हिन्दू चेतना शिवाजी में थी , वही सावरकर में थी।
अक्सर सुनने को मिलता है कि हिन्दू शब्द मुसलमानों ने दिया है। सिंधु का अपभ्रंश होते - होते हिन्दू हो गया। लेखक ने इसका विस्तार से खंडन किया है। अगर हिन्दू नाम मुसलमानों ने दिया है, तो सिंधु नदी को यह नाम किसने दिया। दूसरा यह कि मुसलमानों ने हमें काफिर नाम भी दिया लेकिन उस नाम को हमने नहीं अपनाया। लेखक ने इस पुस्तक में हिन्दू , हिंदुत्व , हिन्दुवाद इन शब्दों का अर्थ एवं इनमे अंतर बताया है। साथ ही हिंदुत्व के गुण, लक्षण, दायरा एवं उसकी आवश्यकता इन पर भी विस्तार से चर्चा किया है। लेखक ने यह भी बताया है पितृभू और पुण्यभू एक होने के क्या - क्या फायदे हैं। जैसे अन्य देशों के मुकाबले यहाँ के हिन्दुओं को राष्ट्रवाद जन्मजात तौर पर मिलता है।
किसे हिन्दू मानेंगे और किसको हिन्दू बनाया जा सकता है - इसके बारे में लेखक कहते हैं कि हिन्दू बनने के लिए किसी नए सिद्धांत के अनुयायी बनने की आवश्यकता नहीं है, न ही आत्मा और परमात्मा के विषय में अपने विचारों को बदलना है। हिंदुत्व अपने हिमलायतन दूतों के पंख नहीं काटता बल्कि उन्हें प्रोत्साहित करता है। हिंदुत्व कोई भौगोलिक सीमा नहीं है उसका विस्तार पृथ्वी भर में होना चाहिए। उसका अधिकार क्षेत्र संपूर्ण ब्रह्माण्ड है।
पुस्तक में सूक्ष्म ऐतिहासिक त्रुटिया हैं। हो सकता है कि उस समय यह सत्य उपलब्ध न हो। इसलिए उन त्रुटियों को नजरअंदाज करना चाहिए।

[Düsty · Rating 5 out of 5]

Those deriding this book are either colonised idiots or westerners who fester in a systemised environment of hatred that teaches them to ridicule the original thoughts of ‘these uncultured colored folk’ and who, not in a hundred years can grasp what it means to be a Hindu. Aka Hindutva.
Bottom line : Every Indian should read this book.

For Savarkar consolidates ideas that have perennially been floating in the Indian consciousness, be it from the mind of Vishnugupta Kautilya or the thoughts of Rabindranath Thakur. The song of Bankim Chandra or the agency of Lokmanya. If the question of ‘What does it mean to be a Hindu ?’ Has ever entered your mind, then this is the book to read.

Savarkar writes “Let the work of Kamba, the Tamil poet and say, a copy of Hafiz be kept before a Hindu in Bengal and if he be asked 'Which of these belongs to you?' He would instinctively say, 'Kamba is mine!' Let a copy of the work of Ravindranath and that of Shakespeare be kept before a Hindu in Maharashtra, he would claim 'Ravindra ! Ravindra is mine.'”

In a similar tone, I can say, that let the works of wonder from Tolstoy to Huxley To Thoreau and a copy of this book be kept before me and I’ll proclaim ‘Savarkar ! Savarkar is mine’.

[Cētan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a seminal work. Savarkar makes convincing arguments for a broad, deep and strong Hindu identity. The only unconvincing element of the book was rationale given for using quotes from dubious bhavishyapurana in the early part of the book, for which reason I've given one star less.

Savarkar essentially invokes the past ultimately as a foundation for a greater future. He does not invoke victimhood of the beaten down Indian people. This makes Savarkar's Hindutva a forward looking and constructive idea that does not shy away from its past. Overall the book is as relevant today as it was written 100 years ago.