Hindutva is the Hindi equivalent of Hinduism. The Supreme Court has defined Hinduism as a way of life. The same should apply to Hindutva. Unfortunately many adherents belonging to organizations founded by the RSS who swear by Hindutva display an intolerant and narrow minded approach that is sharply divergent from the Hindu way of life. That is the start of a needless controversy compounded by a confused understanding of language. This controversy was revived recently by remarks made by RSS Chief Mr. Mohan Bhagwat who also betrayed confusion about the meaning of words. Last Sunday Mr. Bhagwat said:

“Cultural identity of all inhabitants of this country is Hindutva.” This is no different from what the Supreme Court ruled except that Mr. Bhagwat used the term Hindutva instead of Hinduism. He went on to add: “Hindus could be of any religion worshipping any God or not worshipping at all.” It is this remark that betrays confusion about the usage of the term ‘Hindu’ that sparked the controversy.

Mr. Bhagwat went on to ask that if inhabitants of England are called English, why are not inhabitants of Hindustan not known as Hindus. The answer is simple. Being English does not denote religion. Both Christians and non-Christians may be English. But being Hindu certainly denotes religion. In a TV debate Mr. Subramaniam Swamy defended Mr. Bhagwat by asserting that there was no Hindu religion – only Sanatan Dharma. He was wrong. There is very much a Hindu religion which has many branches including Sanatan Dharma. In passports under the heading of religion most citizens do not write Sanatan Dharma but Hindu. To repeat with emphasis, all Hindus may follow Hinduism, but all those who follow Hinduism are not Hindus. They can be Christians, Muslims or Sikhs. All those who live in Hindustan are not Hindus. They are Hindustanis.

Why cannot this simple distinction be accepted by RSS leaders?

In the same TV debate featuring Mr. Swamy, Congress spokesperson Mr. Manish Tiwari stressed the constitutional nomenclature of our nation being Bharat, as if that defined its secular difference from being Hindustan. The founding fathers of our constitution, probably riddled by guilt for having betrayed the nation by accepting Partition and the two nation theory, sought comfort by conjuring the nomenclature Bharat for this nation. They also betrayed their ignorance.

The term Bharat derived from Hindu mythology is non-secular compared to the term Hindustan derived from the Arabs.

A Muslim Sufi poet and saint Amir Khusro created Hindvi from which evolved Hindustani comprising both Hindi and Urdu. He created Hindvi from the Khari Boli dialect widely used in the Hindi heartland. Incidentally the term India is the anglicized version derived from Hindustan. Why did our wise constitution framers not abolish the use of that nomenclature too?

The actions of politicians has already divided society badly enough. Let them not increase social divisions by a muddle headed approach towards understanding the meaning of simple words.