I've always wondered this, is the word 'Hindutva' actually an ideology, that was appropriated? Because from my experience, it feels like a mockery of Hinduism and our language and frankly, a slur. It's what finally got baby me to disavow leftism because I genuinely did not feel comfortable with them saying that, in a way I wouldn't have felt if they had just said ultra conservatives or hindu extremists. I've never heard it used in a harmless way, so I wanna know if there's any history behind the term
In Sanskrit, the suffix -tva (त्व , ত্ব , ତ୍ୱ , త్వ , துவம் , ത്വം) forms an abstract noun. For example, if you add -tva- at the end of the word 'asti' (= is, be, exist), it becomes 'astitva' which translates to existence. If you add -tva at the end of 'maha' (= big, great), it becomes mahatva, greatness. Similarly, Hindutva technically means "Hinduness", or Hinduism as that is the established term in English. We will come back to this point.
The suffix "-ism" in English and other European languages forms abstract nouns that usually denote a system, doctrine, belief, practice, condition, or movement. For example commune - communism, social - socialism etc. One of the reasons why I generally don't like the word "Hinduism" is because, although it is said that the word was was coined in its modern sense in the 19th century by Raja Rammohun Roy, it was done so under the pressure of the British occupiers. They could not understand the belief system, the complex philosophical tradition of Indians so they pressured Indians to force fit all of it inside the western framework. The word Hindu is generally thought to have meant a geographical area. It appears in the Vedas. Rigveda 1.90.6:
"मधु वाता ऋतायते मधु क्षरन्ति सिन्धवः..."
and in the Madhyandina shakha of Shukla Yajurveda, सिन्धवः (Sindhavah) is pronounced हिन्धवः (Hindavah). The word "Hindu" is also in the Kauthuma Samhita and recited in shraddha for jalshuddhi.
Another term that denotes to "Hindu" is 'astika', which comes from the word asti ("there is" or "exists"). Astikas accept Vedas as pramana, believe in the nityatva (eternity) of Atman and Brahman. Even Nirishvarvadas (falsely translated as atheists) believe in the aforementioned, they just don't think that any Devata is necessarily the supreme Lord. Nastikas (again, this word too is falsely translated as atheist) on the other hand do not accept Vedas as pramana nor do they think Atman or Brahman are eternal. Jains follow Jina and Buddhists follow Buddha, but these two words too are a result of colonial times when these philosophies were forced to be labelled under one term to make it easier for the British occupiers or European orientalists to understand. Since Hindus follow Rishis (Sapta rishis) Hindus could have also been named as "Arsheya" in the English language, but I bet that word was too hard for the English, so the word Hindoo / Hindu stuck.
Now, going back to the word Hindutva, it is said that it was coined in the 19th century by Chandranath Basu in his book "Hindur Prakrita Itihas", where he used it to describe the Hindu cultural and religious identity in this new world order. In a way, the term was born as a cultural self-expression and protectionism against, what was seen as, an existential threat when the British occupiers were enforcing Christianisation and occasionally even patronising Islam to subdue Hindu rebellion or uprising. Veer Savarkar, too, used the term in his 1923 pamphlet "Essentials of Hindutva", and again, this was a time when Hindus were getting attacked from two sides. Today, the term "Hindutva" is maligned in politically motivated language because it is a formidable force competing against other political ideologies such as socialism, communism, capitalism etc. Even if you read the writings of the Hindutva ideologues of the 19th and 20th century, none of them ever wrote anything about establishing "Hindu supremacist rule" or to eradicate others unlike what Nazis wrote or what certain religions have in their doctrine. They simply wrote about the need to protect "Hindus and Hindu way of life", moreover, many Hindutva ideologues were sort of social reformers who advocated for removing the feudal system. Hinduism is the religion where we have Rishikas (female rishis) such as Lopamudra and Ambhrini, where Nishadas were monarchs, where shaucha and satya are important, where the very word Dharma means to carry out righteous duty. We don't get salvation by merely believing in God, we live in a universe where cosmic law Rta applies. In the ancient world, even if there was hostility between different tribes, they didn't seek to annihilate the belief systems of others. This isn't the case with certain religions, who've made their faith into a supremacist political tool to get indoctrinated zombies. One can and should oppose ultra-conservatives or extremists, but those people have little to do with "Hindutva", and to claim otherwise is simply ahistorical. Hope this answers your question! 🙏🏼
