Savarkar alleges that Muslims and Christians 'belong, or feel that they
belong to a cultural trait
altogether different from the Hindu one' (p. 101). The crucial test,
then, is two-fold. Pitribhumi
(Fatherland) must be the same as Punyabhumi (Holyland):
"To every Hindu, from the Santal to the Sadhu this
Bharata bhumi this Sindhusthan is at once a
Pitribhu and a Punyabhu - fatherland and a holy land.
"That is why in the case of some of our Mohammedan or Christian countrymen
who had originally been forcibly converted to a non-Hindu religion and
who consequently have inherited along with Hindus, a common Fatherland
and a greater part of the wealth of a common culture - language, law, customs,
folklore and history- are not and cannot be recognized as Hindus. For though
Hindusthan to them is Fatherland as to any other Hindu yet it is not to
them a Holyland too. Their holy land is far
off in Arabia or Palestine. Their mythology and Godmen, ideas and heroes
are not the children of this soil. Consequently their names and their outlook
smack of a foreign origin. (p. 113)
If Muslims and Christians accept the Hindu faith they become Hindus.
"Ye, who by race, by blood, by culture, by nationality
possess almost all the essentials of
Hindutva and had been forcibly snatched out of our ancestral home by
the hand of violence - ye,
have only to render wholehearted love to our common Mother and recognize
her not only as
Fatherland (Pitri.bhu) but even as a Holyland (Punyabhu), and ye would
be most welcome to the
Hindu fold.
This is a choice which our countrymen and our old kith and kin, the
Bohras, Khojas, Memons and other Mohammedan and Christian communities are
free to make - a choice again which must be a choice of love. But as long
as they are not minded thus, so long they cannot be recognized as
Hindus.
These are the essentials of Hindutva - a common nation
(Rashtra) a common race (Jati) and a
common civilization (Sanskriti). All these essentials could best be
summed up by stating in brief that
he is a Hindu to whom Sindhusthan is not only a Pitribhu but also a
Punyabhu. For the first two
essentials of Hindutva- nation and Jati are clearly denoted and connoted
by tile word Pitrubhu while
the third essential of Sanskriti is pre-eminently implied by the word
Punyabhu, as it is precisely
Sanskriti including Sanskaras i.e. rites and rituals, ceremonies and
sacraments, that makes a land a
Holyland." (p. 116)
For the minorities, then, the option of retaining both their faith and
their Indian nationality is
extinguished. This is the reality of the Hindu rashtra based on Hindutva.
This is not a restatement of the ancient philosophy and faith of Hinduism.
It is the formulation of a
new political ideology of hate - Hindutva. More than anyone else, Savarkar
himself is aware of the
novelty of his ideological enterprise. Therefore, towards the end of
his essay, he repeats what he had said at the outset - a new word, Hindutva,
was being 'coined'.
"There would have been no serious objection raised against the cultural
aspect of Hindutva too, but
for the unfortunate misunderstanding that owes its origin to the confusing
similarity between the two
terms, Hindutva and Hinduism. We have tried already to draw a clear
line of demarcation between
the two conceptions and protected against the wrong use of the word
Hinduism to denote the
Sanatan Dharma alone. Hindutva is not identical with Hindu Dharma,
nor is Hindu Dharma identical
with Hindutva. (p. 121 )"