We must consult Savarkar's book for a proper understanding of his thinking.
It explains why it had
the impact it did. Hindutva provides a coherent self-contained ideology
of hate. Its assertivesness
stills doubt and povides assurance.
The publisher of the essay, S.S. Savarkar, revealed in his Preface to
the Second Edition that 'it was
during his stay from 1906 to 1910 in England that the attention of
Veer Savarkarji was drawn
pointedly to the question as to who can be precisely called a "Hindu"'
(p. i) . Young as he was then,
Savarkar was at the crossroads of Indian nationalism and Hindu communalism.
He did his initial
writing in the Andamans. It was put into final shape in Ratnagiri Jail
and smuggled out. The first
edition was published under the pseudonym, 'A Maratha', by V.V. Kelkar,
a Nagpur lawyer. We
are told that Lala LajpatRai, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya and several
others hailed it 'as the most
original and scholarly contribution to the Hindu ideology' (p. vii).
S.S. Savarkar, publisher of the second edition, emphasized that the author, V.D. Savarkar, had to coin some new words such as 'Hindutva', 'Hinduness', 'Hindudom' in order to express [the] totality of the cultural, historical, and above all the national aspects along with the religious one, which mark out the Hindu people as a whole. The definition is not consequently meant to be a definition of Hindu-Dharma, or Hindu religion. It is a definition of 'Hindutva', 'Hinduness'. It is essentially national in its outlook and comprehends the Hindu People as a HinduRashtra.' Hindutva is a new term for a new ideology, the ideology of 'Hindu-Rashtra' (a Hindu State). (p. iv)
The author endorsed the publisher's understanding in the entitled 'Hindutra
is different from
Hinduism'. Savarkar wrote,
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 system. But when we attempt to investigate into
the essential significance of
Hindutva we do not primarily - and certainly not mainly - concern ourselves
with any particular
theocratic 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. (p. 4)