Hindutva Threatens the Spirit of an Inclusive India

India is a country like no other. For thousands of years, people of many cultures, languages, and religions have lived together on its land. Today, India is home to Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Jews, tribal religions, and many others. This diversity is not new. It has been part of India since ancient times. Some groups today claim that people who became Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Muslims, or Christians “left” India or betrayed their heritage. They argue that everyone should “return” to a single religion, often called ghar wapsi (“homecoming”). However, history shows something very different. When Indians changed their religion, they did not stop being Indian. They did not lose their love for their land. In fact, many conversions happened because people wanted dignity, fairness, and spiritual meaning—not because of fear or force. Understanding this history helps us appreciate the real spirit of India.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), founded in 1925 by K. B. Hedgewar, has played a decisive role in shaping political and cultural narratives in modern India. Its ideology — Hindutva, articulated most explicitly by V. D. Savarkar in Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu? (1923) — promotes the idea that India belongs primarily and rightfully to Hindus alone, defined not by religion but by ethnic and cultural markers linked to a mythic Hindu past. Over the past century, RSS organizations have propagated an exclusivist, hierarchical vision of national identity that frequently targets Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, and others as “outsiders” or “internal threats.”[i] This article examines the spread of RSS ideology, its distortion of India’s multicultural past, and how academic scholarship refutes its claim that non-Hindus are foreign to India. It argues that India’s strength lies not in uniformity but in the pluralism expressed in its constitution and in its long history of coexistence, conversion, and mutual cultural enrichment.

The RSS Vision: Nation as a Hindu Ethnic Homeland

RSS leaders have consistently asserted that only Hindus — defined as those who see India as both punyabhumi (holy land) and pitribhumi (ancestral land) — can claim complete belonging. Savarkar wrote: “To be a Hindu means… to regard the land that extends from the Indus to the Seas as the land of our forefathers and also of our gods.” M. S. Golwalkar, the most influential RSS ideologue, went further: “The non-Hindu people in Hindustan… may stay in the country wholly subordinate to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges.” Golwalkar compared minorities to “foreign elements” who must submit or lose citizenship rights — a statement, scholars widely cite as incompatible with democratic principles. Thus, the RSS imagines India not as a modern nation-state built on citizenship, but as an ethnic homeland of Hindus, in which Muslim scholars, foreign descendants of invaders, or converts are lacking moral legitimacy. The RSS claims that Hindus have always been indigenous to India. However, substantial linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence indicates otherwise.

Aryans were not Indians.

Aryan migration theory is academically well-established. Most historical linguists agree that Indo-Aryan languages (Sanskrit, Hindi, Bengali) entered the subcontinent around 1500–1200 BCE, brought by pastoral migrants from Central Asia. This is supported by comparative linguistics: Sanskrit is closely related to ancient Greek, Latin, and Avestan Persian — something only possible through shared ancestral speakers. Shifts in pottery styles, horse remains, and chariot culture show discontinuities between Harappan and Vedic societies. Large-scale genome studies from Harvard, Cambridge, and the Reich Lab demonstrate that modern northern Indians carry significant ancestry from Steppe pastoralists who arrived after 2000 BCE.

India’s earliest civilizations were Dravidian and Adivasi.

Before the arrival of Indo-Aryan speakers, the subcontinent was home to Dravidian peoples (linked to the Indus Valley Civilization), Adivasi communities such as the Santhals, Gonds, Bhils, Todas, Kurubas,, and Cultures with their own pantheons, unrelated to Rama, Krishna, or Vedic gods^9 As Iravatham Mahadevan, F. R. Allchin, and Romila Thapar have shown, Indus Valley deities and symbols differ significantly from later Brahmanical Hinduism. The sacred bull, mother-goddess figurines, fertility symbols, proto-Shiva seals — all reflect traditions older than the Vedas.  Thus, the claim that all Indians are “original Hindus” is not historically sustainable.

India Has Always Been Home to Many Religions

Long before Islam or Christianity arrived, India already had several religions living side by side. Buddhism began in India around the 5th century BCE when Prince Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) taught a path of compassion and non-violence. Millions followed him. Jainism also began in India, teaching peace, honesty, and respect for all living beings. Sikhism emerged in the 15th century in Punjab, teaching unity, equality, and justice. People adopted these religions because they believed in their ideas—not because anyone forced them.

Indians Adopted Other Faiths for Dignity, Justice, and Spiritual Freedom

Many people joined Buddhism and Jainism because these religions rejected caste hierarchy and taught that all people were equal. This was appealing to people who felt mistreated or excluded. Sikhism attracted people who wanted spiritual clarity and social justice. Guru Nanak taught that God sees all humans equally and strongly opposed discrimination. Islam came to India through traders—especially along the coast of Kerala—long before any invasions. Many Indians joined Islam because it taught equality regardless of birth or caste. According to tradition, Christianity came to India through Saint Thomas the Apostle in the 1st century CE. Many coastal communities interacted with Christian traders and missionaries who offered education, healthcare, and community support. None of these changes erased people’s connection to India. They still spoke Indian languages, ate Indian food, and remained loyal to their homeland.

Changing Religion Never Meant Losing Indian Identity

Throughout history, Indians who changed their faith continued to defend, protect, and serve India. The Mauryan Emperor Ashoka, a Buddhist, ruled one of the greatest Indian empires. Tipu Sultan, a Muslim ruler, fought the British to protect Indian sovereignty. The Sikh Gurus defended the rights of all Indians, not just Sikhs. Christian freedom fighters, like Kuriakose Chavara and John de Britto, contributed to Indian culture and education. Indian identity has always been larger than any one religion.

What Ghar Wapsi Gets Wrong

Some groups argue that people who converted to other religions should return to Hinduism. But this idea is based on misunderstandings. At no point in history was India purely Hindu. India has always been multi-religious. People changed religions to escape discrimination, to seek justice, or to follow teachers they admired. This was an act of courage—not betrayal. India’s Constitution promises every person the right to choose any religion. This right is part of being Indian.

Saying “convert back” insults India’s history.

It implies India cannot accept diversity, Indians who converted were weak, only one religion belongs to the nation, but India’s strength has always come from difference, not sameness. India’s most outstanding teachers—Buddha, Mahavira, Guru Nanak, Kabir, Basava, Gandhi—taught one message: India has survived for thousands of years because its people shared ideas, respected differences, learned from each other, and protected each other When someone says Indians who changed their faith “came from outside,” they ignore everything India has taught the world about tolerance.

Violence and Intimidation: The RSS Record

Academic research and official data show a sharp rise in anti-minority violence in regions influenced by RSS ideology. According to IndiaSpend and Human Rights Watch, more than 90% of cow-related lynchings in India since 2010 occurred after 2014, coinciding with the rise of political Hindutva, and Muslims account for many victims. Studies by the University of Amsterdam’s Digital Methods Institute show that pro-Hindutva networks generate a disproportionate volume of anti-Muslim hate content online. Reports from the U.S. State Department and Amnesty International document police complicity in vigilante violence, political speeches encouraging exclusion, Targeting of Christian pastors, Muslim vendors, and interfaith couples, and Demolition of minority homes through “bulldozer justice”. These actions undermine India’s constitution, which guarantees equality, freedom of religion, and dignity for all.

Destruction of Law and Order

The National Law University Delhi’s Death Penalty India Report (2016) and several court judgments note systemic prejudice against minorities in policing and justice. The 2020 Delhi Riots official findings revealed coordinated attacks on Muslims and police inaction in many areas. A mature democracy relies on courts and laws. But lynching replaces courts with mobs — encouraged by political speeches, TV debates, and social media propaganda. In several cases, elected officials have garlanded lynching convicts, defended accused vigilantes, and used hate speech during campaigns. When lawmakers celebrate violence, law and order collapse.

Responding Without Hate: The Spirit of an Inclusive India

The answer to Hindutva extremism cannot be more extremism. India’s strength lies in pluralism, not uniformity. The Constitution itself affirms this vision, Article 25: Freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice, and propagate religion, Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, and Article 51A(e): Promotes harmony and common brotherhood across religious, linguistic, and regional groups. Jawaharlal Nehru reminded the Constituent Assembly: “India has always been a land of shelter for the persecuted.”  Dr. B. R. Ambedkar declared: “The Constitution is based on the principle that all citizens are equal. The Hindu social order denies this.” Rabindranath Tagore warned that nationalism becomes dangerous when it seeks to erase diversity.  The solution is not revenge or hatred, but a renewed commitment to Equal citizenship, Secular governance, Respect for all faiths, Academic honesty about India’s past, and Solidarity across communities.

The RSS presents a narrow, mythologized vision of India as a Hindu nation defined by descent, religion, and hierarchy. Academic research on India’s ancient demographics, religious history, and cultural patterns overwhelmingly disproves these assertions. India has always been a land of multiple faiths, languages, ethnicities, and philosophies, shaped by migration, intermarriage, and exchange. Indians who converted to Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Islam, or Christianity did so in search of equality, dignity, and moral meaning — not betrayal. Their descendants are no less Indian than anyone else. Suppose India is to remain true to its civilization, its constitution, and its soul. In that case, it must reject hatred, embrace pluralism, and honor the foundational truth that India belongs to all who call it home.

Endnotes (Select Academic Sources)

1. Christophe Jaffrelot, Hindu Nationalism: A Reader (Princeton University Press, 2007).

2. V. D. Savarkar, Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu? (1923).

3. M. S. Golwalkar, We, or Our Nationhood Defined (1939).

4. Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India (Columbia University Press, 1996).

5. Michael Witzel, “Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan,” Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies (1999).

6. Thomas Burrow, The Sanskrit Language (Faber, 1955).

7. F. R. Allchin & B. Allchin, The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan (Cambridge, 1982).

8. Narasimhan et al., “The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia,” Science (2019).

9. Romila Thapar, Early India (Penguin, 2004).

10. Iravatham Mahadevan, The Indus Script (1977).

11. Romila Thapar, Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas (Oxford, 1961).

12. Khushwant Singh, A History of the Sikhs (Oxford University Press, 1963).

13. Richard M. Eaton, The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier (California, 1993).

14. István Perczel, Syrian Christians in India (Oxford).

15. Eaton, Essays on Islam and Indian History (Oxford, 2000).

16. Audrey Truschke, Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India’s Most Controversial King (Stanford, 2017).

17. IndiaSpend Hate Crime Database (2017).

18. Digital Methods Lab Report, University of Amsterdam (2021).

19. Amnesty International India Reports (2018–2022).

20. Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. I (1946).

21. B. R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste (1936).

22. Rabindranath Tagore, Nationalism (1917).