Rashtrvaad Ki Aad Mein

Hindu nationalism persists in the present era and is exhibiting a growing intensity. In his book Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar writes in a chapter titled "Brahmanvad ki Fateh" that there was never any Sanskrit called "Bhartiya Sanskriti" in India and that there is not currently any such thing. Prior to this, there existed a form of Sanskrit known as Vedic Sanskrit, which was associated with the civilization of yogis. In which the Brahmins held a dominant position. Subsequently, the Buddhist civilization emerged, followed by the rise of the Brahmins, who once again promoted the Vedic civilization and sought to eradicate the Buddhist civilization. This raises the question of how one of these conflicting civilizations can be considered Bharatiya Sanskriti. It is important to note that VD Savarkar, the founder of the Hindu Rashtra Vaad or Hindu Nationalism, first used the term "Hindutva" in his 1923 book. The term is not a word in any Indian language, including Sanskrit. Savarkar himself was uncertain as to the popularity of his newly coined term. Consequently, he designated a Maratha as the author in the inaugural edition of his treatise, "Hindutva." However, with the establishment of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) on September 27, 1925, with the approval of the British and the Indian National Congress, a philosophical foundation was required, which Savarkar's book provided. Subsequently, in the second edition, Savarkar's name was listed as the author. It is also noteworthy that Savarkar coined the term "Hindutva" and imbued it with a novel interpretation of the ancient traditions and thought of India. He expanded its scope to encompass religion, eminent personalities, civilization, race, and geography. Furthermore, he attempted to impose limitations and restrictions. His campaign was so successful, with the support of the Congress and the British, that it poisoned the minds of the majority of the majority sect. Even the term Hindutva had to be used to discuss, talk about, refute it, or to explain its flaws and disadvantages to society. It can be argued that without its use, there is no discourse on the subject.