When every second person has their own different version of the meaning of Hindutva, they underline the problems of using it for sustained political communication.
At one time, Hindutva was taken as the outpouring of Hindu pride and Hindu consciousness that accompanied the Ram Janmabhoomi movement.
It is the Supreme Court judgment that has blunted the political thrust of Hindutva. By interpreting Hindutva as a "way of life", in the same way as Radhakrishnan defined Hinduism, the apex court saved the BJP from a political witch-hunt in the mid-1990s. At the same time, it blunted Hindutva as a political weapon.
If something is a "way of life", how does it become an plank of a political party? It becomes either a lifestyle statement (which is patently absurd) or it becomes an intellectual orientation.
Hindutva in practice has come to mean exclusionary politics and assertions of Hindu superiority
As Bhaskar Mitra put it in his comment, "Hindutva today stands for mobocracy" and worse.
Its nominal presence on the BJP platform deters the modern Hindu and frightens non-Hindu Indians
Finally, a comment on ideology. The term ideology suggests a codified set of beliefs which are constant. This may be true of religions based on textual certitudes but it can hardly serve as an intelligent guide to political action.
What is relevant is not ideology but ideas
What is relevant is not ideology but ideas
