M. S. Golwalkar’s Interpretation of Hindu Nationalism

When India became independent in 1947, the new republic embraced a simple idea: anyone living within the country’s borders, regardless of religion or background, was an equal member of the nation. M.S. Golwalkar rejected this idea outright. As the second Sarsanghchalak (chief) of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh from 1940 to 1973, Golwalkar built a theory of nationhood that placed culture and spirituality-not geography or citizenship-at its core. His interpretation of Hindu nationalism became one of the most influential and contested doctrines in modern Indian political thought, and it differed in important ways from the Hindutva of his predecessor, V.D. Savarkar.

Who was M.S. Golwalkar? 🔗

Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar (1906-1973), often called “Guruji” by his followers, led the RSS for over three decades. He set out his political philosophy in two principal works: We; or, Our Nationhood Defined, published in 1939, and Bunch of Thoughts, published in 1966. The first book identified India as a “Hindu Rashtra” and argued that the country’s identity was tied to Hindu culture, treating non-Hindus as outsiders unless they assimilated. Notably, the authorship of the 1939 book remains debated; in 2006 the RSS itself officially distanced from it. Even so, both texts together form the foundation for understanding how Golwalkar conceived of the nation.

Cultural nationalism as the heart of the nation 🔗

Central to Golwalkar’s thought was the conviction that a nation is defined by its culture rather than by political or economic arrangements. He held that a nation is “not a mere bundle of political and economic rights” but an embodiment of national culture-which, in India’s case, he equated with Hinduism.

For Golwalkar, this cultural bond was deeper and more enduring than any constitutional or legal framework. He believed it was precisely this cultural identity that had allowed Hindu civilisation to survive for thousands of years despite repeated foreign invasions. A constitution could be rewritten and borders could shift, but in his view the cultural essence of a people endured across the ages.

Hinduism as a way of life, not just a religion 🔗

An important feature of Golwalkar’s argument is that he did not treat Hinduism as one religion among many. He understood it as a comprehensive civilisational system encompassing philosophy, ethics, social organisation, and spiritual practice. This broad definition allowed him to claim a historical continuity stretching from ancient Vedic culture to the modern Indian identity. By defining national culture in exclusively Hindu terms, however, he automatically positioned anything outside that framework as foreign to the nation.

The five unities of nationhood 🔗

Golwalkar’s model of the nation rested on five elements he called the “Unities.” A genuine nation, he argued, required all five without exception. These were:

• Country (geographical unity): a defined land of residence with an ancient history.
• Race: a shared sense of common descent and ancestry.
• Religion: a common faith binding the people together.
• Culture: shared customs, traditions, and values.
• Language: a common linguistic heritage.

Interestingly, Golwalkar relied heavily on Western political theory rather than ancient Indian philosophy to defend these categories. He pointed to the examples of the Hebrew nation, England, and Germany to argue that a people becomes a nation only when all five unities are present together. This European framework of nationhood, drawn from the racial and nationalist thinking of the 1930s, sat at the centre of a theory that otherwise claimed to be rooted in indigenous tradition.

Why Golwalkar rejected territorial nationalism 🔗

The most distinctive feature of Golwalkar’s nationalism was his forceful rejection of territorial nationalism-the idea that everyone living within a country’s borders forms a single nation. He considered this concept a flawed Western import with no genuine basis.

His language on this point was striking. Golwalkar described territorial nationalism as an “unnatural, unscientific and lifeless hybrid concept” that had, in his words, emasculated the nation. He argued that independence in 1947 did not amount to real freedom, because the new leadership clung to what he saw as a perverted idea of nationalism that treated all residents of the territory as equal constituents of the nation.

The “unscientific” charge 🔗

Why did Golwalkar call territorial nationalism “unscientific”? His reasoning was that a nation cannot be created merely by drawing lines on a map. People may share the same territory yet remain strangers if they lack deep cultural and spiritual bonds. In a memorable image, he compared the attempt to build a nation by mechanically combining different communities to stitching together the head of a monkey, the legs of a bullock, and the trunk of an elephant-a creation he believed could only produce a lifeless body rather than a living organism. For him, real nationhood was organic and grew from shared culture, not from political engineering.

Partition as evidence 🔗

Golwalkar pointed to the Partition of 1947 as proof that territorial nationalism had failed. If shared territory and citizenship were truly enough to bind people into one nation, he argued, the subcontinent would never have been divided along religious lines. The trauma of Partition, in his reading, demonstrated that cultural difference, not geography, was the decisive force in determining who belonged to a nation. It is worth noting that opposition to territorial nationalism was not unique to him-B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution, also questioned the assumption that geography alone could create a nation, though he arrived at entirely different conclusions about how unity should be built.

The spiritual foundation of Golwalkar’s nationalism 🔗

What truly set Golwalkar apart was the spiritual character of his nationalism. He did not merely defend Hindu culture as a social inheritance; he treated India as a sacred entity. In his writings, he described India as the holy land and motherland of the Hindus, asserting that the land of Hindustan belonged to the Hindu nation alone to flourish upon. He imagined ancient India as a place of unparalleled glory, later degraded by waves of foreign invasion, and called for a “national regeneration” to restore it.

This spiritual emphasis was also reflected in how Golwalkar presented himself. Scholars note that from the early 1950s onward he deliberately crafted an ascetic-nationalist image, appearing more like a spiritual figure or saint than a conventional political leader. For Golwalkar, the renewal of the nation was inseparable from a spiritual awakening, and he believed Indian spiritual values were not just distinctive but superior-a civilisational treasure the world had yet to fully appreciate.

How Golwalkar differed from Savarkar 🔗

Both Savarkar and Golwalkar are foundational thinkers of Hindutva, and Golwalkar’s 1939 work openly built upon Savarkar’s earlier Essentials of Hindutva. Yet their approaches were not identical, and the differences are important for understanding Golwalkar’s specific contribution.

Savarkar’s territorial and ancestral definition 🔗

Savarkar’s famous formula defined a Hindu as someone who regarded India as both his motherland (matrbhumi), the land of his ancestors (pitrbhumi), and his holy land (punyabhumi). This definition was at once territorial, ancestral, and civilisational. Crucially, Savarkar’s Hindutva was largely a political and cultural identity rooted in shared territory and descent; religion in the narrow sectarian sense was not its whole. His approach is often described as more secular and pragmatic, concerned with consolidating a political community defined by sacred geography.

Golwalkar’s spiritual and cultural emphasis 🔗

Golwalkar shifted the centre of gravity. Where Savarkar anchored identity in the bond between fatherland and holy land, Golwalkar made culture and spirituality the primary substance of the nation and treated territory as just one of five required unities rather than the defining one. He also explicitly attacked the very idea of territorial nationalism, something Savarkar’s framework still partly relied upon through its geographical criterion. In short, Savarkar’s Hindutva was a more political-territorial doctrine, while Golwalkar’s was a deeply spiritual-cultural one that elevated Indian spiritual values above all else.

Criticisms and controversies 🔗

Golwalkar’s interpretation of Hindu nationalism has drawn sustained criticism, much of it focused on its treatment of religious minorities. By defining the nation in exclusively Hindu cultural terms, his framework positioned Muslims, Christians, and communists as “internal threats” in Bunch of Thoughts unless they assimilated into Hindu culture. Critics argue that this exclusionary vision is fundamentally incompatible with India’s constitutional commitment to equality and pluralism.

The 1939 work attracted particular condemnation for its approving references to the racial nationalism of 1930s Europe, which many scholars read as endorsing an ethnically exclusive idea of nationhood. The essentialising of an entire civilisation as singularly “Hindu” also overlooks the genuine diversity of India’s many linguistic, religious, and ethnic communities. These criticisms remain central to ongoing debates about national identity, secularism, and the place of minorities in Indian democracy.

Why Golwalkar still matters 🔗

Golwalkar’s ideas are not merely of historical interest. His vision of cultural nationalism continues to shape contemporary political discourse, with debates over national identity, citizenship, and cultural belonging frequently returning to the questions he raised. Whether one agrees with him or not, understanding his interpretation of Hindu nationalism is essential for grasping a major strand of modern Indian political thought-and for engaging seriously with the contest of ideas that continues to define what it means to be part of a nation.

What do you think? Can a nation built primarily on cultural and spiritual unity genuinely accommodate religious and linguistic diversity, or does it inevitably exclude those who do not fit the dominant culture? And was Golwalkar right that shared territory and citizenship alone cannot create a true sense of nationhood?

References

1. https://www.britannica.com/biography/M-S-Golwalkar
2. https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/nationalism-golwalkars-head-of-rss-three-decades/31781/
3. https://www.academia.edu/36498386/_We_and_Our_Nationhood_Defined_Analysis_of_M_S_Golwalkars_Idea_of_Hindu_Nationhood_and_Nationalism_Subject_Nationalism_Multiculturalism_and_Minority_Rights
4. https://gaurilankeshnews.com/golwalkar-we-or-our-nationhood-defined-rss-bible/
5. https://medium.com/@thaparsantushti/swayamsevak-m-s-golwalkar-a-snapshot-da3034c13e1
6. https://swarajyamag.com/politics/why-a-seminar-on-golwalkars-views-on-nationalism-is-justified
7. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/68676BDD205B98828EC18C53C20BE4A7/S0026749X24000040a.pdf/hindutva_in_the_shadow_of_the_mahatma_m_s_golwalkar_m_k_gandhi_and_the_rss_in_postcolonial_india.pdf
8. https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/veer-savarkar-hindutva-india/38073/