The Concept of Nation as Motherland by M. S. Golwalkar

When we think about what makes a nation, the modern instinct is to point to borders on a map, a constitution, and shared citizenship. But one of the most influential and controversial thinkers of twentieth-century India rejected that idea entirely. Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, the second chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), argued that a nation is not made by lines drawn on paper but by a deep, almost spiritual bond between a people and their land. At the heart of his thought lay a single powerful idea: the nation as motherland. To understand the debates around national identity that still echo in our politics today, we need to examine what Golwalkar meant by this concept and why it became so significant.

Who was M. S. Golwalkar?
The idea of nation as motherland
Matribhumi and punyabhumi
The rejection of territorial nationalism
The five unities of a nation
What the five unities were
Cultural and spiritual unity as the foundation
Fostering a collective consciousness
Criticism and controversy
Why this concept still matters

Who was M. S. Golwalkar?

Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, known among his followers as Guruji, served as the second sarsanghchalak, or supreme chief, of the RSS from 1940 to 1973. He succeeded the organisation’s founder, K. B. Hedgewar, and during his long tenure became one of the principal architects of the ideology known as Hindutva. His ideas were primarily set out in two works: We, or Our Nationhood Defined (1939) and the later collection Bunch of Thoughts. These texts remain central to understanding the worldview of the Sangh Parivar.

Golwalkar built upon the foundation laid by V. D. Savarkar, who had defined Hindutva as a cultural identity. However, Golwalkar pushed these ideas further, developing a comprehensive theory of nationhood that placed cultural and spiritual unity at its centre rather than mere territory or political institutions. This shift in emphasis is what makes his concept of the nation as motherland so distinctive.

The idea of nation as motherland

For Golwalkar, nationalism was fundamentally about love for and devotion to the motherland. He did not see India as just a piece of geography. Instead, he viewed it as a sacred territory, a land sanctified by thousands of years of spiritual practice and religious devotion. This bond between the land and its people, he argued, was something that could not simply be created by passing laws or granting citizenship.

According to Golwalkar’s writings, a people could only become a nation if they had developed genuine love and adoration for their land as their motherland and felt that they were the children of that soil. This emotional and spiritual attachment was, in his view, the very life-spring of nationalism. Without it, a population sharing the same territory would remain a mere collection of strangers rather than a true nation.

Matribhumi and punyabhumi

A key feature of Golwalkar’s thought was his treatment of India as both matribhumi (motherland) and punyabhumi (holy land). He believed both concepts were essential for true nationalism to exist. As the motherland, India was the source of cultural identity and emotional attachment for its people. As the holy land, it was the birthplace of great spiritual traditions and the home of countless saints and sages.

This idea of sacred geography was central to his understanding of Indian nationalism. Golwalkar made it clear in his writings that, in his view, India was the land where the Hindu nation alone could flourish. He saw ancient India as a place of unparalleled glory that had been damaged by successive foreign invasions, and he believed a process of “national regeneration” was necessary to restore it.

The rejection of territorial nationalism

To appreciate the motherland concept fully, we must understand what Golwalkar was arguing against. He firmly rejected what he called territorial nationalism, the modern idea that a nation is simply the people who happen to live within a given territory and hold equal rights of citizenship.

Golwalkar described territorial nationalism as lifeless, unscientific, and unnatural. He argued that if a nation were defined merely by territory, the country would be reduced to a dharmashala, or a wayside inn, where anybody could simply walk in and claim membership. In his influential work, he insisted that a nation is properly formed only by people who have developed common cultural affinities and who regard the land as their motherland.

He went further and held territorial nationalism responsible for the disunity that, in his view, led to the partition of the country. He believed this hybrid concept had sapped the nation’s energy and weakened the spirit that ought to bind its people together. This rejection of the territorial idea is the negative side of his theory, the thing he was clearing away to make room for his alternative vision.

The five unities of a nation

In place of territorial nationalism, Golwalkar proposed a positive framework. In We, or Our Nationhood Defined, published in Nagpur in 1939, he argued that for the nation idea to exist and be expressed, it must possess what he called the five unities. These were the indispensable components, and he believed the loss of any one of them would mean the end of the nation as a nation.

What the five unities were

The five unities Golwalkar identified were:

Geographical (country): A defined territory of residence with an ancient history. For Golwalkar, India served as this land.
Racial (race): A shared descent and ancestry, which he tied closely to religion and culture rather than treating it as fixed biology.
Religious (religion): Of all the unities, Golwalkar gave religion a central place, arguing that it shaped the race and culture of the people.
Cultural (culture): Common traditions, customs, and ways of life that bind a people together.
Linguistic (language): A shared language, though Golwalkar himself recognised this was the weakest part of his argument given India’s linguistic diversity.

These five unities together formed his definition of nationhood. Notably, geography was just one component among five, not the defining factor. This is exactly how Golwalkar moved the centre of gravity away from territory and towards culture and spirit.

Cultural and spiritual unity as the foundation

Golwalkar’s deeper claim was that a genuine nation rests on cultural and spiritual unity rather than political arrangements. He argued that Western concepts of nationalism, based on territorial boundaries and political sovereignty, were inadequate for understanding the Indian context. He saw them as superficial constructs that missed the deeper essence of what made a nation truly alive.

Instead, he proposed that a nation’s true identity emerges from its cultural practices, religious beliefs, and spiritual traditions. He believed Hindus in India were united by a common culture, shared traditions, and a long history of collective achievement. For him, this shared inheritance, rather than a shared passport, was what made India their natural nation.

Fostering a collective consciousness

One of Golwalkar’s central goals was to foster a shared sense of identity, a kind of collective consciousness, among Hindus. He worried about the internal divisions of caste and region that fragmented Hindu society, and he repeatedly stressed the need to revive a spirit of oneness. By rooting national identity in culture and the sacred bond with the motherland, he hoped to create a unified national feeling that transcended these internal divisions.

Golwalkar also argued that the concept of the nation, which he equated with the Sanskrit word Rashtra, was not a modern import. He claimed it was as ancient as the Vedas, framing India as a singular, continuous entity stretching from Vedic times to the present. This emphasis on historical continuity reinforced his idea that national identity was something inherited and organic rather than recently constructed.

Criticism and controversy

Golwalkar’s concept of the nation as motherland has attracted significant and sustained criticism. The most serious concern is that his framework was exclusionary. By defining the nation through Hindu culture and the bond of the motherland, his theory placed those who followed religions originating outside India, particularly Muslims and Christians, outside the national community.

In his reasoning, only those who regarded India as both their motherland and their holy land could be considered genuine members of the nation. Since the holy lands of Islam and Christianity lie elsewhere, his framework treated these communities as having what he called extra-territorial loyalties, thereby excluding them. Critics argue this directly contradicts the inclusive, secular vision of nationhood enshrined in the Indian Constitution, which grants equal citizenship regardless of religion.

A further point of serious controversy concerns Golwalkar’s references to Nazi Germany. In We, or Our Nationhood Defined, he approvingly cited Germany’s treatment of minorities as a lesson for India, a stance that scholars have widely condemned. These passages remain among the most disturbing aspects of his writing and have shaped much of the academic critique of his ideas. Some later defenders of the RSS have tried to distance the organisation from these statements, but they remain part of the historical record.

Scholars have also questioned the historical accuracy of Golwalkar’s claims. His argument that the modern concept of the nation existed in Vedic times has been challenged by historians who point out that ancient references he relied upon do not actually support a notion of nationhood in the modern sense.

Why this concept still matters

Understanding Golwalkar’s idea of the nation as motherland is essential for anyone studying modern Indian political thought. His framework represents one pole in a long and ongoing debate about the very nature of Indian identity. On one side stands the civic, territorial, and constitutional model of nationhood; on the other stands the cultural model that Golwalkar championed.

These competing visions are not just historical curiosities. They continue to shape contemporary debates about citizenship, secularism, minority rights, and the meaning of being Indian. Whether one agrees with Golwalkar or rejects his views, engaging seriously with his arguments helps clarify the foundations on which different ideas of the nation are built. His thought reminds us that the question of what makes a nation has never had a single, settled answer in India.

What do you think? Do you believe a nation is best held together by shared culture and emotional attachment to the land, or by shared citizenship and constitutional rights regardless of religion or background? And how should a diverse country like India balance the desire for a unifying national identity with the need to protect the equal belonging of all its communities?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 1 / 5. Vote count: 1

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

Who was M. S. Golwalkar? 🔗

The idea of nation as motherland 🔗

Matribhumi and punyabhumi 🔗

The rejection of territorial nationalism 🔗

The five unities of a nation 🔗

What the five unities were 🔗

Cultural and spiritual unity as the foundation 🔗

Fostering a collective consciousness 🔗

Criticism and controversy 🔗

Why this concept still matters 🔗