K.I.:<\/strong> It really depends on how one defines a nation. If we adopt the definition of a civic nation, then we\u2019d speak of an \u2018Indian nation\u2019 comprising all the residents of the Republic of India. This would be a nation not defined by a specific language or culture. Historically, one could argue that in a political, civic sense, such a nation never existed, as there was never a unified Indian state in South Asia before 1947. Presently, this unified concept doesn\u2019t exist either, given that countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka function independently. However, for the first time in history, we have a political entity that encompasses a large portion of South Asia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In India, much like in Europe, debates about national identity have been and continue to be prevalent. The idea of an Indian nation is often contrasted with the notion of a Hindu nation, defined by the Hindu religion and its associated culture. One of the proponents and theorists of Hindu nationalist thought was Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who remains influential in India today. In 1923, he penned \u2018Hindutva. Who is a Hindu?\u2019, asserting that Indian identity is expressed through Hinduism. For Savarkar, Indian Muslims and Christians were \u2018suspect\u2019 in terms of their identity, because he regarded the religions they practiced as foreign to India. He advocated that they could be citizens of India, but to truly be part of the nation, they would have to acknowledge the supremacy of Hindu culture. Politically, Savarkar might not have been very prominent, but as an ideologue, he influenced generations of Hindu nationalists. This includes the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteer Union), of which the current Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, is a member, as well as the ruling party since 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party or Indian People\u2019s Party. If we were to adopt the Hindu nationalist perspective that a shared culture is a prerequisite for the existence of a nation, it would lead to the conclusion that there are multiple nations within India, given the significant Muslim minority and substantial Christian community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Do nationalists also exclude followers of Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism from the Hindu nation?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n No. Savarkar provided a rather broad definition of \u2018Hindutva\u2019, or Hindu nationalism. He stated that Hinduness is indicated by culture. But what exactly does that mean? There are dozens of definitions of culture. According to him, an integral component of culture is \u2018rashtra\u2019, which can be understood as a nation or a state. If we consider it in the context of a state, it aligns with the definition of a civic nation. On the other hand, if \u2018rashtra\u2019 represents nationality, then we encounter a tautological definition: I belong to the Hindu nation because I belong to the Hindu nation. Therefore, Savarkar didn\u2019t really propose anything specific. He never asserted that members of the Hindu nation should believe in a particular god or speak a specific language. While he was a proponent of the Hindi language, he didn\u2019t claim it to be an essential condition for Hinduness. Hindu nationalists don\u2019t rigidly define which elements of Hinduism one should follow or which Hindu traditions one should adhere to in order to be part of the nation. This approach is quite understandable. If they were more stringent, they\u2019d demonstrate political naivety, given that Hinduism is a religion without a hierarchical clergy, a single holy book, or a crystallized doctrine. It\u2019s not dogmatically orthodox; there\u2019s no central theological authority that safeguards rituals and dictates to followers how to interpret the holy texts. In Hinduism, there are many gods, various interpretations of sacred scriptures, and a plethora of traditions. If nationalists claimed that the nation should rally around a specific god, they would automatically alienate a large segment of Hindus. They did try to point out a desired \u2018canon of Hinduness\u2019 to tribal members and lower castes, but they soon realized that such an approach alienates many groups. Therefore, they include within the Hindu nation not just all potential Hindu religious communities but also all indigenous tribal traditions as well as Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. They believe these religions sprouted from the same civilizational root as Hindu traditions. Hindus see them as branches of the same tree. As one can observe \u2013 the concepts of Hinduness and the Hindu nation are incredibly inclusive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Given the many elements that constitute the concept of Hinduism, what are the components that allow us to say a common Hindu culture or civilization exists?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Even though numerous Indian states have existed over the millennia, they were largely connected by a higher culture. This is because there was an elite of Brahmins, or priests, who often knew Sanskrit, the language of the elites in ancient, medieval, and early modern India. Its role was akin to that of Latin in European history. It was the language of rituals, sacred texts, and theological literature. Today, few in India are versed in Sanskrit, but the culture of the priestly elites \u2013 albeit with evident regional variations \u2013 represents a unifying whole. If Brahmins from Kerala, Bengal, and Punjab were to meet and knew Sanskrit, they could engage in a debate on a sacred text, employing the same terms, concepts, and cultural contexts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"India\"](\"https:\/\/holistic.news\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/Holistic_News_Design_an_authentic_and_visually_captivating_phot_2f856c67-93e5-4b51-98b5-d16a9f2491d9-1024x574.png\")