VD Savarkar was a true-blue Hindu protagonist. He dedicated his whole life to propagate Hindutva all over India so that Hinduism could strongly establish its indluence over all Indians irrespective of caste creed and religion and Hindu religion could become the universal religion of India. With that view in mind he studied ancient literature and texts to fortfy his claim.

V D Savarkar in his pamphlet titled 'Hindutva : Who is a Hindu' proclaimed ceremoniously that "Hindutva is not a word, but a history." In what sense Hindutva is a history but not a word? In his version of Hindutva, Hindutva is Hindu plus a sovereign Hindu state whereas "Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of Hindutva." Then it is clear from his claim that, terminologically "Hinduism" is not synonymous with "Hindutva", both are of different origin conceptually. Hindutva is a different paradigm or ideology as a whole and Hinduism is fractured version of Hindutva. Is then it a part of his proclaimed history, just an event written in the annals of history? But does our history speak volume for such an idea? Does it not distort and vulgerise history itself?

Let us turn a few pages in history. A true conception and representation of a Hindu is the most fundamental of all national identities. Historically we see that the river "Sindhu' (Indus) is sparsely and prominently uttered in different slokas in the Rigveda. The Sankskrit letter 'S' got changed and transformed into 'H' in Prakrita language. Savarkar speaks highly of Rigveda. Vedic Aryans' nomenclature of Rigveda's river Sindhu was Hindu to the aboriginals speaking their vernacular Prakrit so as to say that Hindu in actuality a most ancient word not invented thereafter. So, historically Hindu is not a concept or idea perse, rather it is a common name that denotes a particular area or community at most and it has got nothing to do with Savarkar's pet ideology of Hindutva.

Accordingly, those who lived on the bank of Indus popularly came to be known as Hindu, that is, it denotes a community of people who locally resided on the bank of Sindhu river and in that sense those who lived out this location are not historically Hindu, they are non-Hindu. To accept the notion of Hindu as a community otherwise is far from the historical authenticity. Savarkar says that the Hindus had been there since time immemorial, since the birth of time and the creation of the universe. But is this way of his thinking historically relevant in any way. Not only that, he claims that the Aryans were indigenous people of India. They were neither immigrants nor invaders into Hindustan from outside. So, if we have to concede to his claims, there was no Aryan invasion. The opponents of this claim say that by the time the Vedas were composed, the chances of the Aryans' migration from the central Asia as remote as all memory of it had been obfuscated.