To determine whether Hindutva accepts atheism, we must first define Hindutva, Hindu and Atheism.

For the purposes of the essay, we will assume that atheism is merely an umbrella philosophical stance for the skepticism in the belief of a personal deity. 

Hindutva is much harder to define but for the purposes of the essay it usually means a socio-cultural and political process for the purposes of uniting Hindus regardless of caste, sect and geographical region for political mobility and cultural unity. 

The fundamental problem in the topic arises from the cognate root ‘Hindu’ present in both ‘Hindutva’ and ‘Hinduism’ as if there was some sort of fundamental relation. The mistake made by the left as well as the far right of the Hindutva movement is to conflate both and to cause a mistaken correlation. There could not have been a greater blunder because the founders of the ideology of Hindutva never meant it to be one associated with any religion. Rather a group of people known as ‘Hindus’ who followed many religions of which only one was ‘Hinduism’, the one drawn from the Vedas and Puranas. Hindus also followed many other religions apart from the commonly referred to ‘Hinduism’. According to Savarkar and Golwakar, Hindu nationalism and the notion of a Hindu rastra was an abstract one and had almost nothing to do with some sort of theocratic state. It was a broad term that was inclusive rather than exclusive and regretted the social ills in Hindu society, namely lack of intermarriage between the caste, unwillingness of Hindu priests to re-convert those who left the faith, and lack of common places for people of all castes to break bread together. Savarkar actually was highly contemptuous of Hindu superstition and wanted a dynamic and scientific temper in the Hindu community to rid it of its social and cultural ills. 

Let me define Hindutva in Savarkar’s words himself “Hindutva is not a word but a history,Hinduism is only a derivative and a fractional part of Hindutva. Hindutva embraces all the departments of thought and activity of the whole of the Hindu people”

Savarkar also defines who a Hindu is from his book “Essentials of Hindutva: who is a Hindu?” Savarkar says “A man can be as truly a Hindu without even believing in the vedas as a religious authority. It is quite clear because thousands of our Jain brethren are calling themselves Hindu, not to mention others for generations. Throughout these pages we have made it clear that we have not been dealing with any ‘ism’ but rather the Hindutva in its cultural and nationalist aspects”

In another page, Savakar also says, “a Hindu is primarily one who, either in himself or through his forefathers is a citizen of Hindustan and considers the land his punyabhumi and karmabhumi”

The best extract to demonstrate my point is as follows, and please do not mind for the slightly longer extract,

Some of us were Aryans and some of us were Anaryas- we are all Hindus and own a common blood, Some of us were Bramhanas and some of us were chandalas- we are all Hindus and own a common blood, some of us were Gauds and some of us were Saraswats- we are all Hindus and own a common blood, Some of us were Rakshasas and some of us were Yakshas- we are all Hindus and own a common blood, Some of us were Vanaras and some of us were Kinnaras- we are all Hindus and own a common blood, Some of us were monists and pantheists, some theists and atheists, some monotheists but we are all Hindus and own a common blood and are a nation, and a Jati. Nothing else counts”

The reason I quote Savarkar so frequently to prove my case is because he enshrined the name Hindutva to thie ideology of Hindu nationalism and was the ideological forefather of the Sangh Parivar, and him being a Nastika himself is the greatest evidence that Hindutva is a much broader and all encompassing ideology than any of the faith systems that are indigenous to India (not to belittle any of them).

This is enshrined in the goals of major Hindutva organisations such as the RSS, BJP and the vishva Hindu parishad which are commonly mistaken by many people on the political left to be organisations devoted to religious supremacy movements. It has little to do with the religious lives of the Hindus and has more to do with their political unity and erasure of socio-political fissures within the Hindu community.

Hindutva by definition takes the dual role of the shield and the sword to protect the interests of the sovereignty of the Indian civilisation, and it’s cultural interests. Therefore the answer to the question “Does Hindutva accept atheism” isn’t that simple. When the atheism in question is a pernicious and proselytising one, and goes against Hindu interests, Hindutva is against it. When the atheism in question is merely a metaphysical stance on a metaphysical question such as that of the existence of God, Hindutva does not concern itself with this sort of question. Hindutva does not deal with metaphysical or spiritual questions. Hindutva deals with the more pragmatic issues at hand ie that of the interests and security of the nation, and the protection of the diversity of the various indigenous peoples of this nation. This not only includes Sanatanis but also Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Nastikas and other groups.  

Therefore the answer to the question “Does Hindutva accept atheism?” has two polar opposite answers. When the atheism comes from a worldview that derives it’s ethics and principles from a foreign ideology that is antithetical to the sovereignty and security of India, and that looks upon it’s ancestors and their way of life in contempt, to be primitive people of an uncivilised nature, then Hindutva is by nature against it. Hindutva is therefore against many atheist intellectuals in our contemporary times such as Romila Thapar, Arundati Roy, Burkha Dutt and others. When your atheism is merely a sidenote and the true bulk of your worldview comes from religion-like ideologies such as Marxism and wokeism, then Hindutva is fundamentally against you. But in these cases, it is not the atheism being attacked but the marxism. Golwalkar in his book “bunch of thoughts” outlined the 3 enemies of Hindutva which are “1. Christians 2. Muslims 3. Communists”, note that atheists aren’t one of these. 

There is also a second category of atheist namely the “Hindu atheist” who Hindutva welcomes among their community of Hindus. The term Hindu atheist sounds like a paradox to those who associate the term “Hindu” with ‘Sanatani’ ie the religion that stems from the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, but this is not the term that is meant when Hindutva leaders namely Savarkar, Golwalkar etc meant when they said Hindu. The Hindu atheist by nature is one who considers his community to be that of the Hindus and his “mathrubhumi”, “pitrubhumi” and “karmabhumi” to be India, and who has allegiance and loyalty to India. His mere stance on the singular question of the existence of a deity is a negative one, but this is trivial in comparison to the other questions, which are concerned primarily with nationalism, patriotism and loyalty to the Hindu character of the Indian civilisation. Gandhi was a devout Hindu and wrote multiple books on Hinduism, but Savarkar was an atheist who refused to even be cremated with Vedic last rites. Yet it is Savarkar who is revered to a greater extent by the Hindutva ideology proponents and Gandhi to a far lesser extent who is more revered by those of a  center-left ideological persuasion. 

Even in contemporary politics, there are many politicians and other figures who are or at least claim to be devout Hindus such as K Chandrashekar Rao of the erstwhile Telangana Rashtra Samiti, now BRS and and Arvind Kejrwal of the Aam Aadmi party among others, however none of them are of Hindutva inclination. Yet a muslim such as Shehzad Poonawala and atheists such as Kushal Mehra and Abhijit Iyer Mitra have large followers among online Hindutva masses. This itself is evidence that Hindutva has little to do with what is known as Hinduism ie Sanatana Dharma and Hindutva does not concern itself with personal faith of a Hindu. 

The question then arises, why do Hindutva groups seek to restore ancient temples such as the Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya, the ongoing case of the Kashi Vishvanath temple and the Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura? The answer has more to do with shared historical and mythical heroes to connect with on a cultural scale than with any theological idea. A Hindu might bow to a statue of Ram for many reasons, only one of which is a theological reason of considering Ram to be a deity. One might bow to a statue of Ram knowing very well that it is merely a social or mythical construct but might bow to it to pay homage to his culture and the shared ideals of his people and ancestors. One might also bow to the statue to display reverence to the ideals that the mythical hero stands for ie justice, compassion, ideal spouse, ideal son, ideal brother and so on. Bowing to the statue might come from multiple different reasons, among which faith and a belief in the supernatural existence of a deity that is capable of slaying ten headed demons is only one. Therefore the Hindutva movement concerns itself with such reestablishment of shared cultural legacies not due to faith based considerations but rather to create a sense of shared mythology and common culture. Many intellectuals, including Yuval Noah Harari have written about this to be a necessary prerequisite for civilisation, without which it decays and falls into postmodernism. Bowing to Ram and making a pilgrimage to his birthsite therefore is an act that not only a Santani can do, but also a Nastika, a Jain, a Sikh and also a Christian and muslim who reveres the cultural legacy of his ancestors and nation.

In the context of the foreign invaders, Savarkar writes “In this prolonged furious conflict, our people became intensely conscious of ourselves as Hindus and were welded into a nation. All this while the progress of our land was that of Hindutva and not of any religious section or creed alone. Sanatanis, Sikhs, Aryans, Anaryas, Marathas, Madrasis, Brahmins and Panchamas all suffered as Hindus and triumphed as Hindus.”

Even from a religious standpoint, there is plenty of theological diversity within the several Hindu schools of philosophy, wherein an atheist such as a Carvaka, a monotheist such as an Iyengar or a Lingayat or Sikh, a non dualist such as an Advaitin, a polytheist such as a Smarta, a dualist such as Madhva, an agnostic such as a Buddhist or a Jain can all live side by side in harmony. Hindutva calls for the protection of the theological and cultural diversity of Hinduism, and seeks to defend it from the forces that threaten it (namely proselytizing faiths and marxism). It is therefore clear that a benign atheism that respects the 3 Cs country, culture and creed sits well within the protection of Hindutva.

Therefore if Hindu is an ethnic term, it is clearly possible to be an atheist and a Hindu, if Hindu is a socio-cultural term, it is clearly possible to be an atheist and a Hindu, and if it is political term, it is clearly possible to be a Hindu through the definitions laid out in Hindutva, and if it is a religious term, it is still possible to be a carvak, jain, mimansin etc and still be a Hindu.