Thread:-I know some(I'd assume you included) are trying to bring a Hindutva renaissance but you can never do it by erasing the past. A virulent socially orthodox form of Hindutva has always existed. Evidence? Sharing it below(1/n) https://twitter.com/Iyervval/status/1264969794576478210

Savarkar was the most radical of those within the Hindutva stream who had no problem with a complete eradication of caste system. I think its fair to argue that Savarkar's views on caste were much more radical than Gandhi. However Savarkar≠Hindutva(2/n)

Savarkar's early inspiration was Tilak. He(Tilak) was one of the earliest proponents of "Hindu Rajya". He was also a staunch orthodox conservative. He opposed the age of consent bill 1891 which sought to raise the age of consent from 10 to 12 years(3/n)

Tilak also opposed a bill proposed by Vithalbhai Patel in 1918 which sought to legalize inter caste marriage. He also thought it wasn't okay for for non Brahmins to be educated. Even sympathetic biographers such as Dhananjay Keer mentioned it(4/n)

But Tilak was never a part of RSS. Why? He died before RSS was formed. So, let's move on to MS Golwalkar,who continues to be idolized by the RSS, BJP and our hon'ble PM. Golwalkar wrote "We or Our nationhood defined" in 1939.(5/n)

In the first book, he claims that one of the factors of a good nation is the division of four classes as dictated by Hindu religion. And that those who don't subscribe to it are "Mlechchh"(6/n)

His second book "Bunch of thoughts", published in 1966, is even more extreme. He condemns Buddhism for uprooting *age old traditions*. What exactly were these traditions?(7/n)

No worries. He tells us clearly. The disruption of caste system made it easy for Muslims to invade. He argues that it was "orthodox and rigid" caste system which protected Hindu civilization.(8/n)

He claims caste maintained social cohesion. Now, you might argue that he had a different definition of caste, that he was actually against untouchability. Fine. But isn't that the exact thing Gandhi was saying? Isn't that why Ambedkar and Savarkar opposed him?(9/n)

The RSS also has a shady past. Though its appropriating Dr. Ambedkar today. It was extremely anti constitution in its early days. It opposed the national flag and carried out an article in its newspaper "Organizer" titled "Manu rules our heart" opposing constitution(10/n)

Do I have to mention all of its xenophobic rhetoric? The fact that some of its ideologues wanted non Hindus to be treated as second class citizens? That has been repeated too many times but I'll continue this thread tomorrow. Watch out(11/n)