Renowned historian Romila Thapar has publicly argued that the ideology of Hindutva is not a purely indigenous development, but rather one that draws heavily upon historical frameworks constructed by British colonial administrators. According to Thapar, the way Hindutva proponents interpret Indian history mirrors the binary categories—such as the division between Hindu and Muslim civilizations—that were popularized during the colonial period to categorize and govern the Indian subcontinent.

Thapar’s critique suggests that these colonial-era interpretations were designed to serve imperial interests by emphasizing religious divisions. She argues that by adopting these same historical narratives, modern Hindutva discourse inadvertently perpetuates a colonial legacy rather than reflecting a traditional or authentic pre-colonial Indian identity. This perspective challenges the claim that Hindutva represents a return to ancient cultural roots, positioning it instead as a modern political construct influenced by external academic and administrative traditions.

While Thapar’s analysis focuses on the intellectual lineage of these ideas, the discourse surrounding Hindutva remains highly polarized. Supporters of Hindutva often argue that their movement is a necessary reclamation of Indian cultural heritage that was suppressed or distorted by both colonial rule and subsequent secularist policies. Conversely, critics of the movement frequently cite academic arguments like Thapar’s to suggest that the ideology is based on a flawed or manufactured understanding of history. The debate highlights a fundamental disagreement over whether Hindutva is a revival of ancient traditions or a modern political ideology shaped by the very colonial forces it claims to oppose.