Synopsis The idea of Hindutva as a different category in the plethora of nationalist thoughts in modern India needs obvious attention. There is a common tendency among the leaders and intellectuals of different varieties to make an integrated image of anything possible in the field of political though. This enterprise is not only halfhearted but also thoroughly unrealistic. Any attempt to break this monolithic mindset may be branded as post modern. With actual apprehension on this score, the author has advanced an argument in favour of a polycentric understanding of the notion of Hindutva. It is naive to consider the very idea of Hindutva as a composite whole for the nuances that contextualize the idea are not only in variance but also at times inconsistent. The Hindutva protagonists of different shades hide their coloures like chamelson. They have common umbrella called nationalism. In order to comprehend their tit bits we have to question the very notion of nationalism in India. In this short attempt to unravel the mystery of a very important debate regarding the nature of the Indian state, the author has ventured to decipher the points of agreements and disagreements among the chief Hindutva protagnists who start with the 'pogrom' of exclusion and end up with the same in order to define the 'self'. This work aims at looking into the ideas of three protagonist of Hindutva-namely, V.D. Savarkar, M.S. Golwalkar, and Deendayal Upadhyay in terms of their mutual compatibilities and organizational inconsistencies.