Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah, instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue, are in comp… - Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

Our organization is not against you or anybody else. It is only for self-defence and protection against any kind of atrocity that we might face now or in future. As long as the Hindu sangathan movement is not violent, aggressive, usurping of your rights, property or life and as long as it stands for truth and self-protection, why should anyone have a grouse with it? As long as all these communal movements and missions of Aga Khan, Hasan Nizami or Khilafat carry on; as along as thousands of Hindus are forcibly coerced and converted; as long as Urdu newspapers openly proclaim the agenda to mass-convert Hindus in the next 5–10 years, advising Hindus to give up any attempts to organize and protect themselves for the sake of some mirage that you call national unity is utter hypocrisy.
...Our movement is not only not anti-Muslim, it has no angst against any community—Christian, Jew, Parsi or whoever else. Our movement believes that you have every right to organize yourself as a community. Just stop being aggressive predators. We have no such intentions and want to peacefully coexist with you in this country, which belongs to all of us. Just as Islam and Christianity proselytize a faith that they dearly believe to be the only true word, we Hindus too have a right to propagate a faith that we have come to believe for thousands of years and for generations—and that too not with a knife held to someone’s throat. We are organizing ourselves only to protect our community from any aggression. Self-protection is the natural right of any society. With no concern for religions, and believing in universal humanity, our movement believes in holding hands with everyone on the basis of One God, One Church, One Language, One prayer and the sanctity of our motherland.

Our patriotic and noble-minded sister (Sister Nivedita) had adopted our land from Sindu to the seas as her Fatherland. She truly loved it as such, and had our nation been free, we would have been the first to bestow the right of citizenship on such loving souls. So the first essential may, to some extent, be said to hold good in her case. The second essential of common blood of Hindu parentage must, nevertheless and necessarily, be absent in such cases as these. The sacrament of marriage with a Hindu, which really fuses and is universally admitted to do so, two beings into one, may be said to remove this disqualification. But although this second essential failed, either way to hold good in her case, the third important qualification of Hindutva did entitle her to be recognized as a Hindu. For, she had adopted our culture and come to adore our land as her Holyland [sic]. She felt, she was a Hindu and that is, apart from all technicalities, the real and the most important test. But we must not forget that we have to determine the essentials of Hindutva in the sense in which the word is actually used by an overwhelming majority of people. And therefore we must say that any convert of non-Hindu parentage to Hindutva can be a Hindu, if bona fide, he or she adopts our land as his or her country and marries a Hindu, thus coming to love our land as a real Fatherland, and adopts our culture and thus adores our land as the Punyabhu . The children of such a union as that would, other things being equal, be most emphatically Hindus.

The practice of untouchability is a sin, a blot on humanity, and nothing can justify it. Consider only that untouchable which is injurious to one’s health, not fellow human beings. Unshackling this one foolish fetter would bring crores of our Hindu brethren into the mainstream. They would serve the country in various capacities and defend her honour.