Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966) was a towering, albeit controversial, figure in India’s freedom struggle and a seminal ideologue of Hindu nationalism. His political philosophy, primarily encapsulated in the concept of ‘Hindutva,’ sought to define the very essence of Indian nationhood, diverging significantly from the more composite and secular nationalism championed by the Indian National Congress. Savarkar’s life traversed multiple phases, from an ardent revolutionary fighting British rule to a political theorist who envisioned India as a Hindu nation, culminating in his leadership of the Hindu Mahasabha.
Born into a Marathi Brahmin family in Maharashtra, Savarkar’s early life was marked by fervent patriotism and revolutionary zeal. He founded the secret society Abhinav Bharat, engaged in anti-British activities, and was a vocal proponent of armed resistance. His daring escape from a ship during his deportation to India and subsequent capture made him a legend. Sentenced to two life terms in the Andaman Cellular Jail, his experiences there profoundly shaped his political thought. It was during his incarceration, specifically in 1923, that he penned “Essentials of Hindutva,” later published as “Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?”, a foundational text for the Hindu nationalist movement that defined his core political philosophy.
The Concept of Hindutva
Savarkar’s magnum opus, “Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?”, laid the groundwork for his political philosophy, offering a comprehensive, albeit contentious, definition of Hindu identity and, by extension, Indian nationhood. For Savarkar, Hindutva was not merely Hinduism as a religion but a holistic cultural, civilizational, and national identity that encompassed all those who considered India their fatherland (Pitrubhumi) and their holy land (Punyabhumi). He posited that the Hindu nation was built upon three fundamental and interconnected pillars: common territory (Rashtra), common race (Jati), and common culture/civilization (Sanskriti).
The first pillar, Rashtra, refers to a common nation or territory, specifically Bharatavarsha, the geographical expanse of India extending from the Himalayas to the Indian Ocean. Savarkar asserted that this land was the ancestral homeland of the Hindus, a cradle of their civilization, and the sacred space where their history unfolded. This geographical demarcation was crucial for establishing an exclusive claim to the land for Hindus, framing it as their inherent and historical domain. It was not merely a piece of land but a living entity imbued with the spirit and history of the Hindu people.
The second pillar, Jati, signifies a common race or ancestry. Savarkar argued that despite the apparent diversity of castes and sub-castes within Hindu society, all Hindus shared a common racial lineage. He posited a deep genealogical connection among them, stretching back millennia. This concept aimed to forge a sense of primordial unity among various Hindu communities, transcending regional, linguistic, and social distinctions that often divided them. By invoking a shared racial identity, Savarkar sought to consolidate Hindus into a singular, cohesive national entity, a powerful body capable of asserting its dominance and securing its future. This idea was particularly significant in an era grappling with the fragmentation caused by the caste system and regional loyalties, aiming to subsume all these under a larger, overarching Hindu racial identity.
The third and perhaps most pivotal pillar was Sanskriti, representing a common culture and civilization. For Savarkar, this encompassed a shared history, literature, laws, rituals, festivals, and cultural heritage, all rooted in the ancient Vedic traditions and Sanskrit language. Crucially, Sanskriti was intrinsically linked to the concept of Punyabhumi, the holy land. He argued that for a person to be considered a true Hindu, India had to be not only their fatherland but also their holy land, the birthplace and abode of their fundamental spiritual concepts. This particular criterion became a defining and exclusionary aspect of his philosophy. He contended that while Christians and Muslims might consider India their Pitrubhumi (fatherland) as they were born and lived there, their Punyabhumi (holy land) lay outside India – in Jerusalem or Mecca respectively. This perceived dichotomy in their loyalties, according to Savarkar, rendered them incapable of being fully integrated into the Hindu nation, relegating them to the status of ‘aliens’ or ‘guests’ who could not share in the inherent national identity of India.
Hindu Nationalism vs. Indian Nationalism
Savarkar’s vision of nationhood stood in stark contrast to the inclusive, composite nationalism advocated by the Indian National Congress under leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. While the Congress sought to build a nation based on shared territorial identity and political freedom irrespective of religion, Savarkar asserted that India, by its very essence, was a Hindu nation. For him, “Indian” was synonymous with “Hindu,” and the nation’s identity was inextricably linked to its Hindu civilization and culture. He explicitly rejected the idea of composite nationalism, which sought to assimilate diverse religious and cultural groups into a common national fabric. Savarkar believed that true national unity could only be achieved through cultural homogeneity, which he saw as Hindu.
He argued that throughout history, India’s identity and its struggles for freedom were rooted in its Hindu character. The perceived weakness and subjugation of India under foreign rule, whether by Islamic invaders or the British, were attributed by him to the internal fragmentation and lack of martial spirit among Hindus. Therefore, the resurgence of India required the reassertion of its Hindu identity and the strengthening of the Hindu community. This led to his advocacy for Hindu Sangathan – the organization and consolidation of Hindus – as the primary task for national rejuvenation.
Savarkar’s conceptualization of the nation also implicitly contained elements that prefigured the ‘two-nation theory’ based on religious identity, although his articulation differed from Jinnah’s. While Jinnah argued for separate states for Hindus and Muslims, Savarkar’s philosophy, by defining India exclusively as a Hindu nation and questioning the loyalty of non-Hindus, also posited a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between Hindus and non-Hindus, particularly Muslims and Christians. He contended that these communities maintained extra-territorial loyalties due to their holy sites being outside India, thereby making them distinct political entities within the Hindu nation. This perspective inherently created a framework where non-Hindus were seen as ‘others’ who could only exist within a Hindu state if they fully assimilated culturally and politically, abandoning any perceived allegiance to their religious centers abroad.
Militarization and Realpolitik
A significant aspect of Savarkar’s philosophy was his strong advocacy for the militarization of Hindus, encapsulated in the slogan “Hinduize all politics and militarize Hindudom.” Having experienced the weakness of an unarmed populace under colonial rule and holding a historical perspective that saw Hindus repeatedly subdued by invaders, Savarkar vehemently argued for the development of martial prowess among Hindus. He believed that the Hindu community had become overly passive and introspective, leading to its vulnerability. To counter this, he called for physical training, military education, and the promotion of a martial spirit throughout Hindu society.
This emphasis on strength and power stemmed from a deep-seated realpolitik. Unlike Mahatma Gandhi’s espousal of non-violence and moral force, Savarkar believed in the necessity of state power, military might, and strategic pragmatism to protect national interests and ensure the survival and prosperity of the Hindu nation. He was critical of what he perceived as the naive idealism of some nationalist leaders, arguing that a nation’s security and sovereignty ultimately depended on its ability to defend itself by force. His philosophy, therefore, placed a premium on national strength, preparedness, and assertive foreign policy, rather than relying solely on ethical appeals or international goodwill.
Savarkar also championed a scientific and rational outlook. He encouraged Hindus to shed superstitions and embrace modern science and technology for national progress. He believed that the pursuit of scientific knowledge and its application was essential for building a strong and prosperous nation, capable of competing on the global stage. This emphasis on rationality, however, was always framed within the overarching context of strengthening the Hindu nation and was not meant to challenge the fundamental cultural or historical narratives he propagated.
Social Reform and the Caste System
While Savarkar is primarily known for his Hindu nationalist ideology, he was also a vocal advocate for certain social reforms within Hindu society, particularly concerning the abolition of untouchability and the dismantling of the rigidities of the caste system. He viewed untouchability as a grave blot on Hindu society, a source of weakness that fragmented the community and hindered its collective strength. His efforts included advocating for temple entry for Dalits, promoting inter-caste dining, and encouraging social interaction between different castes. He believed that the internal divisions created by the caste system significantly weakened the Hindu nation, making it susceptible to external aggression and internal discord.
However, his approach to caste reform was pragmatic and driven by the imperative of Hindu unity and strength, rather than a radical commitment to social egalitarianism in the modern sense. He sought to reform the caste system by removing its discriminatory practices, particularly untouchability, to forge a more cohesive Hindu identity capable of standing strong against perceived threats. He was not necessarily an advocate for the complete abolition of the Varna system itself, but rather its reform to eliminate discrimination and promote cohesion. His emphasis was on bringing all sections of Hindu society together under a singular Hindu identity, transcending internal divisions for the greater good of the Hindu nation. This differentiated his reformist zeal from that of radical social reformers who sought to dismantle the very foundations of the caste system.
Secularism and the State
Savarkar’s vision of a Hindu Rashtra was not a theocracy in the traditional sense, but rather a state where the Hindu ethos, culture, and civilization would be the foundational pillars. He did not advocate for a state ruled by priests or based on strict religious law, but rather a state that consciously upheld and promoted Hindu values, history, and traditions. Within this framework, he granted religious freedom to minorities, but crucially, this freedom was circumscribed by the overarching dominance of Hindu culture. Non-Hindus were expected to respect and assimilate into the prevailing Hindu cultural framework.
His concept of “Akhand Bharat” (undivided India) was intrinsically linked to this idea of Hindu dominance. He envisioned a large, unified India, but one where the Hindu identity was paramount and unchallenged. This vision presented a fundamental challenge to the pluralistic and secular framework that India ultimately adopted after independence. For Savarkar, the Indian state’s neutrality towards religion was not an ideal; instead, the state had a responsibility to foster and protect Hindu culture and interests, given that Hindus constituted the overwhelming majority and were, in his view, the true inheritors and custodians of the nation. He believed that the state should actively work to preserve and promote Hindu civilization, which he considered synonymous with Indian civilization.
Attitude Towards Muslims and Christians
A particularly contentious aspect of Savarkar’s political philosophy was his unequivocal stance on the position of Muslims and Christians within the Hindu nation. As previously discussed, his Punyabhumi criterion fundamentally distinguished these communities from Hindus. He argued that their allegiance to holy lands outside India (Mecca/Jerusalem) implied extra-territorial loyalties, making their complete integration into the Hindu nation problematic. While acknowledging their birth and residence in India as Pitrubhumi, he deemed their inability to view India as their Punyabhumi as an insurmountable barrier to full national identity.
Savarkar viewed these communities as distinct political entities, and often as potential threats or challenges to Hindu unity and dominance. He accused them of harbouring a communal outlook and having divided loyalties. This perspective often led to an antagonistic stance, though he sometimes spoke of peaceful coexistence, it was always implicitly or explicitly under the condition of Hindu cultural and political supremacy. He advocated for their treatment as minorities who would enjoy civic rights but would not share in the defining national identity or wield disproportionate political influence. His writings frequently invoked historical grievances, portraying Muslim rule in India as an oppressive foreign imposition and criticizing the perceived proselytizing nature of Christianity. This critical assessment of Muslims and Christians formed a central pillar of his strategy for consolidating Hindu identity and power.
The political philosophy of V.D. Savarkar is a complex tapestry woven from revolutionary nationalism, a specific interpretation of Indian history, and a potent, exclusionary definition of national identity. At its core lies the concept of Hindutva, which transcends mere religion to define a collective Hindu racial, cultural, and territorial identity as the bedrock of the Indian nation. His emphasis on Pitrubhumi, Jati, and Sanskriti meticulously delineated who belonged to the Hindu nation, fundamentally distinguishing this vision from a geographically or politically defined Indian nationalism.
Savarkar’s advocacy for the militarization of Hindus and his pragmatic approach to state power underscore a philosophy driven by realpolitik and a profound concern for national strength and survival. He championed social reforms like the abolition of untouchability, not as an end in itself, but as a crucial means to consolidate Hindu society and eliminate internal weaknesses. However, his vision of a Hindu Rashtra, while not a rigid theocracy, undeniably placed Hindu culture and values at the apex of national life, explicitly questioning the complete loyalty and integration of non-Hindu minorities whose spiritual allegiances lay outside India. This exclusionary aspect of his philosophy has remained a source of significant debate and contention.
Ultimately, Savarkar’s ideas continue to exert a profound influence on contemporary Indian politics, serving as a foundational ideology for various Hindu nationalist organizations. His articulation of Hindutva provided a coherent framework for understanding Indian nationhood through a distinct cultural and historical lens, advocating for Hindu cultural and political ascendancy. His legacy remains deeply divisive, celebrated by his adherents as a visionary nationalist and revolutionary, while criticized by others for his communal politics and the exclusionary implications of his philosophy, particularly concerning India’s secular fabric and its diverse population.