How Savarkar crafted his narrative of ‘Hindudom’

In the midst of debates over nationalism and identity shaping political discourse in the country, let’s explore Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s distinction between Hindutva and Hinduism. Distinguishing ‘Hindutva’ from ‘Hinduism,’ he argued that the former was not merely the spiritual or religious history of India but ‘history in full’, encompassing cultural, ethnic, and national identity. 

Savarkar, who died 59 years ago on February 26, was a staunch patriot and a key architect of Hindu nationalism in Indian political discourse. He was the long-serving president of All India Hindu Mahasabha and advocated for a unified and valorous Hindu nation. 

His writings, which explore themes of religious identity, history, caste, violence, and nationalism, continue to influence ideologies and movements of right-wing organisations and political parties in India. Let’s dive into his perspective on religion, nationalism, history, politics and more. 

Writing history as a national duty

Savarkar believed that religion was inseparably linked to both the politics and history of India. He argued that without discussing the impact of various religious principles and actions of their followers on India’s political life, it was difficult to understand the currents and undercurrents of history. 

For him, writing history from a purely rational perspective is not always possible. Hence, he chose to narrate India’s history from a religious standpoint, but with little concern for the political consequences of such depictions. 

In the preface to the book, Hindu Pad Padashahi, he wrote, “To our Mohammadan readers, however, a word of explanation is needed. The duty of a historian is primarily to depict as far as possible the feelings, motives, emotions, and actions of the actors themselves whose deeds he aims to relate.” For Savarkar, writing history was a national duty. 

The 1857 revolt

This belief drove his reinterpretation of the 1857 revolt, which he saw as India’s first war of independence. According to Savarkar, the history of the 1857 revolt was written in an “unjust” and “misleading” manner with a “wicked and partial spirit” by English historians and their Indian sycophants. He challenged it by writing a “patriotic” and “scientific” history of the revolt titled The Indian War of Independence of 1857. 

Savarkar asserted, “This was no mutiny, it was a War of Independence.” For him, the revolution was driven by the principles of Swadharma and Swaraj, and said, “1857 has come and all India is one; one in life; one in destiny!” He called the revolution a “divine” and “justifiable” act of vengeance against British oppression and injustice. However, he lamented that the revolution was ultimately strangled by the selfish conduct of the princes.

Despite this, the spirit of unity forged during the revolt is reflected in his early writings on Hindu-Muslim relations. Savarkar viewed Muslims in India as potential allies in the political struggle against colonial rule. In his popular book, The Indian War of Independence of 1857, he called Muslims and Hindus “children of the soil of Hindusthan”, underlining their shared national identity and a common motherland – India.  

He described a shift in Hindu-Muslim relations, which transitioned from a historical context of rulers and subjects, or natives and outsiders, to one of brotherhood during the 1857 revolt. He cherished the principles of universal brotherhood and world commonwealth in Hindu Pad Padashahi but not at the cost of nationalism. 

Unity of humankind is appreciated only when the survival of a nation is ensured. He categorically stated that honourable unity between master and slaves was impossible. Hence, Savarkar prioritised the immediate question of national freedom over the idea of universal brotherhood. 

(archive.org)

Hinduism versus Hindutva 

This nation-first approach also shaped his understanding of Hindutva. Savarkar’s search for the meaning of the term ‘Hindu’ led him to narrate the history of ‘Hindudom’. For him, Hindutva was not merely the spiritual or religious history of India but ‘history in full’. He made a clear distinction between ‘Hindutva’ and ‘Hinduism, and wrote, “Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, or a part of Hindutva”. His idea of Hindutva was not tied to any specific religious dogma, meaning it was more about cultural, ethnic, and national identity. 

The failure to clearly distinguish the meanings of these terms caused suspicion and misunderstanding among ‘sister religions’ in India, Savarkar argued. However, his notion of ‘Hindu’ was not independent of other religious communities in India. In his early writings, he positioned Islam and Buddhism as the ‘Other’. He argued that invaders from other religions intended to destroy the ‘life blood of the nation’ – the Hindu religion. 

This distinction shaped his definition of Hindutva as he defined ‘Hindu’ by identifying essential elements of ‘Hindutva’. He wrote, “Hindu Dharma of all shades and schools, lives and grows and has its being in the atmosphere of Hindu culture and the Dharma of a Hindu being so completely identified with the land of the Hindus, this land to him is not only a Pitrubhu but a Punyabhu, not only a fatherland but a Holyland.” He asserted that Hindus’ love for their land was ‘undivided’ and ‘absolute’ because, unlike followers of other religions, Hindudom is their Holyland as well as fatherland. 

Rashtra (nation/territory), Jati (race/common blood), and Sanskriti (civilisation) were the essential elements of Savarkar’s Hindutva. Geography was the first precondition for the nation. However, Hindus are not only a nation but a race (Jati), defined by a shared origin and a ‘born brotherhood’ through common blood ties. Additionally, a shared civilisational heritage strengthened this unity. 

For Savarkar, Hindus are the only people who succeeded in preserving their civilisation. The first two elements – nation and race – corresponded to the concept of fatherland and the last one – civilisation – was embedded in the concept of a holyland. 

Religious nationalism 

This civilisational perspective can be seen in his vision of religious nationalism. Savarkar was a proponent of religious nationalism in colonial India, though his idea of the nation did not exclude elements of a modern nation-state. He argued that India has historically been a nation since Vedic times and Hindus are a nation by themselves. According to him, foreign invasions played a critical role in fostering national unity, as conflicts with outsiders made people aware of their identity. 

He asserted, “We, Hindus, are all one and a nation, because chiefly of our common blood – Bharat Santai.” According to Savarkar’s criterion – where a fatherland and holyland are the same – only Hindus could claim absolute and unquestionable patriotism towards India. Others, such as Muslims in India, had a different holyland as “their faces are ever turned to Mecca and Madina”. In a cablegram sent to the editor of The New York Times on April 7, 1942, Savarkar opined that he would not allow a state within the state, though he accepted the legitimate rights of minority communities. 

For Savarkar, the political independence of Hindus was a precondition for the independence of the nation. He was willing to accommodate other communities on the condition that they would recognise the Hindu nation. In sum, Savarkar equated the idea of ‘Hindudom’ with his vision of a future nation in which minorities would have legitimate rights, though Hindus’ tolerance towards other religions was never absolute. 

However, his vision of religious nationalism was accused of being ‘communal’ and ‘parochial’, which he defended by saying that every form of nationalism had tinges of communalism or parochialism. Savarkar contended, “…No movement is condemnable simply because it is sectional.” In his discourses, nationalism and communalism were not mutually exclusive.

In a 1938 address to the Hindu Mahasabha, he said, “When communalism is only defensive, it is justifiable and humane as an equitable nationalism itself.” But he maintained that it was condemnable only when it encroached upon the rights of other communities.

God/evil binary

This perspective was reflected in Savarkar’s historical narratives, where he labelled non-Hindu rulers, who could not resist foreign aggressions, as traitors to the nation. For instance, he also accused Emperor Ashoka of weakening the nation through his preaching of Buddhist nonviolence. In contrast, Savarkar glorified Maratha rulers for defending the nation against foreign rulers.

He criticised Mughal rulers, including Akbar, for what he perceived as their policy of religious intolerance towards Hindu subjects. He employed a God/evil binary to argue that Hindus cannot revere Maharana Pratap and Mughal emperor Akbar  simultaneously. 

Savarkar rewrote the medieval history of India as a continuous struggle against foreign aggressions to promote his vision of Hindu nationalism. He admired Shivaji, Baji Rao, and Madhav Rao among others for waging a ‘Hindu war of independence’ to liberate the nation from the yoke of what he termed ‘Muslim domination’. He criticised the Mughals for failing to fight against the British. 

For Savarkar, the failure to resist foreign rule was not just a political weakness but also a result of excessive nonviolence. He believed that India historically possessed strength to defend itself, but excessive nonviolence caused serious damage to its national strength and military might. He was critical of Buddha, Ashoka, and Gandhi for preaching excessive nonviolence. He refuted Gandhi’s idea of ‘absolute’ nonviolence as ‘anti-human’ and ‘immoral’, and argued, “relative ahimsa is a virtue; but absolute ahimsa is a crime”. 

Savarkar categorically justified the use of violence for a ‘righteous’ cause, particularly in defending the nation against “unjustifiable” foreign aggression. He envisioned a future nation built on militarisation and industrialisation, where citizens would be reborn as a military-minded and valorous race. 

Proponent of casteless India

Savarkar’s vision of a strong and united nation also extended to social reforms within Hindu society. In an essay titled Seven shackles of the Hindu society, Savarkar identified social restrictions – such as prohibitions on touch, interdining, intermarriage with certain castes, prohibition on certain occupations, seafaring, Vedic rites, and reconversion – as barriers to Hindu unity.

As a proponent of casteless India, Savarkar viewed the caste system as an evil that disunited Hindu society, undermined intellect and talent, and made it vulnerable to external threats. However, there are scholars who argue that Savarkar also viewed the caste system as a distinctive marker of Hindu identity. 

Despite this, his efforts in social reform were acknowledged by his contemporaries. In a letter dated February 18, 1933, B.R. Ambedkar appreciated Savarkar’s work against untouchability in Ratnagiri, saying, “If the untouchables are to be a part and parcel of Hindu society, then it is not enough to remove untouchability; for that, you must destroy Chaturvarnya.”

Post Read Questions

How did Savarkar distinguish ‘Hindutva’ from ‘Hinduism’, and how did this distinction shape his vision of India?

What does Savarkar mean by ‘history in full’, and how does this concept relate to his idea of Hindutva?

In what ways does Savarkar’s Hindutva encompass cultural, ethnic, and national identity beyond religious or spiritual aspects?

How does Savarkar’s vision of Hindutva influence contemporary Hindu nationalism in India?

(Dileep P Chandran is an Assistant Professor at the department of Political Science in University of Calicut, Kerala.)  

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.

Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.

Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.