Name – Ankur Purohit (0290) Paper – HSM - 408

College – Ramjas college Submitted to – Dr. Aparna Balachandran

EXPLORING SAVARKAR AND HIS HINDUTVA

"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."

- George Orwell (in his novel 1984)

In this paper I have tried to explore Savarkar's views on nationalism as expressed in his work Essentials
of Hindutva. In this process I have also tried to show the contrast of how Hinduism as a political tool is
being used by Gandhi (in Hind Swaraj) and Savarkar (in Essentials of Hindutva).

Early twentieth century nationalist political thought in India was either territorial (INC) or cultural
(Muslim League) in nature. But with the emergence of Hindu right, a third variant of nationalism
emerged which was both territorial and cultural in nature. Although, there were some more before him
but Savarkar turned out to be the chief proponent of Hindutva. Thus, this paper primarily tries to
understand his Essentials of Hindutva, while also looking at some of his speeches in Hindu Rashtra
Darshan.

Essentials of Hindutva is a short reading. Its first seven sections deal with the issue of naming: who is a
Hindu, when do names become fixed, what is the history of names, why is a name important, can a
name of a people be considered the name of a nation? Sections 8–13 are devoted on the subject of why
Buddhism as nationalism let the country down. Section 14 returns to the Vedas, and the next three
sections concentrate again on the issue of naming. Section 18 apologizes to Buddhism for giving offense,
and section 21 deals with foreign invaders. In sections 22–31, with the exception of one section devoted
to a seemingly historical analysis (22), Savarkar returns to the issue of naming.

I
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was the first systematic thinker to theorize, what we know today as, Hindu
nationalism. In this process he discovers multiple 'others', which is a 'derivative discourse' from Europe;
Ashis Nandy even calls this ethno-nationalism of Savarkar's as an illegitimate child of modern Europe. 1
For Savarkar, British weren't the only 'other'. He believes that the Hindu identity is inseparable from the
Indian identity. His argument is that, Britishers only did not had illegitimate claim over India, there were
other groups too, who usurped religious, cultural, political spaces illegitimately and thus this question of
who the legitimate claimant to this nation is what he tries to address in his work.

1Nandy, Ashis. "A Disowned Father of the Nation in India: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the
Demonic and the Seductive in Indian Nationalism." Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, March 24, 2014.
Pg. 93
Savarkar has put a lot of effort into the issues of naming. He starts his book with a part called 'What is in
a name'? This isn't just a hypothetical/semantic inquiry for him as it is personally associated with his
political engagement. This far-reaching term which he summons; 'Hindutva' – 'a history in full', still
conveys the heaviness of its etymological closeness to the word 'Hindu', yet it is to be noticed that inside
Savarkar's written work there is an endeavor to make a more comprehensive classification than what
the absolutely religious term 'Hindu' infers, this is the reason he advocates 'Hindutva.

'Hindutva' however as built by Savarkar does not figure out how to adequately separate itself from
'Hindu'. The most prominent indication of this is the sort of story which Savarkar is ensnared into
making for the solidification of his Hindutva family history. The start, for instance, is 'when the foremost
band of the intrepid Aryans made it their home and lighted their first sacrificial fire on the banks of the
Sindhu'.2 Such a rendering is clearly hazardous for various reasons as it is Aryan-driven and overlooks the
Dravidian culture which was probably living close to the banks of the Indus amid this period. To be
reasonable to Savarkar however, there's no exact idea even today of Aryans' resemblance or the degree
to which they may have collaborated with Dravidian societies.

He outlines his conception in a speech that says,

aasindhusindhuparyanta yasya bharatbhoomika

pitrabhooh punyabhooshchaiv sa vaiy hinduritismrutah

'Everyone who regards and claims this Bharatbhoomi from, the Indus to the Seas as his Fatherland and
Holyland is a Hindu. Here I must point out that it is rather loose to say that any person professing any
religion of Indian origin is a Hindu because that is only one aspect of Hindutva. The second and equally
essential constituent of the concept of Hindutva cannot be ignored if we want to save the definition
from getting overlapping and unreal. It is not enough that a person should profess any religion of Indian
origin, i.e. Hindustan as his Punyabhoo his Holyland, but he must also recognize it as his Pitrabhoo too,
his Fatherland as well.

People and a nation by themselves not by the only tie of a common Holyland in which their religion took
birth but by the ties of a common culture, a common language, a common history and essentially of a
common fatherland as well. It is these two constituents taken together that constitute our Hindutva and
distinguish us form any other people in the world.3 In this formulation Savarkar is, as Rahul Govind says,
tacitly doubting the claims of Christians and Muslims to the land and culture. 4

But the problem here with Savarkar is that in theorizing his version of nationalism, he creates a
hierarchical niche (like caste system) for every community, as a result, turning his thesis into a partial

2 Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. "Who is a Hindu?" In Essentials of Hindutva.

3 Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindu Rashtra Darshan, vol. Presidential Address ‐ Akhil
Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha, 19th Session ‐ at Karnavati ‐ 1937; Pg. 3.
4 Govind, Rahul. "Ambedkar’s Lessons, Ambedkar’s Challenges - Hinduism, Hindutva and the

Indian Nation." Economic & Political Weekly1,111, no. 4 (January 27, 2018): 80-92.
work and selectively inclusive in -nature. There are ambiguities in his work which gives space to
majoritarian elements. Thus, for him "Hinduism must necessarily mean the religion and the religions
that are peculiar and native to this land and people". 5 He defined Hindu in terms of "the three essentials
of nation (rashtra), race (jati) and civilisation (sanskriti)". 6 The first important qualification of a Hindu is
that "the whole continental country from the Sindhu to Sindhu, from the Indus to the Seas", 7 "is not only
a Pitribhu but a Punyabhu, not only a fatherland but a holyland" as well. 8 This geographical specification
indeed becomes identical to what has traditionally been considered to the land of India for centuries.
Thus, …the fi st e uisite of Hi dut a is that he e a itize of Hi dustha eithe y hi self o th ough
his fo efathe s, Ho e e “a a ka a gues i sa e se te e, yet it is not the only requisite qualification
of it, as the te Hi du has o e to ea u h o e tha its geog aphi al sig ifi a e . 9 This leads him
to introduce the idea of common blood or Jati which is typical in his political construction of Hindutva. In
his speech to the Hindu Mahasabha at Nagpur in 1938 he insisted that "India must be a land reserved
for the Hindus". Others were here on sufferance as lesser citizens.

He continues in the chapter 'bond of common blood' that "The Hindus are not merely the citizens of the
Indian state because they are united not only by the bonds of the love they bear to a common
motherland but also by the bonds of a common blood. They are not only a Nation but also a race-jati.
The word jati derived from the root Jan to produce, means a brotherhood, a race determined by a
common origin, -possessing a common blood." He adds, "A Hindu believing in any theoretical or
philosophical or social system, orthodox or heterodox, provided it is unquestionably indigenous and
founded by a Hindu may lose his sect but not his Hindutva-his Hinduness—because the most important
essential which determines it is the inheritance of the Hindu blood."

Savarkar did make an exception though to his own ideology and acknowledge Nivedita as a Hindu, even
though her janma bhoomi (land of her birth), was not India, she made it her punya bhoomi, her
holyland, because she adopted its culture and religion as her own.10 However, Nivedita's conversion was
to the neo-Vedantism of Vivekananda, not the Hindutva of Savarkar. Even her understanding of
nationality was closer to Vivekananda's universalism than to Savarkar's ethnocentrism. Apart from this,
he gives no concrete structure or example to clear up the ambiguities in his proposal. 11

While talking about Buddhism, Savarkar says that for a period of time, Buddhism became the dominant
religion but 'political and national necessity' became the 'cause and effect' for the decline of Buddhism
in India; and even in this period 'institutions that were the peculiar marks of our nation' I.e. caste system
survived and he even argues that this system as an institution grew strong enough 'that our nationality
was almost getting identified with it'. 12 He also tried to link it with geography and says that "Buddhism

5 Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. "Who is a Hindu?" In Essentials of Hindutva.

6 Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. "Who is a Hindu?" In Essentials of Hindutva.
7 ibid.

8 ibid.

9 Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. "Essential implication of Hindutva." In Essentials of Hindutva.

10 Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. "Hindus in Sindh." In Essentials of Hindutva.

11 http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/168527/7/07_chapter%203.pdf

12 Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. "Institutions in favour of Nationality" In Essentials of Hindutva.

had its geographical centre of gravity nowhere" 13 implying that for a religion to prosper, a 'national' and
geographical belongingness is necessary and also through this example he is trying to legitimize his own
theory of majoritarian, religious/ethnic nationalism.

II
Under the umbrella of fundamentalism, there are clear differences between those who insist on total,
literal allegiance to a sacred text and those who carefully avoid the issue and bypass the substantive
contents of faith, to pursue the secular interests of a religious community, invoking faith as only a
strategy of mobilization.14 Although Gandhi cannot be called a fundamentalist but both he and Savarkar
belonged to the second category. Both of them employed Hinduism (overtly or covertly) as a tool of
mobilization and Savarkar's writings and politics float around this idea that Janaki Bakhle explored that
is 'Hindutva in its time was also a reminder to a Hindu community that even if Gandhi had left the
political milieu, there was no need to worry.'15 Both were in opposition with each other and remained
nemesis ideologically throughout their life. Savarkar's biographer even claimed that Hind Swaraj was
written by Gandhi in response to Savarkar.

There are varieties of thematic differences between Savarkar and Gandhi's views. 'In spite of its
pretensions to be nationalist and modern, Savarkar's militant chauvinism and authoritarian
fundamentalism make Savarkar's Hindutva the antithesis of Gandhi's Hinduism. Hindutva defines India
as Hindu and wants all Indians to be Hindus. In contrast, Gandhi's Hinduism gives space to all.' 16 Gandhi's
ideas on nationalism were secular in nature. Prima facie it looks that Gandhi did use faith as a tool to
connect to the masses but his purpose of bringing religion in public domain was to bring ethics
emanating from religion, into the politics. He always showed restrain while Savarkar's ideas regularly
display chauvinism. On the other hand, Savarkar gave this slogan 'Hinduise all politics and Militarise
Hindudom!' as crux of the Hindu Sanghatanist ideology.17

Role of state in Gandhi's political philosophy, remains neutral toward civilization as political ideology. It
uses political power only for internal order and external security.
Gandhi talked about peace and love but for Savarkar 'absolute ahimsa is moral perversity.' He criticizes

13 Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. "Commingling of Races" In Essentials of Hindutva.

14 Nandy, Ashis. "A Disowned Father of the Nation in India: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the
Demonic and the Seductive in Indian Nationalism." Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, March 24, 2014.
Pg. 92
15 Bakhle, J. (2010). Country First? Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966) and the Writing of

Essentials of Hindutva. Public Culture. 22. 149-186. 10.1215/08992363-2009-020.

16 Heredia, C. Rudolf. "Gandhi's Hinduism and Savarkar's Hindutva" Economic & Political

Weekly 44, no. 29 (July 18, 2009): pg.62.

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindu Rashtra Darshan, PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS ‐ AKHIL
17

BHARATIYA HINDU MAHASABHA 24th Session Cawnpore ‐ 1942

Gandhi in a Presidential address by saying that 'relative ahimsa is a virtue; but absolute ahimsa a
crime!'18

Even the style of presenting their works i.e. Hind Swaraj and Essentials of Hindutva, says a lot about
them. Gandhi has presented his work in a dialogical form, which means engagement in the activity of
listening and speaking. This is also how ancient texts also used to present their and their opponents
views. Savarkar, on the other hand, uses more common form of essay type writing.

Conclusion - All in all, at that point, a Hindu, for Savarkar is one who views the land that stretches out
from the Indus to the Seas as his mother country, who acquires the blood of his Vedic precursors, who
claims Sanskrit culture as his own and who 'addresses' Sindhusthan as his Holyland. Thus, giving his
critics a chance to call him partial, majoritarian, fundamentalist etc. Post-independence, India's
constitutional framework was based on civic nationalism, thus, limiting the space for Savarkar's ethnic
nationalism. But today in a different political atmosphere, the ambiguities left by Savarkar's Hindutva
has allowed him to become the ideologue of biggest Hindu political party. 19

Bibliography: -

Primary Sources:

Savarkar, V.D., 1922, Essentials of Hindutva

Savarkar V.D., Hindu Rashtra Darshan

Secondary Sources:

Jaffrelot, Christopher, 1996, The Hindu Natio alist Mo e e t i I dia, Ne Delhi: Viki g ⁄ Pe gui

Bakhle, Janki, 2009, Country First? Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883–1966) and the Writing of Essentials
of Hindutva

Nandy, Ashis, 2014, A disowned father of the nation in India: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the
demonic and the seductive in Indian nationalism

Heredia C. Rudolf, 2009, Gandhi's Hinduism and Savarkar's Hindutva

18 Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindu Rashtra Darshan, PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS ‐ AKHIL

BHARATIYA HINDU MAHASABHA 22nd Session Madurai – 1940
19 http://www.bjp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=369:hindutva-the-great-

nationalist-ideology&Itemid=501