Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (May 28, 1883 – February 26, 1966) remains one of modern India’s most controversial political thinkers for several reasons. Scholars and political groups have debated for years over issues such as his articulation of a new form of nationalism based on the concept of *Hindutva*; his alleged role in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi; the mercy petitions he submitted to the British government while imprisoned in the Cellular Jail in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands; and his interpretation of the history of the Hindu nation. However, his patriotism, his struggle for national liberation, and his political acumen remain beyond rational criticism. Consequently, reactions to Savarkar’s political activities and ideas within Indian politics are deeply polarized. Given this, there is a need for an impartial assessment of his ideas and actions.
Savarkar’s Public Life
Savarkar’s public life is divided into two distinct phases:
The first phase spans from his birth until 1922, when he was transferred from the Cellular Jail in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to Ratnagiri Jail. During this period, he emerged as a political revolutionary committed to India’s liberation through militant political action.
The second phase of his public life extends from 1922 until his death in 1966 and is characterized by his zealous advocacy for Hindutva and the Hindu nation. During this time, he served as the President of the Hindu Mahasabha for a decade, a role that provided him with a new platform to articulate his views on this central issue—an issue that became the defining feature of his life. His implication in the Gandhi assassination case—and his subsequent acquittal in 1949—did, in fact, tarnish his image as a patriot. Despite his acquittal, the Justice Kapur Commission, appointed to investigate the conspiracy behind Gandhi’s assassination, concluded that it was difficult to believe Godse had assassinated Gandhi without Savarkar’s knowledge. Scholars hold sharply contrasting views on Savarkar’s political legacy across these two phases of his public life, making him a controversial figure in India’s political history. Even for his staunch supporters, reconciling these two opposing facets of his political legacy proves difficult.
Savarkar’s Ideas and Legacy
Savarkar’s ideas can be understood through the following three points:
A. Savarkar as a Revolutionary and Patriot
Savarkar was born in 1883 into a Chitpavan Brahmin family in the village of Bhagur, in the Nashik district of Maharashtra. He was a revolutionary from his student days. His objective was to liberate India through revolutionary methods and armed insurrection. In 1899, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and his brother, Ganesh Damodar Savarkar, formed a secret revolutionary organization named ‘Mitra Mela’. It was one of several secret organizations operating in the Bombay Province at the time. The organization believed in overthrowing the British government through armed rebellion. In 1904, ‘Mitra Mela’ was renamed ‘Abhinav Bharat’. This name was inspired by the ‘Young Italy’ organization founded by the Italian revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzini. Mazzini had initially influenced Savarkar’s thinking and activities.
In 1906, Savarkar went to London to study law with the assistance of Bipin Chandra Pal. In London, he met another revolutionary, Shyamji Krishna Varma, at ‘India House’, which served as a major hub for Indian revolutionaries in the city. While in England, Savarkar joined the ‘Free India Society’, which had been established earlier by Bhikaiji Cama. Initially, the society engaged in academic discussions regarding India’s independence, but it soon adopted a revolutionary stance. The message of the 1857 Revolt invigorated Savarkar’s imagination. Revolutionaries at India House, including Savarkar, commemorated the 50th anniversary of this event. In 1909, Savarkar wrote his first book, The Indian War of Independence, to mark the uprising of 1857. In this book, he described the 1857 revolt as India’s first war of independence and praised the country’s secular spirit, noting how Hindus and Muslims had united against the British during the uprising. The British government banned the book. Following this, Savarkar gained prominence and became a target of the British government.
Meanwhile, in 1910, the British arrested Savarkar in connection with the December 1909 assassination of A.T.M. Jackson, the Collector of Nashik. It was alleged that Savarkar had supplied the pistol used to kill Jackson. The British government was transporting him to India by ship to face trial and sentencing. However, while the ship was docked at the French port of Marseille, Savarkar escaped onto French soil; he was subsequently apprehended by the French police and handed over to British officials without the knowledge or approval of higher French authorities. British officials had no legal right to take Savarkar back into custody without completing formal extradition proceedings, and no such process had been followed. Nevertheless, due to the lapse on the part of the French police officers, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in favor of the British. In international law, this incident is recognized as a landmark case regarding extradition.
Savarkar was tried on two charges: abetting the murder of Jackson and conspiring against the British monarch. He was sentenced to a total of 50 years in prison for these offenses (comprising two consecutive 25-year sentences). To serve his sentence, he was sent to the Cellular Jail in the Andaman Islands on July 4, 1911. It is well known that the most dangerous and notorious prisoners were sent to the Cellular Jail, a facility notorious for the brutal and inhumane conditions and the atrocities inflicted upon inmates by prison officials. It was at this juncture that Savarkar’s stance shifted; between 1911 and 1920, he submitted six mercy petitions to the British government, requesting a transfer to a prison on the Indian mainland. These petitions have made Savarkar a subject of contention between his supporters and critics. Critics argue that Savarkar ceased to be a ‘Veer’ (hero) because he had pleaded for clemency from the British government. Conversely, his supporters maintain that these petitions were part of a long-term strategy to secure his release and dedicate the remainder of his life to the nation.
B. Savarkar as a Proponent of ‘Hindutva’
It appears the British government accepted Savarkar’s plea, as he was transferred from the Andaman prison to the Ratnagiri prison in the Bombay Presidency in May 1921. Subsequently, on January 6, 1924, the British government released him subject to two conditions: he would not engage in political activities, and he would not leave Ratnagiri without the prior permission of district authorities. It was during his time in Ratnagiri prison that Savarkar formulated his Hindu nationalist political ideology. While there in 1922, he authored Essentials of Hindutva; upon the publication of its second edition in 1928, the title was changed to Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu? In this book, Savarkar elaborated on his concept of Hindutva—an idea that remains controversial in contemporary India. Hindutva ideology subsequently became the central theme of Savarkar’s life. However, the precise evolution of his views—transitioning from a secular outlook in his early life to becoming a staunch proponent of Hindutva—remains unclear. For Savarkar, Hindutva is an ethnic, cultural, and political identity that defines the quality of being Hindu or ‘Hinduness’. According to Savarkar, Hindus are those who regard India not only as the land of their ancestors but also as the land where their religion originated; in other words, Hindus are those for whom India—or Indian territory—is both their fatherland and their holy land.
Savarkar was an atheist and did not view Hindutva as a religious concept. However, his definition of the criteria for being a Hindu contains serious flaws that run counter to the modern concept of Indian secularism. For instance, a fundamental issue arises in reconciling the dual criteria of “fatherland” and “holy land” for Indian religious communities whose faiths originated outside India; members of the Muslim and Christian communities fall into this category. Even if Indian Christians and Indian Muslims regard India as their fatherland, they cannot deny the fact that it is not their holy land. Ultimately, only followers of religions that originated in India are considered Hindus, as they possess the quality of Hindutva. Within this framework, adherents of Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, or Buddhism embody the quality of Hindutva. Savarkar’s concepts of Hindutva and the Hindu nation garnered significant support during his tenure as President of the Hindu Mahasabha from 1937 to 1943. During this period, he popularized the term “Hindutva” (Hinduness)—a term originally coined by Chandranath Basu to describe the core element of India’s identity. Savarkar emerged as a leading proponent of the Hindu Mahasabha and its ideology during this time; indeed, the evils of British rule became a secondary concern for him. During the Second World War, not only did he oppose the “Quit India Movement” of 1942, but he also urged Hindus to actively support the British war effort.
Controversy Surrounding the Concept of Hindutva
Given India’s democratic and secular identity, Savarkar’s idea of Hindutva has sparked intense political debate among various political groups in the country. Supporters of Savarkar view “Hindutva” as a cultural concept that reflects the unity and distinctive cultural ethos of all people living in India; in this context, Hindutva is characterized as a geo-cultural concept. The strongest positive aspect of the idea of Hindutva is its connection to India’s cultural unity—a unity otherwise fragmented by caste divisions. Savarkar was a staunch critic of the caste system in Indian society, as it ran counter to his broader vision of Hindutva. In his essay titled *Seven Shackles of the Hindu Society*, Savarkar stated, “One significant rule from the past—which we have followed blindly and which ought to be consigned to the dustbin of history—is the rigid caste system.” It was for this reason that Savarkar dismissed Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism as a futile exercise. Conversely, Savarkar’s critics and opponents view Hindutva primarily as a religious concept—one fraught with serious communal undertones and the potential to jeopardize the secular fabric of Indian politics. Savarkar was also a man of contradictions. On one hand, he was a vocal political champion for Hindus (and Hindutva); on the other, he was a rationalist who opposed Hindu superstitions, the caste system, and cow worship—practices held sacred by Hindus.
C. Savarkar’s Views on History: Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History
Savarkar’s perspective on Indian history aligned with the imperatives of his core ideology of Hindutva. His historical outlook is best understood through his final book, Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History, which was first published in Marathi in 1964—just two years before his death. According to Savarkar, while our Puranic texts reflect our ancient literature, knowledge, glorious deeds, and grandeur, they cannot be considered part of the history of India’s national life. He stated, “I propose setting aside the ‘Puranic era’ in the present context.” The glorious epochs I advocate for belong not to the Puranic age, but to the historical phases of our national life. From this perspective, Savarkar views India’s national history as beginning with the establishment of the Mauryan Empire in the third century BCE.
According to Savarkar, there are six glorious eras in Indian history:
1. The reign of Chandragupta Maurya, who received able assistance from Chanakya.
2. The reign of Pushyamitra Shunga.
3. The reign of Chandragupta Vikramaditya.
4. The reign of Yashodharman, who fought against the Hunas.
5. The glorious era of the Marathas, who liberated India from Muslim rule.
6. The freedom struggle against British rule.
A mere glance at the list of these glorious eras in Indian history reveals Savarkar’s perspective on the subject. He focused on India’s valor and its struggles against foreign invaders—be they Greeks, Huns, Mughals, or the British. Whenever India stood up against foreign aggression, that period was regarded as a glorious chapter in its national history. Much like his concept of *Hindutva*, Savarkar viewed Indian history primarily as a chronicle of the nation’s resistance against foreign incursions. Secularists might disapprove of his exclusion of the Mughal era from this framework of glory; for Savarkar, it was not a glorious period because India was under foreign rule. Critics—advocating for a composite and secular cultural ethos—often challenge his historical perspective, just as they contest his ideology of *Hindutva*. Nevertheless, Savarkar is acclaimed as a proponent of cultural nationalism in India.
Conclusion
Undoubtedly, Savarkar remains a controversial figure regarding his legacy in India. His legacy can be broadly divided into two parts. The first pertains to his public life as a political revolutionary, a period during which he dedicated a significant portion of his life to opposing British rule with immense zeal and commitment. In the second phase of his life, he vigorously developed, articulated, and propagated his ideology of *Hindutva* and the concept of a Hindu nation (*Hindu Rashtra*) through the Hindu Mahasabha and other platforms. His implication in the assassination of Gandhi marked another pivotal moment in his life; although the court acquitted him due to a lack of evidence, the incident severely tarnished his image. His legacy concerning *Hindutva*, the Hindu nation, and cultural nationalism continues to evoke diverse reactions within India’s political landscape. While some political groups praise him for his Hindu nationalism, he simultaneously faces criticism from those who view him as a threat to India’s secular political framework. Despite his controversial and divisive views, Savarkar’s ideas will remain significant in India’s political discourse. There will be both critics and supporters of Savarkar, as his ideas are deeply embedded in Indian society and culture. These ideas have resurfaced in new forms at various times throughout India’s national history.
Leave a Reply