Hello and welcome friends to this lecture
on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
And from Savarkar, we are going to study his
views on Hinduism and Hindutva.
Hinduism and Hindutva, his views on Hinduism
and critique to Savarkar's views on Hinduism
and Hindutva, we are going to do in the next
lecture.
In this lecture, we will study basically his
personal life, Savarkar as a revolutionary,
as a patriot or as a political thinker of
Hindu nationalism and different shades and
shifts in his personal intellectual life.
This we will do through looking at some of
the key ideas or key thinking in his thought,
influence on his thought, and basically his
views on nation, ancient Indian past or Hindu
past and also, his views on social change
or social reforms.
So, in this lecture, we are going to basically
discuss his personal, political life as well
as his intellectual engagement with some of
these themes.
Now, we also need to seriously reconsider
some of the appropriation, misappropriation
and also outright rejection that is being
done in contemporary political discourse in
India, where some texts, some thinkers and
some ideas are either celebrated or completely
rejected.
And there is a kind of rigidity in support
and in rejection of some ideas, some thinkers
and some texts.
But when Savarkar was writing there were a
lot of fluidity or flexibilities of dialogue
and discussion even when there is an unbreachable
difference between two thinkers or two opinions
on any issue.
So one of the examples, that comes to mind
is Gandhi or Savarkar or Netaji Subhas Chandra
Bose or Savarkar.
They had lot of differences and yet they were
able to communicate with each other and the
possibilities of dialogue was always open.
But somehow, that fluidity, that openness
to dialogue and discussion even when there
is a difference of opinion and unbridgeable
differences of opinion, that has certainly
shrink in contemporary political discourse.
And that is not the healthy one, and that
makes the academic analysis or examination
of a thought and idea even more challenging
and certainly, complex to do.
Savarkar remains one of such thinkers who
is celebrated at the same time, the opinion
about his thought and contribution to his
thought remains somewhat divided among the
followers or among the supporter of Savarkar
and also those who critiques Savarkar.
So, we have to think about Savarkar and his
life and his ideas in such a context, where
it becomes increasingly impossible to have
the dialogue or conversation even with whom
we differ or there are differences of opinion.
And his ideas will remain inevitable for any
political discourse, even for those who outrightly
rejected every ideas and opinions that Savarkar
had offered.
So, we will look at Savarkar and his thought
in this context and try to examine academically
his ideas on Hinduism and Hindutva, and what
is the critique to such ideas.
So, that is something we need to keep in mind
when we engage with Savarkar as in his time
there is lots of fluidity, lots of openness
about engaging or having conversation despite
of differences.
So, Gandhi went to Savarkar's place to maintain
the dialogue or the discussion despite of
having serious differences with each otherís
method and opinion on politics and the role
of religion in politics.
Even Subhas Chandra Bose went to meet Savarkar
and there is very less exploration and writings
done on that.
But they maintain the relationship or the
conversation even with those whom they differed
seriously or substantially.
So, to think about Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
and his ideas in such a context, we see a
kind of shift or a kind of evolution of Savarkar
as a revolutionary.
So, first and foremost, Savarkar was a great
revolutionary thinker and he was deeply influenced
by the nationalist ideals of Mazzini, Garibaldi
and many other nationalists.
So, in Vinayak Savarkar, we find him as a
revolutionary patriot, political activist
and one of the most prominent intellectual
and the founder of Hindu nationalism in modern
India.
The tradition of Hindu nationalism in modern
Indian political thought began much earlier
than Savarkar.
So, these ideals of Hindu nationalism which
began with Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Aurobindo
Gosh and Lala Lajpat Rai, Vinayak Damodar
Savarkar gave it a more virulent or rationalistic
foundation.
And today therefore, Savarkar's name and his
political thought and philosophy is almost
synonymous with Hindu nationalism or Hindutva.
And his contribution in the fields of social
and religious reforms, and struggle for freedom
are immense.
However, it is less and less explored and
largely ignored by his critique.
Because of his reduction or his synonymous
with the Hindu or Hindutva or in Hindu ideas.
But Savarkar was equally a revolutionary a
patriot or wanted to reform society and religion
as well especially the evil practices, dogmas
and superstitions in religion.
So, that part of Savarkar in contemporary
discourse and debates on his ideas and thought
is by and largely ignored.
So, that we have to focus equally when we
discuss about his ideas on Hinduism and Hindutva.
Now, deeply influenced by utilitarianism,
rationalism, positivism and pragmatism, Savarkar
in his politics and thought was deeply influenced
by this rationalistic, utilitarian philosophy
or positivism of the contemporary analytical
philosophy and also, the pragmatism in the
politics.
And he never thought of achieving something
which is otherworldly or which is divine.
So, he understood the possible pragmatic objectives
that a human being or a society can aspire
to.
And therefore, a lot of views on say morality
or ethics or whether violence or non- violence
should be used as a political tool or not,
he had a very pragmatic approach other than
Gandhian kind of absolute position on the
application of non-violence and such method
in politics.
So, in Savarkar, we find the influence of
pragmatism, rationalism and utilitarianism
in his philosophy and also, in political thought.
So, Savarkar is also perhaps one of the most
celebrated and therefore, equally despised
thinkers of modern India.
However, it is the power and influence of
his thought which makes him and his thought
inevitable in any political discourse even
in contemporary India.
So, his stature or the influence of his thought
is perhaps more hegemonic, more dominating
in our contemporary politics than in his time.
And his critique is also grown tremendously.
And yet his supporter or his critique cannot
ignore the powerful ideas and influence of
Savarkar about nation, state, democracy and
social, and religious relationships, harmony
or reforms.
So, Savarkar remains inevitable in the political
discourse even in contemporary times even
by those who despise Savarkar.
And that is the power, the influence of his
thought and his ideas on Indian politics or
imagination of nation.
Being situated in the larger framework of
Hindu nationalism, Savarkar can be seen in
response to two distinct historical trajectories
unfolding in colonial India.
The first was he belongs to the radical and
revolutionary stance of middle class Indians,
who rose in reaction to the limitation or
ineffectiveness of the moderates.
So, first stands as it was unfolding during
the colonial era was the growing feeling against
the effectiveness of moderate leaders of the
congress.
So, Savarkar belonged to such group of radicals
and revolutionaries who developed a critique
of moderates and their method of politics.
And second which was related to the colonial
policy of divide and rule.
So, as a result of divide and rule policy
of the British, they developed an environment
of social tensions between different communities
in India such as Hindu and Muslims on the
one hand, Hindu and depressed classes on the
other, Hindus and Sikhs on the another, and
Hindus and Jains on the other.
So, there were growing tension and estrangement
among and between different communities in
India.
Savarkar was responding to such growing estrangement
or tensions among the communities and trying
to consolidate Hindu committee from further
fragmentation or as a result of this divide
and rule policy of the colonial government.
In Savarkar's opinion, it also had a dangerous
influence on the body politic of anti-colonial
freedom struggle in India and provided the
psychological and material background for
future communal politics.
So, this politics of divide and rule as conceptualized
and practiced by the British rule provided
the psychological and material background
for the emergence of communal politics in
India.
And Savarkar was very concerned about these
fragmentation of the Hindu communities, not
just on religious lines but also on caste
lines or any or linguistic lines or regional
lines etc.
So, Savarkar was trying to consolidate Hindu
community and nationalize their history politics
and glorious past in all walks of Indian life.
So, he was trying to conceptualize a nation
or a Hindu nation in such a way which nationalizes
the politics, past and glorious history of
ancient Hindus and Hindu civilization.
And he was trying to limit the consequences
or the evil consequences of these divide and
rule policies of the British.
Now, if you look at the brief history of Savarkar,
we find he was born on 28 May, 1883 in a Chitpavan
Brahman family in Maharashtra.
And he was born in a period which was characterized
by the vigorous critique of economic and political
dimension of British Raj.
So, there was a kind of growing assertion
or realization of the exploitative or extractive
nature of British rule.
So, Savarkar was developing his critique to
British rule on the one hand and consolidating
the Hindu community on the other by rewriting
their history, their past and preventing it
from further fragmentation.
Savarkar was developing those thoughts and
ideas in this context, when there is a kind
of increasing realization and growing critique
of the economic and political dimensions of
British Raj by one section, and also by the
revitalization of religious and cultural tradition
of native population.
And this thing we have discussed in our previous
lectures as well.
Where there was a kind of critique which was
developing against the British rule.
At the same time, resorting to the cultural
or the religious resources of Indian civilization
or Indian religious tradition to develop a
self or develop a modern Indian self which
will give them the confidence to fight against
the British.
So, if you remember in one of our lectures,
we have discussed Partha Chatterjee, the ideas
of inner and outer domain.
So, the outer domain is the domain of politics
and economy, where they thought they need
to learn from the British and they can master
it.
In the inner domain, that is the domain of
religion or spirituality, they consider themselves
superior and nothing to learn with the learn
with the British.
So, Savarkar was developing his political
thought or articulations in a time when there
was a growing realization of the economic
or political exploitative nature of British
rule, and the cultural and religious revitalization
of Indian social life.
So many thinkers including Gandhi, Tagore,
Vivekananda, Aurobindo Gosh, they were all
in a way deeply influenced by the cultural
and religious traditions of their communities
including Iqbal, we have discussed in the
previous lecture.
So, the influence of political as well as
the cultural, religious background on his
thought needs to be taken seriously when we
try to engage with his thought.
This impact of the temporal, the period in
which Savarkar was developing his thought
was very evident from the earliest days on
his life.
And he was disturbed by the news of communal
riots and developed a deep admiration for
the Hindu tradition and past.
And he was angst by the brutal repression
of the British rule and considered it responsible
for suppression and devolution of the pious
Hindu tradition.
And he took a lifelong vow to fight the British
and regarded as a young firebrand revolutionary
by the colonial government.
So, Savarkar from the early childhood develop
a kind ofÖ and because of his elder brothers,
also younger brothers were also revolutionary
active in the politics.
So, Savarkar developed a taste for politics
from the very beginning.
He was deeply disturbed by the growing communal
tension and the communal rights, disharmony
between Hindus and Muslims, and thought of
conceptualizing Indian nationhood or Indian
nation on the basis of Hindu religion.
And he derived a lot of strength and inspiration
from the ancient Hindu glorious past and try
to revive it to develop a Hindu nation or
Hindu Rashtra in India.
At the same time, he was also very critical
of the brutal repression and suppression of
the British rule.
There are many instances of such expression.
One was Chapekar brothers was hanged by British
because they were involved in the assassination
of Rand who was the colonial administrator,
who was supposed to look after the victims
of the plague.
Instead of that, he was celebrating and not
paying attention to the needs and health and
other requirements of the victims of the plague.
So, this nationalistic patriotic feeling in
Savarkar was there from the very beginning
and he developed it further when he went for
higher education in England.
So, after his primary education he enrolled
in this Fergusson college in Pune in 1902.
And he was influenced by nationalist leaders
who differed from the moderate politics within
the congress.
And if you remember 1907, there was a divide
not just between the moderates and the extremists
within the congress, but also, the growing
disenchantment between Hindu and the Muslims.
So, congress claimed itself secular but in
a position to that there was a growing claim
by the Muslim League as the representative
of the Muslims of India.
Similarly, Hindu Mahasabha and many other
religious and the sectarian organizations
were being formed.
So, Savarkar enrolled in this Fergusson College
in Pune in 1902 and he was influenced by the
politics of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra
Pal and Lala Lajpat Rai.
And there he got engaged in many nationalists
and the political activities in the college
life.
Although the college forbid any kind of political
activities or anti-government protest and
demonstration.
Savarkar continued to organize the youth involved
in the protest, organized the demonstration
and also, invited Tilak which greatly infuriated
many administrators and as well as the teachers
in the college.
He organized a patriotic society called Abhinav
Bharat which he continued to do and organize
and reorganized even in England.
So, this Abhinav Bharat, he organized in the
college among friends.
And through the medium of literary works,
he began to revisit Indiaís glorious poise.
And he was the one who recognized the role
of such literature in the production of future
revolution in India.
So, there has to be cultural resources on
the basis of which one can imagine oneself,
derived the strength and inspiration to fight
the oppression and suppression of the British
rule and create a new Hindu India or revive
the glorious past.
And he remained committed to this ideal of
producing literature or revolutionary literature
and it is role in the freedom struggle or
in the freedom movement.
So, this production of literature, despite
of his political activities had shift from
a revolutionary patriotic to a founding father
of the imagination of Hindu Rashtra or Hindutva.
Till the end of his life, he continued to
write literatures and through that tried to
revive and articulate his thoughts on Hinduism
and Hindu Hindutva.
So, this he did till the end of his life.
He also engaged in the public burning of foreign
clothes in 1905, if you remember the partition
of Bengal which led to lot of criticisms and
protests in different parts of the country.
Savarkar organized one such protests of burning
foreign clothes and he convinced Bal Gangadhar
Tilak to speak on that occasion.
And this infuriated the principal of the college
and he was expelled from the college because
of these political activities.
Now, with the help of Bal Gangadhar Tilak
and Shyamji Krishna Verma who were trying
to provide scholarship to those Indians committed
to the freedom struggle and independent movement.
So, with the help of Bal Gangadhar Tilak and
Shyamji Krishna Verma, Savarkar was given
a scholarship to study in Britain with the
condition that he would never accept government
service in his later life.
And he remained a student cum revolutionary
there and helped in organizing the political
movements and especially the youth or revolutionary
youth in Britain from 1906 to 1910.
During this period, he was associated with
Abhinav Bharat society which was also known
as Young India Society.
And he along with his fellow members learned
the methods of many revolutionary tools and
techniques like bomb making and other kind
of revolutionary activities there.
He was greatly influenced by Italian revolutionary
Mazzini and he wrote a biographical essay
on Mazzini in Marathi and translated several
essays from the volume life and writings of
Joseph Mazzini.
He considered reading Mazzini and Italian
history very necessary as it can in his opinion
serve as a guide to Indiaís struggle for
independence.
So, he although, this is less explored, but
he was also intellectually engaged with the
revolutionary ideals for political freedom
or political independence and himself claimed
to be a revolutionary.
So, the ideas of revolution and revolutionary
is very different for say instance communist
revolution or the revolution as conceptualized
by Marx.
His conception of revolutionary and revolution
is very different from such conception or
anti-capitalist thinking.
And therefore, many scholars refuted his contribution
in revolutionary thinking.
But Savarkar developed a different articulation
of revolution.
And on that basis, he was able to write a
very successful or influential treaties on
the first war of independence about 1857 revolution.
And there, he was influenced by Mazzini, Garibaldi
and many other Italian nationalist leaders
and he thought that the Italian history of
nationalist movement can help as a guide for
India in its struggle for freedom against
the British.
Then he also wrote this text called The Indian
War of Independence which is published in
1909.
This was the same year when Gandhi published
his famous treatise Hind Swaraj.
And it is also interesting, to know that Gandhi
met Savarkar for the first time in England.
And then after a long time, when Savarkar
returned from Andaman to Maharashtra, Gandhi
again, developed a conversation and personally,
visited his home to discuss about different
methods and tools of freedom struggle.
So, despite of their serious differences,
that openness to have conversation, to dialogue
is something that is missing in our contemporary
discourse on these thinkers and their ideas
which was there when they were articulating
and expressing their differences.
Now, in this text on the Indian War of Independence,
Savarkar considers the war of independence
synonymously with revolution.
And he criticized that neglecting the actual
long term revolutionary roots of 1857 struggle
emphasis in scholarly debates and discussion
was given to the short term accidental causes
over this revolution.
So, for the first time, he argued on the 1857
rebellion as a first war of independence and
this was very influential and immediately
banned by the British government.
And this text was translated in many Indian
languages as well as in European languages,
like Spanish, German, French besides, many
others.
And they had provided a different perspective
to the whole struggle of Indian movement and
enabled a kind of confidence against fighting
the British through revolutionary method and
not as Gandhian, later developed non-violent
movement in the form of Satyagraha.
Now, Savarkarís life in Britain came to an
end, when he was arrested in the acquisition
of being involved in the killing of an official
of the India office and taken back to India
for trial.
So, Savarkar was developing his revolutionary
ideals and as well as inspiring and involved
in many revolutionary activities when he was
there in England.
When he was transported to India, he escaped
from the ship when it stopped at Marseilles
by swimming back to the shore of France.
He sought asylum in France.
But recaptured by the British soldier and
France considered this as an act of offense
against their sovereignty and registered a
case in the International Court of Justice
in The Hague.
The court gave the judgment in favour of Britain
and this created a political turmoil in France.
So, one can very easily imagine the stature
of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar by 1910 or 1909.
And it gave him instant access to not just
Indian popular movement and leaders but also
in the world.
And there was divided opinion on the Savarkar
and his method of politics and his involvement
in the revolutionary movement.
And this happens with a number of nationalist
movements.
So, when they fight against the oppressor,
for the oppressor that fighter or revolutionary
may be a terrorist.
But for the community for whom that person
is fighting, for him he may be a revolutionary
or a liberator.
So, such opinion was there with the revolutionary
or patriot Savarkar.
Now, in India, when he was brought back, he
was given the 50 years of imprisonment.
This was the double life imprisonment and
that is to in him cellular jail of Andaman,
infamous cellular jail in Andaman and this
jail which is also known as Kala Pani.
So, this is the severest kind of punishment
a revolutionary or a political activist can
imagine and he was given 50 years of...
So, one can very well imagine the revolutionary
zeal in Savarkar thoughts and his political
activities and why British considered him
as the young firebrand revolutionary.
And they wrote confidential note to the British
official when he went to England for studying
law.
So, he was sent to Cellular jail in Andaman
and this was known for the cruellest environment
and higher rate of suicide.
Because many of them would not withstand the
harsh treatment of them by jailers and also
the environment in Andaman.
So, a large number of them committed suicide.
Now the after the harsh treatment and solitary
confinement for 10 years, there have been
serious attempts for the release of Savarkar.
And many nationalist leaders including Gandhi
were involved in putting efforts for the release
of Savarkar.
So, despite of their political differences,
their differences in terms of method or imagination
of modern India, they regarded, they developed
the mutual respect for each otherís contribution
in the freedom struggle movement.
It is very unlikely to happen in the contemporary
times, where there is a kind of clear-cut
separation and less and less dialogue and
conversation and mutual acceptance even when
maintaining the differences.
So, Gandhi and Savarkar differed from each
other seriously, substantially and yet recognize
each otherís contribution in the freedom
struggle.
So, for his release, many nationalist leaders
were putting efforts including Gandhi and
Savarkar also, wrote a mercy petition twice,
I believe, mercy petition to the British.
And this petition was heard and he was transferred
to the western India in the Ratnagiri jails.
And there was the condition put on him that
he would not involve in any political activities
and would not move out of his district without
the prior permission of the authorities.
So, and finally, he was released in 1924 from
the jail until 1937 his movement was restricted
and he was barred from taking any part in
political activities including the national
movement.
Now in this period, when he was brought back
to India, he wrote a text called Essentials
of Hindutva.
This becomes the basis of his political thought
and later his conceptualization about Hindu
Rashtra or Hindutva and how it is different
from Hinduism.
And this we will discuss in the next class.
And in this text, he wrote with the pen name
ëA Marathaí, to conceal his identity from
them constant surveillance of the colonial
regime.
In this book, he described his philosophy
of Hindu nation and how is it different from
the religious notion of Hinduism.
This we will discuss in our next lecture.
Savarkar also wrote his biography which is
called Life of Barrister Savarkar.
This, he wrote in 1926 under the penname Chitragupta.
Now this text, which basically deals with
his revolutionary life and Savarkar as a revolutionary
patriot or the patriot thinker.
This text got immediately banned by the government
and it remained so till India attained independence.
It primarily focused on his revolutionary
career but the fact that the actual writer
was Savarkar himself.
So, somebody who writes his own life and what
his own life that is called autobiography.
But Savarkar wrote a biography which is a
third person writing about someone else that
is called a biography.
But Savarkar, interestingly wrote his own
biography and not the autobiography which
later, he wrote as a memoir.
So, the point, however, is in this text again,
Savarkar seriously contemplated about revolutionary
and revolution, and revolutionary tactics
and which method of revolution will be more
suitable and appropriate in Indian context.
This fact that Savarkar wrote his own biography
came to light in 1987 much after his death
in 1966.
Now, after his release from jail, Savarkar
joined for a brief moment, the Democratic
Swaraj Party and soon withdraw from it as
he realized the ineffectiveness or inconsequentiality
of the party.
And from 1937 to 1944, he servedÖ, consecutively,
he served and singlehandedly, prescribed the
political program and policies for the realization
of Hindu Rashtra.
So, from 1937 to 1944, he served as the President
of All India Hindu Mahasabha and using his
own revolutionary ideas, he sought to give
it a radical turn.
So, from then on, Hindu Mahasabha began to
play a more active, more dynamic and radical
role in Indian politics.
Later on, after independence, Savarkar was
convicted of assisting in the murder of Mahatma
Gandhi or assassination of Mahatma Gandhi
in 1948 by Nathuram Godse.
He was a Hindu fundamentalist member of right
wing Hindu groups.
And along with him, he was trialled by the
government of India.
But due to lack of evidence, he was acquitted
by the Supreme Court.
And from then on, he chose a life of relative
solitary limiting himself to writing and giving
occasional public speech.
But he continued to write on the glorious
Hindu past and envisioned a Hindu nation.
And he wrote six glorious books of Hindu history
just before his death in 1966.
So, the religious rhetoric of Savarkar became
sharper in his later writings and these have
a great influence on politics and programs
of various organizations and political parties
such as the RashtriyaÖBharatiya Jana Sangha,
Bharatiya Janata party in contemporary politics
they derived a lot of ideas and inspiration
from the writings of V. Savarkar or Swatantra
Veer Savarkar as they call.
Now, to look at his ideas and thought, we
find in Savarkar a kind of synthesizing of
territorial concepts and of nation on the
one hand, as defined by congress and many
other nationalists.
And the religious and cultural notion of nationalism,
on the other as it was conceptualized by Muslim
League.
Savarkar tried to combine or synthesize between
these territorial concepts and of nation,
and the religious and the cultural conception
of nation.
So, while he believed in the common territory
of Hindustan as the fatherland and the holy
land which he called pitrabhumi or punyabhumi
and more on this in the next lecture.
He also stated that Hinduism is not a single
religion but an integration of all religious,
creeds which includes, Buddhism, Jainism.
Therefore, natives to the land of Hindustan
which he also calls Sindhustan.
Sindhu that is the name of a river and on
that the name came Hindustan.
S is pronounced as H in Persian, and therefore,
those who are living in that land depending
upon their different religions and linguistic,
and other differences, they are all Hindus.
So, his definition of Hindu is very different
from a religious and a kind of narrow fundamentalist
conception of Hindu and Hinduism.
So, therefore, he included Buddhism, Jainism
within the Hindu fold.
Because they consider India both as a pitrabhumi
or punyabhumi.
And he declined such status to some religion.
Because for them, the holy land is not in
India.
So, for Savarkar, Hinduism is not a single
religion but an integration of all religious
creeds native to the land of Hindustan and
share the common heritage of Hindu culture
and blood.
So, there he gave a kind of racial conception
of Hindu and Hindutva also.
So, he did not reject but modified the territorial
conception of nationhood, and stated that
all the territorial unity matters it is the
elements of religion, culture, race and historical
affinity that contributed more in the formation
of nation.
So, his basic contribution to the literature
of Hindu nationalism lies in his idea of Hinduism,
and Hindutva which we will elaborately discussed
in the next lecture.
And here, the discussion will be limited to
his conception of history and other significant
contribution to social thought.
Savarkar was in favour of the ideal of Hindustan
for the Hindus and occupation of this land
by the non-Hindu race was considered as an
act of aggression.
This in his views, the right of the non-Hindus
of living in Hindustan depended on their acceptance
of Hindu dominance.
So, Hinduization of national life or polity,
this indicates the ideology of cultural chauvinism.
Yet Savarkar did not totally negate the right
of minorities to coexist although made it
conditional.
So, this we can discuss further in the next
lecture.
But in his conceptualization of Hindu Rashtra
or Hindu nation, he did not negate completely
the right of minorities.
He made it conditional to their acceptance
of this land as a Hindu nation.
Now, in his conception of modern state and
democracy, also we find, he wanted all citizens
to be treated equally in accordance with their
individual merit or worth without any consideration
to their cultural and religious differences.
So, this is kind ofÖ as we were discussing
about the fluidity of the circulation of ideas.
So, despite of his religiousÖ chauvinism
will not be a correct word but a kind of religious
conception of nation or nation nationhood.
His conception of state is more or less modern
and republic.
So, therefore, he was against the British
rule and wanted the authority or the power
to rule over India in the hands of Indians
themselves.
So, in his conception of modern state and
democracy, he did not want citizens to be
treated differently on the basis of their
religious or cultural differences.
But on the basis of their individual merit
and worth.
And he also, therefore, then opposed any kind
of preferential treatment given to minorities
as it was being advocated by the congress
and Gandhi.
Although, he was in favour of subordination
of Muslims, Savarkar particularly in the later
part of his life did not question the British
rule.
And that is a kind of radical shift in his
approach to the politics, precisely, because
of the pragmatic historical circumstances
where on the one hand, there is a congress
promoting or propagating the secular notion
of politics, there were going assertion or
Muslim separatism by the Muslim League.
The emergence of depressed classes and increasing
fragmentation of Hindu community and demands
by the Sikh, and many other religious communities
make Savarkar to respond to colonial rule
in a much more what he called responsive cooperation
and distanced himself, and his politics from
the mass movement.
And this is something which developed in little
parts in Savarkarís career.
So, from a revolutionary patriot to a Hindu
nationalist, Savarkar also, developed a pro-British
pragmatic approach in the later parts of life
and that remains a controversial side of Savarkarís
politics and activity.
Now, if you look at his conception of Indian
history, Savarkar glorified the great Hindu
rulers of the past and his idols were Shivaji
and Rana Pratap.
And for him, Shivaji represented the role
of Swadharma oneís own religion and Swaraj,
governing oneís own self.
Now, he deeply appreciated Shivaji in his
text, Hindu-Pad-Padshahi which he wrote in
1925 for his militarism against the Muslim
rule.
His interpretation of modern Indian history
was quite radical.
This was evident from his analysis of 1857
revolt and he criticized the efforts of reducing
it to a mere mutiny or a rebellion of sepoyís
resulting from the immediate cause of greased
cartridges.
Savarkar was critical of such reduction in
the analysis of the first war of independence.
Instead, he stressed on the inherent revolutionary
roots which was accumulating over a period
of time against the brutal suppressive policies
of the British rule.
So, instead, he stressed on this inherent
revolutionary roots of first war of independence
and portrayed it as the mass movement and
not just as sepoy mutiny as Britishers and
many scholars have argued of the liberation
against the oppressive rule of the British.
It was for him, the first war of independence.
Hence, the title of the book.
So, he had sincere admiration for the militant
methods against the Gandhian non-violence
method of protest in 1857 revolt.
And he thought it was best suited in response
to the brutal oppressive rule of the British.
Now, if you look at his social thought, we
find Savarkar as it is argued by Ashok Chousalkar
that Savarkarís thought is characterized
by three distinct tenets of social change
which was an influence of European tradition
on his thought and thinking.
First of all, the survival of the fittest.
Second, the inevitability of violence in society,
and absence of absolute morality in the human
affairs and human politics.
For Savarkar, all human society and you find
these three tenets in his social, political
thought throughout.
In his political programs, political activities,
conceptualization of nation and therefore,
the pragmatism in Savarkar is one of the characteristic
in his thought.
So, all human society is characterized by
struggle in life of individuals.
In this, only the fittest can survive others
get eliminated.
This is Herbert Spencer kind of ideal survival
of the fittest.
That is a modern civilisation and the root
of modulation is the competition.
Everyone compete against everyone and only
this fittest will survive.
And Savarkar then, considered the violence
is inbuilt in nature.
It is only in the later development of society,
the principle of non-violence got intertwined
with violence.
However, absolute non-violence is something
he rejected.
The Gandhian idol of non-violence or satyagraha
in all circumstances in absolute form is something
he completely rejected and he thought it will
make the nation and community weak to respond
to the immediate circumstances even the invasion
or oppression.
The method for him was violence or non-violence.
So, he did not reject non-violence completely.
But to accept it in all the circumstances,
in the absolute form is something he rejected
and criticized.
He believed in the relative morality.
That is morality or immorality of an act,
political act or policy is judged in accordance
with the specificities of the ends and objectives.
So, the means and ends that we have discussed
in Gandhian model is given different interpretation
in Savarkar's thought.
That is more pragmatic and that depends on
the objectives one and...through oneís act,
one to achieve in the larger politics of their
community.
So, this he had a dynamic view of dynamics
in society and society inevitable to change
in accordance with the changes in the time.
And one can only survive, if she or he is
able to cope up with the changing nature of
society.
And therefore, he wanted Indians and Hindu
society to also undergo through this dynamic
forces of a change in modern society and quality.
And he therefore, argued that Indian society
should get rid of the unnecessary and the
evil practices of the past and follow the
paths of science and reason.
It is in this context, he criticized untouchability
existing in Hindu society and stressed on
the need to give up such evil practices for
the sake of its further development.
So, Savarkar worked for religious and social
reforms as well.
He allowed the entry of untouchables or excluded
community and he fought for their entry even
in schools, the children of those so-called
out caste or untouchable communities, Savarkar
wanted them to be integrated within the larger
fold of Hindu society.
And similarly, with the women and also, Savarkar
wanted to reform Hindu society in line with
the modern science and reason and criticized
a lot of dogmas and superstitions that accumulated
in the long stagnation period of Hindu society
and he wanted to reform it or reconstruct
it in the line of modern science and reason.
Now in this similar line, he had nurtured
a critical perspective of dealing with the
ancient religious scriptures and advised following
it only, if it is able to deal with the changing
need of the time.
So, he is also not someone blindly following
the ancient Indian scriptures.
He wanted such texts to be read, to be engaged
with.
But it should be followed which enable the
individual and community to respond to the
contemporary needs or the changing needs of
the time.
So, this is his social thought is quite promising
and offers critical insights into the functioning
and develop development of Indian society
or Hindu society.
So, Savarkar basically, had a far more visionaryís
or kind of futuristic approach in his thought,
when he thought about reorganization or restructuring
of Hindu society and Hindu Rashtra.
And how, it can be done or how it should be
done we see many political parties or organizations
continue to derive their expressions and strength
from his writings.
And that makes Savarkar inevitable in any
political discourse in contemporary India.
In the next class, we are going to discuss
his views on Hinduism and Hindutva.
The lecture I have given, you can look at
some of these readings like, Savarkar and
His Times by Dhananjay Keer and also, this
text which we have done from long time for
many thinkers, Sources of Indian Traditions
and also, Political Thought in Modern India.
And in this article, you can also read to
understand his revolutionary ideals and conceptualization
of revolution in Savarkar.
So, thanks for listening and thanks for your
presence.
Thank you.
