Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, fondly known as “Veer” Savarkar, was a towering figure in India’s fight for independence, a visionary who combined revolutionary zeal, intellectual prowess, and unyielding patriotism. Born on May 28, 1883, in Bhagur, Maharashtra, to a Marathi Chitpavan Brahmin family, Savarkar’s life was a saga of sacrifice, resilience, and ideological conviction. His contributions to the freedom movement, his endeavours in Britain and India, his ideological differences with Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, and his role in shaping Hindu nationalism through the Hindu Mahasabha and inspiring the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) make him a complex yet pivotal figure in India’s history. Despite facing severe imprisonment in the Cellular Jail (Kala Pani) and relentless criticism from the Indian National Congress, Savarkar’s legacy as a freedom fighter remains monumental, deserving recognition alongside luminaries like Gandhi, Subhas Chandra Bose, and Bhagat Singh.
Early Life and Revolutionary Beginnings
Savarkar’s journey as a revolutionary began in his teenage years. Born to Damodar and Radhabai Savarkar, he was deeply influenced by the patriotic fervours of leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and the Swadeshi movement. At just 12, during Hindu-Muslim riots, Savarkar displayed his fiery spirit by leading peers in an act of defiance against a local mosque, an incident he later recalled with pride. In 1903, alongside his elder brother Ganesh, he founded the Mitra Mela in Nashik, which evolved into the Abhinav Bharat Society, a secret revolutionary organisation aimed at overthrowing British rule and reviving Hindu pride. His early activism was marked by bold acts, such as burning foreign goods during Dussehra in 1905, signalling his commitment to Swadeshi ideals.
After completing his Bachelor of Arts at Fergusson College, Pune, Savarkar travelled to England in 1906 to study law at Gray’s Inn. There, he immersed himself in revolutionary activities at India House, a hub for Indian nationalists in London. Inspired by Italian nationalist Giuseppe Mazzini, whose biography he translated into Marathi, Savarkar founded the Free India Society to galvanise Indian students in support of the independence cause. His seminal work, The Indian War of Independence (1909), reframed the 1857 uprising as a unified rebellion against British oppression, inspiring revolutionaries across India. The book, banned by the British, was published in the Netherlands, Germany, and France by Madame Bhicaji Cama, amplifying its reach. Savarkar’s activities in Britain, including organising the 50th anniversary of the 1857 rebellion, made him a target of colonial authorities, leading to his arrest in 1909 for plotting an armed revolt against the Morley-Minto reforms.
Struggles in the Freedom Movement
Savarkar’s commitment to India’s freedom came at an immense personal cost. In 1910, he was arrested in London and extradited to India. In a daring attempt to escape during transit in Marseilles, France, he was recaptured and sentenced in 1911 to two life terms totalling 50 years in the notorious Cellular Jail in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, known as Kala Pani. This punishment was far harsher than what Gandhi or Nehru faced, reflecting the British perception of Savarkar as a formidable threat. In Kala Pani, he endured brutal conditions, including solitary confinement, torture, and hard labour, yet his spirit remained unbroken. He inscribed patriotic poems on prison walls and continued to inspire fellow inmates, advocating for Hindu unity and resistance.
During his imprisonment, Savarkar wrote Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? (1923), a treatise that defined Hindutva as a cultural and national identity rooted in India’s civilisational heritage. This work, penned under the pseudonym “Mahratta,” laid the ideological foundation for Hindu nationalism, emphasising unity across castes and sects while distinguishing it from religious orthodoxy. Savarkar’s vision of Hindutva was inclusive of all “Indian Religionists” (Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists) whose sacred lands lay within India’s geographical boundaries.
Ideological Differences between Gandhi and Nehru
Savarkar’s approach to India’s freedom struggle starkly contrasted with Gandhi’s non-violent philosophy and Nehru’s secular socialism. While Gandhi advocated for Ahimsa (non-violence) and mass civil disobedience, Savarkar believed in armed revolution and militarisation as a means to achieve independence. His rivalry with Gandhi began in 1909 when he openly criticised Gandhi’s methods during a meeting at India House. Savarkar viewed Gandhi’s emphasis on Hindu-Muslim unity and non-violence as appeasement that weakened the Hindu community’s resolve against colonial and perceived Muslim aggression. He opposed the Quit India Movement of 1942, urging Hindus to join British war efforts to gain military training, a pragmatic move to strengthen Hindu society against future threats.
With Nehru, Savarkar’s differences were equally profound. He accused Nehru and the Congress of conceding to the Muslim League’s communal demands, particularly the partition of India. Savarkar argued that Nehru’s secularism ignored the historical subjugation of Hindus and failed to address Muslim separatism. He believed the Congress’s policies endangered Hindu interests, a view that fuelled his leadership of the Hindu Mahasabha and his call for a unified “Akhand Bharat” (Undivided India). Savarkar’s critique of Nehru was sharp, noting that while revolutionaries like himself faced bullets and gallows, Nehru’s sacrifices were less severe, a point he emphasised in his writings.
The Two-Nation Theory and Hindu Mahasabha’s Role
The two-nation theory, often attributed to Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League, was not originated by Savarkar, despite Congress’s claims. The concept predates Savarkar, with roots in Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s 1876 writings and the formation of the Muslim League in 1906. Savarkar, however, articulated a version of the theory in 1937, stating that Hindus and Muslims constituted two distinct nations within India —a view shared by Jinnah but with different implications. While Jinnah sought a separate Muslim state (Pakistan), Savarkar opposed partition, advocating a secular state with equal rights for all, provided minorities pledged undivided loyalty to India. His Hindu Mahasabha worked to protect Hindu interests against what he saw as the Muslim League’s aggressive separatism, particularly during the 1940s when partition loomed.
The Hindu Mahasabha, under Savarkar’s presidency from 1937 to 1943, played a significant role in the freedom struggle, though it diverged from Congress’s methods. It opposed the Quit India Movement, prioritising Hindu militarisation and coalition governments with the Muslim League in provinces like Bengal, Sindh, and the NWFP to counter Congress’s dominance. Savarkar’s slogan, “Hinduize all Politics and Militarize Hindudom,” aimed to strengthen Hindus politically and militarily. The Mahasabha also resisted the integration of princely states into a secular India, viewing them as bastions of Hindu power. While critics argue this collaboration with the British and the Muslim League diluted its anti-colonial stance, supporters see it as a strategic move to safeguard Hindu interests during a turbulent period.
Association with RSS and Social Reforms
Savarkar’s ideology profoundly influenced the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), founded by Dr K.B. Hedgewar in 1925. His concept of Hindutva and emphasis on Hindu unity inspired Hedgewar, whom he met during Savarkar’s internment in Ratnagiri. While Savarkar was not formally associated with the RSS, his writings and speeches significantly influenced its early ideology, particularly its emphasis on Hindu Sangathan (organisation). Savarkar’s vision of a strong, unified Hindu society resonated with the RSS’s mission to foster national pride and discipline among Hindus.
Beyond politics, Savarkar was a social reformer. He opposed caste discrimination, organised inter-caste dinners, and established the Patitpavan Temple in Ratnagiri in 1931, open to all castes, including untouchables. He also opened India’s first pan-Hindu café in 1933, promoting social equality. As an atheist, he rejected orthodox practices like cow worship, advocating rationality while upholding cultural Hindutva.
Kala Pani and the Amnesty Controversy
Savarkar’s imprisonment in Kala Pani was a testament to his revolutionary resolve. Sentenced to 50 years in 1911, he faced conditions far more gruelling than those experienced by Gandhi or Nehru, who were often held in comfortable confinement. The British considered Savarkar a “dangerous criminal,” fearing his ability to ignite revolutionary flames. Between 1911 and 1920, Savarkar submitted multiple petitions for release, a standard practice for political prisoners under British amnesty proclamations. Historians like Vikram Sampath note that such petitions were common, citing examples like Sri Aurobindo’s brother and Ram Prasad Bismil. Gandhi and Tilak also supported Savarkar’s release, recognising his sacrifices.
Congress’s portrayal of these petitions as “mercy pleas” or acts of cowardice is a misrepresentation. Savarkar’s health deteriorated in Kala Pani’s harsh conditions, and his petitions often expressed willingness to engage in constitutional politics, a strategic move to secure freedom and continue his work. Unlike Gandhi or Nehru, Savarkar faced prolonged isolation and torture, making his endurance remarkable. The Congress’s narrative, labelling him “Mafi veer” (a pejorative implying he sought forgiveness), ignores the severity of his punishment and contributions, a tactic critics argue was used to marginalise his legacy due to ideological differences.
Contributions and Legacy
Savarkar’s contributions to the freedom struggle were multifaceted. His writings, including The Indian War of Independence and Hindutva, inspired generations of revolutionaries. His leadership of the Hindu Mahasabha galvanised Hindu political consciousness, countering Muslim League’s separatism. His efforts in Britain mobilised Indian students, while his imprisonment in Kala Pani symbolised unwavering resistance. Post-release, his social reforms challenged caste barriers, promoting unity.
The Congress’s systematic discrediting of Savarkar, particularly after his acquittal in the 1948 Gandhi assassination case, stems from his opposition to their policies and his Hindu nationalist stance. Nathuram Godse, the assassin, was a former Mahasabha member, but no conclusive evidence linked Savarkar to the plot. Yet, this association was used to tarnish his image, overshadowing his sacrifices. Recent works, like Vikram Sampath’s biography and Veer Savarkar: The Man Who Could Have Prevented Partition, argue that Savarkar’s opposition to partition and his vision of a unified India were prescient.
Savarkar’s stature as a freedom fighter is no less than Gandhi, Bose, or Bhagat Singh. While Gandhi’s non-violence and Bose’s military campaigns are celebrated, Savarkar’s revolutionary writings, endurance in Kala Pani, and ideological contributions deserve equal recognition. His death in 1966, following a voluntary fast to attain Samadhi, marked the end of a life dedicated to India’s freedom and Hindu unity. As India reevaluates its historical narratives, Savarkar’s legacy as a patriot, reformer, and visionary demands a rightful place in the pantheon of freedom fighters.
Comments