12

Savarkar: Hindutva and Critique of Caste System

Sangit Kumar Ragi

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, popularly known as Veer Savarkar,¹ was born in a Marathi Chitpawan Brahmin² family in 1889 in Bhagur, a village close to Nasik. Savarkar was second among two other brothers and a sister. His mother died of cholera when he was just nine. Seven years later his father died in a plague. He grew up under the protection and care of his elder brother Ganesh. When he was barely twelve he was married to Yamunabai, daughter of Ramchandra Triambak Chiplunkar, who supported his university education. It was from here that his revolutionary journey in the actual sense started.

If one looks at the writings and activism of Savarkar, one can conveniently divide his philosophy and praxis into three broader categories—his early revolutionary years, the ideology of Hindutva and Hindu Rastra which reflects his political ideology and lastly his critique of Hinduism, which he found grossly embedded with illogical beliefs, rituals and related religious and social superstitions.

Revolutionary Savarkar

The revolutionary orientation of Savarkar can be attributed to several factors working at that moment of history in the country in general and in Maharashtra in particular. In fact, the first decade of the 20 th century during which Savarkar got into revolutionary ideals was the time when the revolutionary atmosphere in the country had unfolded itself. The anti-partition movement in Bengal and the Swadeshi movement attracted him and he too engaged himself in organising bonfires of foreign goods and clothes at several places. The revolutionaries of Bengal had opposed this division tooth and nail, and it was finally annulled in 1911. This annulment could be possible because of unprecedented protest movement against the British government. At home, in Maharashtra, the climate was no different from that of Bengal. In the post-Gokhale era, Maharashtra had emerged as one of the leading and fertile grounds for revolutionaries. Tilak was another leading advocate of revolutionary methods. His newspaper Kesari spit fire against British colonialism. The language of the editorials and articles published in Kesari were highly provocative and motivating for the revolutionaries. Another newspaper which published equally provocative articles and editorials was Kal. Savarkar was a regular follower of these two publications. Savarkar was highly appreciative of Kesari and Tilak and considered him as his ideal and Guru. Thus, the cumulative effect of several factors such as his family background, a politically conscious and active mind and more importantly the political climate of the country in general and Maharashtra in particular influenced and shaped his understanding of the politics of the day and strengthened his revolutionary spirit.

The revolutionary life of Savarkar actually spans between 1902, when he joined Fergusson College in Pune, to 1921 when he came out of the Andaman Jail. During this period, he engaged in writing revolutionary articles, holding talks and discussions, organising people and motivating the youth towards revolutionary acts for the emancipation of the nation from British clutches. It was so powerful that he shortly came on the watch list of the government.

At Ferguson College he formed a political group called the Abhinav Bharat, which consisted of a group of people of revolutionary and nationalist inclination. The activities of the group were mostly to talk and discuss within itself the ways and methods, including violent ones, to win freedom. But the government and the college management found him extremely dangerous, and he was expelled from the college, though he was allowed to write the final-year examination.

Shyamji Krishna Verma, a noted Indian lawyer in London, who established the India House to promote nationalist feelings amongst the students coming to Britain for study, came forward to help Savarkar. Savarkar went to England to study law on a scholarship and stayed at the India House. In fact India House, which later on became a hub of Indian revolutionaries in London, acquired much of its fame during the period of Savarkar’s stay there. In London, Savarkar came into contact with several revolutionaries there who were not averse to armed struggle to liberate the country. Savarkar soon became the key man of all activities at India House. By 1909, he was in full control of this revolutionary centre. Savarkar also set up a Free India Society in London with the purpose of organising and mobilising Indian students there towards the freedom movement. In London, he found greater exposure to revolutionary literature and men. He was highly fascinated by the writings of Mazzini.³ In London, Savarkar is also said to have met Russian revolutionaries and learned the techniques of guerrilla warfare and bomb-making which he imparted to the Indian revolutionaries.

Savarkar had a vision of a free India and he justified the use of all means and methods to achieve it. He however found armed revolution the most appropriate course. He was not against the moderates measures and initiatives like refusal to pay taxes, practice swadeshi, protests and boycott. But they had limited relevance. They could create mass awareness but they were not sufficient enough to wrest freedom. Revolutionary and violent assault against the British was a must. He refused to buy the Gandhian premise of non-violence and advocated taking up arms in order to achieve the goal of freedom.

Savarkar’s genius lay not only in his organising skills but the amount of intellectual sharpness he had and his powerful oratory which was always embedded with convincing logic and facts. He rejected the British premise on India and its history. He found that British historiography deliberately intended to belittle Indian heritage and its culture. And he applied this to the interpretation of the Revolt of 1857 which the British depicted merely as a ‘Sepoy Mutiny’ whereas the facts proved that it was a declaration of revolt against the British rule in India. He propagated it as the ‘first war of independence’ and wrote the famous book titled The History of the War of Indian Independence, which was published in 1909. The book was originally written in Marathi. It was translated later on by a well known revolutionary of Tamil Nadu, V. V. S. Aiyar. He was with Savarkar at India House in London. The book ‘offered both the historical accounts against the British and the detailed assessment of insurrectionist tactics’.⁴ This book created a great deal of ruckus and uproar in British society. The government banned its publication throughout the British Empire. Madame Bhikaji Cama however got it published in the Netherlands, France and Germany. It was later smuggled into India and very soon became a popular text for the revolutionaries.

Savarkar’s revolutionary activities came to an end with his arrest on 13 April 1910 in the case of the murder of Curzon Willie as well as the collector of Nasik city A. M. I. Curzon. He was finally deported to India so that he could be sent to the Andaman Cellular Jail. Though he made a brave attempt to escape by jumping into the sea from the porthole of the ship carrying him and swam through a long distance to nearby Marseilles, a place on the French coast, he was caught. He was sent first to Yerawada Jail in Pune and then, after a quick trial, was given a 50 years sentence and shifted to the Andaman Cellular Jail on 4 July 1911 where his brother was already interned. In Andaman he and his brother were subjected to severe punishment and torture. The imprisonment consisted of ‘six months of solitary confinement, seven days of standing handcuffed, ten days of cross bar fetters and other tortures’. He spent 11 years in that jail. In 1921, he was shifted first to Alipore Jail, then to Ratnagiri Jail on 2 May 1921 and, finally, to the Yerawada Jail from where he was released on 6 January 1924.

Hindutva and the Ideology of Hindu Rashtra

Once he was out of jail, he immediately plunged into politics. He was invited by several organizations to join them in the struggle against the British rule. But he chose to follow the path of Hindu nationalist politics, and founded the Ratnagiri Hindu Sabha on 24 January 1924, which later merged with the Hindu Mahasabha, a political party founded in 1915. Several factors contributed to this choice. First, he had never appreciated the Gandhian approach to the struggle for freedom, especially Gandhi’s emphasis on non-violence and his policy of taking up what he felt were issues pertaining largely to the Muslim world and not really germane to the Indian situation. He had severely criticised the suspension of the non-cooperation movement on the issue of the killing of twenty-two policemen in Chauri Chaura in 1922. In post-Khilafat Indian politics there were a large number of other leaders including Raj Gopalachari and K.M. Munshi, who had opposed Gandhi on the issue, fearing that it would herald the spirit of communalism by releasing the forces of religious fanaticism.⁵ In post Khilafat national politics Hindu-Muslim communal polarization had already taken shape and a series of communal riots was a testimony to it. The Congress never took up this cause and always made a meek response to this. Savarkar was very critical of Gandhi due to the stand of the latter on the Moplah riots in which several Hindus had been killed and many were forced to convert to Islam. Savarkar wrote a series of articles later on the Moplah riots and found the absence of effective Hindu protests. Secondly, he had no belief in the ideology of Communism. And therefore the course of Hindutva was the only option left to him which was also close to his political understanding of India.

He wrote the pamphlet Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu? in 1923, when he was incarcerated in the Ratnagiri jail, in which he clearly articulated his ideas on Hindutva and the Hindu Rashtra. This was to become one of the foundational texts of Hindu nationalists. Savarkar joined the Hindu Mahasabha and soon took over the charge of its leadership and dedicated himself to Hindu organization and unification. The Hindu Mahasabha was formed in 1915 with the purpose of organising and defending Hindu interests to which the Congress leaders were ‘indifferent and even hostile’.⁶ People like Swami Shradhanand, Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya and Lala Lajpat Rai were attached to this organization. Savarkar became the president of the Hindu Mahasabha on 10 December 1937 at its 19th session at Karnavati (Ahmedabad). He was re-elected president consecutively for the next seven years. Savarkar gave a new ideological sharpness to the organization, though he failed to make it an alternative to the Indian National Congress. Savarkar while addressing the gathering of the Hindu Mahasabha as the president of the organization called for the organization of the Hindus as a political force. He said ‘We Hindus are a nation in ourselves’.

Hindu, Hindutva and Hinduism

Hinduism and Hindu culture had fascinated him from his childhood days. His first article, published by Nasikvaibhav in its editorial columns in two instalments, was ‘The Glory of Hindu Culture’. He was at the time a third standard student in Shivajee School.⁷ The most comprehensive writings on this issue however came in 1923 when he penned Hindutva which proved to be the seminal guide book for those who advocate Hindu nationalism.

His premise of Hindutva outlined in the book is broadly the same which the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) champions today with a crucial difference: while Savarkar wanted a Hindu state, RSS wants a Hindu nation, i.e., a nation which reflects Hinduness without making Hinduism a state religion. The difference stands in perspective. RSS wants the state and its policy reflecting the predominance of the Hindu ethos without realising a theocratic state which it considers alien to the nation. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, however, considers him one of its important guiding lights, though Savarkar considered the Sangh of that time a timid Hindu organization.

Savarkar defined India not only in terms of Hindu idioms but considered both terms as synonyms. The term ‘Hindu’ for him was not about a particular religion or tradition but a race and a nationality. He did not use the term ‘race’ in biological and rigid anthropological terms. By race he meant that the people of the territory which we call Bharat or Hindustan constituted one unit as they all were the descendants of common forefathers. He sought to make a distinction between Hindu religion and Hindutva. He found that the common understanding of Hindutva articulated in terms of Hindu Dharma was incorrect.⁸ Hindu Dharma is actually the sum total of the spiritual and religious codes and philosophies written in and spread out in several texts of the native tradition. That includes several panthas or sects. And this race included all the native traditions, religious and other components. He rejected the definition of Hindu Dharma as synonyms of Vedic Dharma or the one which was popular and in practice amongst the majority or in the mainstream but the one which encompassed all native traditions, cultural and religious systems that originated and prospered on Indian soil.⁹ In his definition of who is Hindu he rejected all such definitions which lead to the exclusion of any native components of the Hindu race.

He said that the term Hindu initially referred to the people who were, primarily, settled across the river Sindhu and along the rivers Shatadru, Ravi, Chinav, Vitasta, Ganga, Yamuna and Saraswati. Since among these rivers Sindhu was the mightiest one people identified themselves with this river and called themselves ‘Sapta Sindhu’. Persians pronounced th ‘s’ as ‘h’, which resulted in the Sapta Sindhu pronounced as ‘Hapta Hindu’. According to Savarkar the term Hindu is more ancient than the term ‘Sindhu’. Savarkar applied the theory of Aryan invasion and argued that probably the people who came from outside called the river Sindhu due to their peculiar pronunciation. Savarkar seems to be caught here in a circular logic, because if this premise is true then the river should originally have been Hindu river, which during the Vedic period assumed the name Sindhu. But then the Avesta already talks of Hapta Hindu. This proves the point that the term originated from the Persian language, a point which Savarkar rejected altogether. Savarkar accepts that the term is an ancient one but fails to decide the time when and at what moment in history it emerged. He accepts that it is difficult to decide the time when and from where the term originated and also that even the Puranas which depict the historical narratives of India fail to mention it.

He however said that there were several terms which came in use to denote the territorial and racial inhibitions of the Hindu people such as Aryavrata, Brahmavrata, Dakshinapath, etc. but these terms did not encompass the whole of the territorial expansion of the Hindu race. For example, Aryavrata denoted to the territory from North of Himalayas to the Vindhyachal. It probably happened because by that time the Hindus expansion had been confined to this area and it was only in subsequent centuries that it reached further south. Therefore, they were limited in expression or did not express the totality of the geographical boundaries. It happened even with the terms like Bharatkhand which came to be known after King Bharat, who finds mention in both the Vedas and Jain texts. Thus, though the territory came to be known as Bharatkhand, the term Hindu continued to be in use and people outside its territorial boundaries continued to call it Hindustan, land of Hindus. (Vol. IX, p. 86). Greeks and Europeans followed it. Greeks pronounced Hindus as Indose and European later called it India. Chinese called it Shintus. Thus the term became coterminous with the nationality of the people from Afghanistan to the Southern sea.

Savarkar deliberately preferred and picked the word Hindutva over Hinduism despite the fact that he was deeply influenced by Vedantic Hinduism. His concern was primarily to accommodate the diverse main native faith systems, beliefs and religious practices. Hinduism did not connote all these native faiths. He was very much aware of the diversities and sectarian divides on religious lines and this applied to Hinduism also. He considered this to be a big reason behind the absence of political consolidation of the Hindus as one entity and which, he felt, finally resulted in the colonization of the country by the British and the Muslim rulers. He refused to accept the Hindu Dharma as a synonym of Vedic Dharma, the Dharma which was in practice among the people which constituted the majority or mainstream. Hindu Dharma for him should be comprehensive enough to absorb all the diversities which the Hindu race constitutes of whether it is related to caste or clothes or thought systems or the religious social rituals.

Hinduism thus was only one religion of the nation amongst the many others that originated in India. Hindutva engaged all shades and all traditions and thus covered a larger political, social and cultural space. Secondly he defined Hindutva not in religious and spiritual terms but more as a civilizational and politico-cultural category. He did not engage in the spiritual discourses of Hinduism as one finds in case of Aurobindo and Gandhi. His definition of who is Hindu clearly indicates this without any ambiguity. He said a Hindu is one who feels attachment to this land that extends from Sindhu to Sindhu and considers it as both his fatherland and motherland.

Savarkar outlines four essentials of Hindutva. First, A Hindu is one who on his own or whose parents have roots here is a citizen of this country. That means anyone who is born here or whose father has his origins here is Hindu. Thus an American who even if he becomes a citizen of the country is not a Hindu in the view of Savarkar till he is completely absorbed in the cultural stream of the nation. The same applies to the Muslims.¹⁰ The second essential of Hindutva is that the people of this land not only belong to a nation but also represent a common race and share blood relations. He did not interpret race in true anthropological and biological terms but merely to convey that the population which inhabit the land constitute a distinct civilization and are the children of common forefathers/ancestors and they all respect them. There were inter caste marriages and then children born out of them got developed into castes and sub-castes. Thus whether it is Brahman or shudra the same blood flows through both their veins. Thus, it does not matter whether someone belongs to a particular caste and is atheist or theist, they are Hindu if they share the same blood. An inter-caste marriage does not make one a non-Hindu. The third essential of Hindutva is the existence of a common culture. Since we constitute one nation and one race therefore, we have also one culture. It is this culture that unites us.¹¹ Culture is an accumulation of what we have created to win over the nature. It is a man made creation of new world of thoughts and art, customs and rituals, festivals, religious and spiritual code of conducts and so on. Hindus have common customs and religious texts, festivals and rituals, history, and codes of conduct. It is not essential that it takes the same form in all regions but its common distinctiveness lies in the fact that it makes it different from other cultures. It is the love for this complex culture created by him and his forefather that makes him different from the English or the Americans or Muslims. Thus anyone who is Hindu but subsequently converted to Islam though having a common fatherland is cut off from his forefathers and native culture.

He accepted that his doctrine of Hindutva has exclusivist connotations but that is inseparable till all the religious and racial denominations leave aside their attitude of dominance and aggression and work out towards some fundamental and rational human values as guiding and working principles which is not is sight at least at moment. Till such things happen ‘Hindustan belongs to Hindus’ only will remain to be guiding framework of the Hindu Rashtra.¹²

His definition of Hindutva certainly excluded all the faiths and beliefs that had an origin outside the territorial geography of India. Christianity, Islam Judaism obviously did not fall into it because they failed to fulfill the criteria laid down by him. By this definition any one born on this soil but having their holy land outside India was not a Hindu even if he shared the cultural and social elements of the country such as common dress, customs, folk lore, language etc. Thus, if one the one hand he tried to bring together all the native traditions, he sought to exclude the outside religions from the definition of Hindutva which he considered as the bedrock of Indian nationalism. He thus clearly defined and demarcated the idea of ‘we’ and ‘they’ representing Indian religion and the non-Indian religions and corresponding civilizations respectively. This clearly indicated his basic premise that this land was primarily a Hindu land. It was the forefathers of Hindus who were the original inhabitants of the land and it was they who created a distinct culture and civilization over here. The British and the Muslims came from outside, conquered the land and the established their rule. Not only this, he felt, that political adventurism was deeply intertwined with religious prejudices and agendas, which in turn supported attempts to homogenise existing religious and social practices, denied native roots and denigrated indigenous cultures and religious traditions.

Savarkar did not identify India in terms of territorial or political nationalism. He identified India in religio-cultural terms, as having a distinct civilizational boundary. In his presidential address to the Hindu Mahasabha in 1937, he said: ‘we are one because we are a nation, a race and own a common civilization’.¹³

For him the idea of territorial and political nationalism as conceived and cherished by the Indian National Congress was a political sin. He considered territorial nationalism a mirage. He found is detrimental to the growth of a cohesive Hindu nation. He went on to say, ‘We Hindus are nation by ourselves because religious, racial, cultural and historical affinities bind us immediately into a homogenous nation’.¹⁴

Interestingly both Gandhi and Savarkar located Indian nationhood in the ancient cultural and religious heritage of the country. Gandhi in his Hind Swaraj went back to recalling the tradition of creating religious pilgrimage centres. He felt that our forefathers had a purpose in mind. They created pilgrimages or the Shankaracharya established religious maths at four corners of the country just to mark the cultural and civilizational bond and unification of the nation. Gandhi wrote in the Hind Swaraj:

Our ancestors established Rameshwaram in the South, Jagannath in East, and Haridwar in North as places of pilgrimage. They knew that the worship of God could have been performed just as well in their homes. But they saw that India was one undivided land, so made by nature. They therefore argued that it must be one nation.¹⁵

Savarkar wrote in Hindutva ‘behold the rampart of nature. The Himalayas have converted this vast continent into a cosy castle. This Indian Ocean, with its bays and gulfs, is our moat. A country, a common home, is first essential of stable, strong nationality’. Thus both of them looked toward the natural boundary lines and cultural constructs to define and demarcate the Indian nation. Gandhi saw a thread uniting the country. And more importantly that thread that comprised of cultural and emotional unity prevailed. It was the cultural linkages that kept India united for centuries. Gandhi did however emphasise the Islamic heritage too, a crucial point on which he differed from Savarkar. Savarkar, on the other hand, rejected the very idea of composite nationalism. He was not alone in advocating the preponderance of Hinduism. Aurobindo Gosh supported it too. In fact there were two schools within Hinduism which were divided on the fate of Hinduism. One was led by Gandhi who saw the future in composite nationalism without sacrificing spiritual Hinduism. On the other hand, there was a school represented by Aurobindo and Savarkar which thought that spiritual Hinduism would be in danger if political Hinduism was not made stronger and united.

Critique of Hinduism

He firmly believed that Hindu consolidation was impossible to achieve in light of the practice of untouchability and the rigidity of the caste system in India. He found the caste system oppressive and inhuman. He therefore condemned the practice of untouchability calling it the biggest malaise of the Hindu society and came down heavily upon it.

Though he was born in a relatively well to do Brahmin family he never subscribed to the logic of the working of the caste system. Way back in 1920, he wrote from the Andamans ‘just as I feel that I should rebel against foreign rule over Hindustan. I feel I should rebel against the caste discrimination and untouchability’. In 1927 he again said that untouchability should go mainly because unnecessarily our co-religionists untouchables are subjected to treatment worse than the animals, which is not against the human dignity and an insult to the human race but also a great insult to our soul.¹⁶ He posed a question before the Hindu upper castes asking how they justified practicing untouchability against a human being when they played with pets like cats and dogs. Moreover, if the movement of the animals like cats and dogs don’t make the road or street they walk on impure, how did the movement of the so called untouchables on the same road bring impurity? The practice, he said, was a heinous crime against humanity.

One must understand that his Hindutva was essentially political and cultural in nature. He wanted a united Hindutva. And the right and oppressive caste system was doing all harm to this cause. The untouchables were not allowed to enter the temple and even a shadow of theirs’ upon the upper castes invited punishments. What could be a stigma greater than this on the entire Hindu ethos? It was both against the noble teachings of spiritual and Vedantic Hinduism as well as humanity at large, Savarkar was convinced that political Hindutva would remain weak and continue to suffer if a great majority of the population was not emancipated from social and cultural humiliation and further integrated into the mainstream.

Apart from temple entry, Savarkar also challenged some of the practices which were the exclusive rights and privileges of the upper castes Hindus such as wearing sacred threads, chanting of Vedas etc. He thought of these as essential in imparting fair treatment to the lower caste Hindus and removing the untouchability. He undertook the task of distributing sacred threads to the untouchables which till then was worn only by the upper castes Hindus. While speaking at one such programme at Ratnagiri on 20 May 1929, he told the untouchables that the Hindu Dharma and the Hindu heritage like the Vedas belonged as much to them as to any upper caste Hindu. He challenged the Hindu orthodoxy and the conservative priestly class. He called upon the dalits and untouchables to unite under the Hindu Dharma and assert themselves to obtain the rights that were theirs.

His social works also had a political objective as he wanted to unite all Hindus under one banner but at the same time it sincerely aimed at ‘securing a better life for the untouchables’. He said that untouchability should go, not only because it would strengthen Hindu unity and ensure the consolidation of a fragmented society but also because it was more important from the yardsticks of justice, dharma and Hinduism. What the Hindu society would gain from it was a secondary question. Their emancipation was necessary because for no reason they were pushed to live a life worse than an animal.¹⁷ He reiterated it in 1924. He said ‘I am confident that I shall live to see the eradication of untouchability. It is my fervent desire that after I die, my dead body should be lifted by Dhends, Doms along with Brahmins and Banias and they should all cremate my body’.¹⁸ In fact in India there were two schools of thought with regard to the social reforms at that time. One school suggested that political reform should precede social reform. The others were of the opinion that social reforms must precede political reforms. Savarkar blended the two and argued that both should go hand in hand. Like Gandhi he too argued that law alone was not the answer to the question of untouchability and wanted to eradicate this disease within the framework of Hindutva.

The idea of his Hindutva and Hindu Rashtra certainly also included, apart from uniting and organising Hindus, the reinforcing of the cultural and civilizational icons and heritage which were distinctively associated with the Hindu civilization such as language. Despite the fact that Savarkar was a great scholar of Marathi literature and Marathi history, he advocated for Hindi to be declared as the national language and the Nagari script as the national script as they are close to Sanskrit which is close to Hindu Civilization. He articulated the spirit of the popular slogan ‘Hindi Hindu Hindustan’. For him, like Hindu, Hindi too connoted the nationality of India.

Conclusion

Savarkar’s Hindutva which forms the bedrock of modern Hindu nationalism certainly is a political doctrine which seeks to establish a majoritarian nationalism in which Muslims and Christians, which he considered foreign faith systems, have no equal cultural and political space. It certainly does not want cultural homogenization of the native systems but argues for a ma-joritarian nationalism as a proponent of Hindutva. However, he was certainly not a religious fanatic. Contrary to common perception that the prophet of Hindu nationalism was an uncritical supporter of religious fanaticism, obscurantism and everything written in the Hindu religious texts, one finds Savarkar a great rationalist who openly confronted the illogical and irrational practices and customs within Hinduism.

In fact he condemned the fanaticism prevalent in all religions including Hinduism. He was not a blind follower of the shastras and the rituals developed by the Brahmins and condemned superstitions of all kinds prevailing in the Hindu society: be it the issue of worshiping of trees or animals like cow or ox or be it the issue of beef eating, and trenchantly criticised rituals based on stories such as the Satyanarayan Katha, which he considered to be developed by the Brahmins for their own interests. He forcefully argued the point that beef eating or defying the ongoing practice of worshiping cows or trees was not going to settle or unsettle Hinduism. He definitely did not favour a Hindutva which aimed at the homogenization of rituals and practices followed in different parts of the country but wanted instead to reinforce the cultural diversity without eschewing the need for political consolidation.