A perennial dilemma faced by any sincere student of Indian politics is how to analyse V D Savarkar as a political figure whose ideas and ideals continue to decisively shape Indian polity. The relevance of Savarkar is restricted not just to the political debates surrounding his pivotal treatise on Hinduvta –arguably his most popular work through which he attempted to solidify a nebulous identity of Hindus – but extends to prevailing socio-political realities that continue to define India. Yet a prominent scholarship in the academia has consciously eschewed studying Savarkar in its entirety. A serious predicament in understanding Savarkar is the fact that most of his writings are in Marathi – not to mention that a considerable part of the same is in its peculiarly archaic variant – thereby constraining the readership of Savarkar. But beyond that, the concerning apathy in the intellectual circles to study Savarkar as a ‘political thought’ obstructed the critical academic enquiry into Savarkar’s socio-political thought. What has worsened the discourse is the deriding of Savarkar’s contribution by the cabal of self-confessed Liberal intellectuals who have reduced Savarkar to petty debates of clemency petitions and banal accusations of communalism.

This extreme variant has instigated its reaction in a form of group which do not wish to move beyond hagiographic presentation of Savarkar, which often cloaks some of his critical insights about society and religion, thereby unnecessarily polarising the discourse. The casualty here has been a serious study of Savarkar which thoroughly enquires into his political and social disquisitions. This article doesn’t attempt to concretely answer any question but rather submits for the reader’s consideration some prevalent angles to Savarkar’s political thought. It posits the problem of theorising Savarkar in an accepted academic template by arguing that it is difficult to situate Savarkar in one particular theoretical format. However, his ideas and ideals reflect a deep study of society and ills facing it and his responses reveal his insights for addressing them. A nuanced study of Savarkar as a socio- political thought should therefore be encouraged which moves beyond some accepted binaries.

Conservative of Modernist?

A difficult quandary to settle is where to place Savarkar in the political spectrum. Some of his arch rivals in the intellectual circles today would want us to believe that Savarkar was a rigid Conservative (using the term almost pejoratively implying a revivalist orthodox) who justified the sustenance of traditional Hindu social and religious norms even in the polity. An argument made ad nauseam to support this theory is his supposed support to Manu Smirit as a divine law for Hindus. His eventual aim of establishing Hindu Rashtra is then taken as natural progression of his Conservative aims to ‘create a land only for Hindus’.  While it is true that the elements of conservatism are not entirely absent in his approach, it doesn’t require much of the intellect to understand that this rather simplistic deduction is politically motivated.  This becomes evident by the stark denial by such intellectuals of the reform efforts of Savarkar and the insistence of instilling scientific temper into the masses, which at times irked even the traditional Hindus – a fact well recognised by Savarkar himself.  For instance in the article ‘Scientific Progress can Smash Religious Fanaticism’, Savarkar writes

“I am aware of the fact that some conservative Hindus have been deeply hurt by my opinions on meat eating and, in the heat of the moment, they made some nasty remarks about me. I can understand that. It was a natural reaction. At times reformers have to hurt feelings of the people. They should therefore be prepared to face the wrath of the masses for sometime”.  

Indulging with debates and discussion with religious leaders was not new for Savarkar who debated them with reason on the utility of some of the archaic practices in Hindu society.  One such notable episode is when Savarkar insisted with Shastri Gandale and Shastri Dharurkar, who were two disciples of Shankaracharya, that those who cross the seas should not be made outcast. The practice to consider crossing seas as irreligious was prevalent in prominent section of Hindus, thereby making the sea voyages a taboo. Often this was justified on the grounds of scriptures. Savarkar heavily criticised this practice not only because it was outdated but also because such practice resulted in the loss of sea trade and the general society fell behind modern science and technology.

Speaking of scriptures, Savarkar rejected the divine origin of any scripture and insisted that they are earthly creations and therefore can be altered or even disregarded. He scathingly criticised section of Hindus who considered scriptures as divine and unalterable. He once remarked

“by regarding our scriptures as unalterable we have made a laughing stock of ourselves. We have become forever fools”.

Insisting on having a scientific attitude he further continued in his article Two Words: Two Cultures

“our scriptures, which we regard as God given and eternal, are at least five thousand years old. In other words, the world has moved on five thousand years. And yet, instead of learning from the scientific progress that has been made, we have decided to cling to the ancient traditions and refuse to be wiser than our ancestors.”

He employed similar ruthless criticism against caste system and untouchability often ridiculing those who used religious rationales for such inhuman practices. Cynics have dubbed his effort as a political strategy, but Savarkar has been advocating against untouchability long before he became active in the political activities. For instance, Savarkar in 1920s wrote from Andaman

“Just as I feel that I should rebel against foreign rule over Hindusthan, I feel I should rebel against caste discrimination and untouchability.” 

Responding to the argument that Savarkar had some political motive, Savarkar had clarified that

“Eradication of untouchability is in the interests of our Hindu society and hence also it must go, but even if Hindu society were to be partially gain from that custom, we would have opposed it with the same vehemence….From the point of view of justice, dharma and humanism, it (fight against untouchability) is a duty.

Very few today know that Savarkar was one of the first advocates of radical step to have temple priests based not on caste but on merit which would dissolve the monopoly of Brahmins in the profession.

From engaging modern and progressive views to reform society from within to urging to accept the modern means of production and communications, Savarkar appeared way ahead of his contemporary leaders. His arguments, his rationales, his criticism often perturbed some of his own compatriots, but the formidable arguments which he advanced were difficult to digest for some of his own followers too.  What set apart Savarkar from the other ‘so-called rationalist or progressive’ was his refusal to paint entire Hindu value system as faulty. Savarkar, though borderline atheist himself, understood the inherent utility of religious scriptures and spiritio-philosophical content of Hindus. He thus never discarded anything in entirety. Instead, he insisted that a reasoned and rational study of scriptures should indeed be done – not by considering them as divine but as historical documents. Thus, while Savarkar was indeed critical of Manusmriti for its justification of caste-system, he maintained that

“whatever we find in Manusmriti to be harmful or ridiculous today should not be followed, but that does not make Manusmriti harmful or ridiculous. If we ignore those teachings and take only those that are useful today we will all benefit. If we accept that the religious texts, though claimed to be of divine origin, have failings like that of any human creation, they become the inheritance of all mankind”. 

This approach gives us liberty to accept what is good and relevant and discard which has outlived its utility.  Furthermore, he was also equally forthwith and brutal in identifying the religious excess of the other faiths and criticised them equally, which often made him unpopular. He was also equally unsparing of those who unfairly targeted Hindus. This probably explains why he endeared wrath of some of our self-professed liberals.

Conclusion

Despite his tremendous contribution is social structuring of India, Savarkar is seldom studied for this. On the contrary, he has been unfairly dubbed by his detractors either as a reactionary conservative on the milder side to Hindu supremacists on the extreme. A thorough, substantive and objective study of Savarkar as a political thought bereft of political and ideological prejudices is still awaited. This apparent divide – between conservative and modernist- in Savarkar’s approach is just one aspect of his ideational intervention to Indian social and political discourse. A plethora of writings which he has left behind still awaits careful investigation to situate Savarkar in the broader spectrum of Indian political thought. While it may be difficult to theorise him in one particular template, primarily because he wasn’t propounding a theoretical outlook but was rather responding to the realities of his time, but studying him as a distinct political thought is necessary to understand contemporary Indian political thought comprehensively.