Savarkar vs Gandhi

Overview

The intellectual and political rivalry between Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883–1966) and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869–1948) represents one of the most consequential debates in modern Indian history. These two figures offered radically different answers to the foundational question of Indian nationalism: Who is an Indian? What binds the nation together? And what should be the place of religion, caste, and culture in the political life of the country?

Gandhi's vision was rooted in an inclusive, pluralistic nationalism that sought to accommodate India's extraordinary diversity — Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Jain, Buddhist, tribal, and secular — within a single political community. His nationalism was not based on religion, language, or ethnicity but on a shared commitment to non-violence, truth, and mutual respect. For Gandhi, India was a civilization that had always absorbed and synthesized diverse traditions, and its political future must reflect that syncretic heritage.

Savarkar, by contrast, proposed a majoritarian nationalism that he called Hindutva — "Hinduness." In his 1923 pamphlet Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?, Savarkar argued that the Indian nation was essentially a Hindu nation, defined by common blood, common territory, common culture, and common language. He included Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs within the Hindu fold because they were born in India and shared a "Hindu" cultural heritage, but he explicitly excluded Muslims and Christians because their holy lands were outside India and their loyalties were therefore divided. This territorial-cum-cultural definition of nationhood was a direct challenge to Gandhi's inclusive vision.

The debate between these two visions has shaped Indian politics from the 1920s to the present. The assassination of Gandhi by Nathuram Godse, a follower of Savarkar's ideology, was the most violent expression of this conflict, but the intellectual battle continues in every election, every constitutional debate, and every communal riot. Understanding Savarkar and Gandhi is essential for understanding contemporary India.

Gandhi's Vision: Inclusive Nationalism

Gandhi's nationalism was not a reaction against British rule alone; it was a positive vision of what India could become. He rejected the European model of the nation-state, which was based on ethnic homogeneity, a single language, and a centralized state. Instead, he envisioned India as a confederation of diverse communities, each preserving its distinct identity while participating in a common political life. His nationalism was ethical rather than cultural — it was about how people treated one another, not about which gods they worshipped or which language they spoke.

Key Elements of Gandhi's Nationalism

• Religious pluralism: Gandhi insisted that all religions were paths to the same truth and that no religion could claim a monopoly on spiritual wisdom. He read the Quran and the Bible with the same reverence he showed the Gita, and he argued that Hindu-Muslim unity was not merely a political necessity but a moral imperative. "I do not expect India of my dreams to develop one religion, i.e., to be wholly Hindu or wholly Christian or wholly Mussalman, but I want it to be wholly tolerant, with its religions working side by side with one another." His prayer meetings included readings from multiple scriptures, and he made the interfaith gathering a central feature of his political practice.
• Anti-communalism: Gandhi was deeply opposed to the politics of religious identity. He refused to accept that Hindus and Muslims constituted separate political communities with irreconcilable interests. He opposed the two-nation theory, which held that Hindus and Muslims were distinct nations, and he worked tirelessly to prevent the partition of India on religious lines. His fasts for communal harmony — in Calcutta in 1946, in Delhi in 1947, and in Noakhali in 1946–47 — were among the most dramatic acts of his life. He walked through riot-torn villages, slept in Muslim homes, and recited from the Quran and the Gita together, embodying the unity he preached.
• Caste equality: Gandhi's campaign against untouchability was central to his nationalism. He believed that a nation that oppressed its own people could not be free, and he made the abolition of caste a precondition for swaraj. He called the untouchables "Harijans" (children of God) and founded the Harijan Sevak Sangh in 1932. His fast unto death against the Communal Award, which proposed separate electorates for Dalits, forced Ambedkar to negotiate the Poona Pact. However, Gandhi's approach was criticized by Ambedkar, who argued that Gandhi wanted to reform Hinduism rather than abolish caste, and that the term "Harijan" was patronizing. The debate between Gandhi and Ambedkar over caste remains one of the most important in Indian intellectual history.
• Village republics: Gandhi's vision of India was decentralized and rural. He believed that the village was the fundamental unit of Indian life and that political power should be devolved to local communities. His ideal was not the European nation-state but a federation of self-governing village republics (panchayats), each managing its own agriculture, education, and justice. This vision was influenced by his critique of modern Western civilization, which he saw as a machine civilization that destroyed community and self-reliance. His economic philosophy of swadeshi — self-reliance through local production — was the economic counterpart of his political decentralization.
• Non-violence as national ethic: For Gandhi, non-violence (ahimsa) was not merely a tactic for the freedom struggle but the defining characteristic of Indian civilization. He believed that India had a special mission to demonstrate to the world that political power could be achieved and exercised without violence. "The nation that demands the most from its citizens is the nation that serves them best." His method of satyagraha — truth-force through non-violent resistance — was designed to transform both the oppressor and the oppressed, creating a new kind of politics based on moral courage rather than physical force.

Savarkar's Vision: Hindutva

Savarkar's nationalism was born in a very different milieu. A brilliant scholar, poet, and revolutionary, Savarkar was educated in Bombay and London, where he was deeply influenced by European nationalism — particularly Italian unification, Irish nationalism, and the French revolutionary tradition. He translated Mazzini's writings into Marathi and was involved in revolutionary activities that led to his arrest and transportation to the Andaman Cellular Jail. His eleven years of imprisonment (1911–1921) transformed him from a revolutionary nationalist into a theorist of Hindu identity.

The Theory of Hindutva

• Essential definition: In his 1923 pamphlet Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu? Savarkar defined a Hindu as someone who considers India to be his fatherland (pitrubhumi) and his holy land (punyabhumi). This definition was simultaneously geographical and theological. It excluded Muslims and Christians because their holy lands (Mecca, Jerusalem) were outside India, and therefore their loyalties were divided. Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs were included because they were born in India and their religious traditions were considered "Hindu" in the broad cultural sense. Savarkar's definition was not a religious test but a test of territorial and cultural loyalty — though in practice, it functioned as a religious exclusion.
• Blood and territory: Savarkar's nationalism was explicitly racial and territorial. He spoke of Hindus as a "race" bound by common blood and common ancestry, and he saw India as the exclusive homeland of this race. "Hindutva," he wrote, "is not a word but a history." This language of blood and soil was borrowed from European nationalist movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, particularly German nationalism. It was a radical departure from the inclusive, pluralistic nationalism that had characterized much of the Indian freedom movement.
• Cultural assimilation: Savarkar believed that the Indian nation must be culturally homogeneous, and that minorities who did not accept Hindu cultural hegemony should be assimilated or excluded. He advocated for the forced reconversion (shuddhi) of Muslims and Christians to Hinduism, arguing that their ancestors had been Hindus who had been converted by force or fraud. He also supported the cow protection movement and the promotion of Hindi as the national language. His vision was of a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu nation) in which non-Hindus would live as tolerated guests but not as equal citizens.
• Political violence: Unlike Gandhi, Savarkar did not believe in non-violence. He had been involved in revolutionary violence before his imprisonment and continued to advocate for armed resistance against the British. After his release from the Andamans, he was interned in Ratnagiri, where he moderated his revolutionary stance but continued to advocate for a militant Hindu nationalism. His followers, including Nathuram Godse, who assassinated Gandhi, were influenced by his rhetoric of Hindu victimhood and Muslim aggression. Savarkar himself was tried and acquitted in the Gandhi assassination conspiracy, though the Justice Kapur Commission later found that there was a strong probability of his involvement.
• Social reform within Hinduism: Savarkar was also a social reformer within the Hindu fold. He opposed caste discrimination, supported inter-caste dining and marriage, and advocated for women's education and rights. He was a modernist who believed that Hinduism must reform itself to survive in the modern world. This aspect of his thought is often overlooked by critics, but it is important to understanding his appeal. He was not a traditionalist; he was a modern nationalist who used traditional symbols for political purposes. His opposition to caste was instrumental — he believed that caste divisions weakened Hindu unity in the face of Muslim and Christian competition.

Key Philosophical Differences

The debate between Savarkar and Gandhi was not merely a tactical disagreement about how to achieve independence; it was a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the Indian nation, the role of religion in politics, and the meaning of citizenship. These differences can be summarized in several key dimensions.

Religion and the Nation

• Gandhi: Religion was a personal matter that should not be the basis of political identity. Gandhi believed that all religions were equal and that the state should be neutral among them. His nationalism was "civic" rather than "ethnic" — it was based on shared citizenship and constitutional values rather than shared religion or culture. He opposed the use of religion for political mobilization and saw communal politics as a betrayal of the Indian tradition of syncretism.
• Savarkar: Religion was the foundation of national identity. Savarkar believed that a nation must be culturally homogeneous to survive, and that the Hindu religion was the essential bond of Indian nationhood. His nationalism was "ethnic" — it was based on shared ancestry, culture, and religion. He saw the presence of Muslims and Christians in India as a political problem that must be resolved through assimilation, exclusion, or partition.

The Meaning of Swaraj

• Gandhi: Swaraj was not merely political independence but a moral and social transformation. It required the abolition of untouchability, the empowerment of women, the upliftment of villages, and the practice of non-violence in all aspects of life. "Swaraj without the constructive programme would be a mere fiction." Gandhi's swaraj was a total revolution — not merely a change of rulers but a change of the social order.
• Savarkar: Swaraj was primarily the transfer of political power from the British to the Hindus. Savarkar was less concerned with social reform than with national power. He believed that once the Hindus achieved political dominance, social issues could be addressed internally. His priority was the consolidation of Hindu political power, not the transformation of Hindu society. This made him more acceptable to the conservative Hindu elite, who were uncomfortable with Gandhi's radical social agenda.

Violence and Non-Violence

• Gandhi: Non-violence was an absolute principle, not merely a tactical choice. Gandhi believed that means and ends were inseparable and that a violent revolution would produce a violent society. He rejected both British colonial violence and revolutionary violence, arguing that the only legitimate method of political change was non-violent resistance. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
• Savarkar: Violence was a legitimate tool of national liberation. Savarkar had been involved in revolutionary activities before his imprisonment and continued to believe that armed struggle was necessary when non-violent methods failed. He admired the European revolutionary tradition and saw Hindu nationalism as a warrior tradition that must be revived. His followers, including Godse, took this logic to its extreme conclusion.

The State and Minorities

• Gandhi: The state must protect the rights of all minorities and ensure their equal participation in national life. Gandhi believed that the majority had a special responsibility to protect the minority, and that the test of a civilization was how it treated its weakest members. His concept of sarvodaya — the welfare of all — was explicitly inclusive and anti-majoritarian.
• Savarkar: The state should reflect the will of the Hindu majority and promote Hindu cultural interests. Savarkar believed that majority rule was the essence of democracy and that minorities must accept the cultural dominance of the majority. He saw Muslims and Christians as potential threats to national security and advocated for their assimilation or marginalization. His concept of "Hindu Rashtra" was explicitly majoritarian.

The Partition and its Aftermath

The partition of India in 1947 was the most traumatic expression of the Savarkar-Gandhi divide. Gandhi opposed partition until the very end, believing that it would be a catastrophe for both Hindus and Muslims. Savarkar, by contrast, had advocated for the two-nation theory before Jinnah and the Muslim League made it their official demand. In his presidential address to the Hindu Mahasabha in 1937, Savarkar argued that Hindus and Muslims were two distinct nations and that any attempt to force them into a single state would lead to civil war. When partition became inevitable, Savarkar supported it as the only way to ensure a Hindu-majority state.

Partition and its Consequences

• Gandhi's opposition to partition: Gandhi refused to accept the logic of partition, arguing that it was a British conspiracy to divide and weaken India. He believed that the Muslim League did not represent the majority of Indian Muslims and that partition would create a permanent enemy on India's borders. "Partition is bad. But if partition is inevitable, let it be a partition of hearts, not of territory." His opposition to partition made him a target of Hindu nationalist anger, as many Hindus blamed him for "appeasing" Muslims and accepting Pakistan's share of assets.
• Savarkar's support for partition: Savarkar saw partition as a pragmatic solution to the Hindu-Muslim problem. He believed that a Muslim-majority Pakistan would be a perpetual threat to India, but that a Hindu-majority India would be stronger and more cohesive without its Muslim population. His support for partition was based on the logic of majoritarian nationalism — the belief that a nation must be culturally homogeneous to be politically stable. This logic has been inherited by the contemporary Hindu nationalist movement, which continues to see Muslims as a "fifth column" and Pakistan as the enemy.
• The assassination: On January 30, 1948, Nathuram Godse, a former member of the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS, assassinated Gandhi at a prayer meeting in Delhi. Godse's justification, presented in his courtroom statement, was that Gandhi had betrayed the Hindu nation by appeasing Muslims, demanding that Pakistan be paid its share of assets, and opposing the reconstruction of the Somnath Temple. Godse's statement was a concise summary of the Savarkarite critique of Gandhi: that Gandhi was a weakling who had sacrificed Hindu interests for the sake of a false universalism. The assassination was condemned by most Indians, but it also revealed the depth of the hatred that Gandhi's inclusive nationalism had provoked among the Hindu right.
• The ban on the RSS: In the aftermath of the assassination, the RSS was banned for a year, and the Hindu Mahasabha was politically marginalized. The Nehru government sought to consolidate a secular, pluralistic vision of India as a direct response to the assassination. The Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, reflected Gandhi's vision far more than Savarkar's: it guaranteed equal rights to all citizens, prohibited discrimination on religious grounds, and established a secular state. Savarkar's vision was pushed to the margins of Indian politics for decades, only to reemerge in the 1980s and 1990s with the rise of the BJP.

Contemporary Political Legacy

The Savarkar-Gandhi debate is not merely historical; it continues to shape Indian politics in the twenty-first century. The BJP, which governs India, explicitly draws on Savarkar's ideology of Hindutva, while the Congress and other opposition parties invoke Gandhi's inclusive nationalism. Every election, every constitutional debate, and every communal incident is, in part, a replay of this foundational conflict.

The BJP and Hindutva

• Savarkar as icon: The BJP and its ideological parent, the RSS, have promoted Savarkar as a national hero and a "Veer" (brave) patriot. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has publicly praised Savarkar, and the BJP government has installed his portrait in Parliament and renamed institutions after him. This rehabilitation of Savarkar is part of a broader project to replace Gandhi-centric nationalism with a Hindutva-centric narrative of Indian history. Critics argue that this is a whitewashing of Savarkar's role in the assassination conspiracy and his apology to the British; supporters argue that he was a true patriot who has been unfairly maligned by leftist historians.
• Majoritarian policies: The BJP's policies — from the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) to the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir to the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya — reflect the Savarkarite vision of a Hindu nation. The CAA explicitly excludes Muslim refugees from citizenship, the abrogation of Article 370 removed Kashmir's special status, and the Ram Temple symbolizes the Hindu reclamation of a site that had been a mosque. These policies have been defended by the BJP as necessary corrections to historical wrongs and condemned by critics as assaults on India's secular constitution.
• Constitutional challenges: The Indian Constitution, which reflects Gandhi's inclusive vision, has been under pressure from the Hindutva project. The BJP has advocated for a Uniform Civil Code (which would replace Muslim personal law with a common civil code), the abolition of minority educational institutions, and the removal of the word "secular" from the preamble. These constitutional changes have been opposed by the opposition, civil society, and the judiciary, but the BJP's political dominance has made them increasingly plausible.

Gandhi's Enduring Influence

• Secular resistance: Gandhi remains the symbol of secular, pluralistic India. His image is on the currency, his birthday is a national holiday, and his philosophy is taught in schools. Opposition parties, civil society organizations, and social movements regularly invoke Gandhi to challenge the Hindutva project. The farmers' protests of 2020–21, the anti-CAA protests of 2019–20, and the various movements for social justice all drew on Gandhi's methods of non-violent resistance and mass mobilization.
• Criticism from the left: Gandhi is also criticized from the left — by Ambedkarites, feminists, and Marxists — who argue that his nationalism was insufficiently radical, his social reform was incomplete, and his economic vision was utopian. These critiques are important, but they do not negate the fundamental difference between Gandhi's inclusive nationalism and Savarkar's majoritarianism. Even Gandhi's critics generally acknowledge that his vision was more humane and democratic than Savarkar's.
• The global context: The Savarkar-Gandhi debate is not unique to India. It is a version of the global conflict between ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism, between majoritarianism and pluralism, between the politics of identity and the politics of universal values. From Trump to Orbán to Modi, the twenty-first century has seen the rise of majoritarian nationalism across the world. Gandhi's vision of inclusive nationalism, however flawed, remains one of the most powerful alternatives to this trend.

Critical Perspectives

The Savarkar-Gandhi debate is not a simple binary. Both figures have been subject to complex and often contradictory assessments by historians, political theorists, and activists. Understanding these critiques is essential for a nuanced engagement with the debate.

Critiques of Gandhi

• Ambedkar's critique: B.R. Ambedkar argued that Gandhi was a Hindu reformer who wanted to preserve the caste system rather than abolish it. Gandhi's fast against the Communal Award, Ambedkar claimed, was an attempt to prevent Dalits from gaining independent political power. Gandhi's term "Harijan" was patronizing, and his belief that caste could be reformed from within was naive. Ambedkar's conversion to Buddhism and his call to "annihilate caste" were direct challenges to Gandhi's gradualism.
• Feminist critique: Feminist scholars have criticized Gandhi's patriarchal attitudes, his idealization of motherhood, his opposition to contraception, and his controlling behavior toward his wife. While Gandhi mobilized women in the nationalist movement, his vision of their role was deeply traditional. His philosophy of non-violence was also gendered — he associated women with passive suffering and men with active resistance.
• Liberal critique: Liberal critics have argued that Gandhi's moral authoritarianism was incompatible with democratic politics. His insistence on moral purity, his willingness to fast to coerce political outcomes, and his suspicion of modern institutions (parliament, courts, bureaucracy) made him a problematic figure for constitutional democracy. His economic vision of village self-sufficiency has been criticized as impractical and anti-modern.
• Postcolonial critique: Postcolonial scholars like Ashis Nandy and Partha Chatterjee have argued that Gandhi's nationalism was a "derivative discourse" that reproduced colonial categories even as it resisted colonial rule. His essentialism about Indian civilization, his Orientalism, and his reliance on Hindu symbols have been criticized as problematic. However, these scholars have also acknowledged Gandhi's unique ability to resist colonial modernity on its own terms.

Critiques of Savarkar

• The apology controversy: Savarkar's multiple petitions to the British government, begging for clemency and promising loyalty, have been a major controversy. Critics argue that these petitions prove that Savarkar was not a true patriot but a coward who betrayed the cause for personal comfort. Supporters argue that the petitions were a tactical necessity to continue the struggle from outside prison. The debate has become highly politicized, with the BJP defending Savarkar and the Congress attacking him.
• Role in the assassination: The Justice Kapur Commission (1969) found that there was a strong probability that Savarkar was involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Gandhi, though he was acquitted in the original trial due to lack of direct evidence. The RSS and the BJP have consistently denied Savarkar's involvement, while critics argue that the Kapur Commission's findings are credible. This controversy has made Savarkar a polarizing figure — a hero for the Hindu right and a villain for the secular left.
• Ideological critique: Liberal and leftist critics have argued that Savarkar's Hindutva is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. By defining the nation in religious and ethnic terms, it excludes millions of citizens from full membership in the political community. His rhetoric of Hindu victimhood has been criticized as a pretext for majoritarian violence. His support for the two-nation theory before Jinnah is seen as evidence that he, not the Muslim League, was the original architect of partition.
• Scholarly rehabilitation: Some recent scholars, such as Janaki Bakhle and Vinayak Chaturvedi, have offered more nuanced assessments of Savarkar, emphasizing his complexity as a social reformer, his literary achievements, and his influence on modern Marathi culture. These scholars do not excuse Savarkar's majoritarianism, but they argue that a simplistic demonization prevents a serious understanding of his appeal and his historical significance.

Sources