Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

Overview

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883–1966), known widely as Veer Savarkar ("Brave Savarkar"), was one of the most consequential and controversial figures in modern Indian history. A revolutionary nationalist, prolific writer, poet, and political theorist, he is best known as the originator of the ideology of Hindutva — a term he coined in 1923 to define a political and cultural identity that would distinguish "Hindus" from other religious communities in India. His life spanned the entire arc of the Indian freedom struggle, from the revolutionary terrorism of the early twentieth century to the constitutional debates of the 1950s, and his ideas continue to shape the politics of the Hindu nationalist movement in India today.

Savarkar's significance lies not merely in his ideology but in the contradictions of his life. He was a revolutionary who plotted against the British Empire, was sentenced to two terms of transportation for life, and endured brutal conditions in the Cellular Jail of the Andaman Islands. He was also a writer of extraordinary productivity, composing poetry, plays, historical works, and political treatises in both Marathi and English. He was an advocate of social reform — opposing caste discrimination, promoting inter-caste dining, and encouraging temple entry for Dalits — even as he constructed a vision of Indian identity that excluded Muslims and Christians from full membership in the nation. These contradictions make him a figure who demands careful, critical engagement rather than simple celebration or condemnation.

Understanding Savarkar is essential for understanding contemporary India. His ideas form the intellectual foundation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and the broader Sangh Parivar. The Hindu nationalist movement that governs India today traces its lineage directly to Savarkar's formulation of Hindutva, and his portrait hangs in Parliament alongside those of Gandhi and Ambedkar. Yet he remains deeply contested: hailed as a patriot by his followers and condemned as a communalist and traitor by his critics. Any serious student of Indian politics must grapple with Savarkar — not to resolve these contradictions, but to understand them.

Early Life and Revolutionary Youth

Savarkar was born on May 28, 1883, in the village of Bhagur, near Nashik in Maharashtra, into a family of modest means but strong Chitpavan Brahmin identity. His father died when he was young, and he was raised by his elder brother Ganesh (Babarao), who would also become a revolutionary. The Savarkar brothers were deeply influenced by the revolutionary nationalist tradition of Maharashtra — the legacy of the Maratha resistance to the Mughals, the 1857 revolt, and the revolutionary activities of the Chapekar brothers, who had assassinated a British plague officer in 1897.

Education and Radicalization

• Fergusson College, Pune: Savarkar attended Fergusson College, where he came under the influence of the radical nationalist Bal Gangadhar Tilak and the social reformer Gopal Ganesh Agarkar. He founded the Mitra Mela ("Friends' Circle") in 1899, which later became the Abhinav Bharat Society ("New India"), a secret revolutionary organization dedicated to armed resistance against British rule. The organization drew inspiration from the Italian unification movement, the Russian nihilists, and the Irish revolutionaries.
• London years (1906–1910): Savarkar traveled to London to study law at Gray's Inn, but his real purpose was revolutionary organization. He established the India House in London, a center for Indian nationalist students, and produced some of his most important early writings. In 1909, he published The Indian War of Independence 1857, a history of the revolt that was banned by the British government for its incendiary nationalist narrative. The book was one of the first to treat the 1857 events as a unified "war of independence" rather than a "mutiny," and it circulated widely in India despite the ban.
• Assassination of Curzon-Wyllie: In 1909, Madan Lal Dhingra, a member of India House, assassinated Sir William Hutt Curzon-Wyllie, a British official. Savarkar was suspected of having inspired the act, and the British government intensified its surveillance of India House. Savarkar's revolutionary activities were not merely rhetorical; he was actively involved in organizing armed resistance, including the smuggling of weapons and the circulation of bomb-making manuals.
• Arrest and extradition: Savarkar was arrested in London in 1910 and extradited to India to stand trial for his revolutionary activities. The extradition became a cause célèbre when Savarkar escaped from custody at the port of Marseille, France, and was recaptured by French police and handed back to the British. The incident was debated in the French Chamber of Deputies and raised questions about international law, but it did not prevent his return to India. He was tried for conspiracy and waging war against the King, and sentenced to two consecutive terms of transportation for life — fifty years in total.

Cellular Jail and the Andaman Years

Savarkar was sent to the Cellular Jail in the Andaman Islands, the most notorious prison in the British Empire, reserved for political prisoners considered dangerous to the state. The conditions were brutal: solitary confinement, hard labor, inadequate food, and systematic humiliation. Savarkar was forced to extract oil from coconuts, weave coir, and clean the latrines of fellow prisoners. The experience nearly broke him, and he wrote multiple petitions to the British government requesting clemency or a transfer to a mainland prison.

The Petitions Controversy

• Clemency petitions: Savarkar's petitions for clemency have been one of the most controversial aspects of his legacy. In his petitions, he expressed regret for his revolutionary activities, pledged loyalty to the British government, and promised to serve the Empire faithfully if released. Critics — including his political opponents and many historians — have cited these petitions as evidence of cowardice and betrayal, arguing that Savarkar abandoned his revolutionary principles to save himself. Defenders argue that the petitions were tactical maneuvers, written under duress and in the hope of escaping conditions that were driving prisoners to suicide and insanity.
• Transfer to Ratnagiri: Savarkar was transferred to a jail in Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, in 1921, and released conditionally in 1924. The conditions of his release included a ban on political activity and a requirement to reside in Ratnagiri district. For nearly fifteen years, he lived under police surveillance, unable to participate in national politics. This period of enforced isolation was both a punishment and an opportunity: he turned to writing, social reform, and the elaboration of his political philosophy, which would emerge fully formed in his 1923 pamphlet Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?
• Physical and psychological toll: The Andaman years left Savarkar physically weakened and psychologically scarred. He suffered from chronic health problems for the rest of his life, and his experience of solitary confinement and forced labor shaped his political outlook in complex ways. The revolutionary who had embraced violence against the British emerged from prison as a theorist of "cultural nationalism" who prioritized social and religious unity over armed rebellion. Some scholars argue that this transformation was strategic; others see it as a genuine philosophical evolution.

Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?

Savarkar's most influential and controversial work was the 1923 pamphlet Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?, published under the pseudonym "A Maharashtrian" while he was still under detention in Ratnagiri. This short text — barely fifty pages — became the foundational document of Hindu nationalism and remains the most cited text in the ideological literature of the RSS and the BJP. It is not a religious text but a political one: an attempt to define a national identity that could unify all inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent under a single cultural umbrella.

The Three Essentials of Hindutva

• Pitribhoomi (Fatherland): Savarkar argued that a Hindu is one who considers India as his fatherland — the land of his ancestors. This territorial criterion was meant to include all those whose roots were in the Indian subcontinent, regardless of their specific religious beliefs. It was a broad, inclusive definition at first glance, but it carried an exclusionary logic: those whose sacred lands were outside India — Muslims, whose holy sites were in Mecca and Medina, and Christians, whose sacred center was in Jerusalem — could not claim India as their exclusive fatherland. This territorial-ancestral criterion was the first filter that separated "Hindus" from "non-Hindus."
• Punyabhoomi (Holy Land): The second criterion was more explicitly religious. A Hindu, according to Savarkar, is one who considers India as his holy land — the land of his sacred geography, his temples, rivers, mountains, and pilgrimage sites. This criterion excluded Muslims and Christians not on racial or ethnic grounds but on the grounds of religious geography. Their holy places were outside India, which meant, in Savarkar's logic, that their cultural loyalty was divided. They were "intellectual and emotional" foreigners, even if they had lived in India for generations. This was the core of Savarkar's argument: nationhood required undivided cultural loyalty.
• Jati (Common Race): The third criterion, which Savarkar invoked more ambiguously, was a common racial or ethnic origin. He argued that all Hindus — including Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs — shared a common ancestry, having descended from the ancient Vedic civilization. He explicitly included these groups as "Hindus" because their religions were born in India and because they shared a common cultural heritage. This was a strategic move to unify the various Indic religions against the common "threat" of Islam and Christianity, but it also introduced a racial element that would be exploited by later Hindu nationalist thinkers.

Implications of Hindutva

• Cultural nationalism vs. civic nationalism: Savarkar's Hindutva was a form of cultural nationalism — a nationalism based on shared culture, religion, and ancestry rather than on civic membership, constitutional loyalty, or democratic participation. It stood in direct opposition to the civic nationalism of Gandhi and Nehru, which defined Indian identity in terms of constitutional citizenship and pluralistic coexistence. This distinction between cultural and civic nationalism is central to understanding the debate between Hindu nationalism and Indian secularism.
• Exclusion of Muslims and Christians: The most controversial implication of Hindutva was its exclusion of Muslims and Christians from full membership in the Indian nation. Savarkar did not argue that they should be expelled or killed; he argued that they could not be trusted with the leadership of the nation because their loyalties were divided. They could be "assimilated" only if they abandoned their religious identities and accepted Hindu cultural supremacy. This position has been described by critics as a form of soft majoritarianism that paved the way for more aggressive forms of Hindu nationalism.
• Influence on the RSS: K.B. Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS in 1925, was deeply influenced by Savarkar's ideas, and the RSS adopted Hindutva as its core ideology. M.S. Golwalkar, the second RSS chief, expanded Savarkar's ideas in his 1939 book We, or Our Nationhood Defined, which argued that non-Hindus in India must either adopt Hindu culture or live as subordinate citizens. The RSS and its political wing, the BJP, continue to affirm Savarkar's definition of Hindutva, though they have moderated its language for electoral purposes while retaining its essential logic.

Political Thought and Philosophy

Beyond Hindutva, Savarkar developed a broader political philosophy that combined elements of revolutionary nationalism, social Darwinism, and rationalist skepticism. He was not a systematic philosopher like Gandhi or Ambedkar, but his scattered writings and speeches reveal a coherent worldview that has shaped the Hindu nationalist movement for nearly a century.

Key Themes in Savarkar's Thought

• Scientific rationalism: Savarkar was an outspoken atheist and rationalist who rejected religious superstition and ritual. He argued that Hinduism should be purified of its "medieval" accretions — caste discrimination, untouchability, child marriage, and idol worship — and should be reconstructed as a modern, rational religion. His atheism was not anti-Hindu; it was a form of Hindu reform. He wanted to replace "priestcraft" with "science" and to transform Hinduism from a fragmented collection of sects into a unified national religion. This rationalist strand of Hindu nationalism is often overlooked but is important for understanding its appeal to educated, urban middle-class supporters.
• Social Darwinism: Savarkar was influenced by the social Darwinism that was popular in early twentieth-century Europe. He believed in the survival of the fittest, the necessity of strength for national survival, and the danger of weakness and decadence. His writings are filled with exhortations to Hindus to become "manly," "vigorous," and "militant." He admired the militarism of European nationalism and sought to inculcate a similar spirit among Hindus. This emphasis on strength and masculinity has been criticized as fascistic, and scholars like Jyotirmaya Sharma have argued that Savarkar's thought contains elements of "revolutionary fascism."
• Historical revisionism: Savarkar was a pioneer of what is now called "Hindu nationalist historiography" — the reinterpretation of Indian history as a continuous struggle between Hindus and foreign invaders. His works on the 1857 revolt, the history of the Marathas, and the resistance to Muslim rule all share this narrative frame. Indian history, in this view, is not a story of pluralistic coexistence and cultural synthesis but a story of Hindu victimhood and resistance. This historical narrative has been deeply influential in shaping the self-understanding of the Hindu nationalist movement and has been challenged by mainstream historians who emphasize syncretism and hybridity.
• Advocacy of a Hindu state: Savarkar explicitly argued that India should be a Hindu state, not merely a secular state with a Hindu majority. He opposed the partition of India but accepted it as a pragmatic reality once it occurred. He was critical of the Indian Constitution for what he saw as its excessive concessions to minorities, and he advocated for a uniform civil code, the abolition of special privileges for minorities, and the integration of Kashmir into India. These positions have been adopted by the BJP and have become central to its political agenda.

Savarkar vs Gandhi

The contrast between Savarkar and Gandhi is one of the defining intellectual and political antagonisms of modern India. They represented two fundamentally different visions of Indian nationhood: Gandhi's inclusive, pluralistic, and non-violent nationalism, and Savarkar's majoritarian, culturally homogeneous, and militant nationalism. Their disagreements were not merely tactical but philosophical — they disagreed about the nature of the Indian nation, the role of religion in politics, the meaning of freedom, and the ethical basis of political action.

Points of Contrast

• Means vs. ends: Gandhi's famous dictum that "means are after all everything" was directly opposed to Savarkar's pragmatic acceptance of violence as a necessary tool of national liberation. Savarkar was a revolutionary who endorsed armed resistance, assassination, and political violence; Gandhi was a satyagrahi who rejected all forms of violence, including violent thought. This difference was not merely strategic but metaphysical: Gandhi believed that the means determine the end, while Savarkar believed that the end justifies the means.
• Nationhood and religion: Gandhi's nationalism was explicitly religious but inclusively so. He drew on Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and Jain traditions to construct a universal ethic of non-violence and truth. He fasted for Hindu-Muslim unity, prayed from multiple scriptures, and insisted that Indian independence was meaningless without communal harmony. Savarkar's nationalism was also religious but exclusively so. He defined the nation in terms of Hindu culture and argued that non-Hindus could belong only as subordinate members. Gandhi sought to transcend religious boundaries; Savarkar sought to harden them.
• Attitude toward the British: Gandhi's relationship with the British was complex and ambivalent. He was a loyal subject of the Empire for much of his early life, served in the Boer War, and wore British dress before adopting the loincloth. His opposition to the British was moral and principled, not racial or ethnic. Savarkar's opposition was more visceral and more rooted in a sense of Hindu humiliation. He admired certain aspects of British discipline and organization but hated the Empire as a foreign imposition. This difference in attitude shaped their respective strategies: Gandhi sought to convert the British through moral suasion; Savarkar sought to destroy them through force.
• Partition and Pakistan: Gandhi opposed Partition until the end, and his assassination was partly a consequence of his refusal to accept the division of India as permanent. Savarkar also opposed Partition, but for different reasons: he believed that the entire Indian subcontinent should be Hindu, and the creation of a Muslim Pakistan was a betrayal of Hindu territorial claims. After Partition, Savarkar supported the integration of princely states, opposed special status for Kashmir, and advocated for the recovery of "lost" Hindu territories. These positions have been inherited by the Hindu nationalist movement and remain central to its geopolitical imagination.
• Assassination and aftermath: Savarkar was tried and acquitted in the Gandhi assassination conspiracy case, though the acquittal was controversial and has been debated ever since. The Justice Jeevan Lal Kapur Commission, which reinvestigated the case in the 1960s, concluded that Savarkar and his associates had a role in the conspiracy, but the evidence was not sufficient for a legal conviction. Savarkar's supporters deny any involvement and argue that he was falsely implicated by a Congress government seeking to destroy his reputation. The question of Savarkar's responsibility for Gandhi's assassination remains one of the most contested issues in Indian historiography.

Social Reform and Caste

One of the most neglected aspects of Savarkar's legacy is his role as a social reformer. Unlike many conservative Hindu nationalists who defended caste hierarchy, Savarkar was a vocal critic of the caste system and of untouchability. He promoted inter-caste dining, inter-caste marriage, and temple entry for Dalits. He argued that Hindu unity could not be achieved without the abolition of caste discrimination, and he practiced what he preached by organizing inter-caste meals and opening temples to all castes.

Reformist Activities

• Inter-caste dining and temple entry: In the 1920s and 1930s, Savarkar organized numerous patitodhar (reclamation) ceremonies in which Dalits were initiated into Hindu rituals and given the sacred thread (janoi). He opened a temple in Ratnagiri to all castes and organized inter-caste dining programs. These activities were controversial within the Hindu community and were criticized by orthodox Brahmins, but they were consistent with Savarkar's rationalist and reformist interpretation of Hinduism.
• Critique of caste: Savarkar argued that the caste system was a "disease" that had weakened Hindu society and made it vulnerable to foreign invasion. He traced the origin of caste to the "selfish" priesthood that had divided the community for its own benefit, and he called for a "social revolution" that would abolish caste distinctions and unify all Hindus. This was a genuinely radical position for a Chitpavan Brahmin in the 1920s, and it deserves recognition as part of the broader anti-caste movement that included Ambedkar and Phule.
• Limits of reform: However, Savarkar's reformism was limited by his Hindutva framework. His primary goal was not the liberation of Dalits as individuals but the unification of Hindus as a political community. He opposed conversion to Christianity and Islam, which he saw as a betrayal of the Hindu nation, and he sought to "reclaim" converts to Hinduism. This "reconversion" agenda has been criticized as paternalistic and as an attempt to maintain Hindu numerical supremacy rather than to achieve genuine social equality. His relationship with Ambedkar was distant and often antagonistic, as Ambedkar rejected Hindu identity altogether and demanded separate political representation for Dalits.

Literary and Intellectual Contributions

Savarkar was one of the most prolific writers in Marathi and English of his generation. His literary output includes poetry, plays, historical works, political treatises, and translations. His writing was not merely polemical; it was literary and emotional, designed to inspire patriotic feeling and to construct a narrative of Hindu national identity.

Major Works

• The Indian War of Independence 1857 (1909): This was Savarkar's first major work, written in London and banned by the British government. It was a history of the 1857 revolt that treated it as a unified national war of independence rather than a series of disconnected mutinies. The book was revolutionary in its methodology and its narrative, and it influenced generations of Indian nationalists. It was translated into multiple Indian languages and circulated clandestinely. The book's historical accuracy has been questioned by scholars, but its political impact was enormous.
• Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu? (1923): Savarkar's most influential work, discussed in detail above. It is a short, polemical text that has been reprinted hundreds of times and is required reading in RSS training camps. Its brevity and clarity make it accessible, but its arguments have been subjected to extensive critical analysis by scholars of nationalism, political theory, and religious studies.
• My Transportation for Life (1947): Savarkar's autobiographical account of his imprisonment in the Andaman Islands. The book is a harrowing description of the brutal conditions of the Cellular Jail and a defense of his petitions for clemency. It is a valuable primary source for understanding the experience of political prisoners under colonial rule and for assessing the controversy over Savarkar's "mercy petitions."
• Poetry and plays: Savarkar composed patriotic poetry in Marathi that became widely popular in Maharashtra. His poems celebrated the Maratha warrior tradition, the martyrs of the revolutionary movement, and the glory of Hindu civilization. He also wrote historical plays, including Usshaap and Sanyasta Khadga, which dramatized episodes from Indian history and reinforced his nationalist narrative. His literary work was an essential part of his political project: the construction of a Hindu national consciousness through culture and emotion.

Legacy and Contemporary Relevance

Savarkar died in 1966, largely forgotten by the mainstream of Indian politics. The Congress-dominated political culture of the 1950s and 1960s treated him as a marginal figure, and his ideas were confined to the RSS and its affiliated organizations. The Hindu nationalist movement was politically weak during this period, and Savarkar's legacy was maintained by a small group of loyalists rather than by the state or the mainstream intelligentsia.

Resurgence and Rehabilitation

• Rise of the BJP: The political rise of the BJP in the 1980s and 1990s brought Savarkar back into public consciousness. The BJP and the RSS actively promoted his legacy, demanding that he be recognized as a national hero, that his portrait be hung in Parliament, and that the Cellular Jail be converted into a national memorial. The BJP-led government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee honored Savarkar in 2002, and the Modi government has continued this process of rehabilitation, naming institutions after him and promoting his writings in educational curricula.
• Controversies: Savarkar's legacy remains deeply contested. The decision to hang his portrait in Parliament in 2003 was opposed by the Congress and the Left, who argued that it was an insult to Gandhi's memory. The renaming of places and institutions after Savarkar has been criticized as an attempt to erase the pluralistic heritage of India and to replace it with a Hindu nationalist narrative. The debate over Savarkar is not merely historical; it is a proxy for the larger debate over the nature of Indian nationalism.
• Scholarly reassessment: In recent decades, scholars have offered more nuanced assessments of Savarkar, moving beyond the binary of hero and villain. Biographers like Vikram Sampath have emphasized his revolutionary courage and literary achievements; critics like Jyotirmaya Sharma and Ashis Nandy have analyzed the authoritarian and majoritarian elements in his thought. The scholarly consensus today is that Savarkar was a complex figure — a genuine patriot and a talented writer, but also the architect of an exclusionary nationalism that has had destructive consequences for Indian democracy.
• Relevance today: Savarkar's ideas are more relevant today than at any time since his death. The BJP, which governs India with a parliamentary majority, explicitly traces its ideology to Savarkar's Hindutva. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir, the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, and the campaign for a uniform civil code all reflect Savarkar's political agenda. Understanding Savarkar is therefore essential for understanding contemporary Indian politics, whether one supports or opposes the Hindu nationalist project.

Sources