Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol.1 Issue 8, November 2012, ISSN 2278‐0637 IDEA OF HINDUTVA: A THEMATIC EXPLORATION IN SAVARKAR’S POLITICAL WRITINGS DR. PREM ANAND MISHRA* *Assistant Professor, Peace Research Centre, Gujarat Vidyapith, Ahmedabad. ABSTRACT This paper investigates the idea of Hindutva emerging in the political writings of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Savarkar’s political writings differentiate Hinduism and Hindutva. For Savarkar, Hindutva is more general and a political concept while Hinduism explains the religion. However, Savarkar political writings show his idea of Hindutva has much to with cultural and social regeneration of Hindu society than political. This study argues that by coining the term Hindutva Savarkar attempted to construct a collective Hindu identity in India that was a complex implication of Western social –political theory of his time and Hindu philosophy. Pinnacle Research Journals 1 http://www.pinnaclejournals.com Although, at surface level his political thought seems emerging from his violent revolutionary, terroristic anti -colonial nationalism and its relation to Hindu nationalism, however, at deeper level, his political thought is the product of his European intellectual orientation that he had from the study of vast literature of Western European social –political philosophers. Furthermore, this study argues that his political writings reflect a constant conflict between his dream of Hindu nation and reality of secular nationalism of his time which is still echoing in contemporary Indian political scenario, both at the level of discourse and practice. To support the above arguments, this study employs key political writings of Savarkar to prove its points. KEYWORDS: Hindutva, Hinduism, fatherland, holy land. ______________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION The political writings of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966) represent a temporal and materialistic approach to the interpretation and construction of his times’ existing Indian political reality. Although, at surface level his political writings seem emerging from his violent revolutionary, terroristic anti -colonial nationalism and its relation to Hindu nationalism, however, at deeper level, his political arguments appear to be the product of his European intellectual orientation that he received from the study of vast literature of Western European social –political philosophers. His concept of Hindutva- central to his political writings- which attempts to uphold both his ‘imagined Indian/Hindu nation’ as well as method of defining ‘collective Indian/Hindu identity’ was a complex implication of Western social –political theory of his time and Hindu philosophy. His political writings further reflect a constant conflict between his dream of Hindu nation and reality of secular nationalism of his time which is still echoing in contemporary Indian political scenario, both at the level of discourse and practice. SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol.1 Issue 8, November 2012, ISSN 2278‐0637 SOURCE, NATURE AND FOUNDATION OF SAVARKAR’S POLITICAL THOUGHT Pinnacle Research Journals 2 http://www.pinnaclejournals.com Savarkar’s political life can be divided in two phases. In first phase since childhood to 1910, he was ardent revolutionary nationalist who was devoted to eliminate British rule. Afterwards, during his imprisonments year (1911-1924) to his death, he stood as a prophet of Hindu nationalism who propagated the political philosophy of Hindutva through his writings and action. Close study of his writings suggest that, although, he derived his basic idea of the Hindutva both from Indian and foreign sources, however, he received motivation, direction and realistic suggestion from the writings and activities of political and social thinkers of Europe. In this connection, there is argument that Savarkar had little time for studying all the different schools of Hinduism, and moreover he was deeply suspicious of philosophical tenets founded on Holy Scriptures (Sharma: 125). On the other hand, he was deeply influenced by the European philosophers. He studied the philosophy and ideas of Political Economy of James Mill (17731836) and J. Stuart Mill (1806-1876) in detail (Sharma: 127). Especially, their notions of liberalism, individual freedom, and ideas on democracy had a deep impact on his mind. Further he was impressed with the philosophy of evolution proposed by Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). As Woolf notes, from Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin (1809-1882) he adopted the controversial idea of the ‘survival of the fittest’ which is without doubt the underlying theorem of Savarkar’s ‘Panch-sheela’ towards the social and political transformation of the Indian society (Wolf:5). His philosophical outlook also got strengthened by studying the works of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Savarkar himself wrote, ‘From then on I began to acknowledge this principle of morality as the touchstone of all my pursuits, of my ethical standards, and of my behaviour’ (SSV: 1:206). In addition, it is possible to find remarkable elements of Auguste Comte (1798-1857) in his political and social thoughts, for example the importance given to the service of humanity as the best of human ends (Lederel: 138). From all these European authors he studied the basic principles of social and political life, interpreted them through Indian eyes, and used them to propose his best approach towards the social and political problems of India (Wolf: 5). Influenced by these European philosophers, Savarkar developed peculiar views on the God, universe and human being. According to him, human beings live in this world and not in a transcendental one, thus, the universe had nothing to do with the people and how they arranged their worldly life. Moreover, he claimed that ‘the forces in the universe are to a little degree for Man, but to a greater extent they are against him’ (Keer: 204). From this Savarkar developed a exceptionally utilitarian ethics that seems the bedrock of his political writings, as he claims, “We must say that what is beneficial for mankind is good and what makes us suffer is bad. It is absurd to say what God likes is beneficial for man or vice versa, because they are false notions. We live in the Universe but the Universe does not belong to us. To a great extent, it is unfavourable and to a very small extent favourable to us. We must appreciate this and face the heavenly occurrences. That is true Nature. That is the real worship of the God of universe”. (Godbole: 338) Thus, ‘Man is the maker of his fortune and cause of his misfortunes. No divine power does any good or evil to human life. Man himself is responsible for the successes and failures, sweets and SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol.1 Issue 8, November 2012, ISSN 2278‐0637 bitters of his life. Reason and intelligence leads one to light and ignorance to darkness’ (Godbole: 339). In his socio-political analysis Savarkar was in favour of scientific reason than religious dogmatism. He argued that all religious scriptures are man-made. In his view, “What does not stand the test of scientific reason ought to be verily discarded even if it appears in the Vedas, Avesta, Quran, Bible, Book of Moses and the like. It is not true that an age of your is necessarily an age of truth! It is incorrect to think that everything that is ancient is necessarily sacred and worthy of worship”. (SSV: 4:579) Thus, for him no religious scripture is valid for all times. He did not consider any religious scripture to be unchangeable and valid for all times. Further, “I shall apply the test of present day science to all the wisdom and ignorance present in these scriptures. Only then shall I unreservedly practice and update what is essential for upholding and rejuvenating the nation!” (SSV: 3:364). Apart from this scientific temper, Savarkar incorporated many other Western theories in Hinduism and developed a peculiar notion of Hindutva employing them in Indian context. Wolf states, “Savarkar interpreted various concepts like utilitarianism, rationalism, humanism (universalism), pragmatism and realism and tried to apply them in the Indian context as cornerstones for the progress of his countrymen. He attempted to compose a worldly philosophy of life consisting of a portfolio of elements drawn from ‘classical Indian thought’, western social and political philosophy and his own experience and observations”. (Woolf: 19) Pinnacle Research Journals 3 http://www.pinnaclejournals.com HIS POLITICAL WRITINGS AND ORIGIN OF HIS POLITICAL THEORY OF HINDUTVA Savarkar’s writing can be divided in three categories: non political literature, historical studies and political statement. If his historical studies The Indian war of independence (1908), and ‘Six Glorious Epochs’ narrates his specific view on Indian History, his political writings, Essentials of Hindutva (1923), 'Hindu-pad-paadshaahi (1925), and Hindu-Rashtra Darshan (Six lectures given in Hindu Mahasbha from 1937 to 1942 ) presents his focused view on Hindutva, Hindu polity and Hindu Sangathan respectively. To get a clear idea of Savarkar’s political theory, key ideas of these texts can be examined. It is very surprising that his first influential text, which is interpretation of the history (The Indian war of independence, 1908) of India in modern times, shows his nationalist orientation rather than ‘Hindutva reference’ against colonialism. Giving a sign of passionate nationalists, he refuted the claims of British historians that the revolt of 1857 was just a Sepoy mutiny having nothing to with the general mass of the country. He argued that fundamental motive of it was the liberation of the country from the clutches of British rule. Moreover, this revolt of 1857 was India’s first war of independence owing to fact that it essentially, was the natural manifestation of the feeling of independence visiting the hearts and minds of the patriotic soldiers’ right from the western to the eastern part of the country. Savarkar had tremendous admiration for this sense of innate freedom of the sepoys, as it was rooted in the indigenous ideals of Swadharma and Swaraj. SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol.1 Issue 8, November 2012, ISSN 2278‐0637 This book had tremendous effect on Indian nationalists. In fact, at political level, his conclusion about a general state of war, fired by an intuitive but coherent idea of a nation, and overriding communitarian difference, gave a radical genealogy to the Extremists and revolutionary terrorists, who could now turn for inspiration to the violently anti-colonial and – indeed nationalist- resistance of an earlier generation. Thus Savarkar’s interpretation of Indian history was fully nationalist that challenged both colonial conceptions of India and re-vitalized nationalist sentiments. Interesting point of his writing in this book is that his account of the War of Independence of 1857 makes a strong case for ‘feelings of mutual friendship’ between the Hindus and the Muslims. There is acknowledgement in it of the enmity between Hindus and Muslims but that is brushed aside as being ‘born out of ignorance’. In fact there are lyrical passages in it where Savarkar talks about members of the two antagonistic faiths partaking of the ‘same milk of the breasts of the Motherland’ and becoming one. However one finds a paradigm shift in Savarkar’s ideology, when turn to his seminal text Essentials of Hindutva written in 1923. This text has taken a place of Classic, as far as the ideology of Hindutva and Hindu nationalism are concerned. It is difficult to provide correct explanation for Savarkar’s ideological movement from violent Indian revolutionary nationalism to the concept of exclusive Hindu nationalism in a space of about 15 years. His biographer suggests that his experience of Muslim prisoners while in prison was largely responsible for that (Keer: 234). However his published prison letters to his brother during 1918-20 do not mention any such thing what Keer argues. Pinnacle Research Journals 4 http://www.pinnaclejournals.com Savarkar’s Essentials of Hindutva is an attempt to define and construct the idea of Hindu, Hinduism and Hindutva. The text begins with the problem and anxiety of naming. Thus, one may notice in the text that there is a rather strained, complex, confused and confusing argument for preferring Hindu rather than Bharat, and later a contemporary, transcendental political Hindutva rather than the hitherto diverse/sectarian polymorphous Hinduism. However the text seems based on the powerful assumption that reads, as Savarkar points out, that Hindu is not a word but a History. Thus, beginning with historical analysis, Savarkar imagines three fundamental bonds that would conjoin the Hindus as a common entity, namely, Rashtra (territory), Jati and Sanskriti. Thus territorially, a Hindu is one who feels being attached to the geographical tract extending between the rivers Sindu (Indus) and Brahamputra, on the one hand, and from Himalaya to the Cape Comorin on the other hand. This geographical specification indeed becomes identical to what has traditionally been considered to the land of India for centuries. Thus, ‘ …the first requisite of Hindutva is that he be a citizen of Hindusthan either by himself or through his forefathers,” However Savarkar argues in same sentence, “yet it is not the only requisite qualification of it, as the term Hindu has come to mean much more than its geographical significance’ (Savarkar: 113). This leads him to introduce the idea of common blood or Jati which is typical in his political construction of Hindutva. As far as his notion of Jati is concerned, he considered, “The Hindus are not merely the citizens of the Indian state because they are united not only by the bonds of the love they bear to a common motherland but also by the bonds of a common SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol.1 Issue 8, November 2012, ISSN 2278‐0637 blood. They are not only a Nation but also a race-jati. The word jati derived from the root Jan to produce, means a brotherhood, a race determined by a common origin,-possessing a common blood”. (Savarkar: 114) This racial demarcation of the Hindu was seemingly not meant to claim any kind of superiority of Hindus in comparison to other races but to distinguish them from others. Furthermore Savarkar wrote that the trait of Hindutva encompassing the life of the inhabitants of this part of land would remain ineradicable, as the impulse of his Hindu blood would make him feel the pride of being Hindu. His argument is, “A Hindu believing in any theoretical or philosophical or social system, orthodox or heterodox, provided it is unquestionably indigenous and founded by a Hindu may lose his sect but not his Hindutva-his Hinduness—because the most important essential which determines it is the inheritance of the Hindu blood. Therefore all those who love the land that stretches from Sindhu to Sindhu from the Indus to the Seas, as their fatherland consequently claim to inherit the blood of the race that has evolved, by incorporation and adaptation, from the ancient Saptasindhus can be said to possess two of the most essential requisites of Hindutva”.(Savarkar: 117,118) A third important aspect of his idea of Essentials of Hindutva is the ‘commonality’ of Hindu’s cultural root. Thus, Pinnacle Research Journals 5 http://www.pinnaclejournals.com “Hindus are bound together not only by the tie of the love we bear to a common fatherland and by the common blood that courses through our veins and keeps our hearts throbbing and our affections warm, but also by the tie of the common homage we pay to our great civilization—our Hindu culture, which could not be better rendered than by the word Sanskriti suggestive as it is of that language, Sanskrit, which has been the chosen means of expression and preservation of that culture, of all that was best and worth-preserving in the history of our race. We are one because we are a nation a race and own a common Sanskriti (civilization)”. (Savarkar: 118) After this discussion on ‘essential implications of Hindutva’, Savarkar attempts to define civilization in his text. According to him, “Civilization is the expression of the mind of man. Civilization is the account of what man has made of matter. If matter is the creation of the Lord, then civilization is the miniature secondary creation of man” (Savarkar: 119). For him the story of the civilization of a nation is the story of its thoughts, its actions and its achievements. Literature and art tell us of its thoughts; history and social institutions of its actions and achievements. On this basis Savarkar argues about the commonalities of Hindus, ‘as our history tells the story of the action of our race, so does our literature taken in its fullest sense tell the story of the thought of our race’ (Savarkar:119). Further, the works of art and architecture are also a common inheritance of our race, whether they are representative of Vaidik or Avaidik school of thought. He then discusses that the common institutions and a common law, feast and festivals, rites and rituals of Hindus, although Hindus may differ in details are nevertheless both the cause and the effect of the basic unity of our race. SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol.1 Issue 8, November 2012, ISSN 2278‐0637 On this basis Savarkar concludes, “These ... constitute the essence of our civilization and mark us out a cultural unit. We Hindus are not only a Rashtra, a Jati, but as a consequence of being both, own a common Sanskriti expressed, preserved chiefly and originally through Sanskrit, the real mother tongue of our race. Everyone who is a Hindu inherits this Sanskriti and owes his spiritual being to it as truly as he owes his physical one to the land and the blood of his forefathers.” (Savarkar: 123) Summarizing all these, he reaches to a very complex definition of who is Hindu, “ A Hindu, therefore, to sum up the conclusions arrived at, is he who looks upon the land that extends from Sindu to Sindu-from the Indus to the Seas,-as the land of his forefathers —his Fatherland (Pitribhu), who inherits the blood of that race whose first discernible source could be traced to the Vedic Saptasindhus and which on its onward march, assimilating much that was incorporated and ennobling much that was assimilated, has come to be known as the Hindu people, who has inherited and claims as his own the culture of that race as expressed chiefly in their common classical language Sanskrit and represented by a common history, a common literature, art and architecture, law and jurisprudence, rites and rituals, ceremonies and sacraments, fairs and festivals; and who above all, addresses this land, this Sindhusthan as his Holyland (Punyabhu), as the land of his prophets and seers, of his godmen and gurus, the land of piety and pilgrimage. These are the essentials of Hindutva—a common nation (Rashtra) a common race (Jati) and a common civilization (Sanskriti). All these essentials could best be summed up by stating in brief that he is a Hindu to whom Sindhusthan is not only a Pitribhu but also a Punyabhu”. (Savarkar: 134) Pinnacle Research Journals 6 http://www.pinnaclejournals.com In fact, Punayabhumi and pitribhumi are most debatable terms in Savarkar’s political thought. Generally accepted, Punyabhu or Punyabhumi is defined as a country where one earns one ‘religious merits’. However as Woolf argues Savarkar seems interpreting this more in a patriotic way than a religious one. In this context, his sense of patriotism is expressed by his notion of ‘martyrdom’, conceived as heroism and hero-worship (Woolf: 12). In fact, on the one hand, Savarkar describes Punyabhu as mentioned above ‘the land of [his] prophets and seers, of his Godmen and gurus, the land of piety and pilgrimage’ and on the other hand, it is also the land in which ‘every stone [here] has a story of martyrdom to tell! This means that the Punyabhu or ‘Holy land’ is where one earns merit through patriotism and not through religious worship. As far as pitribhumi is concerned, he later on clarifies, “Hindusthan is a Fatherland .... to us not because it is a land entirely unlike any other land in the world but because it is associated with our history, has been the home of our forefathers, wherein our mothers gave us the first suckle at their breast and our fathers cradled us on their knees from generation to generation.” (HRS: 9) Applying this canon , Savarkar asserts that the converts to Christianity and Islam could not be considered as Hindus despite sharing common culture and life style due to the fact that though they regard Hindusthan as their father land, they do not regard it as their holy land. Here one SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol.1 Issue 8, November 2012, ISSN 2278‐0637 might notice, by this Savarkar appears to be advancing his interrelated agenda of bringing about broad based Hindu Sangathan on the one hand and prelude the believers in the other religion s from such a Sangathan. One of the important points that his text makes at different places and in different context is his notion of Hinduism and Hindutva. Savarkar differentiates between Hinduism and Hindutva. First of all he argues that “Hindutva is not identical with what is vaguely indicated by the term Hinduism. By an 'ism' it is generally meant a theory or a code more or less based on spiritual or religious dogma or creed. Had not linguistic usage stood in our way then 'Hinduness' would have certainly been a better word than Hinduism as a near parallel to Hindutva”. ( Savarkar: 74) Further, “Hinduism means the ' ism ' of the Hindu; and as the word Hindu has been derived from the word Sindhu, the Indus, meaning primarily all the people who reside in the land that extends from Sindhu to Sindhu, Hinduism must necessarily mean the religion or the religions that are peculiar and native to this land and these people. If we are unable to reduce the different tenets and beliefs to a single system of religion then the only way would be to cease to maintain that Hinduism is a system and to say that it is a set of systems consistent with, or if you like, contradictory or even conflicting with, each other.” (Savarkar: 126) On the other hand, “Hindutva is not a word but a history. Not only the spiritual or religious history of our people as at times it is mistaken to be by being confounded with the other cognate term Hinduism, but a history in full. Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of Hindutva. Hindutva embarrasses all the departments of thought and activity of the whole Being of our Hindu race”. (Savarkar: 73-74) Pinnacle Research Journals 7 http://www.pinnaclejournals.com In the last part of his text, he praises, ‘Unique Natural Blessings to Hindusthan’ and its culture incomparable to any country of the world. In short, Savarkar attempts to construct the Hindu identity on the basis of Hindutva. His argument is that the Aryans who settled in India at the down of history already formed a nation now embodied in the Hindus. Their Hindutva, according to him rests on three pillars – geographical unity, racial features and a common culture. It is important to note that Savarkar minimizes the importance of religious criteria in the definition of Hindu by claiming that the Hinduism was only one of attributes of Hindutva. This might be read as a fact that like most ethno –religious nationalist, Savarkar was not believer but an Ideologue. It can also be explained as an attempt to deal with the extreme religious differentiation within Hindu society – a fact that would diminish his idea of homogeneous community. Thus the Hindutva of Savarkar is primarily represents an ethnic community possessing a territory and sharing the same racial and cultural characteristics. On the other hand, Savarkar’s ideology of Hindutva can be seen rooted in the vision of Hindu solidarity. It was in fact a political construct whose antecedents lay in the cultural ethos of Hindus. He maintained that in spite of having numerous external differentiations, internally, Hindus are bound together by certain distinct cultural, historical, religious, social and linguistic commonalities. SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol.1 Issue 8, November 2012, ISSN 2278‐0637 Apart from the text Essentials of Hindutva, Hindu Rashtra Darshan or six presidential addresses to the Hindu Mahasabha, is important source to discuss Savarkar’s political thought. Savarkar’s six presidential addresses to the Hindu Mahasabha collected in the form of Hindu Rashtra Darshan shows his idea of Hindu nation as well as his idea of Swaraj- a term employed by all nationalists including Gandhi( 1869-1948), Tilak ( 1856-1920) and Aurobindo (18721950) to define a nation against British colonialism. Like other nationalists for Savarkar, Swarajay ( Savarkar writes Swaraj as Swarajya in his writings) did not only mean the political Freedom of our country or land or the independence of the geographical unit called India but for him Swarajay was needed as ‘Our country is endeared to us because it has been the abode of our race, our people, our dearest and nearest relations and as such is only metaphorically referred to, to express our national being’(HRS: 9). Here the idea of race might be underlined. It leads to his Hindu conception of India that he points out ‘Therefore Indian swarajya or Indian swatantrya means, as far as the Hindu Nation is concerned, the political independence of the Hindus, the freedom which would enable them to grow to their full height’( HRS: 9). Thus according to him, Swarajya to the Hindus must mean only that 'Rajya' in which their 'Swatva', their 'Hindutva' can assert itself without being over lorded by any non-Hindu people, whether they be Indian Territorial’s or extra-territorial. Pinnacle Research Journals 8 http://www.pinnaclejournals.com For this Swarajya, Savarkar emphasizes on language. Thus, his Swarajya includes Sanskrit nishtha Hindi as national language. According to him, “By Hindi we if course mean the pure 'Sankrit Nishtha' Hindi, as we find it for example in the 'Satyartha Prakash’ written by Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati. How simple and unstained with a single unnecessary foreign word is that Hindi and how expressive withal!” (HRS: 47). For Savarkar, this ‘Sanskrit Nishtha’ Hindi had nothing to do with that hybrid, the so-called Hindusthani which was being hatched up by the Wardha scheme. Savarkar calls this a ‘linguistic monstrosity’ that must be ruthlessly suppressed. He was so keen to use this pure Hindi that he called that it is bounden duty of Hindus to out ruthlessly all unnecessary alien words whether Arabian or English, from every Hindu tongue. However, again showing a utilitarian stance, he said that he was not against the English. “We are not against the English or any other language; nay, we insist on the study of the English as an indispensible necessity and a profitable passport to world literature. But we must not allow the influx of alien words into our language without checking their pass and testing their necessity”. (HRS: 47) Hindu Rashtra Darshan also points out his method to attain Swarajya. Unlike Gandhi who employed principled nonviolence for Swaraj, Savarkar’s saw the use of nonviolence in very narrow and strategic sense. Moreover he was open to use violence against the aggression of British. As far as armed revolt as a part of his political theory is concerned, in principal he does not rejects it, however, in given Indian political situation, he does not approve it also on strategic ground. During Second World War, on the possibility of national armed revolt against British SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol.1 Issue 8, November 2012, ISSN 2278‐0637 as British were engaged at war front, Savarkar strategically argued that as India was disarmed, disorganized and disunited thus an armed revolt against England on a National scale could not be thought that situation. Although, this stance shows Savarkar’s insight to see the situation, however, there was a clear political ethics behind this. In his words, “…the most practical factor and one which ought to be common to all of these schools of moral thought and which alone can practically serve to distinguish a moral act from an immoral one, a virtue from a vice, the good from the bad is the utilitarian principle that everything that contributes under a given set of circumstances to human good is moral, a virtue and the opposite is immoral, a vice under those given circumstances; that all mortality is essentially human”. (HRS: 83) Based on this philosophy, Savarkar saw political theory of absolute nonviolence as crime. Thus, judged from this utilitarian ethics, according to him, the principle of absolute non-violence and condemning all armed resistance even to incorrigible aggression could not but was ruled out as “absolutely impracticable, anti human and therefore positively immoral”. Thus absolute nonviolence that means non-violence under all circumstances causes an incalculable harm to humanity. However for Savarkar, relative non-violence on the whole was doubtless a virtue so preeminently “contributing to human good as to form one of the fundamentals on which human life whether individual or social can take its stand and evolve all social amenities” ( HRS: 83) Pinnacle Research Journals 9 http://www.pinnaclejournals.com . According to him, law of nature or the will of God, there is no room for absolute non-violence. His argument is that ‘man could not have saved himself from utter extinction nor could have but led the precarious and wretched life of a coward and a worm had he not succeeded in adding the strength of artificial Arms to his natural arm’ (HRS: 84). Based on this Savarkar observes that ‘The belief in absolute non-violence condemning all armed resistance even to aggression evinces no mahatmaic saintliness but a monomaniacal senselessness’ (HRS: 84). Thus according to Savarkar Gandhi’s political programme based on the monomaniacal principle of absolute non-violence is not worth a moment’s consideration. Thus, as a pragmatic political theorist, if on the one hand, he rules out the extreme remedy of an armed rising on a National scale, on the other hand, he also criticizes other extreme of absolute non-violence, that condemns all armed resistance even to an incorrigible aggression, is also ruled out not only on practical grounds alone but even on moral grounds. In Savarkar’s vision, Swarajay must mean the Hindusthani Swarajay in which Hindu, Moslem and all other citizens all have equal responsibilities, equal duties and equal rights. However such Swarajay would not tolerate a particular community on religious grounds to get itself cut off from the Central Government, demand portions of our country which is the inalienable basis on which this our national Swarajay stands and any such aggressive claim on the part of a community would be immediately put down as an act of treachery by the united strength of the Central Government. SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol.1 Issue 8, November 2012, ISSN 2278‐0637 Therefore, he opposed the demand of Muslims for the grant of separate electorate in India. He claimed that being bestowed with such preferential treatment, Muslims would probably be handed down the right of: “..exercising the political veto on the legitimate rights and privileges of the majority and call it swarajya ....The Hindus do not want a change of masters, are not going to ...fight and die only to replace an Edward by an Aurangzeb simply because the latter happens to be born within the Indian borders, but they want henceforth to be masters themselves in their own house, in their own land.” (HRS: 45) As far as the Rights of non-Hindu Minorities is concerned, Savarkar maintains the principles of 'one man one vote.' Further the public services to go by merit alone. Moreover, fundamental rights and obligations to be shared by all citizens alike irrespective of any distinction of race or religion. However, according to him, “...any further mention of minority rights is on principle not only unnecessary but self-contradictory, because it again introduces a consciousness of majority and minority on communal basis.” (HRS: 53) Pinnacle Research Journals 10 http://www.pinnaclejournals.com Thus, on the question of minority rights, the approach of Savarkar was in consonance with his broad conceptualization of the philosophy of Hindutva. Therefore, it is not surprising to see that he stated the crux of the Hindu Sanghatanist ideology in such a way, ‘Hinduise all politics and Militarize Hindudom !’ Like Mahatma Gandhi, Savarkar also gave a constructive programme. This included, intensifying efforts on conducting a whirlwind campaign at every village and town and city to remove untouchability. Further he suggested that all universities, colleges and schools should make military training compulsory to students that could secure their entry into the Naval, Aerial and Military forces and institutions. His third programme included preparing the Hindu Electorate to the utmost measure possible to vote only for those Hindu Sanghatanists who openly pledge to safeguard Hindu interests From these one might conclude that Savarkar was not only an armchair philosopher but a political activist too. In fact, one of the political actions was his programme of removal of untouchables which was hailed by Gandhiji also. Eradication of untouchability is the foremost and absolute dharma. It is desirable in the extreme to build pan-Hindu temples that are freely open to all Hindus irrespective of their caste rather than build separate and exclusive temples for untouchables…While it is important to build new pan -Hindu temples, it is equally important to throw open old temples to all Hindus. The seemingly impossible task of untouchability eradication can made possible by change of mind that will consolidate Hindus, thus, he said, “…that the removal of untouchability is a task as easy to be tackled as it is bound to strengthen Hindu consolidation. It will be nothing short of a victory won in the battlefield if we, within five year’s time, can sweep out untouchability from the face of our country by killing the very idea of not touching our co-religionists on ground of birth in a particular caste alone, and removing automatically the special disability, some economical and some social, from which those of our religious brothers are suffering most unjustly at this hour. It is only a change of mentality and nothing more than that can achieve this seemingly insuperable task.” (HRS: 126) SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol.1 Issue 8, November 2012, ISSN 2278‐0637 CRITICAL EVALUATION OF SAVARKAR’S POLITICAL WRITINGS Savrkar’s political writings represent a blend of Hindu philosophy, Western materialism and his own experience and mediation. However, Savarkar’s life and work, and his literary compositions present paradoxes and controversial phenomena. There are two schools of thought regarding Savarkar’s political writings. One school of thought sees his political vision (Hindutva) as the greatest danger to the foundation of modern secular state democracy and multiculturalism. On the other hand, second school of thought sees Savarkar and his political theory as a legitimate and ambitious form of democratic self-determination. In spite of these debates, it can be said, Savarkar’s political theory is a distinct ideological formulation that focuses on the homogeneity of the Hindu population living in a particular tract of land and having the urge to create a nation based on the cultural moorings of the majority of the people. Pinnacle Research Journals 11 http://www.pinnaclejournals.com If fact, Savarkar’s political writings can be located in the broad framework of intersection of colonialism, nationalism and Hindu revivalism. The intellectual tradition of Hindu revivalism as a form of nationalism and counter - colonialism had two streams, called Hinduism and Hindutva. If Hinduism was religious –personal in nature based on religious –philosophical basis of Hindu way of life providing a code of moral and religious ethics, as seen in the case of Vivekanad (1863-1902), Tilak (1856-1920) and Dayanand (1824- 1883), the notion of Hindutva was based on the reconstruction of politico –cultural system of country in such a way that Hindus would get an absolute preponderance in the affairs of the country. Savarkar’s contribution as political theorist is that he tried to refine and re-shape the ideology of Hindutva as viable theoretical construct. Moreover, he might be called the propagator of Hindutva, protector of Hindutva, and organizer of Hindutva. On the other hand, Savarkar was also presenting a Hindu response to prevailing nationalism of his time in very strategic way, “As a spokesman of majority interests, Savarkar formulated an ideology which could demolish the claims of national parity made by the Muslims, negate the territorial concepts of nationhood propagated by Congress, blunt the edge of the demands made by the Depressed Classes and prevent atomization of the Hindu community.” (Dixit: 131) Yet this theoretical construct of Hindutva had negative side too. Savarkar political thought and his idea of Hindutva: who is Hindu a basic text for nationalist Hindus, illustrates the mechanism of Hindu nationalist identity building through the stigmatization and emulation of threatening others. Second Savarkar’s nationalism seems based on ‘threatening others’. These threatening others are suspected because of their divided loyalty or because of their low level of civilization measured as measured in terms of nationals virtues. Thus, as one observer comments, “Savarkar politicised religion and introduced religious metaphors in politics. He pioneered an extreme, uncompromising and rhetorical form of Hindu nationalism in Indian political discourse. His life exhibited an unwavering pursuit of a single idea: to establish India as Hindu nation. Even today, Savarkar remains the first and most original, prophet of extremism in India.” (Sharma: 124) SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol.1 Issue 8, November 2012, ISSN 2278‐0637 Savarkar has also been charged as being an ideologue whose political construct of Hindutva did not impress many people in India. As Dixit points out, “Savarkar’s ideology failed to release its political goal because it lacked the strength that comes from the mass support. His unidimensional approach to politics –protection of Hindu interests against Muslim encroachment –had no relevancy for the Hindu masses.” (Dixit: 135) Finally, Savarkar and his idea of Hindutva have the object of attention and the centre of academic as well as public controversy in past and contemporary India because of his militant activism and nationalism during the struggle for Independence. Yet, one might see, controversies about Savarkar are mostly polemical in nature that do not take into account the philosophical tenets underlying his social and political thoughts. Unfortunately, both Indian as well as Western scholars have focused only on some particular fragments of his thoughts and action without analyzing his various theoretical concepts in a complex and coherent framework. Pinnacle Research Journals 12 http://www.pinnaclejournals.com REFERENCES 1. Dixit, Prabha. The Ideology of Hindu Nationalism, in Thomas Pantham and Kenneth L. Deutch (eds.), Political Thought in Modern India, New Delhi: Sage Publication, 1986. 2. Godbole, V.S. Rationalism of Veer Savarkar. Thane: Itihas Patrika Prakashan: Thane.2004. 3. Hindu Rashtra Darshan (HRS), speeches given by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in capacity of President of Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Mahasabhha. www.savarkar.org/en/download. 4. Keer , Dhananjay. 1988. Veer Savarkar. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1988. 5. Lederle, Matthew. Philosophical Trends in Modern Maharashtra. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1976. 6. Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya (SSV), Vol. 1-8, edited by Shankar Ramchandra, Pune: Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya Prakashan Samiti, 2001. 7. Savarkar, V.D. Essential of Hinduism, in S.K Chaudhary’s Great Political Thinker: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, New Delhi: Sonali Publication, 2008. 8. Sharma, Jiotirmaya. Hindutva: Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism. New Delhi: Viking/Penguin Book, 2003. 9. Wolf, S. O. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s ‘Strategic Agnosticism’: A Compilation of his Socio-Political Philosophy and Worldview in Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics, archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/vol. text server/.../HPSACP_Wolf.pdf.