Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the parasite and hypocrite who plagued the Indian society but ironically is revered by majority of the Indians, but why?

[The Bald Eagle]

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was no doubt a big opportunist and hypocrite who plagued the Indian society through out the course of his life. His repeated mercy petitions to British led to his release from Andaman Island and in return he never spoke against British afterwards.
Infact, despite being a hindu nationalist, he opposed vehemently the Congress's Quit India movement. He was the hypocrite of the highest order as despite justifying the violence against British women and children in 1857 war, he helped Britain government to recruit Indians as soldier for the World War II while at the same time, Mr Subhas Chandra Bose was organizing the Indian National Army.

He was hailed for his inclusive definition of Hinduism but ironically he was against the legislation in favor of untouchables free access to temples. He was the head of Indian extremist party Hindu Mahasabha but being an opportunist he sided with Mr Jinnah's Muslim League to form the government in various provinces. And then the pity is that he maligned Gandhi for being too generous on Muslim and was in such manner responsible in the assasination of Mr. Gandhi.

But now as the tenets of secularism are wiping out from the Indian society and BJP is at the helm of power, he is being hailed as a freedom fighter and great leader although nothing in his life suggest so.

So why despite being such a parasite and duplicitous person he is hailed as a bigger leader than Gandhi, Nehru etc.?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It was actually an Indian poster @IndoorCricket who brought up Savarkar by quoting him in the hindu rashtra thread. I merely responded.

Also I have no problem with Indians posting here, only if they tell non-Indians to stay out of Indian topics I might then question why they are here then. One poster in particular has a habit of telling Pakistanis to mind their own business regardless of whether he is even responding to a Pakistani.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

If you ask me i believe he is being adored for just coining the "Hindutva" dogma but again i am open to listen to any plausible achievements on his part.

 

[CricketCartoons]

First of all, i am not the first one to mention savarkar on this forum. So plz search for it in the forum, although there are plenty of Pak political threads here but when someone asks indian posters a simple question, instead of answering they just digress.

I will answer all the points raised in the original post. This is my bread and butter.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I will answer all the points raised in the original post. This is my bread and butter.

Hahha...Will love to hear it from you.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Savarkar was an atheist who wanted to unite Hindus and abolish caste system.

Gandhi and Nehru party still uses caste to divide Hindu vote and peddle animosity between Upper and lower caste people. They also fan regional flames to get votes. Anything that makes them keep relevant.

But Savarkar is bad and Gandhi-Nehru were good

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Savarkar was an atheist who wanted to unite Hindus and abolish caste system.

Gandhi and Nehru party still uses caste to divide Hindu vote and peddle animosity between Upper and lower caste people. They also fan regional flames to get votes. Anything that makes them keep relevant.

But Savarkar is bad and Gandhi-Nehru were good

In fact he has been referred to as the father of hindutva, and the ideologue for RSS and current rulers of India, the BJP. From the small amount I have read about him, it seems he actually admired the fundamentalist Islamic creed and sought to rebrand hindus to project a similar absolutist outlook, rejecting many softie traits of dharmic faiths like Buddhism and Jainism.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Yes he was an atheist, like yourself, and also an ardent hindutva, like yourself. In fact he has been referred to as the father of hindutva, and the ideologue for RSS and current rulers of India, the BJP. From the small amount I have read about him, it seems he actually admired the fundamentalist Islamic creed and sought to rebrand hindus to project a similar absolutist outlook, rejecting many softie traits of dharmic faiths like Buddhism and Jainism.

Anyone who rejects Hindutva is casteist and an anti-national. Of course, you being a British Pakistani Muslim would know more about India than Indians themselves.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Anyone who rejects Hindutva is casteist and an anti-national. Of course, you being a British Pakistani Muslim would know more about India than Indians themselves.

When we have so many Indians participating here, some of the more vocal ones on TP who are hindutvas, would be pretty hard for me not to get educated on Indian affairs.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Never heard of this guy. He seems like a minor footnote in the rich history of the subcontinent.

 

[Red-Indian]

Never heard of this guy. He seems like a minor footnote in the rich history of the subcontinent.

In the 5000+ year history of the subcontinent, most everyone is a minor footnote.

However, Savarkar is pretty relevant in the recent history of the Subcontinent and India in particular. Guys like him, Allama Iqbal and a few others laid the foundation - right or wrong for a lot of the political philosophy prevalent in the countries of the subcontinent today.

I'm reasonably knowledgeable on Savarkar myself but I suspect the likes of Cricket Cartoons will be a lot better informed since he's in a sense the movement's spiritual fountainhead.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Never heard of this guy. He seems like a minor footnote in the rich history of the subcontinent.

You'd be surprised. I had never heard of this guy either before today, but apparently he inspired the party which leads India today, not to mention the assassination of Gandhi. A couple of atheist hindus have already clearly been riled that their cover is blown.

 

[JaDed]

Hmm For the same reason Mr Jinnah stood with him, surely the founding father of Pakistan liked him over Nehru.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Never heard of this guy. He seems like a minor footnote in the rich history of the subcontinent.

Gandhi and Nehru hijacked the entire independence movement. Rest like Subhash Bose, Bhagat Singh, Sardar Patel have all become footnotes. 60 years of congress rule in India did that.

 

[JaDed]

Except for Sardar Patel , Bose , Ambedkar ,Bhagat Singh and Azad -I doubt anyone else had India’s good in mind everyone was probably selfish. I feel the same about every founding Pakistani politician as well who were opportunists, Veer is along those lines as well to me.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

In the 5000+ year history of the subcontinent, most everyone is a minor footnote.

However, Savarkar is pretty relevant in the recent history of the Subcontinent and India in particular. Guys like him, Allama Iqbal and a few others laid the foundation - right or wrong for a lot of the political philosophy prevalent in the countries of the subcontinent today.

I'm reasonably knowledgeable on Savarkar myself but I suspect the likes of Cricket Cartoons will be a lot better informed since he's in a sense the movement's spiritual fountainhead.

I look forward to your post and cricketcartoons post on him.

 

[Red-Indian]

I look forward to your post and cricketcartoons post on him.

The more knowledgeable guy should lay the foundation so I'll let him start but I'll just say as background that before him, unlike Islam or Christianity which always had a political aspect, Hinduism with it's many revivals, reinventions, movements etc. was pretty much always non-political.

To be able to debate him, we have to be able to separate him as a person and his theories and philosophy.

 

[SportsWarrior]

lol there was an attack on Chinese nationals in Pakistan today, there was attacking on a fricking naval base and OP is spending time opening threads on Savarkar. Not many on this forum will have either the knowledge or the neutrality required to have a nuanced discussion about him.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

lol there was an attack on Chinese nationals in Pakistan today, there was attacking on a fricking naval base and OP is spending time opening threads on Savarkar. Not many on this forum will have either the knowledge or the neutrality required to have a nuanced discussion about him.

If you are already getting antsy about a discussion on this subject then it would suggest you don't possess that much neutrality yourself. What has the naval base in Pakistan got to do with it? If you want to talk about that there is a thread for it.

 

[JaDed]

If you are already getting antsy about a discussion on this subject then it would suggest you don't possess that much neutrality yourself. What has the naval base in Pakistan got to do with it? If you want to talk about that there is a thread for it.

I’m sure I have seen you post similar things cap, where you want people to post on a thread that are posting in other threads.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I’m sure I have seen you post similar things cap, where you want people to post on a thread that are posting in other threads.

Maybe, I doubt you could reference it. But in any case so what? Post in whatever thread, just don't whine about why has this thread or that one been created.

 

[JaDed]

Maybe, I doubt you could reference it. But in any case so what? Post in whatever thread, just don't whine about why has this thread or that one been created.

Post wherever and whine wherever, should make everyone happy ,no?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Post wherever and whine wherever, should make everyone happy ,no?

Not if it detracts from the actual subject material as will happen when we start talking about poster's motives rather than the topic itself. Savarkar seems to be a very iconic figure in the last century for Indian politics, if his ideology is making such an impact today, why would any Indian not want to discuss it?

 

[JaDed]

Not if it detracts from the actual subject material as will happen when we start talking about poster's motives rather than the topic itself. Savarkar seems to be a very iconic figure in the last century for Indian politics, if his ideology is making such an impact today, why would any Indian not want to discuss it?

it’s not a discussion if he is referred to as “Parasite in the title”.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

it’s not a discussion if he is referred to as “Parasite in the title”.

You can contest that description, then it becomes a discussion.

 

[JaDed]

You can contest that description, then it becomes a discussion.

Judgement is made what’s the discussion about?

This is like Introducing Mr. Jinnah in Gandhi biopic, it’s one dimensional.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Judgement is made what’s the discussion about?

This is like Introducing Mr. Jinnah in Gandhi biopic, it’s one dimensional.

Ok then we can just accept the judgement that he was a parasite if you would prefer.

 

[JaDed]

Ok then we can just accept the judgement that he was a parasite if you would prefer.

From a pakistani pov , sure why not Pakistan needs a villain, just fyi Mr Jinnah did have a coalition with the ‘parasite’.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

From a pakistani pov , sure why not Pakistan needs a villain, just fyi Mr Jinnah did have a coalition with the ‘parasite’.

Some Pakistanis probably consider Jinnah a villain as well but this thread isn't about him.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

From a pakistani pov , sure why not Pakistan needs a villain, just fyi Mr Jinnah did have a coalition with the ‘parasite’.

I have mentioned it in OP, it just shows you the opportunist side of Savarkar. He used to go against his ideals if things not suited him.

And plz a request to all indian posters instead of beating around the bush just jump on topic and questions asked in OP. No more off topic discussion plz.

 

[JaDed]

I have mentioned it in OP, it just shows you the opportunist side of Savarkar. He used to go against his ideals if things not suited him.

And plz a request to all indian posters instead of beating around the bush just jump on topic and questions asked in OP. No more off topic discussion plz.

How is Mr. Jinnah not opportunist here? He was in Congress till he got limelight and someone that wanted two nations went on to form coalition with Damodar?

So lets say it as it is Mr Jinnah and Savarkar both were opportunists that wanted power and hence came to a coalition together.

Mr.Jinnah is loved by Hindu right wing , how else would they be ruling right now. Thats why Advani Jaswant singh all were praise for Mr Jinnah

 

[The Bald Eagle]

A good video for those who don't know Savarkar.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

How is Mr. Jinnah not opportunist here? He was in Congress till he got limelight and someone that wanted two nations went on to form coalition with Damodar?

So lets say it as it is Mr Jinnah and Savarkar both were opportunists that wanted power and hence came to a coalition together.

Mr.Jinnah is loved by Hindu right wing , how else would they be ruling right now. Thats why Advani Jaswant singh all were praise for Mr Jinnah

Mr Jinnah did it for a reason as u know, if British had left then with no partition then there wouldn't have been any Pakistan but why did Savarkar helped the imperial govt and that too by recruiting Indians on when Bose was doing the opposite during WW2.

 

[JaDed]

Mr Jinnah did it for a reason as u know, if British had left then with no partition then there wouldn't have been any Pakistan but why did Savarkar helped the imperial govt and that too by recruiting Indians on when Bose was doing the opposite during WW2.

What is the reason? Reason is power everything , other things are hogwash.

Bose , Azad and Patel were only ones ready to let go of power for greater good no one else.

You can’t be like if Muslim Right wing do it for its greater good but Hindu right wing do they are parasites.

 

[Statpadder Inc]

Always found it interesting how pakistanis get upset at the erosion of secularism in India but secularism is the last thing they want back home, even the liberal ones don't

 

[The Bald Eagle]

What is the reason? Reason is power everything , other things are hogwash.

Bose , Azad and Patel were only ones ready to let go of power for greater good no one else.

You can’t be like if Muslim Right wing do it for its greater good but Hindu right wing do they are parasites.

Yep that's my point Savarkar was no Bose or Patel etc but if you observe BJP politics of modern that put him on the same rank as them both which is totally unfair. OK I am ready to take my word of parasite but for that one needs to highlight his positive contributions for India.

 

[JaDed]

Yep that's my point Savarkar was no Bose or Patel etc but if you observe BJP politics of modern that put him on the same rank as them both which is totally unfair. OK I am ready to take my word of parasite but for that one needs to highlight his positive contributions for India.

That’s not true at all, BJP built that huge statue of Patel , noway are they building that for Savarkar.

Also BJP supported Mr. Jinnah over Nehru that will explain a lot as to why Savarkar over Nehru..(not Patel).

 

[cricketjoshila]

A good video for those who don't know Savarkar.

Do you even know who the youtuber is?

It is pretty obvious you have a biased view on Savarkar because he was the proponent of Hindutva.

The way you described Savarkar in the thread title, would you allow anyone to describe Jinnah in the same way or may be Liaquat Ali Khan?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Always found it interesting how pakistanis get upset at the erosion of secularism in India but secularism is the last thing they want back home, even the liberal ones don't

Its called hypocrisy.

They will remember secularism and racism now, but back home its a religious republic that treats minorities as third class citizens.

 

[happydavy]

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was no doubt a big opportunist and hypocrite who plagued the Indian society through out the course of his life. His repeated mercy petitions to British led to his release from Andaman Island and in return he never spoke against British afterwards.
Infact, despite being a hindu nationalist, he opposed vehemently the Congress's Quit India movement. He was the hypocrite of the highest order as despite justifying the violence against British women and children in 1857 war, he helped Britain government to recruit Indians as soldier for the World War II while at the same time, Mr Subhas Chandra Bose was organizing the Indian National Army.

He was hailed for his inclusive definition of Hinduism but ironically he was against the legislation in favor of untouchables free access to temples. He was the head of Indian extremist party Hindu Mahasabha but being an opportunist he sided with Mr Jinnah's Muslim League to form the government in various provinces. And then the pity is that he maligned Gandhi for being too generous on Muslim and was in such manner responsible in the assasination of Mr. Gandhi.

But now as the tenets of secularism are wiping out from the Indian society and BJP is at the helm of power, he is being hailed as a freedom fighter and great leader although nothing in his life suggest so.

So why despite being such a parasite and duplicitous person he is hailed as a bigger leader than Gandhi, Nehru etc.?

Hailed as a bigger leader than Gandhi, Nehru etc? I bet 99%+ India hardly knows anything about Savarkar, you probably know more than them. It's only in recent times that few hotheads have started calling his name not because they know about him or believe in what he said, it's because the way things are today in India, and in many parts of the world, right wing folks just say things to hurt left wingers and vice a versa.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Veer Savarkar was arrested in 1910 and was in jail till 1924.

It is well known that the Hindu Mahasabha lacked a charismatic leader and they convinced Savarkar to write mercy petitions as he was more useful to the Hindus outside than inside the jail.

The OP describes Hindu Mahasabha as an extremist organisation, i wonder if he has the same views about the Muslim league. Because at the end of the day, both were fighting for the same thing, albeit for different religions.

If not for Hindu Mahasabha, we bengali hindus would have been a part of East Pakistan. There wouldn't have been a separate West Bengal.

And congress would have asked us Hindus to endurem

Savarkar was hailed as a great freedom fighter long before BJP came to power. It was Lal Bahadur Shastri who started his Freedom fighters pension. It was Indira Gandhi who released a commemorative stamp on Savarkar.

Many leaders left the congress when Gandhi-Nehru ruled it.

Jinnah

The entire HSRA leadership

Dr Hegdewar

Netaji Bose

So Savarkar being opposed to them is no big deal.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Always found it interesting how pakistanis get upset at the erosion of secularism in India but secularism is the last thing they want back home, even the liberal ones don't

Pakistan doesn't pretend to be a secular country, it is an Islamic republic or at least supposed to be. India claims to be secular, so if they want to be considered as such, then they should only worry about their own criteria, I don't know why you need to keep comparing to Pakistan. Unless maybe you are jealous and wish to be a hindu rashtra version of Pakistan.

 

[JaDed]

Pakistan doesn't pretend to be a secular country, it is an Islamic republic or at least supposed to be. India claims to be secular, so if they want to be considered as such, then they should only worry about their own criteria, I don't know why you need to keep comparing to Pakistan. Unless maybe you are jealous and wish to be a hindu rashtra version of Pakistan.

Similarly if Hindu rashtra demanding Hindus are parasites, then so is Muslim nation demanding ones.

 

[JaDed]

In all honesty though I don’t have any good opinion on this man(could be my bias), he was a product of his time, only good thing about him was he was anti- casteist.

I’m sure he hated Nehru /Gandhi like majority Indians do today , every country goes through an evolution of ideas creating an identity for itself, India is creating an identity that threatens many and rightly so, but only time will tell how it ends up.

I’m certain we will have a better picture in 20 years.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Similarly if Hindu rashtra demanding Hindus are parasites, then so is Muslim nation demanding ones.

Maybe they are, I am not really invested in either. Point is, if you want a hindu rashtra then be open about it, why get defensive?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Pakistan doesn't pretend to be a secular country, it is an Islamic republic or at least supposed to be. India claims to be secular, so if they want to be considered as such, then they should only worry about their own criteria, I don't know why you need to keep comparing to Pakistan. Unless maybe you are jealous and wish to be a hindu rashtra version of Pakistan.

Are you saying an Islamic republic has a lower standards for minority rights and a secular nation has higher standards?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Are you saying an Islamic republic has a lower standards for minority rights and a secular nation has higher standards?

No, I am saying that Pakistan has lower standards, that is why I added the addendum that it is "at least supposed to be" an Islamic country. Pakistan is (understandably) a mix between hindu culture and Islamic pretensions.

 

[Red-Indian]

I would say what intrigues me most about thinkers like Jinnah, Ben Gurion and Savarkar was that they seemed to believe the people of the religion had transcended the religion itself and had formed a unique identity which now demanded a dedicated nation for them to prosper. All of were either irreligious or atheist but now defined themselves by their religious identity and all (with varying success) were the loudest voices demanding a separate nation for the religion.

 

[MP2011]

This was what Subhas Chandra Bose had to say about Savarkar,

About Savarkar, Subhash Chandra Bose wrote: “Savarkar seemed to be oblivious of the international situation and was only thinking how Hindus could secure military training by entering Britain’s army in India.” Bose concluded that “…nothing could be expected from either the Muslim League or the Hindu Mahasabha.”

Bose in an address to Indians via Azad Hind Radio said “I would request Mr. Jinnah, Mr. Savarkar & to all those who still think of a compromise with the British to realize once for all that in the world of tomorrow there will be no British Empire”

 

[MP2011]

As for OP, who told you majority of Indian society revers Savarkar?

Mostly Marathis eulogize this man for obvious reasons as do sanghis and their bhakts.

That's not majority of Indian society.

 

[Varun]

Probably another footnote in history like Shivaji.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I hope so but then there is bollywood making films on him like he was a messiah for all the Indians

As for OP, who told you majority of Indian society revers Savarkar?

Mostly Marathis eulogize this man for obvious reasons as do sanghis and their bhakts.

That's not majority of Indian society

 

[JaDed]

I hope so but then there is bollywood making films on him like he was a messiah for all the Indians

The movie flopped..like the Modi movie last elections lol.

 

[MP2011]

I hope so but then there is bollywood making films on him like he was a messiah for all the Indians

Don't get me started on that propaganda trash. It claims in 1 of the places that Bhagat Singh met Savarkar and told him that he wants to translate Savarkar's book First War of Independence, from Marathi to English.

However, the fact is that the book was written in Marathi around 1908 or so and was translated into English a year later when Bhagat Singh was barely 1 year old! Also, Bhagat Singh never met Savarkar in his life.

Besides, this Hooda guy is a known stooge of current regime and you can't really expect him to remain neutral and show the truth.

 

[MP2011]

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's Grandnephew On Randeep Hooda's Veer Savarkar: 'Please Refrain From...'​

Now, Netaji’s nephew, Chandra Kumar Bose, has taken to X to comment on the film and asking the makers to refrain from linking Subhash Chandra Bose’s name with Savarkar. Tagging Randeep Hooda an sharing a link to an India Today article, he wrote, “@RandeepHooda – appreciate your making a film on ‘Savarkar’, but its important to project the true personality! Please refrain from linking ‘Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s’ name with Savarkar. Netaji was an inclusive secular leader & patriot of patriots.

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's Grandnephew On Randeep Hooda's Veer Savarkar: 'Please Refrain From...' - News18

Randeep Hooda starrer Swatantra Veer Savarkar has got itself mired in controversy with Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's nephew reacting to it.

www.news18.com

 

[MP2011]

So this should tell you all about the real worth of this trash.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's Grandnephew On Randeep Hooda's Veer Savarkar: 'Please Refrain From...'​

Now, Netaji’s nephew, Chandra Kumar Bose, has taken to X to comment on the film and asking the makers to refrain from linking Subhash Chandra Bose’s name with Savarkar. Tagging Randeep Hooda an sharing a link to an India Today article, he wrote, “@RandeepHooda – appreciate your making a film on ‘Savarkar’, but its important to project the true personality! Please refrain from linking ‘Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s’ name with Savarkar. Netaji was an inclusive secular leader & patriot of patriots.

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's Grandnephew On Randeep Hooda's Veer Savarkar: 'Please Refrain From...' - News18

Randeep Hooda starrer Swatantra Veer Savarkar has got itself mired in controversy with Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's nephew reacting to it.

www.news18.com

Kudos to his grand nephew for preserving his legacy.

 

[Red-Indian]

I hope so but then there is bollywood making films on him like he was a messiah for all the Indians

I get that this is a Pakistani board and Jinnah is sacred but sometimes I feel the only real difference between Savarkar and him was that he succeeded and Savarkar failed.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I get that this is a Pakistani board and Jinnah is sacred but sometimes I feel the only real difference between Savarkar and him was that he succeeded and Savarkar failed.

Jinnah was a lot more measured and tolerant, from what I understand he wanted a secular country where minorities would be a big part of the nation. But I agree he shouldn't be above criticism.

Savarkar in contrast seems to have turned into a hardline fascist with some very hostile views towards the Muslim population of India, although paradoxically, it was their intransigence on some aspects of their faith which he seemed to want to replicate for hindus.

 

[Red-Indian]

Jinnah was a lot more measured and tolerant, from what I understand he wanted a secular country where minorities would be a big part of the nation. But I agree he shouldn't be above criticism.

Savarkar in contrast seems to have turned into a hardline fascist with some very hostile views towards the Muslim population of India, although paradoxically, it was their intransigence on some aspects of their faith which he seemed to want to replicate for hindus.

Yes Savarkar did turn pretty weird in his views on a bunch of stuff but the essential aspect of two nations (or three) based on religion but not defined by it was something they both agreed on.

 

[Mockingbird]

I hope so but then there is bollywood making films on him like he was a messiah for all the Indians

Bollywood also made movies on Manto, Phoolan Devi, Haseena Parker which have all flopped. Doesnt mean anything.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes Savarkar did turn pretty weird in his views on a bunch of stuff but the essential aspect of two nations (or three) based on religion but not defined by it was something they both agreed on.

From what I understand Jinnah was initially against partition but then fearing future for Muslims in an India dominated by rising hindutva movement decided partiton was the only way to preserve Muslim future in the subcontinent. I take it the view is slightly differently projected from the other side.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I get that this is a Pakistani board and Jinnah is sacred but sometimes I feel the only real difference between Savarkar and him was that he succeeded and Savarkar failed.

It may sound good to compare them both but they were miles apart in personality and principle quotient.

 

[Red-Indian]

From what I understand Jinnah was initially against partition but then fearing future for Muslims in an India dominated by rising hindutva movement decided partiton was the only way to preserve Muslim future in the subcontinent. I take it the view is slightly differently projected from the other side.

I'm probably biased because I pretty firmly believe it's impossible to build a modern country based on religion as an identifier and both of these guys tried to do just that.

You're right that Jinnah tried to tread a finer line. He wanted a country for folks of a certain religion but for it not to be based on the religion itself. He succeeded in the first part but was pretty much doomed to fail on the second.

Savarkar was broader in his interpretation of a country for a certain religion but luckily for us in India failed.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I will answer all the points raised in the original post. This is my bread and butter.

@CricketCartoons, everyone here is still waiting for that to happen.

 

[KB]

I just finished Janaki Bakhle’s book, Savarkar and the Making of Hinduvta. Bakhle has written an intellectual biography of Savarkar. It is an outstanding book.

We get a clear sense of his ideas: his attempt to awaken Hindus from “narcolepsy” and unite the Hindu community, his ultra-nationalist stance, the depth of his anti-Muslim feeling and his radical ideas on caste. We get a clear sense of his writing style: frequently sarcastic, deliberately provocative and someone who marshalled the affective power of myth. We get a clear sense of his versatility: poet, playwright, tendentious historian and revolutionary nationalist.

The nation was central to his vision. It was a nativist and ultra-nationalist vision in the sense that a ‘civic’ sense of nationality, based on legal rights, was of little interest to him; his conception was of an organic nation bound by blood and undivided loyalty to its sacred geography. He was deeply suspicious of Muslims and their extra-territorial allegiances which violated his idea of the need for “monogamous love” to the nation. He clearly had a visceral dislike and deep prejudice, hatred even, against Muslims.

Though he was a rationalist in many ways, he invoked the nation in mythical terms. The nation was anthropomorphised. He believed in violence. He was not therefore a liberal (unlike Jinnah who I would describe as a liberal ‘particularist’ i.e. committed to individual liberty but unlike liberal ‘universalists’ more sensitive to group rights and the uniqueness of groups).

If not a liberal, he was not a conservative either. He was an iconoclast. He questioned authority and received wisdom. His attitude to caste was far more radical than Gandhi. He was controversial on cow worship, as the following translation, quoted at length from Marathi, by Bakhle shows:

“… standing in her pen, eating grass and refuse, who lets loose a stream of urine without any self-consciousness, upon being tired while still chewing who sits in that very pool of urine and with her tail tosses that mess of mixed urine and dung all over herself, seizing the first opportunity to wander when her rope is loosened and sinks her face in garbage who knows where, again and again, and returns to her pen licking her lips to be re-tied—to that cow come Brahmins and chaste women wearing pure, clean, and brilliant clothes, carrying puja utensils to perform puja in the pen and to touch her tail. Their clothes are not contaminated, on the contrary, are rendered purer and more shining, and they collect her urine and dung in silver containers, drink her urine and believe their lives are even more pure! They are now pure! But when the shadow of a great man like Ambedkar falls on them they are polluted, or when inter-dining with a saint like Tukaram. An animal is treated here as a god and a godlike man an animal.”

Not a liberal nor a conservative, Savarkar instead belonged to the radical right. As Bakhle, writes, there was a kinship with his ideas and those that were swirling around in Europe at the time:

“There was a perceptible global zeitgeist and striking resemblances between Savarkar’s concept of Hindutva and the earlier German concept of Volkisch, the subsequent cult of Romanita in Italy, or even Ferenc Szalasi’s Hungarism…All these groups romanticized a deep connection to native soil, privileged the country over the city, and advocated a palingenetic renewal of ethnic and, in some cases, racial purity alongside the removal of foreign influences.”

There is no denying the influence of Savarkar in contemporary India. An assessment of his ideas requires calm reflection and this is exactly what Bakhle achieves in her magnificent work. We should heed her words:

“Savarkar’s prose was incendiary, without a doubt—he verbally assaulted his interlocutors, threw ad hominem insults around, made assertions that were fanciful or worse—and yet he came to be venerated. If we do not understand the affective power of his poetry or the poetic resonance of his rage, we cannot understand his charisma and his influence. My recognition that he was precociously gifted or learned or knowledgeable about poetry is not meant as a gesture of support for his politics. At the same time, my critical attention to the rage of his anti-Muslim diatribes is not meant as a dismissal of his clearly copious intellect or anticolonial nationalist passion. Both are intended to explain the different features and facets of his appeal because it will not do, in my opinion, to assume that all those who support him and his politics are deluded, brainwashed, ignorant, simple-minded, or worse—fascists or fools.”