"Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was a Brahmin, but he ate beef and was a non-vegetarian": Congress leader Dinesh Gundu Rao

[FearlessRoar]

Congress leader and Karnataka Health Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao sparked a controversy with his remarks on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar being a non-vegetarian and not against cow slaughter.

At an event in Bengaluru organised to mark Gandhi Jayanti, Dinesh Gundu Rao claimed that Savarkar was not only a meat-eater, who consumed beef, but also propagated the practice publicly.

The Congress minister said that Savarkar, despite being a Brahmin, did not adhere to traditional dietary restrictions and was a modernist. Dinesh Gundu Rao said, “Savarkar was a Brahmin, but he ate beef and was a non-vegetarian. He did not oppose cow slaughter; in fact, he was quite a modernist on that topic."

The minister also contrasted Savarkar’s views with those of Mahatma Gandhi, emphasizing that Savarkar’s ideology leaned toward fundamentalism, whereas, Gandhi’s beliefs were deeply democratic.

“Gandhi was a strict vegetarian with a deep belief in Hindu cultural conservatism. He was a democratic person in his approach,” Dinesh Gundu Rao said, highlighting a stark difference in ideologies between the two leaders.

According to Rao, Gandhi’s actions included tolerance and inclusiveness, characteristics that set him apart from Savarkar’s fundamentalist thinking.

Dinesh Gundu Rao also commented on Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who he claimed represented another extreme. Rao said that Jinnah was never a hard-core Islamist, with some claiming that he even ate pork.

Gundu Rao said, “Jinnah became an icon for Muslims. He was never a fundamentalist, but Savarkar was.”

BJP HITS BACK AT CONGRESS​

Responding to the controversial remarks by the Congress minister, BJP leader R Ashok questioned why the Congress was always targeting Hindus.

Ashok said: “Congress' God is Tipu Sultan. Why are you Congress people always targeting Hindus? Why not Muslims? The Congress mindset is like this. Hindus have given a verdict in the elections. Every Hindu will teach them a lesson.”

Maharashtra deputy chief minister Devendra Fadnavis also slammed the Congress, and said that Rahul Gandhi started defaming Savarkar and now others are just taking his narrative forward.

Fadnavis said, “These people do not know anything about Savarkar. They insult Savarkar ji again and again. Savarkar ji has expressed his views on cows very well. He has said that the cow helps the farmer from his birth till his death, hence we have given the status of a god to the cow.”

Rahul Gandhi was recently summoned by a court in Maharashtra’s Nashik district in a defamation case filed against him for his alleged objectionable remarks on Savarkar. According to the complainant, Gandhi had said that ‘Savarkar is BJP and RSS Jin’ and that ‘with a folding hand Savarkar prayed for release and later on promised to work for the British Government’.

Savarkar wasn't against cow slaughter, ate beef: Karnataka Minister sparks row

Congress leader and Karnataka health minister Dinesh Gundu Rao said Savarkar was a meat-eater who consumed beef. He also claimed that Savarkar did not oppose cow slaughter and publicly propagated the practice.

www.indiatoday.in

 

[Local.Dada]

It doesn’t matter, Jinnah Saab was a wine conniesur. It’s the philosophy that matters I guess.

 

[Champ_Pal]

For Savarkar, Cow is not sacred. There is no evidence that he ate beef and he did not condemn beef eaters.
Savarkar was a massive reformist of Hindu society which went too orthodox when it came to worship, caste system and treating animals as sacred.

Savarkar believed in science and he was evidence driven. He believed that science holds the true key to progress. He was born a Brahmin, but he is a borderline atheist. I will not be surprised if he ate beef. But there is no evidence that he ate beef. I don't know from where this Congress leader got this idea that Savarkar ate beef. Many Brahmins I know eat non-veggie food. No one cares what a Brahmin should do in this day and age. Time to move on from age old practices.

 

[Champ_Pal]

It doesn’t matter, Jinnah Saab was a wine conniesur. It’s the philosophy that matters I guess.

Mr. Jinnah used to eat Ham sandwiches too. But he stood for Muslims of Indian subcontinent.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Savarkar is one of the most confused character in Indian politics and even BJP can't fully endorse him as some of his actions were not in congruence with the Hindu right wing dogma too.

 

[JaDed]

Lets put both his quotes in the thread title:

“Dinesh Gundu Rao also commented on Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who he claimed represented another extreme. Rao said that Jinnah was never a hard-core Islamist, with some claiming that he even ate pork.”

 

[JaDed]

Savarkar is one of the most confused character in Indian politics and even BJP can't fully endorse him as some of his actions were not in congruence with the Hindu right wing dogma too.

In line with Mr. Jinnah

 

[The Bald Eagle]

In line with Mr. Jinnah

Nope it's a sweeping statement. One become a founder of a nation and the other died as a relative nobody with posthumous glorification.

 

[Local.Dada]

Nope it's a sweeping statement. One become a founder of a nation and the other died as a relative nobody with posthumous glorification.

Savarakar is probably a relative nobody to you because you might have discovered internet in Pakistan late in life and ability to google even more later.

Not mocking you, I used to think Jinnah was extremely religious guy who wrote Urdu poetry and was in jail fighting the British. Reading books ( one advantage probably I might have), internet etc told me he was a English speaking anglicized Gujju who was a hot shot corporate lawyer, drank wine and ate pork but wanted “Islamic Pakistan” to save Muslim from Hindus.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

(allegedly) Eating pork is haram for Muslims

(Openly) Eating beef is blasphemy for staunch Hindus.

A Muslim will not beat up or kill a non Muslim for eating pork. But a Hindu will to a beef eating Muslim.

There is a big difference. We have been taught this point by our Hindu friends on PP that we can't equate pork and beef. For Hindus it's not a dietary issue but more than that.

The equivalent to this fella eating beef would be if Jinnah went to a Mandir and did Puja. Apart from that all sin is forgiveable in Islam and if Jinnah transgressed then his successes outweigh his transgressions.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Savarakar is probably a relative nobody to you because you might have discovered internet in Pakistan late in life and ability to google even more later.

Not mocking you, I used to think Jinnah was extremely religious guy who wrote Urdu poetry and was in jail fighting the British. Reading books ( one advantage probably I might have), internet etc told me he was a English speaking anglicized Gujju who was a hot shot corporate lawyer, drank wine and ate pork but wanted “Islamic Pakistan” to save Muslim from Hindus.

The greatest achievement of Jinnah was that he realized a homeland for Muslims of India. The man never went to prison like Gandhi and his gang. He never got hit even once in his life. He is no freedom fighter.
Jinnah was a successful lawyer and a rich one at that. He was pretty English in his outlook and habits. He had no love for his motherland.

Its a shame that Jinnah gets more of a mention in our textbooks while names like Savarkar never even got a mention. I only came to know about Savarkar after I was done with my schooling.

 

[Champ_Pal]

(allegedly) Eating pork is haram for Muslims

(Openly) Eating beef is blasphemy for staunch Hindus.

A Muslim will not beat up or kill a non Muslim for eating pork. But a Hindu will to a beef eating Muslim.

There is a big difference. We have been taught this point by our Hindu friends on PP that we can't equate pork and beef. For Hindus it's not a dietary issue but more than that.

The equivalent to this fella eating beef would be if Jinnah went to a Mandir and did Puja. Apart from that all sin is forgiveable in Islam and if Jinnah transgressed then his successes outweigh his transgressions.

Because Beef and Pork carry different meanings for both religions. Apples and Oranges.

A Muslim can and will beat up others for other reasons. Most Hindus will not do that.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Because Beef and Pork carry different meanings for both religions. Apples and Oranges.

A Muslim can and will beat up others for other reasons. Most Hindus will not do that.

Yes you compared apple and oranges when you made the post about Jinnah and pork. I agree, that was my point. Jinnah was a sinner ( maybe). Savarkar actions make him an open blasphemer, who may have got lynched by cow mafia ( in the eyes of staunch Hindus)

 

[JaDed]

Nope it's a sweeping statement. One become a founder of a nation and the other died as a relative nobody with posthumous glorification.

Mr. Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan is far from implemented, hijacked by others, Savarkar’s Hindutva grew on Indians and historic third term for the Modi with best shape of Indian economy in India’s independent history.

 

[Cover Drive Six]

Why special thread for this?
Any reason?

 

[JaDed]

Why special thread for this?
Any reason?

The Op probably didn’t read the entire article esp about his comments on Mr. Jinnah

 

[Champ_Pal]

Yes you compared apple and oranges when you made the post about Jinnah and pork. I agree, that was my point. Jinnah was a sinner ( maybe). Savarkar actions make him an open blasphemer, who may have got lynched by cow mafia ( in the eyes of staunch Hindus)

There is no evidence that Savarkar ate beef. He simply did not believe that Cows are sacred.

Anyways, whoever kills another human for consuming cow is a pathetic coward and a thug. If eating beef is against the law, then the person should be reported to the law enforcement. No one should take law into their own hands.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Savarkar is one of the most confused character in Indian politics and even BJP can't fully endorse him as some of his actions were not in congruence with the Hindu right wing dogma too.

Lol. Savarkar is full endorsed by BJP and entire Sangh.

Congress politicians have tried to say many things about him and nothing has stuck.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Nope it's a sweeping statement. One become a founder of a nation and the other died as a relative nobody with posthumous glorification.

Savarkar died as a nobody?

Followers of Savarkar have ruled India for 14 years out of last 24. Rule most of the states in India.

His legacy is the anti congress hindutva movement.

 

[KB]

Comparing Jinnah and Savarkar, I would say Jinnah was a liberal particularist (by liberal, I am referring to the term in its European rather than American sense), whereas Savarkar belonged to the radical right.

Jinnah is quoted as saying of his time in England to study law “The liberalism of lord Morley was then in full sway. I grasped that liberalism, which became part of my life and thrilled me very much.” In 1938, Jinnah recommended the liberal John Morley’s book, On Compromise, advising students that “I think you ought to read that book not only once but over and over again.”

Jinnah was a consistent supporter of civil liberties. A.G. Noorani, the Indian lawyer and writer, said that “Jinnah’s pronouncements on civil liberties over the years bear recalling…He never spoke without studying the subject carefully. The research is impressive. So is the incisiveness of his analysis. Most impressive of all is his consistency. Few can claim such a consistent record on civil liberties for decades on such a wide range of issues of fundamental importance.”

We need to distinguish between liberal universalism and liberal particularism. For liberal universalism we may turn to Count Stanislas de Clermont-Tonnerre, who famously - in 1789 - declared in the French national assembly: “To the Jews as individuals—everything; to the Jews as a nation—nothing.” Here the focus is on the individual as the ultimate building block of society and political system and a disavowal of group identities.

In contrast, liberal particularists while still committed to individual liberty are more sensitive to group rights and uniqueness of groups. Jinnah’s concern with group rights was always present, and over time his liberalism became more particularist. “For most of his political career,” writes historian, Joya Chatterji, “Jinnah struggled with what liberal political theorists recognise to be a problem at the heart of the liberal project – the place of the 'group rights' of minorities in a liberal democracy. His goal – and it was a complex one – was to see how group rights (and Muslim concerns) could be accommodated in an Indian constitution.”

As another historian, Faisal Devji has argued, Jinnah had a conceptual or abstract understanding of nationalism. Jinnah "represented a politics based on novelty rather than heredity, artifice rather than authenticity. Muslim politics in colonial India was founded upon the rejection of blood-and-soil forms of nationality, which could only define the Prophet’s followers there as a minority and not a nation.…Pakistan therefore had to be fought for in the purely ideal terms of a political logic.”

Savarkar’s vision of the nation was rather different: nativist and ultra-nationalist. 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. His was more a vision of Hindus as an ethnic category, a belief in them being a unique people with a unique culture and unique history, than simply a vision of Hindus as religious believers.

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. For Ashis Nandy, “Savarkar’s hatred for Muslims came not from ideas of ritual purity and impurity or caste hierarchy but from his prognosis of communities that could or could not be integrated—assimilated or dissolved—within the framework of a modern Indian state.”

He also strongly believed in violence. Historian Vinayak Chaturvedi’s argues that, “Violence is at the centre of Savarkar’s interpretation of Hindu civility, but it also defined what it meant to be a Hindu. He further argues that both bloodshed and vengeance are necessary for Hindus to eliminate injustice. Non-violence, on the other hand, was antithetical to being a Hindu.”

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 also controversial on cow worship.

Not a liberal nor a conservative, Savarkar instead belonged to the radical right. As Janaki Bakhle, in her intellectual history of Savarkar, 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.”

 

[JaDed]

@KB disagree on Savarkar being of radical right for reasons I wouldn’t define him as he was on board and even promoted reforms in Hinduism and Dharmic identity, he was a Nationalist yes, and he might have been inspired by Western ideologies but it was limited to ones along that of birth land.

Savarkar is not any different from that of Lincoln or George Washington that include reforming their own societies.

He was sidelined by Liberal Centrist Socialist governments but his attitude towards casteism was much more on point than Gandhi, Nehru.

“The practice of untouchability is a sin, a blot on humanity, and nothing can justify it." - Veer Savarkar
We yield to none in our love, admiration and respect for the Buddha-the Dharma-the Sangha. They are all ours. Their glories are ours and ours their failures." - Veer Savarkar

 

[FearlessRoar]

Rahul Gandhi summoned by Pune court in defamation case by Savarkar's grandnephew​

A Pune court on Friday summoned Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case filed by grandnephew of the late Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who had accused the Congress leader of making objectionable remarks against the Hindutva ideologue during his visit to the United Kingdom last year.

The court has asked the Gandhi scion to appear before it on October 23.

In April 2023, Satyaki Savarkar, grandson of one of Vinayak Savarkar's brothers, lodged a complaint with a Pune magistrate court regarding Rahul Gandhi's alleged defamatory comments about Vinayak Savarkar. The remarks were allegedly made by Gandhi during an event in London on March 5, 2023.

"Rahul Gandhi, for reasons best known to him, has been repeatedly defaming and abusing Savarkar on various occasions for over many years. On one such occasion, March 5, 2023, when Rahul Gandhi was addressing a gathering of the Overseas Congress in the United Kingdom, he intentionally made wild allegations against Savarkar, knowing the same to be untrue, to harm Savarkar's reputation," the complaint filed by Satyaki Savarkar read.

"Rahul Gandhi has intentionally made false, malicious and wild allegations against Savarkar, fully knowing the said allegations to be untrue, with the specific objective of harming his reputation and to defame the surname ‘Savarkar’ and to hurt the feelings of the family of the late Savarkar," it added.

Satyaki Savarkar also alleged that Rahul Gandhi "deliberately uttered the words" which would "cause mental agony" to him and his family. Satyaki has urged the court that Rahul Gandhi be tried in accordance with the law, and maximum punishment be awarded to him, as well as compensation to the petitioner.

Recently, a Nashik court also summoned the Congress leader in a separate defamation case filed against him for his alleged objectionable remarks against Savarkar.

The complainant, who is the director of an NGO, alleged that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi tarnished the reputation of Savarkar during a press conference in Hingoli and a speech in November 2022.

He alleged that Gandhi, on the two occasions, by his words and visual representations, knowingly harmed the reputation of Savarkar and also tried to defame the latter's image in society.

Rahul Gandhi summoned by Pune court in defamation case by Savarkar's grandnephew

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar's grand grandnephew filed a defamation case against Rahul Gandhi for "defaming and abusing" the Hindutva ideologue at an event in London in March 2023.

www.indiatoday.in

 

[Champ_Pal]

@KB disagree on Savarkar being of radical right for reasons I wouldn’t define him as he was on board and even promoted reforms in Hinduism and Dharmic identity, he was a Nationalist yes, and he might have been inspired by Western ideologies but it was limited to ones along that of birth land.

Savarkar is not any different from that of Lincoln or George Washington that include reforming their own societies.

He was sidelined by Liberal Centrist Socialist governments but his attitude towards casteism was much more on point than Gandhi, Nehru.

“The practice of untouchability is a sin, a blot on humanity, and nothing can justify it." - Veer Savarkar
We yield to none in our love, admiration and respect for the Buddha-the Dharma-the Sangha. They are all ours. Their glories are ours and ours their failures." - Veer Savarkar

I don't know why people call Savarkar a radical rightwing nut when he clearly is a Hindu reformist and does not believe in many core principles of Hinduism.

Savarkar is a Nationalist. He wanted a nation that should be tied firmly with its cultural heritage. Since true practicing Muslims put their religion above the nation, there is a lot of friction there.

 

[Technics 1210]

It doesn’t matter, Jinnah Saab was a wine conniesur. It’s the philosophy that matters I guess.

But Jinnah sahib was not a nationalist and did not represent a right-wing party where its leader was banned from entering the West on religious terrorism charges.

No wonder Indians are fleeing India for a better education.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Savarkar is one of the most confused character in Indian politics and even BJP can't fully endorse him as some of his actions were not in congruence with the Hindu right wing dogma too.

Given time one can always white wash history.

 

[Local.Dada]

But Jinnah sahib was not a nationalist and did not represent a right-wing party where its leader was banned from entering the West on religious terrorism charges.

No wonder Indians are fleeing India for a better education.

Before my answer; why do I always see you regurgitate the same points on every topic?

Modi was banned to enter America- even though since then he has had multiple state visits with full honor.

Indians are leaving India

You forgot Britain gave 2M pounds charity or something that you were peddling some time back. Next time remember this also ok? Looks a little incomplete

Anyway back to the topic- Jinnah was not a nationalist- you got that right unintentionally but he was the guy who was heading a party that asked seceded to form a “nation for Muslims”. Not sure what that means to you.

Hope that helps.

 

[Technics 1210]

Before my answer;

Stopped reading here.

Facts do not care about your fickle feelings.

Ta-ta.

 

[JaDed]

But Jinnah sahib was not a nationalist and did not represent a right-wing party where its leader was banned from entering the West on religious terrorism charges.

No wonder Indians are fleeing India for a better education.

Yes because entering West is now suddenly the most biggest honor.

Putin, Khameini now should make sure they can enter West now as that’s the biggest honor.

A not for all Pak posters now I suppose

 

[KB]

@KB disagree on Savarkar being of radical right for reasons I wouldn’t define him as he was on board and even promoted reforms in Hinduism and Dharmic identity, he was a Nationalist yes, and he might have been inspired by Western ideologies but it was limited to ones along that of birth land.

Savarkar is not any different from that of Lincoln or George Washington that include reforming their own societies.

He was sidelined by Liberal Centrist Socialist governments but his attitude towards casteism was much more on point than Gandhi, Nehru.

“The practice of untouchability is a sin, a blot on humanity, and nothing can justify it." - Veer Savarkar
We yield to none in our love, admiration and respect for the Buddha-the Dharma-the Sangha. They are all ours. Their glories are ours and ours their failures." - Veer Savarkar

I don’t think this, however, invalidates classifying Savarkar as belonging to the radical right.

On a more theoretical level, the radical right is a heterogenous grouping with diverse views but I would argue that there are two ideas that form the ‘ineliminable core’ which unites the groups under this heading. One is an anti-statist quo stance. There is dissatisfaction with the ‘system’ as it currently is and a desire to either reform or overthrow the system. Those of the radical right are seeking profound change (hence the label ‘radical’) - it is what distinguishes them from conservatives, who in contrast are looking to maintain traditions or to allow only small incremental changes. The second core idea is ultra-nationalism. Those of the radical right are not merely nationalists but ultra-nationalists. Nationality is defined as something beyond mere legal rights and is defined instead in ethnic and/or organic terms. For the radical right 'their' nation is endangered and the 'real' community must come together to fight the threat.

On a more concrete level, there is no denying that Savarkar was indeed a radical proponent of caste reform. In fact he went beyond reform insofar that he was seeking to abandon caste as a category altogether. As he thundered:

“You touch dogs, give milk to a snake, allow a cat that drinks a mouse’s blood to put her mouth in your plate - But O Hindu! This man who is as human as you are, the Mahar, your own compatriot, who prays to the same god - Ram - as you. But you are ashamed of him! Throw that shame away. Be ashamed of that shame!!!”

But we cannot divorce this stance on caste from his ultra-nationalism. The two were linked. Central to his project was - in light of what he saw as the Muslim threat - to awaken Hindus from “narcolepsy” and unite the Hindu community. Caste divided Hindus and therefore weakened the Hindu community and enervated national strength. He wanted the primacy of the Hindu identity to recognised by Hindus but this could only happen if casteism was done away with.

As Janaki Bakhle - in her brilliant work on Savarkar - argues:

“Savarkar’s caste clique was almost always instrumental: he cared primarily (if not solely) about creating a unified Hindu community that would be better able to oppose Muslims. All his writings on caste also reveal an underlying animus towards Muslims.”

In his own words, Savarkar’s wrote “We pet cats and dogs, touch buffaloes and cows, but we won’t touch the Shudras!” In the same piece, he continued:

“We have meted out inhumane treatment to them, and therefore they will not be useful to us..To the contrary, they are going to come in very handy for our enemies, to divide and conquer…If we [accept that untouchables are Hindus], the wagging tongue of the Ali [brothers] proclaiming that half the untouchables belong to us, or the Maulvis from Hyderabad and Sindh extending their helping hand will automatically be chopped off and fall to the ground.”

In this reading, caste had to be jettisoned and the Untouchables brought fully into the Hindu tent or they would be at the mercy of Muslim trickery.

Savarkar said, “Hindu blood, seed, heart and soul cannot be polluted by a glass of water offered by Muslims and otters, let alone an entire ocean.”

As Bakhle rightly says, Savarkar, “advocated the shedding of prejudice but substituted one of form prejudice for another. Hinduness became an invisible genetic trait and essence - a racialised characteristic - that nothing, certainly not touching untouchables or drinking water polluted by Muslims, could change.”

Savarkar was an ultra-nationalist who defined the Indian nation in terms - not of legal and civic rights - but in terms of "Hindu blood, seed, heart and soul." He was against the status quo, he was 'anti-system', he was an iconoclast. Radical right - meant not as a pejorative label but analytical device - fits him perfectly.