In
contemporary India, debates on nationalism, secularism, identity, and social
cohesion have once again brought historical figures into public discussion.
Among them, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883–1966), widely known as
Swatantryaveer Savarkar, remains one of the most debated personalities of
India’s freedom movement. For students and scholars of political thought, especially
those engaged in studying Indian political thinking within the framework of
undergraduate political science curricula such as those taught in Delhi
University, Savarkar presents an important case for understanding how
nationalism, culture, and social reform intersected during the late colonial
period.
Savarkar
was not only a revolutionary nationalist but also a political ideologue and
social reformer. His intellectual and political journey can broadly be studied under
three phases of his life:
· His revolutionary role in the
anti-colonial struggle,
·
His articulation of Hindutva as a
cultural-political identity,
·
His work as a social reformer within Hindu
society.
Understanding these three aspects allows us to situate Savarkar within the wider discourse of Indian political thought and nation-building during colonial rule.
The Revolutionary Phase:
Anti-Colonial Nationalism and Political Radicalism
Savarkar’s
political life began in an era when the dominant leadership of the Indian
National Congress was largely moderate in its approach toward British colonial
rule. While many leaders at that time demanded administrative reforms and
greater representation within the colonial framework, Savarkar advocated
complete political independence (Purna Swaraj) much earlier than it became the
official demand of the Congress in 1929.
As
a student at Fergusson College in Pune, Savarkar organized nationalist
activities and founded a secret revolutionary organization known as Abhinav
Bharat. The aim of this group was to promote armed resistance against British
rule. Influenced by European nationalist movements, particularly the
unification movements in Italy led by Giuseppe Mazzini, Savarkar believed that
colonialism could not be dismantled through petitions alone but required
organized resistance.
In
1906, Savarkar travelled to London to study law at Gray’s Inn. However, his
stay in London was marked more by political activism than by academic pursuit.
He became associated with India House, a center of revolutionary activities
among Indian students in Britain. It was during this period that he authored
his well-known historical work ‘The First
War of Indian Independence 1857’. In this book, Savarkar challenged the
British interpretation of the 1857 uprising as merely a “Sepoy Mutiny.”
Instead, he presented it as a unified and planned national revolt against
colonial rule.
This
reinterpretation of 1857 played an important role in inspiring later
generations of revolutionaries. Scholars such as Vikram Sampath have noted that
revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh were influenced by Savarkar’s writings, which
portrayed resistance to colonial rule as both legitimate and necessary. In this
sense, Savarkar contributed not only through direct political action but also
through the creation of an alternative nationalist historiography.
Savarkar’s revolutionary activities eventually led to his arrest by the British authorities in 1910. In 1911, he was sentenced to transportation for life and sent to the Cellular Jail in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The conditions of incarceration were extremely harsh, involving solitary confinement and rigorous physical labour. Yet, even during his imprisonment, Savarkar continued to write poetry and reflect upon the future of India as a nation-state. His prison years became a symbol of personal sacrifice in the struggle against colonial rule.
Savarkar as a Hindutva Ideologue:
Cultural Nationalism and Nationhood
After
his release from prison in 1924 (with restrictions), Savarkar’s political
engagement took a more ideological turn. During this period, he developed and
systematized the concept of Hindutva, which he articulated in his 1923 work
titled ‘Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?’
Savarkar’s
formulation of Hindutva must be understood within the intellectual context of
early twentieth-century debates on nationhood. At a time when the Indian
national movement was grappling with questions of communal representation,
minority rights, and the basis of political unity, Savarkar sought to define
the nation not merely in territorial or political terms but in cultural and
civilizational terms.
For
Savarkar, Hindutva was distinct from Hinduism as a religion. Instead, he
described it as a broader cultural identity rooted in shared history, common
ancestry, and geographical belonging. According to him, those who regarded
India both as their Pitribhumi (fatherland) and Punyabhumi (holy land) formed
part of this cultural nation.
आसिन्धु सिन्धु पर्यन्ता यस्य भारतभूमिका:।
पितृभू:
पुण्यभूश्चैव स वै हिन्दुरिति स्मृत:।।
This
definition sought to emphasize civilizational continuity rather than
theological unity. Savarkar argued that national integration required a strong
cultural foundation that transcended sectarian divisions within Hindu society.
As
President of the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar advocated the
development of national strength and preparedness, particularly in the context
of what he perceived as growing communal tensions during the final decades of
British rule. Importantly, Savarkar did not advocate the establishment of a
theocratic state. Rather, he argued for a modern, secular state that would
treat all citizens equally while being rooted in the cultural traditions of the
land.
In present-day political debates on national identity and security, Savarkar’s emphasis on cultural cohesion and state strength continues to be revisited by scholars and policymakers alike.
Savarkar as a Social Reformer: Internal
Reform and Social Unity
While
Savarkar is often remembered for his political ideology, his contributions to
social reform within Hindu society are equally significant. He believed that
political independence would remain incomplete without social unity and
internal reform.
Savarkar
strongly opposed the practice of untouchability and advocated temple entry for
all sections of Hindu society, including the so-called “lower castes.” During
his internment in Ratnagiri, he actively supported inter-caste dining and
inter-caste marriages as measures to dismantle rigid social hierarchies.
He
identified what he described as the “Seven Shackles” (सप्त श्रृंखला)
that had weakened Hindu society, including restrictions on social interaction
across castes and communities. In his view, such divisions made society
vulnerable to external domination and hindered the formation of a unified
national community.
Savarkar
also emphasized the importance of scientific temper and rationalism. He
criticized blind faith and superstition, arguing that social progress required
a commitment to reason and modern education. His advocacy of the Bhasha Shuddhi
(language purification) movement further reflected his concern for cultural
self-respect and intellectual autonomy.
From the perspective of social and political theory, Savarkar’s reformist agenda demonstrates an attempt to link social equality with national strength. For him, caste discrimination was not only morally unjust but also politically detrimental to the goal of nation-building.
Savarkar in Contemporary Discourse
Savarkar’s
life and thought continue to evoke both admiration and criticism. However,
reducing his legacy to simplistic categories risks overlooking the complexity
of his contributions. As a revolutionary nationalist, he challenged colonial
authority through both action and intellectual resistance. As a Hindutva
ideologue, he offered a cultural definition of nationhood that remains
influential in contemporary political discourse. As a social reformer, he
sought to address internal divisions within society as a precondition for political
unity.
For
students beginning their engagement with Indian political thought, Savarkar’s
work provides an important example of how ideas about nation, identity, and
reform evolved during the colonial period. Studying his writings within their
historical context allows for a more balanced understanding of the ideological
diversity that shaped India’s freedom movement.
Agreeing
or disagreeing with Savarkar’s views is ultimately a matter of interpretation.
Yet, his role in shaping debates on nationalism and social reform ensures that
his ideas continue to resonate in discussions on India’s past, present, and
future.
