Vinayak Damodar Savarkar: A Patriot or a Problematic Prophet of Hinduism?

 

 Vinayak Damodar Savarkar Savarkar: A Patriot or a Problematic 

Prophet of Hinduism?

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, often referred to as "Veer Savarkar," occupies a unique and polarizing position in the history of India's freedom movement and political thought. Revered by many for his early revolutionary activities and feared by others for his ideological formulations, particularly Hindutva, Savarkar's legacy continues to invite intense debate. This article explores the dual facets of his persona: his conception of Hinduism and his status as a patriot or hero of Indian freedom.

Savarkar's Concept of Hinduism: From Dharma to Identity

Savarkar's interpretation of Hinduism marked a significant departure from the spiritual and philosophical traditions commonly associated with Sanatana Dharma. In his 1923 pamphlet "Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?", Savarkar defined Hindus not by religious faith, but by shared cultural and territorial identity:

"A Hindu means a person who regards this land of Bharatvarsha, from the Indus to the Seas, as his Fatherland (Pitrubhumi) and Holyland (Punyabhumi)."

This territorial and cultural definition turned Hinduism into a political identity, distinct from and often exclusionary of other religious communities, especially Muslims and Christians. Critics argue that this laid the foundation for a majoritarian and homogenized national vision that opposed the inclusive and pluralistic ethos of Indian society.

Prominent thinkers like Rabindranath Tagore and Maulana Azad criticized such racialized and geographic interpretations of Indian identity. In more recent times, scholars such as Romila Thapar, Christophe Jaffrelot, and A.G. Noorani have highlighted how Savarkar's Hindutva negated the secular and composite culture of India, replacing it with a narrowly defined ethno-nationalism.

Patriotism Under Scrutiny: Savarkar's Role in the Freedom Movement

Savarkar's early years are replete with tales of heroism. He formed the revolutionary organization Abhinav Bharat, inspired by Giuseppe Mazzini, and was arrested for his involvement in anti-British conspiracies, including the assassination of British officials. His incarceration in the Cellular Jail of Andaman became a symbol of revolutionary sacrifice.

However, critics point out a stark contrast in his later years. After his release from prison (following multiple mercy petitions), Savarkar largely withdrew from active revolutionary politics and aligned himself with Hindu Mahasabha, which collaborated with British authorities during World War II.

Acharya P.K. Atre, a noted Marathi writer and initially a harsh critic of Savarkar, famously asked in a 1941 editorial:

"Was Savarkar a hero of freedom or an enemy of freedom?"

Atre mocked Savarkar’s call for Hindus to join the British army, contrasting it with his earlier denunciation of Indians in British service as "termites."

Furthermore, while other leaders participated in the Quit India Movement of 1942, Savarkar and the Hindu Mahasabha stayed aloof. This has led many to question whether his nationalism was ever anti-colonial in its later years.

A Contested Legacy

Savarkar’s defenders argue that his strategic realism, especially during WWII, was aimed at strengthening Hindu society for future self-rule. They praise his writings, including "The First War of Indian Independence," for inspiring nationalist sentiment.

Yet, his critics maintain that a patriot who pleads for clemency, abstains from mass movements, and promotes a divisive ideology cannot be equated with those who consistently fought for a free and inclusive India.

The contrast between his early revolutionary fire and his later communal conservatism forms the core of the debate around his legacy. While he may be regarded as a patriot by some, the full weight of historical evidence renders his heroism complex and, at times, compromised.

Acharya Atre’s Editorials in Maratha (1941): A Bold Critique of Savarkar

In 1941, at a critical juncture in India's freedom movement, Acharya Pralhad Keshav Atre; popularly known as P.K. Atre, emerged as one of the sharpest critics of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar through a series of editorials published in his Marathi daily Maratha. These writings were not mere political commentaries; they were acerbic critiques rooted in Atre’s fierce commitment to anti-colonial nationalism and secular humanism. Atre, known for his wit and fearless articulation, directly questioned Savarkar’s ideological and political trajectory, particularly in light of the Hindu Mahasabha’s collaboration with the British Raj during World War II.

The most striking among these editorials posed the now-famous rhetorical question:

"स्वातंत्र्यवीर की स्वातंत्र्याचे शत्रू?" ("A hero of freedom or an enemy of freedom?")

This provocation was not a mere play on words. Atre was disturbed by what he saw as Savarkar's ideological betrayal. Once a revolutionary who symbolized anti-British defiance, Savarkar, by the 1940s, had begun advocating Hindu mobilization through the British Indian Army, ostensibly to protect India from external threats. Atre found this justification deeply contradictory. He reminded readers of Savarkar’s earlier writings where he had likened Indians who served the British Empire to "termite-infested wood." Now, Savarkar was asking Hindu youth to join the same colonial forces. Atre wrote:

"१९०८ मध्ये ज्यांनी ब्रिटिश सेवेतील भारतीयांना दीमक म्हटले, तेच सावरकर आता ब्रिटिशांच्या सेनेत भरती व्हा म्हणतात. हे क्रांतीचे नव्हे, स्वार्थाचे लक्षण आहे!"

("The same Savarkar who, in 1908, called Indians in British service 'termites' is now urging them to join the British army. This is not a sign of revolution but of self-interest!")

Another editorial mocked Savarkar's diminishing revolutionary zeal:

"सशस्त्र उठाव झाला तर मी पहिल्या ओळीत असेन, असं म्हणणाऱ्या सावरकरांना कोणी थांबवलं आहे का?"

("Savarkar says he’ll be at the front line if there’s an armed rebellion. What’s stopping him now?")

Atre did not limit himself to political contradictions; he delved into the moral implications of Savarkar’s shift. He accused Savarkar of communalizing Indian politics by aligning with the Hindu Mahasabha’s religious majoritarianism and distancing himself from the inclusive ideals championed by the Indian National Congress and the Quit India Movement.

The effect of these editorials was profound. In Maharashtra, where both Savarkar and Atre were revered public intellectuals, this ideological confrontation sparked widespread debate. Atre, despite his deep respect for India’s revolutionary past, was uncompromising in holding Savarkar accountable for his political decisions. The editorials showcased Atre’s fierce independence as a thinker and underscored a broader ideological divide between inclusive nationalism and sectarian identity politics.

Ironically, Atre’s stance softened in later years, particularly after Partition and the growing communal divide in Indian politics. He acknowledged Savarkar’s literary genius and even penned the foreword to an abridged edition of Sattavanache Swatantryasamar. Yet, his 1941 editorials remain among the most powerful critiques of Savarkar by a contemporary and intellectual peer. They exemplify how political discourse in colonial India was alive with ideological contestation, not just unity against the British.

Contemporary Critiques: Parimal Maya Sudhakar's Analysis

Parimal Maya Sudhakar, a contemporary political analyst and commentator, offers a nuanced but pointed critique of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s legacy—particularly his ideological contradictions and political conduct in the later stages of his life. Through his widely circulated essay titled "Was Savarkar a Hero or Enemy? Thus Asked Acharya Atre", Sudhakar examines Savarkar not merely as a revolutionary icon but as a complex and, at times, deeply contradictory political figure. He uses the lens of historical contemporaries like Acharya Atre to sharpen his own assessment of Savarkar’s ideological transformation from radical anti-colonialism to communal conservatism.

At the heart of Sudhakar’s critique lies the argument that Savarkar’s strategic shift from a revolutionary to a collaborator with the British Empire during World War II cannot be dismissed as mere political pragmatism. According to Sudhakar, this shift marked a fundamental break with the spirit of the freedom movement, which at the time was rallying behind the Quit India Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi. In sharp contrast, Savarkar, as president of the Hindu Mahasabha, urged Hindu youth to join the British Indian Army. Sudhakar underscores that this appeal was not made under duress but was a deliberate political choice, ostensibly aimed at strengthening Hindu society. Yet, in Sudhakar’s analysis, this also legitimized British rule at a time when the nation was calling for complete independence.

Sudhakar builds on Acharya Atre’s criticism by showing how Savarkar’s advocacy for military enlistment contradicted his earlier revolutionary ideals. He refers to Savarkar’s own 1908 writings, where he condemned Indians who served in British administration as lacking patriotism and likened them to "termites." That the same man, decades later, would call for organized participation in the colonial army appeared not only inconsistent but opportunistic.

Furthermore, Sudhakar critiques Savarkar’s theory of Hindutva as the foundation of a political ideology that substituted cultural and territorial nationalism for spiritual pluralism. He draws attention to how Savarkar’s definition of a Hindu; as someone who regards India as both Pitrubhumi (fatherland) and Punyabhumi (holy land); effectively excluded Indian Muslims and Christians from the national fold. Sudhakar sees this as the beginning of a narrow, exclusionary nationalism that runs counter to the secular, inclusive nationalism envisioned by Gandhi, Nehru, and Maulana Azad.

In Sudhakar’s view, Savarkar’s legacy must be judged not only by his early sacrifices—such as his incarceration in the Cellular Jail—but also by his political choices thereafter. The fact that Savarkar submitted multiple mercy petitions to the British, agreed to abstain from political activity, and later aligned with communal political formations, raises serious ethical questions. For Sudhakar, this duality disqualifies Savarkar from being venerated as an unequivocal hero of Indian independence.

Rather than dismissing Savarkar entirely, Sudhakar presents him as a tragic and contradictory figure—brilliant, brave, yet fatally compromised by sectarianism and strategic miscalculations. His critique is not rooted in personal animus but in an attempt to foreground the ideological fissures within India’s freedom movement and their continuing impact on post-independence political discourse.

Tushar Gandhi on Savarkar: A Legacy of Compromise and Communalism

Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi and a vocal public intellectual, has been a consistent critic of the contemporary glorification of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Through his speeches, writings, and interviews, Tushar Gandhi challenges not just Savarkar’s actions but also the ideological framework he championed—Hindutva. His critique is grounded in moral reasoning, historical scrutiny, and a commitment to secular nationalism, which he believes was undermined by Savarkar’s political vision and conduct.

Tushar Gandhi often begins by acknowledging Savarkar’s early contributions as a revolutionary, particularly his involvement in organizing resistance against British rule and his incarceration in the Cellular Jail. However, Gandhi juxtaposes this early heroism with what he describes as Savarkar’s ideological betrayal of the freedom struggle. One of his central criticisms concerns Savarkar’s mercy petitions to the British during his imprisonment. Tushar argues that repeatedly begging for clemency and pledging loyalty to the British Crown fundamentally contradicts the revolutionary ideal of self-sacrifice and non-cooperation, which was epitomized by leaders like Bhagat Singh and Mahatma Gandhi.

In public discussions, Tushar Gandhi has frequently cited the Quit India Movement of 1942 to highlight a moral and political divergence. While the Indian National Congress, under Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership, launched a mass civil disobedience movement demanding immediate British withdrawal, Savarkar and the Hindu Mahasabha actively opposed the movement. In fact, Savarkar encouraged Hindus to remain loyal to the British and to join the British Indian Army. For Tushar Gandhi, this represents not pragmatic nationalism but strategic betrayal, especially when millions of Indians were being imprisoned, tortured, or killed for defying colonial authority.

Another major theme in Tushar Gandhi’s critique is Savarkar’s communal ideology. He views Hindutva not as a cultural awakening, as Savarkar proposed, but as a deliberate political project to create a Hindu Rashtra—a vision that inherently excludes Muslims, Christians, and other religious minorities. In multiple interviews, Tushar Gandhi has warned that the promotion of Savarkar as a national hero is not merely about reclaiming a forgotten freedom fighter, but about reshaping India’s national identity into a narrowly defined ethno-religious construct.

Tushar Gandhi also addresses the connection between Savarkar and Nathuram Godse, Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin. While Savarkar was acquitted in the Gandhi assassination trial, Tushar Gandhi insists that Savarkar’s ideological influence on Godse is undeniable. Both were members of the Hindu Mahasabha, and Godse openly admitted to being inspired by Savarkar’s writings. Tushar often points to this ideological link to underline the dangerous consequences of divisive rhetoric and exclusionary nationalism.

In conclusion, Tushar Gandhi’s critique of Savarkar centers on the tension between early revolutionary zeal and later communal conservatism. For him, Savarkar’s legacy is not one of untainted heroism but of moral compromise, political collaboration, and ideological exclusion. While recognizing Savarkar’s historical significance, Tushar Gandhi warns against elevating him to the status of a national ideal, arguing that doing so endangers the pluralistic and inclusive foundation of Indian democracy.

A.G. Noorani on Savarkar: Ideologue of Hate and Hindutva

A.G. Noorani, renowned legal scholar, historian, and political commentator, presents a sharply critical portrait of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in his seminal book Savarkar and Hindutva: The Godse Connection. Drawing upon archival documents, court records, and Savarkar's own writings, Noorani constructs a detailed and damning analysis of Savarkar’s ideological influence, his political opportunism, and his alleged complicity in Gandhi’s assassination.

At the heart of Noorani’s critique is the assertion that Savarkar was the intellectual father of Hindutva, a political ideology fundamentally distinct from Hinduism as a religion. Savarkar’s formulation of Hindutva, as outlined in his 1923 pamphlet Who is a Hindu?, defines national identity through ethnic, territorial, and religious homogeneity. Noorani argues that this construct inherently excludes Muslims and Christians, since their Punyabhumi (holy land) lies outside India, making them forever alien in Savarkar’s nationalist vision.

Noorani criticizes this conception of nationhood as deeply communal and anti-democratic, laying the ideological groundwork for Hindu majoritarianism. He contrasts it with the inclusive nationalism of Gandhi, Nehru, and Azad, which saw India as a composite nation of diverse faiths and cultures. According to Noorani, Savarkar’s Hindutva was not only divisive but inherently hostile to secularism, pluralism, and the freedom struggle led by the Indian National Congress.

A significant portion of Noorani’s critique focuses on Savarkar’s relationship with Nathuram Godse, the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi. Although Savarkar was acquitted in the Gandhi murder trial due to lack of direct evidence, Noorani presents compelling circumstantial links that, in his view, strongly implicate Savarkar in the conspiracy. He draws on court testimonies, particularly that of Digambar Badge, a prosecution witness who claimed to have overheard Godse and Narayan Apte discussing the assassination at Savarkar's residence. Noorani also points to the fact that both Godse and Apte were former members of the Hindu Mahasabha and were ideologically mentored by Savarkar.

Beyond the legal case, Noorani argues that Savarkar created the ideological climate that made Gandhi’s assassination thinkable. Gandhi’s commitment to Hindu-Muslim unity and his advocacy for minority rights made him, in the eyes of Hindu communalists, a traitor. Savarkar’s writings and speeches consistently vilified Muslims and portrayed Hinduism as perpetually under siege, legitimizing political violence as a form of national salvation.

Another aspect Noorani criticizes is Savarkar’s political opportunism. After his release from the Cellular Jail, Savarkar submitted multiple mercy petitions to the British and pledged to abstain from anti-government activity. Noorani interprets this as a betrayal of revolutionary ideals. Worse, during World War II, Savarkar, as president of the Hindu Mahasabha, encouraged Hindu participation in the British Indian Army, directly opposing the Quit India Movement.

In conclusion, Noorani paints Savarkar not as a misunderstood patriot but as a communal ideologue whose politics of exclusion, collaboration with colonial rulers, and influence on Gandhi’s assassin cast a long and dangerous shadow over Indian democracy. For Noorani, Savarkar’s legacy must be understood not through the lens of early revolutionary activity, but through the enduring divisiveness of Hindutva ideology.

Romila Thapar on Savarkar: Myth, History, and the Politics of Hindutva

In The Past as Present: Forging Contemporary Identities Through History, eminent historian Romila Thapar critically evaluates the ideological foundations and historical claims of Hindu nationalism, with Vinayak Damodar Savarkar emerging as a central figure in this critique. Thapar does not critique Savarkar merely as a political actor but dissects how his interpretation of Indian history, particularly through the lens of Hindutva, distorts the complexity and plurality of India's past to serve a sectarian political agenda.

At the core of Thapar's criticism is Savarkar’s conceptual shift from Hinduism as a religion to Hindutva as a political identity. In his 1923 tract Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?, Savarkar redefined Hindu identity based on shared ancestry (jati), shared culture (sanskriti), and a shared homeland (pitrubhumi). Thapar argues that this redefinition was not only exclusionary but also ahistorical, as it deliberately ignored the layered evolution of Indian identity over centuries of interaction between diverse faiths, languages, and cultures.

Thapar highlights that Savarkar’s historical imagination was mythic rather than empirical. In constructing a narrative of uninterrupted Hindu glory that was disrupted by "foreign" invasions—particularly Muslim—Savarkar constructed a linear, conflict-driven version of Indian history. Thapar challenges this by asserting that Indian history is not a tale of civilizational conflict but of cultural synthesis, where Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, and Christianity contributed richly to the Indian experience. By framing Muslims and Christians as alien to Indian soil, Savarkar, in Thapar’s view, promotes a monolithic and militarized vision of Indian identity that contradicts both historical evidence and democratic values.

She also critiques Savarkar’s celebration of violence as a means of reclaiming national pride. His writings glorify acts of retribution and masculine aggression, such as his interpretation of Shivaji and the 1857 revolt, where he celebrates brutal resistance against perceived Muslim domination. Thapar argues that this selective valorization of history romanticizes vengeance and undermines the ethical foundations of India's anti-colonial struggle, which was largely rooted in nonviolence and civil resistance.

Furthermore, Thapar is deeply concerned with the politicization of the past. Savarkar’s historical reinterpretation, she argues, has been instrumental in justifying contemporary communal politics. By projecting an ancient golden Hindu past and blaming minorities for its "decline," Savarkar laid the groundwork for majoritarian narratives that marginalize India's Muslim and Christian citizens. Thapar warns that such distorted readings of history are not merely academic concerns but have real political consequences, fueling social polarization and undermining the secular, pluralistic character of the Indian Constitution.

Romila Thapar concludes that Savarkar’s influence lies not just in his political actions but in how his version of history has reshaped public memory and political discourse in India. She calls for critical engagement with the past, rooted in evidence and openness, rather than using it as a tool for ideological indoctrination.

Final Conclusion:

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar remains one of the most polarizing figures in Indian history, eliciting sharp responses from both admirers and critics. Critics highlight his ideological rigidity and his association with the ideological roots of Hindu nationalism. A.G. Noorani draws a clear line between Savarkar's philosophy and Nathuram Godse’s actions, suggesting a dangerous proximity between ideological extremism and political violence. Tushar Gandhi and panel discussions in The Wire, Scroll, and The Hindu stress how Savarkar’s ideas of Hindutva diverged from inclusive nationalism, promoting a cultural homogenization that alienated minorities. Romila Thapar and Christophe Jaffrelot similarly view his rewriting of history and identity through the Hindutva lens as a distortion of India’s pluralist fabric.

However, critics like Acharya Atre present a nuanced picture. Initially skeptical, Atre later recognized Savarkar's courage and literary prowess, as seen in both Esakal and Sudhakar’s reflections. This evolution reflects a broader tension between rejecting his ideology and acknowledging his intellect and influence. Savarkar's historical works, especially 1857, are noted for rekindling revolutionary spirit but critiqued for ideological overreach.

In sum, Savarkar’s critics see him as a brilliant but deeply divisive figure whose ideas continue to challenge India’s democratic and secular ethos.

References and Sources:

1.      Atre, P.K. (Acharya). Editorials from Maratha, 1941

2.      Gandhi, Tushar., The Wire interview: “Tushar Gandhi on Revisiting Savarkar’s Legacy” (2018) & Scroll.in and The Hindu panel discussions on Hindutva and Savarkar (2017-2023)

3.      Sudhakar, Parimal Maya.“Was Savarkar a Hero or Enemy? Thus Asked Acharya Atre.”Published on 20 December 2020, on the author’s official blog.
Link: https://parimalmayasudhakar.in/2020/12/20/was-savarkar-hero-or-enemy-thus-asked-acharya-atre/

4.      Savarkar, V.D. Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? Veer Savarkar Prakashan, 1923.

5.      Savarkar, V.D. The First War of Indian Independence: 1857, Veer Savarkar Prakashan.

6.      Noorani, A.G. Savarkar and Hindutva: The Godse Connection, LeftWord Books.

7.      Thapar, Romila. The Past as Present: Forging Contemporary Identities Through History, Aleph Book Company.

8.      Jaffrelot, Christophe. The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, Penguin India.

9.      Esakal. "सावरकारांविषयी आचार्य अत्रे येंचे मतबदल" (Acharya Atre's change in opinion on Savarkar). esakal.com