Name- Shailja Panchkaran

Roll no.- 17/427

Course- B.A hons political science

Idea of India of savarkar

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, born at Bhagur in Maharashtra on May 28, 1883, was the second of the
three sons of a Maharashtrian, Damodarpant by name, and was hardly known for his brilliance as a
school student. However, he is said to have a phenomenal memory enriched with knowledge available
to a voracious reader. After his initial schooling at Bhagur, Savarkar was sent to Nasik for English
education. Savarkar passed his matriculation examination in December, 1901 and left Nasik for Poona in
January, 1902. Savarkar joined the Fergusson College, Poona, in January, 1902. There he was attracted
by the revolutionary ideologies. Savarkar made his presence felt in the college by his youthful
enthusiasm and his scholarly attitude. He became an instant leader. He started working with secret
revolutionary organizations in Poona. “While at college he had convened in1904 a meeting of some two
hundred selected members of the Mitra Mela”1 - a revolutionary party. The name of his party was later
changed to Abhinava Bharat. Keeping the leadership of Abhinava Bharat under the supervision of his
comrades, namely, Bapat, Hemchandra Das and Mirza Abbas, Savarkar left for London on June 9, 1906
for higher studies.

In England, Savarkar continued his revolutionary activities and set up a front organization named 'Free
India Society’. However,Savarkar's stay in England came to an endwhen he was arrested on 13 March,
1910 in connection with a conspiracy in India and sent to Bombay. After a long trial he was sentenced to
fifty years' imprisonment and sent 'to Andamans. Savarkar was later transferred to Ratnagiri jail and was
finally released on 6 January, 1924 after completing 4 fourteen years in jail in sub-human conditions
with a shattered health. The release was conditional and Savarkar was ordered not to leave Ratnagiri.
His internment came to an end on 10 May, 1937. It was in the Ratnagiri jail that Savarkar's most
important work Hindutva was written and sent out secretly and was published under the pen name

Savarkar in his important work Hindutva : Who is a Hindu? developed the core of his philosophy on the
concept of Hindutva. According to Savarkar Hindutva was not a word but a history. It was not only a
history of the spiritual or religious life of the Indian people but a history of the entire civilization.
Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a partof Hindutva?

In order to make Hindutva a grand concept Savarkar held that by an 'ism' it was generally meant a
theory or a code more or less based on spiritual or religious dogma or system. In order to investigate
into the essential significance of Hindutva, Savarkar did not primarily concern himself with any particular
theocratic or religious dogma or creed. He held that had not linguistic usage stood in the way then
'Hinduness' would have certainly been a better word than 'Hinduism' as a near parallel to Hindutva.
Savarkar was of the opinion that Hindutva embraced all the departments of thought and activity of the
whole being ofthe Hindu race. He held that to understand the significance of this term Hindutva, one
should understand first the essential meaning of the word ‘Hindu’ itself and ‘realize how it came to
exercize such imperial sway over the hearts of millions of mankind and won a loving allegiance from the
bravest and best of them.’5 However, Savarkar felt it imperative to point out that he was by no means
attempeting a definition or even a description of the more limited, less satisfactory and essentially
sectarian term ‘Hinduism’.

Savarkar held that in reality cultural or national unity could not afford to loosen the bonds, especially
those of a common name and a common banner, that were the mighty sources of organic cohesion and
strength. There was no sign of other 'ism's disowning their special dogmas which landed them into
‘dangerous war cries’.12 Savarkar opined that an American might become a citizen ofIndia : “He would
certainly be entitled, if ‘bonaflde’, to be treated as our Bharatiya or Hindi, a countryman and a Fellow
citizen of ours”.13 Savarkar was of the opinion that he should adopt Indian culture and history, inherit
Indian blood and should come to look upon the land not only as the land of his love but even of his
worship. Otherwise, he could not get himself incorporated into the Hindu fold.

On the question of national language Savarkar heldthat Sanskrit should be considered as the sacred
language and Hindi, which was derived from Sanskrit and drew its nourishment from the latter, should
be the national language. Savarkar opined that Sanskrit was the richest and the most cultured of the
ancient languages of the world. To the Hindus Sanskrit was the ‘holiest tongue of tongues’.

According to Savarkar, Hindu scriptures, history, philosophy and culture had their roots so deeply
embodied in the Sanskrit literature that it formed the brain of the Hindu race. He was of the opinion
that the Sanskrit language should be ‘an indispensable constitutent of the classical course for
Hindu,youths’. Savarkar held that in adopting the Hindi as the national language no distinction was
implied as regards other provincial languages. Savarkar opined that Hindi could serve the purpose of a
national pan-Hindu language best. He held that long before either English or even Muslims stepped
inIndia the Hindi in its general form had already come to occupy the position of a national language.
Savarkar emphasized that the Hindu pilgrim, the tradesman, tourist, the soldier, the pandit travelled up
and down from Bengal to Sindh and Kashmir to Rameshwar by making himself understood from locality
to locality through Hindi. Savarkar was of the opinion that the name of the country should be
Hindusthan. He observed that such other names as India, Hind etc. being derived from the same original
word ‘Sindhu’, Might be used but only to signify the same sense, i.e., the land of the Hindus, a country
which was the abode of the ‘Hindu Nation’.

However, Savarkar held that in this insistence on the name Hindusthan no encroachment or humiliation
was implied in connection with any of the non-Hindu countrymen. He believed that the Parsees and
Christians were too akin to the Hindus culturally and were patriotic citizens. So objections to the name
Hindusthan should not come from them.
Idea of india by nehru

As India struggles over the nature of its identity and as contestations over
its nature (or let’s say, soul) grow shriller, a rather curious debate is taking
place. This debate pertains to the nature of Jawaharlal Nehru’s ‘legacy’ and
its future amid all the fluid and churn that defines India contemporaneity.
The debate and its premises are flawed for they assume, a priori, that India
owes a debt to Nehru because he was the sole architect of modern India. It
was Nehru who, in the world view of these hagiographers, who ‘discovered’
India and bequeathed upon it ideas, institutions and values -- pluralism,
secularism, tolerance, the modern temper and some may even say
democracy -- that corresponded to India’s essence. And that, given the
nature of India’s contemporary politics - the rise of the far right to political
primacy - it is these values and institutions that are in danger and under
threat. Or, in other words, the so called ‘Nehruvian legacy’ is under assault
and a new idea of India is incubating, one that is diametrically opposed to
Nehru’s idea.

The former view is akin to the 'Alice in Wonderland' fantasy and the latter ,
if it is conceded there may be some merit to it, is speculative and
inferential. To come to pass, it would call for a revolution and would, to
quote Naipaul, lead to a ,’Million Mutinies Now’.

The Alice in Wonderland view first: While Nehru was indeed an intellectual
and even leader of great stature, he merely became an instrument of a
larger historical movement and trend, that of, political liberalism. Nehru
was hardly original. He was the beneficiary of historical gale of political
liberalism (and nationalism) that was sweeping across the then-Imperial
metropoles. He appears to have absorbed the basic and fundamental
premises of both quite well and then given the mood and temper of the
times in colonial India, set to graft these onto India. There then was no
special or original insight that Nehru had. This can be validated by his skin
deep understanding of economics: his admiration for Fabian Socialism,
which he used as a guiding principle for post Independence India’s
economic policy is a classic instance. (The redundant Five Year Plans
accrued from this and India continues to, in many senses, belabour under
these).
Nehru was no idealist; he was smitten by a certain ideology and adhered to
it. The institutional and ideational rubric that is the hallmark of modern
India flowed paradoxically from India’s encounter with colonial modernity.
To be fair, while the British rule over India was marked by inequities and
iniquities, the British left an institutional and ideational legacy to the
country in the form of democracy, the rule of law and Weberian
bureaucracy. Nehru appears to have understood this very well but in an
attempt to perhaps expunge colonial associations with these ideas,
institutions and concepts, set out to ‘discover’ India. This was a
vainglorious attempts to draw and tease out some foundational and
‘organic’ idea that could be held to be indigenous. By going, ‘native’, Nehru
constructed his, 'Idea of India' -- an idea which his hagiographers
popularized. This Idea of India was and is as mythical as its opposing Idea -
the one promulgated by the proponents of Hindutva. Nations, to quote
Benedict Andersen, are ‘imagined communities’. To say or assert otherwise
is to be guilty of crude and vulgar essentialism. The key, however, is how
these imagined communities are willed into being. It is here that Nehru’s
role and contribution becomes pertinent. The man extended the residual
legacy of colonial modernity onto India and made political liberal the
central tenet of his political philosophy and policy.

This is, insofar as the ideational and institutional rubric of India that is
attributed to Nehru. What about Nehru’s politics? What does the historical
record say? Nehru’s egotism, it is held by many, led to the partitioning of
the subcontinent. The man could not come to terms with Jinnah. Partition
was the inevitable outcome. This pertains to pre-independence India. Post
independence India had to deal with the ‘problem’ of Kashmir. Here Nehru
practised a smooth and deft realpolitik. He inveigled Sheikh Abdullah and
called him a friend and when Sheikh Abdullah questioned the U-turns in
policy and politics, Nehru betrayed him. The various opportunities to settle
Kashmir for good were squandered by Nehru ‘because of a special
attachment to Kashmir’. The question is: how is this for idealism? All this is
not to demean the man but to arrive at a sober assessment and perspective.
At the time, Nehru was all-in-all, an intellectual par excellence, a great
leader but was as human as can be. Attributing super human qualities and
originality to him constitutes the fallacy of projection.