Social and Political Thought of

India.
 Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (28 May 1883 – 26 February 1966)

was an Indian Independence activist and politician who
formulated the Hindu nationalist philosophy of Hindutva. He
was a leading figure in the Hindu Mahasabha. Savarkar began
his political activities as a high school student and continued
to do so at college. After 1937, he started travelling widely,
becoming a forceful orator and writer, advocating Hindu
political and social unity. Serving as the president of the Hindu
Mahasabha political party, Savarkar endorsed the idea of India
as a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation). In 1948 Savarkar was
charged as a co-conspirator in the assassination of Mahatma
Gandhi, however he was acquitted by the court for lack of
evidence.
 Savarkar and National
• When he was young, he organized a youth group named 'Mitra Mela'. He was inspired by
radical political leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Bipin Chandra Pal
and engages the group in
revolutionary activities.

• He wrote a book titled "The History of the War of Indian Independence" which inspired a lot
of Indians to fight against the British for freedom.

• Veer Savarkar’s elder brother organized a protest against the 'Indian Council Act 1909' also
known as
Minto-Morley Reform. Further, with the protest, the British Police claimed that Veer Savarkar
had plotted in crime and issued a warrant against him.

• He was sentenced to 50 years of imprisonment and sent back to Bombay. Later, he was taken to
the
Andaman and Nicobar Island on 4 July, 1911. There, he was locked at 'cellular Jail' famous as Kala
Pani.
• During his prison time, he wrote an ideological pamphlet known as Hindutva And this was
published by Savarkar's supporters. In the pamphlet, he described Hindu as a patriotic
and proud inhabitant of
'Bharatvarsha' (India) and so influenced several Hindus.

• He also described several religions as one and the same as Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism,
and Hinduism. According to him, all these religions can support the creation of 'Akhand
Bharat' (United India or Greater India).

• He was a fierce critic of the Indian National Congress (INC) and Mahatma Gandhi. He opposed
the 'Quit India Movement' and later objected to INC's acceptance of Indian partition. He
proposed the co-existence of two nations in one country.

• Veer Savarkar's philosophy was no doubt unique and consists of various elements like
ethical, theological and philosophical theories. In fact, his political philosophy is a mixture
of humanism, rationalism,
universalism, positivism, utilitarianism, and realism.

• He also worked against some of India's social evils like caste discrimination and
untouchability. His, books motivated youth and because of his courageous behavior he had
earned the nickname 'Veer‘ .
 Savarkar on Nationalism
• According to Savarkar Hindus in India were a nation and other people were communities and thus
minorities.

• The Indian National Congress believed and upheld the territorial nationalism. To them a nation
meant people living on a common land. Whoever came to India - the Arabs, the Jews the
Portuguese, the Greeks - formed a nation together with the Hindus, because these new comers
also lived in India.

• Savarkar observed that the Congress committed the serious mistake of overlooking the
fundamental, social and political principle that in the formation of nations, religious, racial,
cultural and historical affinities counted

immensely more than their territorial unity. What they called the Indian nation Savarkar called
the Indian state, because he believed that the Hindus could form a state with other minorities.
• The idea of territorial nationality alone was envisaged by the Congressmen, who in general
preferred to be totally ignorant of Muslim history, theology and political trend of mind In his
opinion the Hindus were the bedrock on which the Indian independent state could be built.
• Savarkar held that in adopting the Hindi as the national language no distinction was implied
as regards other provincial languages.

• Hindusthan to Savarkar did not only mean the so called British India, it comprised even
those parts which were under the French and Portuguese possession.

• As the Parsees were concerned, Savarkar held that they were by race, religion, language
and culture most akin to the Hindus. They had gratefully been loyal to India. Savarkar
opined that the Parsees were not
fanatics and always displayed good intentions towards the Hindu nation.

• Regarding the Christian minorities Savarkar opined that they were civilized people and had
no extra
territorial political designs against India. He held that the Christians were not
linguistically and culturally averse to the Hindus and, therefore, could be politically
assimilated.

• So faras the Jews were concerned, Savarkar held that they were too few and had given
the Hindus ‘no political or cultural troubles.

• Savarkar was totally hostile to the Muslims. He opined that the attitude of the Hindus
towards the Muslims should be ‘one of distrust and watchfulness’ in view of their
‘antiHindu’, anti - Indian and extra-territiorial designs.
• Savarkar was of the opinion that the Hindu-Muslim conflict was neither a simple thing nor
the creation of a third party, but a strife of different cultures and races.
THE FIVE 1. Utilitarianism

2. Rationalism
PHILOSOPHICAL
DIMENSIONS OF 3. Humanism and
Universalism

SAVARKAR 4. Pragmatism

5. Realism
 Utilitarianism

. Savarkar’s strategic agnosticism’ is deeply rooted in his utilitarian outlook. Savarkar was a devoted follower of
the Utilitarian school of England, also called the Philosophical Radicals.

. The concept of utility, and not the sanctity of social structures through ancient documents and tradition,
was the guiding principle underlying Savarkar’s ideal of a transformed Indian society.

. He emphasized that his comprehension of utilitarianism was not based on the individual’s selfish reasons
for happiness and pleasure but was catered more towards the public good and happiness of the largest
possible section of society.

. The tenets of utilitarianism were the following: the greatest good of the greatest number, rationalism,
secularism, individual freedom, and equality, omnipotence of education and simple living and high
thinking.

. Social and political convenience and utilitarianism are the only variables of measurement for development
strategies to push the society in India on to a higher level.
 Rationalism and Positivism
To propagate his social and political philosophy, Savarkar used “rationality” as his touchstone. All thoughts,
comments and arguments needed to be based on logical inference and applied to
propositions grounded in observable facts.

An appropriate understanding of Savarkar’s thoughts would remain incomplete without an analysis

of his passion towards science, technology and modernization. He believed in adopting both
an intelligent as well as a
scientific attitude and approach.

As a rationalist and a believer in science and technology he rejected the surrendering to Nature which he
witnessed in response to phenomena such as earthquake, floods, eclipses of sun and moon,
droughts and famines. He firmly believed that what one held to be a mystery could be grasped
through direct observation, experience and experimentation.

This led him to the conclusion that each of his countrymen should believe only in things that
were logically and scientifically proven.
 Humanism and Universalism
Savarkar’s thinking was based on humanitarian values and a belief structure founded upon a
faith in science, equality and liberty and not on charity or religious considerations.

Savarkar’s message was that liberty and equality were of equal value and importance. His
concern for liberty and equality should also be seen in the light of his definition of liberty. The
collective liberty of the group rather than the
freedom of individuals within the group.

His definition of liberty left a certain amount of flexibility for reciprocal obligations among the
members of society. Savarkar claimed not only to be rational and scientific, but also professed a
love for humanism and universalism as ethical values.

Savarkar used humanism to justify his demand for independence. He argued that the absence of
freedom

retarded any evolution towards intellectual, moral, social, political as well as economic progress.
A country which was not free could not contribute any share to the development of mankind.
 Pragmatism

He pursued the motto ‘be practical not philosophical’ , accepting that there is
a need for philosophical and intellectual debate.

Savarkar identified a deep contradiction between the fatalism found in religious

or
philosophical doctrines and the need for action or practical advice for the
progress of Indian society.

Practical utility was the key which Savarkar used to prove the ‘stable
value’ of not only morality but also of each social, economic and political
endeavor.
 Realism

In addition to the pragmatism underlying Savarkar’s social and political philosophy is his distinctive
sense of
realism. No thought, tradition, method, mechanism, institution or organization can effectively
serve the people of all countries, at all times and under all circumstances .

For him, human conduct had to adapt to the need and necessity of the time and could not remain
the same ever.

He was realistic enough to realize that certain conditions were necessary for social and political
progress to be possible and was aware of the fact that carrying out reforms was a difficult and
complex challenge.

His version of realism is his firm belief in the maxim, ‘might is right’ as the
leading principle in International Politics. That is protecting the interests of one’s own
country and its people had to be right.
 He argued that the state or government needed to promote physical force more than moral
feelings.
 Conclusion
Savarkar welcomed the prospects of reforming society along modern and egalitarian principles.

He attempted to compose a worldly philosophy of life consisting of a portfolio of elements drawn

from
‘classical Indian thought’, western social and political philosophy and his own experience and
observations.

He used religious language to a tremendous extent, but at the sametime he could not
agree with various aspects of the Hindu faith. On the one hand he considered the
existence of an omnipresent soul as a
possible hypothesis, but on the other hand he stressed that this was also not a ‘scientific reality’.

According to him, for the survival of the Indian nation in this competitive world, some of the prevalent
religious concepts and social customs that were outdated and worthy of rejection needed to be
modified.

He was neither a liberal nor a socialist.