Savarkar’s Ideology: Hindutva, Nationalism, and Social Reform
Savarkar’s Reinterpretation of Indian History
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s approach to Indian historiography marked a shift from colonial interpretations to a nationalist retelling of India’s past. His work aimed at inspiring patriotism and building a collective national identity rooted in resistance, pride, and civilizational unity. The most notable example of this is his book, *”The First War of Indian Independence, 1857″*, in which he argued that the 1857 revolt was not a mere mutiny, as the British claimed, but a widespread and conscious national uprising against colonial rule. Savarkar’s historiography sought to glorify ancient Hindu rulers and freedom fighters. He reconstructed Indian history around a Hindu civilizational core, presenting figures like **Shivaji**, **Maharana Pratap**, and **Guru Gobind Singh** as ideal warriors who resisted foreign domination. By doing so, he challenged the narratives of British historians who often portrayed Indians as submissive or incapable of organized resistance. He attempted to create a heroic lineage of Indian fighters and rulers to ignite a spirit of rebellion in the present.
However, Savarkar’s approach to history was also ideological. He selectively focused on Hindu contributions and downplayed or ignored Muslim and Christian roles in Indian history unless they were antagonists. His framework was deeply intertwined with the ideology of **Hindutva**, which he later formulated more directly. His works often portrayed Muslim rulers as invaders and oppressors, contributing to a communal interpretation of historical events. The political significance of Savarkar’s historiography lies in its long-term influence on the ideological narratives of Hindu nationalism. His writings laid the groundwork for a Hindu-centric version of Indian identity, which sought to rally Hindus as a unified political force. These interpretations have been adopted by several right-wing organizations, including the **Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)** and **Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)**, shaping contemporary debates around history textbooks, monuments, and cultural heritage.
Savarkar’s 1857 Interpretation vs. Colonial Views
Savarkar’s interpretation of the 1857 uprising was a radical departure from colonial narratives. British historians described the revolt as a “Sepoy Mutiny,” a spontaneous, disorganized military rebellion without national intent. In contrast, Savarkar, in his seminal book *”The First War of Indian Independence”* (1909), argued that the 1857 revolt was the first organized, united effort by Indians to overthrow British rule. Savarkar portrayed the uprising as a collective Hindu-Muslim attempt to re-establish **swaraj** (self-rule). He emphasized planning, coordination, and patriotic spirit among leaders like **Rani Lakshmibai**, **Nana Sahib**, and **Bahadur Shah Zafar**. He also highlighted religious and cultural motivations that transcended regional boundaries, presenting the rebellion as a war to reclaim India’s ancient glory.
This interpretation was politically significant. It sought to create a narrative of national unity and historical resistance. At a time when Indian nationalism was emerging, Savarkar provided intellectual ammunition to challenge colonial moral legitimacy. He not only corrected the record but also inspired a sense of duty and sacrifice in future revolutionaries. His version, however, was also selectively nationalist—later editions removed references to Hindu-Muslim unity, aligning with his evolving Hindutva ideology. Nonetheless, his 1857 narrative remains a foundational text in nationalist historiography.
V.D. Savarkar: Revolutionary or Nationalist Ideologue?
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar occupies a complex and often contested place in the history of India’s freedom struggle. In the early phase of his political life, Savarkar was a fiery revolutionary who believed in armed resistance against British rule. However, over time, he evolved into a political ideologue and the principal theorist of **Hindutva**. Understanding his role requires separating his early revolutionary activities from his later ideological contributions.
Savarkar’s revolutionary nationalism began during his years in London, where he founded the **Free India Society** and wrote *”The First War of Indian Independence, 1857″*, which aimed to awaken nationalist sentiments by reinterpreting the revolt of 1857 as a unified uprising. He encouraged Indians to take up arms against the British, inspired by revolutionary movements in Italy, France, and Ireland. His association with figures like **Madan Lal Dhingra** and participation in anti-British conspiracies led to his arrest and subsequent deportation to the **Cellular Jail** in the Andamans.
While in prison, Savarkar continued to write, and upon his release, his ideology began to shift. He was placed under surveillance and chose not to participate in mainstream Congress-led movements such as the **Non-Cooperation** and **Civil Disobedience** movements. Instead, Savarkar focused on the socio-cultural consolidation of Hindus, which he saw as a precondition for national freedom. He became the president of the **Hindu Mahasabha** in the 1930s and developed the doctrine of Hindutva, which defined the Indian nation as primarily a Hindu nation by race, culture, and ancestry.
Critics argue that Savarkar’s shift from a revolutionary to an ideologue marked a retreat from active struggle to a form of cultural nationalism that was exclusive and communal. He opposed **Gandhi’s** methods of non-violence and the Congress’s emphasis on Hindu-Muslim unity, claiming that Muslims were historical aggressors who could not be trusted to uphold Indian values.
Savarkar’s Nationalism vs. Gandhian Movements
Savarkar’s non-participation in Gandhian movements like **Non-Cooperation** (1920), **Civil Disobedience** (1930), and **Quit India** (1942) was rooted in ideological differences. While Gandhi believed in non-violence, mass mobilization, and Hindu-Muslim unity, Savarkar rejected all three.
Savarkar viewed non-violence as passive and believed that it weakened the nation’s capacity for resistance. He admired revolutionary violence, comparing Indian freedom fighters to the European revolutionaries of the 18th and 19th centuries. For him, sacrifice through arms was the path to sovereignty.
Second, Savarkar dismissed the idea of Hindu-Muslim unity as unrealistic. His experience of communal tensions during the **Khilafat Movement** and the **Partition of Bengal** led him to believe that Muslims had fundamentally different cultural and political loyalties. He argued that the two communities were “two nations,” a view that ironically aligned with **Jinnah’s Two-Nation Theory**.
Third, unlike Congress, which promoted inclusive secular nationalism, Savarkar’s nationalism was exclusive and Hindu-centric. He insisted that India was fundamentally a **Hindu Rashtra**, and only those who accepted India as both their *pitrubhumi* (fatherland) and *punyabhumi* (holy land) could be truly Indian. This definition excluded Muslims and Christians.
Savarkar also rejected mass movements because he considered them undisciplined and inefficient. He focused on organizing the Hindu community, promoting social reforms like anti-untouchability and inter-caste dining, but only to strengthen Hindu unity against external threats.
Thus, Savarkar’s nationalism was militant, culturally assertive, and exclusivist, whereas the Congress approach was inclusive, secular, and mass-based. This fundamental divergence led Savarkar to stand apart from the mainstream freedom movement.
Hindutva vs. Hinduism: Savarkar’s Distinction
One of Savarkar’s most influential contributions to Indian political thought was his sharp distinction between **Hindutva** and **Hinduism**. In his 1923 essay *”Essentials of Hindutva”*, he defined Hindutva not merely as a religion but as a cultural, political, and national identity. In contrast, Hinduism, to him, was merely a system of religious beliefs and practices.
Savarkar argued that Hinduism was concerned with spiritual and philosophical questions, ritual practices, and theological schools like **Vedanta**, **Sankhya**, and **Bhakti**. He respected these traditions but felt they lacked the unifying power needed to create a strong national consciousness. In his view, Hinduism divided more than it united, with its complex caste divisions, local deities, and sectarian rituals.
By contrast, Hindutva was a unifying identity rooted in geography, race, and culture. Savarkar claimed that a Hindu is someone who considers India both as their *pitrubhumi* (fatherland) and *punyabhumi* (holy land). This definition excluded Muslims and Christians, whose holy lands were outside India. Hindutva emphasized pride in a shared history, common ancestry, and collective civilization that went beyond personal faith.
This was not just a cultural project but a political one. Savarkar aimed to mobilize Hindus as a political majority and reassert their dominance in a country he believed had been humiliated by centuries of Muslim and British rule. Thus, Hindutva provided a framework for Hindu nationalism, which sought to make India a **Hindu Rashtra**.
The difference is significant: Hinduism is a pluralistic religious tradition; Hindutva is a singular, political ideology that reinterprets that tradition for nationalistic purposes. Where Hinduism accommodates diverse views and practices, Hindutva seeks a homogenous cultural identity to forge political unity.
Critics argue that Hindutva distorts Hinduism, reduces its spiritual richness, and converts it into a tool of exclusion and majoritarian politics. It sidelines the syncretic and inclusive traditions of Indian civilization and promotes an antagonistic relationship with minorities.
Ideological Foundations of Savarkar’s Hindutva
Savarkar’s **Hindutva** ideology rests on three main pillars: common nation (*rashtra*), common race (*jati*), and common culture (*sanskriti*). In *”Essentials of Hindutva”*, he wrote that Hindus are united not just by religion but by geography, bloodline, and a shared civilizational history.
The first component is territoriality—India as the sacred and historical homeland of Hindus. He emphasized that only those who see India as both fatherland and holy land can be truly national. This excluded Muslims and Christians, whose sacred geographies lie outside India, marking them as “outsiders.”
The second is racial unity—Savarkar claimed that Hindus share a common Aryan bloodline and ancestry. This mythologized idea of a singular race helped in constructing a cohesive political identity but has been widely discredited in academic circles.
The third is cultural unity—he argued that Hindu festivals, languages (particularly **Sanskrit**), epics (*Ramayana*, *Mahabharata*), and heroes (like **Shivaji**) form the cultural glue of the Hindu nation. He viewed Islamic and Christian cultures as alien and incompatible with this heritage.
Savarkar’s Hindutva was also strongly militant and anti-pacifist. He condemned what he called Hindu “effeminacy” and glorified martial virtues. He wanted Hindus to reclaim their lost virility and pride, especially after centuries of subjugation. In this sense, Hindutva was not only an ideology but a call to arms, advocating physical strength, discipline, and political assertiveness.
Importantly, Savarkar secularized religion in his political thought. For him, Hinduism’s theological diversity was irrelevant; what mattered was civilizational loyalty. Thus, even an atheist or non-practicing Hindu could be part of the Hindu nation if they embraced its cultural and historical ethos.
However, this ideology has been heavily critiqued. It marginalizes India’s religious minorities, threatens secular constitutionalism, and promotes a rigid version of national identity. It also contradicts the pluralistic and philosophical depth of Indian traditions.
Savarkar’s Views on Language in India
Savarkar’s views on language in India were deeply rooted in his broader ideology of cultural nationalism. He saw language not only as a tool of communication but as a powerful symbol of national unity, identity, and civilizational pride. In this context, Savarkar strongly advocated for the promotion of **Hindi** as the national language and **Sanskrit** as the civilizational core of Indian culture.
Savarkar believed that linguistic fragmentation in India had historically weakened the national consciousness. He felt that regional languages, though rich and vibrant, fostered parochialism and hindered the emergence of a unified national identity. Thus, he proposed that Hindi, written in the **Devanagari script**, should become the common national language. However, he did not propose the eradication of other languages. Instead, he saw regional languages as valuable at the provincial level, but insufficient to bind the nation together emotionally and intellectually.
At the same time, Savarkar placed great emphasis on Sanskrit as the cultural root of the Hindu civilization. He viewed Sanskrit as the storehouse of ancient Indian knowledge, philosophy, and religious literature. He was not in favor of adopting English or Persian-derived words into Hindi unnecessarily and encouraged the use of Sanskritised Hindi to instill pride in India’s ancient traditions.
His language policy had clear political overtones. Savarkar linked linguistic unity to national integration and believed that without a common national language, India could never function as a strong and cohesive nation-state. His views echoed the concerns of many nationalist leaders who feared that India’s linguistic diversity could lead to secessionist tendencies.
However, his Sanskritised vision of Hindi has faced criticism. It alienated large sections of South India and non-Hindi-speaking populations, who viewed it as culturally hegemonic and exclusionary. Furthermore, his disregard for the plural linguistic heritage of India ran contrary to the more inclusive and federal vision of India’s language policy after independence, which recognized multiple official languages.
Savarkar’s Critique of Religious Conversion
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar viewed religious conversion in India as a critical social and political issue that had deep implications for national unity and identity. His critique stemmed from his strong belief in cultural nationalism and his advocacy for **Hindutva** as the foundation of Indian identity.
Savarkar argued that religious conversions—particularly conversions away from Hinduism—were not just spiritual or religious choices but acts that weakened the social fabric of India. He believed that conversions, especially those driven by foreign missionary activities during British rule, disrupted the unity of the Hindu community and fragmented Indian society along religious lines. This fragmentation, he felt, was detrimental to the idea of a united nation.
From a social perspective, Savarkar criticized conversion as a process that alienated large sections of the population from their ancestral culture, traditions, and shared heritage. He saw Hinduism not just as a religion but as a civilizational identity encompassing language, culture, history, and social customs. Conversion was therefore viewed as a form of cultural disintegration that threatened the continuity and survival of this identity.
Politically, Savarkar linked conversion to the colonial strategy of divide and rule. He argued that religious conversions served to create divisions between communities, which the British exploited to maintain control over India. By encouraging conversions and emphasizing religious differences, colonial powers were able to prevent the emergence of a cohesive nationalist movement.
Savarkar’s response to conversion was not just to criticize but also to promote reconversion or “**Shuddhi**” (purification) movements that aimed to bring converts back into the Hindu fold. These efforts were intended to restore unity and assert a strong Hindu identity in the face of colonial and missionary challenges.
Hindutva and Religious Conversion: Savarkar’s Link
Savarkar’s concept of **Hindutva** is central to understanding his views on religious conversion. Hindutva, as defined by Savarkar, goes beyond the religious boundaries of Hinduism and encapsulates a broader cultural and national identity rooted in shared history, language, and heritage.
For Savarkar, Hindutva was a form of cultural nationalism that identified India (**Bharat**) as the homeland of the Hindu civilization. He argued that all those who considered India their fatherland (*Pitribhumi*) and holy land (*Punyabhumi*) were part of this identity, regardless of their specific religious practices. This included not only Hindus but also **Buddhists**, **Jains**, and **Sikhs**, whom he saw as part of the larger Hindu cultural family.
In this framework, religious conversion was a serious issue because it threatened the cultural unity that Hindutva sought to uphold. Conversions, particularly from Hinduism to other religions like Islam or Christianity, were seen as breaking the cultural and historical continuity that bound the community together. Savarkar believed that religious conversions undermined the collective strength of the Hindu nation by weakening its demographic and social base.
Moreover, Savarkar was deeply concerned that conversions carried political consequences. He argued that converting away from Hinduism diluted the political unity needed for the Indian independence movement. By fragmenting the population into different religious identities, conversions made it easier for colonial rulers to implement divide-and-rule policies, preventing the rise of a unified nationalist front.
To counteract this, Savarkar promoted the idea of reconversion through **Shuddhi** movements, which aimed to reclaim those who had left the Hindu fold. These movements sought to re-establish the cultural and religious identity that he felt was essential for nation-building.
In essence, Savarkar’s concept of Hindutva shaped his opposition to religious conversion as it threatened the unity and strength of the Hindu cultural nation. His vision was to preserve and consolidate this identity, both culturally and politically, to resist colonial rule and lay the foundation for an independent India based on Hindu nationalism.
Savarkar’s Views on Caste and Untouchability
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s perception of caste and untouchability was shaped by his larger vision of Hindu unity and nationalism. Unlike many social reformers who saw the caste system as an immutable religious institution, Savarkar viewed it primarily as a social and political problem that needed urgent reform for the progress of Hindu society and Indian nationalism.
Savarkar acknowledged the historical presence of the caste system in Hindu society but was critical of the rigidity and discrimination it had fostered, especially the practice of **untouchability**. Untouchability, the social ostracization of certain groups considered ‘impure’ or ‘polluting,’ was for Savarkar a serious social evil that undermined Hindu unity and weakened the nationalist cause.
He believed that untouchability was a divisive practice that created barriers within Hindu society, fostering inequality and social injustice. Savarkar saw the perpetuation of untouchability as a betrayal of the true spirit of Hinduism, which he considered inclusive and pluralistic in its cultural roots. For him, caste distinctions should not lead to discrimination but rather be understood as social divisions based on occupational roles that could be flexible.
Savarkar’s approach to caste reform was rooted in the idea of social unity and national strength. He argued that for Hindus to stand united against colonial rule and external threats, the divisions caused by untouchability and caste prejudices had to be abolished. This meant not only ending untouchability but also encouraging inter-caste solidarity and cooperation.
He supported efforts to bring about social reform through education and awareness, urging the upper castes to discard caste arrogance and embrace equality within the Hindu fold. Savarkar also advocated for the **Shuddhi** (purification) movement, which sought to reconvert lower caste individuals back into Hinduism, thus restoring their social status and dignity.
Untouchability’s Role in Savarkar’s Nationalist Vision
For Savarkar, the eradication of **untouchability** was not just a matter of social justice but a crucial element in the larger nationalist struggle against British colonial rule. He viewed untouchability as a major obstacle to Hindu unity, which was essential for building a powerful nationalist movement based on cultural nationalism or **Hindutva**.
Savarkar believed that India’s strength lay in the solidarity of its people, and any social practice that divided them weakened the national cause. Untouchability created deep rifts within Hindu society, marginalizing a significant population and preventing the emergence of a unified national identity. This internal division, he argued, played into the hands of the British, who practiced divide and rule to maintain control.
By associating untouchability with social backwardness and disunity, Savarkar emphasized that overcoming this evil was necessary to mobilize all sections of Hindu society in the freedom struggle. He maintained that Hindu unity could only be achieved if all Hindus, regardless of caste, were treated equally and included in the nationalist project.
Furthermore, Savarkar’s vision of Hindutva required that all individuals who considered India their homeland be integrated into a common cultural and political identity. This meant eliminating social stigmas like untouchability that excluded people from full participation in society and nationalism.
Savarkar’s call for the eradication of untouchability was therefore linked to his broader political objective of creating a strong, cohesive Hindu nation. He saw social reform as an inseparable part of political liberation. Only through social unity, free from caste discrimination, could India resist colonial domination and build a sovereign nation.
In conclusion, Savarkar assigned a strategic and moral role to the abolition of untouchability in the nationalist movement. He urged social reform as a prerequisite for political freedom, stressing that caste-based discrimination must end to realize the dream of a united and independent India.
Shuddhi Movement’s Role in Savarkar’s Caste Reform
The **Shuddhi** movement played a crucial role in Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s approach to caste reform and the eradication of untouchability. Shuddhi, meaning “purification,” was a socio-religious campaign aimed at reconverting individuals who had left the Hindu fold to other religions, especially those marginalized or treated as untouchables within the Hindu society. Savarkar viewed Shuddhi as both a spiritual and political tool necessary for restoring Hindu unity and social cohesion.
Savarkar’s Hindu nationalism was deeply rooted in the concept of **Hindutva**, which emphasized cultural and civilizational unity over narrow religious identity. According to him, the strength of the Hindu nation depended on the integration of all those who considered India their ancestral and holy land, regardless of their social status. Untouchability, which marginalized large sections of the population, was a divisive practice that weakened the social fabric of Hindu society and, by extension, the nationalist movement.
The Shuddhi movement sought to reverse the process of religious conversion that many individuals from lower castes and oppressed communities had undergone, often due to social discrimination and economic exploitation. By facilitating their reconversion to Hinduism, the movement aimed to restore their dignity and social standing within the Hindu community. This, Savarkar believed, would challenge the rigid caste boundaries and undermine the practice of untouchability by reaffirming the inclusiveness of the Hindu fold.
Moreover, Shuddhi was also a political strategy against colonial and missionary influences that were perceived to be dividing Indian society. Religious conversions carried the risk of fragmenting the population, which could be exploited by British colonial rulers through their divide-and-rule policy. By promoting Shuddhi, Savarkar sought to strengthen Hindu solidarity, making the community more resilient to external threats and better positioned to participate in the nationalist struggle.