Veer Savarkar — A Hindu Nationalist

Nowadays, when we talk about Right Wing vs. Left Wing and the Partition of India, we talk about a man who went to England to study law on a full scholarship, gathered some people there, and formed an association with his brother inspired by Giuseppe Mazzini’s “Young Italy.” He was later arrested in London for smuggling arms to India. We are talking about Vinayak Savarkar, who self-coined the term “Veer” for himself in his book — how a fan of Hitler’s Nazism and an atheist devoted his life for the Hindus of the motherland. How a Hindu Nationalist in Ratnagiri actively put his actions into the Two-Nation Theory. Why would anybody ever dare to help assassinate the man whose life was spent in experiments with truth.

1.Mercy Petitions to the British

In a time where armed rebellions were a common practice as a form of protest against British officials for their brutal behaviour, Savarkar used to smuggle weapons and help armed revolutionaries get a shot at the British.

An instance like this happened where he helped a young revolutionary named Anant Laxman with arms and an execution plan. Regarding the murder, police came to Savarkar and intercepted some revolt causing material, including a bomb-making manual, smuggled arms which he got from London, and Plan for various other rebellions.

Finding him guilty for his nationalist actions, he was convicted to 50 years in Cellular Jail (Kaala Paani), where he wrote mercy petitions within 6 months of jail and multiple more later on, in which he begged for mercy and pledged his loyalty to the British. Now, mercy petitions were not a matter of cowardice, but he intended to make allies with the British, also favouring them. He was openly criticised by other revolutionaries for his later soft and comfortable behaviour with the British.

2. No Secularism and Hindu Might

Savarkar used to publish a pamphlet, “Essentials of Hindutva,” which laid the foundation of Hindu Nationalism. Now, were the Muslims of that time included in his nationalism? Not sure, from Savarkar’s perspective. But believing in the theory of Nazism — that blue-eyed Nordic German Aryans were superior — he, despite being an atheist, always believed that Hindutva should be professed and that Hindus should come forward to make the country free.

Where Gandhi and Nehru believed in the idea of secularism, Savarkar completely discredited it. He didn’t believe that the nation could hold its diversity, and proposed that a set of homogeneous people stood a better chance of forming a nation. He believed that minorities could live in the country, but they needed to adopt the Hindu religion and make themselves subordinate to Hindus. By this, he directly or indirectly opposed the idea of special or separate electorates proposed by B.R. Ambedkar.

He was a strong believer in using force to make things work, and hence he could not hold up with Gandhi’s non-violence, famously quoting, “Hinduize all politics and militarize Hindudom.”

3. Divide and Conquer

The British used their famous divide-and-conquer strategy to create unrest among Indians and divide them in terms of caste, religion, language, or any other way possible. This widened the gap created by diversity and made public emotions and harmony diverge. Savarkar believed in that theory completely and built upon it within the Hindu Mahasabha — that Hindus are worthy of a nation for themselves to preach Sanatana Dharma.

He famously came up with the Two-Nation Theory, which everybody thinks Jinnah brought forward, but Savarkar had articulated it years before and it was later carried forward by Jinnah. He preached that there was always a requirement of two nations for two major religious groups. He gave ideology to the people desperately demanding partition. His ideas increased communal tension and the divide between religious groups. Hence, the Hindu Mahasabha and the All-India Muslim League came forward driving the idea of two nations.

4. Nazism and Fascism

Savarkar was a believer in Nazism. Even as the president of the Hindu Mahasabha, he publicly praised Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini for their militarism and aggressively imposing nationalism regarding a certain ethnic group.

He praised Hitler for the act of killing Jews in the masses, who did not fit the idea of homogeneity. As a result, the Holocaust was being supported and fed by him to the common, innocent Hindus in India. He drew a parallel line for Muslims — what Hitler had drawn for Jews — and sent the message to migrate or eradicate them from the place.

His ideology was too dangerous, as it involved fascist actions and ethnic cleansing for the integrity of a sovereign country.

5. Backstabbed Subhas Chandra Bose

Bose partnered with the Axis powers, including Japan and Germany, and drove military action to throw the British out of the country. On the other hand, Congress launched the Quit India Movement, which was criticised by Savarkar. The Hindu Mahasabha, led by Savarkar, officially boycotted the Quit India Movement.

When Mahatma Gandhi launched the Quit India Movement in August 1942, calling for the immediate withdrawal of the British and asking Indians to resign from government jobs, Savarkar issued a direct counter-order to his followers.

He issued a formal directive to the members of the Hindu Mahasabha, titled “Stick to Your Posts.”

Savarkar also wrote directly to the British authorities. He maintained correspondence with the British Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow. In his communications and meetings, Savarkar offered the Hindu Mahasabha’s full cooperation to the British war effort.

The British Viceroy’s own records from 1942 note that Savarkar explicitly stated that the Hindu Mahasabha was fundamentally opposed to the Congress party’s Quit India agitation and that his organisation would do nothing to obstruct the British government.

6. After Independence

When India got its independence, soon after, Gandhi was killed. The murderer was Nathuram Godse, who was a disciple of Savarkar. He had blessed Godse for his actions before this heinous crime took place. When the court trials began, Savarkar was arrested and tried as a co-conspirator, but an accomplice’s testimony is required to find someone guilty, which could not be obtained. On those grounds, he was acquitted. But years later, the government’s Kapur Commission reviewed unreleased intelligence and found that Savarkar and his inner circle were involved in the killing.

7. Dignified Rape of Muslim Women

In his book “Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History,” he criticised the Maratha king Shivaji for respectfully returning the daughter-in-law of a Muslim governor. Savarkar famously adopted the “tit for tat” doctrine. He argued that invading forces routinely used abduction, rape, and enslavement as acts of bondage and subjugation. He believed that treating the enemy’s women with respect would not stop invaders from committing these atrocities.

He said — “What! Should you not outrage the modesty of the enemy-women when the enemy-men outrage the modesty of your women? […] But the enemy who commits such atrocities should be given the same tit for tat; he should be given the same punishment.”

This drew criticism and universal condemnation — not only for breaking Hindu ethics, but also from feminist scholars and human rights advocates — because his words dangerously dehumanise women, treating their bodies as something to be used as a celebration after a battlefield victory.

His ideas were not metaphorically meant to give an eye-for-an-eye treatment to invaders — he seriously tried to defend this perspective as a legitimate war practice.

8. Conclusion

Savarkar always remained a major figure in the country’s independence and its formation as a nation. He stood up for some very important issues and carried out moves that, while radicalising, were significant in shaping the political landscape. But this doesn’t mean he was always correct — he made some grave mistakes, and several of his actions and beliefs were deeply flawed, both morally and ethically. Where he deserves appreciation for his nationalist actions, he equally deserves open criticism for his fascist and stereotypical views.

No historical figure should be accepted or rejected completely. His ideas that hold merit should be appreciated and drawn inspiration from — but his dangerous doctrines must be called out for what they are, without hesitation.