With this proclamation, he virtually sounds the death knell for the centuries-old entrenched caste system that had sapped Indian society of all vitality. As was to be seen in his further writings, as well as his work in Ratnagiri, Vinayak actively campaigned for the collapse of the debilitating caste hierarchies and untouchability. He opined that a Hindu marrying another Hindu might lose his or her caste (which was immaterial for him) but never one’s Hindutva, which went beyond these barriers. A Hindu believing in any theoretical or philosophical or social system, orthodox or heterodox, never loses one’s Hindu-ness or Hindutva. They all have the inheritance of a common blood of the Sapta Sindhus.
He also found a civilizational unity among all Hindus. Vinayak defined ‘civilization’ as the expression of the mind of man and what he had made of the matter available to him. The story of ‘the civilization of a nation is the story of its thoughts, its actions, and its achievements. Literature and art tell us of its thoughts; history and social institutions of its actions and achievements.’ 45 The commonality of our shared history and inherited works of art and architecture binds us all as a nation, he postulated. Despite several regional differences in detail, some broad common features of rites, festivals, feasts, and rituals across the country indicate the oneness of this race. Everyone who is a ‘Hindu’ inherits these treasures that have come down from their forefathers. Extolling Sanskrit as the language from which all other present languages have sprung, he stated:
Our Gods spoke in Sanskrit; our sages thought in Sanskrit, our poets wrote in Sanskrit. All that is best in us—the best thoughts, the best ideas, the best lines—seeks instinctively to clothe itself in Sanskrit. To millions it is still the language of their Gods; to others it is the language of their ancestors; to all it is the language par excellence; a common inheritance, a common treasure that enriches all the family of our sister languages. 46
The umbrella of ‘Hindu’ religions—Sanatanis, Arya Samajis, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs—was a clever and carefully constructed social coalition of like-minded faiths that originated in the Indian subcontinent. In this hypothesis of Hindu-ness, where did the Muslim (or the Christian) stand? In a section titled ‘Foreign Invaders’, Vinayak traces the advent of the several hordes of Islamic invaders who ravaged the country and termed this as a civilizational clash. He lamented that the ‘pressure of a common foe’, and the unity that hatred towards a common object can bring, was never utilized by Sindhustan to forge herself ‘into an indivisible whole as on that dire day, when the great iconoclast crossed the Indus’. 47
He bemoaned how the conquest continued for centuries thereafter. ‘Arabia ceased to be what Arabia was,’ Vinayak explains. ‘Iran, annihilated, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Baluchistan, Tartary—from Granada to Gazni—nations and civilizations fell in heaps before the sword of Islam of Peace!’ He adds that India had to face a multitude of marauders, from the Arabs, Persians, Pathans, Baluchis, Tartars, Turks and Mughals. Vinayak makes a distinction between a ‘moral nationalist Indian’ and a ‘non-nationalist Indian’. Akbar, Dara Shikoh and Maulvi Ahmed Shah (as depicted in his book on the uprising of 1857) belonged to the former category, while Aurangzeb to the latter.
The distillation of Vinayak’s arguments culminates in a wondrous self-composed Sanskrit couplet that he and subsequent followers of his political ideology have used as a determinant of Hindu identity:
Aasindhu Sindhu paryanta yasya Bharata bhumika
Pitribhu punyabhushchaiva sa vai Hinduriti Smritah.
One who considers this vast stretch of land called Bharat
From the Sindhu to the Sindhu (Indus to the Seas)
as his fatherland (or land of one’s ancestors) and holy land
is the one who will be termed and remembered as a Hindu.
In this definition, there is an implicit challenge to the prevalent Gandhian philosophy of sacrosanct issues such as the Khilafat, going beyond the sacral geography of India by precisely defining its contours—from the Indus to the seas.
The social coalition of Hindu religions naturally fulfilled all the criteria postulated by Vinayak. Vinayak’s hypothesis of identification for a Hindu was someone who looked upon this land of his forefathers as his holy land; someone who inherited the blood of the race of the Sapta Sindhus; and one who expressed a common affinity to the classical language, Sanskrit, someone who shared common history, culture, art, laws, jurisprudence, rites, rituals, ceremonies, sacraments and festivals. Common nation (rashtra), common race (jati) and common culture (sanskriti) were the definitive markers of Hindutva. But the construct was a secular paradigm as it distanced itself from religions, including Hinduism. He imagined the Indian nation as a spatial unity that linked distinct communities, regions and territories under the broad rubric of Hindu identity. Within that space of the primordial Hindu nation, the state must defend the integrity and sovereignty of the sacred motherland (Bharat Mata) from all foreign encroachment.
Vinayak argued that in an idealistic world, the first parameter—geography—should suffice to identify a ‘Hindu’ as a resident of India. This might well become the case in the future, he states, when ‘all cultural and religious bigotry has disbanded . . . and religions cease to be “isms” and become merely the common fund of eternal principles that lie at the root of all that are a common foundation on which the Human State majestically and firmly rests’. 48 Hence, the additional parameters of a bond of common blood and obeisance to a common civilizational heritage and culture become necessary in his definition. The nation, for Vinayak, was equivalent to civilization.
With this definition, Vinayak opined that his Muslim and Christian compatriots, whose ancestors were originally Hindu and had been forcibly converted, have inherited with the Hindus the common fatherland. This country is the land of their ancestors too and hence their pitrubhumi (land of forefathers) 49 as well, that none can deny them. They have also inherited the common language, culture, law, customs, folklore and history. However, according to Vinayak, the bone of contention was whether Hindustan was their holy land as well. The Khilafat and the transnational allegiance must have weighed heavily on Vinayak’s mind while making such a deduction, but he does it nonetheless in a dispassionate manner:
For though Hindusthan to them is Fatherland as to any other Hindu, yet it is not to them a Holy land too. Their holy land is far off in Arabia or Palestine. Their mythology and Godmen, ideas and heroes are not the children of this soil. Consequently their names and their outlook smacks of a foreign origin. Their love is divided. Nay, if some of them be really believing what they profess to do, then there can be no choice—they must, to a man, set their Holy land above their father land [sic] in their love and allegiance. That is but natural. We are not condemning nor are we lamenting. We are simply telling the facts as they stand. 50
But did this definition preclude the Muslims and Christians from being a part of the ‘Hindutva’ fold? Here, Vinayak seems to contradict his own hypothesis by saying anyone can make it a ‘matter of choice’ to love ‘Hindu’ culture and the land and thereby qualify to be a part of the fold.
Are you a monist—a monotheist—a pantheist—an atheist—an agnostic? Here is ample room, oh soul! Whatever thou art, to love and grow to thy fullest height and satisfaction in this temple of Temples . . . Ye, who by race, by blood, by culture, by nationality possess almost all the essentials of Hindutva . . . ye have only to render whole hearted [sic] love to our common Mother and recognize her not only as Pitribhu but even as a Punyabhu and ye would be most welcome to the Hindu-fold. This is a choice, which our countrymen and our old kith and kin, the Bohras, Khojas, Mamons, and other Mohamedan and Christian communities are free to make—a choice again which must be a choice of love. 51
Nationalism was simplified to a choice to love and express that love, monogamously, towards one’s country. This was the highest form of love against which all other variations between humans appeared to pale. He writes about people like Sister Nivedita and Annie Besant, both
Christians, who were committed to the cause of India and her nationalism. Sister Nivedita was born Margaret Elizabeth Noble and was an Irish teacher, author and social activist who later became an ardent disciple of Swami Vivekananda. She worked tirelessly in the Ramakrishna Mission on issues related to female education and emancipation. Annie Besant was a British socialist, theosophist, women’s rights activist and a staunch supporter of both Irish and Indian self-rule. How were we to classify people like these who had given everything to the cause of this country and its people? He writes about Sister Nivedita:
Our patriotic and noble-minded sister had adopted our land from Sindu to the seas as her Fatherland. She truly loved it as such, and had our nation been free, we would have been the first to bestow the right of citizenship on such loving souls. So the first essential may, to some extent, be said to hold good in her case. The second essential of common blood of Hindu parentage must, nevertheless and necessarily, be absent in such cases as these. The sacrament of marriage with a Hindu, which really fuses and is universally admitted to do so, two beings into one, may be said to remove this disqualification. But although this second essential failed, either way to hold good in her case, the third important qualification of Hindutva did entitle her to be recognized as a Hindu. For, she had adopted our culture and come to adore our land as her Holyland [sic]. She felt, she was a Hindu and that is, apart from all technicalities, the real and the most important test. But we must not forget that we have to determine the essentials of Hindutva in the sense in which the word is actually used by an overwhelming majority of people. And therefore we must say that any convert of non-Hindu parentage to Hindutva can be a Hindu, if bona fide, he or she adopts our land as his or her country and marries a Hindu, thus coming to love our land as a real Fatherland, and adopts our culture and thus adores our land as the Punyabhu . The children of such a union as that would, other things being equal, be most emphatically Hindus. 52
Vinayak’s seminal work had several consequences in the socio-political life of the country after 1923. One of them was the birth of the organization known as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) that adopted Hindutva as its ideology and raison d’être.
Meanwhile, after his release from prison, Babarao had, despite his failing health, decided to take an active part in the Hindu Mahasabha, the pan-India body that was established in 1915 to represent and safeguard Hindu interests. 53 He formed a separate group, Tarun Hindu Sabha, to enlist the support of young Hindus and consolidate them politically. Over the next four to five years, he travelled extensively to establish twenty-five to thirty branches with some 500 youth under its banner. Like Abhinav Bharat, members of the Tarun Hindu Sabha were involved in physical exercise and gymnastics, in addition to shuddhi ceremonies and attempts towards abolition of the caste system.
Towards the end of 1924, Babarao arrived in Nagpur to generate support for the Sabha. He stayed with Vishwanathrao Kelkar, his friend and distant relative. Through Kelkar, he was introduced to a young, spirited medical doctor, Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, who, as a student, had been a member of the revolutionary Anushilan Samiti in Calcutta’s National Medical College. Instead of pursuing medical practice, Hedgewar had thrown himself into the nation’s cause. In 1919, he started an organization of youngsters known as National Union and later worked with the Hindu Mahasabha.
Over several hours of discussions with Babarao, they decided that there was no point having multiple organizations serving the same cause of Hindu unity. Hedgewar was fired with the imagination of having a united, well-oiled pan-Indian volunteer organization for and of Hindus. Along with Babarao and other Hindu leaders such as Dr B.S. Moonje, Dr L.V. Paranjpe and Dr B.B. Tholkar, Hedgewar started the RSS on 27 September 1925, on the auspicious day of Vijayadashami. 54 A shakha, or branch, of Hindu teenagers and youngsters congregated in the ruins of Salubai Mohite Wada in Nagpur’s Mahal area. Babarao was present on this momentous occasion, among the founding members of the RSS. It is said that Hedgewar asked Babarao to design the bhagwa (saffron flag) and the pledge of the fledgling organization. The pledge had the words Hindu Rashtra, or Hindu Nation, which was possibly the first time it had been used in Indian polity. Even though Vinayak was sympathetic to their cause, he had differences of opinion in the politics and world view of the RSS.
Janaki Bakhle sums up the timing and the significance of Hindutva :
Hindutva was a political argument made in a poetic register. It was an argument with and against an unnamed Gandhi at an opportune moment when he seemed finished with politics. Hindutva was also a political cry from behind prison walls, reminding the larger world outside that even if Gandhi was no longer on the political scene, Savarkar was back. He was still a leader, a politician capable of pulling together a nationalist community. But unlike Gandhi, he was offering a sense of Hindu-ness that could be the basis for a more genuine and, in the end, more effective nationalism than that of the Mahatma. The startling change for its time was Savarkar’s assertion that it was not religion that made Hindus Hindu. If Gandhi had officiated at the marriage of religion and politics, and Khilafat leaders were using the symbols of religion to forge a community, Savarkar argued that name and place were what bound the Hindu community, not religion . . . The fundamental (negative) contribution of Hindutva was to install a new term for nationalist discourse, one that was both modern and secular, if open to a secular understanding of religious identity. In place of religion qua religion, he secularized a plethora of Hindu religious leaders. In so doing, he did not create a sterilely secular nationalism. He did quite the opposite. He enchanted a secular nationalism by placing a mythic community into a magical land . 55
12
The Interpretation of Thoughts
A fter completing his book on Hindutva, over the next twelve to thirteen years, Vinayak wrote prolifically on a wide range of topics—from his views on the caste system and its eradication, social evils, cow protection and international affairs to his conception of God and a need for mechanization and a capitalist economy for India. All these writings—articles, essays and booklets—shaped his political philosophy and social outlook, creating the foundation on which his future politics would be fought. A fraction of these writings is presented here, some in first person and others paraphrased.
On the Caste System
Despite being born in an orthodox and religious Chitpawan Brahmin community, Vinayak despised the caste system right from childhood. This has been illustrated in the kinships he developed with children from various castes and strata of society, and how he dined at their homes. At a time when most members of his community forbade sea travel for fear of a loss of caste, Vinayak was among the few Brahmins who travelled to London for his education. He had no qualms about going non-vegetarian as well, unlike most Brahmins of the time. As his political thoughts matured during his long years of incarceration, he penned essays on the abhorrent practice of the caste system and untouchability and how these sapped the nation of all vitality. Advocating a strong case for their total, complete and unconditional eradication at a time when these ideas were not yet a part of the political discourse popularized by either Gandhi or Ambedkar, he was the first to envision a casteless India.
The Seven Shackles of Hindu Society: 1
The origin of the chaturvarna system of four varnas (classes) that then solidified themselves into the castes is utterly meaningless in contemporary society. In what is construed as a ‘low caste’—the Mahars—we have had such illustrious saints as Chokha Mela and such brilliant thinkers such as Dr Ambedkar, whose piety and intellect far surpasses many a Brahmin’s. In north India, several Brahmins have been involved for generation after generation in the profession of agriculture and have remained by and large illiterate. This goes against the grain of the caste that they belong to, and are identified as the intellectual elite. Similarly, Brahmins have been taking on the roles of goldsmiths, tailors, cobblers and so on, while individuals belonging to those (non-Brahmin) communities have taken to edu
cation and cleared prestigious examinations such as the ICS or MA. The Rajputs despise the Jats so much that if the latter get on to their horses, they are usually beaten up and then ostracized. But when the same Jat becomes a Sikh, he is counted as the first among Kshatriyas. In many places in the country, Kayasthas are condemned as Shudras, but from among the community such brilliant minds like Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Bipin Chandra Pal, Subhas Bose and others have emerged, who have clearly surpassed the intellect, vigour and vitality of any Bengali Brahmin.
Superiority on the basis of one’s work is hardly a factor in society today due to the aforementioned professional intermingling. Hence, the very edifice from which the caste system drew its strength has weakened and it remains both an unnecessary and harmful vestige of society. These examples prove that the oft-held belief that heredity was a determinant of talent and intellect is false, and an individual’s environment is what shapes his character and conduct. The claim to glory on the mere basis of one’s birth, and not worth, is an utterly erroneous and futile one—a national foolishness so to say. Fossilizing oneself to scriptural injunctions to the contrary is another idiocy. These scriptures, often self-contradicting, were created by human beings and were relevant in a particular context and in a particular society. With all due respect to them, they need to be discarded as and when society evolves, and new rules and laws that are relevant to contemporary times need to be codified. That is the only sign of a society that is vibrant, and not stagnant and dead. These scriptures, however, are important historical signposts of the times in which they were composed, and they made the Indian society of that time what it was. So, they deserve all our respect as important archival documents of our civilization’s evolution. Thus, I reverentially bow my head to the vast, Himalayan corpus of Sanskrit literature of the Shrutis , Smritis , Puranas, Itihasas as they have shaped our Hindu mind over centuries. But I will not allow them to become fetters in my feet and retard my progress towards modernity, but instead draw inspiration from them to move ahead on modern, scientific terms.
Savarkar Page 56
