Wolf On Savarkar

Heidelberg Papers
in South Asian
and Comparative Politics
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s

‘Strategic Agnosticism’:
A Compilation of his Socio-Political Philosophy
and Worldview
by
Siegfried O. Wolf
Working Paper No. 51

January 2010
South Asia Institute
Department of Political Science
Heidelberg University
HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
ISSN: 1617-5069
About HPSACP
This occasional paper series is run by the Department of Political Science of the
South Asia Institute at the University of Heidelberg. The main objective of the
series is to publicise ongoing research on South Asian politics in the form of
research papers, made accessible to the international community, policy makers
and the general public. HPSACP is published only on the Internet. The papers are
available in the electronic pdf-format and are designed to be downloaded at no cost
to the user.
The series draws on the research projects being conducted at the South Asia
Institute in Heidelberg, senior seminars by visiting scholars and the world-wide
network of South Asia scholarship. The opinions expressed in the series are those
of the authors, and do not represent the views of the University of Heidelberg or
the Editorial Staff.
Potential authors should consult the style sheet and list of already published papers
at the end of this article before making a submission.
Editor Subrata K. Mitra
Deputy Editors Clemens Spiess

Malte Pehl
Jivanta Schöttli
Siegfried O. Wolf
Anja Kluge
Managing Editor Florian Britsch
Editorial Assistant Sergio Mukherjee
Editorial Advisory Board Mohammed Badrul Alam

Barnita Bagchi
Dan Banik
Harihar Bhattacharyya
Mike Enskat
Alexander Fischer
Karsten Frey
Partha S. Ghosh
Julia Hegewald
Karl-Heinz Krämer
Apurba Kundu
Peter Lehr
Christian Wagner
Wolfgang-Peter Zingel
Siegfried O. Wolf
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s ‘Strategic

Agnosticism’:
A Compilation of his Socio-Political Philosophy
and Worldview
Siegfried O. Wolf1
Keywords: India, Savarkar, Hindu-Nationalism, Identity, Hindutva.
ABSTRACT:
Since India’s independence (and even before) there is a growing ideological

debate regarding its identity and self-understanding. The focal point of this
discussion is the much-disputed and multi-faceted Indian historical figure
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1985-1966). His life and work, and above all his
literary compositions, point to numerous paradoxes and controversial
phenomena, which divides the discussants basically into two essential camps. On
the one side are those who see Savarkar and his socio-political vision (Hindutva)
that he proclaimed as the greatest danger to the foundation of the modern, secular
state, democracy, and multiculturalism. With this background, Savarkar is used as
the synonym for an “anti-modern” regression, and as the ideological founder of a
phenomenon that has usually been referred to as “Hindu nationalism” or “Hindu
fundamentalism”. This side is opposed by a second camp consisting of people
who tend to see Savarkar and his perceptions of state theory as a legitimate and
ambitious form of democratic self-determination. However, all these controversies
about Savarkar do not take into account the philosophical tenets underlying his
social and political thoughts. Both Indian as well as Western scholars have
focused only on some particular fragments of his thoughts without spending the
time and effort to understand his various theoretical concepts in a complex and
coherent framework. Therefore, this article aims to explore the philosophical
foundation of his notions and actions, and suggests crucial variables for further
scientific analysis.
INTRODUCTION
This article seeks to critically examine some elements of the ideas, ideals, and
principles behind the philosophy of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1985-1966) and
1
The author is Lecturer in the Department of Political Science, South Asia Institute (SAI)
and research fellow at the Institute for Political Science, both Heidelberg University
(Germany). The author would like to acknowledge the logistic and financial support of the
Centre de Sciences Humaines (CSH), Cultural Section of the French Embassy in India,
New Delhi. The author thanks Subrata K. Mitra, Paul Chambers, and Jivanta Schöttli for
their comments. He can be contacted at [email protected]
HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

http://hpsacp.uni-hd.de/
Working Paper No. 51, January 2010 1
Siegfried O. Wolf
his attempts to move towards the constitution of a coherent worldview. Savarkar is

one of the most controversial and multi-faceted of India’s personas, whose life and
literary contribution present various paradoxical phenomena. He became the object
of attention and the centre of academic as well as public controversy in past and
contemporary India because of his militant activism and nationalism during the
struggle for Independence. Yet controversies about Savarkar, mostly polemical in
tone do not take into account the philosophical tenets underlying his social and
political thoughts. Both Indian as well as Western scholars2 have focussed only on
some particular fragments of his thoughts and action without spending the time and
effort to understand his various theoretical concepts in a complex but coherent
framework. Yet the most outstanding attempts at studying Savarkar have been
those by Jyotirmaya Sharma (2003), Harindra Srivastava (1993a, 1993b, 1983),
T.C. Phadtare (1975), Suresh Sharma Suresh (1996) and V.S. Godbole (2004). The
core value of Godbole’s work lies within the substantial compilation of newspaper
articles and further collections of writing and the rudimentary thematic
categorization as well as translating the compilation in to English. Srivastava’s
(1983) contribution, although containing a glorifying connotation and being limited
to the university years in London, is still one of the most profound and detailed
works on Savarkar and should be considered in all studies focusing on him. The
same is true for the extremely insightful and thoughtful discourse from Jyotirmaya
Sharma on Savarkar within his work on Hindutva as mentioned above. Although
the author does not agree with Sharma’s fundamental idea of evolution deriving
from the Hindutva concept alongside further core statements, his work still remains
convincing and genuine due to his underlying investigative work as well as his
attempt to meet the requirements of the vast amount of Savarkar’s documents
attempting to evaluate, even if sharply worded, a worthy conclusion.
The author believes that it is not possible to evaluate Savarkar’s contribution

to the solutions of social and political problems that India faced, and still faces,
without an appropriate analysis of his philosophical tenets and worldview.
Savarkar’s social and political thought, in particular on the issue of social reforms,
need to be examined and formulated as a philosophy of the basic transformation of
India’s social structure. To achieve this is, at first sight, a difficult challenge
primarily because Savarkar did not offer a ‘coherent overview’ on his
philosophical principles3. He never wrote extensively on philosophical issues and
2
These authors include V. Krishna Aiyar (1989), Mani Shankar Aiyar (2004, 1999), Asaf
Ali 1989, Vidya Sagar Anand (1989, 1967), Nitya Narayan Banerjee (1989a, 1989b),
Sudhakar V. Bhalerao (1999), Saba N. Bhaumik/Smruti Koppikar (2004),
Chitragupta/Indra Prakash (1939), S.R. Date (1989), Balasaheb Deoras (1989a, 1989b),
Sudhakar Deshpande (2000, 1999), Enriko Fasana (1997), Gangadhar Gadgil (1989), M.V.
Ganapati (1989), P.L. Gawade (1989), Radhika Mohan Goswami (1989), S.T. Godbole
(1989), Saligram (2005), G.S. Hiranyappa (1989), Muzzafar Hussain (1989), Christophe
Jaffrelot (1999), Singh K. Jagjit (1989), M.N. Javaraiah (2005), J.D. Jodlekar (1995, 1994,
1989a, 1989b, 1989c), D.B. Joshi (1992), M.V. Kamath (1989), Dhananjay Keer (1988,
1950), B.K. Kelkar (1989a, 1989b), G.V. Kelkar (1958), Ashis Nandy (2008), S.N.
Navalgundkar (1989), A.G. Noraani (2003), V. S. Patwardhan (1989), John Prince (2007),
T.C.A. Raghavan (1983), V.R. Rao (1989a, 1989b), H.V. Seshadri (1989), Sita Ram
Sharma (2007), Shivramu (1989), Jagjit K. Singh (1989), und N.R. Waradpande (1989)
3
B.K. Kelkar in his thoughtful article points out: “As Savarkar was basically an active
thinker and reformer he did not write down his philosophy in book form for simple
intellectual pleasure. But his life is so full of diversity and events and his desire for self-
projection so strong that in whatever he wrote – whether play, poem or autobiography – we
find Savarkar himself stating his philosophy of life. In all his literature we find scattered
nuggets of his philosophy, but no student of his thought has yet made a determined effort to
bring them together into a concrete shape” (Kelkar 1989:53f).

Siegfried O. Wolf
his thoughts in this direction remained unorganised. An outline of his fragmented

philosophy has to be extracted out of his various works4, which can be subsumed
under three broader categories (see table 1).
Table 1: Three categories of Savarkars writings
Category 1: Non-(party-)  Inside the Enemy Camp („Autobiography“

Political Savarkars)
Literature  The Story of my Transportation for Life (1950)
 An Echo from the Andamans
 Poetry: Gomantak, Mazi Janmathep, Kalepani,
O’Martyrs,
Farewell; On my bed facing death[death bed];
My Will; First Offering u.a.)
 Plays: (Ushap, Sanyasta Khadga, Uttarkriya, u.a.)
Category 2: Historical  Hindu-Pad-Padashahi
Studies  Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History
 Indian War of Independence 1857
 (History of the Sikhs - verloren)*
 (History of the Nepalese Nationalist Movement –
verloren) *
Further writings:
 Translation of Mazzini’s Autobiograhie into
Marathi
Category 3: Political  Hindutva – Who is a Hindu (Essential of
Statements Hindutva)
 Hindu-Rashtravad
 Whirlwind-Propaganda
 Historic Statements (Prophetic Warning)
 Hindu-Rashtra Darshan
* Comment: even if the literary works “History of the Sikhs” and “History of the Nepalese National
Movement” have been lost, the main crucial arguments provided can be found in other
books/documents. The mere fact that these historical discourses have been put into words is reason
enough for mentioning them with regard to their contribution fostering an understanding of his
mindset and methods as well as the motives behind his actions. Furthermore, this should be an
attempt to create a broadly complete picture/imagery of Savarkar’s authorial or historical work.
4
The article uses mainly the followings writings by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar:
SAVARKAR, S.S. and G. M. JOSHI. eds. 1992. Historic statements (Prophetic Warnings).
Statements, Telegrams & Letters. 1941 to 1965 by Veer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Veer
Savarkar Prakashan: Bombay; SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1999. Hindutva. Who is a
Hindu? Seventh Edition. Swatantryaveer Savarkar Rashtriya Smarak: Mumbai (Bombay);
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1993. ‘Abhinava Hindu Dhwaja’ and ‘An Echo from
Andamans. Letters Written by V.D. Savarkar to his Brother Dr. Savarkar’, in GROVER,
Verinder. 1993. V.D. Savarkar. Political Thinkers of Modern India. Volume 14. Deep &
Deep: Publications: New Delhi, pp. 185-190; SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1971.
Hindu-Pad-Padashahi or a Review of the Hindu Empire of Maharashtra. New Delhi:
Bharti Sahitya Sadan; SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1971. Six Glorious Epochs of
Indian History. Bal Savarkar: Bombay (Mumbai); SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1950.
The story of my transportation for life. A Biography of Black days of Andamans. First
Impression. Sadbhakti Publications: Bombay (Mumbai); SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar.
1940. Hindu Sanghatan: Its ideology and immediate programme. Hindu Mahasabha:
Bombay; SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1963-65. Samagra Savarkar Vangamaya.
(Entire Works of Savarkar), Volumes 1 – 8. Edited by Manarao Daate, published by
Maharashtra Hindu Maha Sabha 1963-65; SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar and Satya
PARKASH. 1945. Hindu Rashtravad. Ideology and Immediate Programme. Rohtas
Printing Press: Rohtak.

Siegfried O. Wolf
Whilst drawing deeply from biographical details, the aim of the analysis here is not
to flesh out Savarkar’s persona, to bring him back to life either by eulogising or
deconstructing him on the basis of subjective emotional matters. Rather, the goal is
to explore the philosophical foundation of his thoughts and actions, to suggest
crucial variables for a scientific analysis and to identify his position on the
transformation of Indian society. Such an exercise pieces together a complex
picture which should help provide a matrix of measurement for Savarkar’s
philosophical worldview and its influence on his life and work.
THREE PREMISES
The article tries to analyse how far Savarkar’s social and political philosophy is
based on a rational, utilitarian and pragmatic outlook, which leads him to postulate
his opinion to pragmatic programs in all facets of live. Tackling this question, the
article argues that the whole structure of Savarkar’s thoughts is bounded within a
narrow framework of agnosticism. Consequently, each study of his philosophy
must recognize these three main premises:
(1) The supremacy of Western political and social thought in Savarkar’s

philosophy and worldview:
Savarkar derived his ‘philosophy’ from various sources, both Indian and foreign.
According to J. Sharma (2003:125), Savarkar had little time for all the different
schools of Hinduism and was deeply suspicious of philosophical tenets founded on
‘holy scriptures’. For him, the ‘Nature of the Self’ was something that was ‘known
to itself immutably and without a name or even a form’5. As a result, the ‘classical
Indian thought’ or so-called ‘brahmanical thinking’ is not the key to a proper
understanding of Savarkar’s social and political philosophy. This leads to the
significant premise that for an analysis of Savarkar it is indispensable to study
Western socio-political and philosophical thought. Savarkar received inspiration,
guidance and practical advice, according to his own predilections mainly from the
writings and activities of political and social thinkers in Europe. Books written by
humanists and liberal authors of the West, carrying messages of rationalism in
religion, liberty in thought and equality in fundamental rights, impressed Savarkar
extremely. Savarkar recognised clearly the significance of European culture which
aimed at human progress. He was one of the first amongst Indian thinkers to accept
as a whole the principles underlying the new ideas that flowed from European
countries. The ‘new attitude’ from the West, presenting a novel social, political and
5
On this point the author has to qualify J. Sharma’s conclusion: It is possible to state that
Savarkar’s attention in terms of his philosophical interests was mainly focused on Western
writings, but this does not mean, that he had not studied carefully the ‘traditional ancient
scriptures’ of Hinduism. During his time on the Andamans, he pored over ‘all Upanishads,
the Rig Veda, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, the Brahma Sutras, the Sankhya texts,
the Karikas of Ishwar Chandra, the Yoga Sutras in translation and along with their
originals’ (Savarkar 1950:271). Another example of his interest and affection for ‘classical
Indian thought’ is given in the following words by Savarkar: ‘I had studied the ten principal
Upanishads, finishing each of them in one month, and taking one whole year to complete
them. I used to read them and ponder every night with deep thought and meditation. All of
a sudden I fell upon the Yoga Vashista, and I found it of such absorbing interest that I have
come to regard it ever since as the best work on the Vedanta Philosophy. The propositions
were so logical, the verse is so beautiful, and the exposition is so thorough and penetrating
that the soul loses itself in raptures over it. Such a fine combination of philosophy and
poetry is a gift reserved only Sanskrit poets’ (Savarkar 1950:272).

Siegfried O. Wolf
scientific outlook and culture, caught his attention and captured his imagination.
He was deeply influenced by the philosophy and ideas of Political Economy (1848)
by James Mill and J. Stuart Mill and studied both in detail. Their notions of
liberalism, individual freedom, and ideas on democracy had a deep impact on
Savarkar’s mind. He also imbibed Herbert Spencer’s6 ‘sociological thinking
especially his proposed philosophy of evolution in which all phenomena of every
kind were subject to the ‘law of evolution’ (J. Sharma 2003:136). From Herbert
Spencer and Charles Darwin he adopted the controversial idea of the ‘survival of
the fittest’7, which is without doubt the underlying theorem of Savarkar’s ‘Panch
Sheela’8 towards the social and political transformation of the Indian society.
Furthermore, he strengthened his philosophical outlook by studying the works of
Jeremy Bentham. Savarkar wrote, ‘From then on I began to acknowledge this
principle of morality as the touchstone of all my pursuits, of my ethical standards,
and of my behaviour’9. In addition, it is possible to find remarkable elements of
Auguste Comte in his social thoughts, for example the importance given to the
service of humanity as the best of human ends (Lederle 1976:138). Furthermore,
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Francois Marie Arouet (Voltaire) made him ponder on
the French revolution. He was deeply impressed by their thoughts and ideas. From
all these European authors he studied the basic principles of social life, interpreted
them through Indian eyes, and used them to propose the best approach towards the
social and political problems of his countrymen10.
6
Spencer was greatly admired by Shayamji Krishna Varma, who studied sociology under
him. Varma was a disciple of Swami Sayanand Saraswati and an early mentor of Savarkar.
After Spencer died he found a ‘Herbert Spencer Lectureship’ at Oxford University and
various travelling fellowships for his countrymen (Herbert Spencer Indian Fellowships).
See for more information Srivastava 1983:6ff.
7
The question of who coined this ‘infamous expression’ is out of the range of this article.
Despite the fact that Savarkar did not explicit mentioned the philosophy of ‘survival of the
fittest’, there are various evidences that he assimilated the ‘theory of natural selection
where weak societies give way to strong ones’, for example as he defined the future role of
an independent Indian state: Only a homogenous society can build an integrated Bharat.
And only such a Bharat can triumph in the global contest for power. A pledge to become a
super-power was the only way to keep this gigantic country together and dynamic’
(Savarkar quoted in B.K. Kelkar 1989:59).
8
Kelkar stated that Savarkar’s theoretical constructs of social as well as political renewal
are based on five guiding Principles (Panch Sheela): (1) Hinduization of politics; (2)
Militarization of Hindu-dom; (3) Adoption of an constructive and regulated attitude
particularly through a resolved application of the ballot (‘one man, one vote’); (4)
Practising patriotism; and (5) establishment of a casteless society.
9
V.D. Savarkar, ‚Majhya Athvani’, in Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya, Vol. 1, p. 206
translated and quoted in Lederle 1976:280.
10
Revealing his admiration for Western writings on political, sociological as well as
historical issues was his compilation of books for the ‘prison-library’ of the Silver Jail on
the Andamans: ‘The principal and the largest section in our library, of course, consisted of
English books. Herbert Spencer’s volumes on Synthetic Philosophy, including his ‘First
Principles’, and Sociology and Ethics; all the works of John Stuart Mill; of Darwin, Huxley
and Tyndals, and Haeckel; the writings of Carlyle and Emerson; of historians like
Macaulay and Gibbon; of poets like Shakespeare, Milton and Pope, constituted its main
feature. We had in it Abbot’s Life of Napoleon, the Life of Prince Bismarck, of Garibaldi
and Mazzini, with Mazzini’s complete works. The library contained historical works
bearing on England, Italy, America and India. We had novels ranging from Charles
Dickens to Count Leo Tolstoy; and we had works of Kropatkin. The library had English
writings of Vivekananda and Ramtirtha; works of the German Historian Trietske and of the
German Philosopher Nietzsche. Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Politics and Bluntchili’s
Theory of the State as well as Rousseau’s Social Contract, found their place on its shelves’
(Savarkar 1950:269f). All these books were compiled by Savarkar and apparently not one

Siegfried O. Wolf
(2) The ‘clash’ of two different worldviews:
Savarkar’s thought and worldview (Weltansicht) reflects his own interpretation of a

‘classical philosophical conflict’ between two phenomena which could be
described with reference to Albert Schweizer as world and life Negation (Welt-
und Lebensverneinung) and world and life affirmation (Welt- und
Lebensbejahung)11. According to Schweizer ‘the battle for world and life
affirmation and world and life negation must be constantly fought and won afresh’
(Schweizer 1935:3). This is a battle which has influenced the Western as well as
Indian philosophical worldview and religious thought.
Savarkar devoted himself to exploring all religions. He had a wide knowledge

of the religious and philosophical trends of the world. It is impossible to explain in
detail the evolution of Indian and Western thought in this article, but according to
Savarkar’s worldview, two leading streams of thoughts are outlined, the world and
life negation and the world and life affirmation. Secondly the aim is to identify
Savarkar’s position between these two philosophical benchmarks. First of all, it is
possible to state that, in comparison with the Western development, there is a
tendency in Indian thought towards a world and life negation. But with reference to
Schweizer this does not means that Indian thought is completely governed by a
world and life negation and the Western notion of world and life affirmation. In
both of these, there are elements of these philosophical streams existing side by
side. But in Indian thought the ‘tendency to negation’ is the predominant principle
and in Western thought, the ‘tendency of affirmation’ (Schweizer 1935:3).
Savarkar’s rationalistic mind adopted a critical attitude towards the elements

of world and life negation within Indian Thought. The suspicion in Savarkar’s
thought emerged in response to the contradiction between these two allegedly
antagonistic notions of worldviews which attempt to answer the question, what is
the purpose and what are the aims of human existence? On the one hand there is
the above mentioned tendency towards a world and life affirmation, which argues
‘that man regards existence as he experiences it in himself and as it has developed
in the world as something of value per se and accordingly strives to let it reach
perfection in himself, whilst within his own sphere of influence he endeavours to
preserve and to further it’ (Schweizer 1935:1). On the other hand, there is the
tendency of world and life negation, which consists of his regarding existence as
he experiences it in himself meaningless and sorrowful, and he resolves
accordingly (a) to grind life to a standstill in himself by mortifying his will-to-live,
and (b) to renounce all activity which aims at improvement of the conditions of life
in this world’ (Schweizer 1935:1f). In addition, a ‘world and life affirmation
unceasingly urges men to serve their fellows, society, the nation, mankind, and
indeed all that lives, with their utmost will and in lively hope of realisable
progress’; whilst a ‘world and life negation takes no interest in the world, but
regards man’s life on earth either merely as a stage-play in which it is his duty to
of them was unread by him: ‘I read all these books carefully. Not a single book in that
library I had left unread. Some of them I read over again, and I made my companions study
works on politics, political history and economics with particular attention’ (Savarkar
1950:270).
11
The reader must accustom himself to these and similar forms of expression which more
accurately represent the original than various words or paraphrases which might be chosen
to suit the context. For example worldview (Weltansicht); ‘World and Life Negation’
(Welt- und Lebensverneinung); or ‘World and Life affirmation (Welt- und
Lebensbejahung).

Siegfried O. Wolf
participate, or only as a puzzling pilgrimage through the land of Time to his home
in Eternity’ (Schweizer 1935:2).
From Savarkar’s point of view, the ‘classical Indian thought’ or ‘Brahmanical

thinking’ was under a strong influence of world and life negation. Guided by his
‘personal directive that emphasized the need of action’, he sensed a ‘threat’ to
social reforms in this kind of worldview that encouraged no efforts ‘to move
energetically for the improvement of social conditions, the bringing about of a
better future for humanity, and a progress for the Indian nation’. The world and life
negation stream seemed not only impracticable and but also incompatible with his
desire for activism. This underlying Antagonismus in Savarkar’s view on the uses
and aims of human beings is best expressed in Schweitzer words ‘He who
sacrifices his life to achieve any purpose for an individual or for humanity practises
life affirmation. He is taking an interest in the things of this world and by offering
his own life, wants to bring about in the world something which he regards as
necessary. The sacrifice of life for a purpose is not life negation, but the
profoundest form of life affirmation placing itself at the service of world
affirmation. World and life negation is only present when man takes no interest
whatever in any realisable purpose nor in the improvement of conditions in this
world’ (Schweizer 1935:6f).
To the European-educated Savarkar, through his experiences with Vedanta

philosophy the emphasis given to achieving an ecstatic state of consciousness as
the imperative condition for the Indian world and life negation seemed an
unnatural and incomprehensible phenomenon. Furthermore, it contradicted the
instinctive and intuitive excellence within and among his countrymen and had a
paralyzing effect on his social work. Savarkar stated: ‘As I went on studying
Vedanta Philosophy, I began to experience one feeling above everything else. And
it was that the study of these books relaxed every fibre and nerve of my mind, and
merged me completely in the contemplation of the Universal, to the extent that I
completely turned away from fruitless action in the world of man. It destroyed my
will to power and my power to act. The highest attainment was inaction. This text
resounded continuously in my brain. And words like the service of my country,
altruism and humanity faded into the back-ground as useless phantoms. […]12. All
propaganda, all work seemed such a worthless task, a sheer waste of life. At last
12
‘Before this supreme goal, they appeared as transient and childish pastimes. A similar
feeling of higher pessimism was breathed upon me when I read master-works on geology
and astronomy but for different reasons. These works describing as they did the earth and
the starry heavens, brought home to me infinity of time and space, and, correspondingly
puniness of human and the briefness of his life on this tiny globe. Why then struggle, why
work and strive, why not live like a lotus-eater? That is what I felt. For all this was to end
and to be lost in the depth of space and time. The study of Vedanta did not fill the heart of
man with this kind of cynicism and despair. It did commend inaction; but in order to reveal
to us the deeper joy and the higher realisation of our being, it exhorted man to cast off
spurious dolls, but to endow him with something higher, deeper and more abiding than the
fleeting pleasures of this world. In Vedanta the abandonment of action was in itself
supreme self-realisation and supreme bliss. Not so the mood of despair and utter futility
brought on by the study of geology and astronomy. In Vedanta, man is the master and the
maker of his being, the spark of the divine, the emanation from the fount of life. To
Science, man is the creature of Nature, and subject to her mutations, and heading for the
final dissolution if the universe into the vast emptiness of space and time. When I used to
be lost in the reading of the Yoga Vashistha, the coil of rope I was weaving dropped
automatically from my hands; and, for hours on end I lost the sense of possessing the body
and the senses associated with that body. My foot would not move and my hand was at a
stand-still. I felt the deeper yearning to surrender it all’ (Savarkar 1950:273f).

Siegfried O. Wolf
the mind and the matter asserted their sway over the body and swung it back to
work’ (Savarkar 1950:273f).
(3) Savarkar’s agnosticism - Religion as an extension to the portfolio of

political strategies:
Savarkar was neither a religious man nor an atheist, he did not abandon religion but
accepted nothing that was irrational. Metaphysical statements and theological
debates concerning religious beliefs were of no interest to him (S. Sharma
1996:190). In this context, Lederle identified Savarkar, as agnostic13 and referred to
G.V. Ketkar who aptly named Savarkar’s agnosticism as ‘believing agnosticism’
(Lederle 1976:287)14. There we find a profound influence of Bentham on Savarkar.
‘Spencer thought it impossible to have an appearance if there was nothing which
could appear. There must be a reality independent of thought and independent of
ourselves – the Absolute’ (Lederle 1976:287). Savarkar’s agnosticism finds its best
expression in the following examples:
I.) In his recommendation to examine all religious scriptures in terms of their

relevance for the present. This kind of evaluation was necessary to avoid the social
evils implicated in religion. Savarkar considered the scriptures to be not divine, but
written by unknown thinkers. It was not to be assumed that what was written in the
holy books are the last words because according to him all religious texts are
written by man and for man and were therefore time and space-bound. Therefore,
they had to be treated as human products fulfilling human needs. The people had to
be told that they were divine revelation for otherwise they would not have accepted
the scriptures as holy15.
Savarkar points out that there are no unchangeable or unchallengeable codes in

the interpreting and construction of social reality. This meant, that no religious text
13
To prove his ‘antagonistic-thesis’ he referred to Savarkar’s poem ‘The Closed Gate of the
Unknowable’ in which ‘he explain how the words of bards and of the Puranas, devotions
and revolutionary activities, enjoyment and renunciation, comfort and hardship reveal
something of God and hide him at the same time’ and quoted the closing words:
‘You do not allow [us] to build another house,
Yours you do not open to anyone.
[Though our] effort does not lead us on,
Keep on, do not give up the effort.
Today, therefore, I knock again at the gates,
At the ever closed gates of your house’.
According Lederle, this words are presenting ‘the resignation of the agnostic’. For
Savarkar, ‘the gates leading to the understanding of God are always closed’ (Lederle
1976:287).
14
G. V. Ketkar. 1958. ‘Vira Savarkarance Dharmakarana’, in PADHYE, S. K. Savarkar
Vividha Darsana. Pune, p. 101f translated and quoted in Lederle 1976:287.
15
Here, it is instructive to refer to Godbole who compiled four common factors in
Savarkar’s view on the common phenomena among all religions, which he studied: (1)
Everyone says that only their text is God-sent and others are not so. Therefore there is no
consistency in them; (2) People say that, as the orders in their particular book are not
contained in others, those texts are not God-sent; (3) Men need to decide by logic,
experience and other tests who was the true prophet and who was not; and (4) Religious
followers insist that once someone accepts their religion that person can only follow the
orders of that religion (Savarkar, compiled, translated and quoted in Godbole 2004:473f).

Siegfried O. Wolf
was eternal16, i.e. one that contained rules and regulations applicable for all times.
Savarkar claimed that he identified contradictory orders in the religious scriptures
and that this was proof they could not be God- made. Instead, he suggested that the
holy books be regarded as the common ancestral property of the entirety of
humankind. All this religious property however, was to Savarkar meaningless and
worthless in the age of reason which held science and technology as the forces of
progress17 (Deshpande 1999:96). Savarkar concluded that in various old texts it
was possible to discover some writings that were quite useful to the present as well
as for the future. They needed to be recognised as useful and beneficial because
they could provide valuable guidance to contemporary problems and not simply
because they were found in ancient texts. But for that, ‘every thought and idea,
principle and ideal found in the religious book must be subjected to rational
scrutiny and scientific test’18. Savarkar observed that many of the ancient scriptures
like the Manusmriti (Law of Manu)19 contained various teachings that had been
proven false over the course of time. Applying principles of necessity and utility as
the only criteria of acceptability, Savarkar stated, ‘Whatever we find in Manusmriti
to be harmful or ridiculous today should not be followed, but that does not make
Manusmriti harmful or ridiculous’20. ‘If we ignore those teachings and take only
those that are useful today we will all benefit. If we accept that the religious texts,
though claimed to be of divine origin, have failings like that of any human
creation, they become the inheritance of all mankind’21 and the social evils
presented and defended in the name of religion would come to an end. The social
organisation and transformation of the Hindu society had to be founded or
reconstructed and consolidated on secular and scientific principles as well as
human experience and not on holy and eternal teachings. ‘In future, whenever we
have to decide whether a reform is good or bad, changes are desirable or not, there
should be only one test. Is it useful or harmful for today? We must never ask the
16
In this context, Savarkar emphasised that it is difficult for human beings to imprison
time. ‘A book can be saved from termites by bringing out a new or improved edition, but to
save a religious text or a holy book from the termite of Time is impossible even for angels.
The termite of Time not only eats away the pages of such a text, but also devours its
meaning and makes it irrelevant. It is impossible, therefore, to bring out an improved
version of an unchanging and rigid religious text because such improvement is prohibited
by that religion itself. Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. ‘Uprooting of Arab Culture from
Turkey by Kemal Pasha’, (in Savarkar Samagra, Volume 5, p. 519 translated and quoted in
J. Sharma 2003:187).
17
Savarkar did not attach any value and worth to the ‘holy scriptures’ simply on the
grounds of their antiquity, sanctity and so-called divinity. However, his scientific approach
to history does not lead him to deny them their historical or sociological significance and
value. As a treatise on history and not as inviolable and unalterable sacred books, Savarkar
appreciated them by giving them their place of honour in the libraries of the world.
According to Savarkar, ‘religious books serve the purpose of fossils for the study of the
then existing socio-political institutions and organisations, systems and patterns and so
on’17 (Deshpande 1999:96).
18
Savarkar quoted in Deshpande 1999:96.
19
The Manusmriti, or Dharmashastra (Laws) of Manu, is one of the holy books of the
Hindus, which in the view of many reformers like Savarkar justifies the humiliating
position of the untouchables. It is manifested in the Law of Manu that intermixing with
untouchables pollutes the Hindus, brings ill-luck to him and his kin and is equal to
committing a crime. To burn some copies of this book was a popular sign of protest of the
social reform movement in India.
20
Savarkar translated and quoted by Godbole 2004:514. See also in detail Deshpande who
wrote: ‘Though Savarkar does not attach any value and significance to the religious books
simply on the ground of their antiquity, sanctity and so-called divinity, he refers them by
giving them their place of honour in the libraries of the world (Deshpande 1999:96).’
21
Savarkar translated and quoted by Godbole 2004:514.

Siegfried O. Wolf
question – is it sanctioned by the scriptures? We must never again waste time on

that futile discussion. If a change is desirable, implement it today. […] It is easy to
prove whether a reform is useful or not. But it is impossible even for the Lord
Creator to decide whether the same is sanctioned in the scriptures or not. We
therefore do not regard any religious text as eternal and to be followed at all times’.
II.) Savarkar’s view on the Universe and Nature: About the universe, Nature and
the place of human beings within both dimensions, Savarkar had peculiar views.
According to him, human beings live in this world and not in a transcendental one.
The universe had nothing to do with his countrymen and how they arranged their
worldly life. Going one step further he claimed that ‘the forces in the universe are
to a little degree for Man, but to a greater extent they are against him22’. Against
this background he argued, the ‘universe exists and continues to function by certain
rules. All that we can do is to find out what they are and use them for the benefit of
mankind. We must say that what is beneficial for mankind is good and what makes
us suffer is bad. It is absurd to say what God likes is beneficial for man or vice
versa, because they are false notions. We live in the Universe but the Universe
does not belong to us. To a great extent, it is unfavourable and to a very small
extent favourable to us. We must appreciate this and face the heavenly
occurrences. That is true Nature. That is the real worship of the God of universe.’23
Spurred on by his agnostic approach to life, Savarkar endeavoured to learn the laws
of Nature and universe as best a human being could. The need of the moment was
to tap and apply them for the benefit and welfare of the people. He pointedly
remarks: ‘Man is the maker of his fortune and cause of his misfortunes. No divine
power does any good or evil to human life. Man himself is responsible for the
successes and failures, sweets and bitters of his life. Reason and intelligence leads
one to light and ignorance to darkness.’ 24
III.) In Savarkar’s view on the relation between religion and politics, it is possible
to find yet another proof of his agnosticism. There is no doubt that religious faith
and especially Hinduism was one of the most significant elements in Savarkar’s
thinking, but the author cannot overlook that this was also an instrument of his
social as well as political struggle. Against this background, Savarkar’s vehement
implementation of Hinduism in politics was not based on an orthodox attitude,
neither spiritual conviction nor religious traditionalism but on the contrary was
more worldly, material and strategic. It should instead be seen as a strategy, the use
of elements from an already existing value-based-system guiding the greatest
number of his countrymen, to create a feeling of belonging amongst them.
Savarkar was aware of the potency of religious enthusiasm and claimed that ‘man
cannot remain without religion. Religion is a source of stupendous strength’25. To
harness this strength he highlighted certain elements of Hinduism as a ‘leading
culture’ (Leitkultur) for Indian people. He did not advocate introducing Hinduism
as a state religion, but merely as a method of defining a collective identity. This
was to be a fundamental pillar of belonging, upholding his ‘imagined nation’. In
this aspect, he was very much influenced by the western belief in the separation of
politics and religion, like ‘the Wall of Separation’ between church and state
propounded by Thomas Jefferson. Politics was defined as the means of serving the
nation and contributing to the welfare of Society. Savarkar also stated how his icon
22
Savarkar translated and quoted in Keer 1988:204.
23
Savarkar translated and quoted in Godbole 2004:338f.
24
Savarkar translated and quoted in Godbole 2004:339.
25
Savarkar quoted in Phake et al. 1989:219.

Siegfried O. Wolf
of social and political visions, Giuseppe Mazzini, was tormented by the question of
how to keep Religion and Politics separate and stated: ‘He [Mazzini] savagely
attacked the notion of the gates of Heaven, if there be such a thing, being open to
anyone who had neglected to serve the nation, whiling away his time in empty
rituals of religion’26.
Savarkar’s solution was to instill the idea that service for the nation ought to
be the religion of his countrymen. For him, religious worship and national and civil
service were separate and distinct. If Savarkar believed in the spiritual aspects of
life, it was purely at the individual level (Phadtare 1975:271). He supported the
notion that religion was a private matter and defended religious freedom in
principle, enshrining it in his proposed constitution for a postcolonial Indian state:
‘(C) All citizens shall have equal rights and obligations irrespective of caste or
creed, race or religion – provided they avow and owe an exclusive and devoted
allegiance to the Hindusthani State’; (D) ‘The fundamental rights of conscience, of
worship, of association etc. will be enjoyed by all citizens alike whatever
restrictions will be imposed on them in the interest of the public peace and order or
national emergency will not be based on any religious or racial considerations
alone but on common national ground’; and (E) ‘One man one vote’ will be the
general rule irrespective of creed, caste, race or religion’27 (Savarkar and Parkash
1945:67f). He was nevertheless aware that religiosity in private as well as public
spheres, promoted by the scriptures, reactionary forces like the Hindu orthodoxy in
Indian society, could prove to be a hindrance in the path of social and political
progress. As a result, religious beliefs took on only a limited role in Savarkar’s
temporal-materialistic approach to the interpretation and construction of a social
reality.
IV.) Another example of Savarkar’s agnosticism is apparent in his use of one of his
most critical terms, Punyabhu, or ‘Holyland’28. The definition ‘Holyland’ is one of
26
Savarkar quoted in Phadnis 2002:84.
27
For information this article should mention the remaining paragraphs of Savarkar’s
‘National Constitution of Hindusthan: (A) Hindusthan from the Indus to the Seas will and
must remain as an organic nation and integral centralised state; (B) The residuary powers
shall be vested in the Central Government; (C), (D), and (E) are above mentioned in the
text, (F) Representation in the Legislature etc shall be in proportion to the population of the
majority and minorities; (G) Services shall go by merit alone; (H) All minorities shall be
given effective safeguards to protect their language, religion, culture etc but none of them
shall be allowed to create ‘a state within a state’ or to encroach upon the legitimate rights of
the majority; (I) Every minority may have separate schools to train up their children in their
own tongue, their own religious institutions or cultural and can receive government help
also for these, but always in proportion to the taxes they pay into the common exchequer;
and (J) in case the constitution is not based on joint electorates and on the unalloyed
national principle of one man one vote, but is based on the communal basis then those
minorities who wish to have separate electorates or reserve seats will be allowed to have
them, but always in proportion to their population and provided that it does not deprive the
majority also of an equal right in proportion to its population too’ (Savarkar and Parkash
1945:67ff.). This constitution best expresses the main critical elements in his social as well
political thinking and his notions of what the Indian State should look like. It captured
precisely Savarkar’s conflict between the ‘unquestioned’ demand for the principles of
liberty and equality in western political thought on one side, and the assumed need for
diversity and multiculturalism in the Indian context. In particular his principle of the
majority leads his theoretical constructs in opposition to a politics that is described with
reference to terms such as reservation, positive discrimination and affirmative action etc.
28
Eminent scholars like Dietmar Rothermund emphasize that the translation of
Punyabhumi as ‘Holyland’ is not correct; it has to be translated as a country in which you

Siegfried O. Wolf
the most misunderstood conceptions in Savarkar’s political thoughts on

‘Hindutva’29 and leads both his antagonists as well as his promoters towards
remarkably wrong perceptions of its meaning. Generally accepted, Punyabhu or
Punyabhumi is defined as a country where you earn your ‘religious merits’. But in
Savarkar’s particular point of view, he interprets this more in a patriotic way than a
religious one. In this context, his sense of patriotism is expressed by his notion of
‘martyrdom’, conceived as heroism and hero-worship30. If one deconstructs his
attempt to define this term it is possible to find elements that are formulated in a
religious as well as a ‘patriotic-cultural’ language. On the one hand, Savarkar
describes Punyabhu as ‘the land of [his] prophets and seers, of his godmen and
gurus, the land of piety and pilgrimage’ (Savarkar 1999:72) and on the other hand,
it is also the land in which ‘every stone [here] has a story of martyrdom to tell!
(Savarkar 1999:70). This means that the ‘Holyland’ is where one earns merit
through patriotism and not through religious worship. In addition, the notion of
Punyabhu implies, or is expressed through the word Sanskriti, the ‘civilisation’ and
culture of a nation.
According to Savarkar, civilisation, and culture generally, ‘is the expression of

the mind of man’ and ‘the account of what man has made of matter’ (Savarkar
1999:57). In this context, Savarkar proposed, that ‘the story of the civilisation 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. In none of these can man remain isolated (Savarkar 1999:58). As
can earn merit through good deeds. This means good deeds in a worldly and not in a
religious sense. Despite the fact that this is also Savarkar’s understanding of this word, he
used the term ‘Holyland’ as a direct translation: ‘Punyabhu signifies the meaning expressed
by the English term ‘Holyland’ and may be regarded as its synonym’ (Rothermund
2003:n.n.).
29
Hindutva (literally ‘Hinduness’, the quality of being Hindu) was a term originally coined
by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in his book ‘Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?’ published in 1923.
He regarded all inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent as Hindu and specifically those who
(1) regarded it as their fatherland (Pitribhu); (2) descended from Hindu parents and (3)
considered this land holy (Punyabhu or Punyabhumi). According to Savarkar these
constituted the three ‘essentials of Hindutva’: a common nation (Rashtra), a common race
(Jati) and a common civilisation (Sanskriti). For the first two essentials of ‘Hindutva’
Rashtra and Jati are clearly denoted and connoted by the word Pitrubhu while the third
essential, Sanskriti, is pre-eminently implied by the word Punyabhu (Savarkar 1999:72).
Savarkar used the term Hindutva to emphasise its distinctiveness from the word Hinduism,
which Savarkar associated with disunity and social as well as political grievances among
the Hindu community. In this sense Hindutva captured the imagined lack of national
identity. As a result, one of the main purposes behind the concept of Hindutva was to
construct a collective identity to support the cause of ‘Hindu-unity’ (Hindu Sanghatan) and
to avoid too narrow a definition of Hinduism which would exclude Buddhists, Sikhs and
Jains from the Hindu community. Later hindu-nationalist ideologues transformed the
original ‘Hindutva’-concept by Savarkar into a strategy to include and exclude non-Hindus
to widen their social base as a mean of political mobilisation. Against this background
‘Hindutva’ faces the challenge of determining the ambit of the intended Hindu-nation, the
Hindu-Rashtra, for which it will provide the ideological justification and legitimisation.
Today, ‘Hindutva’ as an ideology adopted by the Sangh Parivar, promotes a form of
cultural nationalism and is used in this sense as the equivalent of ‘Hindu-nationalism’. In
this function the concept has emerged in recent years as a key instrument in electoral
campaigning in India.
30
Savarkar’s notion on ‘martyrdom’ is best expressed in his poem Oh! Martyrs. These lines
are dedicated to the ‘Martyrs’, who challenged the British in 1857 and is a remarkable
example of the formulation of political aims in religious language SAVARKAR, Vinayak
Damodar. 1989. ‘Oh! Martyrs’, in JOGLEKAR, J.D. and Madhav PATHAK 1989:21f.

Siegfried O. Wolf
such, Sanskriti, the Hindu civilisation and culture ‘is represented in a common
history, common heroes, a common literature, common art, a common law and a
common jurisprudence, common fairs and festivals, rites and ritualism, ceremonies
and sacraments’ (Savarkar 1999:62). Even in this attempt to define the term
‘Holyland’ in an patriotic-cultural sense, it is impossible to exclude the religious
connotations of words like rites and rituals, ceremonies and sacraments. He was
aware of this problem and stressed first, that this was an individual’s perception
and attitude,31 and second, that he had not referred ‘to any institution or event or
custom in its religious aspect or significance’ but to the common inheritance’
(Savarkar 1999:62) at the national level.
The above-described difficulties in the attempt to detach the term ‘Holyland’

from all conceivable religious connotations results in a continuum of possible
interpretations of Savarkar’s Punyabhu. The continuum is characterised by two
diametrically opposed benchmarks, or poles. One benchmark could be called the
‘contextual interpretation’ and the other, a ‘literal interpretation’. One of the
significant indicators demarcating the different perceptions of ‘Holyland’ is
desabhakti, the undivided love for the country32. This patriotic love, which makes
the country ‘holy’ for some, has to be proved as a kind of loyalty to Hindu society.
The ‘contextual interpretation’ focuses on the notion of patriotism in

Savarkar’s definition. According to this, under certain conditions it is possible for
‘non-Hindus’ to claim India as their ‘Holyland’. To do so, it is necessary that they
accept and assimilate Sanskriti. It is not required to practice and imbibe all cultural
practices but the ‘non-Hindus’ in India ought to have more in common with a
Hindu than with an Arab or an Englishman (Savarkar 1999:62f). The desabhakti is
proven through ‘skilled participation’ in the cultural habits, rituals and customs of
Hindu society.
In contrast, a more narrow ‘literal interpretation’ proclaims that India has to be

one’s ‘Holiest land’ or that one’s holiest places had to be located in India.
Interpreting Punyabhu in this way involves the a priori exclusion of followers of
non indigenous religions like Muslims or Christians. For Christians the ‘holiest
places’ like Bethlehem and Rome are abroad in Israel or Italy, and for the Muslims
there is Mecca in Saudi Arabia. This interpretation of the religious connotations of
Punyabhu disregards Savarkar’s constitutive element of patriotism as an
opportunity to prove one’s loyalty. Such a perception has been fuelled by one of
Savarkar’s most debated statements: ‘For though Hindusthan to them [Christians
and Muslims] is Fatherland as to any other Hindu yet it is not to them a ‘Holyland’
too. Their ‘Holyland’ is far off in Arabia or Palestine. Their mythology and God-
men, ideas and heroes are not the children of this soil. Consequently their names
and their outlook smack of a foreign origin. Their love is divided’ (Savarkar
1999:70)33. This supposed suspicion towards the desabhakti of ‘non-Hindus‘
makes a Indian Punyabhu a priori impossible.
31
‘The quaint customs and ceremonies and sacraments they involve, observed by some as a
religious duty, by others as social amenities, impress upon each individual that he can live
best only through the common and corporate life of the Hindu race’ (Savarkar 1999:62).
32
The term desabhakti has its origin in the social- and philosophical concepts of the
construction of a national and religious Hindu identity by Hariscandra von Benares (1850-
1885) and means the ‘undivided holy love’ for the country. Though Savarkar didn’t use this
word, he demanded such undivided love from his countrymen, but as mentioned above de
meant it merely in a patriotic not a religious way (Klimkeit 1981:249).
33
Elsewhere Savarkar mentioned that Hindus and Muslims cannot be recognized as
Hindus; given that since their adoption of the new cult they had ceased to be imbued with

Siegfried O. Wolf
In addition to these two extreme interpretations, there is a ‘third approach’, a

‘broader literal interpretation’ that combines both dimensions, the contextual and
the literal. This interpretation points to two constitutive indicators in the definition
of Punyabhu. Beside the above-mentioned requirement of patriotism, in the sense
of desabhakti there is the requirement of having one’s ‘holy places’ in the claimed
Punyabhu. This ‘literal’ interpretation finds its expression in the fact that the
definition of Punyabhu still depends largely on a religious constituent which refers
to the places for significance of one’s own religion. At a broader level it draws the
distinction that to constitute a Punyabhu it is adequate to prove that the ‘holy
places of importance’ of one’s own religion are located in India. This interpretation
stresses the option of including ‘non-Hindus’ in Hindu society by emphasizing the
opportunity to demonstrate loyalty through patriotism. Thus a counterbalance is
suggested to the entrenched, mistrust of someone whose holiest places are located
abroad and the common conclusion that a whole-hearted desabhakti is not possible.
These different interpretations of Savarkar’s Punyabhu draw attention to a

‘soft-corner’ in Savarkar’s approach towards religion, and the implications and
difficulties he encountered. It shows too, without doubt, his readiness to utilize
religious language for political purposes and as a strategy. As a result, the author
reemphasizes that Savarkar’s Punyabhu has its origin in the conviction that it is
necessary to use all possible opportunities to mobilize one’s countrymen for
political aims and not in the name of any one religious belief. Despite the fact that
Savarkar proclaimed his concept of ‘Hindutva’ and Punyabhu as having ‘little to
do with agnosticism, or for the matter with, atheism’, Savarkar’s article argues that
following such a rational approach towards religion in politics required not only a
‘believing agnosticism’ in the sense of Lederle but a ‘strategic agnosticism’. Only
an agnostic would say, ‘some of us are monists, some pantheists; some theists and
some atheists. But monotheists or atheists – we are all Hindus and own a common
blood’ (Savarkar 1999:56).
THE FIVE PHILOSOPHICAL DIMENSIONS OF SAVARKAR
From the above mentioned framework of Savarkar’s three philosophical premises,

five main features or touchstones can be highlighted: utilitarianism, rationalism,
humanism (and universalism), pragmatism and realism. Here one has to state, that
these five features, described below, are not necessarily comparable with the
general understanding of them as philosophical concepts. Indeed, they are more
ideal types to frame Savarkar’s philosophical thinking in his one terms:
(I) Utilitarianism:
Savarkar’s ‘strategic agnosticism’ is deeply rooted in his utilitarian outlook. Since

the time he studied Herbert Spencer, he internalised utilitarianism as his leading
ethical principle as did his idol in the field of social reform, Gopal Ganesh
Agarkar. Savarkar was a devoted follower of the Utilitarian school of England, also
called the Philosophical Radicals. The tenets and aims of this school were the
following: the greatest good of the greatest number, rationalism, secularism,
Hindu civilisation (Sanskriti) as a whole. They belong, or feel that they belong, to a cultural
unit altogether different from the Hindu one. Their heroes and their hero-worship, their
fairs and their Hindu festivals, their ideals and their outlook on life, have now ceased to be
common with ours’ (Savarkar 1999:63).

Siegfried O. Wolf
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. 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. Furthermore, ‘the greatest good of
the greatest number’ was to be not only the ethic and moral touchstone for his
countryman but also the guideline for policy making. In other words it was not
merely to be employed as an ethical theory, shedding light on the various human
aspects of life, it was also intensely practical. To promote this Savarkar started a
campaign against extreme empathy and compassion as the foundation of peoples’
value-systems, for he saw this as detrimental to humanity. In response to his critics,
he emphasised 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 society34.
In applying the tenets of utilitarianism Savarkar did not regard them as being
of foreign origin. In his view, the concept had already been taught by Lord
Krishna35. Savarkar explains this at length with reference to the teachings of the
Bhagvadgita and considered Lord Krishna to be the greatest, ‘ideal utilitarian’.36
Savarkar defended the dichotomy and contradiction in the life of Lord Krishna
from his particular point of view arguing that life itself was the accumulation of
tensions and contradictions. For this reason he rejected absolutism of any kind for
that hindered the progress of humanity. The ambit of Savarkar’s utilitarian attitude
is best illustrated in his extensive discussion on the place of the ‘cow’ in Hindu
society and his defence of non-vegetarianism.
(a) On the utility of the cow: Savarkar argued that what India needed was cow
protection and not cow worship. He pointed out that his demand for cow protection
was based on the notion that the cow was a remarkably useful animal. Proclaiming
a practical and rational view he stated ‘the cow is neither God nor mother but
purely a useful animal. We should not worship it but we must breed and nurture the
animal because we can reap the best advantages from it’37. Savarkar emphasised at
various times the crucial role that cows played in a country like India where the
development process was so dependent on the performance of the agricultural
sector, highlighting the economic measurement of the cow’s role in Indian
society38. The various religious functions of cow-worshipping had to be replaced
through scientific methods and a thorough knowledge of animal breeding. Building
cow wealth and the maximum use of it ought to be a foundation of India’s
prosperity. For that it was necessary to transform the Hindu mind to accept that
34
See also Savarkar translated and quoted in Phadtare 1975:269.
35
The use of Lord Krishna is another example of his strategic use of religious language to
apply Western political concepts in the Indian context. V.D. Savarkar, ‚Majhya Athvani’, in
Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya, Vol. 1, p. 206 translated and quoted in Lederle 1976:280.
36
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya, Vol. VI, p. 107.
37
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya, Vol. VI, p. 37
translated and quoted in Phadtare 1975:270.
38
To illustrate the disadvantages for his country, he compared it with Western nations and
their economic growth in the field of cow husbandry: He stated that in India ‘where the
cow is worshipped, the total production of milk is the lowest in the world and general cow
wealth is very poor from a qualitative point of view. Why in countries like England,
Sweden and France cows yield maximum quantity of milk which helps the people to build
up their physique and health even though they do not follow stupid customs of cow
worship?’ Savarkar translated and quoted in Phadtare 1975:269f.

Siegfried O. Wolf
science and not religious devotion towards cows, was a key condition for economic
growth.
(b) Defence of non-vegetarianism: Savarkar was one of the first amongst Hindu
public figures to not only advocate abandoning the traditional and agreed customs
of cow worshipping but also supporting the utilisation of cow meat as nutrition. In
this context his strong defence of cow slaughter combined with non-vegetarianism
is a powerful example of Savarkar’s application of utilitarian directives. Savarkar
was firmly convinced that the lack of food and the unbalanced nourishment of his
countrymen could be solved by taking to non-vegetarianism including the
consumption of cattle meat.
(II) Rationalism and Positivism:
To propagate his social and political philosophy, Savarkar used “rationality” as his
touchstone. As a result of his rational and positivist attitude he was skeptical of any
religious or metaphysical propositions and excluded them from his logical
reasoning. 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 modernisation. He believed in
adopting both an intelligent as well as a scientific attitude and approach. His
espousal of positivism may be described as a ‘rational-scientific materialism’,
which reflected his deep admiration for the modern technological and scientific
civilization of the Western sphere. This kind of materialism was a ‘theory of time,
change and progress’ (J. Sharma 2003:135) and presupposed that one’s intelligence
ought to be the final reference point for moral and ethical values. Against this
background, Savarkar contended that nature was ever geared towards progress. For
Savarkar, progress was to be defined - among other things - in terms of science,
technology and social reform. 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. The logical truth of a tenet had to be ultimately
grounded in an accordance with the (physical) material world.
Savarkar also identified the limits of rationalism. In his point of view, a

boundlessness of rationalism also signified a kind of ‘bigotry’. If that happened,
rationalism, instead of being useful to the people, did harm39. In the article ‘What a
reformer should remember’ Savarkar pointed out his notion of where there the
limits of Rationalism ought to lie: ‘Any rationalist must use human resources for
the maximum benefit of a society. He must remember that when one deals with a
group of people a single banner does not help. He must find a common ground,
which will be acceptable, to all. Therefore, even if a tradition or a custom is based
on blind religious faith, but public good can be achieved because that blind faith
brings people together, it should be accepted. Only when the traditions and
customs are definitely harmful to the nation, should a reformer propagate for their
abandonment. While he would want to be aloof from blind faith, try to carry people
39

Siegfried O. Wolf
on that route, but he would not cause a rift and set aside from the masses’40. This
shows too, how Savarkar’s pragmatism was opposed to naive and utopian notions
of society.
(III) 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. His definition came from Mazzini who refers
to the Italian historian Jean Charles Sismondi. Sismondi traced the origins of
liberty to the history of the republican medieval commune, where what was valued
was the collective liberty of the group rather than the freedom of individuals within
the group. Individualism was the creed of materialists who could not see beyond
their particular interest. Bentham’s utilitarianism and the implied calculus of pain
and pleasure made Savarkar sensitive to the relationship between the conflicting
interests of the individual and the national community. He was deeply suspicious
of self-seeking individualism regardless of whether it was rooted in egoistical
materialism or in a religious or philosophical worldview. His definition of liberty
left a certain amount of flexibility for reciprocal obligations among the members of
society. Furthermore, at the core of his notion was the concept that liberty must not
be separated from duty towards the Indian nation. Savarkar claimed not only to be
rational and scientific, but also professed a love for humanism and universalism as
ethical values.
Savarkar’s scientific outlook was not opposed to universalism. With reference

to the anti-brahmanic poet Gyanba Tukaram, Savarkar stated that ‘the limits of the
universe – there the frontiers of my country lie’, and, in a letter to Guy A. Aldred,
editor of The World, he wrote the following, ‘I hold that although Mankind must
march on through nationalism and federalism, through larger incorporations to
their ultimate political goal is not and cannot be nationalism but Humanism, neither
more nor less. The ideal of all political science and art must be a Human State. The
earth is our Motherland, mankind our Nation and a Human Government based on
equality of rights and duties is or ought to be our ultimate political goal’41.
Employing this outlook, 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. The limiting of individual freedoms and the loss of national
independence even inhibited the development of the then-ruling colonial powers.
Foreign rule that stifled the growth of human dignity (among 300 million people)
represented an offence against the human race and had to be extinguished. This
was a national as well as a religious duty.42 Each country had the obligation to
contribute to the welfare of humanity.
40
Savarkar translated and quoted in Godbole 2004:628f.
41
Savarkar quoted in Varma 1985:390f.
42
V.D. Savarkar, ‚Majhya Athvani’, in Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya, Vol. 1, p. 248f
translated and quoted in Lederle 1976:280. This regard for the whole of mankind remained
one of Savarkar’s basic ideas. In 1920 he wrote that it was higher than any restricted form
of patriotism and rendered each nation ‘better fitted to realise, enrich and enjoy life in all its
noble aspects’. V.D. Savarkar, An Echo from Andamans, pp. 88f.

Siegfried O. Wolf
(IV) Pragmatism
Savarkar is not merely a disciple of utilitarianism but is also a pragmatist in his

approach to the social and political challenges of his time. Following his ‘directive
of activism’ he pursued the motto ‘be practical not philosophical,’ stating, ‘I accept
that there is a need for philosophical and intellectual debate. I love such debates.
But we have been wasting so much of our time in such debates that we have
become feeble in practice, we have lost our kingdoms time after time. We have
succumbed to foreign aggressors. I feel more strongly about that loss’43. 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. He wrote, ‘even today we are just as lethargic as we were in the
13th century. I worked in the fields of politics, social work and literature. But
everywhere I experience lethargy of our people. I am one of you. The only
difference is that I feel so strongly about inaction compared to others’44. To stress
Savarkar’s practical attitude towards solving the country’s various problems,
Godbole stated that he ‘never preached for the sake of it. He always proposed some
action’ (Godbole 2004:315). To underline this feature he quoted him: ‘Time has
come for various movements to progress from seminars and resolutions to doing
something practical. People make resolutions to the effect that we need to raise
volunteer force for the protection and preservation of our dignity or that we need to
start orphanages. But what is the point in merely passing resolution? Afterwards
the question arises, ‘where is the money for putting into practice these resolutions?’
But then, why do these delegates waste money in travelling and organising
seminars? Stop that waste and use the money thus saved to raise the volunteer
force and open an orphanage.’45 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 endeavour46.
(V) 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 organisation can effectively serve the people of all countries, at all
times and under all circumstances (Godbole 2004:413). For Savarkar, human
conduct had to adapt to the need and necessity of the time and could not remain the
same forever (Kelkar 1989:53). In a significant lecture in Pune on 11 October
1938, Savarkar emphasized that one should only adopt administrative and political
institutions that suited one’s circumstances: ‘When we look at suitability of various
political philosophies, we must ask – Did the philosophy in question benefit the
particular country? If it did, that philosophy should be considered good for that
country at that time. […] What may be a poison to one nation may be nectar to
another. It is therefore unwise to say that a particular philosophy is good or bad
under all the circumstances’47. Savarkar 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.
43
Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar translated and quoted in Godbole 2004:326.
44
Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar translated and quoted in Godbole 2004:326.
45
46
One of Savarkar’s practical propositions was that Hindus should shed their preference for
excessive virtuosity. With regard to the law of progress building up skills in virtuosity is a
waste of time which is not desirable and practicable.
47

Siegfried O. Wolf
Processes of transformation in each society did not happen ‘over night’. In

addition, for the Indian context he suggested that his countrymen were usually not
ready or had been retarded by too many repressing powers that had dominated the
socio-political landscape.
The most outstanding example of Savarkar’s version of realism is his firm

belief in the maxim, ‘might is right’ as the leading principle in International
Politics.48 According to Savarkar, protecting the interests of one’s own country and
its people had to be right. That was the law of Nature or what Herbert Spencer
expressed in his general idea of the ‘persistence of force’. The one who was
powerful and had material strength would win kingdoms, authority and wealth. It
did not matter whether he believed in the Puranas or the Koran. We are only
concerned with what happens on earth. We are not discussing ‘life after death’49.
Following Spencer, Savarkar argued that the state or government needed to
promote physical force more than moral feelings. ‘If you want success on earth,
you must acquire earthly power and strength. If your movement has material
strength you will succeed whether or not you have divine blessing for it.’ 50
CONCLUSION
In sum it is possible to state that Savarkar welcomed the prospects of reforming

society along modern and egalitarian principles. Therefore, he interpreted various
concepts like utilitarianism, rationalism, humanism (universalism), pragmatism and
realism and tried to apply them in the Indian context as cornerstones for the
progress of his countrymen. 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.
Therefore, the abandonment of religious scriptures, the rejection of symbols of
traditional religiosity like idol-worshipping or the theory of rebirth as the basis of
social reconstruction was necessary. However, to understand Savarkar’s ‘spirit of
agnosticism’ as the most significant of his philosophical foundations, it is
important to analyse his notion of religion. Savarkar used religious language to a
tremendous extent, but at the same time 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’.
Religion and spiritualism were to him purely individual matters based on faith
and belief whilst science and technology were the constituent and common
variables at the individual’s social life as well as at the national level. According to
48
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar translated and quoted in Godbole 2004:377.
49
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar translated and quoted in Godbole 2004:354f.
50
‘I am not advocating that a powerful society should be tyrant. However, one must
appreciate that your cause may be just but if you are weak you will be defeated by the
unjust but materially superior society. The performance of 108 or even 1.108 Satyanarayan
Pujas will not help you to defeat your enemies, because success depends on acquiring
power. Even those who do not believe in God will succeed if they have material strength.
Has not atheist Soviet Russia become a World Power?’ (Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
translated and quoted in Godbole 2004:355). Another example of Savarkar’s realism was
his acceptance of the limits to human achievement. ‘But no one should ever arrogantly say:
we won over the Nature. America had sent man on the Moon, but still faced with sever
drought, floods, hurricanes, volcanoes and earthquakes,’ Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
translated and quoted Godbole 2004:346f.

Siegfried O. Wolf
Savarkar, 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. The main directive of his philosophy advocated
the dissolution of linkages between society and forms of religion, spiritualism,
customary practices, faith as well as the traditions and superstitions which imposed
various social evils on his countrymen. The transformation of society and any kind
of progress was not feasible through a religious approach. The social benefit of any
thought and action had to be assessed using a temporal outlook with utilitarianism,
rationalism and pragmatism as the main bases of measurement.
Savarkar’s philosophy is difficult to classify in ideological and political terms.

The basic philosophical tenets which are found in his social as well as political
thoughts on the transformation of Indian society, were neither purely exclusive nor
explicitly inclusive. He was neither a liberal nor a socialist51 and was never
entrapped by a specific school of thought or any ‘Grand Theory’. Against the
background of his agnosticism and the strategic use of religion it is truly difficult to
categorise him in terms of being ‘secular’ or ‘anti-secular’ as seen from a Western
point of view. Despite that, it is possible to state that Savarkar, given his affection
towards ‘Occidental Philosophy’, was influenced by Humanism. This emphasized
the importance of rationalism, a secular worldview, a scientific materialism and a
belief in a humanistic morality and universal values as the main foundations for a
progressive and developed society. In his time already, Savarkar’s philosophical
foundations were identified as radical to both conservatives and to the orthodox,
appearing as extreme to moderates, and moderate to extremists. People of common
sense regarded his social and political notions as impractical and dangerous not
only for the stability of the Hindu community but for Indian society as a whole.
Many of Savarkar’s above-mentioned statements and his efforts to establish socio-
political reforms awoke unprecedented waves of criticisms from inside and outside
of India.
Savarkar’s personal link with the people implicated in the assassination of

Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma) Gandhi and his breaching of religious
sentiment have made him an object of unquestioned judgements in the public as
well as in the academic sphere. This, in combination with a highly stringent and
one-dimensional criticism of him arising from his philosophy, have metaphorically
turned Savarkar and his thought into a persona non grata in society as well as
academia. Yet it is high time now to make him the object of renewed analytical
and scientific study in order to discern what foundations Savarkar’s vision of the
Indian nation-state was and continues to be grounded upon.
51
Despite the fact that Savarkar was deeply moved and influenced by various thoughts of
Lenin he was free to write in the 1930s, ‘The Russian Revolution’ is indeed a revolution – a
great experiment. But that does not mean that it will succeed. And even if it did, we do not
have to follow it blindly. We must examine if it will suit our society, our conditions and
lead to our progress and prosperity.’ That is why Savarkar treated the Russian revolution as
a ‘revolution of life’, which is not based on religious scriptures. Savarkar translated and
quoted in Godbole 2004:413.

Siegfried O. Wolf
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AIYAR, Mani Shankar. 2004. Confessions of secular a fundamentalist. Penguin

Books: New Delhi.
AIYAR, V. Krishna. 1989. ‘Relevance of Savarkar to Modern India’, in

SWATANTRYAVEER SAVARKAR RASHTRIYA SMARAK. 1989.
Smarak Inauguration. 28 May 1989. Festschrift. Swatantryaveer Savarkar
Rashtriya Smarak: Bombay.
AIYAR, Mani Shankar. 1999. „Hinduism and Hindutva: Different as Chalk and
Cheese“, in Indian Express, 8.
ALI, Asaf. 1989. „Savarkar, the Passionate Patriot’’, in PHAKE,

Sudhir/PURANDARE, B.M. and Bindumadhav JOSHI. (Eds). 1989.
Savarkar. Savarkar Darshan Pratishtnah (Trust): Mumbai, 65-74.
ANAND, Vidya Sagar. 1989. „Savarkar“, in PHAKE, Sudhir/PURANDARE, B.

M. and Bindumadhav JOSHI. (Eds.). 1989. Savarkar. Savarkar Darshan
Pratishtnah (Trust): Mumbai, 89-100.
ANAND, Vidya Sagar. 1967. Savarkar: A Study in The Evolution of Indian

Nationalism. Woolf: London.
APPAIAH, Parvathy. 2003. Hindutva. Ideology and Politics. Deep & Deep
Publications:New Delhi.
BANERJEE, Nitya Narayan. 1989a. „The undaunted Patriot“, in

Rashtriya Smarak: Bombay (Mumbai), 57-61.
BANERJEE, Nitya Narayan. 1989b. „My Reminiscences of Savarkar“, in PHAKE,

Sudhir/PURANDARE, B. M. and Bindumadhav JOSHI. (Eds.). 1989.
BHAlERAO, Sudhakar V. 1989. ‘Hindu Sanghatak Savarkar’, in

BHAUMIK, Saba N. and Smruti KOPPIKAR. 2004. „Veer Savarkar. The Inside
Story“, in Outlook, 6.09.2004.
CHITRAGUPTA and Indra PRAKASH. 1939. Life of Barrister Savarkar. Hindu

Mission Press: New Delhi.
DATE, S. R. 1989. „Savarkar, Nehru and Gandhi Murder“, in PHAKE,

Sudhir/PURANDARE, B.M. and Bindumadhav JOSHI. Eds. 1989.
DEORAS, Balasaheb. 1989a. ‘Savarkar. A Man Apart’, in PHAKE,

Savarkar. Savarkar Darshan Pratishtnah (Trust): Mumbai, p. 165-166.
Siegfried O. Wolf
DEORAS, Bhaurao. 1989b. „Two Epoch-Makers. Veer Savakar and Dr.

Hedgewar“, in PHAKE, Sudhir/PURANDARE, B. M. and Bindumadhav
JOSHI. (Eds.). 1989. Savarkar. Savarkar Darshan Pratishtnah (Trust):
Mumbai, 158-164.
DESHPANDE, Sudhakar. 2000. Savarkar. Makers of Indian Literature. Sahitya

Akademi:Mumbai.
DESHPANDE, Sudhakar. 1999. Savarkar. The Prophetic Voice. Dastane

Ramchandra & Co.: Pune.
DIVEKAR, V.D. ed. 1991. Social Reform Movements in India. A Historical

Perspective. Popular Prakashan: Bombay (Mumbai).
FASANA, Enrico. 1997. ‘From Hindutva to Hindu Rashtra: the Social and
Political Thought of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966)’, in
ARENA, Renato/BOLOGNA, Maria Patrizia/ MODENA, Maria Luisa
Mayer and Alessandro PASSI. 1997. Bandhu. Scritti in onore di Carlo
Della Casa. Festschrift. Volume I. Edizioni dell’Orso:Alessandra, pp.117-
133.
GADGIL, Gangadhar. 1989. „Savarkar in the Andamans“, in

GANAPATI, M. V. 1989. „V. D. Savarkar - A Study“, in SWATANTRYAVEER

SAVARKAR RASHTRIYA SMARAK. 1989. Smarak Inauguration. 28
May 1989. Festschrift. Swatantryaveer Savarkar Rashtriya Smarak:
Bombay (Mumbai), 12-14.
GARGE, S.M. 1996. Gopal Ganesh Agarkar. National Book Trust: New Delhi.
GAWADE, P. L. 1989. „Savarkar a Poet Philosopher“, in SWATANTRYAVEER

SAVARKAR RASHTRIYA SMARAK. 1989. Smarak Inauguration. 28
May 1989. Festschrift. Swatantryaveer Savarkar Rashtriya Smarak:
GODBOLE, V.S. 2004. Rationalism of Veer Savarkar. Itihas Patrika Prakashan:

Thane.
GODBOLE, S. T. 1989. „Savarkar’s Approach to History“, in PHAKE,

Savarkar. Savarkar Darshan Pratishtnah (Trust): Bombay (Mumbai), 192-
197.
GOSAIN, Saligram. 2005. Stormy Savarkar. The revolutionary who jumped the
ship. Vijay Goel: Delhi.
GOSWAMI, Radhika Mohan. 1989. „Savarkar. As I knew him“, in PHAKE,

170.
Siegfried O. Wolf
GROVER, Verinder. 1993. V.D. Savarkar. Political Thinkers of Modern India.

Volume 14. Deep & Deep: Publications: New Delhi (revised edition:
Grover, Verinder. 1998. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar: A biography of his
vision and ideas. Deep & Deep: Publications: New Delhi).
HIRANYAPPA, G. S. 1989. „Nostradamus and Savarkar: Visionaries of Hindu

Glory“, in SWATANTRYAVEER SAVARKAR RASHTRIYA
SMARAK. 1989. Smarak Inauguration. 28 May 1989. Festschrift.
Swatantryaveer Savarkar Rashtriya Smarak: Bombay (Mumbai), 42-48.
HUSSAIN, Muzzafar. 1989. „Savarkar: An Assessment of the Essence of

Success“’, in PHAKE, Sudhir/PURANDARE, B. M. and Bindumadhav
JAFFRELOT, Christophe. 1999. The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian

Politics. 1925 to the 1990s. Viking/Penguin Books: New Delhi.
JAGJIT, Singh K. 1989. „Savarkar’s International Trial“, in PHAKE,

140.
JAVARAIAH, M. N. 2005. Ambedkar versus Hindurashtra. (Reply to Savarkar,

Golwalkar und Arun Shourie). Bahujan Media Centre: Mysore.
JODLEKAR, J. D. 1995. Veer Savarkar Vindicated. Swatantryaveer Savarkar

Rashtriya Smarak: Mumbai.
JODLEKAR, J. D. 1994. Veer Savarkar’s Critics Answered. A reply to a Marxist

calumny. Veer Savarkar Wangmaya Pratishthan: Hyderabad.
JOGLEKAR, J. D. 1989a. „Savarkar’s Magnum Opus ‘Hindutva’’, in

JOGLEKAR, J. D. 1989b. „Veer Savarkar. Profile of a Prophet“, in PHAKE,

Savarkar. Savarkar Darshan Pratishtnah (Trust): Bombai (Mumbai) 11-41.
JOGLEKAR, J.D. and Madhav PATHAK. 1989c. Punarutthan. Festschrift.

Swatantryaveer Savarkar Rashtriya Smarak: Mumbai (Bombay).
JOSHI, D. B. 1992. Glimpses of Veer Savarkar’s poetry. Veer Savarkar Prakashan:

Mumbai.
KAMATH, M. V. 1989. „Savarkar: The Limits of Human Enduranve“, in PHAKE,

Savarkar. Savarkar Darshan Pratishtnah (Trust): Bombai (Mumbai), 142-
146.
KEER, Dhananjay. 1988. Veer Savarkar. Third Edition. (Second Edition: 1966).
Popular Prakashan: Bombay (Mumbai).
Siegfried O. Wolf
KEER, Dhananjay. 1950. Savarkar And His Times. First Edition. A.V. Keer:
Bombay (Mumbai).
KElKAR, B.K. 1989. ‘Harbinger of Hindu Social Revolution’, in

KELKAR, B.K. 1989. ‘Savarkar: A Thee-dimensional view’, in PHAKE,

Savarkar. Savarkar Darshan Pratishtnah (Trust): Mumbai, p. 42-60.
KETKAR, G. V. 1958. „Vira Savarkarance Dharmakarana“, in PADHYE, S. K.

Savarkar Vividha Darsana. (Publisher: n.n.): Pune, 97-123.
KLIMKEIT, Hans-Joachim. 1981. Der politische Hinduismus. Indische Denker

zwischen religiöser Reform und politischen Erwachen. Otto Harrassowitz:
Wiesbaden.
KETKAR, G.V. 1958. ‘Vira Savarkarance Dharmakarana’, in PADHYE, S. K.

Savarkar Vividha Darsana. (Publisher: n.n.): Pune, pp. 97-123.
LEDERLE, Matthew. 1976. Philosophical Trends in Modern Maharashtra.

Popular Prakashan: Bombay (Mumbai).
MENSKI, Werner F. 2003. Hindu Law. Beyond Traditions and Modernity. Oxford
University Press: New Delhi.
NAG, Jamuna. 1988. Social Reform Movements in Nineteenth Century India.

RBSA Publishers: Jaipur.
NANDY, Ashis 2008. The Demonic and the Seductive in Religious Nationalism:
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the Rites of Exorcism in Secularizing
South Asia, in Heidelberg Papers in Comparative Politics, No. 44.
NAVALGUNDKAR, S.N. 1989. ‘Hindus, “Unite, Modernise and Militarise”’, in

PHAKE, Sudhir/PURANDARE, B.M. and Bindumadhav JOSHI. Eds.
1989. Savarkar. Savarkar Darshan Pratishtnah (Trust): Mumbai, p. 177-
182.
NOORANI, A.G. 2003. Savarkar and Hindutva: The Godse Connection. Leftword:
New Delhi.
PATWARDHAN, V. S. 1989. „Savarkar’s Economic Thinking“, in PHAKE,

Savarkar. Savarkar Darshan Pratishtnah (Trust): Bombai (Mumbai), 118-
122.
PHAKE, Sudhir/PURANDARE, B.M. and Bindumadhav JOSHI. Eds. 1989.

Savarkar. Savarkar Darshan Pratishtnah (Trust): Mumbai.
PHADNIS, Pankaj K. 2002. Freedom Struggle. The Unfinished Story. Festschrift

(Dedicated to the Nation in Memory of Swatantryaveer Vinayak Damodar
Siegfried O. Wolf
Savarkar). Abhinav Bharat, registered Charitable Trust: Mumbai

(Bombay).
PHADTARE, T. C. 1975. Social and Political Thought of Shri V.D. Savarkar. A

Thesis submitted to the Marathwada University for the Degree of Doctor
of Philosophy. Unpublished: Aurangabad.
PRINCE, John. 2007. On the Verge of Hindutva: V. D. Savarkar, revolutionary,

convict, ideologue, c. 1905-1924. Dissertation, University of Hawai,
August 2007.
RAGHAVAN, T. C. A. 1983. „Origins and development of Hindu Mahasabha

ideology: the call of V. D. Savarkar and Bhai Parmanand“, in Economic
and Political Weekly, 18(15), 9 Apr 1983, 595-600.
RAO, Vandematharam Ramchendra. 1989a. „Bhagyanagar Struggle“, in

SWATANTRYAVEER SAVARKAR RASHTRIYA SMARAK. 1989b.
Rashtriya Smarak: Bombay. 15-17.
RAO, Vandematharam Ramchendra. 1989. Prince among Patriots. Veer Savarkar.

U. G. Publications: Hyderabad.
ROTHERMUND, Dietmar. 2003. ‘Asien und die Globalisierung in historischer

Perspektive’. Referat im Rahmen der Tagung: Asien in der Globalisierung
Weingartener Asiengespräche 2003. Akademie der Diözese Rottenburg-
Stuttgart, Weingarten/Oberschwaben, 31.1.-2.2.2003,
http://www.akademie-rs.de/dates/030131_asiengespraech_rothmund.htm.
SAVARKAR, S.S. and G. M. JOSHI. eds. 1992. Historic statements (Prophetic

Warnings). Statements, Telegrams & Letters. 1941 to 1965 by Veer
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Veer Savarkar Prakashan: Bombay.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1999. Hindutva. Who is a Hindu? Seventh

Edition. Swatantryaveer Savarkar Rashtriya Smarak: Mumbai (Bombay).
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1993. ‘Abhinava Hindu Dhwaja’, in Grover,

Verinder. 1993. V.D. Savarkar. Political Thinkers of Modern India.
Volume 14. Deep & Deep: Publications: New Delhi, pp. 185-190.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1993. ‘An Echo from Andamans. Letters

Written by V.D. Savarkar to his Brother Dr. Savarkar’, in Grover,
Verinder. 1993. V.D. Savarkar. Political Thinkers of Modern India.
Volume 14. Deep & Deep: Publications: New Delhi, pp. 579-636.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1971. Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History.

Bal Savarkar: Bombay (Mumbai)
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1969. Hindutva: Who is a Hindu. Veer Savarkar

Prakashan: Bombay.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1950. The Story of my Transportation for Life. A

Biography of Black days of Andamans. First Impression. Sadbhakti
Publications: Bombay (Mumbai).
Siegfried O. Wolf
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1940. Hindu Sanghatan: Its ideology and

immediate programme. Hindu Mahasabha: Bombay.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1963-65. Samagra Savarkar Vangamaya.

(Entire Works of Savarkar), Volumes 1 – 8. Edited by Manarao Daate,
published by Maharashtra Hindu Maha Sabha 1963-65.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar and Satya PARKASH. 1945. Hindu Rashtravad.

Ideology and Immediate Programme. Rohtas Printing Press: Rohtak.
SESHADRI, H. V. 1989. „The Swantantrya-Veer Epitome of Swatantrata and

Veerata“, in PHAKE, Sudhir/PURANDARE, B.M. and Bindumadhav
Mumbai, 83-88.
SHARMA, Jyotirmaya. 2003. Hindutva. Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism.

Viking/Penguin Books: New Delhi.
SHARMA, Sita Ram. 2007. Life and works of V.D. Savarkar. Book Enclave:
Jaipur.
SHARMA, Suresh. 1996. ‘Savarkar’s Quest for a Modern Hindu Consolidation’, in

Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, Volume II, No. 2, 1996, pp.
189-215, Shimla.
SHIVRAMU. 1989. „Savarkar’s Role in the British Quitting India“, in PHAKE,

189.
SRIVASTAVA, Harindra. 1993a. The epic sweep of V D Savarkar: An analytical

study of the epic sweep in the life and literature of Vinayak Damodar
Savarkar. Savarkar Punruththan Sanathan: New Delhi.
SRIVASTAVA, Harindra. 1993b. „His Titles Epitomize the Theme“, in

SRIVASTAVA, Harindra. 1983. Five stormy years: Savarkar in London (1906-

1911) - A centenary salute to V.D. Sarvarkar. Allied: New Delhi.
SINGH, K. Jagjit. 1989. „Savarkar’s International Trial Background & Impact“, in

PHAKE, Sudhir/PURANDARE, B. M. and Bindumadhav JOSHI. (Eds.).
1989. Savarkar. Savarkar Darshan Pratishtnah (Trust): Bombay (Mumbai),
129-140.
SWATANTRYAVEER SAVARKAR RASHTRIYA SMARAK. 1989. Smarak

Inauguration. 28 May 1989. Festschrift. Swatantryaveer Savarkar
TREHAN, Jyoti. 1991. Veer Savarkar. Thought and Action of Vinayak Damodar
Savarkar. Deep & Deep Publications: New Delhi.
Siegfried O. Wolf
VAIDYA, Prem. 1996. Savarkar. A Lifelong Crusader. New Age International (P)
Limited: New Delhi.
VARMA, Vishwanath Prasad. 1985. Modern Indian Political Thought. Eighth

Edition (First Edition 1961). Volume II. Laksmi Narain Agarwal
Educational Publishers: Agra, pp. 386-391 (Section Five: V.D. Savarkar).
WARADPANDE, N. R. 1989. „Conversion of religion is Subversion of

Nationhood“, in PHAKE, Sudhir/PURANDARE, B. M. and Bindumadhav

Wolf On Savarkar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wolf On Savarkar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wolf On Savarkar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heidelberg Papers

and Comparative Politics

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s

Working Paper No. 51

South Asia Institute

Department of Political Science

Editor Subrata K. Mitra

Deputy Editors Clemens Spiess

Managing Editor Florian Britsch

Editorial Assistant Sergio Mukherjee

Editorial Advisory Board Mohammed Badrul Alam

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s ‘Strategic

Since India’s independence (and even before) there is a growing ideological

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

his attempts to move towards the constitution of a coherent worldview. Savarkar is

The author believes that it is not possible to evaluate Savarkar’s contribution

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

his thoughts in this direction remained unorganised. An outline of his fragmented

Table 1: Three categories of Savarkars writings

Category 1: Non-(party-)  Inside the Enemy Camp („Autobiography“

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

(1) The supremacy of Western political and social thought in Savarkar’s

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

(2) The ‘clash’ of two different worldviews:

Savarkar’s thought and worldview (Weltansicht) reflects his own interpretation of a

Savarkar devoted himself to exploring all religions. He had a wide knowledge

Savarkar’s rationalistic mind adopted a critical attitude towards the elements

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

From Savarkar’s point of view, the ‘classical Indian thought’ or ‘Brahmanical

To the European-educated Savarkar, through his experiences with Vedanta

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

(3) Savarkar’s agnosticism - Religion as an extension to the portfolio of

I.) In his recommendation to examine all religious scriptures in terms of their

Savarkar points out that there are no unchangeable or unchallengeable codes in

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

question – is it sanctioned by the scriptures? We must never again waste time on

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

the most misunderstood conceptions in Savarkar’s political thoughts on

According to Savarkar, civilisation, and culture generally, ‘is the expression of

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

The above-described difficulties in the attempt to detach the term ‘Holyland’

The ‘contextual interpretation’ focuses on the notion of patriotism in

In contrast, a more narrow ‘literal interpretation’ proclaims that India has to be

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

In addition to these two extreme interpretations, there is a ‘third approach’, a

These different interpretations of Savarkar’s Punyabhu draw attention to a

THE FIVE PHILOSOPHICAL DIMENSIONS OF SAVARKAR

From the above mentioned framework of Savarkar’s three philosophical premises,

Savarkar’s ‘strategic agnosticism’ is deeply rooted in his utilitarian outlook. Since

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

(II) Rationalism and Positivism:

Savarkar also identified the limits of rationalism. In his point of view, a

HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

(III) Humanism and Universalism

Savarkar’s thinking was based on humanitarian values and a belief structure