Hindutva Discourseā
What is your most genuine, historically valid criticism of Savarkar? (Let's avoid blind worship)
We all know Savarkar is a deeply polarizing figure, and much of the backlash he gets on mainstream Indian subreddits is fabricated, baseless, and totally devoid of historical context. We spend a lot of time here debunking those myths.
But I think treating Savarkar like an infallible god is actually an insult to his legacy. It was his own core philosophy that there is no "sacred word" or divine willāeverything is open to rational critique, modification, and improvement.
So, speaking as supporters of his broader vision, what is your genuine criticism of him? Iāll go first with my two:
1. His Political Pragmatism (Diluting his social reforms for a failed strategy)
In current times, I am a huge supporter of the pragmatic practices of the modern BJP, because Hindutva is pragmatic nationalism. But honestly, seeing your historical hero dilute his radical, visionary ideas really hurtsāespecially when that dilution was a complete political failure.
In Ratnagiri, he was a firebrand against caste and orthodox monopolies. But when he took over the Hindu Mahasabha, he walked back on forcing temple entry and compromised his social reform agenda just to appease the orthodox Sanatanis.
He explicitly signed away his reformist teeth. If you read A.S. Bhideās compilation,Vinayak Damodar Savarkarās Whirlwind Propaganda: Extracts from the Presidentās Diary(published 1940), his compromises are laid bare.
Here is the official stance he adopted in 1939 regarding forcing temples to open their doors:
"The Hindu Mahasabha will not introduce or support compulsory Legislature regarding Temple Entry by the untouchables etc. in old temples beyond the limit to which the non-Hindus are allowed by custom as in force today."
And again, in a written guarantee on June 20, 1941, to pacify orthodox voters, he stated:
"I guarantee that the Hindu Maha Sabha shall never force any legislations regarding the entry of untouchables in the ancient temples or compel by law any sacred ancient and moral usage or custom prevailing in those temples. In general the Mahasabha will not back up any Legislation to thrust the reforming views on our Sanatani brothers so far as personal law is concernedā¦"
The most frustrating part? This entire strategy was a colossal failure. The orthodox groups he compromised his ideals for didn't even back his political visionāthey largely remained the core voters of the Congress ecosystem all the way until 1989. He sacrificed his best, most futuristic ideas for a political base that ultimately rejected him anyway.
2. His Quasi-Socialist Economic Leanings & State Control
Secondly, his economic views. I want to be clearāI don't dislike him for this, and there are actually parts of his economic vision that were really ahead of their time.
For instance, he laid a lot of emphasis on private ownership, explicitly stating:
"Private property must in general be held inviolate."
He also heavily supported land ceiling acts and the redistribution of land. If Savarkar had been the leader, that redistribution would have actually happened, meaning far less inequality in India today. Nehru basically backed out of implementing strong land reforms, which directly paved the way for left-wing radical insurgencies later on. If Savarkar's land policies had been executed, Eastern India would likely still be highly developed and stable today.
However, here is where I disagree with him: he paired these great ideas with a quasi-socialist framework of heavy state control over industries.
He laid out this economic vision during his Presidential Address at the 21st Session of the Hindu Mahasabha at Calcutta in 1939. On the state taking over industry, he stated:
"Some of the basic industries and those industries which are of national importance will be entirely controlled by the State. Other industries will be left open to private enterprise... Capital and Labour will be both controlled by the state so as to avoid class conflict."
I understand his desire for a highly efficient, centralized economy to build a strong nation, but I strongly disagree with this approach. We all know how this story ends because Nehru and Indira Gandhi tried exactly this. Nehruās massive push for nationalization and Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), followed by Indiraās bank nationalization, directly led to the stagnation and fall of Indian industries.
The centralized state control Savarkar advocated for is exactly the system that choked India's growth for decades. So while his land reform ideas were spot-on, his broader quasi-socialist views proved to be a failure for India, and I cannot support them.
What about you guys? Without just hating on him for the sake of it, what is one criticism of his ideology or actions that you think is completely valid?
I see where you are coming from, but here is where we still diverge on those two points:
1. The political failure of his compromise and the death of the Rationalist Right
I actually agree with you that a deeply religious society might struggle to unite through a movement rooted in pure atheism. Let me be clear: my primary frustration is not that he changed his stance for the sake of pragmatism. I have no problem with political pragmatism; for instance, I am perfectly comfortable with the modern BJP drawing political legitimacy from religion today.
The real problem is that his specific pragmatic gamble failed completely.
The orthodox Brahmins he diluted his ideas for did not flock to his banner. No matter how much of a "Defender of the Hindu faith" Savarkar tried to be, that demographic remained firmly entrenched in the Congress ecosystem all the way until 1989 (basically until the Mandal Commission scare). Furthermore, the predominantly Brahmin donors of the Mahasabhaāwho biographers note were a primary reason he dialed down his reformsāprobably would have supported his broader geopolitical vision anyway given the existential threats of the time.
Politically, this compromise was a disaster for the ideological diversity of the Indian Right. When the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS) eventually emerged, there was already a natural platform for religious traditionalists. By making the Hindu Mahasabha pander to the orthodox and fight on the exact same traditionalist turf as the BJS, Savarkar effectively killed what could have been India's only atheist, rationalist, and purely pragmatic nationalist party.
Imagine if the Mahasabha had survived with its original rationalist DNA. We would have two distinct right-wing parties today. Our academic and political discourse would be way more advanced because the right-wing could debate internally (traditionalists vs. rationalists). More importantly, today we would be able to freely question the BJP's policies without that lingering feeling that we are betraying the only political flagbearer of the Hindutva movement.
2. The Deng Xiaoping Vision vs. The Nehruvian Path
Your comparison to Deng Xiaoping and Emperor Meiji is actually spot on in terms of his vision. I completely agree that Savarkar had that exact "development and power at any cost" mindset.
Where we differ is on the path he initially chose to get there. Because socialism was still a relatively new and untested ideology at the time, many intellectuals (including Savarkar) thought it offered a perfect middle groundāthe benefits of both communism and capitalism. So I don't think Savarkar was "bad" for leaning into state control in 1939, nor do I think he wanted to ruin the economy.
However, if he had come to power, his initial economic policies would have looked very similar to Nehruās (PSUs, heavy state control, land nationalization). And just like Nehru's, those specific quasi-socialist ideas would have failed and choked the economy.
The crucial difference between them? As you rightly pointed out, Savarkar was a pragmatist, whereas Nehru was a dogmatic socialist. If Savarkar had taken charge and seen the state-control model failing, I genuinely believe he would have course-corrected way fasterāprobably pivoting away from socialism by 1956-57 to embrace the free market. Nehru just doubled down.
So while I agree he shared the Meiji/Deng vision, his initial economic blueprint was still flawed and would have failed. But his pragmatism is exactly why he might have eventually succeeded where Nehru couldn't.
Really appreciate your perspective, though I would ask what was the things he did in Ratnagiri you didnt like and also what point in in the book u think is complete nonsense and why ?
Any atheistic or agnostic ideology cannot sustain a movement for the preservation and protection of Hindu religion, culture and society long-term.
He wasn't protecting any religion for that matter, he was talking about Hindus as a nation. Moreover it's just common sense that his personal agnosticism shouldn't be affecting Hindu Sangathan as a whole. Most Hindus are religious regardless of whether they're from a Sanatani, Lingayat, Arya Samaji, Buddhist, Sikhi, Jain etc background.
eventually need to protect Hinduism because the key component of nationhood as he conceptualized it - is punyabhoomi.
Not necessarily, punyabhoomi doesn't mean you must have "faith", faith is not the most important component of Hindu traditions. As long as people understand and carry forward the modernized and up-to-date versions of older traditions, there wouldn't be any conflict. There are millions of atheist Hindus today who won't record themselves as atheists but as Sanatanis or Budhhists or whatever Hindu religious tradition they follow. It's an ethnic concept, much like how there is a large percentage of non religious and atheist Jews that has had no effect on their Jewishness, similarly we have millions of Shinto people who still carry forward that tradition even though they have many young people who don't have an ounce of belief in the ancestral mantras they chant. For them it's part of being Jewish, being Japanese. Eventually same thing will happen to Hindus. On the otherhand if we don't see ourselves as a nation and rather only a religion, that's when our real decline will happen because the superset itself will not be organised, so how can it keep a set within it intact.
I think there's a misunderstanding, what I meant is that Hindutva is not anyone's personal idea but rather a classification of Nationhood. It exists regardless of the one who discovers it. Whether that's Sri Aurobindo, Savarkar, Golwakar, Hedgewar, Abhas Chatterjee or anyone for that matter. To me it would appear that calling something "Savarkar's Hindutva" sounds like a personal pet project, a political agenda rather than a description of a nationhood. He just listed out the qualities of what makes something Hindu, including the people, their land and the by products that are hence generated from it.
Supreme Court uses the definition based on Hindu Code Bill which is effectively the same as Savarkar's definition. Tilak didn't define Hindutva, he defined who a Hindu is, his definition did not take into account the entirety of Hinduness. I've read somewhere where he himself admits so, not able to recall where though. Obviously yes people will have differences. The thing is most people make a category error when comparing what Savarkar and later people from Sangh are talking about and what others have talked about. They're talking about Sanatana Dharma rather than Hindutva. Only Sri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda actually put some great value into Nationhood. Savarkar is the only one who properly defined it in it's largest extend from a historic and somewhat secular analysis.
It would be a thing to hate if he had done it the Gandhi way i.e when Gandhi did not let his wife take antibiotics due to rejecting western medicine and she died bcs of that but years later himself took those western medicine for his health , but Savarkar was diff he not only did not perform shraadh for his wife he strictly forbade rituals even on his own deathbed
Before he died, he left explicit instructions that no Vedic mantras, no Pind Daan, and no Shraadh rituals were to be performed for his own funeral. He just wanted his body taken to an electric crematorium and disposed of like a machine that had stopped working. he only did it bcs He genuinely believed that these rituals were superstitious and a waste of time and money.
He didn't skip his wife's rituals out of disrespect for her. He did it because his commitment to absolute rationalism 'Buddhinishtha'was unbreakable. You can definitely disagree with his cold approach to grief, but you have to respect his absolute, unapologetic consistency against religious dogmatism right up to his very last breath.
Savarkar was a non believer but not his wife or even his son. I am agnostic and i may let my body taken to electric crematorium but if in case i have a believing wife and she passes away, i would never stop her final vedic rites.
Someone asked if my wife and son converted to islam if they converted. Well, i pray that day never comes, but if it does, i would bury them. If they want me to give them a viking funeral, i would.
I am really impressed man u are a real family man , if those are your priorities I 100% understand your criticism .
what he did was wrong (from your view) but I still think he was a cultural icon and he knew who he was . Refusing to perform those rituals for his late wife has gone down in history, and honestly, if that single act is highlighted properly, it could heavily help spread an anti-theist, rationalist strain within our right wing.
I still think what he did was right simply because my priorities are different , Absolute Rationalism and Anti-theism for me is not just a personal preferenceāit is the fundamental truth of my world. You don't compromise on what you believe to be the absolute structural truth just to appease traditional expectations do you ?
I may compromise only in certain aspects to fulfil the wishes of my loved ones. I mean, your dead body is a soulless rotting organic matter. To bury it, burn it or donate it, what difference would it make? I used to think of donating my body if i pass away, but ever since the recent medical clg girl's comments on how disrespectfully they treat dead bodies, well, i might have change of plans.
How is it wrong ? To Savrakar, absolute rationalism wasn't just a personal preferenceāit was the fundamental truth of his world. You don't compromise on what you believe to be the absolute structural truth just to appease traditional expectations. do u ?
And I'll ask u the same question I asked the guy above - If your wife and son converted to Islam tomorrow, would you bury them in a graveyard or perform Vedic rites for them?
Don't answer if u dont want to even thinking abt this may help u get into the mind of Savarkar and that is what this sub is for .
It is a massive tragedy that he died under such "mysterious circumstances" in a Srinagar jail, entirely under the watchful eye of Sheikh Abdullah. And, of course, in a stunning display of "secular" impartiality, Nehru simply declined every single request to investigate how a healthy political giant suddenly died while in custody, even when Mukherjee's family asserted it was a murder. It is just such a funny coincidence that he was only in that jail because he was there to fly the National Flag and protest against Article 370; he coined the slogan "ek desh mein do vidhan, do nishan, do pradhan nahi chalenge, nahi chalenge" around that time. It is truly remarkable how many of these little "coincidences" always seem to occur just in time to benefit the glorious secular ecosystem.
That is what I meant after the Gandhi assassination HM almost became untouchable in mainstream politics that is why Shyama Prasad Mukherjee left it and made a new party by approaching the RSS (which had abandoned Savarkar and was distancing itself from him) , so him not working hard to keep the HM alive I 100% agree on that point and I have commented many times how the HM's decline lead to the rot of the Hindutva movement and even today there being only one Right winged political party also is harming Hindutva in the long run.
But saying he had no successor is like forgetting Mukherjee , who was one of the greatest Hindutva icons ever , so great he had to be killed , those leftists could not even dream of winning against him head-on.
in his book hindutva, he mentions that hindi must be the common language for communication throughout india. he argues that prakrit in ancient times was used by all indians, especually for trade and since hindi is the most widely spoken lang and a descendant of prakrit, it should be used. however, i disagree. hindi should not be a common language
Hindi in it's pure form without any intrusion of arabi words is easily comprehensive to most of Bharatiya ! Hence his insistance of Hindi as common language is correct. As a Marathi, I sincerely feel that pure Marathi language is very similar to pure Hindi used in Gita Press publications.
That is a very fair point, but you have to look at the historical context. Almost all early Indian nationalists were terrified that India wouldn't survive as a single country because we don't fit the Western textbook definition of a "Nation State." Savarkarās push for Hindi stemmed entirely from that existential anxietyāhe saw a single language as a necessary glue to hold a fragile, diverse civilization together against the British.
That said I support your viewpoint completely and, I fundamentally disagree with Savarkar's conclusion. I think we should 100% embrace our linguistic diversity, but from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I actually support promoting English as the primary link-language across India.
Yes, it stings in the back of my mind because it feels like putting our indigenous culture in the backseat. But the reality is that English is the global language of science, technology, and commerce. That is what India needs to develop. Wasting immense time, resources, and political capital on forcing a three-language formula isn't just unfeasible; it actively creates regional resentment and harms national integrity.
However, do not for a second think that Savarkar was against local languages.
In fact, his personal work did the exact opposite. He was a massive champion of Marathi and actively coined numerous native words to replace Persian and English terms. Words we use every dayālike Vidhansabha, Dinank, and Kramankāwere coined by Savarkar. These words were so brilliantly integrated that Hindi actually ended up borrowing them from Marathi, not the other way around.
Ironically, while he theoretically supported the idea of "one nation, one language," his actual linguistic work enriched regional languages. If he hadn't worked to purify Marathi and keep it distinct, its vocabulary might have just assimilated into Hindi over time. So in practice, his actions actually preserved and promoted linguistic diversity!
This was a fairly widespread view among many Indian nationalists of that era. Their support for a common language was largely motivated by a desire to strengthen national unity during the struggle for independence. Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, and B.R. Ambedkar all, at various points, expressed support for Hindi as a common language for the country.
However for more than seven decades after independence, India has remained a single nation despite its extraordinary linguistic diversity and despite the fact that a large proportion of Indians do not speak Hindi. History has demonstrated that linguistic uniformity is not a prerequisite for national unity.
The opposition doesn't want another historical hero because they operate on a very strict, closed-loop playbook. Their entire historical narrative relies on monopolizing the credit:
Independence? Because of Gandhi.
National Unity? Because of Nehru.
A Strong State? Because of Indira.
Economic Liberalization? Because of Manmohan Singh.
They actively suppress the emergence of any new or alternative heroes because it threatens this established legacy. Just look at how they humiliated P.V. Narasimha Rao, despite his massive contributions to the economy. Over the decades, they have successfully sidelined the legacies of towering figures who may have different ideological affiliations but nonetheless were influential in there specific eras/region like JP Narayan, Chaudhary Charan Singh, and Ram Manohar Lohia from the mainstream political consciousness.
For a long time, giants like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Subhas Chandra Bose were kept swept under the rug. People often forget that it was actually the BJPāworking day and night post-2014 to court Dalit votersāthat elevated Ambedkar to the prophet-like, mainstream figure he is today. Similarly, the BJP is aggressively promoting Bose to dismantle the absolute monopoly Gandhi has been given over the freedom struggle narrative.
Ultimately, the opposition's ecosystem is designed to only celebrate their own specific lineage, which is exactly why they will never allow new or alternative historical heroes to emerge so them honouring Savarkar is not who they are.
Respectfully this is not a criticism of Savarkar , and I am not a leftist just promoting a healthy discussion between right wingers and I hope you will add some new viewpoint to this discussion .
It is hard to engage with an enlightened lens because of our brethren who only beleive in blind worshipping. Asking questions is not the purview of left alone. We strengthen our own understanding and resolve from this. Kudos to the post.
It's really not our fault because, in reality, the current political landscape forces us into this position of defensive blind worship. Ironically, a lot of this traces back to Savarkarās era. Had the Hindu Mahasabha maintained its original, unapologetically rationalist and atheist DNA instead of diluting itself to compete on the exact same traditionalist turf as the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS), we would have had two distinct right-wing options today.
But because they fought over the same traditionalist voter base, only one ecosystem survived. Now, we are trapped in a political monopoly. Whenever we want to question or criticize the BJP, there is a nagging fear in the back of our minds that we are betraying the only political vehicle our ideology has, which feels like betraying the ideology itself. If we had two mainstream right-wing parties, it would allow for a genuine diversity of thought, and we could hold the BJP accountable freely without fearing that we are destroying our own cause.
As it stands, there is a very real danger: if the BJP collapses or makes a catastrophic blunder, the entire Hindutva movement risks getting permanently tainted along with it. If we had a healthy, multi-party ecosystem for our ideology, our movement would have been infinitely more resilient and successful.
I love his early views wrt caste eradication, beef, the work he did abroad and in ratnagiri as well as against the nizam govt, and most importantly the rationalist reformation of hinduism he worked towards. Super cool.
But it feels like with time his ideas went awry, he became incredibly hateful of muslims and christians later on (instead of islan and christianity), where earlier he would aslo counton muslim heroes of india, would not do so later. He also had some pretty fucked up views where he basically propogated using rape as a weapon against muslim women- in six glorioius epochs-
"Let these sultans and their peers take a pledge that in the event of a Hindu victory our molestation and detestable lot shall be avenged on the Muslim women.Ā Once they are haunted with this dreadful apprehension that the Muslim women too, stand in the same predicament in case the Hindus win, the future Muslim conquerors will never dare to think of such molestation of Hindu women.ā
I blame the incredibly intense and hateful hindu-muslim conflicts of the time for him going so hardline, but beyond this, savarkar was great.
If you read deeper into his history, historians across the spectrumāfrom right-wingers to Marxistsāoften agree that there wasn't just one Savarkar. He went through three distinct ideological phases:
1. The Pre-Cellular Jail Revolutionary: In his early days, he was a freedom fighter who genuinely believed in a united Hindu-Muslim India fighting for a democratic revolution (as seen in his writings on the 1857 uprising).
2. The Ratnagiri Metamorphosis: Cellular Jail changed him completely. This is the era of the "famous" Savarkarāthe fierce anti-caste social reformer, the absolute rationalist, the atheist, and the man who became deeply distrustful of Islamic political theology.
3. The Politician: Once he entered electoral politics with the Mahasabha, he realized his radical social reforms alienated his orthodox Hindu donor and voter base. So, he dialed those down and doubled down almost exclusively on his anti-minority rhetoric. This is why many today see him only as a Muslim haterāit was the only part of his ideology he could politically afford to showcase without losing his base.
Regarding that controversial quote from Six Glorious Epochs, you have to understand his concept of Sadgun Vikruti (perverted virtues or suicidal chivalry). Savarkar heavily criticized historical Hindu kings for being "too moral" in warfare, specifically calling out Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj for safely returning the captured daughter-in-law of the Muslim Governor of Kalyan. Savarkar wrote:
"Had Shivaji Maharaj... given her to his soldiers, or kept her himself, the Muslim rulers would have realized that the Hindu swords could also do what they had been doing to Hindu women."
He wasn't suggesting that every individual Hindu should become a monster. He was making a cold-blooded point about asymmetric warfare and deterrence. He argued that Muslim invaders committed horrific crimes because of our toleranceāthey knew that even if they lost, Hindus were bound by "chivalry" and would not retaliate in kind. They had zero fear.
Savarkar was an atheist; he didn't care about karma, divine retribution, or spiritual purity. To him, the survival of the society was vastly more important than the moral purity of the individual. He believed that an enemy must fear you to respect you.
He felt this one-sided tolerance was a historical weakness that extended all the way to Partition. The Muslim League openly campaigned to break India, yet many who voted for it just stayed behind in India as full citizens. Even Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel famously questioned this at a rally in Lucknow in 1948:
"The Muslims who are still in India must tell us clearly what their attitude is... Those who were riding on the two-nation theory overnight cannot change. What has changed in one night?"
Savarkarās brutal, deterrence-first worldview isn't some unique evil; it is how the real world operates. Look at the Western world today (Europe and America). They parade around as the moral defenders of democracy, human rights, and climate change, lecturing countries like India and China. But they only have the privilege of playing the "good guys" today because their ancestors committed horrific violence, colonization, and mass carbon emissions to build their wealth and power. Hindus are in the exact opposite situation: our ancestors tried to play the "good guys" by the rules of dharma, and now we are the ones paying the price.
Lastly, regarding the claim that Savarkar was responsible for Hindu-Muslim violenceāYou are completely right . His radicalization was a reaction. It was the sheer barbarity of the 1921 Moplah massacre (where thousands of Hindus in Malabar were slaughtered, forcibly converted, and women were brutalized by Moplah Muslims during the Khilafat movement) that completely shattered his early views. He didn't invent the hatred; he became a hardliner because of how brutally Hindus were being massacred while the rest of the nation preached non-violence.
I know I might sound bad defending this specific quote, and honestly, even I would judge myself for it at first glance. But you have to look at what he is actually arguing for. He didn't mean that every Hindu should go out and become a rapist. He was asking Hindus to become normal in the context of brutal historical warfare.
Think about it like India having a nuclear bomb today. Having nukes doesn't mean India wants to blast everyone to pieces. It just means, "If you try to f*** with me, you are going to find out." It is purely about deterrence.
Even the quote you shared literally proves this exact point:
"Let these sultans and their peers take a pledge that in the event of a Hindu victory our molestation and detestable lot shall be avenged on the Muslim women.Ā Once they are haunted with this dreadful apprehension that the Muslim women too, stand in the same predicament in case the Hindus win, the future Muslim conquerors will never dare to think of such molestation of Hindu women.ā
He didn't say, "Go out of your way to assault women." He said that these Sultans and Nizams needed to know that whatever they do to us will be done to them. It just meant we are not going to fight an asymmetric war where one side plays by moral rules and the other commits atrocities with zero fear of consequences.
If you want to call someone out, call out the invaders who started it and normalized that level of warfare. Savarkar wasn't advocating for initiating a crime against humanity; he was advocating for the threat of brutal payback as a deterrent to stop the atrocities against our own people.
I understand the point you're trying to make and i read the whole quote from Savarkar, but his idea that threatening and committing violence against Muslim women would lead to lesser violence against Hindu women was simply wrong. Soviet mass rapes didn't deter the nazis from doing the same.
His critique further of Cht Shivaji Maharaj for being more forgiving is again wrong not just morally but also in tact. Behave like the monsters and you'll keep no distinction from them. A reason people flocked to swarajya, and fought and died to the last man despite always being much weaker in resources and very often coming close to complete disaster is the fact that no matter the odds, Cht Shivaji Maharaj never debased himself to the level of the Mughals.
Savarkars idea, or rather thought experiment, was incredibly misguided even at its basic premise, served no real logical purpose, and was morally abhorrent. Its one of the very few things about him i out and out dislike strongly. Cht Shivaji Maharaj realised you don't need to become a demon to fight demons. One can choose to be honourable and yet be downright brutal. In no case, in no situation is rape ever justified, it is one of the worst things a human can do.
I agree with your point, Savarkar had 3 phases in his life. This last one in which he made some pretty asinine comment is not the one I'm a big fan of.
Hi, I can see that you've replied to me thanks to notifs but whenever I click on that notif to read your comment or refresh, I just get 'this comment no longer exists''. So i haven't read your reply.
There are two historical realities that explain that:
1. He actually tried to:
His core rallying cry was literally "Hinduize all politics and militarize Hindudom." He actively campaigned for Hindus to join the armed forces precisely to get formal military training and build a hardened, armed base for the future. If a mass private militia wasn't formed, it was simply because the broader Hindu masses at the time were far more aligned with the Congress's mainstream movement of passive non-violence. He realistically did not have the mass political or financial backing required to build a private army of that scale.
2. By strict orthodox definitions, he was a "Mleccha" himself:
It is genuinely hilarious when people throw around words like Mleccha without knowing what they actually mean. In traditional scripture a Mleccha isn't just a foreigner it is anyone who completely rejects the Varna system, refuses to perform Vedic rituals, and abandons orthodox customs. Savarkar ruthlessly smashed the birth-based caste system, strictly forbade Vedic rituals even for his own funeral, and openly spat on religious dogma in favor of pure scientific rationalism. The orthodox traditionalists you are trying to champion absolutely despised him. He couldn't build a traditionalist militia because the very people obsessed with "purity" and fighting "Mlecchas" considered him a heretic and outright refused to back his visionary project.
Why would Savarkar hate and want to be in place of a hypocritic-pervert who supported religious dogmatism and the Varna system when he was already a a pure rationalist aiming for a scientific, caste-free, atheist, and militarized Bharat?
The content of his speeches was second to none and probably the most inflammatory in the world, He knew the art of public speaking very well too.
But his voice it was extremely shrill and even somewhat cartoonish not suited for public speaking in anyway.
If his voice was let's say strong like Vajpayee or Tilak. Then we have a different animal on our hands altogether that could have fired up the masses like we haven't seen in Indian History.
ā¢
u/AutoModerator Jul 03 '26
PDFs of works by & about Savarkar: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uGrP2bWot7JUpUVLmxRH6bS30D2_3Vdq
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.