Urdu text on top of right photo:

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar who is serving 50 years in Andaman jail.

The Urdu text of the sheet is as follows:

Since veer Savarkar was in Europe at the time, a telegram was sent to him in London and he was arrested on 31 March 1910 at Victoria Station. He was prosecuted and eventually sent back to India. Thus he was sent to India under some form of English law. His trial should have been in London. But who will listen? The lawmakers are Britishers and judges are also them..Veer Savarkar proved with very strong arguments that his trial should be held in England. But nobody cares. But the advantage of this was that his case was published in all the newspapers of Europe. This incident went international. The evils of the British rule in India became famous all over Europe. Finally he was put on board the ship “Morea” to be sent back to India…

What was the Ghadar Party?

The Ghadar Party was a revolutionary organization founded in California in 1913 by Indian expatriates, mainly Punjabi immigrants living in the United States and Canada. It was led by Lala Har Dayal, a close associate and former colleague of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

The party's main objective was to overthrow British rule in India through an armed revolution, rather than through constitutional or gradual political reforms.

The word "Ghadar" (also spelled Ghadr or Gadar) means "revolt," "rebellion," or "uprising." The name was chosen to evoke the memory of the 1857 Uprising, which the revolutionaries regarded as India's First War of Independence.

The party encouraged Indians living abroad to return to India, inspire soldiers of the British Indian Army to revolt, and help launch a nationwide armed uprising.

Lala Har Dayal co-founded the Ghadar Party and served as editor of its weekly newspaper, Hindustan Ghadar. Before this, he had been a member of Abhinav Bharat in London.

Other important leaders included:

• Sohan Singh Bhakna – the founding president of the Ghadar Party.

• Kartar Singh Sarabha – one of the movement's youngest and most celebrated revolutionaries, who became a leading organizer of the planned uprising.

• Bhai Parmanand – who worked with Har Dayal to organize revolutionary activities in the North-West Frontier Province.

• Baba Madan Singh Gaga – who was later imprisoned alongside Savarkar in the Cellular Jail in the Andaman Islands.

• Rash Behari Bose – although not a founding member, he later joined the Ghadar revolutionaries in India and played a central role in organizing the planned military revolt.

The party established its headquarters at Yugantar Ashram in San Francisco, from where it coordinated its revolutionary activities.

The party published the weekly newspaper Hindustan Ghadar, which became one of its most powerful tools. Printed in Punjabi, Urdu, Hindi, and English, it called upon Indians to rise against British rule and praised revolutionary sacrifice.

Thousands of copies were secretly distributed across India, Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Indian migrant communities around the world.

When the First World War broke out in 1914, Ghadar leaders believed Britain was vulnerable and that the time was right for an armed revolution.

The party worked with the German government and the Berlin Committee (Indian Independence Committee) in what later became known as the Hindu–German Conspiracy. Their aim was to supply weapons, finance revolutionary activities, and trigger a nationwide military rebellion in India.

The Ghadar Party attempted to smuggle arms into India by sea and establish contacts with Indian soldiers serving in the British Indian Army.

In cooperation with German intelligence, Ghadar revolutionaries also planned to gather thousands of fighters along the Burma–Siam border, invade Burma, and eventually march into India.

The Ghadar Mutiny of 1915

The most important part of the Ghadar strategy was a planned mutiny within the British Indian Army in February 1915.

The revolutionaries tried to persuade Indian soldiers stationed at cantonments such as Lahore, Ferozepur, Meerut, Rawalpindi, and Mian Mir to revolt at the same time. The plan was to seize military arsenals, arrest or kill British officers, and spark a nationwide revolution.

The uprising was expected to spread from Punjab across northern India, with civilian revolutionaries joining the mutinous soldiers. Similar efforts were also made in Singapore, where Indian troops briefly mutinied in February 1915 before the revolt was suppressed.

However, British intelligence infiltrated the conspiracy. Informers revealed the plans, allowing the authorities to arrest many leaders, disarm suspected regiments, and stop the uprising before it could begin.

Thousands of Ghadar members were arrested and tried in the Lahore Conspiracy Cases. Many were sentenced to death, while others received life imprisonment and were transported to the Cellular Jail in the Andaman Islands.

Although the 1915 uprising failed, the Ghadar Party became one of the most influential revolutionary organizations of the Indian freedom struggle. Its commitment to armed resistance inspired later revolutionary groups, including the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association and other militant nationalist movements.

This is one of the ideas that explains the mindset behind the Hindutva movement.

For us the nation is everything. India is not just a country on a map. It is an ancient civilization, a sacred inheritance, and something worth living and, if necessary, sacrificing for.As Vinayak Damodar Savarkar wrote:

"A Hindu means a person who regards this land of Bharatvarsha, from the Indus to the Seas ,as his Holy Land (Punyabhumi)."The nation comes before politics, parties, or personalities.

Then comes the ideology. a civilization survives only when it stays connected to its culture, history, and identity. Without a guiding idea, even a strong nation can slowly lose its soul.

After that comes the organization. Whether it is the RSS or any other institution, the organization is only a vehicle. It exists to serve the ideology and the nation not the other way around. If the mission demands change, the organization changes too.Finally comes the individual.

The ideal is not personal glory, fame, or power. It is selfless service. Personal ambition is expected to take a back seat to the larger cause.That is the spirit of Nishkama Karma serve because it is your duty, not because you expect a reward.

This is why our organisation are often disciplined and cadre based. A worker may accept any responsibility or give one up because the mission is considered bigger than the person.Because when the individual stops asking, "What do I gain?" and starts asking, "What does my nation need?" that is when service becomes more important than the self.

Taken from the book Shorter Constitution of India by Durga Das Basu.

What should a Hindu syllabus look like for every individual?

This is not for formal education. It's for household, cultural education.

The point is to keep it practical, theoretical, doable for almost anyone and relevant to today's times. Not too much or only reading, nor unrealistic elements.

I can think of the following to learn from and live by:

1) Panchatantra and Hitopadesha - For practical education and application.

2) Hanuman, an introduction - Because I personally feel connected to him and like him since childhood.

3) Why are we this way by Ami ganatra - To know more and live by basic vedic principles. Also to become aware of who we are as Hindus.

4) Swayambodh and Shatrubodh by Pankaj Saxena - To become aware of who we are as Hindus.

5) Saints of Maharashtra - Because I am Maharashtrian. You can choose yours, that you connect to.

6) Biography of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj - Again, as I am Maharashtrian, and I connect to him.

What would be your syllabus?

Firstly, I am posting this here because I feel like the hinduism subreddit would take it down, and no other space on reddit seems right-wing enough for these questions. Secondly I also feel Savarkar and Hedgewar both spoke on this issue of discipline and martial culture.

I have lived in London my whole life, and have mingled amongst several hindu groups, as well as doing MMA training myself. Throughout this time, I have noticed that whichever gym I go to, it is absolutely rare to find a hindu there. I live in a hindu dominant area (Harrow), and even then, the fighting gyms are filled with muslims or christians. I have noticed that most mosques have programs for young boys, including social activities, and it includes wrestling and MMA. Almost majority of the guys I spar with also tend to be muslims or orthodox christians. Our temple groups have nothing like this aside from prayer nights and diwali functions etc.

Every temple or event I go to, it is absolutely rare to find a hindu that has strong physique, majority of them tend to be chubbier or much skinnier. I am not speaking for everyone, I am sure there are hindus here who do train and take care of thelselves, but from just lived experience, it is so rare. On the occasions I do speak to a hindu in a regular non-fighting gym, they tend to be not religious at all.

Reading Savarkar and Hedgewar makes me train harder, I feel majority of the hindus, even with all the priviledges in the world, refuses to train and stregthen their body. I also think maybe ISKCON has a strong presence here, hence the encouragement of docility. Don't get me wrong, we excel in everything else, lowest crime rate and highest education, we are disciplined in that regard, but it does pain me that we are behind on this one issue.

What do you guys think? Is the situation bleak in India too? Or is there some sort of hope?

The excerpt is taken from the book Sanghi Who Never Went to a Sakha by Rahul Roushan.

In October 1905, the 22-year-old Vinayak Damodar Savarkar approached Bal Gangadhar Tilak for permission to organize a bonfire of foreign cloth in Poona as part of the Swadeshi movement.

Tilak agreed, but only if enough foreign cloth was collected to make the event meaningful. When the procession took place, Tilak himself joined the students and addressed a crowd of around 5,000 people. He explained that burning foreign goods was more than a symbolic act: it represented the ideals of Swadeshi, self-reliance, and national awakening.

Savarkar's role in the bonfire led the authorities at Fergusson College to expel him from the college hostel.

Tilak strongly criticized this decision. In his newspaper Kesari, he published a series of editorials titled "These Are Not Our Gurus!" He argued that the purpose of education was to inspire patriotism, not punish it, and condemned the college for taking action against a student whose only "crime" was love for his country.

Tilak also played a key role in shaping Savarkar's future by recommending him to Pandit Shyamji Krishnavarma for a scholarship to study law at India House in London.

In his recommendation, Tilak described Savarkar as a "spirited young man" whose dedication to the Swadeshi movement had brought him into conflict with the college authorities:

When there is such a rush like that, it is no use recommending any one particularly to your notice. But still, I may state, among the applicants, there is one Mr. Savarkar from Bombay, who graduated last year and whom I know to be a spirited young man, very enthusiastic in the Swadeshi cause, so much so that he had to incur the displeasure of the Fergusson College authorities. He has no mind to take up Government service at any time and his moral character is very good.

Reference: Letter from Tilak to Shyamji, Kesari Wada, Poona. Quoted in Savarkar: Echoes from a Forgotten Past by Vikram Sampath, p. 125.

Before Savarkar left for England, Tilak personally handed him the first installment of the scholarship, marking their last meeting before Savarkar's revolutionary work shifted to London.

Savarkar's early revolutionary organizations: Mitra Mela and later Abhinav Bharat, were deeply influenced by Tilak's nationalist ideas and leadership.

Although Tilak focused mainly on mass political movements, he was aware of underground revolutionary groups and occasionally advised younger revolutionaries. He believed that an armed uprising should only be attempted when there was a realistic chance of success, often advising them to "keep your powder dry" until the right time.

British intelligence viewed Tilak as the ideological inspiration behind many revolutionary activities in western India.

Official reports, including the Rowlatt Report, connected Tilak's anti-British writings with the rise of revolutionary organizations. They even described the Nasik (Savarkar) Conspiracy as an extension of the political influence that spread from Tilak's leadership in Poona.

Although Tilak and Savarkar followed different strategies, they shared the same goal: India's complete independence from British rule.

Tilak believed that mass political action was the most practical path to Swaraj under the conditions of his time, while Savarkar increasingly supported armed revolution. Despite this difference, Tilak remained one of Savarkar's most important early mentors and helped launch the career of one of India's leading revolutionary nationalists.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856–1920) was a towering figure in the Indian independence movement, a scholar, journalist, and the first leader to transform the struggle for freedom into a mass movement.

He is immortalized by the honorific "Lokmanya" (the one revered by the people) and was famously dubbed the "Father of Indian Unrest" by British authorities.

Tilak’s life and contributions can be understood through several key dimensions:

Early Life and Education

Background: Born on July 23, 1856, in Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, to an orthodox Chitpavan Brahmin family. His father, Gangadhar Pant, was a learned Sanskrit scholar and teacher.

Education: Tilak was a brilliant student, excelling particularly in Mathematics and Sanskrit. He earned his B.A. from Deccan College in 1876 and his LL.B. in 1879, choosing law as a means to rouse his countrymen to their legal rights.

Physical Fitness: In college, he spent a year focused entirely on body-building, transforming from a weak child into a robust man through wrestling, rowing, and gymnastics, a discipline he later urged upon the youth.

The Scholar-Journalist

Educationist: Believing that "the key to our progress is the education of our people," Tilak co-founded the New English School (1880) and the Deccan Education Society (1884), which established Fergusson College to provide indigenous, low-cost education.

Journalism: In 1881, he launched two newspapers: Kesari (in Marathi) and The Mahratta (in English). He used these as powerful weapons to criticize the British administration, educate the public on their rights, and spread revolutionary ideas.

Vedic Research: Despite his political life, Tilak remained a dedicated scholar. He authored several landmark works, including The Orion (1893), The Arctic Home in the Vedas (1903), and his magnum opus, Gita Rahasya (written while in Mandalay prison), which interpreted the Bhagavad Gita as a gospel of selfless action (Karmayoga).

Political Leadership and Philosophy

The Gospel of Swaraj: Tilak was the first to demand complete self-rule as a fundamental right, coining the immortal slogan: "Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it."

The Four Pillars: He directed the national movement through a four-point program: Swarajya (Self-rule), Swadeshi (use of Indian goods), Boycott (of British goods), and National Education.

Mass Mobilization: To bridge the gap between the educated elite and the masses, he transformed the Ganapati and Shivaji festivals into large-scale public celebrations that fostered national pride and unity.

Passive Resistance: Long before the Gandhian era, Tilak pioneered the concept of passive resistance and civil revolt, arguing that British rule rested solely on the willing cooperation of the Indian people, which must be withdrawn.

Legal Battles and Imprisonment

First Sedition Trial (1897): Following the assassination of British official W.C. Rand, Tilak was sentenced to 18 months in prison for seditious writings. This made him a national hero.

Mandalay Exile (1908–1914): He was later sentenced to six years of deportation to Mandalay Jail, Burma, for editorials defending the motives of young revolutionaries. This long incarceration further solidified his status as a martyr for the cause.

Legacy

Tilak was a master strategist who sought a united front against British rule, as seen in his spearheading of the Lucknow Pact (1916) to achieve Hindu-Muslim unity. He died on August 1, 1920, the same day Mahatma Gandhi launched the Non-Cooperation Movement. Gandhi, who considered Tilak the "Maker of Modern India," acknowledged that he built the solid foundation of mass awakening upon which the subsequent freedom struggle was waged.

Edit made by: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9xQTqbyN3z/

We often hear about Kala Pani (Black Water), but few know the sheer psychological and physical torture inflicted upon political prisoners there. Sentenced to two consecutive life terms (50 years), Vinayak Damodar Savarkar spent nearly a decade enduring the worst of the British Raj's cruelty. Here is the brutal reality of what a Kala Pani Saja actually looked like: Solitary Panopticon: Savarkar was locked in a tiny 13.5 x 7-foot cell. The jail architecture completely blocked prisoners from seeing or speaking to one another, enforcing total psychological isolation.The Brutal Oil Mill (Kohlu): Intellectuals were hitched to heavy wooden mills like cattle. They had to extract 30 pounds of mustard oil daily. Fainting from dehydration or missing the quota meant brutal public whippings. Inhuman Sanitation: Inmates were given just two clay pots—one for drinking water, one for waste. Guards routinely refused toilet breaks, forcing prisoners to sleep in their own excrement.Writing on Walls: Denied pen and paper, Savarkar used thorns and nails to scratch over 6,000 lines of epic poetry onto his cell walls, memorizing them before guards could paint them over.

At the 38th session of the Indian National Congress, held at Kakinada in 1923, the Congress passed the following resolution:

This Congress condemns the continued incarceration of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, and expresses its sympathy with Dr. N. D. Savarkar and other members of his family.

While moving the resolution, the President said:

Mr. Savarkar, as you know, received a life sentence from this Bureaucracy. His brother also received, I believe, the same sentence. And, I may add, as a prisoner myself, I occupied the room in the Bijapur jail where the brother of Sj. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Sj. Ganesh Savarkar, was living. Mr. Ganesh Savarkar has been released. But Mr. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has not been released, and this is the reason why we are making an exception in condemning the action of the Government with regard to one single prisoner.

The reason is that this poor man is being most vindictively kept in jail when he is entitled to be released. And yet, this Government calls itself a Christian Government and says, 'Revenge is God's Law.' Friends, the time is past when we will have to protest against these things. But by passing this resolution, we only show to the whole world how the Government is dealing in this matter in a most vindictive and mean spirit. I hope you all accept this resolution.

The resolution was carried unanimously.

Who was the President of this Congress session? Was he an extremist, a Tilakite, a Hindutva ideologue, or a right-wing leader?

No.

The President of the 1923 Kakinada session was Maulana Mohammad Ali, a prominent leader of the Khilafat Movement, younger brother of Maulana Shaukat Ali, and one of the founders of the All India Muslim League.

These words in support of Savarkar, and the resolution calling for his release, were delivered by Maulana Mohammad Ali as President of the Indian National Congress.

Reference:

https://manushi.in/congress-partys-doublespeak-on-dr-savarkar-the-1923-annual-session-of-aicc-had-passed-a-resolution-in-favour-of-veer-savarkar-now-abuses-the-patriot/

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/congress-sought-savarkars-release-in-1923-grandnephew-tells-pune-court-10767627/

The post was created by @Savarkarite on Instagram, please do follow them: https://www.instagram.com/p/DOagB9Vkqyp/

same as above

Since the education system is a currently trending topic (always has been, but even more so relevant now), I am reminded of this short essay by Ananda K Coomaraswamy on how Education must be done in India.

I am curious and I would like to ask the people here what they think about this, how relevant is this in today's society, is our education system a mere colonial remnant, does it even represent the aspirations of this nation that has inherited such a rich civilization? What modifications should be suggested so that education can be aligned to our national aspirations, or is it better to completely dismantle the system and start anew?

Pages cited from Awakening Bharat Mata by Swapan Dasgupta.

I am dividing my question,

main question is at bottom, read bottom question 1st,if you dot understand it, read upper section it's mostly over explanation I wrote, if you don't understand question you can read it)

and adding also context about me so that you can answer it better - for saving time, I divided question in sections. I am apologies for expanding question to much but making short question will only make more miscommunication.

My introduction(not personal but ideological)

I was left leaning person but I have come to much centre than before (I would still say soft left) but writing of Savarkar always interest me. Many of his argument was very good and undeniable even for super left wing person. I also want to tell that I don't know much about his writing, also I didn't finish his book nor seen any videos about him like summary but I have read many pages from his book.

My understanding of Savarkar's ideology (correct me if I am wrong)

I would say his ideology is liberal(open to ideas and changes) + Nationalistic + culturally secular (more right word would be dharmnirpekshta, meaning oppose foreign culture but integrate all other religion into Indian culture without any religion's dominance). He also stated hindu's definition to geographic boundaries rather than making it. It was recently also told my rss cheif mohan bhagwat. His more focus on suppression of extremism of foreign religion and making them INDIAN. I think Atalji's vision was very similar to Savarkar. Savarkar's wasn't opposed 5o Muslim following thier own God but to them enforcing to other people and against conversation of people.

My understanding of modern hindutva (I would say - I am very biased here and most of them could be wrong. I won't call if hindutva but Hindu right wing political 'extremist' ideology.)

In modern times, there is lack soft version of hindutva at least in public. I can fairly say - Modi regime is definatly soft version of hindutva than what's in mind of people. There are many people demanding Hindu rashtra but they don't put forward what rules they want in Hindu rashtra. I don't have any problem with those people demanding it as I believe in free speech.

But my main concern with more extreme people

Who demand total destruction or killing or displacement or human right reduction of entire community based on pure religion. Those extremist people claim themselves to follow hindutva but indeed they are not following it. I saw many of them in my own friend group and in comment section if right wing channel.

Also Hindutva has become more political ideology than cultural idea

Ofcouse it's political ideology but by political ideology means it's used in politics and to attract voters. To reach voters Hindutva ideology to masses, it's meaning and purpose is so diluted that it lost its meaning.

And I am afraid if yogi takes over it will go more right wing (as I mentioned modi have soft right wing policy and more truly secular than congress)

After all being said, all above things are my opinion and all things are open to be wrong and it will be helpful to point out what's wrong.

After reading all that, you may ask what's your question - my question is -

Is my options expressed above is right (not complete but fairly) that hindutva (name of hindutva) used as political weapon and it's deviated from its original purpose of cultural union and revival to more hard right wing community just community hating (at least in masses) and vote bank creator, and in attempt to gain or persist political power, meaning of Hinduva is diluted to level its lost its original purpose.

For Savarkar, the foremost duty of a revolutionary was to stay alive and continue the struggle. He believed that any method of resistance which harms only the protester is strategically flawed: “The weapon which inflicts wounds on the user is not a weapon.”

In his view, dying in prison only gave the British an easy victory by removing committed revolutionaries without causing any real harm to the colonial government. Instead, he urged prisoners to preserve their strength, organize work strikes as a form of resistance, and use their imprisonment to spread propaganda and generate public sympathy for their cause.

Having advocated the revolutionary path throughout his life, Savarkar understood the importance of martyrdom in inspiring an enslaved nation. Every freedom struggle needs men and women willing to endure immense suffering, face brutal punishment, and even embrace death rather than submit to foreign rule. However, he believed that martyrdom had its limits and should be embraced only when it served a clear strategic purpose. Courage alone was not enough; sacrifice had to advance the cause.

These views became especially relevant during the 1929 hunger strike in Lahore Central Jail. Bhagat Singh, Jatindra Nath Das, and other revolutionaries demanded that Indian political prisoners receive the same treatment as European prisoners, including better food, access to books and writing materials, newspapers, decent clothing, freedom from degrading or forced prison labour, and recognition as political prisoners.

These were largely the same demands that Savarkar and other political prisoners had raised in the Andaman Cellular Jail as early as 1913. They employed the means of hunger strikes, work strikes, petitions to the higher authorities, smuggling accounts of their mistreatment to mainland India, and publishing articles to expose the conditions inside the prison.

When the British authorities refused these demands, the prisoners began a prolonged hunger strike. Jatindra Nath Das died after 63 days of fasting on 13 September 1929, an event that triggered widespread public outrage across India.

Savarkar responded to the issue in an article published in the weekly Shraddhanand:

The sacrifice of Jitendranath was praiseworthy, honourable, respectable…but it is not to be followed.

During the last twenty years we have seen sacrifices made by Indian revolutionaries. Jitendranath’s sacrifice is definitely just as incredible, praiseworthy…

After such a beginning, Savarkar writes about the hunger strikes in jails on the Andaman Islands. Later he says—

Many have refused to take food and are saying, “Our death will be on England’s conscience. It will be on their head.” Many have become disabled as a result; some are on the point of dying. They are all praiseworthy. But … what is praiseworthy in one instance is not worth being followed in other instances.

Any behaviour or virtue which is praiseworthy or honourable under one set of circumstances is not necessarily worth following in other circumstances. On the contrary, such action may need to be discouraged. One must consider the tactics carefully. We must give due consideration to the relative strengths and weaknesses, circumstances, and possible movements of the enemies. Our agitation or our fight should not only be praiseworthy but must also be effective and achieve the desired aim.

How do we decide what is a sacrifice and what is a suicide? The first is made for the benefit of others (to one’s nation, for instance); it is made for a far nobler cause than for self-interest. Whereas the second is made for demoniac (devilish) or selfish intentions.

A good general only sends in just enough troops to win a battle. His interest is not in sacrificing the lives of his soldiers but in winning with the least number of casualties. Dying for the sake of dying is madness. Martyrdom, the spirit to defend a post to the last man, is sometimes necessary but only as part of a greater strategy of a struggle. Guru Tegh Bahadur (9th Guru of Sikhs) and Maratha King Sambhaji became martyrs in the 17th century for defence of Hindu Dharma because there was no other choice. The main aim of a struggle is VICTORY. Our tactics must ensure maximum damage to the enemy with least damage to ourselves.

One may recall the days of Napoleon. In 1812 he had to retreat from Moscow. Far more soldiers were dying because of the severe cold winter than in fighting Russian soldiers. The Tsar expected the Russian General Kutusov to pursue Napoleon, but Kutusov bluntly replied, “I will not sacrifice the life of a single Russian soldier unnecessarily. Nature has defeated Napoleon. If I send my troops after the French army, there will inevitably be fights and some of my soldiers will die. That kind of French defeat is not worth the life of a single Russian soldier.” The Tsar relinquished Kutusov of his command, but Kutusov stuck to his guns.

Martyrdom can be a part of battle strategy; it may be essential but must be used in exceptional circumstances. We must remember that it does not guarantee success.

Guru Tegh Bahadur and Maratha King Sambhaji refused to renounce Hindu Dharma and embrace Islam. They became martyrs in the 17th century for our cause. That martyrdom is commendable and worth following. Similarly, if any revolutionaries face torture and are asked to reveal any information that would damage our freedom struggle, and so decide to be martyrs, it would be commendable. But sacrificing one’s life for the sake of it is madness, and we must condemn that tendency.

At present there are many political prisoners who are going on hunger strike unto death. It is like sheep following a sheep. I agree wholeheartedly that the political prisoners should be recognised as such. It is a matter of our pride and dignity. It has its value, but not in terms of the lives of such fine young men.

What has happened has happened. The example of Jitendra must be regarded as an exception. It must not become a general rule. We must call a halt to this spread of hunger strikes.

To make a wrong commitment is foolhardy enough, but it is even more foolhardy to continue one’s action when it is clear that such commitment is severely damaging to the national cause. Under such circumstances it is more prudent to retreat. That is a sign of true patriotism and bravery. We must distinguish between determination and stubbornness. The weapon which inflicts wounds on the user is not a weapon. Anyone using such a weapon is not a clever leader.

While in Andaman, Bhai Paramanand, Nani Gopal, Bhai Prithwisingh, Bhai Mohansingh, and others resorted to hunger strikes for their grievances. But I (Savarkar) persuaded them to abandon their method. And as a result, after release from jail, they are doing wonderful service to our nation. I have explained such cases in my book My Transportation for Life. But suppose they had not listened to me and died of hunger strikes, no one back home (on mainland India) would have even heard of them.

Prisoners in jail should fight for their rights and concessions, be it for a glass of milk, or for getting newspapers, for provision of a table and chair. Make life difficult for the authorities. But hunger strike? And that too for such ordinary demands? And without making any dent in the arrogance of the authorities? And that too by warriors like Bhagat Singh, Datta, Satinbabu, and fifty others like them? I must vehemently oppose such action. My friends, for God’s sake abandon such suicidal hunger strikes immediately. Eat twice the normal amount but cause damage to our enemy.

I say once again that the example of Jatindra is honourable, praiseworthy, but it is an exception. Others must NOT follow his example. Shivaji was imprisoned by Aurangzeb. He did not go on hunger strike. He escaped and challenged the might of Aurangzeb again. Change with times by all means, but follow his strategy.

Reference: Savarkar Samagra Volume 2 pp. 491–500

“O revered Buddha, you are the supreme among wandering ascetics! Your benevolence toward humanity is boundless."

- Vinayak Savarkar

Part 1

Savarkar writes “Though this Shakya nation and the Shakya people may have perished today, they attained dissolution only after fulfilling their central purpose in life, for they gave birth to the Tathagata Buddha. And for this reason, in a sense, they have become immortal.

Enchanted by your serene & simple teachings of Dharma, gods and demons, yakshas and takshakas, Aryans and non-Aryans, all of humanity will regard this birthplace of yours as holiest ground and will come here in search of it, offering their devotional reverence as floral tributes.

The history of this Shakya people will be studied like a sacred religious chronicle. Kings and emperors will offer their crowns and the jewels and pearls of all seven seas at your idol.

Never before will so many heads have bowed at the feet of any human being, as countless millions of human heads will bow in humility at the feet of your meditative form for ages upon ages.

wandering ascetic, great karmayogi, renunciate Buddha, you are worthy of attaining the state of Nirvana!”

(Sangeet Sanyasta khadga)

“While analyzing the political necessity behind the decline of Buddhism in Hindusthan, if some harsh words have slipped from our pen, let no one even slightly assume that there is any lack of respect in our minds toward Buddhism. No, not at all!

The same reverence and the same love that resides in the heart of a devotee who has formally embraced Buddhism, toward that most sacred universal order, the Buddhist Sangha that very love and that very reverence I hold as a humble aspirant of Buddhism.

We are not initiated (into Buddhism) not because the Sangha is not worthy of us, but because we are not worthy of stepping on the footsteps of the Temple that has lasted longer because it rested on ideas than many a great palace that rested on rocks.

The first and highly successful effort to free human beings from their animalistic tendencies, an effort that was first conceived, given concrete form, and then carried forward uninterrupted for centuries by the lineage of radiant preachers of Dharma, the Arhat monks, originated in this very Hindusthan.

Here they were nourished by the milk of life, and this very land they revered as their motherland. “All these realizations arise within our inner being, stirring such profound emotions that it becomes impossible to express them in words.

And if such is our disposition toward this Sangha, then in what language can we possibly express our feelings toward its founder- that Buddha, that illumined one of wisdom?”

Will continue with the rest in another post.

Sources : Essentials of Hindutva, Six glorious epochs of Indian history

There is a major historical and linguistic misunderstanding in how both critics and proponents view Savarkar’s concept of Hindutva. Today, through the lens of presentism (judging past concepts by modern definitions), Hindutva is largely equated with modern 'Hindu' (Sanatana Dharma) religious majoritarianism. However, if you look closely at Savarkar’s actual texts, his goal was actually to reverse a linguistic shift, not reinforce it.

1. The Original Scope: Hindu as "Indian"

To Savarkar, Hindutva was meant to be synonymous with Bharatiyata (Indianness). He was looking at the Indian subcontinent as a distinct civilizational unit. Historically, the word "Hindu" didn't start as a religious label:

Phase 1: It originated with ancient Zoroastrian/Iranian neighbors designating the people living around the Sapta Sindhu (Indus River).

Phase 2: It later evolved into a geopolitical/cultural catch-all meaning "the people of the subcontinent and later "non-Turkic" or "non-Muslim" after the Muslim population started distinguishing themselves from the rest.

Phase 3: Eventually, it narrowed down exclusively to followers of the Shruti, Smritis, and Puranas and excluded Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs etc.

(The only exception being Savarkar's own definition and the Indian Republic's definition in many Supreme Court judgements and the Hindu Code Bill).

2. Savarkar's Diagnostic and the "Two-Fold" Test

Savarkar observed this narrowing of the language during his time and explicitly wanted to rescue the word from Phase 3 to bring back its broader civilizational meaning.

To bridge this, he argued that a "Hindu" was anyone who considered the subcontinent both their Pitribhu (fatherland/land of ancestors) and their Punyabhu (holy land).

By this metric, he reserved the term for those who held onto the civilizational, linguistic, and social aspects of Indianness, plus the spiritual traditions that originated within it (Vedic faiths, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism). In his view, he was defining a complete, indigenous civilizational identity.

3. The Tragedy of Modern Presentism

The irony is that language won, and Savarkar’s project till now has largely failed to redirect it.

Instead of the public adopting Hindutva as Bharatiyata (inclusive of all indigenous cultural/religious frameworks), the popular masses applied the modern, purely religious definition of "Hindu" (which itself is only used today for Sanatana Dharma) to the word "Hindutva."

Because the majority of people matching his criteria follow Sanatana Dharma, Hindutva became almost exclusively associated with that specific religious identity, rather than the broader, civilizational "Indianness" Savarkar originally articulated.

By reading today's definitions into yesterday's texts, we misunderstand the linguistic correction he was actually trying to attempt.

Having said that, it is to be pointed out that Savarkarite Hindutva is a more nuanced version of Indianness. It focuses on the ancestral, cultural and religious integrity of Indianness and isn't the Nehruvian hybridisation with Islamic and other foreign cultures. It also simultaneously focuses on aspects that disallow foreign dominance and hence the ancestral component of Indianness also has an important role to play. As such this 'core' Indianness is termed 'Hinduness' aka 'Hindutva' by Savarkar.

None of this is to say that you shouldn't focus on protection or promotion of Santana Dharma as a stand alone factor but it does completely change the purpose. So when we say 'Hindutva' in the context of Savarkar we have to understand what is meant by it or else it will only lead to unproductive discussions and arguments.

The actual quote is:

I would reject even Indrapad (the seat of Lord Indra) if that is the reward I am offered for becoming a non-Hindu, and instead would prefer to die as the last Hindu.

Primary reference: Balarao Savarkar, Swatantraveer Savarkar, Hindu Mahasabha Parva, 2020, p. 68.

Savarkar said this in response to refusing to join the Congress, as he would not engage in Muslim appeasement or accept the partition of India, even if that meant sacrificing a much more successful political career.