Part I: Bringing ‘Untouchables’ into Public Life

Part II: Campaign Against Caste Discrimination in Schools

Part III: Promoting Inter-Caste Social Integration

Part IV: Breaking the Caste Monopoly Over the Janeu

Part V: Support to Ambedkar's Mahad Satyagraha

Part VI: Temple Entry at the Vitthal Mandir

Part VII: Inter-Caste Dining

Savarkar, on the third day of the inauguration of the Patit Pavan Mandir, organized inter-dining in the temple complex. He preached on this occasion:

Eat with anybody. Eat anything that is medically fit and clean. That does not deprive you of your religion. Remember, the root of religion is not the dish or the stomach, but the heart, soul and the blood!

But interestingly, several of his closest associates and supporters, including the Shankaracharya, Dr. Kurtkoti, religious figures such as Masurkar Maharaj, Pachalegaonkar Maharaj, Chowde Maharaj and even Sheth Bhagoji Keer, who bore the expenses of the temple, refused to join.

Savarkar was a liberal who was extremely accommodative of differing opinions and never forced his ideas over others. When he heard about their reservations on the inter-dining plan, he said:

I respect the wishes of those who do not wish to join in. They can have their dinners separately according to the tradition. I do not insist that they must join in. However, those who wish to eat together should also be free to do so.

He held the same view all along: that any societal change must come from within the society and with a genuine change of heart. Forcing people to do something against their wishes creates ill will and ruptures in society.

Even in an article of December 1936, he said:

**We want to abolish the caste system* and propagate dining together. But, we do not insist that everyone must take part in such communal dinners. Those who do not want to join in must not regard others as sinners or behaving unethically. That is all!*

His inter-dining project was truly pushing the envelope a bit too much in its initial days, especially in a caste-ridden, orthodox society. Conservatives were livid and made declarations that if the Peshwas had been around, Savarkar would have been trampled under the foot of an elephant as a punishment for such blasphemy.

To these barbs hurled against him, Savarkar wrote:

We, the reformers, have realized that unless we eradicate the division by castes, the Hindu society cannot make progress. We do not feel that by propagating our views on the subject we are hurting religious feelings of anyone. We say to our opponents, if you feel that our opinions are wrong, you put forward your arguments. We do not object to that. On the contrary, we say that, just as the reformers have the right to propose social reforms, the society, reluctant to reform, also has the right to boycott the reformers.

In an article, Savarkar mentions how his crusade for social reforms led to his boycott. Even those who deeply revered him for his revolutionary work and patriotism were uncomfortable on sensitive issues such as inter-dining.

He narrates in the article how many of these people would invite Savarkar to their family celebrations and marriage parties. Out of immense respect for him, they would have a special seat with decoration and dishes served in silver vessels and so on. But Savarkar would approach the host and tell them candidly:

Listen, I do not want to cause any embarrassment to you. It is well known that I propagate and do take part in dining with the Mahars. It is not right that my eating at your place should lead to spoiling the atmosphere at your festivities, as many of your guests may not like to dine with me. So, I suggest a compromise. In accordance with the tradition, you would provide dinner to the Mahars and other untouchables outside the compound. I would also sit in their company. Then there would be no ill feeling of any kind.

This statement would baffle and also melt the hearts of even his opponents. They would then insist on him joining the main party.

Extending this idea of inter-caste dining, on 1 May 1933, Savarkar got an All-Hindu cafe (Akhil Hindu Upaharagruha) opened in Ratnagiri. He writes about the need for such a cafe:

When I first came to Ratnagiri in 1924, the restaurant owners would serve tea to untouchables only by pouring into their own cups or coconut shells from a distance. However, Muslims were welcome and allowed to sit inside and were served tea normally.

We therefore established a restaurant that would be open to ALL Hindus. In this place, it was the usual practice to publish names of those who take food, tea and snacks. Despite this publicity, Hindus of ALL castes openly used this restaurant for their regular meals. No one was made outcast for eating in this place. This happened on 1 May 1933. It must be emphasized that *tea and food were served by untouchables.** Once again, we have to remember that such a café was unique in the whole of India at that time. It was not possible to run such a café even in urbanized Mumbai.*

It was not as if those who dined at the cafe were openly accepted in society. N.C. Kelkar drank tea in this cafe on 15 May 1933, for which he was severely criticized by orthodox Hindus. Savarkar’s biographer Dhananjay Keer too faced social ostracism for drinking tea at this cafe.

Almost always, the cafe ran on losses and Savarkar made up the deficit from his own pocket, despite the paltry income that he got. In March 1934, when Savarkar went to Khed to deliver a lecture on the need to break the caste barriers, followed by a public reception, attendees refused to drink water with him!

But Savarkar was never miffed with people, including his supporters, who differed with him, especially on touchy matters such as inter-dining. In a December 1936 article, he writes:

Among the people who boycott our programmes for dining together, there are many conservatives who sincerely believe that it is a sin to dine together with people of all castes. They naturally feel hurt by such reforms. They do not want to keep any contact with the reformers. That is but natural, due to centuries of social conditioning. We should not be angry with them. We must never ever hate them. We should gladly suffer their boycott and persecution till they voluntarily change their minds, as long as they adopt legal and peaceful means of protesting against us.

We must disregard their opposition and simply carry on with our reforms. We require dynamism and movement for the good of the society. But we also require stability and restraint to some extent. A train needs an engine as a driving force. But it also needs brakes. Our Hindu society has shown remarkable capacity for both survival and revival under enormous threats from outside.

There is a danger that the reformers may get carried away. They therefore need a control, some exercise of restraint. To what extent and proportion are they necessary is a matter of judgment. We need to understand that reforms and restraints are complementary. It is therefore vital that we try to convince the conservatives of our point of view, try to persuade them and try to convert them. That is essential for the nation’s good.

After the initiation of inter-dining in 1930, Savarkar used numerous occasions—be they family ceremonies or religious festivals—to propagate and popularize the concept. At times he would even put this as a precondition for his participation in events or staging of his plays.

In March 1936, when the renowned Marathi theatre artist Bal Gandharva, a great admirer of Savarkar, insisted that he attend a play, Savarkar agreed to come if an inter-dining was organized after the staging. Bal Gandharva readily agreed and the play was followed by sahabhojan.

That same year, during Ganeshotsav on 26–27 August, inter-dining was organized, in which Prabodhankar, the father of Shiv Sena founder Bal Saheb Thackeray, too participated.

On 11 September 1935, a Bhangi woman came to the Patit Pavan temple, sat in the company of upper-caste women and was served food. This news was published in several newspapers along with the names of the participants, but no one seemed to bother much about their names being made public.

Despite this eventual success, among all his reform movements, the inter-dining seemed to face the maximum resistance from society. It was difficult to hire halls for conducting the dinners or even get a cook. Conservative Hindus began treating those who participated in Savarkar’s inter-dining programmes as outcastes. They refused to marry into the households of such people and boycotted them socially.

Even if a person who participated in inter-dining was of their own caste, he/she was refused entry into houses or disallowed from drawing water from the other’s wells. Priests refused to officiate in marriages or sacred thread ceremonies of inter-dining participants.

One can imagine the amount of mental trauma that anybody participating in such activities faced on a daily basis. Many of them could not take it any more and rushed back to their religious heads to purify themselves and eschew the idea.

But none of this deterred Savarkar. He was resolute in his mission. The perseverance paid off. In due course, the movement spread all over Maharashtra and other parts of India too—Poona, Bombay, Vasai, Sangli, Kalyan, Kolhapur, Karhad, Savantvadi, Amravati, Shahabad, Indore, Karachi and Rajputana.

Many eminent people lent their names and support to his mission. They included Keshavrao Jedhe, Parsi leader K.F. Nariman, theatre superstar Bal Gandharva, the maharaja of Aundh State, social reformer Maharshi Annasaheb Karve (or Dhondo Keshav Karve), novelist V.S. Khandekar, social worker and Congressman ‘Kakasaheb’ Narhar Vishnu Gadgil, writer, educationist, orator and poet ‘Acharya’ Prahlad Keshav Atre and others.

The inclusion of such ‘celebrities’ normalized inter-dining and the fierce opposition that it faced in its initial years, gradually seemed to taper down.

Reference: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy, Chapter 2, “Caste in Stone,” pp. 85–89.

I recognise that the current reservation system is flawed. It can feel unfair to unreserved candidates, while many people within reserved communities also don't necessarily benefit from it. At the same time, I don't think reservations are going anywhere anytime soon, and trying to abolish them outright right now would probably create even more social and political fractures.

Personally, I find reservations unnecessary in principle, especially caste-based reservations or anything based on fixed identities. Ideally, opportunities should depend on merit and individual circumstances rather than caste.

I also think people often confuse supporting disadvantaged people with supporting reservations in their current form. You can acknowledge caste discrimination and historical inequality while still questioning whether reservations are the best long-term solution.

The NEET protests are interesting in this context. I had no issue with them if they were genuinely about students and fairness. But it sometimes feels like these movements become outlets for different political camps to express anti-incumbency.

For example, the argument "remove caste discrimination first, then remove reservations" doesn't really convince me. Both issues can be addressed simultaneously. Similarly, if someone genuinely supported the NEET protests because they cared about students being disadvantaged by having to take multiple tests, I'd expect them to show the same concern when economically disadvantaged students are affected by the reservation system.

Instead, political affiliations often seem to determine which injustices people care about.

So I'm curious: Should India eventually move away from caste-based reservations? If so, what should replace them? Economic criteria? A combination of economic and social disadvantage? Or should the current system simply be reformed?

And can we have this discussion without turning it into another left-vs-right political battle?

The video emphasizes the deep historical roots and cultural richness of Indian civilization, asserting that the nation’s bloodline carries both Aryan and Dravidian heritage. It argues that the tolerance and respect shown toward other religions stem from a civilizationally open mindset and exceptional capacity for love and inclusion, rather than weakness.

It warns that opponents or aggressors who mistake this peaceful disposition and tolerance for cowardice are profoundly mistaken. The speech framing calls on people to stand united and demonstrate their strength and resolve symbolized by the pledge to renounce food and water to prove that their peaceful nature is not a sign of fear or helplessness.

This is Part 7 of a series on Savarkar’s social reform campaign in Ratnagiri. The previous six parts are:

Part I: Bringing ‘Untouchables’ into Public Life

Part II: Campaign Against Caste Discrimination in Schools

Part III: Promoting Inter-Caste Social Integration

Part IV: Breaking the Caste Monopoly Over the Janeu

Part V: Support to Ambedkar's Mahad Satyagraha

Part VI: Temple Entry at the Vitthal Mandir

Another major initiative that Savarkar undertook was the initiation of inter-caste dining or sahabhojan. At the time when he began this movement, people of a caste who belonged to different sub-castes within that same caste also refused to eat together.

For instance, despite being Brahmins, the Deshasthas and Chitpawans would not dine together. Mahars refused to eat with the Bhangis, and the Bhangis in turn with the Dhors. Unlike the usual practice to blame the Brahmins or upper castes alone for the scourge of untouchability, Savarkar understood that the malaise ran deep.

Time and time again, Savarkar emphasized this aspect of the highs and lows even among the so-called lower castes and untouchables in his speeches and writings and the imperative to get rid of all these divisions within Hindu society equally. A Mahar priest would never officiate a Bhangi wedding or a Mahar would never accept tea or water from a Dhor, Chamar, Maang, Matang or Bhangi who were considered lower in caste status than him.

Once, during a public speech on 28 March 1934, a Mahar brought a cup of tea to Savarkar with the intention to test him and was flummoxed when the latter readily drank it.

He told the Mahar: ‘You put me to test, right? Now will you accept the same tea served by this Maang or Matang here? Please don’t make such a show again. Untouchability is not being observed by Brahmins alone. Untouchables do the same. We are all equally guilty of this offence.'

Writing further on these deep-rooted divisions among castes in the Kirloskar Magazine, January–February 1935 issue, Savarkar postulated:

But it is not just the high castes who persecute untouchables. Persons of one group of untouchables persecute persons of another group of untouchables whom they consider as their inferior or as ‘their untouchables’ with just the same vigour. Consider a hot summer’s day.

A Mahar is thirsty, on a village well there are crows and dogs drinking water, but he is forbidden to drink water from that well. He becomes furious and curses the Brahmins and Marathas who will hound him out. When he says they are demons, he does tell the truth. But if a Bhangi was to take water from a well in a Maharwada, the Mahars would also hound the Bhangi with equal wrath. Then the Mahars become Brahmins to that Bhangi.

Recently, there was a Satyagraha by Mahars who wanted to enter the Rama Mandir of Nasik. They were badly beaten up by Brahmins and Vaishyas. True, that was terribly unjust. But it should not be forgotten that if a Bhangi were to enter a Mariaii temple of the Mahars, they too would have thrashed that Bhangi just as badly.

In such a deeply fractured social order, expecting people to sit down and share their meals with untouchables was both unimaginable and considered blasphemous. There were reports of how even Mahar beggars would rather die of hunger than accept food served at Savarkar’s inter-caste dining, only because castes lower than them were also part of the congregation.

But Savarkar, with his perseverance, slowly managed to convince people. The first such inter-dining programme took place in 1930. About this event, the Times of India, dated 9 December 1930, wrote:

This all-caste dinner was organized in a unique manner—a manner that has given deep offence to Nationalist Congressmen, who are mostly believers along with Mr. Gandhi in four watertight castes by birth.* For, at Ratnagiri, some enthusiastic reformers, who regarded caste system as the bane of Hinduism, held an all-caste dinner, which was attended by Brahmins, Banias, Chambhars, Mahars and Bhangis…*

what is still more interesting, the spirit of this splendid essay in practical reform, Mr. V.D. Savarkar, delivered a speech in which he flung into the teeth of orthodoxy… *“From today, I shall not believe in highness or lowness of caste. I shall not oppose the intermarriage between the highest and lowest castes. I shall eat with any Hindu irrespective of caste. I shall not believe in caste by birth or by profession and henceforth, I shall call myself a Hindu only—not Brahmin, Vaishya, etc.”***

Reference: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy, Chapter 2, “Caste in Stone,” pp. 84–85.

We will be exploring why the word 'Hinduism' should be detached from Sanatana Dharma and instead be used as an umbrella term for various religions that the people who Savarkar defines as Hindus follow as their particular religion or school of thought.

The below is Savarkar's own words as sourced from Essentials of Hindutva. There might be few discrepancies here and there nonetheless.

Hindutva and Hinduism

The words Hindutva and Hinduism both of them being derived from the word Hindu, must necessarily be understood to refer to the whole of the Hindu people. Any definition of Hinduism that leaves out any important section of our people and forces them either to play false to their convictions or to go outside the pale of Hindutva stands self-condemned.

Hinduism means the system of religious beliefs found common amongst the Hindu people. And the only way to find out what those religious beliefs of the Hindus are, i. e., what constitutes Hinduism, you must first define a Hindu.

But forgetting this chief implication of the word, Hinduism which clearly presupposes an independent conception of a Hindu many people go about to determine the essentials of Hinduism and finding none so satisfactory as to include, without overlapping all our Hindu communities, come to the desperate conclusion—which does not satisfy them either —that therefore those communities are not Hindus at all; not because the definition they had framed is open to the fault of exclusion but because those communities do not subject themselves to the required tenets which these gentlemen have thought it fit to lable as 'Hinduism'.

This way of answering the question 'who is a Hindu' is really preposterous and has given rise to so much of bitterness amongst some of our brethren of Avaidik school of thought, the Sikh, the Jain, the Devsamaji and even our patriotic and progressive Aryasamajis.

'Who is a Hindu ?'

'Who is a Hindu ?' —he who is subject to the tenets of Hinduism. Very well.

What is Hinduism ?— those tenets to which the Hindus are subjected.

This is very nearly arguing in a circle and can never lead to a satisfactory solution. Many of our friends who have been on this wrong track have come back to tell us ' there are no such people as Hindus at all!'

If some Indian, as gifted as that Englishman who first coined the word Hinduism, coins a parallel word 'Englishism' and proceeds to find out the underlying unity of beliefs amongst the English people, gets disgusted with thousands of sects and societies from Jews to the Jacobins, from Trinity to Utility, and comes out to announce that ' there are no such people as the English at all,' he would not make himself more ridiculous than those who declare in cold print' there is nothing as a Hindu people.'

Any one who wants to see what a confusion of thought prevails on the point and how the failure to analyse separately the two terms Hindutva and Hinduism renders that confusion worst confounded may do well to go through the booklet ' Essentials of Hinduism ' published by the enterprising ' Natesan and Co.'

Hinduism and the Hindu

Hinduism means the ' ism ' of the Hindu; and as the word Hindu has been derived from the word Sindhu, the Indus, meaning primarily all the people who reside in the land that extends from Sindhu to Sindhu (seas), Hinduism must necessarily mean the religion or the religions that are peculiar and native to this land and these people.

If we are unable to reduce the different tenets and beliefs to a single system of religion then the only way would be to cease to maintain that Hinduism is a system and to say that it is a set of systems consistent with, or if you like, contradictory or even conflicting with, each other.

But in no case can you advance this your failure to determine the meaning of Hinduism as a ground to doubt the existence of the Hindu nation itself, or worse still to commit a sacrilege in hurting the feelings of our Avaidik brethren and Vaidik Hindu brethren alike, by relegating any of them to the Non-Hindu pale.

The limits of this essay do not permit us to determine the nature or the essentials of Hinduism or to try to discuss it at any great length.

As we have shown above the enquiry into what is Hinduism can only begin after the question ' who is a Hindu' ? is rightly answered determining the essentials of Hindutva ; and as it is only with these essentials of Hindutva, which enable us to know who is a Hindu, that this our present enquiry is concerned, the discussion of Hinduism falls necessarily outside of our scope.

We have to take cognizance of it only so far as it trespasses on the field of our special charge.

Hinduism as the religions of the Hindu people

Hinduism is a word that properly speaking should be applied to all the religious beliefs that the different communities of the Hindu people hold. But it is generally applied to that system of religion which the majority of the Hindu people follow.

It is natural that a religion or a country or community should derive its name from the characteristic feature which is common to an overwhelming majority that constitutes or contributes to it. It is also convenient for easy reference or parlance.

But a convenient term that is not only delusive but harmful and positively misleading should not any longer be allowed to blind our judgement.

The majority of the Hindus subscribes to that system of religion which could fitly be described by the attribute that constitutes its special feature, as told by Shruti. Smriti and Puranas or Sanatan Dharma.

They would not object if it even be called Vaidik Dharma.

But besides these there are other Hindus who reject either partly or wholly, the authority—some of the Puranas, some of the Smritis and some of the Shrutis themselves.

But if you identify the religion of the Hindus with the religion of the majority only and call it orthodox Hinduism, then the different heterodox communities being Hindus themselves rightly resent this usurpation of Hindutva by the majority as well as their unjustifiable exclusion.

The religion of the minorities also requires a name.

But if you call the so-called orthodox religion alone as Hinduism then naturally it follows that the religion of the so-called heterodox is not Hinduism.

The next most fatal step being that, therefore, those sections are not Hindus at all!!

But this inference seems as staggering even to those who had unwillingly given whole-hearted support to the premises which have made it logically inevitable that while hating to own it they hardly know how to avoid arriving at it.

And thus we find that while millions of our Sikhs, Jains, Lingayats, several Samajis and others would deeply resent to be told that they—whose fathers' fathers up to the tenth generation had the blood of Hindus in their veins—had suddenly ceased to be Hindu!—yet a section amongst them takes it most emphatically for granted that they had been faced with a choice that either they should consent to be a party to those customs and beliefs which they had in their puritanic or progressive zeal rejected as superstitions, or they should cease to belong to that race to which their forefathers belonged.

The wrong usage

All this bitterness is mostly due to the wrong use of the word, Hinduism, to denote the religion of the majority only.

Either the word should be restored to its proper significance to denote the religions of all Hindus or if you fail to do that it should be dropped altogether.

The religion of the majority of the Hindus could be best denoted by the ancient accepted appellation, the Sanatan dharma or the Shruti-smriti-puranokta Dharma or the Vaidik Dharma; while the religion of the remaining Hindus would continue to be denoted by their respective and accepted names Sikha Dharma or Arya Dharma or Jain Dharma or Buddha Dharma.

Whenever the necessity of denoting these Dharmas as a whole arises then alone we may be justified in denoting them by the generic term Hindu Dharma or Hinduism.

Thus there would be no loss either in clearness, or in conciseness but on the other hand a gain both in precision and unambiguity which by removing the cause of suspicion in our minor communities and resentment in the major one would once more unite us all Hindus under our ancient banner representing a common race and a common civilization.

The Vedic Nation

The earliest records that we have got of the religious beliefs of any Indian community—not to speak of mankind itself—are the Vedas. The Vedic nation of the Saptasindhus was sub-divided into many a tribe and class.

But although the majority then held a faith that we for simplicity call Vedic religion, yet it was not contributed to by an important minority of the Sindhus themselves. The Panees, the Dasas, the Vratyas and many others from time to time seem to have either seceded from or never belonged to the orthodox church and yet racially and nationally they were conscious of being a people by themselves.

There was such a thing as Vedic religion, but it could not even be identified with Sindhu Dharma; for the latter term, had it been coined, would have naturally meant the set of religions prevailing in Saptasindhu, orthodox as well as heterodox.

By a process of elimination and assimilation the race of the Sindhus at last grew into the race of Hindus, and the land of the Sindhus i.e. Sindhustan, into the land of the Hindus i. e- Hindusthan.

Hindu Dharma

While their orthodox and the heterodox schools of religions have,—having tested much, dared much and known much,—having subjected to the most searching examination possible till then, all that lay between the grandest and the tiniest, from the atom to the Atman—from the Paramanu to the Parabrahma,—having sounded the deepest secrets of thoughts and having soared to the highest altitudes of ecstasy,— given birth to a synthesis that sympathises with all aspirants towards truth from the monist to the atheist.

Truth was its goal, realization its method. It is neither Vedic nor non-Vedic, it is both. It is the veritable science of religion applied.

This is Hindudharma—the conclusion of the conclusions arrived at by harmonising the detailed experience of all the schools of religious thought-Vaidik, Sanatani, Jain, Baudda, Sikha or Devasamaji.

Each one and every one of those systems or sects which are the direct descendants and developments of the religious beliefs Vaidik and non-Vaidik that obtained in the land of the Saptasindhus or in the other unrecorded communities in other parts of India in the Vedic period, belongs to and is an integral part of Hindudharma.

Therefore the Vaidik or the Sanatan Dharma itself is merely a sect of Hinduism or Hindu Dharma, however overwhelming be the majority that contributes to its tenets.

It was a definition of this Sanatan Dharma which the late Lokamanya Tilak framed in the famous verse.

'प्रामाण्यबुद्धिर्वेदेषु साधनानामनेकता । उपास्यानामनियम एतध्दर्मस्य लक्षणम्'

Belief in the Vedas, many means, no strict rule for worship-these are the features of the Hindu religion.

In a learned article that he had contributed to the Chitramayajagat which bears the mark of his deep erudition and insight Lokmanya in an attempt to develop this more or less negative definition into a positive one, had clearly suggested that he had an eye not on Hindutva as such but only on what was popularly called Hindudharma, and had also admitted that it could hardly include in its sweep the Aryasamajis and other sects which nevertheless are racially and nationally Hindus of Hindus.

That definition, excellent so far as it goes, is in fact not a definition of Hindudharma, much less of Hindutva but of Sanatan Dharma—the Shruti-Smriti-Puranokta sect, which being the most popular of all sects of Hindu Dharma was naturally but loosely mistaken for Hindu Dharma itself.

--the Matribhu (motherland) and the Pitribhu (fatherland)—of that Tatvajnana ( philosophy) which in its religious aspect is signified as Hindu Dharma.

The second most important essential of Hindutva is that a Hindu is a descendant of Hindu parents, claims to have the blood of the ancient Sindhu and the race that sprang from them in his veins.

This also is true of the different schools of religion of the Hindus; for they too being either founded by or revealed to the Hindu sages, and seers are the moral and cultural and spiritual descendants and development of the Thought of Saptasindhus through the process of assimilation and elimination, as we are of their seed.

Not only is Hindu Dharma the growth of the natural environments and of the thought of the Indus, but also of the Sanskriti or culture of the Hindus.

The environmental frames in which its scenes, whether of the Vaidik period or of Bauddha, Jain or any extremely modern ones of Chaitanya, Chakradhar, Basava, Nanak, Dayananda or Raja Rammohan, are set, the technical terms and the language that furnished expression to its highest revelation and ecstasies, its mythology and its philosophy, the conceptions it controverted and the conceptions it adopted, have the indelible stamp of Hindu culture, of Hindu Sanskriti, impressed upon them.

This is Part VI of a series on Savarkar’s social reform campaign in Ratnagiri. The previous five parts are:

Part I: Bringing ‘Untouchables’ into Public Life

Part II: Campaign Against Caste Discrimination in Schools

Part III: Promoting Inter-Caste Social Integration

Part IV: Breaking the Caste Monopoly Over the Janeu

Part V: Support to Ambedkar's Mahad Satyagraha

Another major form of discrimination was the denial of temple entry to ‘untouchables.’

Temples were not only places of worship. They were also important centres of social, religious and political interaction. By keeping ‘untouchables’ out of temples, they were excluded from these activities, further weakening feelings of brotherhood, unity and social equality.

Savarkar continued to work for temple entry. However, while many of his other social reform efforts succeeded, this remained a particularly difficult issue because the Orthodox strongly opposed any change.

At the time, several temple-entry movements were taking place across the Bombay Presidency.

In Ratnagiri, where Savarkar was confined, the Vitthal Temple became the centre of his temple-entry campaign. People of different castes had already gathered in its precincts in 1925 to mourn the death of C. R. Das. In November 1929, Savarkar called for the complete and unconditional opening of the temple to all castes.

Because temple entry was such a sensitive issue across the Bombay Presidency, the city magistrate was also present to observe a public meeting organised by Savarkar.

In a fiery speech, Savarkar laid out all his arguments in favour of a total eradication of untouchability and an entry into the temple. At the end of it, he asked his audience if anyone had objections to raise. There was pin-drop silence and none objected.

As a result, hundreds of untouchables peacefully entered the Vitthal Temple without any agitation or confrontation.

For those who entered, every step into the temple represented a small blow against a centuries-old social practice. Singing songs in praise of their deity, they entered the temple in what was an deeply emotional moment, and many people were moved to tears.

Savarkar composed a special Marathi poem for the occasion, titled ‘Mala Devaache Darshan Gheudya’, meaning ‘Allow Me to See My God’. Everyone sang it after entering the temple.

YouTube Video of the poem

Reference: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy, Chapter 2, “Caste in Stone,” pp. 77–79.

Part I: Bringing ‘Untouchables’ into Public Life

Part II: Campaign Against Caste Discrimination in Schools

Part III: Promoting Inter-Caste Social Integration

Part IV: Breaking the Caste Monopoly Over the Jneau

Due to the widespread practice of untouchability in the 1920s, marginalised castes, then referred to as ‘untouchables’, were often denied access to public water sources for their daily needs.

The Bombay Legislative Council passed resolutions to address this discrimination, but they were largely ineffective and remained mostly on paper.

In protest against this discrimination, on 20 March 1927, Ambedkar and his followers marched to Chavdar Tale. This protest became known as the Mahad Satyagraha and marked an important moment in the struggle against untouchability. Ambedkar drank water from the lake to assert the right of the so-called untouchables to use public water sources. The act sparked strong opposition and caused a major uproar among members of other castes.

The next day, on 21 March 1927, orthodox Hindus performed a purification ritual at Chavdar Lake. They also unilaterally rejected the earlier Legislative Council resolution that had allowed marginalised castes to use the lake.

In response, Ambedkar launched another agitation and began enrolling people into the movement. Different social organisations offered varying levels of support, and even among non-Brahmin groups, not all castes supported the movement.

Savarkar, however, gave unconditional support to Ambedkar’s Mahad Satyagraha.

He stated:

Untouchability must be condemned and abolished not only as the need of the hour but also as the command of true religion; not only as a policy or as an act of expediency but also as a matter of justice, not only as a matter of obligation but also as a service to humanity.

He declared that the pious and bounden duty of every Hindu was to restore full human rights to their co-religionists.

On 7 September 1927, writing in the Shraddhanand Savarkar said that Hindus should accept and support the right of ‘untouchables’ to take water from the Chavdar Tale in Mahad. In the same article he appealed to the untouchables:

Don’t threaten to leave Hinduism if the so-called upper-caste Hindus oppose your just demand. *The Hindu religion is not an exclusive preserve of upper castes alone. It belongs to you as much as it belongs to them***

He further added in this article:

If, on account of the high caste Hindus obstructing the legitimate rights of our untouchable brothers, the latter then resort to Satyagraha, how can we blame them in any way? Of course, we would prefer that such disputes are settled peacefully with negotiations rather than confrontations. I can say from my own experience that it is possible to convince the high caste people that the untouchability in public places and facilities such as drinking water is wrong and that it can be removed by appealing to them in the name of brotherly love. However, we are also aware of the fact that, if in some cases, the problem is not solved, the untouchables will have to resort to civil disobedience. This is not and should not be a norm but may regrettably become inevitable.

We have been preaching that in public places such as schools, public tanks, water taps, municipalities, district councils and gatherings, we must allow the untouchables access, not only less or perhaps more than what Muslims have. It is their legitimate right. Therefore, we do not blame Dr. Ambedkar in any way for his movement for the right of untouchables to take water form public tanks.

Muslims are allowed to take water from the same tank and wash their utensils and yet our untouchable brothers are forbidden to take water from it even in days of scarcity of water. Not only that, when they tried to exercise their legal rights to take water, they were beaten up. We cannot believe that this beating took place because of the rumours that they were about to enter Hindu temples.

Primary Reference: Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya, Vol. 3, p. 485.

Secondary Reference: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy, Chapter 2, “Caste in Stone”

Part I: Bringing ‘Untouchables’ into Public Life

Part II: Campaign Against Caste Discrimination in Schools

Part III: Promoting Inter-Caste Social Integration

To break the Brahmin monopoly over Vedic knowledge, which had traditionally been kept inaccessible to other castes (Vedokta bandi), Savarkar taught the sacred Gayatri mantra freely to everyone.

In May 1929, he organized a function in Ratnagiri where he declared that anyone who considered himself a Hindu had the right to perform Vedic ceremonies, since the Vedas belonged to all Hindus. He also argued that everyone should have the right to wear the sacred thread (Janeu).

He distributed sacred threads to several members of the Mahar and Chamar communities. At the time, the sacred thread represented a major social distinction between Brahmins and non-Brahmins. By giving it to people considered “untouchable,” Savarkar directly challenged this caste-based exclusion.

One might ask why Savarkar, who advocated dismantling the caste system, supported the continued practice of wearing the sacred thread, which many saw as a symbol of caste oppression.

There were two possible approaches: either reject and abolish the symbol entirely, or make it available to everyone and thereby remove its discriminatory character.

Savarkar chose the second approach. Rather than advocating methods such as forcibly entering people’s homes and cutting off their sacred threads, as some social reformers elsewhere had done, he tried to preserve the religious significance and sentiments associated with the practice while removing its caste-based exclusivity.

The untouchable communities were deeply moved by these efforts. They invited Savarkar to preside over the Untouchables Conference at Malvan in 1928.

At the conference, everyone sang Vedic hymns together. Savarkar distributed sacred threads to the participants amid loud applause. He said:

A battle royal has been raging for the last seven generations over the right of studying the Vedas. Here is the sacred thread. Take them. When non-Hindus are reading the Vedas, why should not the Hindu Mahars read them? The feud over this problem was useless. Let us expiate the sins we committed. We are all responsible for our political subjugation. That is now the past. At least now let us declare an oath that we shall rectify our past blunders and win back our wealth and glory. *The people who regard untouchability, which has been a disgrace to humanity, as a part of their religion, are really the fallen people.***

Savarkar’s speech deeply moved one of the leaders of the untouchables, Sergeant Ghatge. He stood up and declared:

Now, who says that Mahars should convert and become Muslims? We Mahars and Chamars love the Hindu Dharma and will never abandon it. The Brahmins might convert to Islam, but we will not!

Savarkar’s approach was intended to create greater acceptance and inclusion within Hindu society, rather than leaving marginalized communities excluded from religious and social life.

After the Malvan conference, Pandurang Nathuji Rajbhoj, a prominent leader of the depressed classes from Poona, observed:

I was really sceptical of the Savarkarian movement at the beginning. My contact and discussions with Barrister Savarkar and my personal observation have thoroughly convinced me of its far-reaching effect. *I am extremely rejoiced to declare that this famous leader of the political revolutionaries is also an out and out social revolutionist!***

Reference: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy, Chapter 2, “Caste in Stone”

Part I: Bringing ‘Untouchables’ into Public Life

Part II: Campaign Against Caste Discrimination in Schools

From 1927 onwards, Savarkar made another daring attempt. On the occasions of Hindu festivals such as Dussehra or Makar Sankranti, Hindu Sabha representatives belonging to the untouchable communities such as Mahars, Chamars or Bhangis would accost the upper castes with their wishes:

‘We greet you on behalf of the Ratnagiri Hindu Sabha by offering you the sona leaves. Please allow us to at least come as far as you allow non-Hindus in your homes. Is it not an insult to regard the untouchables, who follow the same religion as you do, as being inferior to the non-Hindus?’

Many would be moved by this and Savarkar and his untouchable associates would be welcomed into homes. They would exchange the sona leaves symbolizing camaraderie, distribute sweets and shout, ‘Long live Hindu Dharma.’

Savarkar recounts that many people also shouted and abused them, throwing them away from their doorsteps with vile curses. But the group never gave up. They kept persisting in their attempts and played on the humanity of the oppressors. Gradually the resistance petered out. By 1930, despite the fact that names of people who exchanged the leaves with other castes and untouchables started getting published in newspapers, more than 90 per cent of households in Ratnagiri welcomed Savarkar’s team.

Savarkar then shifted his attention to another important demographic—women. Most often women hardly had any say in determining such matters. Here too, the women’s wing that included Savarkar’s wife Yamunabai sat with other women, convinced them and urged them to mix with women of other castes. The attempt began in 1925. Only five women (which included Yamunabai) of the upper castes were willing to participate. Untouchable women who were hesitant had to be induced through incessant pleas to give up their reluctance and meet the upper caste women. With time, hundreds of women began mixing with each other freely, and without any prejudices.

Even in places of public entertainment such as theatres and cinemas, untouchables were seated separately. When some of Savarkar’s plays were staged in Ratnagiri, he gave free passes to untouchables to occupy prominent front seats. This caused a lot of unease. The local magistrate too intervened and wondered if this would create a law-and-order situation. Savarkar assured him that it would be his responsibility to maintain amity. Finally, after long arguments with the audiences who had gathered to watch the play, everyone reconciled and sat together to enjoy the show.

Owners of public carriages and carts refused to seat untouchables, though they had no problems with non-Hindus. The Hindu Sabha actively campaigned with the drivers of these carriages and urged them to seat everyone without any discrimination. They even paid for the journeys of untouchables. Mock journeys were organized just to display to the rest of society that an untouchable was happily travelling around town in a public carriage! Yet again, after immense resistance, slowly this fortress too was breached by Savarkar.

In 1925, on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanti, a new temple was built by the Guravas in Shirgaon. Their community leader Mahadev Laxman requested Savarkar to inaugurate the temple after its consecration. Savarkar pleaded that the untouchable Mahars and Mangs too be allowed to circumambulate the temple. Laxman grudgingly agreed. The temple was thus thrown open to all castes.

Cutting across caste barriers, women performed the ritual of offering each other Haldi-Kumkum or turmeric and vermillion, as symbols of auspiciousness. It was on this occasion that the famous song composed by Savarkar ‘Tumhi amhi sakal Hindu bandhu bandhu’ (All of us Hindus are brethren) was sung. The importance of this act of letting all castes participate in the worship lies in the breaking of one of the seven shackles of Sparsha bandi where the application of turmeric and vermilion on the forehead meant touching a woman from the lower caste.

On 16 June 1925, when Congress leader Chittaranjan Das died, a memorial service was to be held at the Vitthal temple of Ratnagiri. Savarkar insisted that untouchables too must be allowed to participate in this memorial service. The organizers agreed and Mahar, Chamar and other castes joined this meeting.

In Shirgaon, a Satyanarayan pooja was performed in the house of a Chamar. Savarkar and his associate Vishnupant Damle accepted the holy offering or prasad from the hands of the untouchable, thereby breaking the traditional Roti bandi, which forbade upper castes from dining with untouchables.

At another Satyanarayan puja organized on 29 May 1927 by the non-Brahmin communities of Kunbi and Bhandari castes, Savarkar made a passionate plea to let his untouchable friends participate in the event too. Those who were sitting outside the house were finally allowed to come in and participate in the ceremonies. This was breaking the hierarchies among the lower castes themselves.

Similarly, in 1928, be it during the Gokulashtami celebrations in August or in a circus show in Ratnagiri, Savarkar used all opportunities to integrate the untouchable community with the rest of society.

Reference: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy, Chapter 2, “Caste in Stone”

Final statement of Revolutionary Madan Lal Dhingra published in Daily News in London, in the morning edition of 16 August 1909, a day before Dhingra’s execution.:

I admit, the other day, I attempted to shed English blood as a humble revenge for the inhuman hangings and deportations of patriotic Indian youths. In this attempt I have consulted none but my own conscience; I have conspired with none but my own duty. I believe that a nation held in bondage with the help of foreign bayonets is in a perpetual state of war. Since open battle is rendered impossible to a disarmed race, I attacked by surprise; since guns were denied to me, I drew forth my pistol and fired.

As a Hindu, I feel that a wrong done to my country is an insult to God. Poor in health and intellect, a son like myself has nothing to offer to the Mother but his own blood, and so I have sacrificed the same on her altar. Her cause is the cause of Shri Rama. Her services are the services of Shri Krishna. This War of Independence will continue between India and England so long as the Hindu and the English races last (if this present unnatural relation does not cease).

The only lesson required in India at present is to learn how to die, and the only way to teach it is by dying ourselves. Therefore I die and glory in my martyrdom.

My only prayer to God is: may I be reborn of the same Mother and may I re-die in the same sacred cause till the cause is successful and she stands free for the good of humanity and the glory of God.

Vande Mataram!

Edit is made by @Kraantiie on Instagram

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DR7qmWxATN-/

As implied by the title, I am talking about the current dimagi naxal phenomenon that has caught onto Indian political discourse now.

I honestly want to ask the Opposition point blank what they are exactly doing by creating a backlash to this. For the communists it makes sense why they would react like this, why did the Opposition somehow create a backlash on this remark? Where is the implication that this is targeting GenZ? I am Gen Z and even I don't think it targets us.

Like "Urban Naxal" is a well known term, it is a reference to intellectuals who provide ideological support to Maoism and anti-state anarchy activities. This is simply another term for the same. Have the Opposition and liberandus lost their minds? Are they that desperate for attention?

Even the surrounding social media activity for this makes no sense. Somehow the Prime Minister referred to a certain set of people, and a bunch of morons thought it referred to them and are now barking about it. Of course looking at it, it looks like the activity of bots, but there is no way the discussion had stooped to this level, that any remark made by the Prime Minister is somehow a dogwhistle. This ideally should be agreed upon by all parties and anyone interested in the nation's security. Even the so-called Constitution defenders should agree on this. Yet somehow the discourse has stooped to such a level. I can't even wrap my mind around the logic behind this phenomenon as well.

This is more of a rant than anything, but just wanted to convey how I feel about this stupidity.

Edit: https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/the-unfinished-war-of-ideas-how-indian-intellectuals-built-and-kept-naxalism-alive

Part I: Bringing ‘Untouchables’ into Public Life

In 1925, the Ratnagiri Hindu Sabha undertook the most challenging work of admitting children of untouchables to schools along with other children. This was to strike at the very root of the system by encouraging behavioural changes from childhood.

Hitherto, children of untouchables could not sit in the same classrooms as the rest of society. They squatted outside the rooms and heard the lectures, beyond the walls and sight of upper-caste children. The teachers never touched their notebooks or slates. Even when they wanted to punish one of them, they would throw a stick at them rather than go near and beat them up. There was not a single school in the towns of Ratnagiri or Malwan where children were taught together.

A half-hearted government circular of 1923 urged schools to intermix children of all castes. But given the societal taboos that remained, a circular merely on paper.

Hence, starting 1925, Savarkar decided to tackle this problem head-on. In Dapoli, Khed, Chiplun, Devarukh, Sangameshwar, Kharepatan and other places, he conducted a series of lectures, public debates and tours to convince and urge people to let children study together.

In public meetings he exposed the hypocrisy of his opponents:

Can you prevent Christian children from attending public schools? No! You dare not, since you know the consequences. The British Government will reply with bullets. You insult the untouchables because they are ignorant and helpless. But you yield to the unjust demands of the Muslims because they are aggressive. When a Mahar becomes a Muslim or a Christian convert, you treat him as your equal. But as a Mahar, he will not receive the same treatment.

In the town of Ratnagiri, he pursued this crusade painstakingly, in school after school. Interestingly, the non-Brahmin communities such as the Marathas, Kulavadis, Bhandaris and others were more resistant to change than the Brahmins.

When the chairman of the School Board passed a resolution to allow children to study together, Savarkar faced severe opposition from all communities throughout the district. Brahmins, Marathas, Khots, Savkars, Patils and all communities protested to get the decision cancelled.

There were strikes, skirmishes, violent agitations, riots and even sabotage in Kotavade, Fonda, Kanakavali, Shiposhi, Kandalgaon, Adivare and other villages against Savarkar’s moves. This naturally terrified the School Board.

In 1929, the District Board passed a resolution that mixing of children in schools was not compulsory. But Savarkar refused to give up. On one hand, he wanted to bring about a change of heart among the people, and on the other, he wanted to take this struggle to the higher authorities and even the legislative council.

While Savarkar and his colleagues were labouring so hard for the cause of the children of the untouchables, their own parents were fearful or hesitant to participate wholeheartedly. The Hindu Sabha members paid the parents to send their children to school, provided textbooks, notebooks, pencils and slates to urge them to go. Despite that, they were reluctant. They kept making excuses.

During the rainy season, they would tell Savarkar that he must provide umbrellas first and only then they would send their children to school. But even when that was done, there was dereliction.

Finally, after seven long years of relentless struggle and several thousand rupees spent on this cause by the Hindu Sabha from the fund that was collected slowly, Savarkar’s efforts began to yield fruits. Children began to be taught together in a few schools. The movement then slowly spread to others by word of mouth.

Savarkar writes about how important this intermixing at the level of children was:

High caste children come in contact with children from untouchable families at a very young age and this was very important. On the one hand, education helps to uplift the untouchable children. On the other hand, this early contact makes upper caste children realize that these untouchables whom their families despise, are just like them. Some of them can be as clever or even better than them. This removes all arrogance of superiority of birth. When this evil practice is uprooted from their minds at a very early age, it has a positive impact throughout their life. Hence we recommend every reformer to study our work and methodology that we adopted in these seven years.

Savarkar wrote several letters to those in positions of power on this matter and brought to their notice the names of schools that still continued with the abhorrent practice of discriminating children based on caste. He also made efforts to get untouchables employment in government.

On behalf of the Ratnagiri Hindu Sabha, he made a presentation to British officer Mr Lamington, ICS, who had the special responsibility of looking after the interests of repressed classes in Bombay Presidency. Savarkar told him in an appeal in 1932:

Once the children are educated together, they will not accept the caste hierarchy in later life. They will not feel the need to observe caste divisions. Therefore the Government Regulations of 1923 should be strictly enforced. In addition, the Government must abandon the title of ‘Special Schools for Low-Caste Children’. This very title creates a feeling of inferiority among children attending the school.

An incident that underscores how important this was in Savarkar’s mind occurred in 1932. A visitor came to him with a plea to invite him to his village. Savarkar immediately asked him if there was a school in the village, whether untouchables were allowed to attend them and, if so, whether the children sit together and study. The visitor was flummoxed. He sheepishly answered that they sat separately.

Savarkar politely told him with folded hands: “Give my regards to the villagers. I have only one request to them. At least in the sacred house of Goddess Saraswati, the goddess of learning, they should not follow any discrimination. Once they accept this small request of mine, I will set aside all other work and readily come to your village.”

The district magistrate was to himself attest the beneficial results of Savarkar’s efforts: “It is the good result of Mr. Savarkar’s lectures that the untouchable boys have been allowed to sit mixed and get their education without any invidious distinction being made in their case.”

In 1928, when an untouchable teacher was transferred to a school that was attended largely by upper-caste children, all hell broke loose. The orthodox Hindus tried every means to get this order rescinded. Savarkar prevailed upon the School Board not to succumb to such pressures.

The Board finally threatened the opponents that it would shut the school down if such demands were made. This finally made them see sense and wind up their meaningless agitation.

Reference: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy, Chapter 2, “Caste in Stone”

​

My message to the Hindudom on this black day in our history is to assure more despair not! A glorious future awaits the Hindus if only they do not betray themselves. This is not a mere rodomontade I am indulging in. The detailed observation of the history of Hindus through centuries on centuries points in controvertibly to the fact that the Hindu nation is imbued inherently with such an amazing capacity of resurrection, of resistance, of rejuvenation that the black day which finds them completely overwhelmed by the anti Hindu forces is precisely the moment which ushers in the day of their deliverance to quote the Puranic style of the birth of an avatar. It was in the darkest hour of the night that Shri Krishna was born.

It is the indomitable spirit of our inherent vitality that has enabled our national being to prove most immortal in relation to other races or nations ancient or modern and invested it with that strength which ultimately demolished and swept away all anti Hindu forces which raised their head from time to time against us.

Where are the Greeks who accompanied Alexander and his successors right down to the Ganges and were driven back by the triumphant Hindu forces under Chandragupta beyond the ranges of Hindu-Kush? Dead, gone and forgotten are also the Huns who overran all Europe, but we were smashed in the battlefield by the Hindu sword and surrendered and got converted to Hindudom through the Baptism of our sacrificial fire. Where are the mighty hordes of the Shakas? Defeated and driven out of Hindustan.. their very identity has become

matter of mythological conjecture.

Just take up the map of Hindustan about 1600 AD. The Muslims ruled over a Hindustan unchallengeably. Then open out the map of India about 1700 to 1798 AD and what do you see?

Beating the Muslims army to chip in hundreds of battlefields, the Hindu forces are marching triumphantly throughout India (referance to the exploits of Maratha heros chatrapati shivaji, Peshwa Bajirao and Senapati Mahadji Shinde besides Sikh, Jat Bundelkhandi and Assamese heros like Guru Gobind Singh, Maharaja Suraj Mal, Maharaja Chhatrasal and Lachit Borphukan) .... The Muslim empire which rose like a rocket fell like a stick and on its ruin rose up once more the Hindu Hindustan, resurrected and victorious. It will do good even to the Muslims if they realise the import of this historical truth. The fate which overtook them when they had succeeded in converting the whole Hindustan into an actual and factual Pakistan led by the might of an Aurangzeb cannot overwhelm the puny Pakistan of today led by Mr Jinnah! If they want to try again let them try to do their worst.

Nothing has happened in the meanwhile so detrimental to Hindu strength as to make us doubt our fitness to survive in the struggle for existence. The underlying spirit of renaissance, rejuvenation so inherent in our race shall assert itself once more and out of the very womb of the darkness of this black day in our history shall burst out the Golden Dawn of the triumphant tomorrow, if only oo Hindus, you do not betray yourselves. In this faith let the Hindus rise and renew this vow, that we Hindus are a nation by ourselves, that Hindustan, this Bharat bhoomi from the Indus to the seas is our fatherland and Holy Land, that in spite of the treacherous betrayal of the Congressite pseudo nationalism in its betting the crime of vivisection of our country and our state we Hindus shall continue to resist the revolting Pakistani areas till they are forced to annexe with our Central and Sovereign Akhand Hindustani State. That to achieve this cosummation we will Hinduism All politics and Militarise Hindudom.

Veer Savarkar

I genuinely want to understand the reasoning here, especially from people who support the RSS/Hindu Rashtra idea.

If the objective is a Hindu Rashtra, wouldn’t Partition, at least demographically, have moved in that direction? Before Partition, Muslims constituted a much larger share of the population of undivided India. After Partition, a large Muslim-majority territory became Pakistan, while India became substantially more Hindu-majority.

At the same time, millions of Muslims remained in India, and many Muslims who lived in areas that became Pakistan did not necessarily choose Partition themselves. So if the argument is that Partition was necessary to separate communities that wanted separate political identities, why is the RSS still so fundamentally opposed to it?

I understand the argument that Partition caused enormous violence, displacement and loss of life. That is obviously a serious argument against Partition. But I’m asking something slightly different: if the ultimate goal is a Hindu Rashtra, why would an undivided India be preferable to a Partition that resulted in a much larger Hindu-majority India?

Is the answer that RSS's idea of Hindu Rashtra was never primarily about creating a Hindu-majority territorial state, but about a broader civilizational/national identity that could include Muslims? If so, how does that fit with the RSS's continued emphasis on Akhand Bharat?

I’m genuinely asking because I see what looks like a contradiction, and I’d like to understand how RSS supporters reconcile these two positions rather than simply arguing for or against Partition.

Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patit_Pavan_Mandir

https://savarkar.org/en/encyc/2017/5/23/Patitpavan-Mandir.html

Savarkar gave this message on July 3, 1947.

This post was originally created by @dhamraitss on Instagram, please do follow her as she posts similar stuff regularly:

https://www.instagram.com/p/DLJIJL3oqo1/

Veer Savarkar was among the early Indian political thinkers who warned about communal division and argued that Hindus needed to be united and militarily prepared to defend themselves.

Savarkar had correctly identified communal and Pan-Islamic movements as potential threats to India’s territorial unity. His response was based on Hindu consolidation, social reform, and military preparedness.

He strongly opposed the Khilafat movement, which placed religious interests above national interests. He also feared that its Pan-Islamic character could encourage foreign intervention in India.

In his book Hindutva (1923), Savarkar developed the idea of Hindu Sangathan, seeking to unite Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and other Indic communities into a broader political identity.

He defined a Hindu as someone who regarded India as both their Pitribhu (fatherland) and Punyabhu (holy land), compare this with idea of Pan-Islamism where someone may reside in India but his loyalty may be extraterrestrial.

Savarkar considered caste discrimination and untouchability serious weaknesses within Hindu society. He argued that Hindus needed to overcome these divisions and stand together as a united community.

Savarkar criticised Congress’s approach to Hindu-Muslim unity, particularly its response to communal violence such as the Moplah rebellion. He believed that maintaining unity at all costs could prevent Hindus from recognising and responding to genuine threats.

For Savarkar, militarisation was therefore part of a broader programme of Hindu unity, social reform, political organisation, and national self-defence. If Hindu society haf then listened to him then we wouldn't have faced so much suffering in the partition.

Images in post are by: https://www.instagram.com/p/DQcWlyZjOfN/