Answering Calumny-IV: Veer Savarkar and Various 'Isms'

A careful reader would discover a clever binary posited here. According to the Frontline piece, Gandhi and Savarkar both had European influences, but in different ways. Gandhi incorporated democratic and Christian traditions along with Indic Jain components, while Savarkar's ideology was said to be shaped by elements that led to Nazism and Fascism.

Cultural Nationalism Unique to Savarkar?

As seen already, Savarkar was not alone in formulating a cultural and spiritual basis for nationhood, which is what cultural nationalism is at its core.

On the other hand Fascism and Nazism had no primal root in a cultural nationalist discourse.

Rabindranath Tagore in fact used the word 'Hindutva' exactly in the same sense—as a national process of assimilation of diverse elements.

Any movement hostile to this unity, chiefly monopolistic expansionism, was rejected.

Savarkar primarily highlighted this process as the basis of nationhood.

This is in sync with various modern nation-state builders of his time. Even Dr Ambedkar in his thesis submitted at Columbia University emphasized:

Nazism, Fascism and Indian Leaders

While many use the terms 'Fascism' and 'Nazism' interchangeably, they are actually different. Nazism is rooted in racism and racial purity, while Fascism is characterized by dictatorship and anti-democratic principles.

While 'Nazi' was short term for 'National Socialism', Mussolini was an ex-Communist praised by Lenin.

Both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy shared some key features with the then only Socialist State – the USSR. These were the party machinery, one-party-polity, method of propaganda and suppression of democracy.

Many Indian leaders had admiration for the USSR. More importantly, many leaders even had admiration for Fascist Italy. Jawaharlal Nehru was a notable exception.

With respect to Nazi Germany, Nehru made all the right noises, even before the West. He himself and his biographers point out that Nehru valiantly declined many official invitations to visit Nazi Germany. However, two archival reports seem to contradict this.

According to a report from German Consul General in India, Nehru had requested them to send him an invitation to visit Germany. British Intelligence report dated 29-August-1938 (India Officer Records: L/P&J/12/293) reports Nehru meeting Nazi leaders at Nazi Party headquarters during his visit to Munich between August 6 and 8.

Despite these factual discrepancies, there is nothing to indicate even an iota of sympathy on the part of Nehru towards core Nazi ideology, whether it is Anti-Semitism or Nazi racism.

Yet Nehru was afflicted by a mild strain of 'benign racism' which did have some consequences for India.

Rolland engaged extensively with Gandhi, opposing his meeting with Mussolini. However, Gandhi went ahead and met Mussolini, expressing ambiguous admiration for him and perceiving 'a ring of sincerity and burning love for his people.'

This admiration could have been influenced by the ideas presented in Unto This Last, which advocated for superior individuals leading and compelling the masses towards a better society.

What about Veer Savarkar?

Savarkar was a democrat. Many leaders of Provincial Hindu Mahasabha had differed with his stands on many issues. Savarkar never expelled them or tried to stop them from expressing their views in public or to the media.

Also in his Presidential addresses of Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar repeatedly explained in detail his vision of free India as democratic and secular.

An important influence on Savarkar from the West was Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872). For his era, Mazzini was remarkably free of antisemitism. He advocated for the separation of Church and State, and opposed discriminatory laws targeting Jews. Mazzini also strongly supported Italy as a people's republic, opposing totalitarian and theocratic rule.

Another significant influence on Savarkar, though implicit, was the 18th-century Indophile politician Edmund Burke.

While conservative, Burke held a favorable view of Indian civilization without imperialist prejudices. His ideas greatly influenced Savarkar's mentor, Shyamji Krishnavarma, who established a scholarship in Burke's name.

Notably, Dr Ambedkar explicitly identified himself as "Burke"-ian in Indian politics.

Revolutionary Vasudeo Balwant Phadke died the same year Savarkar was born - this led to the impression of Savarkar being an incarnation of Phadke - which led to an identity influence.

Savarkar drew deep inspiration from Yoga Vasishtha, although he didn't actively engage in public discussions about it. However, his emphasis on Kundalini as a significant cultural achievement and a gift to humanity reflects the influence of Yoga Vasishtha on his thinking.

Savarkar, on the other hand, was a pioneer in dismissing race as a myth and advocating for the idea of a fully blended and unified human race as early as 1923:

This core view of Savarkar goes completely and fundamentally against Nazism and other forms of racism.

This is a remarkable passage for more than one reason.

He points out that throughout the world there is intermingling of people and hence racial purity or even the concept of race is only a construct.

Then when he speaks of the intermingling of the ethnic groups within, he avoids a common pitfall of even the humanists of that time, through the words "vice versa": that the gene flow was only from the dominant or urban culture to the tribal communities and that too in a patriarchal way.

Decades after Savarkar's death, Richard Lewontin would prove through genetics that race made little genetic sense.

Kundalini experience does not require a change in belief system. It can form the basis of all creative urges in humanity.

Savarkar's work on Kundalini foreshadowed psychological frameworks that would be later developed by psychiatrists like Stanislov and neurobiologists like Andrew Newberg. By emphasizing the universal nature of the Kundalini experience, he highlighted the unity of religious experiences without undermining religious diversity. This challenged Western notions of politics and civilization.

Was Savarkar a Fundamentalist?

In a way this is the core of the Frontline article.

Fundamentalism is defined as strict adherence, often in a literal and puritanical manner, to a fundamental belief system, often centred around a single book. If anything Savarkar is on record fighting against what he perceived as 'one-book fascination'. In this, Savarkar even differed from his political Guru, Tilak.

In July 1937, barely five months before he became the president of All India Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar delivered a speech titled: 'Ek hi dharm-pustak nahin, yeh achcha hai!' – ‘There is no one sacred text (for Hindus) and that is good.’

Historian Vinayak Chaturvedi, a Western academic not known to be sympathetic towards Hindutva, gives the essence of this speech in his paper on the relation of Savarkar to Bhagavad Gita:

Savarkar was a realist and a humanist. Naturally hence he was not a fundamentalist.

Savarkar's significance lies in his recognition of religion as a natural aspect of human existence and his understanding of the political influence it holds. He was aware of the expansionist tendencies present in some religious systems, while acknowledging the inherently peaceful nature of the Hindu family of religions. His aim was for the state to protect these religions, as they represented an important part of human heritage.

Savarkar's approach was more rooted in organic thinking and activism compared to the pseudo-rationalists of the Dravidian movement, as suggested by the comparison drawn by the writer in Frontline.

Therefore, the notion that Savarkar was solely a product of early modern Western political ideas, which later evolved into Nazism and Fascism, is a misguided and biased generalization. It is an illusory concoction based on prejudices, fallacies, and sweeping assumptions rather than an accurate representation of the truth.