No great leader is ever one dimensional. An authentic mass leader who does great things is engaged in many tasks at the same time so that his vision of the future comes to fulfillment. The same is true of V.D.Savarkar. Modern Indians usually know him as Veer Savarkar, one of the leading revolutionary figures of the war against British colonizers, while students of political science are more apt to analyze him as ‘father’ of Hindutva. However, it is a mistake to look at only this one aspect. Another dimension of his career that contributed to people accepting Savarkar’s leadership, but which is rarely studied by historians and critics, is his social reforms and his intellectual contribution. Savarkar’s efforts to abolish casteism and his ideology regarding the caste system have been overlooked by scholars.
If one actually reads Savarkar, one finds that he spoke out against what he called seven shackles of castes: restricting access to Vedic literature and rituals to Brahmins only; thinking that one’s occupation is based only on birth and not on merit; the practice of untouchability; loss of caste due to the crossing of the sea; not allowing reconversion to Hinduism; prohibition on inter-caste dining; prohibition on inter-caste marriage. Like Swami Vivekananda he believed that Hindus had become weak and ineffective by allowing caste divisions to flourish. To him, there was only one race, the human race and the blood of all humans were the same.. He could boldly say,
“Say, I will touch! And by publicly touching some untouchable brother, show the world that as far as you are concerned, you have acquired the boon of freeing the Hindu race from the sin of untouchability! Throw your house open to the untouchable to the extent you do for the caste Hindu. Those who have houses to rent should do so to untouchables and caste Hindus alike; those who own wells should throw them open to untouchables and caste Hindus alike…in short, let not a day pass without you publicly behaving with an untouchable as you would with a caste Hindu”.
Practicing what he preached, in 1929, Savarkar distributed the sacred thread to the so-called untouchables, declaring them to be equal members of the greater Hindu community. In 1930, Savarkar started the first pan-Hindu Ganeshotsav. The kirtans were sung by so-called untouchable castes. People from high castes who listened to those devotional songs would garland the singers. He also started many other temple movements in Maharashtra, where the so-called untouchables were encouraged to conduct “Abhishek” of the images of the gods and recite Sanskrit hymns. Thus though a Brahmin himself, he did not see himself as someone privileged over the chandal and chamar by virtue of his birth. This was his clear scientific and humanistic outlook: a fact that is not mentioned by critics who can only imagine that he wanted to establish Brahmin dominance since he was a Brahmin.
Savarkar was determined to break down the barriers that separated Hindus due to false notions of purity –
“ Oh reformer, violate the prohibition of interdining at this very instant. How easy it is; Brahmins and Mahars may together gorge themselves with sweets and you may be certain that caste distinction will vanish! The impregnable fort of caste distinction has been cursed such that while it will not fall to volleys of cannonballs, it will crumble under the onslaught of sweet balls!!”
And again
“Just as there was a regulation in the past that at least one Brahmin should dine in a Ganesh Chaturthi meal, there should be a now be a regulation that there should be at least one Chamar-Mahar-Bhangi brother to dine in the Ganeshotsav meal”
Not being merely a Facebook liberal warrior like many today, Savarkar took concrete steps to implement his theories. He organized community meals in many temples for many years. On 1st May 1933, he opened a café for all Hindus of all castes to eat together; in a revolutionary move, he appointed a Mahar as a cook. He himself naturally participated in such meals. But he was also determined to give the so-called untouchables a sacred space of their own. On 22 February 1931, he built the “Patitpavan Mandir” in Ratnagiri, and opened it to all Hindus including those considered untouchables. The temple held intercommunity meals for women and year by year the numbers went up. Significantly, the Trust Board had representation from all castes, instead of the merely Brahmins or clean castes: no one can say that Savarkar was only paying lip service to equality while refusing to share power with the objects of his charity.
As anyone can realize, to carry out such activities in those times demonstrated a boldness of mind and temper that was rare. The orthodox fumed against him, but Savarkar knew he was right. Such activities were not done in a paternalistic fit by a Brahmin who felt pity for his inferiors. He did it because he genuinely felt they were his equals, that his Brahmin blood meant nothing except a lineage he shared with his fellow Hindus. For Savarkar, to be a Hindu is to partake of a common tradition of cultures and history – not belong to castes. His own concept of caste was clear cut. The divisions meant nothing except that of occupation. The emphasis on purity of blood is misleading which a thorough reading of dharma literature can attest. As he pointed out, the very presence of innumerable castes instead of only four varnas is proof of free flow of blood from one varna to other due to anuloma and pratiloma marriages. From sublime Vedic heights such intermingling of lineages and shifting from one varna to other due to occupational changes have reinvigorated and refreshed the bloodlines. Whether one is a Brhamana, Chandal, Rakshasa, Kinnara, Yaksa, monotheists or atheists: we are all Hindus. One can through intermarriage lose caste but not Hindutva, or what makes us Hindus. Thus in Savarkar’s vision of the future, all castes dissolve into a single India. Strangely, this very notion that all Hindus are equal terrify many ‘liberal’ thinkers. Those who scream loudly that not allowing Dalits the right to be priests is discrimination, also scream the loudest if Dalits are made priests with all the rights of wearing the sacred thread and carrying out rituals that it is Brahmanization of lower castes and establishing hegemony of Hinduism. It is little wonder that they become so hysterical over Savarkar’s Hindutva which envisions all Hindus as equal human beings: without inequality, without caste distinctions what will they have to write about?
Savarkar’s scientific temperament made him believe in the value of liberty and equality. But he was also keenly aware of the implications of dharma: it is not only about rights but also duties, especially one’s regard for one’s own country and civilization. Liberty does not mean separation from one’s duty to India, nor pure individualism that does not have a place for community service. For him, religion as such cannot be confined to scriptures and rituals. To him, service to the nation, to India should be the religion of his countrymen, from Mumbai to Kolkata to Chennai. That is why he couldn’t accept the authority of any religious scriptures as final. To him the law books, however holy, are meant for human beings at certain stages of civilization; they cannot be the end-all of progress, especially in this modern world. He did not of course reject his heritage; according to him all that is good for human society should be retained and what is malignant or irrelevant in the modern age should no longer be followed. In his article, ‘Women in Manusmriti’, Savarkar says,
“We may find many passages in Manusmriti which can provide valuable guidance to today’s problems. but we should accept them because they are beneficial today, not because they were found in an ancient text and certainly not because manu’s orders are not to be transgressed. Whatever we find in Manusmriti to be harmful or ridiculous today should not be followed, but that does not make Manusmriti harmful or ridiculous. On the contrary, when compares Manusmriti with codes of other societies such as Babylon, Egypt, Hebrews, Greece and Roman, Manusmriti stands high above the rest. It deserves our respect for that”
This thought is in perfect consonance with the concept of yuga-dharma in Hinduism – different yugas require different laws and customs to suit different environments so that society can flourish vigorously.
Very few people in India know that Savarkar was a rationalist with a firm belief in scientific principles and the commonality of all human beings. Neither do they realize what Savarkar meant by saying that Bharatvarsha is punyabhumi or ‘holy land’. Here the term holy land refers not to purely religious belief, but to a feeling of sublimity. Merit is to be earned in this punyabhumi through patriotic service alone and love for the land and all its people. That is why Savarkar says: “Hindutva is not a word but a history … a history in full.” We Indians are not just a nation, but a jati: we share a common civilization which is the sum total of all past achievements, thoughts and actions. Once the history was glorious when all Hindus were regarded as equal shareholders in that culture, and it was Savarkar’s dream that India would be glorious once again when the evil of caste discrimination has vanished and there is only one united nation and civilization.
Papia Mitra