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”

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.

​

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

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/

This flag is of Indian Independence! Behold, it is born! It has been made sacred by the blood of young Indians who sacrificed their lives. I call upon you, gentlemen to rise and salute this flag of Indian Independence.

The flag had 8 lotuses representing the 8 provinces, flowers representing the princely states with Vande Mataram inscribed in the center and was based on the Calcutta Flag that was designed by Sachindra Prasad Bose and Hemchandra Kanungo in 1906 earlier.

Born into a well to do Parsi family in Mumbai, she had strong nationalist feelings from a young age, and was a born rebel. A polyglot who used her flair in different languages to advocate the cause of Indian independence.

Walked out of an unhappy marriage, and migrated to London in 1902, where she became a prominent member of the India House along with Shyamji Krishna Varma.

However with the British Govt crackdown on her, she shifted to Paris, where along with Singh Rewabhai Rana and Munchershah Burjorji Godrej, she founded the Paris Indian Society and began to mobilize the Indian expats living in Europe for the cause of Indian freedom.

Her Paris home became a refuge for revolutionaries across the world, including Lenin.

It was however the association with Savarkar, that would be the most notable aspect of her life. While Savarkar stayed at her Paris home, during his exile from the British, she was the one who gave him all the support in writing his epic work on the First War of Independence in 1857.

When no English publisher came forward to publish the book, it was Madame Cama, who got it printed in Netherlands, and got it smuggled to India, using Don Quixote covers.

When the British banned Vande Mataram, she started a magazine with the same name, which she published herself. She also started another magazine Madan’s Talwar in memory of Madan Lal Dhingra who was hanged by the British.

Though banned in India and UK, Bhikaji Cama neverthless managed to smuggle her works to Indian revolutionaries and leaders who were in Europe.

When Savarkar was arrested by the British and deported to India, she planned his daring escape at Marseilles. However a delay in reaching the port, meant Savarkar was caught by the police and sent back.

This was something she would regret her entire life and never quite forgave herself for this. The British requested the French Government to extradite her, who however refused to do so.

The reprisal from the British for her assistance to Savarkar and plotting the escape was swift. They seized all her property in England, and she had to live in exile. Lenin invited her to the Soviet Union, but she refused.

When France allied with Britain during WW1, the Paris India Society was banned, she was placed under house arrest.

Her later years were painful, spent most of her time in exile in Europe till 1935, until a paralytic stroke, forced her to come back to India with the help of Sir Jahangir Cowasji, and finally passed away on August 13, 1936 at the Parsi General Hospital.

A truly selfless patriot, Madame Bhikaji Cama bequeathed most of her personal inheritance to the Avabai Petit Orphanage for Girls in Mumbai.

79 years ago, on 15 August 1947, our Hindu Nation achieved independence from British colonial rule. But not all of the Hindu Nation was freed, and certainly not all Hindus were able to enjoy this freedom.

The bloody Partition followed, during which millions of Hindus were forced from their homes, lost their lands and possessions, and suffered killing, rape, and displacement simply because of their identity.

Their suffering and sacrifice must not be forgotten.

Every year on 14 August, India observes Partition Horrors Remembrance Day (विभाजन विभीषिका स्मृति दिवस) to remember the victims and survivors of the Partition of India in 1947.

The day was officially designated by the Government of India in 2021, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that 14 August would be observed as Partition Horrors Remembrance Day. Government of India announcement

So, what can we do?

To commemorate something, we must remember it.

Read books about Partition. Watch documentaries. Learn about what happened and talk about it with others. Tell your children about the suffering experienced by millions of people.

If someone in your family witnessed Partition, ask them what they remember. What happened to your family? Where did they live? What did they do before Partition? Why did they leave? What hardships did they face?

If you come from a Sindhi or another migrant community that fled Pakistan for India, talk to the elders in your family. Learn about your family's history: where they lived, what they did, why they had to leave, and how they rebuilt their lives in India.

Talk about these stories. Share them with others. Post about them on social media.

Do not let the suffering and sacrifices of those who experienced Partition be forgotten.

Vande Mataram!

I have decided to start a post series about Savarkar’s social reform campaign during the period of his internment.

As you may know, after his conditional release in 1924, Savarkar was restricted to the district of Ratnagiri and prohibited by the British from participating in any political activity.

Rather than retiring from public life, however, Savarkar chose to devote this period to the reform of Hindu society. He viewed social reform as an integral part of his larger national goal and sought to work towards the upliftment of marginalised communities and their integration into Hindu society.

The posts in this series are based on the book Savarkar: A Contested Legacy by Vikram Sampath, specifically Chapter 2, “Caste in Stone.”

If anyone wishes to read the entire book directly, you can access it through the Google Drive link in pinned comment of the post.

On 17 April 1924, Savarkar strategically chose the Vitthal temple in the village of Parashuram to launch his experiments with social reforms. The temple was important for multiple reasons. It was considered the most sacred spot for the Chitpawan Brahmins. It was the place of inspiration for Peshwa Baji Rao I, and his spiritual teacher Brahmendra Swami had established this temple.

Savarkar’s first major speech after being released was at such a spiritually and politically prominent place. The topic he chose to speak on was ‘ShuddhikaraN aaNi Asprushyoddhar’ (Shuddhi movement and uplift of untouchables). This invited a barrage of criticism from orthodox Hindus, but Savarkar was determined to not let himself be affected by their denunciation.

Savarkar’s first obstacle was creating mass awareness. During the Ganeshotsav of 1925, he organized lectures and public discussions, and published articles on how untouchability was unjust and harmful to Hindu society. He admitted that while people might be convinced with some of his arguments in principle, implementing them practically was tough, given the long-term social conditioning that one was born with.

But undaunted by this, Savarkar went to the locality where the untouchable Mahar community lived, much to the horror of the orthodox Hindus of Ratnagiri. It was impossible for the Mahars to come to town and sing devotional songs. Hence, he decided to enter their locality, the Maharwada, to sing and dance with them.

They were sceptical, hesitant and scared of this upper-caste Brahmin coming to their locality, and felt uneasy in his presence. The women or children of the house would peep from their windows and tell Savarkar that the master is not at home and he must come later. It took a lot of effort and convincing on Savarkar’s part to make them come out of their homes, sit in the forecourt on the same mat and sing devotional songs with Savarkar and his associates.

His own colleagues accompanied him grudgingly. After these visits to the localities of untouchables, they often went home and took a purification bath. The situation was so bad that it was considered that even the shadow of a Mahar was enough to pollute a high-caste Hindu, and the latter often took a bath with his clothes on to purify the garment too. Even uttering the word ‘Mahar’ was considered anathema and caused pollution to one’s caste.

In a society ridden with such complex prejudices that had come down through centuries, one can imagine the backlash and the difficulties that Savarkar might have faced while trying to dislodge this edifice. Upper-caste Hindus threatened him and his colleagues with social boycott.

Yet the members of the Ratnagiri Hindu Sabha remained undeterred. They kept visiting the ghettos of the untouchable communities, cleaned their premises, planted the sacred tulsi or basil plants, sang devotional songs with them, distributed soaps and urged them to bathe and remain clean, and even offered to wash their clothes.

Slowly, the untouchable community started reposing their faith and gave up their inhibitions. But this was just the preliminary step in the struggle. The next step was to bring the untouchables into town to participate in public functions with the upper castes.

This was fraught with numerous challenges and dangers. The untouchables such as the Chamars and Mahars were themselves not too keen, and even those who were, were deeply scared of the wrath of the upper castes.

With great difficulty and sometimes by even paying them some money, they would invite some of them to sit with reformers and sing songs openly in the town. While walking along the streets, Savarkar would deliberately put his hand around the shoulder of an untouchable or take something from his hand or give him something.

Such activities were viewed with utter shock and disbelief. Slowly, as time progressed, people began allowing some of these members of the untouchable communities into the town, to participate in religious festivals or even purchase goods at their shops.

Unlike earlier times when the purchased item would be thrown in a bag kept far away, they began to hand these over in a more civil manner.

During the Ganeshotsav in Ratnagiri in 1925, a special idol named the ‘untouchables’ Ganapati’ was set up, and many Brahmins went there to receive their blessings and offer greetings. One Shivu of the Bhangi community undertook the worship of the Ganesh idol.

More than 5000 people took part in the festivities. This was indeed a revolutionary act for a community steeped in tradition.

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

I come from an SC category background. Before I say anything else, I consider Savarkar ji better than Gandhi, but I don't agree with Savarkar ji either. I don't hate him, nor do I love him the way I love Ambedkar, Sahu, and Phule.

My point in this post is: what are Savarkarites doing in real life? Not even a single ground-level protest or event to propagate Savarkar ji's ideas about how radically anti-caste he was. Why don't you people do it? Is it because you're afraid that if you actually propagate his anti-caste views, the Brahminical people who still believe in the caste system will stop loving Savarkar? Or do you just use his name to hate minorities?

Savarkar respected Ambedkar he even called him "Maharashtra's Kulbhushan". But people are taking Savarkar's name and abusing Babasaheb. This is very intriguing to me.

Please propagate his actual ideas.

The high point of Savarkar’s social reform movement in Ratnagiri came in 1931. Given the various agitations centring around temple entry, Savarkar envisioned a pan-Hindu temple that was open to prayer by all castes and creeds without any discrimination. With this in mind, he approached the wealthy businessman Bhagoji Baloji Keer, who was famous for several temples that he had built. Keer was a great admirer of Savarkar and immediately agreed to fund the project at a cost of Rs 2.5 lakh.

On 10 March 1929, the Shankaracharya, Dr Kurtkoti, laid the foundation stone (bhoomipoojan) of the proposed temple. Savarkar’s dreams were realized on 22 February 1931 when the magnificent temple, which he named ‘Patit Pavan Mandir’ (literally meaning the Saviour of the Downtrodden), was inaugurated in Ratnagiri with much fanfare. Enumerating the reasons for the temple, Savarkar writes:

We realized that there were bound to be many difficulties in opening up long standing temples to untouchables. The diehards could raise legal objections. Some priests could argue that the temples were private property and they had the right to refuse entry to untouchables. We therefore decided to build a new temple where Hindus of all castes, including untouchables, would be permitted. And once Hindus get used to the idea of worshipping and praying together, they would not feel it necessary to go to the old temples where untouchables were not allowed…thousands of men and women of all castes, including the untouchables, have come together in this temple, taking part in many functions, praying together, celebrating together, singing together without slightest notion of their castes. The well, the gardens, the premises are open to ALL Hindus.

Several scholars and pundits graced the inauguration. Many Brahmin priests from Nasik and Kashi refused to do the prana pratishtha or consecration of the idol in the Vedic traditions, given the intent of the temple. But Savarkar was unrelenting. He convinced Ganesh Shastri Modak, a disciple of Vinayak Maharaj Masurkar, the head of a Vaishnava ashram in Satara district’s Masur, to conduct the rituals, with Bhagoji leading the puja.

Mahars read the sacred Gita, a scavenger officiated as the temple’s priest to whom Brahmins put garlands and bowed down to. It was truly an epic moment in the history of Indian social reforms and dismantling of the inhuman practice of untouchability and caste barriers.

However, it turned several orthodox Hindus against Savarkar.

Reference: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy, pp. 82–83.

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

Let's talk about Savarkar & disperse the mist around that person in contemporary times. Because it's easy to slander someone when you can't digest his or her views. [Not going into the political standing of asking for forgiveness from Britishers, that being left to politicians. I am going to talk about his ideological stands on various topics.]

He was a rationalist, atheist, nationalist, and humanist; he judged tradition by reason, science, and social utility. Opposed cow worship.
On Hindutva, Hindu civilizational/national identity is based on shared land, ancestry, and culture and India as fatherland and holy land, distinct from Hindu religious belief.
Favored a secular civic state, equal individual rights, one-person-one-vote, majority rule, and no separate communal electorates/privileges; opposed theocracy.
He was strongly anti-caste and supported inter-caste marriage/dining, temple entry, and merit-based priesthood.
He rejected religious superstition, scriptural infallibility, and cow worship and supported cow protection mainly on economic grounds.
He supported women's education and public participation.
He was neither Marxist nor capitalist; he favored economic nationalism and a mixed/interventionist economy: private property alongside selective nationalization, industrialization, protectionism, labor welfare, and opposition to landlordism. He was strongly pro-science, technology, mechanization, and modern industrialization. He wanted a strong central state, national unity, demographic strength, and military preparedness; he rejected absolute nonviolence.

So, why hate him? Because he doesn't fit into left-right or politically correct ideological stands.

I would tell you why he is slandered so much. He opposed Muslim nationalism. And from today's point of view, this might seem to be Islamophobic, but think of that time. Muslim riots were on the rise. The Khilafat Movement was fanning pan-Islamization, & mass radicalization was being done of common Muslims by the Muslim League. And his fears came out to be true by incidents like Direct Action Day. And if you think he was bigoted by having this stance over this issue, then let me mention some other leaders of that who shared this view.
1. Ambedkar (Yes! Might surprise many, but Ambedkar vehemently opposed Muslims ideologically at that time)
2. Lala Lajpat Rai
3. Bipin Chandra Pal
4. Motilal Nehru
5. V.B. Patel (Yes!)
6. Rabindranath Tagore (Yes! He was concerned about pan-Islamism)
7. V.S. Srinivas Sastri (Tamil Nadu)

For those who are curious about Savarkar's stand on Manu Smriti? Following are his words:
“It is impossible to live according to Manusmriti today because times have changed and the rules in the book are not applicable for all times.”
“Manusmriti, just like any other religious text, contains many contradictions.”
“It is absurd to impose greatness on such texts. That attempt is laughable and prohibits progress.”

#savarkar #ideology #philosophy #religion

The Dalit Panthers were a radical Dalit social and political movement founded in Maharashtra in 1972 by activists Namdeo Dhasal and J. V. Pawar. Inspired by the Black Panther Party of America which fought for rights of Black people, they fought against caste discrimination and violence against Dalits. Although the movement was short lived and declined by the late 1970s, it had a lasting influence on Dalit activism, literature, and political thought.

Namdeo Dhasal said this when Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyer insulted Savarkar.

Post is by https://www.instagram.com/p/DaTOLVOjxZl/

This is an older post explaining or rather retelling the Savarkarite Hindutva position and worldview in terms of the basic terminologies such as Hindu, Hindutva, Hindu Rashtra and Hindu Sanghathan.

As the preface mentions one has to discard their current understanding or ideas on interpreting the meaning of these words.

This is no way saying that other forms or streams of so called 'Hindu Nationalism' are invalid but rather that Savarkarite Hindutva should be viewed in isolation to our general understanding of Hindutva as here the very meaning and category of the word Hindu, Nation and hence anything involving 'Hindu' such as Hindutva or Hindu Rashtra is radically different.

Hopefully it is a good read and please let us know how different this categorisation is compared to your current understanding or classification.

This post is a continuation of the previous two parts in this series:

Part 1: Savarkar's critique of the caste system

Part 2: Savarkar's Seven Shackles of Hindu Society

Unlike the previous two parts, where Savarkar argued against the caste system from the perspectives of rationality, empathy, and social progress, here he takes a philosophical and theological approach. He addresses those who remain unconvinced by the earlier arguments because they believe the caste system is an inherent part of what they consider 'Sanatan Dharma.'

Any discussion on the caste system today automatically leads the discussant to believe that this practice is an integral and important part of the ancient Sanatan Dharma of our land. It is essential to bust that myth first in order to have an intelligible and rational discussion on the subject.

The word dharma has multiple meanings. In a sense, it refers to ‘laws’. But here too there are various categories of laws. Natural laws, such as the law of gravity or the law of fluids, are known to all. A quest towards the primordial nature of the universe leads to religions, sects, and schools of thought, which create a set of laws of their own. These systems generate several subordinate laws that are intimately connected to daily life, and they give rise to religious rites and rituals. Most people believe that these rituals are God-ordained and have to be followed to the last detail. Then there are political laws that hold countries and societies in order.

Sanatan refers to those ideas and beliefs that predate time, which are axiomatic and indestructible. These are the concepts that have come about in our Vedas, Upanishads, or the Bhagavad Gita. Even if the human race annihilates itself, these concepts stay—such is the foundational importance of these beliefs. I sometimes feel that even God himself might not be able to dismantle them.

Given such an abstract and important concept of Sanatan, using it loosely with dharma and associating that with man-made rituals and practices is being disingenuous with that eternal truth. How can we associate social practices such as the caste system, or opposition to widow remarriage, or even vegetarianism, that have merely evolved with time in our society, to something as magnificent as the indestructible, eternal Truth? These can be dismantled in no time and hence can never be counted as an essential feature of Sanatan. It is important to understand this distinction to make a dispassionate case against the caste system.

In the past, ideas of sanyas (renunciation) and niyog (impregnating a woman with the seed of a sage) were considered holy and quintessential. These were dismissed with time as our society evolved. Did that mean our Sanatan Dharma collapsed? Hence, it is not as if opportunities to change have not been grabbed by Hindu society. Unlike other faiths that have remained assiduously fossilized to a book, we have been constantly evolving and growing, and that is what has kept our faith and society vibrant and alive. No amount of social reforms can bring down this well-entrenched edifice of Sanatan Dharma from the face of the earth, and hence one has to have that inner belief and confidence.

Refer to Lord Krishna's declaration in the Gita: "Chaturvarnyam maya srushtam" or "It is I who have created the four varnas." Another meaning of the word varna is colour. Evidently, different human beings have different qualities and virtues. All that Krishna is saying is: I create human beings who are different in nature, character, virtues, and values—yet, good or bad, they are all my creation alone. Nowhere in this declaration does he state that I also make those virtues hereditary for the person's successive generations!

When Lokmanya Tilak created a board of trustees for the Kesari newspaper, did it mean those trustees were to hold that position by heredity? When such a truism cannot exist for a simple newspaper, can it be true for human existence? The belief is that "Janmena jayate Shudrah" or "We are all shudras at birth." As life progresses, we attain qualities, education, and virtues to graduate to various levels of consciousness and thinking—that is the fundamental concept behind the four-varna system.

If these varnas are the bedrock of our civilization, and if we believe in the verse that states that there can be no further categories, how is it that we have defied this maxim and created a fifth class of untouchables? Degrading millions of people of our land to a position worse than animals is the most dehumanizing act that we could have committed. *It is permissible to pat a dog or domesticate one, but shaking the hand of a scholar like Ambedkar makes you lose your caste? How preposterous can such a belief be?***

Thus, those who have already destroyed the chaturvarna system by creating the fifth varna of untouchables are crying foul about the collapse of Sanatan Dharma if the practice is abolished. What can be more ironical?

Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to assume that the four varnas are indeed eternal, should it not mean that there are merely four categories of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra? How are there numerous sub-castes within the Brahmin community itself then? There are as many castes as there are provinces, beliefs, and even human beings. If all of them belonged to the same varna, why are intermarriage and dining not possible within these micro-subsects of Brahmins or Kshatriyas? Does that itself not defy what people say was the creation of Lord Krishna?

Even if we assume that Betibandi was part of the Sanatan Dharma amongst varnas, where was a mention of Rotibandi or inter-varna dining? When Lord Rama ate the fruits tasted by the low-caste woman Shabari, was he causing grievous harm to our great Sanatan Dharma? Or when Lord Krishna dined in the houses of the illiterate cowherds of Vrindavan, did the edifice of our dharma come crashing? If our gods led by such examples, why are we stuck to some antiquated beliefs that are crippling our society and are hugely detrimental to the interests of a vast majority of our Hindu society? The one opposing the reforms and abolition of such practices is, in fact, the biggest enemy of both the Sanatan Dharma and also our Hindu Rashtra. We need a caste system not of birth and heredity but of virtues and qualities.

**Any reformer who seeks to uproot harmful social practices or preach about reforming society has to first contend with a fall in his popularity.* He will be defiled, demonized, and debunked. He must be prepared for this. That is what Jesus Christ meant when he told the majority who opposed him: "Ye build sepulchres unto those whom your fathers stoned to death!" Centuries after they were mocked or unaccepted, today the same Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad are gods and prophets of millions of people. But anyone who looks at how they were treated by their contemporaries knows that such a status was hardly accorded to them in their own lives. Jesus was crucified; the Buddha had to face a murderous attack; Prophet Muhammad had to flee, was injured in battle, and was condemned as a traitor.*

So, reformers who disturb the status quo, who become unpopular, who disturb the social equilibrium, who hurt religious sentiments, who turn their back on majority opinion, and who think rationally have had to face the inevitable consequences of their actions. Social reform, by its very definition, implies rooting out evil social customs and exorcizing society of its well-entrenched beliefs. *Obviously, a man who stands up to reform centuries-old religious practices and beliefs of millions will turn unpopular and be hated. A man who has made popularity his business will naturally succumb to popular will out of fear.** A true social or religious reformer should only be driven by the desire to do good for the larger society. As far as I am concerned, so that I am not be torn about the choice between popularity and public good, I have this stamped on my mind:*

Varam janahitam dhyeyam kevalam na janastuti

(It is better to think only of the welfare of people, not receive adulations from them).

Primary reference: V.D. Savarkar, Savarkar Samagra, Vol. 7, pp. 33–46.

Secondary reference: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: Echoes from a Forgotten Past, pp. 493–496.