Savarkar’s Philosophy & Worldview, Part 12; Savarkar’s Five Philosophical Dimensions (5/6)
Vinayak Damodar (Veer) Savarkar embedded a profound sense of realism in his philosophy. Beyond mere pragmatism, his worldview was rooted in adaptability, acknowledging that no ideology, institution, or tradition is universally applicable across all times and circumstances. His understanding of human behavior was dynamic—what works for one era or nation might be irrelevant, or even detrimental, in another. This dimension of his thought emphasized adaptability, context-specific solutions, and a clear-eyed understanding of power dynamics in both domestic and international arenas. In this fifth installment of our series on Savarkar’s philosophical dimensions, we delve into his realist worldview and its implications for society, politics, and human progress.
The Essence of Savarkar’s Realism: the Adaptability of Political Institutions
Savarkar’s realism was rooted in the belief that no single thought, tradition, or institution could universally serve all nations under all circumstances. As scholar Vasudev Shankar Godbole (2004) notes, Savarkar argued that human behavior and societal structures must evolve to meet contemporary needs. What works for one nation may be detrimental to another, and clinging to outdated systems or philosophies can hinder progress. In a speech delivered on October 11, 1938, in Pune, Savarkar emphasized that administrative and political institutions must be tailored to the specific conditions of a country. He argued that the effectiveness of a political philosophy should be judged by its impact on a given society at a particular time.
“When we look at suitability of various political philosophies, we must ask – Did the philosophy in question benefit the particular country? If it did, that philosophy should be considered good for that country at that time. […] What may be a poison to one nation can be like nectar to another. It is therefore unwise to say that a particular philosophy is good or bad under all the circumstances” (Savarkar, quoted in Godbole 2004:467).
This statement underscores Savarkar’s commitment to context-driven solutions. He recognized that social and political progress required specific conditions and that implementing reforms was a complex, gradual process. In the Indian context, he observed that his countrymen were often either unwilling or unable to embrace change due to oppressive socio-political forces.
Might is Right – Savarkar’s Realism in International Politics
One of the most striking aspects of Savarkar’s realism was his acceptance of power dynamics in international politics. For him, there are only two principles in international politics: ‘protect the interests of one’s own country and its people’ and the other is “Might is Right”. He viewed global affairs through a social Darwinist lens, emphasizing survival and competition among nations (‘Survival of the Fittest’). For Savarkar, protecting the interests of one’s country and people was a natural law—an idea that echoed Herbert Spencer’s theory of the persistence of force. Savarkar was a proponent of the principle “Might is Right”. He maintained that strength, both military and economic, determined a nation’s success. In his words:
“If you want to succeed on Earth, you must acquire earthly power and strength.” (Savarkar, quoted in Godbole 2004:354f)
According to Savarkar, only when you are materially strong, your actions will succeed, whether divine blessing is present or not. For him, moral sentiments alone could not ensure survival or success. He argued that states must prioritize physical force over mere ethical considerations. Without armed power, even the most righteous causes would falter. He pointed out that if there is a lack of armed power, both scientific and religious power are miserably helpless.
Strength Over Mere Righteousness
Savarkar did not advocate tyranny, but he acknowledged a hard truth: justice without power is ineffective. Even the most just and noble societies would be overpowered if they lacked the means to defend themselves. He illustrated this with a sharp critique of reliance on religious rituals for success:
“I am not advocating that a powerful society should be [a] tyrant. However, one must appreciate that your cause may be just but if you are weak you will be defeated by the unjust but materially superior society. The performance of 108 or even 1,108 Satyanarayan Pujas will not help you to defeat your enemies, because success depends on acquiring power. Even those who do not believe in God will succeed if they have material strength. Has not atheist Soviet Union become a World Power?” (Savarkar, quoted in Godbole 2004:355).
Acknowledging the Limits of Human Power
Despite his emphasis on strength, Savarkar also recognized the limitations of human achievements. He warned against arrogance in claiming total control over nature.
“But no one should ever arrogantly say: ‘We won over the nature. America had sent man on the moon, but is still faced with severe drought, floods, hurricanes, volcanoes, and earthquakes.” (Savarkar, quoted in Godbole 2004:346f).
Final Thoughts
Savarkar’s realism was a defining element of his philosophy. He rejected absolute ideologies, recognizing that political and social systems must evolve to fit their respective contexts. His belief in the primacy of power in international politics and the necessity of material strength over mere righteousness underscores his pragmatic approach. For Savarkar, realism was not cynicism but an acknowledgment of the world as it is—where survival and success depend on adaptability and strength.
💭 What do you think? How do you interpret Savarkar’s idea that no ideology or institution is universally applicable? Do you agree? What does Savarkar’s statement “What may be a poison to one nation can be like nectar to another” mean to you? In today’s globalized world, do you believe “Might is Right” still shapes international politics? Why or why not? Can morality and ethics ever prevail in global politics without material power? Savarkar argued that religious rituals cannot ensure national survival without material strength. Do you think this perspective challenges or complements India’s spiritual traditions? How might Savarkar’s realist ideas apply to India’s current foreign policy challenges? Do you think smaller nations today can survive without military or economic might, relying only on alliances and diplomacy? Where should nations draw the line between prioritizing strength and avoiding tyranny?
👉 Share your thoughts in the comments below!
Sources:
GODBOLE, Vasudev Shankar. 2004. Rationalism of Veer Savarkar. Itihas Patrika Prashan: Thane/Mumbai.
KELKAR, B. K. 1989. „Savarkar: A Thee-dimensional view“, in PHAKE, Sudhir/PURANDARE, B. M. and Bindumadhav JOSHI. (Eds.). 1989. Savarkar. Savarkar Darshan Pratishtnah (Trust): (Bombay) Mumbai, 42-60.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1971. Six glorious (golden) epochs of Indian history. Savarkar Sadan: Bombay. 1971.
Wolf, Siegfried O. 2010. Savarkar’s Strategic Agnosticism. A compilation of his political and economic worldview, in Heidelberg Papers in South Asian Comparative Politics (HPSACP), No. 51, Heidelberg University, Germany.
Wolf, Siegfried O. 2009. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar und sein Hindutva-Konzept. Die Konstruktion einer kollektiven Identität in Indien [“Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and his concept of Hindutva: The construction of a collective identity in India.”]. Online Dissertation: Heidelberg University: Heidelberg.
Leave a Reply