Every year on October 2, India observes Gandhi Jayanti, the birth anniversary of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi—revered as the Mahatma and remembered worldwide as an apostle of non-violence. Yet this day also invites a provocative question: if Vinayak Damodar (Veer) Savarkar were alive today, would he have commemorated Gandhi Jayanti?
Respect Without Reverence
It is conceivable that Savarkar, despite his sharp ideological differences with Gandhi, would have shown a measure of respect for him as a national figure of great stature. He may have acknowledged Gandhi’s personal sacrifices, his iron discipline, his unwavering commitment to ethical principles, and his extraordinary ability to mobilize millions into political action.
Savarkar was never one to deny greatness where it was due. But respect, in his eyes, did not mean uncritical celebration.
A Chasm of Ideology
The gulf between Gandhi and Savarkar was not personal – it was profoundly ideological. Gandhi championed ahimsa (non-violence) as both a political weapon and a moral creed, making it the central pillar of his campaign against British rule. Savarkar, by contrast, believed that freedom could not be secured by non-violence alone. For him, the very survival of the nation required military preparedness and the readiness for armed struggle.
Thus, while Gandhi Jayanti is observed as a tribute to non-violence and moral politics, Savarkar would likely have regarded such commemoration as misplaced emphasis.
The Question of Independence: Who Deserves the Credit?
From Savarkar’s perspective, India’s independence in 1947 did not come as the logical outcome of Gandhi’s non-violent movements or the Indian National Congress’s strategies. Though he may have conceded that Gandhi’s mass movements put pressure on the colonial administration and quickened the pace of constitutional change, Savarkar saw the decisive factor elsewhere:
India’s vast human and material contributions to Britain’s war effort during the Second World War.
The post-war exhaustion of the British Empire, which made continued control over India untenable. For Savarkar, independence was not “granted” in recognition of non-violence – it was forced upon Britain by geopolitical realities.
Savarkar’s Alternative Strategy
This reading of history explains why Savarkar defended his controversial wartime policy of urging Indians to enlist in the British armed forces. In his eyes, this was not appeasement or capitulation but a pragmatic strategy: Indian soldiers would gain military experience, Britain’s reliance on Indian manpower would increase, and in the post-war reckoning, London would be left with no choice but to grant freedom.
By contrast, Gandhi’s insistence on non-violence, Savarkar argued, would have left India defenseless, unprepared, and politically dependent.
Final Thoughts: Commemoration with Caveats
Would Savarkar have celebrated Gandhi Jayanti? Almost certainly not in the way it is marked today – with an emphasis on ahimsa and the Congress-led freedom struggle. He might have acknowledged Gandhi’s moral force and organizational genius, but he would have also reminded the nation that independence was secured not by non-violence alone, but by force of arms, global war, and realpolitik.
In that sense, Gandhi Jayanti, from a ‘Savarkarite perspective’, would be less a day of veneration and more a reminder of the debate between two visions of India’s freedom – a debate that still shapes the nation’s self-understanding.
💭 What do you think? Do you think India could have won independence through non-violence alone, or was military strength and global war the decisive factor? If Savarkar were alive today, would he support the way we commemorate Gandhi Jayanti—or challenge its focus on ahimsa? Whose interpretation of independence do you find more convincing—Gandhi’s moral politics or Savarkar’s realpolitik? Gandhi’s legacy inspired civil rights movements worldwide. Savarkar’s legacy influenced national defense and Hindu unity. Which has had a greater long-term impact? Should India remember 1947 as primarily the victory of Gandhi’s non-violence or as the result of Britain’s post-war weakness?
👉 Share your thoughts in the comments below!
Sources:
PHADTARE, T. C. 1975. Social and Political Thought of Shri V.D. Savarkar. A Thesis submitted to the Marathwada University for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Unpublished: Aurangabad.
PHAKE, Sudhir/PURANDARE, B. M. and Bindumadhav JOSHI. (Eds.). 1989. Savarkar. Savarkar Darshan Pratishtnah (Trust): Bombay (Mumbai).
SAVARKAR, S. S. and G. M. JOSHI. (Eds.). 1992. Historic statements (Prophetic Warnings). Statements, Telegrams & Letters. 1941 to 1965 by Veer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Veer Savarkar Prakashan: Bombay (Mumbai).
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1941. Whirlwind propaganda:Statements, messages and Extracts from the President’s Diary of his Propagandistic Tours, Interviews from December 1937 to Oktober 1941, (Ed. by A. S. Bhide, Bombay).
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1945. Hindu Rashtravad. Being an Exposition of the Ideology & Immediate Programme of Hindu Rashtra as outlined by Swatantrayaveer V.D. Savarkar. Rohtas Printing Press: Rohtak. (Collected & Edited by Satya Parkash).
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