Savarkar’s Philosophy & Worldview, Part 14
The Relationship Between Nation and Religion: Understanding Savarkar’s Perspective on Religious Conversions
Religion and nationality have long been intertwined in the fabric of human societies, shaping identities, cultures, and political landscapes. Few thinkers have explored this relationship as provocatively as Vinayak Damodar (Veer) Savarkar who presented a unique perspective on the ties between religion and nationality. For him, religious affiliation was intrinsically tied to an individual’s national identity. In his view, changing one’s religion was not just a matter of personal belief but a transformation of one’s nationality itself. This belief shaped his concerns regarding religious conversions, particularly those that occurred under coercion or deceit.
The Connection Between Religion and Nationality
At the heart of Savarkar’s socio-political thinking is the idea that an individual’s religious affiliation is inseparable from their nationality. He argued that religion is not a superficial label that one can change at will, like swapping clothes. Instead, he believed that religious conversion was an act that redefined an individual’s national identity. This perspective led him to view forced religious conversions as a greater threat to the Hindu nation than even foreign political aggression. While lost territories could be reclaimed, Savarkar contended that Hindus who converted to other religions, especially Islam, were lost to the nation forever.
To understand his definition of religion and religious conversion, Savarkar deliberately distanced himself from a philosophical or theological debate on the nature of faith. Instead, he focused on the socio-cultural impact of religion, particularly the dogmatic and institutionalized aspects of faith that insisted on absolute truth and exclusivity. He argued that when such religious absolutism demanded strict adherence and sought to absorb other religious communities, it led not just to a change in belief but to a fundamental transformation in nationality.
Religious Conversions and Social Context
Savarkar’s central argument was that conversions should not be judged solely on theological grounds but on their socio-cultural consequences. He observed that conversions often entailed adopting new rituals, languages, and social behaviors, leading to a complete shift in communal belonging. Thus, conversions carried out through coercion, deceit, or socio-political pressure were particularly problematic as they removed individuals from their original national identity.
Hinduism’s Vulnerability and the Need for Defense
In his analysis, Savarkar suggested that Hinduism, due to its inherent tolerance, did not impose an absolute interpretive authority, unlike other religions that demanded strict adherence. This lack of exclusivity, he argued, made Hindus vulnerable to conversion efforts from more dogmatic faiths. He believed that Hindus needed to intellectually and practically counteract such conversion strategies to preserve their cultural and national integrity. Therefore, Savarkar called for Hindus to develop strategies to confront the absolutist claims of other religions. This involved selectively emphasizing certain socio-cultural elements of Hinduism to create a cohesive national identity. Savarkar’s vision was not merely about preserving religious practices but about safeguarding the Hindu nation from cultural and existential threats.
The Role of Religious Absolutism in Interreligious Relations
Savarkar viewed religious conflicts as stemming from the claim to absolute truth made by certain religious communities. He argued that when religious institutions emphasized rigid behavioral practices over theological discourse, they fostered aggressive fanaticism. In his view, this led to conversions that were not based on genuine spiritual transformation but on social and political pressures. As a result, subsequent generations of converts found it increasingly difficult to reconnect with their original faith, reinforcing the notion that “a change of religion today will turn out to be a change of nationality in the future.”
Historical Context and Critique of Islam and Christianity
Savarkar’s critique of religious conversions was not limited to Islam and Christianity but extended to historical periods when Buddhism received state patronage. He pointed out that Muslims recognized early on that physical conversion to their faith was easier than intellectual persuasion. Hindu society’s rigid caste system and social exclusion practices inadvertently facilitated these conversions, as individuals who violated caste norms found themselves ostracized and thus more susceptible to adopting new religious identities.
He contrasted this with Europe, where forced conversions under Islamic rule were often temporary. In Christian societies, Muslims could not rely on social exclusion to retain converts, meaning that as soon as Islamic rule weakened, many forcibly converted Christians reverted to their original faith. In India, however, Muslim and Christian rulers effectively used social ostracism to maintain control over Hindu converts, preventing their reintegration into Hindu society.
Final Thoughts
Savarkar’s perspective on religious conversions highlights his deep concern for the national and cultural unity of Hindus. His emphasis on the socio-cultural dimensions of religion underscores his belief that conversions, especially those driven by coercion or political motives, had lasting implications beyond personal faith. While his views remain a subject of debate, they continue to shape discussions on religion, identity, and nationalism in India today. Ultimately, Savarkar’s work invites us to grapple with complex questions about the relationship between faith and identity. In a world where religion continues to shape national and cultural boundaries, his insights – however contentious – offer valuable perspectives on the challenges of coexistence and the preservation of cultural heritage.
💭 What do you think? What do you think about Savarkar’s views on religion and nationality? Do you believe religious conversions can alter national identity, or is this an oversimplification of a complex issue? How do you interpret Savarkar’s claim that “lost territories can be reclaimed, but converted Hindus are lost forever”? Is it possible to separate religion’s spiritual dimension from its socio-political consequences, as Savarkar attempted? How relevant is Savarkar’s idea of religious conversion as a “national loss” in today’s globalized and pluralistic societies? Can Savarkar’s fear of conversion be better understood as cultural protection?
👉 Share your thoughts in the comments below!
Sources:
GODBOLE, Vasudev Shankar. 2004. Rationalism of Veer Savarkar. Itihas Patrika Prashan: Thane/Mumbai.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1971. Six glorious (golden) epochs of Indian history. Savarkar Sadan: Bombay. 1971.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1950. The story of my transportation for life. Sadbhakti Publications: Bombay.
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