Political Dimension of Hindutva, Part 12
Introduction – Savarkar’s Radical Philosophy of Resistance
Few statements in modern Indian political thought are as provocative as Vinayak Damodar (Veer) Savarkar’s declaration that relative non-violence is a virtue, absolute non-violence a crime. This concise yet explosive maxim captures the essence of Savarkar’s departure from the dominant ‘Gandhian ethos’ of his time. For Savarkar, the moral evaluation of violence and non-violence was not absolute but situational – deeply bound to historical necessity, civilizational survival, and political realism.
Relative Non-Violence as a Virtue
According to Savarkar, relative non-violence – when considered in totality – is undoubtedly a virtue. It contributes to human well-being and forms one of the essential foundations of social and moral life, whether at the individual or collective level. It occupies its rightful position and develops its advantages within this moral hierarchy.
However, Savarkar was quick to emphasize that absolute non-violence, as advocated by ‘Mahatma’ Gandhi, does not align with the original conception of ahimsa as practiced by ancient Indian traditions such as Jainism and Buddhism. A historical lens, he argues, reveals that even Jains and Buddhists established kingdoms, raised armies, and fought wars. They, too, had their battles and heroes.
The Rejection of Absolute Non-Violence
Savarkar asserts that absolute non-violence has no place in nature. Human history, he reminds us, teaches that the militarily strong survive, evolve, and dominate, while the weak are politically subjugated—or even annihilated. In this sense, his critique of Gandhian pacifism was rooted not merely in ideology but in what he saw as the biological and historical laws of existence.
The Aestheticization of Violence
At the core of Savarkar’s rhetoric lies an ‘aestheticization of violence’ – a powerful, almost poetic valorization of physical force. Yet, for Savarkar, violence was not an end in itself. Physical combat was simply one of several legitimate means to achieve justice and freedom. While he acknowledged non-violence as a method, he categorically rejected Gandhi’s idea of a purely ‘spiritual jihad’ – a religiously inspired, non-violent confrontation with oppressors.
His exposure to European revolutionary movements in London profoundly shaped this radicalization. Inspired by the writings of Mazzini and other nationalist revolutionaries, Savarkar came to view the struggle for Indian independence as both feasible and sacred. In his words, the fight against British imperialism was not only necessary and honorable but ultimately a ‘sacred duty.’ Through this perspective, violence was not immoral – it was morally legitimized as an act of righteousness.
The Notion of Just, Relative Violence
Savarkar’s idea of “just violence” aimed to furnish the Hindu Sangathan (Hindu consolidation) with both a historical and moral rationale for resisting oppression. He argued that the atrocities committed by foreign invaders, the injustices of British colonial rule, economic exploitation, and religious discrimination against Hindus were all ‘exogenous factors’ that justified resistance, including armed struggle.
Simultaneously, his reasoning drew from an endogenous Indian philosophical tradition, particularly the Buddhist notion of ‘sacred, just war.’ Inspired by this, Savarkar formulated his own principle of ‘just, relative violence,’ blending Western revolutionary ideals with Indian moral-philosophical sources.
Indian Sources of Inspiration
From the Indian side, Savarkar drew upon Kautilya’s Arthashastra, with its pragmatic approach to statecraft and war, to shape his philosophy of relative violence. He found common ground with Lala Lajpat Rai, who criticized ‘excessive Ahimsa’ as a poisoning of the sources of national vitality. Similarly, Bipin Chandra Pal’s early conceptualization of the ‘sacred motherland’ deeply influenced Savarkar. Pal’s depiction of the divine mother as Kali, the goddess of destruction, had already provided moral justification for violent resistance against British rule (Töpfer 2005:10f).
Savarkar’s political mentor, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, further inspired him by framing the independence struggle as a religious cause protected by Lord Ganesha. Drawing upon Hindu mythology, Savarkar argued that Lord Rama could only establish his ‘ideal kingdom’ (Ram Rajya) after violently vanquishing Ravana -symbolizing oppression and injustice. Likewise, the goddess Durga’s endorsement of righteous warfare reinforced his belief that non-violence alone was insufficient for achieving justice.
The Sacred Justification of War
Drawing on the divine figure of Lord Krishna, Savarkar presented the holiness of battle and the concept of sacred war as central to his vision. The Hindu people, he lamented, had been deprived of their independence and reduced to servitude under foreign rule. When peaceful petitions, monetary efforts, and supplicatory pleas failed, war became a moral imperative.
His mantra was unambiguous:
If you fall in the war against foreign rule, you shall ascend to heaven; if you win, you shall enjoy the pleasures of this earth. Therefore: Be ready for war; for its sake, all your sins will be forgiven.
V.V. Savarkar (1970)
Western Influences and Revolutionary Ethics
From a Western perspective, Savarkar was deeply influenced by Giuseppe Mazzini’s justification of armed struggle as a virtuous endeavor. For Savarkar, a just struggle united all Indians—rich and poor, upper and lower castes, men and women—under a single moral cause. In such a righteous war, he insisted, all participants are equal and glorious. Those who fail to recognize this truth, as taught by the great revolutionary leaders, are either ‘fools or scoundrels’.
Mazzini’s critique of the ‘Carbonari’, a Italian secret society, whose uncoordinated and fragmented uprisings failed to achieve liberation, also influenced Savarkar. Echoing Mazzini, he emphasized in his book The Indian War of Independence, 1857 the absolute necessity of unity and coordination. Only when such unity was achieved, he argued, could the call to arms among Indians be morally and strategically justified.
Final Thoughts – Consider and Be Ready for War as the Path to Freedom
Savarkar’s doctrine of just, relative violence stands as a radical synthesis of Western revolutionary thought and Hindu nationalist philosophy. His rejection of absolute non-violence, coupled with his glorification of armed struggle, transformed violence from a moral transgression into a sacred instrument of liberation.
While deeply controversial, this doctrine left a lasting imprint on the ideological discourse surrounding India’s independence movement and the broader evolution of Hindu nationalism. To this day, Savarkar’s vision – both admired and condemned—continues to spark debate about the role of violence in political resistance, the limits of moral pacifism, and the ethics of freedom through force.
💭 What do you think? Do you agree with Savarkar’s claim that absolute non-violence is a crime? Can violence ever be morally justified in the pursuit of national liberation? Where should the line be drawn? Savarkar saw violence as “relative”—a situational necessity. Do you think morality can be relative when it comes to war and peace? If nations that neglect military strength risk extinction, as Savarkar believed, how should modern democracies balance defense and diplomacy (understood as non-violent means)? Could Savarkar’s doctrine of “just, relative violence” be compared to Western theories like “Just War” (e.g., Augustine or Aquinas)? In today’s world, how might Savarkar’s philosophy apply to modern forms of resistance or self-defense? How does Savarkar’s “just violence” philosophy challenge today’s global discourse on peace and human rights?
👉 Share your thoughts in the comments below!
Sources:
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar .2007. Hindu Rashtra Darshan. Bharat Bhushan. Abhishek Publications: New Delhi.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1970. The Indian war of Independence 1857. Rajadhani Granthagar: New Delhi.
TÖPFER, Eric. 2005. „Geistige und ideologische Grundlagen des Hindu-Nationalismus“, in SKODA, Uwe und Klaus VOLL. 2005. Der Hindu-Nationalismus in Indien. Aufstieg –Konsolidierung – Niedergang? Weißensee Verlag: Berlin, 1-15.
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