Savarkar’s Coding of Hindutva, Metacode Rashtra, Part 3; Code Territory (2/6)
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s ideological framework for Hindutva is deeply rooted in territorial delineation, a concept that is essential for political realism while seemingly contradictory to his broader worldview. His reflections on the nature of the Indian nation and its territorial boundaries stem from a philosophical yet pragmatic perspective, balancing the universalist ideals of a humane state with the practicalities of realpolitik.
The Paradox of National Boundaries
Savarkar questions the very notion of an “Indian Nation” in the context of a humane state. He posits that the Earth is the true motherland, and humanity is the ultimate nation (Savarkar 2007:215). He challenges the idea of geographic boundaries, such as the Himalayas, which separate Indians from the rest of humanity. If all humans are fundamentally brothers, why should Indians oppose the British? Why should Indian interests not align with those of the British Empire? For Savarkar, this broader political synthesis is key to achieving national unity and, ultimately, a more humane and universal goal (Savarkar 2007:215).
Hindustan as a Political and Cultural Entity
Savarkar observes that Hindus have a natural inclination toward unifying the entire country into a single political entity, a vision that aligns with his ideological stance. He credits this to the Hindu philosophical tendency toward universalism (Savarkar 2007:245). Despite his advocacy for a universal world state, he acknowledges that divisions within humanity, though artificial, are unavoidable due to historical power structures and geopolitical realities (Savarkar 1924:622). Thus, Hindus must conform to the existing world order by defining their own nation-state boundaries.
The Concept of Hindu-Rashtra
Savarkar’s vision of Hindu-Rashtra is similar to Benedict Anderson’s notion of a nation as an “imagined political community.” He delineates Hindustan (Sindhustan) as the homeland of Hindus, distinct from Mlechchadesha, the land of foreigners (Savarkar 1999:20). What is striking is his conscious effort to distance this definition from religious connotations. The term Mlechcha – traditionally used to describe non-Hindus – is framed in national and racial terms rather than religious ones (Savarkar 1999:20). According to Chirol (1910:44), the term Mlechha (or Mlenccha) is a term used by Hindus to describe Europeans and Muslims alike as foreigners. This distinction highlights his strategic departure from utopian ideals to align with realpolitik.
The Geographical Boundaries of Hindustan
Savarkar defines Hindustan geographically as the land between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean, from the Indus River (now in Pakistan) to the Ganges delta (now in Bangladesh). He asserts that this land belongs solely to Hindus, and this spatial delineation is fundamental to acquiring citizenship in Hindu-Rashtra: A Hindu is a citizen either through himself or through his forefathers from Hindustan and who recognizes it as his motherland (Savarkar 1999:51). He reinforces this idea by referring to Hindustan as both Matribhu (motherland) and Pitribhu (fatherland), emphasizing ancestral lineage over mere territorial claims.
The Balance Between Utopian Ideals and Realpolitik
While Savarkar’s ultimate vision embraces a world without borders, where humanity functions as a single political entity, he pragmatically acknowledges the necessity of territorial delineation in the present geopolitical context. His emphasis on Hindustan as the land of Hindus serves as a strategic means to consolidate national unity, despite his overarching aspiration for a “borderless world” (Savarkar 1999:74).
Final Thoughts
Savarkar’s territorial concept (Codeelement) of Pitribhu is an intricate blend of political realism and philosophical idealism. While he envisions a universal, humane world state, he recognizes the necessity of defining national boundaries to strengthen Hindu unity. His distinction between Hindustan and Mlechchadesha reflects a calculated response to historical and geopolitical realities, shaping his vision for Hindu-Rashtra. In essence, Savarkar’s approach is both an assertion of Hindu identity and an adaptation to the demands of a world structured around nation-states.
What are your thoughts on Savarkar’s vision? Can national identity and universal ideals coexist peacefully? Savarkar believed in both a universal world state and defined national boundaries. Do you think these ideas can coexist? If humanity is one global family, as Savarkar suggests, should national borders still matter? Do you think a borderless world is possible, or are territorial boundaries necessary for unity? Share your comments below!
Sources:
ANDERSON, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. Verso: London.
CHIROL, Valentine. 1910. Indian Unrest. Macmillian and Co: London.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 2007. Hindu Rashtra Darshan. Bharat Bhushan. Abhishek Publications: New Delhi.
Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. 1950. The Story of My Transportation for Life. Sadbhakti Publications: Bombay.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1924. An Echo from Andamans. Vishvanath Vinayak Kelkar: Nagpur, in GROVER, Verinder. 1998. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar: A biography of his vision and ideas. Deep and Deep: Publications: New Delhi.
Leave a Reply