Savarkar’s Coding of Hindutva; Metacode Rashtra, Part 5; Code Territorium (4/6); Codeelement Des, Indivisibility of the Territory (1/3)
When Vinayak Damodar (Veer) Savarkar spoke of nationalism, he did not imagine it in narrow or regional terms. Instead, he envisioned a pan-Indian nationalism that stretched across the entire subcontinent—bounded naturally by the Himalayas in the north and the ocean in the south. For him, this land was not just geography; it was a living, sacred entity.
The Idea of Des
Savarkar expressed this integrity through the term Des—a word that, in his thought, symbolized the organic wholeness of the Hindu Rashtra. He argued that the unity of the Hindu people and the unity of their land were not merely political aspirations but matters of faith. If Hindustan was both motherland and holy land, then its political and cultural unity had to be regarded as indivisible.
Partition as Sacrilege
Because of this conviction, Savarkar rejected any attempt to divide India. He described such efforts as nothing less than a “vivisection of the motherland.” To him, conceding territory was not just a political mistake; it was an act of sacrilege. This belief became one of the most powerful forces shaping his political thought and activism.
A Land as a Living Goddess
The German scholar Hans-Joachim Klimkeit once observed that Savarkar went so far as to imagine the land as a living, divine being—the Mother Goddess herself. Rivers, he wrote, were the lifelines of this sacred body. By remembering and invoking them, Hindus could purify their souls:
“To this very day a Sindhu—a Hindu—[…] will gratefully recall the presence of these rivers and symbolically invoke them so that they may refresh and cleanse his soul.”
Fighting Against Division
Savarkar’s passionate defense of unity explains his lifelong opposition to India’s partition. He strongly resisted the British attempt to divide Bengal, and later, he fought—unsuccessfully—to prevent the 1947 Partition of British India. For him, resisting such measures was not only a patriotic duty but a supreme moral act, even if it required the ultimate sacrifice of one’s life.
Final Thoughts
For Savarkar, the unity of India was sacred. He believed that dividing the nation was more than a political compromise—it was a betrayal of the motherland itself. His vision continues to spark debate today. Yet it stood as an uncompromising defense of national integrity, while striving to adapt to political realities.
Do you agree with Savarkar’s idea that the unity of India is not just political but also sacred? Was Savarkar right to describe partition as a “vivisection of the motherland”? Why or why not? What lessons, if any, can contemporary politics draw from Savarkar’s uncompromising defense of territorial unity? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
Sources:
KLIMKEIT, Hans-Joachim. 1981. Der politische Hinduismus. Indische Denker zwischen religiöser Reform und politischen Erwachen. Otto Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden.
PHAKE, Sudhir/PURANDARE, B. M. and Bindumadhav JOSHI. (Eds.). 1989. Savarkar. Savarkar Darshan Pratishtnah (Trust): (Bombai) Mumbai.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 2007. Hindu Rashtra Darshan. Bharat Bhushan. Abhishek Publications: New Delhi.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1999. Hindutva: Who is a Hindu. Seventh Edition. Swatantryaveer Savarkar Rashtriya Smarak: Mumbai.
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