Political Dimension of Hindutva, Part 13
Introduction – A Justification of “Relative Violence”
Violence and non-violence have long been central themes in Indian philosophical and political thought. Vinayak Damodar (Veer) Savarkar, a key proponent of Hindutva, presented a unique discourse on the subject, arguing for a pragmatic approach to violence—what he termed “just, relative violence.” His ideas contrasted sharply with those of M.K. ‘Mahatma’ Gandhi, whose principle of “absolute Ahimsa” (total non-violence) rejected any form of violence outright.
Ahimsa vs. Himsa: Savarkar’s View
Savarkar conceptualized Ahimsa as the absolute rejection of violence, including the prohibition of harming any living being. He critiqued this doctrine, particularly when implemented as state policy, such as during Emperor Ashoka’s reign, which he believed weakened the socio-cultural structure of Hindu society. He viewed such restrictions as religious intolerance, especially when they impeded the traditional practices of warrior castes, such as hunting. In contrast, Himsa represented the necessary and sometimes unavoidable application of violence, justified by circumstances and necessity.
Phadtare (1975) echoes this viewpoint, partially aligning it with Gandhi’s belief that the state should not impose religious doctrines on people. However, Savarkar’s fundamental argument goes beyond religious imposition – he asserts that strict adherence to Ahimsa can become a threat to a nation’s survival.
The Relativization of Morality and Justified Violence
Savarkar’s theory of “just, relative violence” is rooted in what he calls the “relativization of morality.” He believed that moral concepts, including non-violence, are context-dependent rather than absolute. Unlike Gandhi, who saw non-violence as an unbreakable moral principle, Savarkar argued that violence could be morally justified based on the needs of the time. If an oppressor disregards moral codes, the oppressed cannot be expected to adhere to them either (Phadtare 1975:281).
Savarkar’s perspective is deeply influenced by historical invasions of India. He argued that foreign aggressors—Greeks, Sakas, Kushans, Muslims, and the British – did not abide by ethical warfare. He pointed to the fate of Indian Buddhists, who, in their adherence to non-violence, allegedly facilitated invasions and subsequently suffered persecution. This, for him, was proof that an uncompromising commitment to Ahimsa could lead to national downfall.
The Marathas as the Justified Hindu Force
A key example of Savarkar’s justification for “just violence” is his support for the Marathas as leaders of a pan-Hindu kingdom. He argued that their political and military strength, along with their pan-Hindu patriotism, granted them the right to unify Hindu society—even if some groups resisted this integration. Their struggle, in his view, was a sacred cause, legitimizing their authority through the principle of “Might is Right,” provided it served Hindu unity.
Savarkar further posited that national consolidation inherently involves a contest of strength. The struggle for leadership in a national movement is dictated by the extent of sacrifice made for the cause, and legitimacy is determined by the will and ability to lead.
Final Thoughts: A Pragmatic Approach to Nationalism
Savarkar’s discourse on Ahimsa and Himsa presents a stark departure from Gandhian non-violence. For Savarkar, moral principles cannot be absolute; they must adapt to historical and political realities. He viewed the use of force as an unfortunate but necessary tool in the pursuit of national survival and unity.
His perspective remains a contentious aspect of Indian political thought, raising fundamental questions about the role of violence in nation-building. While his justification of violence is controversial, his analysis of historical conflicts continues to influence debates on nationalism, morality, and statecraft in India today.
💭 What do you think? Which approach do you find more realistic in achieving national goals — Gandhi’s absolute Ahimsa or Savarkar’s pragmatic “just, relative violence”? Savarkar saw Ashoka’s embrace of Ahimsa as weakening India’s social and military fabric. Do you agree that state-enforced non-violence can make a nation vulnerable? Savarkar viewed violence as sometimes necessary for preserving civilization. Can such “necessary violence” ever be moral? Savarkar’s “relativization of morality” suggests that moral rules depend on context. Do you think morality can—or should—change depending on circumstances? Is it ethical for the oppressed to abandon non-violence when the oppressor refuses to play by moral rules? Does history support Savarkar’s claim that strict non-violence led to India’s downfall during foreign invasions? How do you interpret Savarkar’s idea that “Might is Right” — when used for a national or moral cause? Do you think Savarkar’s pragmatic approach to nationalism offers valuable lessons for today’s political world?
👉 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.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1971. Hindu-Pad-Padashahi or a review of the Hindu empire of Maharashtra. Bharti Sahitya Sadan (Fourth Edition): New Delhi.
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1971. Six glorious (golden) epochs of Indian history. Savarkar Sadan: Bombay. 1971.
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