Political Dimension of Hindutva, Part 2
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar had a political vision that extended far beyond the borders of India. His understanding of politics was not limited to governance within a nation-state but encompassed a broader, global perspective. Central to his political philosophy was the idea of responsive cooperation, a pragmatic approach that balanced cooperation and resistance, depending on what best served national and human progress.
A Vision Beyond the Nation-State
Savarkar believed that the primary function of politics and government was to provide individuals with citizenship rights and to establish representative institutions in every nation to uphold these rights through public order. He looked to the constitutional processes of England and America as models for effective governance. In his view, the cornerstone of a just political system was a majority-elected parliament and a representative government chosen by that majority.
However, Savarkar’s vision transcended national boundaries. His ultimate aspiration was the formation of a “Parliament of Humanity” and a “Federation of the World”. This global federation would act as a guardian of liberty, peace, justice, and equal rights. It would dissolve distinctions based on race, language, creed, skin color, and national borders, thereby fostering unity among all humankind. Through such institutions, he envisioned a world that would be more peaceful and driven by goodwill.
Responsive Cooperation: A Third Way
Savarkar’s concept of responsive cooperation was a strategic middle path between unconditional cooperation and outright non-cooperation. He argued that if cooperation with an opposing party could lead to independence and national development, then it should be pursued. However, if cooperation proved ineffective, non-cooperation should be the chosen course. This approach allowed for flexibility, enabling political actors to adjust their strategies according to circumstances.
This concept was also Savarkar’s way of distinguishing his ideology from M.K. Gandhi’s doctrine of non-cooperation. He wanted to make it clear that his approach was neither submissive to British colonial rule nor an outright rejection of engagement with the ruling powers. Instead, responsive cooperation was based on pragmatism – it advocated for cooperation where beneficial but allowed for resistance, even armed struggle if necessary, when the legitimate interests of Hindutva and Indian sovereignty were at stake (Savarkar 1992:34f).
Violence versus Non-Violence: A Pragmatic Approach
Unlike Gandhi’s absolute commitment to non-violence, Savarkar believed in a case-by-case assessment of whether resistance should be peaceful or forceful. He maintained that non-cooperation could sometimes be peaceful, but at other times, it might require the use of force – though always as a temporary and strategic measure. He saw violence and non-violence not as fixed moral principles but as tools to be used in service of national and human progress.
The Doctrine of Cooperation for the Greater Good
Savarkar championed the idea of cooperation in the best interest of all. He argued that if a political doctrine served the well-being of all people and extended beyond immediate circumstances, it should be considered responsive cooperation. For him, the national interest was the highest priority, and if peaceful means could achieve progress, then constitutional methods and constructive work should be the preferred approach (Savarkar 1950:523; 561; 1924:622f).
This universalist and utilitarian perspective is also evident in his poem Death Bed, where he emphasized that the future of humanity was not just about the progress of India but of the entire human race. He believed that any action contributing to the betterment of humankind and the moral advancement of the soul should be considered a duty (Savarkar 1993:632f).
Friendship with Britain: A Conditional Proposition
Savarkar did not see hostility toward the British as a necessity, provided they were willing to grant India true freedom and self-governance. If Britain were prepared to establish a system that allowed India to progress, he was open to the idea of cooperation. In fact, he imagined a future where Ireland and India, both having gained self-rule, would be part of a new kind of empire—one that was no longer British but a shared entity based on mutual respect and governance. Until a better term was coined, he proposed calling it the “Aryan Empire” (Savarkar 1950:340f).
Final Thoughts: A Political Philosophy for the Future
Savarkar’s responsive cooperation offers a nuanced and pragmatic approach to politics, one that balances strategic engagement with resistance when necessary. His vision extended beyond nationalism to a universal model of governance that prioritized freedom, progress, and human unity. In today’s world, where global cooperation and national interests often clash, his ideas remain relevant as a framework for navigating political challenges with both principle and practicality.
Sources:
SAVARKAR, S. S. and G. M. JOSHI. (Eds.). [HS]. 1992. Historische Statements (Prophetic Warnings). Statements, Telegrams & Letters. 1941 to 1965 by Veer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Veer Savarkar Prakashan: Bombay (Mumbai).
SAVARKAR, Vinayak Damodar. 1950. The story of my transportation for life. Sadbhakti Publications: Bombay
Leave a Reply