Savarkar’s Place in History
Raveendran Ravaneshwaram
The recent suspension of an RSS-affiliated teacher in Kasaragod district, reportedly pending an investigation into a question included in a school science club’s Freedom Quiz, has once again brought the historical legacy of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar into public discussion. The question reportedly asked which freedom fighter endured the greatest punishment during India’s freedom struggle. The incident raises a larger question: how should Savarkar’s role and place in Indian history be understood?
RSS and Hindutva organisations have consistently maintained that Savarkar was among the freedom fighters who suffered the harshest punishment under British rule. There is no doubt that Savarkar endured years of imprisonment, including a long period in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. However, assessing his historical position requires a broader examination of his political evolution, his relationship with the Indian national movement, his ideological commitments, and his activities after his release from prison.
Savarkar and the National Movement
The Indian national movement was a broad and diverse political current that brought together people and organisations with different social, religious and political backgrounds. Savarkar's political trajectory, however, increasingly developed along a distinct Hindutva-oriented path.
Savarkar was undoubtedly an effective organiser, political strategist and publicist. He established organisations, developed political networks and actively promoted his ideas. He also contributed to the revolutionary tradition of the early twentieth century. Yet the character and objectives of the organisations he created and supported remain central to understanding his place in history.
The question is therefore not simply how much punishment Savarkar endured, but what political direction he ultimately pursued and how that direction related to India's broader freedom movement.
The Justice Jivan Lal Kapoor Commission of Inquiry, which investigated the conspiracy surrounding Mahatma Gandhi's assassination, made a significant observation regarding Savarkar and those associated with him. The Commission concluded that, when all the circumstances were considered together, the assassination of Gandhi appeared to have been the result of a conspiracy involving Savarkar and his group. However, this finding must also be considered alongside the fact that Savarkar was acquitted in the court case because the available evidence did not meet the required legal standard.
From Revolutionary Nationalism to Hindutva Politics
Savarkar, a native of Ratnagiri, emerged from the revolutionary nationalist tradition associated with figures such as Vasudev Balwant Phadke and the militant nationalist current represented by leaders including Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal and Lala Lajpat Rai.
In 1904, Savarkar founded Abhinav Bharat, a revolutionary organisation inspired in part by the ideas and organisational methods associated with Giuseppe Mazzini and Young Italy. His engagement with revolutionary literature and secret organisations played an important role in shaping his political outlook.
After studying at Fergusson College, Savarkar travelled to London with the support of Shyamji Krishnavarma and with assistance connected to the Tilak circle. In London, he continued his revolutionary activities and expanded Abhinav Bharat. He also translated and wrote extensively about Mazzini, helping to popularise Mazzini's ideas among Indian revolutionaries.
Savarkar's early writings also reveal a conception of Indian nationalism that, at least in its earlier phase, emphasised the need for Indians to overcome internal divisions. In The First War of Independence, he highlighted the importance of Hindus and Muslims, as well as people from different social backgrounds, joining together in opposition to British rule.
Over time, however, his political thought developed in a markedly different direction. His later emphasis on Hindutva increasingly placed religious and cultural identity at the centre of his political vision.
Savarkar’s Imprisonment and Mercy Petitions
Savarkar was arrested in March 1910 in connection with revolutionary activities and was subsequently brought to India. He was accused in cases connected with revolutionary violence, including the assassination of Nashik Collector A. M. T. Jackson. He was sentenced to a total of fifty years' imprisonment and transported to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands on 4 July 1911.
He spent approximately ten years in the Andaman and Nicobar jails and later several years under restrictions in Ratnagiri. His imprisonment was undoubtedly severe, and the hardships he endured should not be minimised.
At the same time, Savarkar's repeated mercy petitions to the British authorities form an important part of the historical record. From the early years of his imprisonment, he sought commutation of his sentence. In a petition submitted in 1920, he stated that he was prepared to abandon armed methods and work within the framework acceptable to the British government.
Supporters of Savarkar have often interpreted these petitions as a political strategy intended to secure his release so that he could resume political activity. Critics, however, point to the commitments contained in the petitions and to Savarkar's political conduct following his release.
After Prison: A Different Political Path
The period of Savarkar's imprisonment coincided with a major transformation of the Indian national movement. During these years, the movement expanded considerably and acquired a much broader popular base.
After his release, Savarkar did not return to the mainstream anti-colonial movement in the manner of many other nationalist leaders. Instead, he increasingly devoted himself to the development of Hindutva as a political ideology.
This divergence became particularly significant during the period surrounding the Second World War. While the Congress leadership and its supporters continued their struggle against British rule, the Hindu Mahasabha and other political organisations adopted positions that differed sharply from the Congress approach.
The Quit India movement of 1942 further exposed these political differences. While Congress leaders were imprisoned for their participation in the movement, the political landscape included alliances and negotiations that did not correspond with the Congress demand for immediate independence. The article's original account points, in particular, to developments involving the Hindu Mahasabha, the Muslim League and the political leadership in Bengal and Lahore.
Savarkar, Fascism and European Influences
Another important aspect of Savarkar's political thought is his attitude towards European political developments during the 1930s.
The article argues that Savarkar drew lessons from the political developments of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. It refers specifically to a speech attributed to Savarkar in Pune on 1 August 1938, in which he expressed support for aspects of Nazism and Fascism and opposed Jawaharlal Nehru's critical position towards those regimes.
The article also refers to Savarkar's support for Germany's occupation of Czechoslovakia and cites Marzia Casolari's work on the foreign relations of Hindutva in the 1930s. These references form part of the argument that European fascist ideas influenced sections of Hindutva political thought during this period.
This aspect of Savarkar's political history remains important when examining the ideological development of Hindutva. His engagement with Mazzini and revolutionary nationalism in his earlier years later existed alongside an increasingly exclusive conception of national identity.
Savarkar and the Gandhi Assassination
Savarkar's name became inseparably associated with the controversy surrounding the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in January 1948.
According to statements cited in the article, Shankar Kisthaya, one of the accused in the Gandhi assassination case, stated that Nathuram Godse had met Savarkar on 17 October 1947. Digambar Badge, another figure associated with the case, also provided a statement concerning Savarkar and the conspirators.
However, these statements did not constitute sufficient direct evidence to secure a conviction. Savarkar was therefore acquitted by the court. Any historical assessment of his alleged involvement must distinguish between the findings and observations of the Kapoor Commission and the legal verdict of the criminal court.
This distinction is essential. Historical interpretation and criminal conviction are not the same thing, and both the Commission's conclusions and the court's acquittal form part of the historical record.
Reconsidering Savarkar’s Historical Place
Savarkar remains one of the most contested figures in modern Indian history. To some, he was a revolutionary nationalist who endured extraordinary imprisonment and contributed to India's anti-colonial struggle. To others, his later political evolution represents a decisive departure from the inclusive character of the broader national movement and the emergence of a distinct Hindutva political project.
A serious historical assessment must therefore look beyond a single dimension of his life. His revolutionary activities, his imprisonment, his mercy petitions, his later political writings, his attitude towards European fascist movements, his opposition to Gandhi and the Congress-led national movement, and the controversy surrounding the Gandhi assassination all form part of the complex record.
Reducing Savarkar either to an unquestioned national hero or to a single political label does little to illuminate this complexity. His historical significance lies precisely in the transformation of his political thought and the enduring influence of the ideology he helped shape.
The central question, therefore, is not merely whether Savarkar suffered imprisonment under British rule. It is also what political vision he pursued before, during and after that imprisonment, and how that vision related to the larger Indian struggle for independence.
Savarkar's place in history must ultimately be understood within this wider context: as a revolutionary in his early political life, as an important architect of Hindutva in his later years, and as a deeply controversial figure whose legacy continues to shape political debates in contemporary India.
(Translated from Madhyamam Daily, 11/08/2026)
