Why . . . mourn for the past? My power and intelligence would have been as nought, if I had feared and trembled in the hour of my trial, like Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurekshetra. I did not fail in my duty—in my Dharma.
V. D. Savarkar, My Transportation for Life (1927)INTRODUCTION
On 7 July 1937, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar delivered a speech entitled “Ek hi dharm-pustak nahin, yeh achcha hai!” (“There Is No One Religious Book: This Is Good!”).Footnote 1 Savarkar's central argument was that the Bhagavad Gita should not be considered the singular or monolithic text for the creation of the Hindu nation. He explained that the Gita was a seminal work, but that it needed to be read alongside other books that constituted the diverse literary traditions within Hinduism. Savarkar's claim for textual pluralism was a direct response to contemporary arguments that Hindus needed to elevate the Gita to the status of the Bible in Christianity or the Koran in Islam as a way to strengthen the foundation of Hinduism in the making of modern India. In the short speech, Savarkar simply presents his argument about the Gita, rather than providing a commentary on the text. To what extent the speech had an influence on the interpretation of and debates around the Gita remains unclear. Nor is it known if the speech had an impact on the direction of Hindu nationalism, especially since Savarkar was elected president of the All-India Hindu Mahasabha on 30 December 1937.Footnote 2
Savarkar does not appear to have returned to the theme of the Gita in his later speeches.Footnote 3 Nor did Savarkar produce a systematic critique of the Gita, like his contemporaries in the first half of the twentieth century, such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lajpat Rai, or Aurobindo Ghose. The historiography of the reception of the Gita in modern India has generally neglected to even consider Savarkar and his writings. In fact, it may appear that Savarkar really did not have much to contribute to scholarship and debates on the Gita. There are, of course, important factors that help to explain the nature of the scholarship. Perhaps the main reason Savarkar is overlooked in this context is that he did not adopt the existing hermeneutical traditions to establish a critique of the Gita. Tilak, for example, points out in his Srimad Bhagavadgita Rahasya that the interpretations of the Gita took on two distinct forms that date back at least one thousand years: bhasya or commentary, and tika or criticism.Footnote 4 He explains that authors of bhasya and tika followed specific guidelines that were required within each literary form. This not only helped to distinguish between formal commentary and criticism, but it also established links with earlier authors and their writings on the Gita.
In addition, Savarkar promoted the idea of reading widely in several languages. He was particularly interested in encouraging individuals to study history, economics, and politics. As the president of the All-India Hindu Mahasabha, he even compiled a list of essential readings for his supporters.Footnote 5 The Gita is not included on the list, nor does it appear that Savarkar prescribed its reading elsewhere. Further, in his well-known publications, Savarkar only makes minor references to the Gita, without providing any direct interpretation of the text or its ideas. In general, Savarkar was not explicit about the influence of any text—the Gita or otherwise—in his writings. In some books he provides the names of authors and the titles of texts he had read, but these lists are usually incomplete: for example, authors’ names are included, but not the specific titles of their books. In other places Savarkar assumes the reader had familiarity with an idea or set of ideas, and therefore he does not provide a context or explanation for the references. To complicate matters further, citations are inconsistently used throughout his writings, and bibliographies only appear in select publications. He explains that he often wrote without having regular access to books. Savarkar also states that his purpose was never to produce academic scholarship or to follow specific disciplinary conventions in his work. In addition, the fact that Savarkar spent over three decades (c.1905–37) writing while being subjected to police surveillance or the prison censor also explains the sometimes inconsistent, incomplete, and fragmentary nature of his work.
While there is no systematic analysis of or engagement with Savarkar's interpretation of the Gita, some scholars have briefly mentioned the impact of the text on Savarkar. Robert Minor in his writing on modern interpreters of the Gita asserts that Savarkar was an individual “who took the Gita's battle literally”.Footnote 6 Dhananjay Keer, Savarkar's main biographer, writes that Savarkar stated the following to a police officer after being arrested in London in 1910: “We are Hindus. We have read the Geeta”.Footnote 7 Keer also claims that in the 1950s Savarkar turned to the Gita as a way to argue that Christians in their attempts to convert Hindus were being “intolerant” and “unjust”.Footnote 8 Chetan Bhatt in a recent work on Hindu nationalism states that the Gita helped Savarkar to establish an argument about an “ethical premise” of violence against non-Hindus in India.Footnote 9 I provide these select comments here as a way to begin considering the significance of the Gita on Savarkar's thought on religion, nationalism, and the idea of Hindu India. Why is this important? As one of the intellectual founders of Hindu nationalism, Savarkar has emerged as the most controversial Indian political thinker of the last century, gaining notoriety for his program to “Hinduize Politics and Militarize Hindudom”, for his anti-Muslim and anti-Christian politics, and for his advocacy of violence in everyday life. Yet his writings still remain largely unexplored bodies of political thought in twentieth-century India.Footnote 10 By bringing together key selections from Savarkar's writings in this paper, I will show how Savarkar developed concepts from the Gita for his political purposes of contesting colonial power and creating a Hindu nation. I will also show that while Savarkar departed from the traditions of both bhasya and tika in interpreting the Gita, he adopted history writing as the main literary form for his engagement with the text and its principles. For Savarkar, the creation of historical knowledge that embodied key ideas from the Gita was necessary for transforming the individual and the nation. He claimed that it ultimately motivated individuals to adopt violence for the creation of Hindu India.
REFLECTIONS OF THE GITA IN PRISON LIFE
On 13 March 1910, Savarkar was arrested in London on five separate charges, ranging from “delivering seditious speeches” and “procuring and distributing arms” to “waging war against the King Emperor of India”.Footnote 11 He was extradited to India and convicted of sedition and sentenced to “transportation for life” in the Cellular Prison, located in the Andaman Islands. In 1922, Savarkar was initially transferred to a prison in Ratnagiri, and then to another prison in Yeravda. He was later put under house arrest for nearly five years and finally released in 1937. After leaving the Andaman Islands, Savarkar completed a memoir of his time in the Cellular Prison entitled My Transportation for Life. It is here, perhaps more than in any other work, that he provides small clues about the place of the Gita in his everyday life, while also including brief discussions of the text that are necessary for understanding Savarkar's histories.
Savarkar begins his memoir in the days before he was to depart for the Cellular Prison. He writes that he began a daily pattern of reciting religious texts in the morning, followed by composing verses of an epic poem that he was writing. Savarkar first makes reference to the Gita while discussing a visit to the jail from his wife and her brother. He explains that during the meeting he discussed the prospect that the British authorities would allow his wife to move to the Andaman Islands after a few years, following a policy of reuniting and resettling prisoners with their families. However, as the prison superintendent abruptly ended the meeting, the brother-in-law turned to Savarkar and urged him to repeat a mantra from the Gita every morning while in prison. Savarkar states, “Looking at him wistfully, I promised to carry out his behest”.
Later in My Transportation for Life, Savarkar explains that prior to boarding the ship that took him to the island prison in the Andamans, his last personal possessions were confiscated by the authorities: a pair of eyeglasses and a copy of the Gita. He writes,
I was a conspirator; the rule was that a convict of that type lost all his property to the State. My trunks, clothing and books had already been taken in possession and sold by public auction. That my . . . [G]ita and my spectacles, the last things I had with me, should also be taken away from me, grieved even my fellow prisoners.Footnote 12
In select passages, Savarkar includes references to the Gita's central themes of swadharma and dharma. At one point, Savarkar even encourages the readers of his book to examine a chapter of the Gita. He states, “Look at the eleventh chapter of the Bhagwat Gita, and remark the manifestation in it of the Divine Spirit as cosmic force, embracing in its sweep both the One and the Manifold”.Footnote 13 Savarkar notes that prison officials eventually returned his copy of the Gita to him. Once in the Andamans, he describes the existence of a sizable prison library, with two thousand books in English, Hindi, Marathi, and Bengali. He lists the texts he read during his years in prison, including works of fiction, history, philosophy, politics, and religion.Footnote 14 Based on Savarkar's discussion, the Gita was only one of the many texts that he read in prison; however, he notes that the Gita played an important role for him personally, and he relied on it to educate fellow prisoners about politics and religion. However, Savarkar also says that he turned to the writings of Johann Kaspar Bluntschli, Giuseppe Mazzini, and Herbert Spencer to teach about the nature of the state and society while in prison.
The fragmentary nature of Savarkar's discussion of the Gita in My Transportation for Life is consistent with his other works; that is, his discussions are brief and randomly appear in the text usually without explanation.Footnote 15 Perhaps Savarkar assumes that the reader will have familiarity with the key ideas in the text, and consequently he does not have to provide clarification. I have included the main examples from his memoir as a way to illustrate both the possibilities and the limitations in trying to examine Savarkar's interpretation of the Gita, personally, politically, intellectually, or otherwise. However, there are two additional passages in the text that provide clues about the Gita, which go beyond Savarkar's usual discussions even in his major writings. He states,
Every one who presumes to think of his own country, to dabble in politics, and to aspire to political leadership, must . . . possess full and deep knowledge of subjects like politics, economics and constitutional history. To be wanting in such knowledge is to spell yourself inefficient and unfit for responsible self-government, or for high administrative offices in it. As in religion so in politics, action with knowledge is the key to salvation . . . When you have plenty of time before you [in prison], a number of years to be passed in enforced idleness, you must add knowledge to service and vision to self-sacrifice. Heroism, to do or die, is not enough. It must be illuminated by deep learning[,] ripening into wisdom. I exhorted them [political prisoners] finally to cast off gloom and despondency, and apply themselves to knowledge[,] which was their proper work . . .Footnote 16
He later continues:
We know how in their exile, the Pandavas used to be down-pressed, how they would pity and condemn themselves. They were tortured by their minds for what they had brought upon themselves; despair and melancholy overcast their souls, and they forgot their own valour and greatness. Then Dhaumya and other sages narrated to them stories of Nala and Rama to put courage in their hearts and teach them to defy misfortune and cruelties of fate. And these stories from the past put a new hope in their hearts. Similarly, stirring acts of former heroes in history . . . or discourses on the immortality of the soul from the Upanishads and the Bhagawat gita would provide a tonic to the shattered hearts of our political prisoners. That would imbue them with the spirit of defiance.Footnote 17
In the first passage, Savarkar evokes the central principles of karma yoga, or the discipline of action, found in the Gita, without actually referencing it for the reader. It is important to note that this is characteristic not only of his silence on the Gita explicitly, but in general, of his silence on sources of influence in his work. So what can be interpreted from this passage? Savarkar is building upon the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna in the Gita, in which Krishna states that Arjuna, and indeed all men, should follow their own duty, or swadharma, without being attached to desires, pleasures, or accomplishments. An individual's actions should not be for personal fulfillment of any type, but rather in the service of God (Krishna). It is through everyday actions, in consonance with swadharma, that an individual acquires true knowledge of Krishna. However, Savarkar reconsiders the general message of the Gita for political purposes. Most important, he urges on fellow prisoners in the Andamans the need to expand the religious context of karma yoga into the realm of politics. Savarkar notes that despite the strict limitations imposed on individuals, prisoners need to reconsider the meaning of karma yoga for everyday life. He declared that it is the duty of every prisoner who was ready to make a personal sacrifice for the sake of the nation to acquire knowledge of history, politics, and economics, as well as of Krishna. It is only then that self-government, independence, or swaraj can be achieved in India. In other words, for Savarkar, the idea of “action with knowledge” is necessary not only for personal salvation, but also for national salvation.
The example of the Pandavas in the second passage continues with the theme of uplifting and motivating fellow prisoners in the Andamans. Savarkar uses the example of the forced exile of the Pandavas as a way to establish a comparison with the tortured, daily lives of political prisoners. In other parts of the memoir, Savarkar writes about individuals who had committed suicide because they found prison life to be unbearable. He points out that these deaths motivated him to take up a role as a teacher and leader in the Cellular Prison, because the prevalence of suicides and the cases of depression were evidence that many prisoners had forgotten the lessons of individuals who had overcome their suffering through perseverance and strength. It was necessary to encourage prisoners to learn from the examples of others as a way to provide hope for a better future. For Savarkar, knowledge of the past would provide a “spirit of defiance”.
The passages from the memoir further help to illustrate the types of theme Savarkar thinks are necessary from the Gita in his writing. Like other nationalists, he urged his followers to think of their duties to others as being for the betterment of India. To what extent Savarkar is building upon the arguments of others writing about the Gita in the late nineteenth and the early-twentieth centuries remains unclear. However, as early as 1902 it is likely that Savarkar was familiar with Tilak's interpretations of the Gita, which were initially delivered as speeches in Nagpur before being published in regional newspapers in western India.Footnote 18 By the time Savarkar wrote his memoir, Tilak had already completed his Bhagavadgita Rahasya, arguing that the Gita encourages the discipline of action, or karma yoga (the subtitle of Tilak's book), rather than simply advocating renunciation or devotion as suggested by other contemporary interpreters of the text. Further, Tilak claimed that it was the dharma or duty of individuals to take up forms of political action to defend the nation from oppression, exploitation, and injustice.Footnote 19
Many individuals, especially revolutionaries and extremists, were influenced by Tilak's interpretation and considered that Krishna's instructions to Arjuna to take up arms and fulfill his dharma as a kshatriya (warrior) was an ethical justification for advocating violence against the British empire. However, Savarkar notes that as a political prisoner he had limited options in pursuing disciplined action. He immersed himself in reading, writing, and functioning as a “sage” in order to educate fellow prisoners. As Savarkar points out, studying the actions of “heroes” and “heroism” in history serves as inspiration for new forms of political action necessary for the religious and political future of India. The prison memoir provides an important context that explains the embodiment of what Savarkar has taken from the Gita in the writing of history.
CREATING HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE
In 1906, Savarkar traveled to London for the purpose of studying law. Upon his arrival he immediately began collaborating with his patron Shyamaji Krishnavarma and other Indian revolutionaries in underground activities against British rule in an organization called the Abinav Bharat Society (Young India Society). While in London, Savarkar read widely on the global histories of imperialism and nationalism. Based on his studies, he started delivering political speeches and publishing essays as forms of public protest against colonial power in India. By early 1907, he had completed his first book on the Italian intellectual Giuseppe Mazzini, which was later published in India, and immediately banned by the government.Footnote 20 Savarkar finished writing his influential book The Indian War of Independence of 1857 (IWI) in 1907. However, the government proscribed the book even before it was completed, and as a result it was difficult for Savarkar to find a publisher for two years; IWI eventually appeared in 1909. Later during Savarkar's stay in Britain, he wrote a history of the Sikhs, which was apparently confiscated and destroyed by government authorities, with the result that the book was never published.Footnote 21 Savarkar was arrested in 1910, and only released in 1937; however, he continued to write despite the fact that he was a political prisoner. His major treatise on Hindu nationalism, Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?, was published in 1923. In addition, he completed two major works of history in his lifetime: Hindu-Pad-Padshahi, Or a Review of the Hindu Empire of Maharashtra (HPP) in 1925, and Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History (SGE) in 1963.
At the center of each work of history is an analysis of warfare in India. An explicit discussion of the centrality of the Gita only appears in SGE. However, the general concepts and themes from the text—especially the ethics of violent action and warfare—are incorporated into all his major writings. While my primary focus in this essay is to examine Savarkar's engagement with the Gita in his histories, it is worth mentioning that Savarkar was also influenced by the writings of thinkers across the political spectrum—in India, Europe, and beyond—who were concerned with the importance of understanding warfare and violence in world history. In IWI, for example, Savarkar explains that he was influenced by Mazzini's work on the history of wars and revolutions in Europe. The larger significance of these writings is further elaborated in Savarkar's book on Mazzini. However, aside from these exceptions, Savarkar is generally silent on the impact of other authors or texts in his work.Footnote 22 Yet an analysis of the embodiment of the Gita and its ideas in Savarkar's histories provides a necessary context for the intellectual and political development of religion and nationalism in colonial and postcolonial India.
Savarkar attributes great power to historical texts, claiming that they allow readers access to knowledge that is ontologically transformative. Savarkar engages with key concepts from the Gita in his histories, but his interpretation of “knowledge” does not center on knowing Krishna. I raise this point in order to question whether Savarkar saw himself departing from the ultimate form of knowledge as prescribed in the Gita, namely Krishna, or if he considered his approach a modification the message of the Gita. Savarkar, however, does not clarify this point directly. After all, the purpose of Krishna's dialogue with Arjuna in the Gita is not to reveal the importance of historical knowledge per se, but rather that Krishna embodies all knowledge. For example, Krishna states,
Hear how you, fixing your mind on me and finding shelter in me, shall find me entirely beyond doubt . . . I shall propound to you more fully that insight and knowledge, after acquiring which nothing more remains to be known in this world. Among thousands of people there is perhaps one who strives toward success, and even among those who have striven successfully, perhaps only one really knows me.Footnote 23
It may be argued that Savarkar had accepted the idea that seeking knowledge as discussed by Krishna was difficult, if not impossible, for anyone other than Arjuna. Or that Savarkar believed that historical knowledge was in fact a component of “true” knowledge prescribed in the Gita. The problem, once again, is that Savarkar did not elaborate on these ideas in his writings, and consequently he left large gaps in his interpretations. Instead, Savarkar provides a claim that the Gita was a “tonic” for political prisoners. He situates his interpretation of the Gita's central concepts within the debates on karma yoga. And, rather than writing a commentary or criticism of the text, Savarkar produces histories that he believes will transform each individual and the nation.
When writing his histories of warfare, Savarkar was also aware of contemporary public debates on the Gita and its central concepts. There was general disagreement whether the Gita's message of disciplined action was to be taken allegorically or literally.Footnote 24 This debate also raised the question of whether the Gita was promoting non-violence or advocating new forms of violence within a colonial context. As mentioned above, Tilak in his Bhagavadgita Rahasya had explained that it was the duty of individuals to take up arms and fight against exploitation and oppression based on the principle of karma yoga. Gandhi, on the other hand, was the main proponent of ahimsa (non-violence) and stated that it was incorrect to interpret the Gita as inciting violence in India. Gandhi's assertion was that the discussion of “fighting” or warfare described in the Gita was an allegory. For example, he states,
the physical battle [in the Gita] is only an occasion for describing the battle-field of the human body. In this view the names mentioned [e.g., Krishna and Arjuna] are not of persons but of qualities which they represent. What is described is the conflict within the human body between opposing moral tendencies imagined as distinct figures.Footnote 25
Gandhi's initial contention about the interpretation of the Gita was with Savarkar and other revolutionaries he had met in London at the start of the twentieth century. He helps to illustrate this point in his text “Discourses on the Gita”:
When I was in London, I had talks with many revolutionaries. Shayamji Krishnavarma, Savarkar, and others used to tell me that the Gita and the Ramayana taught quite the opposite of what I said they did. I felt then how much better it would have been if the sage Vyasa had not taken this illustration of fighting for inculcating spiritual knowledge. For when even highly learned and thoughtful men read this meaning into the Gita, what can we expect of ordinary people?Footnote 26
Immediately following his trip to London in 1909, Gandhi wrote Hind Swaraj, or Indian Home Rule, in which he presents arguments against an unnamed revolutionary. Dhananjay Keer, on this point, argues that Gandhi's text is a direct reply to Savarkar.Footnote 27 Anthony Parel states that Keer's assertion is an “exaggeration”, but he believes that “there is some truth in it”.Footnote 28 Parel suggests that the revolutionary is a composite of at least three individuals: Pranjivan Mehta, Krishnavarma, and Savarkar.Footnote 29 While Gandhi never identifies the individual or individuals who inspired the figure in Hind Swaraj, he is clear that he had a very specific purpose in writing Hind Swaraj: “[it] was written in answer to the revolutionary's arguments and methods”.Footnote 30 Gandhi continues, “It was an attempt to offer something infinitely superior to what [the revolutionary] had . . . because he does not even appear to me to understand the art of warfare.”Footnote 31 He provides alternatives to the revolutionary's claims by discussing the principles of non-violence, passive resistance, satyagraha, and Indian civilization.Footnote 32 However, he also includes critiques of the revolutionary's celebration of violence (“brute force”), interest in militarization, appeal to modern civilization, and interest in writing histories of wars in India.
By not identifying Savarkar, or any other individual, Hind Swaraj may be considered Gandhi's response to emergent revolutionary thought that was inspired, in part, by the Gita. However, by the time Gandhi had met Savarkar in 1909, he was well aware of Savarkar's arguments in IWI. Gandhi did not want to cede the interpretations of swaraj, swadharma, or any other concept central to understanding India's past to Savarkar or any other revolutionary. Nor was Gandhi willing to accept an interpretation of the Gita that argued for violence and warfare as part of a political strategy. For Gandhi, Hind Swaraj was his intervention in the public debate on both these themes. Parel has even pointed out that Gandhi elevated the status of Hind Swaraj to the Gita and the Ramayana—a major Hindu epic. He points out that it is in Hind Swaraj that Gandhi “actualizes the potential” of the Gita in contemporary society.Footnote 33 Gandhi even states that “We may read the Gita or the Ramayana or Hind Swaraj. But what we have to learn from them is desire for the welfare of others”.Footnote 34 Savarkar does not explicitly respond to Gandhi in his historical writings, but he is certainly aware of the nature of public debates on the Gita and their impact on the direction of the nationalist movement in twentieth-century India. The impact of Gandhi's critique of revolutionary thought is not immediately apparent in IWI.
In IWI, Savarkar claims that histories of revolutionary wars need to be written as part of a nation's strategy.Footnote 35 However, he also notes that not all histories were the same, noting the existence of fundamental differences in the interpretations of histories written by British officials, Indian collaborators, and Indian nationalists.Footnote 36 (These are categories that Savarkar develops in his own work.) Savarkar explains that his purpose for writing IWI was to provide an important corrective to historical analyses that only considered the events of 1857 as a military mutiny. He states that he was inspired by “the brilliance of a War of Independence shining in the mutiny of 1857”.Footnote 37 He discusses the necessity of writing histories in both Indian and European languages, and he comments on the issues of translating histories from one language to another. He notes that many historians have simply adopted methodological approaches that neglect “native” sources and the voices of Indians, who either witnessed or participated in wars. He explains that within the context of imperial rule, these histories have the potential to be ignored, forgotten, or silenced. Savarkar claims that without an intervention by a nationalist like himself, histories of Indian wars, and accounts of the actions of revolutionaries and heroes—from Chitore and Pratapaditya to Guru Gobind Singh—would eventually be “erased from the pages of our history.”Footnote 38
Savarkar further argues that all nations need to “develop a capacity” for claiming the past, while at the same time adopting a strategy of knowing how to use these claims for the nation's future.Footnote 39 Writing a national history about the themes of “revolution”, “revolutionary wars”, and “wars of independence” was necessary for overthrowing colonial rule. For Savarkar, once the past was revealed, every individual would understand his personal duty (swadharma) for working towards the cause of self-government or self-rule (swaraj) and the greater good of the nation. It is worth noting that the concept of swaraj is not central to the message of the Gita, but it is central to the emergent debates on nationalism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in India.Footnote 40 Savarkar, like many of his contemporaries, also engages with the concept of swaraj in his writings, while also linking it directly with swadharma. Further, for Savarkar, the coupling of swaraj and swadharma was necessary for interpreting histories of independence or swatantrya in India.Footnote 41
What is interesting to note is that Savarkar includes Muslims as heroes in IWI—a theme that is omitted from his later writings. For example, an individual like Ahmad Shah Moulvie is celebrated by Savarkar as a “national hero” who fought on “the battlefield in 1857 for the freedom of the country and the protection of Dharma”.Footnote 42 The last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar is also recognized as promoting the dual principles of swadharma and swaraj in IWI. Savarkar further states,
[The English] have got now the wicked desire to destroy our holy religion! . . . God does not wish that you should remain [idle]; for he has inspired in the hearts of Hindus and Mahomedans the desire to turn the English out of our country.Footnote 43
Savarkar does not elaborate on what he means by the idea of a shared country or religion between Hindus and Muslims in IWI. It is a theme that appears to be assumed in parts of Savarkar's writings at this point. I emphasize this in order to underscore the fact that there was in important shift in Savarkar's histories of warfare in HPP and SGE. While Savarkar argued for Indian independence from British rule in IWI, his later work focused on wars of Hindu independence from Christians and Muslims in India. The publication of Hindutva had formally signaled this shift in Savarkar's work, but it was in HPP that he made it clear that his purpose was to write a Hindu national history, rather than an Indian history, as he had done in IWI. Savarkar states, “I decided that I myself should write a discursive book . . . which would interpret and explain the unrivalled valour of the post-Shivaji Maharashtra and the freedom of the Hindu nation that it effected by destroying Muslim domination”.Footnote 44
Discussions of swadharma and swaraj are present in the texts, and as in IWI they are integral to the larger analyses of warfare. The methods of writing history developed in IWI are also carried through in the later works on Hindu independence and the ideology of Hindutva. The primary focus is once again on studying the acts of former “heroes” in history, although now he centers his claims on Hindu heroes, not Muslim ones. He even began to push his arguments back in time; whereas IWI provided an analysis of warfare the nineteenth century, HPP focused on the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and SGE covered the histories from the ancient to the modern world. Savarkar, of course, continued to believe that by writing histories he would create knowledge that would demand a transformation of society through direct action. Yet, for Savarkar, the fact that a war—Indian or Hindu—did not occur during his lifetime did not mean that he was incorrect in his analyses—a revolutionary war or a war of independence was an ongoing, multigenerational process.Footnote 45 He argued that every nationalist needed to learn from all wars, even ones that failed, for the purpose of working towards future wars. Rather than proposing arguments for a shared religion or nation between Hindus and Muslims, Savarkar's emphasis was on Hindu India.
In SGE Savarkar argues that the Gita helps to explain the nature of violence in India's history. While Savarkar provides fragmentary references to the Gita in IWI and HPP, his discussion in SGE is more extensive, but by no means comprehensive, in comparison to the writings of his contemporaries on the Gita. For example, the Gita is explicitly mentioned only twice in IWI. In HPP, Savarkar includes several scattered references to the Gita and its battle, all of which would have been well known to any reader in India. However, what is evident in SGE is that there is a continuity of themes and methods in Savarkar's analyses of warfare in India in all his history writing.
Before continuing with Savarkar's discussion of the Gita, it is worth considering a recent interpretation of SGE. David Hardiman has suggested that Savarkar's historical arguments and interpretations in SGE can be read as a direct response to Gandhi's writings on non-violence.Footnote 46 Hardiman gives the example of Savarkar's discussion of the emperor Ashoka, who adopted Buddhism and non-violence in his empire in the third century BCE.Footnote 47 Savarkar claims that Ashoka's turn to non-violence not only was “anti-national”, but also weakened India's independence at the time and made India susceptible to foreign invasions. According to Savarkar, Ashoka's descendent Brihadrath Maurya had failed to protect India's empire due to the new policies. As a result, an individual named Pushyamitra took it upon himself to assassinate Brihadrath and assume the position of the new emperor. Pushyamitra later fought against the Greek invaders of India and restored pride to the Indian nation by abandoning the policy of non-violence. Hardiman explains that this episode reflects Savarkar's idea that it was a “national duty” to assassinate proponents of non-violence for the cause of the nation.Footnote 48 He further notes that the assassination of Brihadrath discussed in SGE is an analogy for Gandhi's murder by Nathuram Godse—one of Savarkar's key disciples.
Not surprisingly, Savarkar does not state that SGE is an engagement with Gandhi or his ideas. Whether Savarkar's discussion of the assassination of Brihadrath was intended as an analogy to Gandhi's murder, or whether the purpose of the example is to inspire future assassinations for national pride, remains unclear. However, by providing examples of heroes of ancient India, Savarkar also had another objective in mind. He was able to show that historically India had been in a permanent state of war, in which Hindus had always turned to warfare against all foreigners. Gandhi's arguments against warfare were based on the fact that individuals like Savarkar were influenced by the ideas of modern civilization that promoted violence.Footnote 49 At another level, Gandhi claimed that these same individuals misunderstood the Gita by taking its message of advocating violence literally. I would like to push Hardiman's insights even further here. In SGE— and by extension, in IWI and HPP—Savarkar provides key interpretations of India's past by presenting violence and warfare as necessary ethical responses by Hindus against aggressors in India, in which the Gita provides justification not only for understanding the past, but also for advocating politics in the future.
Savarkar points out that not all wars were the same, despite the fact that India had been in a permanent state of war. He explains that the early wars were fought against invaders who had aspirations for “political ascendancy” rather than “religious enmity”, such as Persians, Ionians, Greeks, Sakas, Kushanas, and Huns.Footnote 50 He says that religion was not an issue in the early wars because the invaders practiced religions that were “more or less like the offshoots of Hinduism itself”.Footnote 51 In fact, Savarkar argues that millions of individuals who had come as invaders decided to settle in India and assimilated into Hindu society. This was only possible because the conflicts in early India were about politics, not religion. However, a major shift occurred in India with the emergence and spread of religious sects like the Jains and Buddhists, who promoted “extreme non-violence, kindness, love, [and] truth”.Footnote 52 Savarkar explains that as a result the Hindu polity became susceptible to new invasions. Yet Hindus were to blame for the shift within India. For Savarkar, the destruction and annihilation of the Hindu polity only became apparent when “Islam invaded Hinduism”, and Hindus now lacked a “war-strategy”. The new wars were fundamentally different from the early ones, because the invaders had aspirations for both religious and political dominance in India.
For Savarkar, Hindus who had promoted “extreme non-violence” had established a “perverted conception of virtue”, which resulted in the abandonment of the principles of the Gita. He states, “But at this time of the Hindu–Muslim war the Hindu nation forgot even the Bhagawat Geeta . . . Why [Hindus] even twisted the message of the Geeta itself.”Footnote 53 Savarkar refers to Chapter VII of the Gita as a way to discuss the importance of the three characteristics—satvik, rajas, and tamas—necessary for all Hindus to fight Muslims (and later Christians) in India.Footnote 54 He explains that the combination of these characteristics provided a “three-edged weapon” necessary for all warriors to win victory over injustice on the battlefield. What this meant for Savarkar was that Muslims and Christians wanted to “destroy” and “eradicate” the Hindu religion; the only hope for resisting invasions was found in the Gita. Savarkar acknowledges the general collective amnesia of the Gita's principles by most Hindus, but he also states that a handful of individuals did not forget the “true” message of karma yoga. In other words, researching and writing history had the power to reveal when the Gita was forgotten in periods of India's past, but it also showed when individuals turned to the Gita to challenge the power of invaders to create a “social revolution”.Footnote 55
Savarkar went on to argue that Hindus maintained an ethical code in their wars with all invaders into India. Battles were fought between enemies based on agreed guidelines derived from Hindu texts. Dharmayudda—literally, righteous or legitimate warfare—was a principle that was adopted by the warring clans in the Gita, but it was also a principle found in religious texts to discuss the battles between gods.Footnote 56 Savarkar explains the nature of warfare in India:
No single charioteer was to be attacked by many charioteers; the submissive or surrendering warrior was to be given his life. Such considerations for justice and injustice were to be actually shown on the battle-field. This ethics of war was preached because it was honoured by both the contending parties.Footnote 57
He claims that even after the arrival of Muslims into India, Hindus either promoted “extreme non-violence” or maintained the principles of dharmayudda. As a consequence, over time Muslims were able dominate India. Savarkar's main concern was that once it was known that Muslims were not willing to accept dharmayudda or any other Hindu principle, Hindus should have resorted to an alternative war strategy found in the Gita. For Savarkar, this posed an important turning point in India's history. The act of killing is at the center of the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna; however, not all forms of violence—and by extension killing—are considered legitimate. In other words, not all is fair in war. However, there are exceptions to dharmayudda. Savarkar asserts that even Krishna argues that it is necessary to abandon a code of ethics with an enemy that is unjust or unethical. Yet what Savarkar does not discuss is that the principles of dharmayudda were violated in the Gita itself. Instead, he cites Muslim interest in establishing religious and political dominance in India as evidence of the violations of all Hindu principles. The arrival of the British in later centuries was also interpreted in this context.
No longer could wars be fought with a common understanding of the rules of engagement or based on dharmayudda. Hindus had to adopt alternative forms of warfare in order to defeat the enemy, with the result that wars fought against invaders were necessarily going to be unjust. Savarkar writes, “Were a serpent (an inveterate national enemy) to come with a view to bite the motherland, he should be smashed into pieces with a surprise attack, deceit or cunning or in any other way possible.”Footnote 58 Savarkar's argument in SGE helps to explain his interest in writing about individuals who adopted the tactics of guerrilla warfare. These were Savarkar's true heroes: individuals who turned to the Gita when others had forgotten its message, individuals who understood karma yoga, individuals who were ethical and knew when to adopt the principles of dharmayudda, and individuals who knew when to turn to alternative war strategies to fight an unethical enemy. Savarkar claimed that by writing about heroes of wars he would create a transformation in any reader of his text. But he adds that writing history is “secondary” to the main objective of making history. The knowledge that is gained from studying the past must be connected to taking action in everyday life to create change for the cause of the nation.
CONCLUSION
Savarkar establishes the importance of the Gita in his writings, but he also argues that the Gita should not be the only text for the creation of the Hindu nation in his speech “Ek hi dharm-pustak nahin, yeh achcha hai!” I do not raise this point to suggest that there was an inherent contradiction in his thought. Savarkar was not systematic in his interpretation of the Gita (or perhaps of any other text in his work). But what is more revealing is that he engaged with a large body of writings throughout his lifetime and argued for the necessity of individuals to read widely in a number of disciplines. As a result, Savarkar was also attracted to political thought that argued for principles that converged with his own understanding of the need for warfare. Here I am thinking not only of his engagements with the writings of Mazzini, but also of his reading of figures like Herbert Spencer, G. S. Sardesai, and Johann Kaspar Bluntschli, and his political associations with Sinn Fein, the Irish Republican Army, Russian and Scottish anarchists, and other revolutionaries.Footnote 59 Savarkar also became interested in considering histories of Nazism, Fascism, and Zionism as a way to think about the future of Hindu India. However, for Savarkar, the method for the circulation and reproduction of his ideas was in the form of writing histories. Historical knowledge was meant to transform both the individual and the nation. Because embedded within Savarkar's histories were the principles developed out of the Gita, it was no longer necessary to read only the Gita. (In fact, this is also a claim made by Gandhi, who elevates Hind Swaraj to the level of the Gita and Ramayana.) This helps to explain why Savarkar primarily recommended his historical writings to individuals who were interested in creating a Hindu nation.Footnote 60
Yet there are significant gaps in Savarkar's writings that make it difficult to provide a thorough analysis of his thought. The context in which Savarkar composed much of his seminal work helps to explain, in part, the fragmentary nature of the writings. However, Savarkar may have also adopted a strategy for writing that was elusive. For example, Savarkar does not explain why individuals who had acquired knowledge of past heroic acts would necessarily accept his interpretation of swadharma and swaraj. Nor does he explain why an understanding of past acts of violence would lead to new acts of violence. There is little to explain the shift from writing about histories of Indian wars to histories of Hindu wars. Perhaps these issues, and many others like them, were beyond the scope of Savarkar's arguments, because he never intended to write academic, analytical works. Rather he was interested in producing affective histories to inspire and motivate individuals to take up arms for the cause of the nation.
By bringing together key selections from Savarkar's writings in this essay, it is possible to show how Savarkar developed concepts from the Gita for his political purposes. While Savarkar declared victory against the British Empire in SGE, the idea of a permanent war has not ended, especially among a later generation of Savarkar's disciples and followers, who argue that violence against Muslims and Christians is the new form of ethical warfare in postcolonial India. Savarkar realized that his vision of a Hindu India that was free from wars might not occur in his lifetime, but by setting out strategies for history writing and inspiring future wars, he provided an intervention for Hindu nationalists to rethink the principle of knowledge with action for the twentieth century and beyond.
