Although it is pretty evident that Gandhi favored protest in the form of passive resistance and Savarkar’s views differ from those of Gandhi, I don’t believe that Savarkar enjoys witnessing bloodshed or employing violence blindly. Savarkar strongly believes that the causes of revolutions and wars must be examined; he continues to state that “a revolutionary movement cannot be based on flimsy and momentary grievance,” which illustrates that Savarkar’s views on violent resistance aren’t black and white (205). Further evidence cementing this idea appears when Savarkar states that “people think lightly of shedding sacred human blood” (206). It is apparent that he values humanity and believes that violence and war should only be used as a last resort, after careful contemplation of the causes. According to Savarkar, these causes are often omitted by “partial and prejudiced historians” and make for an insignificant and incomplete historical account (206). Furthermore, his views on Swadharma (that we defined in class as love of one’s religion) and Swaraj (love of one’s country) are similar to those of Gandhi. He believes that they complement each other and each is necessary for the other’s existence. I personally believe that Swaraj, which I interpreted as patriotism, is the means by which people can protect their Swadharma, which I interpreted as religious devoutness. The passage that I believe supports this view starts when Savarkar deems Swaraj “the sword of material power [that] should always be ready drawn for our object. […] our safety is the other world, Swadharma” (209).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
i like this subtle reading of the similarities between ghandi and savarkar. i think it's true that there is something about the strict "principles" that savarkar describes that make revolution something different from violence. it's interesting to think about what the breaking point is between ghandi and savarkar....
Post a Comment