Savarkar Response

I found Savarkar’s writings to be quite interesting compared to that of Ghandi’s. He seems to have the complete opposite views. One of his beliefs that seemed to differ the most is his take on history. Ghandi warned that we focus too much on history and wars instead of peace and passive resistance. Savarkar, on the other hand, advocates the learning of history. He describes the Indian War of Independence as “one of the most neglected corners of our history…” He argues that what English and some Indian historians described as the “Mutiny” was really the beginnings of the War for Indian Independence. He wants the public to be aware of their nations past in order to push towards a future. By creating a common past, Savarkar attempts to unite Indians in a revolutionary future. He states that a “nation should be the master and not the slave of its history.” Savarkar’s views on history seem to be synonymous to the views of today’s historians. They recount history to learn from it for future society. So, whose view is right? Gandhi or Savarkar? That’s something open to debate.

Savarkar

Savarkar's views on history and the Revolution itself are interesting parts to note. For him, it was important to point out that the Revolutionary of 1857 was not an unplanned mutiny of criminals against the British empire, but a movement of nationals fighting for a cause. Savarkar argues that English authors who are writing about these events are "wicked", "partial", and "prejudiced". It is true that English writers would try to not pit blame against their own country, but instead the "rebellious" India that their British empire supposedly has control over. With the articles about India and the rebellion that were written in British newspapers, surely the emphasis was the disobedience of the Indian people. In history, Savarkar believes that the events of the rebellion are not properly stated, and the information is skewed. And in order to fix this delusion, one must speak to those who were actually involved, and state the truth of history and the events as they actually occurred.

Oftentimes people mix up words or statements in order to benefit themselves. They believe that lying would be better than just coming out with the truth. In the case of the Rebellion of 1857, British writers or authority figures probably thought it better to taint the name of the Indian people, and not of their own. I guess I am trying to point out that by hiding your mistakes, you are only bringing about more negativity. With the British Empire's inability to even properly describe the events of the 1857 Rebellion, it would only lead to more and more debate about their rule in India. Those like Gandhi and V.D. Savarkar would not remain silenced, and in fact, would speak out more against the British and India's inability to attain freedom from them.

Freedom of Religion?

One of the things that I truly am grateful for in the U.S. is my freedom to choose or not choose my religion. As I was reading "The Volcano, Chapter 1: Swadharma and Swaraj," I was struck by this quote, "Swaraj without Swadharma is despicable and Swadharma without Swaraj is powerless." From Gandhi's writings, we already understand Swaraj, but Swadharma we have not addressed. Swadharma can be split into two words; swa-, meaning self, and -dharma, meaning religion (more specifically the Indian religion). Veer Savarkar, the writer of this selection, stated that the ultimate motives and causes for the Indian war of independence in 1957 were swaraj and swadharma, the freedom to rule themselves and the right to protect their religion. At first, the quote seemed understandable, but just because it sounded that way does not mean that what it is saying is correct. In thinking about what it is proposing, I realized that the Indians in the time of British rule were all of the same religion (essentially). I realized that perhaps if Dharma was protected according to the Indian desire, Judaism or Christianity and especially Atheism would not be.

One of the grievances of the early settlers in America was that the Church/religion was heavily involved in the actions of the State/government; they wanted separation of these two entities. The quote from Veer Savarkar's book is exactly opposite of this separation; Savarkar states that the two- religion and government- must exist simultaneously or the situation is all together "despicable" or "powerless." Perhaps if the countries, states, provinces, cities, or any region under any type of government were composed of a single religion then religion could be a part of that government, but this is not the case. Our population is made up of so many religions with blatantly conflicting beliefs that if religion ruled government, there would be either no progress in the gridlock of so many ideas or there would be a law created by one religion that was unfair to another.

From the Author's Introduction of "Selections from The Indian War of Independence 1857," Savarkar states that it is absolutely unwise to try to do certain things now irrespective of special considerations, simply because they had been once acted in the past." I wonder if Savarkar would agree now that, because India and other places are now made up of various different religions, religion cannot play a role in government. It seems according to this previous statement about acting "irrespective of special considerations," that he would agree. But as I think more about it, (I am ASSUMING here) Veer Savarkar like Gandhi most likely believed that Dharma was the only way and so, I think he would say that swaraj and swadharma must still exist together for even another purpose: to enlighten those who do not believe.