following pdf files are available for download. savarkar's literature can be Savarkar completed his seminal book on Hindutva while still in the. And later the Hindu Mahasabha took it as its official definition of Hindutva. When Savarkar was freed from prisons in all Hindus rallied around him under. Savarkar coined the term Hindutva (Hinduness) to create a collective "Hindu" Veer Savarkar wrote his seminal book 'Essentials of Hindutva' in Ratnagiri Jail.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Hindi|
|Country:||United Arab Emirates|
|Genre:||Science & Research|
|ePub File Size:||21.76 MB|
|PDF File Size:||17.80 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
A classic book by Sri Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Identifier: hindutva-vinayak- damodar-savarkar-pdf. Identifier-ark: ark://t4gm9dq3p. THANKS [ received some letters and personal requests from scholars, and admirers of Veer Savarkar for copies of 'Hindutva'. I had to reply to them In the. (Sometime between Veer Savarkar completed his historic book . Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of Hindutva. Unless it.
The word Hindutva is widely used by all of them, but what does the term actually mean? He argued that a Hindu is one who considers India to be his motherland matrbhumi , the land of his ancestors pitrbhumi , and his holy land punya bhumi. India is the land of the Hindus since their ethnicity is Indian and since the Hindu faith originated in India. But of course the concept of Hindutva would have made no sense unless it was explained in relation to the religion of Hinduism. To him, the religion was therefore a subset of the political idea, rather than synonymous with it—something many of its proponents today would be surprised to hear.
Rowlatt Report, page Yet Hem had not been thrown out of the scope of the clemency on that ground. If Barin and others were not separately charged for specific abetting, it was only because they had already been sentenced to capital punishment in the Conspiracy case; and I was specifically charged because I was not, and again for the international facilities to have me extradited in case France got me back.
Therefore I humbly submit that the Government be pleased to extend the clemency to me as they had done it to Barin and Hem whose complicity in abetting the murders of officers, etc. For surely a section does not matter more than the crime it contemplates. In the case of my brother this question does not arise as his case has nothing to do with any murders, etc.
Thus interpreting the proclamation as the Government had already done in the cases of Barin, Hem, etc. I submit it is entirely so. So far from believing in the militant school of the type that I do not contribute even to the peaceful and philosophical anarchism of a Kropotkin or a Tolstoy. And as to my revolutionary tendencies in the past: - it is not only now for the object of sharing the clemency but years before this have I informed of and written to the Government in my petitions , about my firm intention to abide by the constitution and stand by it as soon as a beginning was made to frame it by Mr.
Since that the Reforms and then the Proclamation have only confirmed me in my views and recently I have publicly avowed my faith in and readiness to stand by the side of orderly and constitutional development.
The danger that is threatening our country from the north at the hands of the fanatic hordes of Asia who had been the curse of India in the past when they came as foes, and who are more likely to be so in the future now that they want to come as friends, makes me convinced that every intelligent lover of India would heartily and loyally co-operate with the British people in the interests of India herself.
That is why I offered myself as a volunteer in to Government when the war broke out and a German-Turko- Afghan invasion of India became imminent. Whether you believe it or not, I am sincere in expressing my earnest intention of treading the constitutional path and trying my humble best to render the hands of the British dominion a bond of love and respect and of mutual help. Such an Empire, as is foreshadowed in the Proclamation, wins my hearty adherence.
For verily I hate no race or creed or people simply because they are not Indians! For even without such a pledge my failing health and the sweet blessings of home that have been denied to me by myself make me so desirous of leading a quiet and retired life for years to come that nothing would induce me to dabble in active politics now.
Ultimately, I submit, that the overwhelming majority of the very people who constitute the State which is to be kept safe from us have from Mr. Surendranath, the venerable and veteran moderate leader, to the man in the street, the press and the platform, the Hindus and the Muhammadans [sic]- from the Punjab to Madras - been clearly persistently asking for our immediate and complete release, declaring it was compatible with their safety.
Therefore the very object of the Proclamation would not be fulfilled and the sense of bitterness removed, I warn the public mind, until we two and those who yet remain have been made to share the magnanimous clemency. Moreover, all the objects of a sentence have been satisfied in our case. For a we have put in 10 to 11 years in jail, while Mr. Sanyal, who too was a lifer, was released in 4 years and the riot case lifers within a year; b we have done hard work, mills, oil mills and everything else that was given to us in India and here; c our prison behaviour is in no way more objectionable than of those already released; they had, even in Port Blair, been suspected of a serious plot and locked up in jail again.
We two, on the contrary, have to this day been under extra rigorous discipline and restrain and yet during the last six years or so there is not a single case even on ordinary disciplinary grounds against us.
In the end, I beg to express my gratefulness for the release of hundreds of political prisoners including those who have been released from the Andamans, and for thus partially granting my petitions of and It is not therefore too much to hope that His Excellency would release the remaining prisoners too, as they are placed on the same footing, including me and my brother.
Especially so, as the political situation in Maharashtra has singularly been free from any outrageous disturbances for so many years in the past. Here, however, I beg to submit that our release should not be made conditional on the behaviour of those released or of anybody else; for it would be preposterous to deny us the clemency and punish us for the fault of someone else.
On all these grounds, I believe that the Government, hearing my readiness to enter into any sensible pledge and the fact that the Reforms, present and promised, joined to common danger from the north of Turko-Afghan fanatics have made me a sincere advocate of loyal co-operation in the interests of both our nations, would release me and win my personal gratitude.
The brilliant prospects of my early life all but too soon blighted, have constituted so painful a source of regret to me that a release would be a new birth and would touch my heart, sensitive and submissive, to kindness so deeply as to render me personally attached and politically useful in future.
For often magnanimity wins even where might fails. Hoping that the Chief Commissioner, remembering the personal regard I ever had shown to him throughout his term and how often I had to face keen disappointment throughout that time, will not grudge me this last favour of allowing this most harmless vent to my despair and will be pleased to forward this petition - may I hope with his own recommendations?
Savarkar, Convict no.
It was, in fact, an important legal right available to the prisoners. There were other revolutionaries too, who wrote petitions to the British Government. When Craddock came to visit the Cellular jail, Savarkar was not the only one who presented a petition to him. Unlike Savarkar and Barin, the other two revolutionaries, Hrishi Kesh Kanjilal and Gopal, instead of pleading for personal favours, demanded a humane treatment for the whole lot of political prisoners.
They showed no remorse for their past. Kanjilal, while referring to the general persecution of political prisoners in the Cellular Jail, wrote that though he himself suffered immensely, "many of my casemen suffered much more inside the jail.
One of my casemen had to commit suicide. So harsh was the treatment and so great were the troubles we had to undergo, that one of my casemen turned mad.
He too, did not make any personal plea but like Kanjilal raised the issue of terrible persecution of the political prisoners in the Cellular Jail. He wrote: "I request the officers of the most powerful Government of the world, and to the Indian Government specially, not to render our condition wretched and miserable in order to kill the germs of sedition within us.
If the religious martyrdom practised by the enemies of Christianity against Christianity has not destroyed Christianity from the face of the Globes, surely, political martyrdom shall not extirpate the Indian nationalism from the Holy soil of Bharatvarsha.
He must have felt sympathy for Savarkar. Murray, I. The conditions of release were prepared in the light of the discussions held between Savarkar and H. Montgomerie, the then home member. After substituting a few words, Savarkar accepted the conditions; signed the terms on December 27, …Savarkar was released conditionally on January 6, , from Yeravda Jail. The terms read: That Savarkar shall reside in Ratnagiri district and shall not go beyond the limits of that district without the permission of Government or in the case of emergency of the District magistrate; that he will not engage publicly or privately in any manner of political activities without the consent of Government for a period of five years.
Such restrictions being renewable at the discretion of government at the expiry of the same term. His biography by Keer gives details of another one submitted by him in "In May , Savarkar was arrested again and detained for two weeks in connection with shots fired at a military officer Sweetland in Bombay by Wamanrao Chavan, who was a Sanghatanist [member of the Hindu Mahasabha] firebrand from Ratnagiri.
Savarkar wrote from Ratnagiri prison on May 8, , that he had nothing to do with the boys Waman Chavan and Gajannan Damle; the latter had been arrested because Chavan had kept his trunk at his place…He further said that he was prepared to cease taking part in any agitation, social or political without the previous sanction of the Government.
Majumdar is regarded as a true Bhartiya read Indian historian by the Hindutva brigade. He must have been shocked to find mercy petitions of Savarkar and Barindra Kumar Ghose while sifting through heaps of official papers relating to the Cellular Jail in the course of writing his landmark book on the Cellular Jail, Penal Settlement in Andamans.
He could not avoid commenting, "These undoubtedly indicate that the incarceration in the Andamans had produced a great change on the great revolutionary leaders and their attitude towards the British Government and their view of destroying it by revolution or secret conspiracies had suffered a radical change. Majumdar, after in-depth study of the British archival material on the Cellular Jail, compared the same with the Savarkar memoirs which the latter penned after coming out of the jail.
It was during this meeting that Savarkar presented his mercy petition to the British Government. After going through all these documents, Majumdar straightforwardly concluded: "While Savarkar had changed his views, the Government view remained the same as before. In India and in America your followers are still busy with their plans of secret societies and revolutionary activities.
It is further argued by them that the British Government understood this ruse of Savarkar and it was for this reason that his jail term was not abated and if it was not so the government could have released him. The situation demanded that Savarkar must be kept imprisoned in order to convince the revolutionaries about the futility of their cause.
When the rulers needed Savarkar outside the jail to break Hindu-Muslim unity in early s, they took no time in setting him free though he was awarded double jail term of fifty years. The British decided to wait and watch cautiously so far as the question of any kind of remission to Savarkar was concerned. Surely, Savarkar did not disappoint the rulers. He started keeping aloof from the fellow revolutionary prisoners, a fact corroborated by Trailokyanath Chakravarti in his memoirs.
According to his account, on an average three prisoners in the Cellular Jail committed suicide every month. This was simply because of the brutal treatment meted out to the prisoners. The prisoners decided to defy the repression through open defiance. However, Savarkar and few others refused to join the struggle.
Non-participation by Savarkar and others in the ongoing struggle of fellow prisoners in the Cellular Jail helped the British rulers in overcoming the criticism that there was no rule of law there.
According to R. That is but natural. We are not condemning nor are we lamenting. We are simply telling facts as they stand. We have tried to determine the essentials of Hindutva and in doing so we have discovered that the Bohras and such other Mohammedan or Christian communities possess all the essential qualifications of Hindutva but one and that is that they do not look upon India as their Holyland.
Hindu, on the other hand, refers to the territorial, racial and cultural factors constituting the Hindu nation. For Savarkar, one cannot determine the character of Hinduism without first defining who is a Hindu. For Vivekananda, a Hindu, first and foremost, is a person who subscribes to the doctrines and practices of Hinduism.
Although it is true that Vivekananda identifies the essence of Hinduism with the Vedanta tradition and, quite specifically, with the Advaita world-view, he does not limit his use of the term to the Vedanta or Advaita tradition.
The significant point here is that both terms describe a religious identity. A Hindu, according to Vivekananda, is one who believes in the following: the authority of the Vedas, God, the cyclical order of creation, preservation and dissolution, the immortality of the atman and its innate purity and perfection, reincarnation and religion as realization. Mark me, then and then alone you are a Hindu when the very name sends through you a galvanic shock of strength.
Then and then alone you are a Hindu when every man who bears the name, from any country, speaking our language or any other language, becomes at once the nearest and the dearest to you. Then and then alone you are a Hindu when the distress of anyone bearing that name comes to your heart and makes you feel as if your own son were in distress.
Since language is so closely related to culture, one may assume that Swami Vivekananda would not hesitate to apply the term to persons belonging to a variety of cultural traditions. Vivekananda explicitly acknowledges, unlike Savarkar who argued for a common jati or blood and culture, that India was home to a variety of racial and cultural groupings.
Here have been the Aryan, the Dravidian, the Tartar, the Turk, the Mogul, the European — all the nations of the world, as it were pouring their blood into this land. Of languages the most wonderful conglomeration is here; of manners and customs there is more difference between two Indian races than between the European and and the Eastern races.
As Ainslee T. While cognizant of the close historical and philosophical ties between Hinduism and Buddhism, he characterizes their relationship to that obtaining between Judaism and Christianity. He speaks of Buddhism as a movement for reformation and a logical development of Hinduism. Both traditions need each other for their growth and well-being.
The clear differences between V. A religious or cultural convert, therefore, meets only one of the conditions of Hindutva, and, while willing to do it as an exception, he struggles to receive Sister Nivedita, one of the foremost western-born disciples of Swami Vivekananda, as a Hindu. Swami Vivekananda, on the other hand, does not distinguish between Hindus and Hinduism and employs both terms to designate adherence to specific doctrines and practices.
Savarkar narrowly identifies Hinduism with nation rashtra , race jati and culture Sanskriti. A Hindu is a practitioner of one of the religious traditions originating in India, but also one who shares ties of blood, culture, and veneration for India as holy land with other Hindus.
Although he was a passionate nationalist and great lover of India and her people, Swami Vivekananda treats Hinduism as a distinctive world-view with a relevance and appeal that transcends ties of nationality, race and culture.
In his lectures to western audiences, he presented the Hindu tradition as one that universally addresses the human condition and predicament and as a real option for people who do not have ancestral or cultural roots in the Indian sub-continent.
He was the earliest to envisage and articulate the possibility. We may say that, today, being Hindu, for Swami Vivekananda, was not the same as being Indian.
Although not without ambiguities and contradictions, it is already lived out in different ways in the lives of diasporic communities with ancestral roots in the Indian sub-continent but whose, cultural and national allegiance lies elsewhere. It cannot do this while clinging to the particulars of territory, race and culture.
If the Hindu tradition claims universal validity for its insights, these must, of necessity, transcend the specificities prescribed by Savarkar. As Hindu communities grow and flourish outside of India, as well as within India, the alternatives represented by Swami Vivekananda and V.
Savarkar will be among the important ones that they confront in their search to determine what it means to be Hindu and the character of Hindu relationships with other religions. Does not distinguish between Hindus and Hinduism as Savarkar. Sees India as punyabhumi, but does not use it as a requirement of Hinduness Attitude to Buddhism and Jainism —do we see the concern to include them in the category of Hindus?