Skip to main content

Though poles apart, Ambedkar, Savarkar held 'identical views' on caste, two nation theory

By Rishi Shrivastava* 

Indian modern political history has an entirety of thoughts of icons, miscreants and leaders who shaped the future of Indian political discourse. The ideas that drove post-colonial India were contradictory in ideological, political, economic, social and contextual aspects. In this shaping of the post-colonial nation that was vulnerable in all of the dimensions, various hurdles have come into existence. Many national leaders who were in the same ideological bloc have become rivals with their own set of ideas and views about social issues and nation-building.
One of the prominent debates that emerged out of this ideological tussle was between Dr BR Ambedkar and VD Savarkar, who were highly contrary to each other in most of the facets, but also had some parallels while agitating for the anti-caste struggle. In the contemporary milieu, both these figures have become giants in the political discourse and more relevant than ever in history before. The ideological believers of these political figures have entirely opposite views of glimpsing at the history and future discourse of the Indian nation.
VD Savarkar’s journey of exploring India’s political history began when he wrote the book “The Indian War of Independence” in 1909, declaring that the 1857 revolt was the first forceful opposition that Indians did against the British colonial regime. As it was earlier believed that the 1857 revolt was only limited to sepoy mutiny and could not be regarded as a revolt that represented the Indian identity to it.
However, the arguments of Savarkar about the 1857 revolt are criticised by many academicians. They considered that several uprisings had occurred before the 1857 rebellion. It also did not comprise a pan-Indian imagination and was only defined to the northern belt of British India with dynamics of caste and religion politics. Thus, Savarkar’s idea of defining India as a nation was built after he combined the factors and characteristics of India into a uniformity that eventually led to the 1857 uprising, which he called the first war of independence.
Savarkar’s ideas of nation-building, colonialism and religious politics have changed drastically through time. His earlier works primarily include bringing the community’s collective identity together against the colonialists, where he celebrated the unity of Muslims and Hindus (see Taneja, 2007). However, the claims considering Savarkar’s early work as a humanist and secular embedded by the unity of Hindu and Muslim are still contested.
Nevertheless, after his return from imprisonment in the black waters of cellular jails, Savarkar took a radical turn on the politics of the Hindus, Muslims, Hindutva, other religions and the idea of India. His book titled “Essentials of Hindutva and Hindu Padshahi” describes the idea of Hinduised India (pan-Hindu unity), who are Hindus, what the Hindutva way of life signifies for the people living here, who are the people who qualify for the entity of Bharat and what cultural traditions it encompasses. Savarkar has dealt with a miscellany of questions in his imagination of a Bharatakhand.
The political regimes and organisations later incorporated the notion of Savarkar’s Hindu Rashtra into their doctrinal backdrop. Hindu Mahasabha was such a radical nationalistic far-right Hindu organisation that Savarkar was an active member and later became president for seven years in 1937 (Copland, 2007).
Savarkar’s nation’s vision imagined the land only for Hindus. He was one of the first pioneers of the two-nation theory that defined the concept of two nations separate for Hindus and Muslims. The 1930s and 40s were the critical time when Savarkar’s radicalised beliefs initiated an appeal among the countrymen to envision a nation that holds a civilisational value, common culture and is solely for the Hindus.
On the other hand, his contemporary, Dr Ambedkar was weaving his idea of nationalism and trying to awaken the national spirit among the depressed class (Dalits) from their long history of exploitation by the savarna in the form of a caste system. Ambedkar’s nationalistic beliefs do not take account of the religious supremacy that beholds a common culture among Indians as compared to Savarkar.
Ambedkar has explained about the assertions of nationalism and nationality in his book “Pakistan or the Partition of India, 1945”. He defines nationality as a, “consciousness of kind, awareness of the existence of that tie of kinship”, and whereas nationalism as “the desire for a separate national existence for those who are bound by this tie of kinship” (Singh, 2016).
Ambedkar was evident in his vision that the entity of a nation must not only hold a political setting which will include the state, territory and government to it, but it first has to mature into the heart and mind of the people by an emotionally connected construct that they have the desire to live together harmoniously, and that is how the desire of national is raise from the foundation of its past.
Ambedkar's perspective of India does not stand in the way of the idea of a nation. According to him, India’s civilisational journey has always been in the control of the brahmins and savarnas, who restrained the distribution of resources and defined the laws of the society. The class and caste system in Hindu society never allowed the vulnerable depressed class to represent themselves as part of the discourse. The larger section of society has always been marginalised by the power-holding class. Moreover, if India arose as a nation-state after the withdrawal of the colonial government, the elite savarna class would again be going to vanquish the nation’s power.
Ambedkar believed, if Muslims felt connected to Pakistan to live separately in their own religious space, they should have autonomy to go
In juxtaposition, Ambedkar views the imagination of a separate nation for Muslims as somehow a valid demand. Accordingly, he wrote in his book that “Muslims, thus, had plenty of nationalist spirit.” But “the Muslim spirit of aggression is his native endowment and is ancient as compared with that of the Hindu.” The national spirit among Muslims is much more ancient than that of Hindus. If Muslims desire and feel a connection for Pakistan to live separately in their own religious space, they should have the autonomy to go with their choice.
Ambedkar has also quoted Savarkar’s idea of the two-nation theory that if he thinks that Muslims are a separate nation from Hindus, then they (Muslims) also have the right to claim their nation with cultural autonomy as Hindus. Ambedkar was contesting with Savarkar on him “othering” the religious minorities of India.
Savarkar was an advocate of the two-nation theory, but he did not support the division of the country but; instead, he signified for the hegemony of the Hindu nation over the Muslim nation, who were living in the same land. According to Ambedkar, it was just the disguised desire of the Savarkar to pose Hindu majoritarianism among Muslims to live in the same land with the authority of Hindus over them.
Savarkar positioned his idea of Hindu nationalism by defining what Hindu Rashtra refers to, and all the people who consider it as their matrubhoomi/ pitrubhoomi, karmabhoomi and punyabhoomi are part of this nation. The idea of Savarkar was problematic in the sense that it accepted people who considered Bharat as their own land. However, they did not qualify for considering India as their holy land (Muslims, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians).
In most of the arguments of the nation and nationalism, Ambedkar was highly critical of Savarkar. Nevertheless, both have a string of commonality as they fought against the caste system in their own ways. However, the motivation for each other’s struggle against caste varies.
Savarkar insisted on making India a land of a common culture, civilisation, common rashtra and a common race (jati) by abandoning the caste in the Hindu way of life. In contrast, Ambedkar emphasises establishing equality and solidarity between the upper caste and the depressed classes by making them conscious of their existence and pressing for more rights for Dalits. 
He propagated Buddhism and its principles as a counter to Hinduism as Buddhism emerged to counter Brahmanical supremacy. Ambedkar’s ways created a meaningful impact on society, and he was massively successful in creating a tremendous movement against casteism in society.
Ambedkar and Savarkar both hold iconic positions in the Indian political history, but their ways and ideas of defining India and its future significantly contrast. Savarkar defines India with a Hindu nationalistic vision, whereas Ambedkar was more focused on the society, which was driven by freedom and equal opportunity for Dalits. However, their struggle for a casteless society was somehow the same but contradicted their absolute rationale that would lead India’s future.

References

  1. Taneja, N (2022, February 2). The Myth of Early Savarkar and His “Nationalist”1857 Book
  2. Debnath, K (2018, July 5). Ambedkar’s ideas of nation-building in India
  3. Savarkar, VD (1923). Essentials of Hindutva
  4. Copland, I (2002) Crucibles of Hindutva? V.D. Savarkar, the Hindu Mahasabha, and the Indian princely states, pages 211-234
  5. Singh, S (2016, July 15). Revisiting Ambedkar's Idea of Nationalism – India Foundation
  6. Babar, A (2018, November 22). Dr BR Ambedkar and Naga Nationalism.
  7. Ambedkar, Dr BR (1945). Pakistan Or The Partition Of India.
---
*Student pursuing Global Studies at Ambedkar University, Delhi

Comments

TRENDING

Andhra team joins Gandhians to protest against 'bulldozer action' in Varanasi

By Rosamma Thomas*  November 1 marked the 52nd day of the 100-day relay fast at the satyagraha site of Rajghat in Varanasi, seeking the restoration of the 12 acres of land to the Sarva Seva Sangh, the Gandhian organization that was evicted from the banks of the river. Twelve buildings were demolished as the site was abruptly taken over by the government after “bulldozer” action in August 2023, even as the matter was pending in court.  

Right-arm fast bowler who helped West Indies shape arguably greatest Test team in cricket history

By Harsh Thakor*  Malcolm Marshall redefined what it meant to be a right-arm fast bowler, challenging the traditional laws of biomechanics with his unique skill. As we remember his 25th death anniversary on November 4th, we reflect on the legacy he left behind after his untimely death from colon cancer. For a significant part of his career, Marshall was considered one of the fastest and most formidable bowlers in the world, helping to shape the West Indies into arguably the greatest Test team in cricket history.

Outreach programme in medical education: Band-aids for compound fractures

By Amitav Banerjee, MD*  Recently, the National Medical Commission (NMC) of India, introduced two curricular changes in medical education, both at the undergraduate and the postgraduate levels, ostensibly to offer opportunities for quality medical education and to improve health care accessibility among the underserved rural and urban population.

Loktantra Bachao Abhiyan raises concerns over Jharkhand Adivasis' plight in Assam, BJP policies

By Our Representative  The Loktantra Bachao Abhiyan (Save Democracy Campaign) has issued a pressing call to protect Adivasi rights in Jharkhand, highlighting serious concerns over the treatment of Jharkhandi Adivasis in Assam. During a press conference in Ranchi on November 9, representatives from Assam, Chhattisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh criticized the current approach of BJP-led governments in these states, arguing it has exacerbated Adivasi struggles for rights, land, and cultural preservation.

Promoting love or instilling hate and fear: Why is RSS seeking a meeting with Rahul Gandhi?

By Ram Puniyani*  India's anti-colonial struggle was marked by a diverse range of social movements, one of the most significant being Hindu-Muslim unity and the emergence of a unified Indian identity among people of all religions. The nationalist, anti-colonial movement championed this unity, best embodied by Mahatma Gandhi, who ultimately gave his life for this cause. Gandhi once wrote, “The union that we want is not a patched-up thing but a union of hearts... Swaraj (self-rule) for India must be an impossible dream without an indissoluble union between the Hindus and Muslims of India. It must not be a mere truce... It must be a partnership between equals, each respecting the religion of the other.”

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Will Left victory in Sri Lanka deliver economic sovereignty plan, go beyond 'tired' IMF agenda?

By Atul Chandra, Vijay Prashad*  On September 22, 2024, the Sri Lankan election authority announced that Anura Kumara Dissanayake of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power (NPP) alliance won the presidential election. Dissanayake, who has been the leader of the left-wing JVP since 2014, defeated 37 other candidates, including the incumbent president Ranil Wickremesinghe of the United National Party (UNP) and his closest challenger Sajith Premadasa of the Samagi Jana Balawegaya. 

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

By Rajiv Shah  The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual. 

Will Bangladesh go Egypt way, where military ruler is in power for a decade?

By Vijay Prashad*  The day after former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina left Dhaka, I was on the phone with a friend who had spent some time on the streets that day. He told me about the atmosphere in Dhaka, how people with little previous political experience had joined in the large protests alongside the students—who seemed to be leading the agitation. I asked him about the political infrastructure of the students and about their political orientation. He said that the protests seemed well-organized and that the students had escalated their demands from an end to certain quotas for government jobs to an end to the government of Sheikh Hasina. Even hours before she left the country, it did not seem that this would be the outcome.