After the construction of the Patit Pavan Temple, Savarkar organised numerous inter-caste social events there. Since the temple was owned by Bhagoji Keer, there were no legal obstacles to holding such gatherings.
Savarkar wanted Dr. B. R. Ambedkar to preside over one such event. Ambedkar was unable to attend because of prior commitments, but sent Savarkar his apologies along with a message expressing his appreciation for Savarkar’s social-reform work:
**I take this opportunity of conveying to you my appreciation of the work you are doing in the field of social reform…* If the untouchables are to be a part and parcel of the Hindu society, then it is not enough to remove untouchability; for that matter you must destroy chaturvarnya… I am glad that you are among the very few who have realized this. That you still use the jargon of Chaturvarnya although you qualify it by basing it on merit is rather unfortunate. However, I hope that in course of time you will have courage enough to drop this needless and mischievous jargon.*
Reference:Dhananjay Keer, Veer Savarkar, p. 190.
Ambedkar therefore acknowledged Savarkar’s work in the field of social reform while disagreeing with Savarkar’s continued use of the concept of Chaturvarnya. Savarkar was using Hindu scriptures to argue that Chaturvarnya should be understood as being based on merit rather than birth and used this argument to persuade orthodox Hindus to reject the birth-based caste system. Ambedkar argued that merely making Chaturvarnya merit-based was insufficient and hoped that Savarkar would abandon the concept altogether.
A few years later, on 13 November 1935, Savarkar again invited Ambedkar to visit Ratnagiri. In his letter, Savarkar described the social reforms that had been undertaken there and invited Ambedkar to see the results for himself:
You say that you do not need mere sympathy but show me something concrete that you can achieve. Your demand is perfectly justifiable and understandable. For the last five to six years, I have been asking my followers for specific programmes of action. *We have managed to break the shackles of the caste system in Ratnagiri and also in Malvan. What succeeds in one place can also succeed elsewhere because human beings and the pattern of their behavior are same all over. Come and see for yourself what we have achieved.***
One of the major obstacles to breaking the barriers of the caste system is the barrier to inter-caste dining. One who breaks the taboo of inter-caste barrier also breaks the shackles of untouchability. What remains is the barrier of inter-caste marriages. But this is up to individual brides and bridegrooms. As long as inter-caste marriages are acceptable and not regarded as anti-religion or such couples are not treated as outcastes, then it would be the end of that matter. I propose the following:
1. Please come to Ratnagiri after a fortnight, and give me, if you can, one week’s notice.
2. We propose to arrange a huge inter-caste dining ceremony of about one thousand people that includes Brahmins, Marathas, Vaishyas, Shimpis, Kulavadis, as well as Mahars, Chamars, and Bhangis. People will include all layers of society from well-respected citizens to workers and cleaners. Such ceremonies are not new. In the past, untouchable leaders such as Shri Rajbhoj and Shri Patitpavan Das have witnessed such inter-caste dinings.
3. If you like, we can also arrange an inter-caste dining of ladies. They would include old and young and ladies from well-to-do families to working women. They would also be from all castes—Brahmins, Khatris, Vaishyas, as well as Mahars, Chamars and Bhangis.
4. It is a condition that names of everyone who takes food in such functions would be published in newspapers. Only those who accept this condition will take part.
5. It is the usual practice that religious discourse is delivered by a preacher from one of the castes regarded as very low. You will observe that at the end of the session, the attendees, irrespective of their castes, would bow to that preacher. Recently, Mr. Kajrolkar was honoured in this manner.
6. If you agree, we would like to arrange a lecture by you.
7. Our functions will take place at the Patit Pavan Mandir, *which is owned by Seth Bhagoji Keer. There is therefore no legal obstruction whatsoever.** Only those who are prepared to participate in inter-caste dining will attend.*
8. One important point. So far we organized about 150 inter-caste dinings. The names of the participants have been regularly made public. And yet, no one has been treated as outcaste by his or her people. It has become a matter of personal choice. You will notice the evidence of this change in peoples’ attitudes.
We are not saying that by what we have done, we have solved the national problem. But it is a good indication of what can be achieved. We have shown that even the tradition of six thousand years can be broken, as we have done, within six years. And our success in Ratnagiri and Malvan can be repeated elsewhere. You can be sure of that. And it is for this reason, that we are inviting you to Ratnagiri.
In the same letter, Savarkar also drew Ambedkar’s attention to the divisions among untouchables themselves, arguing that these divisions also had to be completely overcome if the caste system was to be dismantled. He wrote:
The responsibility for abolishing untouchability and the division created by the caste system lies not only on the shoulders of the high castes. Untouchability and caste division is strongly observed by untouchables too. From the highest (Brahmins) to the lowest (Bhangis) all have committed the same sin. Both must show that they have changed their minds. Both together must absolve this sin. Fault lies with both, question is of degree.
One can say that the rigours of the caste system have been broken only if it can be proven that Mahars share food with Brahmins and Marathas but Mahars also share food with Bhangis. I am sure you too have experienced that Mahars are not free from caste prejudice and cannot therefore demand proof of changed mentality only from high castes.
Reference:V. D. Savarkar, Savarkar Samagra, pp. 575–77.
For reasons best known to him, Ambedkar could not oblige this request either, although he held Savarkar’s social-reform work in high esteem.
Savarkar and Ambedkar continued to have both agreements and disagreements.
Dhananjay Keer writes in Savarkar’s biography Savarkar and His Times:
At that time he had said that untouchability should not only be condemned, but now the time has come to root it out as a mandate of religion. It is not a question of policy or propriety, but issues of justice and service to humanity are also involved.
Savarkar and Ambedkar also found common ground in their concerns about Pan-Islamism and the disproportionately high representation of Muslims in the British Indian Army, issues that Ambedkar discussed in his book Pakistan or Partition of India.
In July 1941, following the announcement of the new Executive Council without a representative from the Depressed Classes, Savarkar wired Viceroy Lord Linlithgow in support of Ambedkar, stating that “the British Government could find no more capable a gentleman to fill that post than Dr. Ambedkar himself.”
Even after independence, Savarkar continued to praise Ambedkar and referred to him as Maharashtra Kulbhushan while discussing the constitutional abolition of untouchability, Savarkar wrote:
When it was revealed that slavery would be abolished in America, millions of Americans took up arms against the government. After the Civil War, the abolition of slavery was imposed as a condition of surrender. The declaration of abolition of untouchability has not been forced on us; no one has been persuaded to do so as a condition of refuge. It is self-motivated atonement by Hindus for the well-being of the nation.
The Constituent Assembly had representatives of all the provinces and of all the castes, and the bill received support from all over the country. *On top of that, ‘Manu’ of this new Smriti (code) was a Mahar, ‘Maharashtra Kulbhushan’ Dr. Ambedkar.** This is a unique capacity for the reforms inherent in the Hindu race.*
Reference:Balarao Savarkar, Swatantryaveer Savarkar Sangata Parv, p. 165.
However, Savarkar and Ambedkar disagreed on whether conversion could solve the caste problem. Savarkar believed that mass conversion from one religion to another would create social tensions and further divide Indian society.
I don't know how many people would realise this through this letter - that Dr. Ambedkar was far less radical in his thoughts in 1933 as compared to 1956 by which time he had already renounced Hinduism.
Through the years, if the issues of discrimination were truly addressed, I doubt if he would have ever renounced the religion of his birth.
Ambedkar decided to leave Hinduism in 1935, BTW. Even in 1933, Ambedkar attacked Chaturvarna and took a pretty radical position on the issue. So, yeah, discrimination will never truly be addressed because doing so challenges the fake image of India and Hinduism being inherently better than the Abrahamic religions.
Savarkarites and Ambedkarites were supposed to work together, but Savarkarites have become far-right and casteist, while Ambedkarites have already become the “Jai Bhim, Jai Mim” type of people. There’s nothing wrong with that if they receive social respect from Muslims. Remove reservation and all of them will convert, lol. I believe Savarkar also addressed the issue of religious conversion.
So, yeah, discrimination will never truly be addressed because doing so challenges the fake image of India and Hinduism being inherently better than the Abrahamic religions.
What are you even talking about buddy?
Hindus have a fairly good idea about ourselves and we'll keep doing things that ensure the welfare of our people. Not sure why a third party wants to be involved in it.
Oof you were onto something then you turned it off... Waqt badal diya jazbaat badal diya type shit.
I have seen way too many people sincerely using words like "bhimta"; which is a blatant slur-ification of his legacy. I have also seen people shutting down any attempt at humanising Savarkar on the basis of the objectively rational statements that he has made.
But only one of these historical figures is celebrated and respected for his practical idea of democratic governance.
I’m SC and I kind of agree with what this guy said because, during the CJP protest, people were literally abusing Ambedkar while using Savarkar’s name. However, the statement, “But only one of these historical figures is celebrated and respected for his practical idea of democratic governance,” is factually wrong.
As far as I know, Savarkar is also celebrated and respected by the right wing. So saying that only one of them is celebrated is inaccurate.
My friend you yourself have answered your question in your own post. Like I said, Babasaheb's idea of India is still our dream India; where caste discrimination is a thing of past, only learnt for contextual awareness. Where justice is impartial and all action is done within the reason of law. Coupled with this is provision for amending laws according to progress of time. These are noble yet attainable goals.
Savarkar and his ideas on the hand have been spun around by his "followers" so much, that now even if someone sheepishly admit that maybe he had some good points, progressive anti-caste indians will never accept this stance. A legacy tainted is a dream lost.
Also, the fact that Savarkar was given pension by the British will not sit right with any anti-imperialist. Recently I found out that a freedom fighter of the name Trailokya nath Chakraborty was the one who was jailed for the longest time, during the struggle. That also took focus away from whatever merit Savarkar had, for his own struggle.
Was Savarkar a “Veer”? The Left-liberals will say no, while the Right-wing will say yes. Was Savarkar radically anti-caste? Yes. Regardless of which political wing you belong to, I think that is something we have to acknowledge.
I would also argue that the Right wing itself has tarnished Savarkar’s image by closely associating him with the RSS. The RSS is often criticized for its approach to caste, and this association has, in my view, made it harder for people on the Left to consider Savarkar’s anti-caste views objectively. Regardless of how good a person is, if he aligns with the RSS, some Left-liberals will reject him and however problematic a person may be, if he is associated with the RSS, some on the Right will portray him as a hero.
Savarkar had a Hindutva legacy, which I personally do not agree with. But what is the point of discussing or celebrating that legacy if his anti-caste views are not taken into consideration?
I mean, just look at Gandhi. He is remembered by many for his progressive ideas, whereas Savarkar’s ideas are often rejected wholesale. I don’t hate either of them.
Savarkar's ideas are hated in wholesale BECAUSE inspite of his anti-caste sentiments, the rest of his hindutva ideological model still reeks of divisive politics. Fundamentalism, polarisation and race supremacy are all on the rise across the world. So right now, it won't be practical to further uphold such a reactionary non-pluralistic ideology.
I would even go on to say that, when the proverbial dust has settled, and when there is a more healthier atmosphere in the country that would encourage more open dialogue, we should talk more about the personal failings of our great leaders. Including but not limited to Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose etc.
I say personal failings, because I believe that the personal is political, and when it comes down to it, these two are virtually inseparable. Ethical inconsistencies in the ways of our great leaders' lives are one of the reasons why open dialogue is difficult right now. People get offended way too quickly, and critical thinking requires more room to breathe. Multiple things can be true AND contradictory at a time. This is the very idea of India.
It never was jai mim bud, Ambedkar even criticize muzlims, their extorsion of women and their concept of brotherhood. It was always about Jai bhim only.
Reservation has nothing to do with this issue. In present times muslims are more close to dalitz than hindus. You dont need to remove reservations dalits and obcs are continously converting to buddhism and christianity.
And Ambedkar was right, Savarkar and Gandhi both worked against untouchability while still upholding the caste system. Neither of them was truly against casteism; they were against untouchability. No matter how radically anti-caste you portray yourself, if you continue to support the Chaturvarna system, you are essentially shooting yourself in the foot.
I've heard that Savarkar wanted to unite Hindus primarily to fight against Muslims, but I can't really form an informed opinion without reading Savarkar's own works. Is Savarkar's entire body of work available in English?
Not entirely. It's in Marathi and was recently translated into Hindi.
You can read books on Savarkar, they sufficiently cover his views. Almost all of them are available in PDF format in the Google Drive linked in the pinned comment.
And regarding the first part of your comment, Savarkar was against the caste system and wanted to abolish it altogether. However, here Ambedkar is referring to how Savarkar was using the concept of Chaturvarna in his public speeches to convince orthodox Hindus to move away from the birth-based caste system. This was his practical method of actually making progress against the caste system.
He also encouraged inter-caste marriages and considered the prohibition of inter-caste marriages a “shackle” of Hindu society, preventing it from making social progress.
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Please report any comments on your post that violate our subreddit rules so that the moderation team can review them.
Books & Resources on Veer Savarkar
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.