Reinterrograting Savarkar

First comes first. Credit for citing the 1857 Sepoy-mutiny as The First War of Indian Independence - 1857, which was the title of the book written by him, goes to Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. By all accounts it is now a known fact that the insertion of the word "first" is a later interpolation. TheSavarkar Samagra mentions it as Atthharahasau Sattavan Ka Svatantrata Sangram (ie. The War of Independence of 1857). Variuos historians such as Harindra Srivastava and Varad Pande(a Savarkar admirer), writing about Savarkar in a much later period included the words "Indian" and "first". Dhananjaya Keer, author of a hagiographical biography of Savarkar cites the title as The First Indian War of Independence - 1857. Going by the original title, cited in the Marathi(Atthharahsau Sattavanche Swatantrya Samar) and Hindi versions of the Savarkar Samagra, it is clear that the title isThe War of Independence of 1857.

This signifies that the critics of Savarkar are unaware and blatantly add this as a fact while bashing him as a Hindu fanatic.

Savarkar's account of 1857 is replete with instances of "white flesh" being slaughtered. It is a theme that is a constant refrain throughout the text. It is important to note that Savarkar's politics was one that divided the world between 'friend' and 'foe'. It was not material who the 'foe' was as long as an enemy could be found at all times.

While killing was the chosen instrumentality, the essence that circumscribed Savarkar's account of 1857 was the establishment of 'swadharma' or one's own religion and 'swarajya' or self-rule. It has to be pointed out that 'dharma' in this instance means religion and does not have the other philosophical connotations that are also associated with the term.

Savarkar argued that there was an inextricable link between swadharma and swarajya. He further refines the link to argue that "swarajya is worthless without swadharma, and swadharma is powerless without swarajya".

Savarkar strongly admitted that words like revolt, revolution, rebellion and revenge, therefore were legitimate in order to remove injustice and bring about parity and justice. Revolt, bloodshed and revenge were at once the instruments of injustice and of bringing about natural justice. Revenge, therefore, was the establishment of natural law and justice. From this axiom, Savarkar derived a principle of nationalism. He claimed that wherever nationalist wars were fought, in such places revenge for injustices that the nation suffered were taken by killing the prepetrators of injustice of another nation.

Even those who differ from his conception of Hindutva seem to acknowledge his nationalism, patriotism and commitment to the cause of India's freedom, often overlooking the model of retributive violence and its philosophical justification that informs much of his conception of nationalism and patriotism. Along with a critical view of Savarkar, there is also the need to examine the content of such terms as "nationalism" and "patriotism", used frequently these days to justify inflamed states of emotion and violence in the name of abstractions.