What is your most genuine, historically valid criticism of Savarkar? (Let's avoid blind worship)
We all know Savarkar is a deeply polarizing figure, and much of the backlash he gets on mainstream Indian subreddits is fabricated, baseless, and totally devoid of historical context. We spend a lot of time here debunking those myths.
But I think treating Savarkar like an infallible god is actually an insult to his legacy. It was his own core philosophy that there is no "sacred word" or divine will—everything is open to rational critique, modification, and improvement.
So, speaking as supporters of his broader vision, what is your genuine criticism of him? I’ll go first with my two:
1. His Political Pragmatism (Diluting his social reforms for a failed strategy)
In current times, I am a huge supporter of the pragmatic practices of the modern BJP, because Hindutva is pragmatic nationalism. But honestly, seeing your historical hero dilute his radical, visionary ideas really hurts—especially when that dilution was a complete political failure.
In Ratnagiri, he was a firebrand against caste and orthodox monopolies. But when he took over the Hindu Mahasabha, he walked back on forcing temple entry and compromised his social reform agenda just to appease the orthodox Sanatanis.
He explicitly signed away his reformist teeth. If you read A.S. Bhide’s compilation, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s Whirlwind Propaganda: Extracts from the President’s Diary (published 1940), his compromises are laid bare.
Here is the official stance he adopted in 1939 regarding forcing temples to open their doors:
>"The Hindu Mahasabha will not introduce or support compulsory Legislature regarding Temple Entry by the untouchables etc. in old temples beyond the limit to which the non-Hindus are allowed by custom as in force today."
And again, in a written guarantee on June 20, 1941, to pacify orthodox voters, he stated:
>"I guarantee that the Hindu Maha Sabha shall never force any legislations regarding the entry of untouchables in the ancient temples or compel by law any sacred ancient and moral usage or custom prevailing in those temples. In general the Mahasabha will not back up any Legislation to thrust the reforming views on our Sanatani brothers so far as personal law is concerned…"
The most frustrating part? This entire strategy was a colossal failure. The orthodox groups he compromised his ideals for didn't even back his political vision—they largely remained the core voters of the Congress ecosystem all the way until 1989. He sacrificed his best, most futuristic ideas for a political base that ultimately rejected him anyway.
2. His Quasi-Socialist Economic Leanings & State Control
Secondly, his economic views. I want to be clear—I don't dislike him for this, and there are actually parts of his economic vision that were really ahead of their time.
For instance, he laid a lot of emphasis on private ownership, explicitly stating:
>"Private property must in general be held inviolate."
He also heavily supported land ceiling acts and the redistribution of land. If Savarkar had been the leader, that redistribution would have actually happened, meaning far less inequality in India today. Nehru basically backed out of implementing strong land reforms, which directly paved the way for left-wing radical insurgencies later on. If Savarkar's land policies had been executed, Eastern India would likely still be highly developed and stable today.
However, here is where I disagree with him: he paired these great ideas with a quasi-socialist framework of heavy state control over industries.
He laid out this economic vision during his Presidential Address at the 21st Session of the Hindu Mahasabha at Calcutta in 1939. On the state taking over industry, he stated:
>"Some of the basic industries and those industries which are of national importance will be entirely controlled by the State. Other industries will be left open to private enterprise... Capital and Labour will be both controlled by the state so as to avoid class conflict."
I understand his desire for a highly efficient, centralized economy to build a strong nation, but I strongly disagree with this approach. We all know how this story ends because Nehru and Indira Gandhi tried exactly this. Nehru’s massive push for nationalization and Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), followed by Indira’s bank nationalization, directly led to the stagnation and fall of Indian industries.
The centralized state control Savarkar advocated for is exactly the system that choked India's growth for decades. So while his land reform ideas were spot-on, his broader quasi-socialist views proved to be a failure for India, and I cannot support them.
What about you guys? Without just hating on him for the sake of it, what is one criticism of his ideology or actions that you think is completely valid?
