Modi’s Support for Savarkar and the Anti-Muslim Undertones of Hindutva

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, one of the names surrounding Indian freedom struggle, is popularly known as the ideational father of Hindutva, a Hindu nationalist ideology that espouses the superiority of Hindu political and cultural ideals. While Savarkar’s contribution to the freedom struggle of India is disputed, his anti-Muslim statements have always been problematic, and his critics have accused him of teetering at the edge of hate speech. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a BJP leader and a close associate of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has frequently eulogized Savarkar, which is a concern about the implications of embracing his ideologies in contemporary Indian politics.

In this essay, we will be writing about Modi’s public support of Savarkar and examining how far Savarkar’s anti-Muslim rhetoric is in line with or deviates from current definitions of hate speech.

Modi’s Endorsement of Savarkar’s Legacy

Narendra Modi has consistently praised Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, portraying him as a patriot and visionary whose ideas shaped India’s national identity. In 2019, during an election rally in Maharashtra, Modi described Savarkar as a “great revolutionary” whose sacrifices for India’s independence inspired generations. He emphasized Savarkar’s concept of Hindutva as a unifying force for India’s cultural identity, stating, “Veer Savarkar’s thoughts continue to guide us toward a strong and united India.” Similarly, in 2020, Modi paid tribute to Savarkar on his birth anniversary via a tweet, calling him a “stalwart of India’s freedom struggle” whose “ideas on national unity remain relevant today.” These statements reflect Modi’s alignment with Savarkar’s ideological framework, particularly the emphasis on Hindu unity and cultural nationalism.

Modi’s government has also taken steps to institutionalize Savarkar’s legacy. In 2020, the BJP-led government in Maharashtra proposed naming the Mumbai airport after Savarkar, a move Modi supported as a means to honor his contributions. Additionally, the government has promoted Savarkar’s writings, such as Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?, in educational and cultural initiatives, framing them as essential to understanding India’s national ethos. These actions signal not only personal admiration but also a deliberate effort to mainstream Savarkar’s ideas within India’s political and cultural discourse.

Savarkar’s Anti-Muslim Beliefs and the Question of Hate Speech

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s ideology of Hindutva, articulated in his 1923 book Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?, defines Indian identity through a Hindu cultural lens, often to the exclusion of other religious communities, particularly Muslims. Savarkar viewed Muslims as outsiders whose allegiance to India was suspect due to their religious ties to Mecca and their historical association with Mughal rule. In his writings, he frequently depicted Muslims as a threat to Hindu civilization, advocating for their assimilation or marginalization to preserve a Hindu-centric India. For instance, in Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History, Savarkar described Muslims as a community that historically oppressed Hindus, using inflammatory language to justify Hindu militarization against them.

Savarkar’s rhetoric extended beyond theoretical writings. As a leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, he organized campaigns that exacerbated communal tensions. In 1939, under his presidency, the Hindu Mahasabha formed coalition governments with the Muslim League in provinces like Sindh and Bengal, a pragmatic move that Savarkar justified as a means to counter the Indian National Congress. However, his public speeches often vilified Muslims, portraying them as a monolithic group incapable of loyalty to India. For example, Savarkar’s call for Hindu militarization boards during World War II was framed as a defense against Muslim separatism, reinforcing a narrative of Muslims as adversaries.

Modern definitions of hate speech, such as those outlined by the United Nations, include language that incites discrimination, hostility, or violence against a group based on religion, ethnicity, or other identities. Savarkar’s statements, particularly his depiction of Muslims as perpetual outsiders and threats, arguably meet this threshold. For instance, his assertion that Muslims could only be Indian if they fully assimilated into Hindu culture dismisses their religious identity and fosters a narrative of exclusion. Critics, including historian Megha Kumar, argue that Savarkar’s rhetoric laid the groundwork for communal violence, as seen in the 1969 riots in Gujarat, where his ideas fueled anti-Muslim sentiment. While Savarkar’s language was not always a direct call to violence, its dehumanizing tone and exclusionary intent align closely with contemporary understandings of hate speech.

Modi’s Rhetoric and Savarkar’s Influence

Modi’s political career, rooted in his early involvement with the RSS, reflects the influence of Savarkar’s Hindutva ideology. The RSS, a Hindu nationalist organization that Modi joined at age eight, was heavily inspired by Savarkar’s vision of a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu nation). During the 2024 general election campaign, Modi faced accusations of employing anti-Muslim rhetoric reminiscent of Savarkar’s exclusionary nationalism. Human Rights Watch documented that in 110 out of 173 campaign speeches, Modi made Islamophobic remarks, including calling Muslims “infiltrators” and alleging they had “more children” to outnumber Hindus. These statements echo Savarkar’s portrayal of Muslims as demographic and cultural threats, suggesting a continuity of ideological influence.

For example, at a rally in Rajasthan on April 21, 2024, Modi claimed that the opposition Congress party would redistribute wealth to “infiltrators” and “those with more children,” a clear allusion to Muslims. This rhetoric not only misrepresents historical statements by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh but also perpetuates stereotypes about Muslim population growth, a trope Savarkar frequently used to stoke Hindu fears. Such remarks prompted the Congress party to file complaints with the Election Commission of India, alleging that Modi violated electoral codes prohibiting appeals to communal sentiments. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also condemned Modi’s statements, highlighting their potential to incite discrimination.

While Modi has publicly denied anti-Muslim bias, asserting in a 2024 interview that his party is “not against Muslims,” his campaign rhetoric suggests otherwise. The use of terms like “infiltrators” mirrors Savarkar’s framing of Muslims as external threats, reinforcing a narrative that critics argue normalizes hostility. Human Rights Watch noted that Modi’s speeches, combined with a decade of BJP policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), have “normalized abuses against Muslims, Christians, and others,” reflecting a broader alignment with Savarkar’s vision of Hindu primacy.

Critics argue that Modi’s endorsement of Savarkar’s ideas amplifies a divisive narrative that undermines India’s secular constitutional framework. The Wire, an independent Indian news portal, described Modi’s rhetoric as “the archetypal example of hate speech,” drawing parallels with Savarkar’s exclusionary nationalism. The article cites Modi’s reference to the 2002 Gujarat riots, where over 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed, as an attempt to polarize voters by invoking communal fears—a tactic Savarkar employed in his campaigns. Similarly, Asim Ali, a political commentator, called Modi’s 2024 remarks “the most inflammatory statement by a sitting prime minister in recent history,” underscoring their potential to incite violence.

Defenders of Modi and Savarkar argue that their rhetoric reflects a legitimate concern for Hindu cultural identity in a diverse nation. They point to Savarkar’s emphasis on national unity and Modi’s economic achievements as evidence of a broader, inclusive vision. However, the selective targeting of Muslims in both Savarkar’s writings and Modi’s speeches undercuts claims of inclusivity, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of rising hate crimes. A 2017 IndiaSpend database reported that 97% of cow-related hate crimes since 2012 occurred after the BJP’s rise to power in 2014, with 86% of victims being Muslims.

Narendra Modi’s open endorsement of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar shows a shared commitment to Hindutva, a political ideology affirming supremacy of Hindu politics and culture. Modi introduces Savarkar as a patriot, and the former’s anti-Muslim rhetoric, which is typified as exclusionary and dehumanizing, is directly in sync with modern definitions of hate speech. Modi’s election campaign speeches, particularly those of 2024, are reflective of Savarkar’s legacy through the incorporation of similar themes, such as the characterization of Muslims as demographic threats. These similarities are a reason for concern towards the normalization of polarizing rhetoric in Indian politics and thus the erosion of the nation’s ideals of secularism. As India moves further ahead in its democratic development, the legacy of Savarkar, along with Modi’s endorsement, will remain a source of conflict regarding the balance between cultural nationalism and communal coexistence.

References

1. Human Rights Watch. (2024, August 14). India: Hate Speech Fueled Modi’s Election Campaign.
2. The Wire. (2024, May 12). J’Accuse…Narendra Modi of Poisoning the Country With Hate.
3. Al Jazeera. (2024, April 22). ‘Infiltrators’: Modi accused of anti-Muslim hate speech amid India election.
4. Wikipedia. (2023, May 28). Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
5. The Conversation. (2024, May 24). How Narendra Modi’s cult of personality was formed by a powerful Hindu nationalist group.
6. TIME. (2024, April 22). Modi Accused of ‘Hate Speech’ Towards Muslims in Campaign.
7. The Hindu. (2024, August 14). PM Modi made Islamophobic remarks in 110 campaign speeches: Human Rights Watch.