![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think the "list of accused" should not be part of article about "Veer Savarkar". His part in the plan has been discussed in a separate section. And this list doesn't add any more information about Savarkar. Wces423 11:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
"To this day , he is widely regarded all over India as a coward for not helping India gain independence .He is also scorned upon for his alleged involvement in the murder of the great Mahatma Gandhi ."
I removed this line from the article. It is heavily POV and is redundant -- the gist of this line is already stated in the previous two paragraphs in the introduction. Thank you. Gujuguy 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The referencing of this article needs to be improved. All the direct references we have for this immense article are simply two bare-bones, non-primary websites. Specific page references to primary resources should be done, especially to what is already listed but just "sitting there" in the references section:
Tuncrypt 04:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
Why does this "He is considered to be the central icon of modern Hindu nationalist political parties." twice in the first paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.23.72 ( talk) 11:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
brothers, savarkar's role in the assasination of oyr father of nation , should /cannot be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.156 ( talk) 13:38, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
swatantryaveer savarkaranvar bolayache mhanaje fakt ekch...swatantryaveer savarkar mazya romrat bhinale aahet. aaj aani aatahi maazya aangawarun sarsarun kaate yet aahet. aaj te aamhala yasathi have aahet ki tyani zunjun- raktache paani karun ubha kelela ha hindustan kanhi bhrasht aani nalayak lokancya hatche bahule banala aahe. aaj garaj aahe tyanchi karan aajhi aamhala ekhada navaa sangraam chhedava laagnar aahe. mazyasarkhe khoop aahet je ya deshasathi jivachi kurwandi karatil. aamhala fakt marg hava aahe.. aani have aahet ek..swatantryaveer savarkar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.252.220 ( talk) 13:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Raja.m82 ( talk) 13:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This refers to the deletion at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar&diff=next&oldid=353874772
Editor kindly explain why you have deleted reference to Savarkar's welcoming the Jewish state in the Palestine. It is a very important policy statement. Savarkar and Gandhi both vehmently opposed the partition of India, and so as a matter or logic (and Savarkar claims to appease Muslims) opposed the partition of Palestine and the formation of the Jewish state.
Savarkar on the other hand welcomed the formation of the Jewish state.
You have also commented that there is lack of evidence for the above. However wp:rs have been provided?
I would like to bring the line back kindly justify the deletion Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 09:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | "First, he was sensitive about the ideas of Muslim Indians who were anti-Zionists because of their sympathy for Middle Eastern Arabs opposed to the Jewish National Home; second, he objected to any Zionist methods inconsistent with his way of non-violence; third, he found Zionism contrary to his pluralistic nationalism, which excludes the establishment of any State based solely or mainly on one religion; and fourth, he apparently believed it imprudent to complicate his relations with the British, who held the mandate in Palestine. [" http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0815-GandhiZionism.html] | ” |
Actually my quoting a primary source is a bad wikipedia practice. I should have quoted a reliable secondary source that should have written that
“ | Savarkar supported the formation of Israel unlike Gandhi who opposed it. It was in line with his philosophy | ” |
Not truth but verifiablity is the criteria for inclusion, I withdraw my request for inclusion, I will search for a reliable secondary source - such I have quoted Ambedkar on Savarkar's views on the partition of India, and then add it in the lead.
If you wish you may remove it from the article too. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 05:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Is Freedom at midnight, a paper published in a history journal or the like, subjected to peer review? (Though even peer review is a racket as Malhotra writes.) "Most" is what is called a weasel word. The book is written by imperialistic apologists. The Congress before its participation into electoral politics was a movement and not a political party in today's sense, with watertight ideological boundaries. Savarkar was invited to be a member of the Congress after release in 1937. (Keer). Congress was very much a part of the British establishment, like a loyal opposition. (Hyndman) Even after partition, the Congress was aware of nationalist (Hindu) sensibilities, one example is the adoption of Devanagari and a Hindi reasonably free of Arabic and Persian adulteration. The purification of language was an important movement run by Savarkar which began in Andaman (See Mazi Janmathep) as a means of establishing nationalistic (Hindu)identity. The context for the above explanation is your phrase "anti-Hindutva or pro-Congress" imagining that they are Siamese twins. Freedom at midnight, is a muck raising book that indulges in sensationalism, written by a pair of white - Christian imperialistic lackies, without an understanding and acknowledgement of the subaltern existence of a population, under the crushing domination of a racist power, and not just with reference to Savarkar. Personally it is irrelevant whether Savarkar was a homosexual or whether Nathuram was (one of his) partner(s). Savarkar has mentioned the practice, has written about it as one more way in which Muslims exploited Hindus in the Cellular jail, narrated how a boy was rescued from a Muslim and rescued from Islam, with the exploiting Muslim taught a lesson.(Mazi Janmathep) I do not remember reading that the practice, in itself, was condemned by him. (Please correct me if I am wrong). He has written the desperate conditions, such as when ill with diarrhoea he wished that he passed motions in front of the doctor, which was the only way to convince the doctor of the existence of the illness. (Mazi Janmathep). Even the most basic body needs sleep, food, defaecation, rest were used as tools to break the conviction and the will of the political convicts. Copulation is a similar basic need, not very high up from the above mentioned, and in the absence of alternatives, it is natural for homosexuality to find expression. Messer Lapierre and Collins have written Freedom ... in the late 20th century, and it would not be too much to expect a little sympathy and understanding for this aspect of a convict's sexuality, but all that they could do was to write about Savarkar's homosexuality, in order to use it to shock and generate revulsion and prejudice from those who succumb to their bait. Savarkar was a utilitarian, just as he was a pragmatist and a humanist,(Wolfe), even if his homosexuality or bi-sexuality was true, (as he was married and had children, and was officially monogamous, did not divorce, with only death separating him from his wife), why should that be considered a negative trait, especially in the twenty first century? On whether his sexuality should be mentioned or not, my opinion :
Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 10:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I have stuck to facts quoted from wp:rs, I have not provided links etc., as this is a talk page and not the article, anyone is free to check. Google search will provide you with the material referenced. Except of-course Freedom and City of Joy, for which you need to go to a library. GayChristian101.com says that
“ | Yes, many men in prison choose to engage in homosexual activity while incarcerated, as an outlet for sexual energy. I've seen percentages quoted of from 20% to 40% but I'm not sure how accurate those percentages are. | ” |
which pretty very much corroborates what I have written about the relation between incarceration and homosexuality. I am sorry that what I have written comes across as hateful, as I spend a lot of time in being precise. I request CarTick (Karthik?) to elaborate on which part of my comment was so exceedingly hateful that it necessitated the appellation. I request him to read Freedom ... and City of Joy. The shooting of the eponymous film also generated protests, a stay order and a firebomb attack on the crew, and charges of social pornography. Buddhadev Das-Gupta comments on the book and the film
“ | I have myself read the book and found that it is sickening and full of sky-high errors. I have even gone through the final, 13th version of the oft-amended film script, sent it to exclusive persons and obtained their opinion," Bhattacharya said. "The book has been written from the racist viewpoint of the whites. That viewpoint has been preserved intact in the film script. It has been shown that the people of this city are unconcerned about the misery of their fellow citizens. Only the whites are the saviors. | ” |
(LA times)
I request CarTick to substantiate his allegation or withdraw it. All in the interest of The Wikipedian god of Verifiablity.
Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 14:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | Freedom at midnight, is a muck raising book that indulges in sensationalism, written by a pair of white - Christian imperialistic lackies, without an understanding and acknowledgement of the subaltern existence of a population, under the crushing domination of a racist power, and not just with reference to Savarkar. | ” |
this is the comment you made. u didnt quote anybody as far as i can see. -- Car Tick 15:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Others and publishers of Freedom At midnight have apologized for terming savarkar as homosexual and have removed this reference from further editions. Should Savarkar's sexuality be addressed in this article? Some sources claim that he was a closeted homosexual and had one sexual encounter with Nathuram Godse as stated in "Assassin: theory and practice of political violence" By J. Bowyer Bell, Irving Louis Horowitz, pp 219-220 [3]. Does anyone have other sources that corroborate this? Authentickle ( talk) 21:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Freedom at midnight is one of the best source on History of Indian Independence. Most Indian Historians and Scholars recommend it. I did not find any anti-hindutva or pro-congress bias in it. Infact its impartiality can be gauged from the fact that it was banned in Pakistan for a long time.-- Indian Chronicles ( talk) 05:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems plausible that this habit could have been picked up from Andamans. It is well known that such practices are rampant in these types of prisons. For example one journal confirms that these type of practices were common in Andamans during certain period:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) --
Indian Chronicles (
talk)
04:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)White missionary, lives in a slum, and works to change lives. Hindu labourer sells his bones for his daughter's dowry. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 11:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see all this misinformation stacked up on an article on wikipedia that should have the information and actual facts about this freedom fighter. 'What he's said' 'what the other guy has said may not necessarily be *facts*. Thats their opinions and things they claim true.
Take the issue of VD Savarkar not taking part in the hunger strike for example. It is known that he was in a serious health condition - thanks to the torture and so was advised not to take part in the hunger strike, though he started it. Savarkar himself admits the fact that he didn't take part in the hunger strike and also quotes the reasons in his Autobiography. But here, you've stated that he didn't take part in it, and the reason : why he didn't? - never care to mention, eh?
This is a totally one sided article, with texts copied from the copyrighted material of rediff articles that state the opinions of few individuals. Please correct the article.
P.S: If these things need to be mentioned, please mention it under the 'controversy' section, adding Mr. Chakravarthy's opinions and things he claims are true. But then please make sure you add what individuals keep saying about prominent personalities from time to time to make it to the headlines, on all wikipedia articles related to reknown people.
Punya6666 ( talk) 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC) This article has been adulterated by communist writers and they keep on adding malicious content just to publicize their books. The statements written here are completely biased against the Great Patriot Savarkar. Wikipedia I humbly beg you, please donot allow such defamation of the a great person. Or else no one will trust to see your site. Just click on the Citations given by some authors and you will understand there are propagandist articles/ book from Noorani for example just to have it sold to international public. They don ot point out the efforts he took to free India from british rule, social reforms he brought in the society, or immense nationalist books and poetry he wrote. Is that not enough proof? If not just read about him from the british and French, and they will tell you he was an Indian Patriot. Some people( I would not count them as Indians) unfortunately due to political reasons are targeting such a Great person who has spent his life for humanity and just cause. Tomorrow I can write up a book criticizing/maliagning some great person, and cite references from that book, and some others will follow the same, will it mean Wikipedia will be a face of falsity, but it will show up in google results. We admire Wikipedia for the great effort they have taken to bring up a people's encyclopedia, but due to some malicious people, with political motives( and who have all the time), they can edit and post, anything they want, and facts are so easily twisted. If you read most the comments here on the Talk section, they advise to remove some citations/falsity from the article. Content which we edit is altered and removed by malicious authors very easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punya6666 ( talk • contribs) 05:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Doug. please explain your last edit. This article has many unsourced comments someone should go line by line and add references or delete those statements which do not have any. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 17:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This person has been the the "delete" person, adding links of only his choice. if we try to state facts, he goes on twisting them, and deleting links to books and our comments. Please WIKIPEDIA ban "Indian Chronicles" Indian Chronicles, why do you keep removing and deleting the links to books and refences added by me. I will take up the cause with Wikipedia. Punya6666 ( talk) 23:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Why did u remove the link to Veer Savarkar's Book? Why are you maligning such a great Freedom fighter? Are u really Indian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punya6666 ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Recent edits to this page provide a non-neutral point of view. A lot of earlier useful material has been discarded and the article entirely re-written. This Article has been hijacked by Marxist writers of Indian history. WikiPedia Please remove their references from the article which are complete distortion of facts and are just added to sell their books. How can the same references of Punyani and noorani be added again and again, without are completely baseless. Honest writer of history, please rewrite this article. Can we guys vote on this? If wikipedia is not going to take action against distortion of facts and history. (The above text was pasted on the top of this page, I am relocating it here it is not mine but another editors, if what I have done is illegal please undo this edit. I have done so as that broke the thread. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 20:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
(outdent)Your last edit saw the following deletions, I have no issue with deletions on (1)Line 163 and Line 226 as they are inline references which is something I have not seen in articles, (2)also the citation wanted tag on line 294 is unwarranted as a citation is provided, (3)the statement on line 342 The above theories have been created by some people who hate savarkar and his one nation ideology. as it does not have a citation, however please explain your deletion of apparently well cited statements Savarkar's contribution to Indian Freedom Struggle has been immense, starting from his student days in London, where he organized the Indians in England, and France from the famous India House, where he wrote the famous book First Indian War of Independence, inspiring Indians to remember martyrs of 1857, and motivating them to carry on second war of independence. English government at that time, arrested him on political charges of waging a war against the English king, for which he was sentenced to 50 years of imprisonment, in 1907 which was unheard of in Indian political circles. No Congress politician was sentenced to such a long and rigorous imprisonment. His entire life was devoted to bring India freedom, from his works and actions. [2] on line 352 and removing the citation on line 38, Keer is a reliable source as far as I know, what is your issue Indian Chronicles? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 06:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Like I said that if you feel certain parts of above discussed edit are reliable then please add it. I have other reliable sources to show that Savarkar only devoted his initial years to freedom fighting that can counter the above edit easily. Furthermore relevancy is also important. Anyway I have reported Punya for edit warring and refusing to discuss.-- Indian Chronicles ( talk) 10:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
References
Reply No point of view mentioned by me were POV, but were in fact supported by the books by Keer and Harindra Srivastava. If you were in Maharashtra state, you would have known Maharashtra Govt, made Veer Savarkar movie Tax free, what is POV about it? Can you name any congress politician whose was sentenced to two life imprisonments (25 years each) for a political cause of waging a war against british King? Refer Keer, Srivastava, Or book by Chakravarti Rajagopalachar(his pen name- Chitragupta) "Life of Barrister Savarkar". When a person is acquitted(freed) by court of Law and is freed from all the charges, we have no right to defame him as a criminal on the basis of hearsay, as Kapur commission one man commission and their political supporters tried to defame. When the person is no longer alive to defend himself. What would you call if a person is freed from all charges, and still people defame and accuse him as criminal with no trial? Indian chronicles, and some other others on like abdul like tried to the same strategy. Veer Savarkar's poineering work is not my POV, but a fact which remains because of works and actions performed by him during his lifetime. Please refer to following books. 1. Life of barrister Savarkar 2. Veer Savarkar by Dhananjay Keer (padmabhushan author, title given by Govt of India.) 3. Five Stormy years, Savarkar in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.48.229 ( talk) 13:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
(1)Please understand Punya that your breaking of threads is very disruptive, action may be taken against you for that. See this page has a sub-topic list, 1 - 25 now, 1 should be the oldest and 25 the latest, please place your edits at the bottom of the page and not the top of the page as you have been doing. Also sign on the page by pressing the signature and time stamp or typing four tildes (~). (2)About content (A)Tax free, please find a reliable source that informs that the movie was tax free and provide citation, understand that verifiability and not truth is criteria for inclusion please see wp:V. (B)Please provide citation for your statement that no congress politician was awarded two life sentences, the onus lies on you to provide citations, you should not ask others to find them for you, please provide page numbers if you are quoting a book, it will give it authenticity, also be careful about WP:SYNTHESIS. (C)Kapur Commission: There is a reliable source quoted that supports the statements. What you have written is your view, it has no place here. (D)Your allegations against Indian Chronicles and Abdul may cause you to be blocked/ banned from Wikipedia, please do not pass adverse comments against editors.(E)The list is from Godbole's Five Stormy Years in London, it may not be considered a reliable source, you may go ahead with it if you wish, please see other Featured Articles - Biographies, this biography should be like that in style. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
(1)You have called Punya's edits nonsense and untruths, (2)Have written that the International court at Hague, existed only since 1945, (3)Have cast apprehensions whether the said text is Keer's, (1)I wouldn't use abusive words like nonsense even if another editor was wrong. (2)Please see this source, it has the entire case, and is dated crica 1911, it refers to an International court in Hague. [5] (3)You have to prove that Punya is mis-representing sources such as Keer. (4)In view of the above I am reverting your edit. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 21:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
An image needs removing from this article but I don't know how to do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.76.235 ( talk) 18:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
If this isn't an an example of a outright POV in an encyclopedic article, I dont know what is. You cannot say that this quote cites a "source", since you shall always find arbitrary sources that make such claims.
Editors, please make necessary changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.187.164 ( talk) 14:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I am a Bangladeshi and a great admirer of India because of the country's unconditional support to our Independence movement in 1971. I respect Mahatmaji, Nehruji and Indiraji to a marked extent.But I am unable to show my respect to Mr.Savarkar as I see him as a proponent of Hindu Communalism which entails innately anti-muslim cognition.Correct me if I am wrong, but I tell you my great Indian friends, I am compelled to blame the propagators of Hinduvta politics equally responsible for partition of India as the Muslim League. If you study London based Bengali scholar Jaya Chatterjee's books,you will also definitely agree with me.Thank you and pardon me if I hurted anyone's apolitical religious sentiments. Al-minar ( talk) 07:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any Hindu Communal-ism in India. I am Indian.
Indians respect all religions except "terrorism".
One more thing - Praising Hindu religion doesn't means opposing Muslim religion. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
125.18.10.68 (
talk)
10:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
What all due respect to the hard work of its creators, it is important for this article be balanced on a number of issues. As of now it is biased. Although Hindutva politics are inclusive, they are so in a totalizing way that actually turn them exclusivist to both Christian and Muslim minorities if they don't conform. Savarkar himself proclaimed in his 'Hindutva' that to be Indian is to be Hindu, yet his conception of 'Who is a Hindu' was based on whether a religion had India as its 'Holy Land' as well as its 'Fatherland'. Consequently, all native religions to India (i.e. Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists) are seen as 'Hindu.' Yet Christians and Muslims do not qualify, they have their Holy Land in the Middle East. According to Sarvakar, Christians and Muslims must thus either reconvert or accept Hinduism as central to 'Indian civilization' (Jews qualify as being assimilated in this manner). To this criterium, we understand why Hindu Nationalists did welcome Partition in a sense, because Muslims would be able to have their own land, but also condemned it because it ruptured the territorial integrity of 'the Holy Land': it presented them with a dilemma. This explains why Savarkar praised the creation of the state Israel: he obviously attached much importance to religion's link with territory. His support for Israel was not 'anti-muslim', but based on his conceptions I just explained. Whether Hinduism as such is actually exclusivist is another matter, so don't feel personally attacked, but Hindutva is a specific politicized version of Hinduism. Some have called it a 'synthetic creation of an organic unity.' Personally I believe that India's greatness lies in its diversity and tolerance. I got my information from Savarkar's 'Hindutva', Bidyut Chakrabarty's interesting collection of essays called 'Communal Identity in India,' Sunil Khilnani's 'The Idea of India' and work by the scholar Ashutosh Varshney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.225.191 ( talk) 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
http://www.savarkar.org/en/armed-struggle/q Was the degree taken back because of freedom activities? 111.91.95.22 ( talk) 09:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I've removed two recent additions here because of the following problems.
I'm not going to edit the article itself, because I don't want to get involved in some long discussion, but I will point out two errors of fact in the article as it presently stands: (1) Savarkar was never a barrister, because although he doubtless passed the necessary exams he was never called to the Bar; and (2) Gray's Inn is not a law college, it is an Inn of Court, which is entirely different. Jsmith1000 ( talk) 01:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
He is a self-proclaimed atheist. any objections to change the infobox? Docku: What up? 05:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Good Day, Just so there is no confusion, Atheism in Hinduism is allowed, and there are a lot of Hindu Atheist, including Savarkar. The whole Sankha Philosophy, a major Hindu school of thought is about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viperov ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the statement made by the contributor above that atheism is allowed in hinduism. I think it is inappropriate to classify veer savarkar as a atheist under his religion as he has done many things for hinduism and there are indications that he was a hindu such as Atma Samarpan which is a hindu concept of self ending life. Veer Savarkar has also been credited in the opening of "Patitpavan Mandir", a temple open to all Hindus including ex-untouchables (22 February 1931). All this information is from the savarkar website
[1] several individuals and organizations.created by several individuals and organizations. These individuals and organizations can be seen here
[2]. Therefore I request that savarkar not be classified as atheist as this is misleading
Kushagr.sharma1 (
talk)
12:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Gandhi didn't support British violence against Germany. I remember reading a letter in which he asked Churchill to stop the resistance against Hitler because seeing the destruction would change Hitler and make him peaceful.
The sentence "Savarkar's Hindutva sought to create an inclusive collective identity" seems an NPOV violation to me; whatever the source might say, it is a contested portrayel. Scholars have also referred to him as divisive and anti-muslim. Even a cursory search yield this. [1] The description of his ideology needs to include this. Of course, I am not suggesting reversing the POV entirely, the current fragment is also sourced. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 18:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
References
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Vice regent, I am copying below your new addition to the article:
Academics argue that Savarkar promoted a more anti-Muslim form of Hindu nationalism. [1] In 1938, he wrote, "if we Hindus in India grow stronger in time, these Moslem friends of the league type will have to play the part of German Jews." He further India "must be a Hindu land, reserved for Hindus". [2]
Savarkar saw Muslims in the Indian police and military to be "potential traitors". He advocated that India reduce the number of Muslims in the military, police and public service and ban Muslims from owning or working in munitions factories. [3]
References
- ^ Sources of Indian Traditions: Modern India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Cambridge University Press. p. 483.
{{ cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) ( help)- ^ R. Griffin. Terrorist's Creed: Fanatical Violence and the Human Need for Meaning. p. 120-121.
- ^ Divine Enterprise: Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement. University of Chicago Press. p. 89.
{{ cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|Author=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)
Several issues here:
Academics argue. Who exactly? What have they argued? You haven't even told us who the author is!
potential traitors" in scare quotes. But you haven't provided the whole context. The paragraph says:
After independence Savarkar contended that Muslims in India, Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Pakistan were a threat to the Indian state. He claimed that "Muslims have tacitly declared war on Hindustan" and were likely to sabotage the state from within as well as attack from outside (553).No doubt the Muslims of Pakistan are still a threat to the Indian state. The jihadism only increased with time. The Muslims of Kashmir are still fighting the Indian state. In Hyderabad, Akbaruddin Owaisi is prone to declare war against all Hindus. So, Savarkar would seem to be at least half right. Given that he is half-right, you can't label this "anti-Muslim". For it to be "anti-Muslim", you would have to show that he was blatantly wrong.
So let us get back to the first point. What evidence of "anti-Muslimness" does this unnamed author provide? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 02:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I think Veer Savarkar is more common name, any inputs? Accesscrawl ( talk) 16:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Added Savarkar's views on Dr. Ambedkar IndianHistoryEnthusiast ( talk) 12:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the honorific "Veer" can not be mentioned in article ? Is that a POV pushing when there are so many instances where Veer or swatantraveer is used before Savarkar on roads, monuments etc. named after him. Thanks. Jonathansammy ( talk) 17:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Any t/p watcher who knows about the origins of the honorific - Veer ? ∯WBG converse 19:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually I wanted to start this page to give the readers a knowledge about one of the leaders of India who contributed in the freedom struggle.But I suppose the whole concept of article has been changed and it looks as if the article is anti-sawarkar. I think we shouldn't write what others say about a person but what his life and contributions were. -- Tanul 06:25, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Is it possible to write the whole article on Savarkar again? This one is utterly biased and only spreads misinformation. I am ready to contribute on this.
ok, I've replaced all the "he said this, he said that" with some solid facts. Feel free to copyedit and correct any mistakes in the writeup. The previous article had some cut and pasted material from Outlook, rediff and other sites.
The current article seems to be extremely POV. "greates revolutionary of India's freedom struggle", "devoted entire life to the independeance movement " etc are what I mean. -- Sundar ( talk · contribs) 05:43, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
There should be no two opinions about these since he certainly devoted his entire life for India. There could be two opinions about the means he used but there is no doubt about the cause he championed before the independence period. Not mentioning these fact would be a POV. Incase you want to delete these words, please mention a period of his life that he devoted to some other cause before India was free. He indeed was a great reolutionary only matched by Bose. But then Bose was a politician turned revolutionary only in the later period of his life. King1 ( talk · contribs) may 6
The whole Gandhi Murder Section is biased against Veer Savarkar all changes made by anonymous user from 69.148.70.104 should be checked for neutrality.
The sections under contentions are Support for Nazi Germany, Murder of Gandhi, On Minorities.
This user 69.148.70.104 has changed the following from Literary Works section
from
He put forward the atrocities of British and Muslims on Hindu Resident in State of Kerala, summarized in the book, "Mopalyanche Band" (Muslims' Strike) also "Gandhi Gondhal", a political commentary on the contemporary politics by Gandhi.
to
He wrote an inflammatory books alleging atrocities of British and Muslims on Hindus in Kerala, summarized in the book, "Mopalyanche Band" (Muslims' Strike) also "Gandhi Gondhal" (Gandhi's nonsense), a political commentary on the contemporary politics by Gandhi.
All his/her changes should be carefully examined and corrected.
- Wces423 06:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For the sake of neutrality, one should quote and reference from the Frontline article and a couple of news items in "The Hindu" publishing purported letters written by Savarkar to Godse. -- Sundar 09:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
The article attributes a quote to Savarkar ostensibly made during his stay in London : "We must stop complaining about this British officer or that officer, this law or that law. There would be no end to that. Our movement must not be limited to being against any particular law, but it must be for acquiring the authority to make laws itself. In other words, we want absolute independence.[5]" The source quoted is said to be some article by V. Sundaram. The article by V. Sundaram actually does not attribute this to him. There is no such quote by Savarkar in any of his writings. The definitive autobiography by Dhananjay Keer does not mention such a statement. This is clearly a false statement. Savarkar never made any such statement. Sanjayx ( talk) 00:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
The entire article is a compendium of un-sourced\ill-sourced garbage with absolutely zero concerns for due weight and all that. Why not nuke i.e stub-ify this mess and gradually rewrite, using the best available scholarship? ∯WBG converse 14:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric has removed a sourced portion of this article, ie. Opposition to Partition, for being "simplistic". This needs to be undone. Soham "Samrat" Banerjee ( talk) 18:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
∯WBG converse 15:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)The opposition of fanatical Hinduism to partition did not and could not make any sense, for one of the forces that partitioned the country was precisely this Hindu fanaticism. It was like the murderer recoiling from his crime after it had been done. Let there be no doubt about it. Those who have shouted loudest about Akhand Bharat, the present Jana Sangh and its predecessors of the curiously un-Hindu spirit of Hinduism, have helped Britain and the Muslim League partition the country. They did nothing whatsoever to bring the Muslim close to the Hindu within a single nation. They did almost everything to estrange them from each other. Such estrangement is the root cause of partition. To espouse the philosophy of estrangement and, at the same time, the concept of Akhand Bharat is an act of grievous self-deception, only if we assume that those who do so are honest men.
Thank you for your clarifications. I hope I am right to believe that there will be the required evaluation of secondary sources regarding this topic to fill up a crucial Gap in this article. Soham "Samrat" Banerjee ( talk) 17:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Some information which is recently added to this article is jeopardizing, and is an allegation which is not proven. Fenix.fyrehart ( talk) 20:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria was this intentional ? I could not understand the edit summary or the reasons for removal. Please elaborate. regards. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 12:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Put Swatantryaveer before his name..he was that time famous leader of hindus and one of the early group of revolutionaries. Adityadk28 ( talk) 17:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Two years after the release of Savarkar from the prison, a biography of Savarkar titled "Life of Barrister Savarkar" and authored by Chitragupt was published. The second edition of the book in 1987, was published by Veer Savarkar publication, the official publishers of writings by Savarkar. In the preface of the second edition Ravindra Randas, mentioned that "Chitragupta is none other than Veer Savarkar". [1] [2] This disclosure brought his autobiography under scrutiny. [3]
The book enthusiastically praised Savarkar for his courage. [2] Through the book, Savarkar using a pen name assured the reader of the heroism of Savarkar and stated: [4]
“ | "Savarkar is born hero, he could almost despise those who shirked duty for fear of consequences. If once he rightly or wrongly believed that a certain system of Government was iniquitous, he felt no scruples in devising means to eradicate the evil." [4] | ” |
The book also mentioned that Savarkar:
“ | seemed to posses no few distinctive marks of character, such as an amazing presence of mind, indomitable courage, unconquerable confidence in his capability to achieve great things”. “Who,” he asked about himself, “could help admiring his courage and presence of mind?" [4] | ” |
References
Pinging page contributors,
User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric,
User:Akhiljaxxn,
User:RegentsPark,
User:Vanamonde93 and
User:Kautilya3.
@All, I found it strange that this important fact was missing here, I have added it. It seems that Razer did not like the content and removed it with a rather frivolous summary. May I have your opinion on this content above.
DBig
Xrayᗙ
19:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
...Incidentally, he is said to have added the prefix 'Veer' to his name himself through a biography, he himself authored. Called Life of Barrister Savarkar, the book came out a couple of years after Savarkar was released from prison...., wich he sources to Kulkarni. Now, Kulkarni (largely) asked a rhetorical question but never provided any conclusive answer in his piece for The Wire.I note that a copy of the alleged autobiography (1987; available over a site run by his extended family) don't use the part. word Veer anywhere. R.A. Jahagirdar, an ex-judge of Bombay High Court has mentioned (pg. 142) of a total lack of clarity in the published literature about this epithet and derived (from personal correspondence) that Mrs. Bhopatkar, a legal counsel of Savarkar ,and the editor of Bhala, a Marathi periodical had dubbed Savarkar as Veer.The equation of Chitragupta to Savarkar also looks extremely dubious, to my eyes given that he (quasi-magically) asserts it (Pg. 4-5) based on a single line of the biography:-
It was a sunny morn, the skies were clear, the beautiful roads so shady, so hospitable, so reviving, were dotted here and there by small ponds where the swans and other water birds gaily quacked and cackled, and the water lilies bloomed.How does the usage of the lines lead to the conclusion? What other sources than Salam, in the scholarly domain, accept this at face-value? ∯WBG converse 09:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Shri Swatantra Veer Barrister Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, whose life we mean to sketch, is the second son of the highly. ∯WBG converse 10:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
∯WBG converse 10:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)In 1939, a revised edition of LBS was published in New Delhi, three years after Savarkar was finally released as a political prisoner. Indra Prakash, an official of the Hindu Mahasabha, was responsible for expanding and updating LBS in order to recognize and promote Savarkar’s contributions to nationalism and anticolonialism, especially as Savarkar was serving as the president of the All-India Hindu Mahasabha (19371944). Yet the identity of Chitragupta was neither revealed nor discussed in the new edition of the book.
Veer Savarkar Prakashan, the official publisher of Savarkar’s writings based in Bombay, brought out a second edition of the original LBS in 1987, without the updates and revisions from the 1939 text. This edition revealed that Chitragupta was the penname used by Savarkar in writing his own biography. This little-known fact about the authorship of LBS has not been discussed in analyses of Savarkar’s political thought, nor has it been considered a text that contributes to Savarkar’s oeuvre. It is important to note that Savarkar did not officially claim that he was the author of LBS during his lifetime*he died in 1966 and it is unclear whether he had even authorized the posthumous disclosure of his identity as its author. However, the identity of Savarkar as the author of LBS is revealed by Ravindra Vaman Ramdas, the author of the new preface to the 1987 edition of the book. Ramdas asserts that ‘Chitragupta was none other than Veer Savarkar’, and posits that it will ‘remain a mystery’ why Savarkar never disclosed his identity in postcolonial India. Further, Ramdas asserts that the person responsible for the publication of the second edition was actually Savarkar’s brother, Narayan Damodar Savarkar. Despite not having additional clues or information, the main point to consider is that following the publication of the second edition of LBS, Savarkar was publicly acknowledged as the author of the text by the official publisher of his writings...
In addition, it is worth noting that Harindra Srivastava provides an alternative identity for the author of LBS by positing that Chitragupta was the penname used by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari in Five Stormy Years: Savarkar in London, New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1983, p 11. However, he does not provide any further support or evidence for this assertion.
∯WBG converse 10:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)John Pincince identifies Chitragupta as Chakravarti Rajagopalachari in 'On the Verge of Hindutva: VD Savarkar, revolutionary, convict, ideologue, c. 1905—1924', (unpublished Ph.D., University of Hawaii, 2007).
To the best of my memory, she was speaking somewhere where she rejected Chitragupta being Savarkar. ∯WBG converse 11:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)See Chitragupta (...) This is the earliest known biography of Savarkar, written by someone who knew him well during his London days.
∯WBG converse 11:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)The first biography of Savarkar was published in 1926. This text, Life of Barrister Savarkar was not intended as a comprehensive biography, but rather as an analysis of the period from Savarkar’s birth in 1883 until his arrest and incarceration in 1911. Written under the pen name Chitragupta, Life of Barrister Savarkar is the first of three hagiographies written to glorify the revolutionary. This work, in particular, is significant because its authorship has never been determined. Scholar Vinayak Chaturvedi has written on the issue most recently in 2013, claiming that the work is – in fact – an autobiography. However, there remains more research to be done to determine the veracity of this claim, and for the purpose of this thesis, I have considered Life of Barrister Savarkar simply as one among a number of biographies. I want to thank Professor Chaturvedi for his personal insight into this issue. Though I remain dubious about the possibility that Savarkar authored work himself, I have been convinced that the claim is not without merit and deserves further investigation.
∯WBG converse 14:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)...This episode, recollected by Chitra Gupta (pen-name of C.R. Rajagopalachari)...Chitra Gupta was a pseudonym for C.R. Rajagopalachari. British colonial authorities believed the “biography” was actually written by Savarkar. However, Rajagopalachari, friend to both Tilak and Gandhi, noted in the preface to the biography, that he collected information on Savarkar’s life from trial records, Rowlatt Report, Indian nationalists and friends o f Savarkar, and conversations with Savarkar himself. About Savarkar’s politics, Rajagopalachari wrote near the end of the preface: “I am one of those who admire his heroic spirit in spite of my politically differing from his views”
Hi, RegentsPark. While reverting my edit you have reasoned: "we don't need to include details of every biography in this article" could you please elaborate on that. The edit I made was with regards to when and who gave the title Veer to Savarkar. I had cited a cover page of a book as WP:RS. As there was a lengthy debate on this topic on Talk page, to add a WP:Honorifics Veer and the same was accepted with WP:CON though, it did not have any reliable Sources much before I edited the page. What I did was just added a reliable source to show that Savarkar was referred as Veer in a 1924 Book (As popularized as in 1926 by Chitra Gupta). If you are convinced about my intentions, I request you to Revert my edit, or if you feel the Section I've edited is inappropriate for this passage, may please add it to relevant Section. TIA.
which followed some discussion on this issue. The discussion was centered around a Biography "Life of Barrister Savarkar", which was published in 1926. With reference to this I provided another source clarifying that the prefix Veer was added 2 years before the said biography in 1924 and I've also cited a cover page of that 1924 book. I hope my edit did not flout any guidelines or deviate from the article. Santoshdts ( talk) 08:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)User:Winged Blades of Godric
— [[User:Note:- Salam notes ...Incidentally, he is said to have added the prefix 'Veer' to his name himself through a biography, he himself authored. Called Life of Barrister Savarkar, the book came out a couple of years after Savarkar was released from prison.... by User:Winged Blades of Godric]]
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
SwantantryaVeer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar is the full name of the patriot For Mahatma Gandhi you must instead mention Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Varad52 ( talk) 15:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This must be done Varad52 ( talk) 15:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
"Gandhi's assassin, Nathuram Godse". At that time, Gandhi was well and alive! How can you claim that Nathuram Godse was Gandhi's assassin? Do you have any source to corroborate the fact that Nathuram Godse had decided to murder Gandhi as of the year 1924? Kindly remove "Gandhi's assassin" phrase from this section unless you can provide proof that he was already committed to the assassination plot. 122.177.216.231 ( talk) 14:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Want to add more to the facts of the extradition case. Damned697 ( talk) 14:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Aditiy ( talk) 10:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
He was represented by Karl Marx's grandson Jean Longuet in The Hague for his international human rights and wrongful detention court battle in which his legal case was argued. Jean Longuet persisted and personally handed over the copies of the memorandum to the members of the court. [1]
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Revert
this change as |influences=
is not a supported {{
Infobox person}} parameter.
108.56.139.120 (
talk)
20:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Indian freedom fghter Radram ( talk) 13:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The section of text added by AryaGyaan contains a copyvio of this source – the paragraph starting "The cow was, for him" is directly copied from the source, which has a copyright notice at the bottom. Deepfriedokra, since you've full-protected the article I can't add the copyvio-revdel template, but could you revdel all revisions including the text added by AryaGyaan at 11:13, 23 April 2021 (including mine, sigh)? Thanks! Wham2001 ( talk) 19:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
For the sake of completness as an encyclopedia article, the article should also cite various controversies surrounding Savarkar. I see no mention of any controversies in the main article except his involvement in Gandhi's death. To mention few
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dated=
ignored (
help)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedar Borhade ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
These is the talk page to adress the issues of the user Dhattaa the first claim of Dhattaa is that i have copied mostly from savarkar.org but the truth is i have used diverse sources like quint,indian express,Savarkar Samagara etc the second claim of Dhataa is that my another source is my own book.Fistly,the books's name is Savarkar:_Echoes_from_a_Forgotten_Past which is written by Vikram Sampath not my me. Now.that i have adress the claims, I don't find resonable that my edits have been reverted.That why,I request Deepfriedokra agian add my text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AryaGyaan ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Today is Savarkar's birthday, Hindu nationalists are removing various parts of this page showing that Savarkar supported Nazism and Fascism. Please lock this article to prevent edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molkaka ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.197.230 ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel it looks incomplete — Preceding unsigned comment added by RushilShandilya ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi there,
The hyperlink of hindutva ideology that Savarkar's wiki page redirects to, speaks of a different/concocted exclusive ideology as is practiced today by perhaps some people. That page has minimal to no mention of hindutva as Savarkar ideologised it. It's ambiguous/misleading that we attribute his name as a founder on an ideology he didn't even form by hyperlinking to this new age hindutva page, just because someone decided to use the same name for their new movement. 'The Hindutva : who is a hindu' "book" wiki page is of Savarkar's own book with the "themes" section being the hindutva that he professed/founded. Please redirect the mentions of hindutva on Savarkar's page to the "themes" section of his book page to avoid the ambiguity. Alternatively, this savarkar biography article has its own sub section on Hindutva which is focused on Savarkar's hindutva - you can redirect it to that itself. Just not to the standalone hindutva article which is unrelated to Savarkar.
Thank you, TruthBeforePolity ( talk) 16:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, to add the recently released (only chronicled?) biographies of this person to the "further reading" section. The biography link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savarkar_(book) TruthBeforePolity ( talk) 16:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved ( non-admin closure) Bada Kaji ( talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 12:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar → Veer Savarkar – Veer Savarkar easily qualifies to be the title under the WP:COMMONNAME clause. A simple google search of "Savarkar" reveals that almost all of the contemporary discourses address him as "Veer Savarkar". Although Veer being a honorific title, allegedly self styled, it supersedes it for being used commonly, just like how MK Gandhi's article is Mahatma Gandhi. Appu ( talk) 19:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Appu ( talk) 19:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
independent, reliable English-language sources. Independent scholarly sources appear to refer to Savarkar as "Vinayak Damodar Savarkar" or "VD Savarkar". I also agree with Ivenvector's analysis above. Wham2001 ( talk) 19:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Hoping to evade arrest, Savarkar moved to Madame Cama's home in Paris." to "Hoping to evade arrest, Savarkar moved to Bhikaiji Cama's home in Paris." 1.39.30.28 ( talk) 02:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2405:201:D006:904B:6031:1085:CDE0:EE ( talk) 09:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. It does not appear there is consensus for this change.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
10:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Yosoko ( talk) 14:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Dear Wiki, You have wrongly mentioned Swatantryaveer (Freedom fighter) Veer Savarkar as "Indian Politician". Please correct the search heading description from incorrect as #politician to correct as #freedom fighter. We in India praise him as one of the great freedom fighter along with Lokmanya Tilak, Subhashchandra Bose, Shaheed Bhagat Singh and many such great sons of India. Do some research before lebelling our freedom fighters as politicians. He was in British jails for almost two decades in his life for India's freedom struggle along with nationalists. By mentioning him as a politician, Wiki is insulting our sentiments. Wiki can mentiin Jawaharlal Nehru as a politician on the basis of his contesting political positions, carrying out political agendas and even enjoying political seats in government in power. Hope you will correct this promptly. Jai Hind 🇮🇳
Thanks n regards, (Redacted) 103.225.134.119 ( talk) 04:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The article can be improved by adding Revolutionary in the introductory line. Savarkar seems to be involved in revolutionary activities since his early years and has been called revolutionary throughout history and biographies.
Vinayak Chaturvedi, Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California cites him as a 'revolutionary' in his A revolutionary's biography: the case of V D Savarkar Postcolonial Study Journal.
Janaki Bakhle, Associate professor of Indian history at the University of California, mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: Echoes of Forgotten Past (Book) in India Today.
Swati Parashar, professor at the Gothenburg University calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: A contested Legacy (Book) in The Hindu.
Madhav Khosla, professor of Political Science at Ashoka University, calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in his online article in Hindustan Times.
TCA Srinivasa Raghavan, current Director-General of the Indian Council of World Affairs mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his article on Calcutta Telegraph.
Author and Historian, Manu S. Pillai cites Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his review article of the book Savarkar: A contested Legacy in Open The Magazine.
Biographer Dhananjay Kheer and historian Vikram Sampath have cited him as a revolutionary in their respective biographies about Savarkar. (Life of Veer Savarkar and Savarkar part 1 and 2).
Wikipedia defines Revolutionary as 'In politics, a revolutionary is someone who supports abrupt, rapid, and drastic change, usually replacing the status quo.' Savarkar received Two transportation for life (a total of fifty years) at the Kala Paani, a colonial prison settlement established by the British. Savarkar was convicted for waging war against the King for providing arms in Jackson’s murder case.
Sources: Vinayak Chaturvedi Janaki Bakhle Swati Parashar Madhav Khosla TCA Srinivasa Raghavan Manu S Pillai Dhananjay Kheer Vikram Sampath Waging of war against the King Yosoko ( talk) 07:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Sampath equips readers with all the necessary insights and details to revisit and re-evaluate existing opinions about Savarkar — the atheist/ Hindutva ideologue, the freedom fighter/ revolutionary, the prisoner/ survivor, the amateur historian/ poet, the modernist/ nationalist reformer, the hardline political activist/ theorist.
During his years in London, Savarkar had continued the revolutionary propa-ganda and activities against British rule in India." He drew his violent national-ism in part from Giuseppe Mazzini [1805-1872], the revolutionary icon of national liberation, who had developed the tactics of secret societies and guer-rilla warfare in Italy.. Savarkar's revolutionary propaganda eventually led to the assassination of Lt. Col. Sr William Cuaon-Wyllie, aide-de-camp at the India Office, London, by his follower Madanlal Dhingra in 1909." A.M.T. Jackson, district magistrate of Nasik, was later assassinated by Anant Laxman Kanhare, 17, an arts student, in Aurangabad in December 1909." The murder of Jackson revealed a much larger 'revolutionary conspiracy' linked to the Abhinav Bharat, which had 'advocated, prepared for, and conspired to bring about an armed rebellion or revolution and ... to overthrow the Govemment by criminal force or show of criminal force' in India.• The masterminds of the conspiracy were iden-tified as the Savarkar brothers." In his confession to the trial court, Chutterbhuj Jhaverbhai Amin, of India House, London, admitted that Savarkar had instructed him to pack a parcel containing 20 Browning automatic pistols, plus ammunition during his travel to India from London in 1908; one of these pistols had been used in Jackson's murder.• Savarkar was charged in the Jackson murder trial......
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Vinayak Chaturvedi, Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California calls him a 'revolutionary' in his A revolutionary's biography: the case of V D Savarkar Postcolonial Study Journal.
Janaki Bakhle, Associate professor of Indian history at the University of California, mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: Echoes of Forgotten Past (Book) in India Today.
Swati Parashar, a professor at the Gothenburg University calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: A contested Legacy (Book) in The Hindu.
Madhav Khosla, professor of Political Science at Ashoka University, calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in his online article in Hindustan Times.
TCA Srinivasa Raghavan, current Director-General of the Indian Council of World Affairs mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his online article on Calcutta Telegraph.
Author and Historian, Manu S Pillai cites Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his review article of the book Savarkar: A contested Legacy in Open The Magazine.
Hope this would suffice. Thanks.
Vinayak Chaturvedi Janaki Bakhle Swati Parashar Madhav Khosla TCA Srinivasa Raghavan Manu S Pillai
Yosoko ( talk) 13:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
References
The need of it: Savarkar seems to be involved in revolutionary activities since his early years and has been called revolutionary throughout history and biographies.
Vinayak Chaturvedi, Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California cite him as a 'revolutionary' in his A revolutionary's biography: the case of V D Savarkar Postcolonial Study Journal.
Janaki Bakhle, Associate professor of Indian history at the University of California, mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: Echoes of Forgotten Past (Book) in India Today.
Swati Parashar, a professor at the Gothenburg University calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: A contested Legacy (Book) in The Hindu.
Madhav Khosla, professor of Political Science at Ashoka University, calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in his online article in Hindustan Times.
TCA Srinivasa Raghavan, current Director-General of the Indian Council of World Affairs mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his online article on Calcutta Telegraph.
Author and Historian, Manu S. Pillai cites Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his review article of the book Savarkar: A contested Legacy in Open The Magazine.
Biographer Dhananjay Kheer and historian Vikram Sampath have cited him as a revolutionary in their respective biographies about Savarkar. (Life of Veer Savarkar and Savarkar: Echoes from the forgotten past).
Wikipedia defines Revolutionary as 'In politics, a revolutionary is someone who supports abrupt, rapid, and drastic change, usually replacing the status quo.' Savarkar received Two transportation for life (a total of fifty years) at the Kala Paani, Port Blair which was the first and only colonial prison settlement established by the British. Savarkar was convicted for waging war against the King for providing arms in Jackson’s murder case.
References: Vinayak Chaturvedi Janaki Bakhle Swati Parashar Madhav Khosla TCA Srinivasa Raghavan Manu S Pillai Dhananjay Kheer Vikram Sampath Waging war against the King Yosoko ( talk) 15:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Please consult this discussion. Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 13:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Keer is an unreliable hagiographer.
Cupidvogel, you have used two articles by Vikram Sampath, who is not only an uncritical biographer but also (apparently) a plagiarist. Another two citations are to Keer, who is widely accepted to be a hagiopgrapher. Three citations are to op-eds by "Rajiv Tuli" (member of the state executive of Delhi RSS) and "Vinay Nalwa", whose credentials are unknown. One citation is to Savarkar himself and one is to The Bridge Chronicle, which is not a RS.
That leaves us with two more sources (arguably, the most reliable of the lot but short of HISTRS), which you have misrepresented. Shamsul Islam writes that Savarkar had defended casteism as an integral component of Hindu nation but nonetheless fought against untouchability - this was not because of some grand egalitarian vision but preventing conversion of LC Hindus to Islam! Ashraf repeats such a narrative. And this is indeed the consensus in scholarship, as quotes from Megha Kumar and Aparna Devare attest to. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
"Savarkar held that those who regarded such inhuman faith as abhorred the touch of a human being and yet gladly touched animals like dogs and cats were themselves a blot on humanity."is language that's barely appropriate to an Op-Ed, let alone an encyclopedia) and your section title isn't neutral. More importantly, you are the one seeking to add content to this article; you need to establish consensus in its favor. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
nobody apart from [me] has saidKeer to be a hagiographer. Please consult Judith M. Brown's review of the work in Archives ( British Records Association) - Vol 9 - Issue 43 - p. 178-179 - April 1970. Or, Jyotirmaya Sharma. “History as Revenge and Retaliation: Rereading Savarkar’s ‘The War of Independence of 1857.’” Economic and Political Weekly 42, no. 19 (2007): 1717–19. I can go on. Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
the only known international historian of some repute to have called him so was Audrey Truschke
Chaturvedi [Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California, Irvine] expressed his disappointment at Sampath's lack of ethical standards; Bakhle [Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California, Berkeley] requested that Sampath offer a public apology for what was unequivocal plagiarism and retract the publication.
Three citations are to op-eds by "Rajiv Tuli" (member of the state executive of Delhi RSS) and "Vinay Nalwa", whose credentials are unknown. One citation is to Savarkar himself and one is to The Bridge Chronicle, which is not a RS.
in the contexts mentioned here, which is about Savarkar and caste. If they have written anything these topics, please bring them. TrangaBellam ( talk) 06:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Among the new sources is a popular biography by "Chirayu Pandit" and "Uday Mahurkar". Pandit's scholarly credentials remain unknown while Mahurkar's appears to be a quid pro quo relationship to the incumbent ruling party in India. Interestingly, the book is foreworded by the supremo of a Hindu Nationalist organization. I cannot find any reviews over mainstream media. Yet another popular biography by "Vaibhav K. Purandare" has been cited. I am uncertain about Purandare's qualifications but a review over The Caravan is uniformly negative.
Two blogs (open the link) by a "Rajesh Pathak" (credentials - ?) have been used. Consult WP:TOI in particular.
Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Prabodhan Pol [a historian at Manipal University] has drafted an article on Ambedkar-Savarkar relations. An interesting line runs: "For example, Savarkar’s ‘Patit-Pavan’ temple, which was built exclusively for untouchables in Ratnagiri received biting flak in the Janata."
It is obvious that Patit Pavan Temple etc. cannot be inserted until some scholar decides to interrogate the archives and write upon it in details.
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request that Indian Politician as description be changed to Indian Freedom Fighter 122.172.86.36 ( talk) 11:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
No reliable source cited for many statements like below:
“Savarkar was openly critical of the decision taken by the Congress working committee in its Wardha session of 1942 to a resolution which said to the British colonial government: "Quit India but keep your armies here", which was intended to defend India against a possible Japanese invasion; Savarkar was opposed to any form of Britain's presence in India whatsoever.” 2A02:810D:B5BF:FB5C:6491:5DF1:2E02:3F22 ( talk) 22:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Dear Luke Emily, I have read your remark hence I have provided this citation below.
https://archive.org/details/swatantraveersavarkarsadashivarajaramranade
I am from Veer Savarkar's native province of Maharashtra hence can state that Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade (not to be confused with another author Sadashiv Bhaskar Ranade) was a prominent writer in that era. Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade described Savarkar as Veer or Swatantraveer in 1924 hence the book written by Chitragupta in 1926 in any case cannot be regarded as the first to describe him as Veer as someone else had already done that 2 years ago.
https://archive.org/details/swatantraveersavarkarsadashivarajaramranade Nikhilc83 ( talk) 15:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Nikhilc83, the english source is not mentioning the writer. Also, the writer does not change the fact that he called himself brave while writing in the third person(even if someone else did that 2 years earlier). I am not an expert on the subject and we can ping other editors. If there are too many opinions, it may be better to move 'veer' to the body and give all opinions. Also, please can you translate the title of the source in English, please? LukeEmily ( talk) 16:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Dear Luke Emily, Let us understand first of all that Veer Savarkar is a venerated freedom fighter in India. It is not agreeable that a respected person is described in the first paragraph of his introduction itself that he called himself a hero in 1926 (when there is ample evidence that a contemporary writer of that era gave him the same title 2 years ago). Facts speak beyond the barriers of language. The book mentioned in the citation is in the Marathi language which describes itself as a biography of Veer Savarkar. This is a web citation but i have images stored with me of the original book of Swatantraveer Savarkar by Sadashiv Ranade of 1924 edition duly stamped by the publishing house as well as by the library which housed it. Thanks to you for considering my request and appreciate your kind cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilc83 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC) LukeEmily ( talk) 21:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove [9]. The source is WP:BIASED mouthpiece as National Herald is owned by Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi of INC, [10] [11]. 2409:4073:2E80:6E9F:89AC:944D:8395:6F49 ( talk) 09:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fact: Writer Sadashiv Ranade described Savarkar as Veer or Swatantraveer in his book in 1924 among available records.
Please Remove Below Line as it is incorrect: penned by Savarkar himself, in a biography that he wrote about himself under the name "Chitragupta".[3][4] Nikhilc83 ( talk) 10:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Fact: Writer Sadashiv Ranade described Savarkar as Veer or Swatantraveer in his book in 1924 among available records. Nikhilc83 ( talk) 10:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Dear Luke Emily, keeping both references is ok of Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade's book of 1924 and Chitragupta's source of 1926 however then Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade's reference ideally must come first as it was 2 years earlier than Chitragupta. Moreover Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade's book is in Marathi and does not have an English translation however it is widely known in provincial circles and is available on Amazon too. Nikhilc83 ( talk) 18:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
Aaron Liu (
talk)
22:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add before “In 1948…”
Savarkar assured the Sikhs that "when the Muslims woke from their day-dreams of Pakistan, they would see established instead a Sikhistan in the Punjab.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).}}
References
This page needs to be re-written based on historical facts again. Sarvarkar never proposed the two-nation theory, he was infact against it. Please correct this. 2607:FEA8:4AD9:CE00:A79:F6CE:FCC8:2E51 ( talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This whole paragraph "In his Ahmedabad addressal, he supported Two-nation theory. The Hindu Mahasabha under Savarkar's leadership endorsed the idea of India as a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation). Savarkar assured the Sikhs that "when the Muslims woke from their day-dreams of Pakistan, they would see established instead a Sikhistan in the Punjab." Savarkar not only talked of Hindudom, Hindu Nation and Hindu Raj, but he wanted to depend upon the Sikhs in the Punjab to establish a Sikhistan." Is extremely misrepresented.savarkar was the founder of hindutva and the concept of akhand bharat inspired by mazini and shivaji.its stupid to even suggest savarkar advocated for two seperate nations.savarkar saying "there are two antognastic nations living together" does not mean he advocated for a seperate nation for hindus and muslims.
The last sentence is extremwly shady."wanted a sikhistan".i.mean seriously?please decide if he advocared for akhand bharat or khandit bharat.the article contradicts itself multiple times and the single source used for this sentence is not reliable.the author is not reliable at all.more sources required.looks like thus article has vested interests hellbent on showcasing savarkar as the reason for partition which is extremely stupid.why not blame savarkar for khilafat movement too? Or for mopla. Must be him.
I request neutral admims and editors to take a look into this.@
Kautilya3 @
TrangaBellam @
Borgenland @
Ivanvector
117.222.200.239 (
talk)
16:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Sock of Observer1989
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think the "list of accused" should not be part of article about "Veer Savarkar". His part in the plan has been discussed in a separate section. And this list doesn't add any more information about Savarkar. Wces423 11:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
"To this day , he is widely regarded all over India as a coward for not helping India gain independence .He is also scorned upon for his alleged involvement in the murder of the great Mahatma Gandhi ."
I removed this line from the article. It is heavily POV and is redundant -- the gist of this line is already stated in the previous two paragraphs in the introduction. Thank you. Gujuguy 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The referencing of this article needs to be improved. All the direct references we have for this immense article are simply two bare-bones, non-primary websites. Specific page references to primary resources should be done, especially to what is already listed but just "sitting there" in the references section:
Tuncrypt 04:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
Why does this "He is considered to be the central icon of modern Hindu nationalist political parties." twice in the first paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.23.72 ( talk) 11:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
brothers, savarkar's role in the assasination of oyr father of nation , should /cannot be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.156 ( talk) 13:38, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
swatantryaveer savarkaranvar bolayache mhanaje fakt ekch...swatantryaveer savarkar mazya romrat bhinale aahet. aaj aani aatahi maazya aangawarun sarsarun kaate yet aahet. aaj te aamhala yasathi have aahet ki tyani zunjun- raktache paani karun ubha kelela ha hindustan kanhi bhrasht aani nalayak lokancya hatche bahule banala aahe. aaj garaj aahe tyanchi karan aajhi aamhala ekhada navaa sangraam chhedava laagnar aahe. mazyasarkhe khoop aahet je ya deshasathi jivachi kurwandi karatil. aamhala fakt marg hava aahe.. aani have aahet ek..swatantryaveer savarkar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.252.220 ( talk) 13:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Raja.m82 ( talk) 13:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This refers to the deletion at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar&diff=next&oldid=353874772
Editor kindly explain why you have deleted reference to Savarkar's welcoming the Jewish state in the Palestine. It is a very important policy statement. Savarkar and Gandhi both vehmently opposed the partition of India, and so as a matter or logic (and Savarkar claims to appease Muslims) opposed the partition of Palestine and the formation of the Jewish state.
Savarkar on the other hand welcomed the formation of the Jewish state.
You have also commented that there is lack of evidence for the above. However wp:rs have been provided?
I would like to bring the line back kindly justify the deletion Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 09:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | "First, he was sensitive about the ideas of Muslim Indians who were anti-Zionists because of their sympathy for Middle Eastern Arabs opposed to the Jewish National Home; second, he objected to any Zionist methods inconsistent with his way of non-violence; third, he found Zionism contrary to his pluralistic nationalism, which excludes the establishment of any State based solely or mainly on one religion; and fourth, he apparently believed it imprudent to complicate his relations with the British, who held the mandate in Palestine. [" http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0815-GandhiZionism.html] | ” |
Actually my quoting a primary source is a bad wikipedia practice. I should have quoted a reliable secondary source that should have written that
“ | Savarkar supported the formation of Israel unlike Gandhi who opposed it. It was in line with his philosophy | ” |
Not truth but verifiablity is the criteria for inclusion, I withdraw my request for inclusion, I will search for a reliable secondary source - such I have quoted Ambedkar on Savarkar's views on the partition of India, and then add it in the lead.
If you wish you may remove it from the article too. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 05:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Is Freedom at midnight, a paper published in a history journal or the like, subjected to peer review? (Though even peer review is a racket as Malhotra writes.) "Most" is what is called a weasel word. The book is written by imperialistic apologists. The Congress before its participation into electoral politics was a movement and not a political party in today's sense, with watertight ideological boundaries. Savarkar was invited to be a member of the Congress after release in 1937. (Keer). Congress was very much a part of the British establishment, like a loyal opposition. (Hyndman) Even after partition, the Congress was aware of nationalist (Hindu) sensibilities, one example is the adoption of Devanagari and a Hindi reasonably free of Arabic and Persian adulteration. The purification of language was an important movement run by Savarkar which began in Andaman (See Mazi Janmathep) as a means of establishing nationalistic (Hindu)identity. The context for the above explanation is your phrase "anti-Hindutva or pro-Congress" imagining that they are Siamese twins. Freedom at midnight, is a muck raising book that indulges in sensationalism, written by a pair of white - Christian imperialistic lackies, without an understanding and acknowledgement of the subaltern existence of a population, under the crushing domination of a racist power, and not just with reference to Savarkar. Personally it is irrelevant whether Savarkar was a homosexual or whether Nathuram was (one of his) partner(s). Savarkar has mentioned the practice, has written about it as one more way in which Muslims exploited Hindus in the Cellular jail, narrated how a boy was rescued from a Muslim and rescued from Islam, with the exploiting Muslim taught a lesson.(Mazi Janmathep) I do not remember reading that the practice, in itself, was condemned by him. (Please correct me if I am wrong). He has written the desperate conditions, such as when ill with diarrhoea he wished that he passed motions in front of the doctor, which was the only way to convince the doctor of the existence of the illness. (Mazi Janmathep). Even the most basic body needs sleep, food, defaecation, rest were used as tools to break the conviction and the will of the political convicts. Copulation is a similar basic need, not very high up from the above mentioned, and in the absence of alternatives, it is natural for homosexuality to find expression. Messer Lapierre and Collins have written Freedom ... in the late 20th century, and it would not be too much to expect a little sympathy and understanding for this aspect of a convict's sexuality, but all that they could do was to write about Savarkar's homosexuality, in order to use it to shock and generate revulsion and prejudice from those who succumb to their bait. Savarkar was a utilitarian, just as he was a pragmatist and a humanist,(Wolfe), even if his homosexuality or bi-sexuality was true, (as he was married and had children, and was officially monogamous, did not divorce, with only death separating him from his wife), why should that be considered a negative trait, especially in the twenty first century? On whether his sexuality should be mentioned or not, my opinion :
Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 10:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I have stuck to facts quoted from wp:rs, I have not provided links etc., as this is a talk page and not the article, anyone is free to check. Google search will provide you with the material referenced. Except of-course Freedom and City of Joy, for which you need to go to a library. GayChristian101.com says that
“ | Yes, many men in prison choose to engage in homosexual activity while incarcerated, as an outlet for sexual energy. I've seen percentages quoted of from 20% to 40% but I'm not sure how accurate those percentages are. | ” |
which pretty very much corroborates what I have written about the relation between incarceration and homosexuality. I am sorry that what I have written comes across as hateful, as I spend a lot of time in being precise. I request CarTick (Karthik?) to elaborate on which part of my comment was so exceedingly hateful that it necessitated the appellation. I request him to read Freedom ... and City of Joy. The shooting of the eponymous film also generated protests, a stay order and a firebomb attack on the crew, and charges of social pornography. Buddhadev Das-Gupta comments on the book and the film
“ | I have myself read the book and found that it is sickening and full of sky-high errors. I have even gone through the final, 13th version of the oft-amended film script, sent it to exclusive persons and obtained their opinion," Bhattacharya said. "The book has been written from the racist viewpoint of the whites. That viewpoint has been preserved intact in the film script. It has been shown that the people of this city are unconcerned about the misery of their fellow citizens. Only the whites are the saviors. | ” |
(LA times)
I request CarTick to substantiate his allegation or withdraw it. All in the interest of The Wikipedian god of Verifiablity.
Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 14:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | Freedom at midnight, is a muck raising book that indulges in sensationalism, written by a pair of white - Christian imperialistic lackies, without an understanding and acknowledgement of the subaltern existence of a population, under the crushing domination of a racist power, and not just with reference to Savarkar. | ” |
this is the comment you made. u didnt quote anybody as far as i can see. -- Car Tick 15:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Others and publishers of Freedom At midnight have apologized for terming savarkar as homosexual and have removed this reference from further editions. Should Savarkar's sexuality be addressed in this article? Some sources claim that he was a closeted homosexual and had one sexual encounter with Nathuram Godse as stated in "Assassin: theory and practice of political violence" By J. Bowyer Bell, Irving Louis Horowitz, pp 219-220 [3]. Does anyone have other sources that corroborate this? Authentickle ( talk) 21:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Freedom at midnight is one of the best source on History of Indian Independence. Most Indian Historians and Scholars recommend it. I did not find any anti-hindutva or pro-congress bias in it. Infact its impartiality can be gauged from the fact that it was banned in Pakistan for a long time.-- Indian Chronicles ( talk) 05:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems plausible that this habit could have been picked up from Andamans. It is well known that such practices are rampant in these types of prisons. For example one journal confirms that these type of practices were common in Andamans during certain period:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) --
Indian Chronicles (
talk)
04:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)White missionary, lives in a slum, and works to change lives. Hindu labourer sells his bones for his daughter's dowry. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 11:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see all this misinformation stacked up on an article on wikipedia that should have the information and actual facts about this freedom fighter. 'What he's said' 'what the other guy has said may not necessarily be *facts*. Thats their opinions and things they claim true.
Take the issue of VD Savarkar not taking part in the hunger strike for example. It is known that he was in a serious health condition - thanks to the torture and so was advised not to take part in the hunger strike, though he started it. Savarkar himself admits the fact that he didn't take part in the hunger strike and also quotes the reasons in his Autobiography. But here, you've stated that he didn't take part in it, and the reason : why he didn't? - never care to mention, eh?
This is a totally one sided article, with texts copied from the copyrighted material of rediff articles that state the opinions of few individuals. Please correct the article.
P.S: If these things need to be mentioned, please mention it under the 'controversy' section, adding Mr. Chakravarthy's opinions and things he claims are true. But then please make sure you add what individuals keep saying about prominent personalities from time to time to make it to the headlines, on all wikipedia articles related to reknown people.
Punya6666 ( talk) 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC) This article has been adulterated by communist writers and they keep on adding malicious content just to publicize their books. The statements written here are completely biased against the Great Patriot Savarkar. Wikipedia I humbly beg you, please donot allow such defamation of the a great person. Or else no one will trust to see your site. Just click on the Citations given by some authors and you will understand there are propagandist articles/ book from Noorani for example just to have it sold to international public. They don ot point out the efforts he took to free India from british rule, social reforms he brought in the society, or immense nationalist books and poetry he wrote. Is that not enough proof? If not just read about him from the british and French, and they will tell you he was an Indian Patriot. Some people( I would not count them as Indians) unfortunately due to political reasons are targeting such a Great person who has spent his life for humanity and just cause. Tomorrow I can write up a book criticizing/maliagning some great person, and cite references from that book, and some others will follow the same, will it mean Wikipedia will be a face of falsity, but it will show up in google results. We admire Wikipedia for the great effort they have taken to bring up a people's encyclopedia, but due to some malicious people, with political motives( and who have all the time), they can edit and post, anything they want, and facts are so easily twisted. If you read most the comments here on the Talk section, they advise to remove some citations/falsity from the article. Content which we edit is altered and removed by malicious authors very easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punya6666 ( talk • contribs) 05:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Doug. please explain your last edit. This article has many unsourced comments someone should go line by line and add references or delete those statements which do not have any. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 17:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This person has been the the "delete" person, adding links of only his choice. if we try to state facts, he goes on twisting them, and deleting links to books and our comments. Please WIKIPEDIA ban "Indian Chronicles" Indian Chronicles, why do you keep removing and deleting the links to books and refences added by me. I will take up the cause with Wikipedia. Punya6666 ( talk) 23:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Why did u remove the link to Veer Savarkar's Book? Why are you maligning such a great Freedom fighter? Are u really Indian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punya6666 ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Recent edits to this page provide a non-neutral point of view. A lot of earlier useful material has been discarded and the article entirely re-written. This Article has been hijacked by Marxist writers of Indian history. WikiPedia Please remove their references from the article which are complete distortion of facts and are just added to sell their books. How can the same references of Punyani and noorani be added again and again, without are completely baseless. Honest writer of history, please rewrite this article. Can we guys vote on this? If wikipedia is not going to take action against distortion of facts and history. (The above text was pasted on the top of this page, I am relocating it here it is not mine but another editors, if what I have done is illegal please undo this edit. I have done so as that broke the thread. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 20:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
(outdent)Your last edit saw the following deletions, I have no issue with deletions on (1)Line 163 and Line 226 as they are inline references which is something I have not seen in articles, (2)also the citation wanted tag on line 294 is unwarranted as a citation is provided, (3)the statement on line 342 The above theories have been created by some people who hate savarkar and his one nation ideology. as it does not have a citation, however please explain your deletion of apparently well cited statements Savarkar's contribution to Indian Freedom Struggle has been immense, starting from his student days in London, where he organized the Indians in England, and France from the famous India House, where he wrote the famous book First Indian War of Independence, inspiring Indians to remember martyrs of 1857, and motivating them to carry on second war of independence. English government at that time, arrested him on political charges of waging a war against the English king, for which he was sentenced to 50 years of imprisonment, in 1907 which was unheard of in Indian political circles. No Congress politician was sentenced to such a long and rigorous imprisonment. His entire life was devoted to bring India freedom, from his works and actions. [2] on line 352 and removing the citation on line 38, Keer is a reliable source as far as I know, what is your issue Indian Chronicles? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 06:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Like I said that if you feel certain parts of above discussed edit are reliable then please add it. I have other reliable sources to show that Savarkar only devoted his initial years to freedom fighting that can counter the above edit easily. Furthermore relevancy is also important. Anyway I have reported Punya for edit warring and refusing to discuss.-- Indian Chronicles ( talk) 10:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
References
Reply No point of view mentioned by me were POV, but were in fact supported by the books by Keer and Harindra Srivastava. If you were in Maharashtra state, you would have known Maharashtra Govt, made Veer Savarkar movie Tax free, what is POV about it? Can you name any congress politician whose was sentenced to two life imprisonments (25 years each) for a political cause of waging a war against british King? Refer Keer, Srivastava, Or book by Chakravarti Rajagopalachar(his pen name- Chitragupta) "Life of Barrister Savarkar". When a person is acquitted(freed) by court of Law and is freed from all the charges, we have no right to defame him as a criminal on the basis of hearsay, as Kapur commission one man commission and their political supporters tried to defame. When the person is no longer alive to defend himself. What would you call if a person is freed from all charges, and still people defame and accuse him as criminal with no trial? Indian chronicles, and some other others on like abdul like tried to the same strategy. Veer Savarkar's poineering work is not my POV, but a fact which remains because of works and actions performed by him during his lifetime. Please refer to following books. 1. Life of barrister Savarkar 2. Veer Savarkar by Dhananjay Keer (padmabhushan author, title given by Govt of India.) 3. Five Stormy years, Savarkar in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.48.229 ( talk) 13:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
(1)Please understand Punya that your breaking of threads is very disruptive, action may be taken against you for that. See this page has a sub-topic list, 1 - 25 now, 1 should be the oldest and 25 the latest, please place your edits at the bottom of the page and not the top of the page as you have been doing. Also sign on the page by pressing the signature and time stamp or typing four tildes (~). (2)About content (A)Tax free, please find a reliable source that informs that the movie was tax free and provide citation, understand that verifiability and not truth is criteria for inclusion please see wp:V. (B)Please provide citation for your statement that no congress politician was awarded two life sentences, the onus lies on you to provide citations, you should not ask others to find them for you, please provide page numbers if you are quoting a book, it will give it authenticity, also be careful about WP:SYNTHESIS. (C)Kapur Commission: There is a reliable source quoted that supports the statements. What you have written is your view, it has no place here. (D)Your allegations against Indian Chronicles and Abdul may cause you to be blocked/ banned from Wikipedia, please do not pass adverse comments against editors.(E)The list is from Godbole's Five Stormy Years in London, it may not be considered a reliable source, you may go ahead with it if you wish, please see other Featured Articles - Biographies, this biography should be like that in style. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
(1)You have called Punya's edits nonsense and untruths, (2)Have written that the International court at Hague, existed only since 1945, (3)Have cast apprehensions whether the said text is Keer's, (1)I wouldn't use abusive words like nonsense even if another editor was wrong. (2)Please see this source, it has the entire case, and is dated crica 1911, it refers to an International court in Hague. [5] (3)You have to prove that Punya is mis-representing sources such as Keer. (4)In view of the above I am reverting your edit. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 21:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
An image needs removing from this article but I don't know how to do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.76.235 ( talk) 18:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
If this isn't an an example of a outright POV in an encyclopedic article, I dont know what is. You cannot say that this quote cites a "source", since you shall always find arbitrary sources that make such claims.
Editors, please make necessary changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.187.164 ( talk) 14:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I am a Bangladeshi and a great admirer of India because of the country's unconditional support to our Independence movement in 1971. I respect Mahatmaji, Nehruji and Indiraji to a marked extent.But I am unable to show my respect to Mr.Savarkar as I see him as a proponent of Hindu Communalism which entails innately anti-muslim cognition.Correct me if I am wrong, but I tell you my great Indian friends, I am compelled to blame the propagators of Hinduvta politics equally responsible for partition of India as the Muslim League. If you study London based Bengali scholar Jaya Chatterjee's books,you will also definitely agree with me.Thank you and pardon me if I hurted anyone's apolitical religious sentiments. Al-minar ( talk) 07:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any Hindu Communal-ism in India. I am Indian.
Indians respect all religions except "terrorism".
One more thing - Praising Hindu religion doesn't means opposing Muslim religion. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
125.18.10.68 (
talk)
10:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
What all due respect to the hard work of its creators, it is important for this article be balanced on a number of issues. As of now it is biased. Although Hindutva politics are inclusive, they are so in a totalizing way that actually turn them exclusivist to both Christian and Muslim minorities if they don't conform. Savarkar himself proclaimed in his 'Hindutva' that to be Indian is to be Hindu, yet his conception of 'Who is a Hindu' was based on whether a religion had India as its 'Holy Land' as well as its 'Fatherland'. Consequently, all native religions to India (i.e. Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists) are seen as 'Hindu.' Yet Christians and Muslims do not qualify, they have their Holy Land in the Middle East. According to Sarvakar, Christians and Muslims must thus either reconvert or accept Hinduism as central to 'Indian civilization' (Jews qualify as being assimilated in this manner). To this criterium, we understand why Hindu Nationalists did welcome Partition in a sense, because Muslims would be able to have their own land, but also condemned it because it ruptured the territorial integrity of 'the Holy Land': it presented them with a dilemma. This explains why Savarkar praised the creation of the state Israel: he obviously attached much importance to religion's link with territory. His support for Israel was not 'anti-muslim', but based on his conceptions I just explained. Whether Hinduism as such is actually exclusivist is another matter, so don't feel personally attacked, but Hindutva is a specific politicized version of Hinduism. Some have called it a 'synthetic creation of an organic unity.' Personally I believe that India's greatness lies in its diversity and tolerance. I got my information from Savarkar's 'Hindutva', Bidyut Chakrabarty's interesting collection of essays called 'Communal Identity in India,' Sunil Khilnani's 'The Idea of India' and work by the scholar Ashutosh Varshney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.225.191 ( talk) 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
http://www.savarkar.org/en/armed-struggle/q Was the degree taken back because of freedom activities? 111.91.95.22 ( talk) 09:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I've removed two recent additions here because of the following problems.
I'm not going to edit the article itself, because I don't want to get involved in some long discussion, but I will point out two errors of fact in the article as it presently stands: (1) Savarkar was never a barrister, because although he doubtless passed the necessary exams he was never called to the Bar; and (2) Gray's Inn is not a law college, it is an Inn of Court, which is entirely different. Jsmith1000 ( talk) 01:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
He is a self-proclaimed atheist. any objections to change the infobox? Docku: What up? 05:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Good Day, Just so there is no confusion, Atheism in Hinduism is allowed, and there are a lot of Hindu Atheist, including Savarkar. The whole Sankha Philosophy, a major Hindu school of thought is about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viperov ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the statement made by the contributor above that atheism is allowed in hinduism. I think it is inappropriate to classify veer savarkar as a atheist under his religion as he has done many things for hinduism and there are indications that he was a hindu such as Atma Samarpan which is a hindu concept of self ending life. Veer Savarkar has also been credited in the opening of "Patitpavan Mandir", a temple open to all Hindus including ex-untouchables (22 February 1931). All this information is from the savarkar website
[1] several individuals and organizations.created by several individuals and organizations. These individuals and organizations can be seen here
[2]. Therefore I request that savarkar not be classified as atheist as this is misleading
Kushagr.sharma1 (
talk)
12:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Gandhi didn't support British violence against Germany. I remember reading a letter in which he asked Churchill to stop the resistance against Hitler because seeing the destruction would change Hitler and make him peaceful.
The sentence "Savarkar's Hindutva sought to create an inclusive collective identity" seems an NPOV violation to me; whatever the source might say, it is a contested portrayel. Scholars have also referred to him as divisive and anti-muslim. Even a cursory search yield this. [1] The description of his ideology needs to include this. Of course, I am not suggesting reversing the POV entirely, the current fragment is also sourced. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 18:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
References
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Vice regent, I am copying below your new addition to the article:
Academics argue that Savarkar promoted a more anti-Muslim form of Hindu nationalism. [1] In 1938, he wrote, "if we Hindus in India grow stronger in time, these Moslem friends of the league type will have to play the part of German Jews." He further India "must be a Hindu land, reserved for Hindus". [2]
Savarkar saw Muslims in the Indian police and military to be "potential traitors". He advocated that India reduce the number of Muslims in the military, police and public service and ban Muslims from owning or working in munitions factories. [3]
References
- ^ Sources of Indian Traditions: Modern India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Cambridge University Press. p. 483.
{{ cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) ( help)- ^ R. Griffin. Terrorist's Creed: Fanatical Violence and the Human Need for Meaning. p. 120-121.
- ^ Divine Enterprise: Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement. University of Chicago Press. p. 89.
{{ cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|Author=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)
Several issues here:
Academics argue. Who exactly? What have they argued? You haven't even told us who the author is!
potential traitors" in scare quotes. But you haven't provided the whole context. The paragraph says:
After independence Savarkar contended that Muslims in India, Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Pakistan were a threat to the Indian state. He claimed that "Muslims have tacitly declared war on Hindustan" and were likely to sabotage the state from within as well as attack from outside (553).No doubt the Muslims of Pakistan are still a threat to the Indian state. The jihadism only increased with time. The Muslims of Kashmir are still fighting the Indian state. In Hyderabad, Akbaruddin Owaisi is prone to declare war against all Hindus. So, Savarkar would seem to be at least half right. Given that he is half-right, you can't label this "anti-Muslim". For it to be "anti-Muslim", you would have to show that he was blatantly wrong.
So let us get back to the first point. What evidence of "anti-Muslimness" does this unnamed author provide? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 02:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I think Veer Savarkar is more common name, any inputs? Accesscrawl ( talk) 16:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Added Savarkar's views on Dr. Ambedkar IndianHistoryEnthusiast ( talk) 12:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the honorific "Veer" can not be mentioned in article ? Is that a POV pushing when there are so many instances where Veer or swatantraveer is used before Savarkar on roads, monuments etc. named after him. Thanks. Jonathansammy ( talk) 17:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Any t/p watcher who knows about the origins of the honorific - Veer ? ∯WBG converse 19:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually I wanted to start this page to give the readers a knowledge about one of the leaders of India who contributed in the freedom struggle.But I suppose the whole concept of article has been changed and it looks as if the article is anti-sawarkar. I think we shouldn't write what others say about a person but what his life and contributions were. -- Tanul 06:25, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Is it possible to write the whole article on Savarkar again? This one is utterly biased and only spreads misinformation. I am ready to contribute on this.
ok, I've replaced all the "he said this, he said that" with some solid facts. Feel free to copyedit and correct any mistakes in the writeup. The previous article had some cut and pasted material from Outlook, rediff and other sites.
The current article seems to be extremely POV. "greates revolutionary of India's freedom struggle", "devoted entire life to the independeance movement " etc are what I mean. -- Sundar ( talk · contribs) 05:43, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
There should be no two opinions about these since he certainly devoted his entire life for India. There could be two opinions about the means he used but there is no doubt about the cause he championed before the independence period. Not mentioning these fact would be a POV. Incase you want to delete these words, please mention a period of his life that he devoted to some other cause before India was free. He indeed was a great reolutionary only matched by Bose. But then Bose was a politician turned revolutionary only in the later period of his life. King1 ( talk · contribs) may 6
The whole Gandhi Murder Section is biased against Veer Savarkar all changes made by anonymous user from 69.148.70.104 should be checked for neutrality.
The sections under contentions are Support for Nazi Germany, Murder of Gandhi, On Minorities.
This user 69.148.70.104 has changed the following from Literary Works section
from
He put forward the atrocities of British and Muslims on Hindu Resident in State of Kerala, summarized in the book, "Mopalyanche Band" (Muslims' Strike) also "Gandhi Gondhal", a political commentary on the contemporary politics by Gandhi.
to
He wrote an inflammatory books alleging atrocities of British and Muslims on Hindus in Kerala, summarized in the book, "Mopalyanche Band" (Muslims' Strike) also "Gandhi Gondhal" (Gandhi's nonsense), a political commentary on the contemporary politics by Gandhi.
All his/her changes should be carefully examined and corrected.
- Wces423 06:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For the sake of neutrality, one should quote and reference from the Frontline article and a couple of news items in "The Hindu" publishing purported letters written by Savarkar to Godse. -- Sundar 09:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
The article attributes a quote to Savarkar ostensibly made during his stay in London : "We must stop complaining about this British officer or that officer, this law or that law. There would be no end to that. Our movement must not be limited to being against any particular law, but it must be for acquiring the authority to make laws itself. In other words, we want absolute independence.[5]" The source quoted is said to be some article by V. Sundaram. The article by V. Sundaram actually does not attribute this to him. There is no such quote by Savarkar in any of his writings. The definitive autobiography by Dhananjay Keer does not mention such a statement. This is clearly a false statement. Savarkar never made any such statement. Sanjayx ( talk) 00:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
The entire article is a compendium of un-sourced\ill-sourced garbage with absolutely zero concerns for due weight and all that. Why not nuke i.e stub-ify this mess and gradually rewrite, using the best available scholarship? ∯WBG converse 14:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric has removed a sourced portion of this article, ie. Opposition to Partition, for being "simplistic". This needs to be undone. Soham "Samrat" Banerjee ( talk) 18:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
∯WBG converse 15:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)The opposition of fanatical Hinduism to partition did not and could not make any sense, for one of the forces that partitioned the country was precisely this Hindu fanaticism. It was like the murderer recoiling from his crime after it had been done. Let there be no doubt about it. Those who have shouted loudest about Akhand Bharat, the present Jana Sangh and its predecessors of the curiously un-Hindu spirit of Hinduism, have helped Britain and the Muslim League partition the country. They did nothing whatsoever to bring the Muslim close to the Hindu within a single nation. They did almost everything to estrange them from each other. Such estrangement is the root cause of partition. To espouse the philosophy of estrangement and, at the same time, the concept of Akhand Bharat is an act of grievous self-deception, only if we assume that those who do so are honest men.
Thank you for your clarifications. I hope I am right to believe that there will be the required evaluation of secondary sources regarding this topic to fill up a crucial Gap in this article. Soham "Samrat" Banerjee ( talk) 17:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Some information which is recently added to this article is jeopardizing, and is an allegation which is not proven. Fenix.fyrehart ( talk) 20:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria was this intentional ? I could not understand the edit summary or the reasons for removal. Please elaborate. regards. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 12:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Put Swatantryaveer before his name..he was that time famous leader of hindus and one of the early group of revolutionaries. Adityadk28 ( talk) 17:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Two years after the release of Savarkar from the prison, a biography of Savarkar titled "Life of Barrister Savarkar" and authored by Chitragupt was published. The second edition of the book in 1987, was published by Veer Savarkar publication, the official publishers of writings by Savarkar. In the preface of the second edition Ravindra Randas, mentioned that "Chitragupta is none other than Veer Savarkar". [1] [2] This disclosure brought his autobiography under scrutiny. [3]
The book enthusiastically praised Savarkar for his courage. [2] Through the book, Savarkar using a pen name assured the reader of the heroism of Savarkar and stated: [4]
“ | "Savarkar is born hero, he could almost despise those who shirked duty for fear of consequences. If once he rightly or wrongly believed that a certain system of Government was iniquitous, he felt no scruples in devising means to eradicate the evil." [4] | ” |
The book also mentioned that Savarkar:
“ | seemed to posses no few distinctive marks of character, such as an amazing presence of mind, indomitable courage, unconquerable confidence in his capability to achieve great things”. “Who,” he asked about himself, “could help admiring his courage and presence of mind?" [4] | ” |
References
Pinging page contributors,
User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric,
User:Akhiljaxxn,
User:RegentsPark,
User:Vanamonde93 and
User:Kautilya3.
@All, I found it strange that this important fact was missing here, I have added it. It seems that Razer did not like the content and removed it with a rather frivolous summary. May I have your opinion on this content above.
DBig
Xrayᗙ
19:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
...Incidentally, he is said to have added the prefix 'Veer' to his name himself through a biography, he himself authored. Called Life of Barrister Savarkar, the book came out a couple of years after Savarkar was released from prison...., wich he sources to Kulkarni. Now, Kulkarni (largely) asked a rhetorical question but never provided any conclusive answer in his piece for The Wire.I note that a copy of the alleged autobiography (1987; available over a site run by his extended family) don't use the part. word Veer anywhere. R.A. Jahagirdar, an ex-judge of Bombay High Court has mentioned (pg. 142) of a total lack of clarity in the published literature about this epithet and derived (from personal correspondence) that Mrs. Bhopatkar, a legal counsel of Savarkar ,and the editor of Bhala, a Marathi periodical had dubbed Savarkar as Veer.The equation of Chitragupta to Savarkar also looks extremely dubious, to my eyes given that he (quasi-magically) asserts it (Pg. 4-5) based on a single line of the biography:-
It was a sunny morn, the skies were clear, the beautiful roads so shady, so hospitable, so reviving, were dotted here and there by small ponds where the swans and other water birds gaily quacked and cackled, and the water lilies bloomed.How does the usage of the lines lead to the conclusion? What other sources than Salam, in the scholarly domain, accept this at face-value? ∯WBG converse 09:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Shri Swatantra Veer Barrister Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, whose life we mean to sketch, is the second son of the highly. ∯WBG converse 10:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
∯WBG converse 10:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)In 1939, a revised edition of LBS was published in New Delhi, three years after Savarkar was finally released as a political prisoner. Indra Prakash, an official of the Hindu Mahasabha, was responsible for expanding and updating LBS in order to recognize and promote Savarkar’s contributions to nationalism and anticolonialism, especially as Savarkar was serving as the president of the All-India Hindu Mahasabha (19371944). Yet the identity of Chitragupta was neither revealed nor discussed in the new edition of the book.
Veer Savarkar Prakashan, the official publisher of Savarkar’s writings based in Bombay, brought out a second edition of the original LBS in 1987, without the updates and revisions from the 1939 text. This edition revealed that Chitragupta was the penname used by Savarkar in writing his own biography. This little-known fact about the authorship of LBS has not been discussed in analyses of Savarkar’s political thought, nor has it been considered a text that contributes to Savarkar’s oeuvre. It is important to note that Savarkar did not officially claim that he was the author of LBS during his lifetime*he died in 1966 and it is unclear whether he had even authorized the posthumous disclosure of his identity as its author. However, the identity of Savarkar as the author of LBS is revealed by Ravindra Vaman Ramdas, the author of the new preface to the 1987 edition of the book. Ramdas asserts that ‘Chitragupta was none other than Veer Savarkar’, and posits that it will ‘remain a mystery’ why Savarkar never disclosed his identity in postcolonial India. Further, Ramdas asserts that the person responsible for the publication of the second edition was actually Savarkar’s brother, Narayan Damodar Savarkar. Despite not having additional clues or information, the main point to consider is that following the publication of the second edition of LBS, Savarkar was publicly acknowledged as the author of the text by the official publisher of his writings...
In addition, it is worth noting that Harindra Srivastava provides an alternative identity for the author of LBS by positing that Chitragupta was the penname used by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari in Five Stormy Years: Savarkar in London, New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1983, p 11. However, he does not provide any further support or evidence for this assertion.
∯WBG converse 10:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)John Pincince identifies Chitragupta as Chakravarti Rajagopalachari in 'On the Verge of Hindutva: VD Savarkar, revolutionary, convict, ideologue, c. 1905—1924', (unpublished Ph.D., University of Hawaii, 2007).
To the best of my memory, she was speaking somewhere where she rejected Chitragupta being Savarkar. ∯WBG converse 11:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)See Chitragupta (...) This is the earliest known biography of Savarkar, written by someone who knew him well during his London days.
∯WBG converse 11:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)The first biography of Savarkar was published in 1926. This text, Life of Barrister Savarkar was not intended as a comprehensive biography, but rather as an analysis of the period from Savarkar’s birth in 1883 until his arrest and incarceration in 1911. Written under the pen name Chitragupta, Life of Barrister Savarkar is the first of three hagiographies written to glorify the revolutionary. This work, in particular, is significant because its authorship has never been determined. Scholar Vinayak Chaturvedi has written on the issue most recently in 2013, claiming that the work is – in fact – an autobiography. However, there remains more research to be done to determine the veracity of this claim, and for the purpose of this thesis, I have considered Life of Barrister Savarkar simply as one among a number of biographies. I want to thank Professor Chaturvedi for his personal insight into this issue. Though I remain dubious about the possibility that Savarkar authored work himself, I have been convinced that the claim is not without merit and deserves further investigation.
∯WBG converse 14:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)...This episode, recollected by Chitra Gupta (pen-name of C.R. Rajagopalachari)...Chitra Gupta was a pseudonym for C.R. Rajagopalachari. British colonial authorities believed the “biography” was actually written by Savarkar. However, Rajagopalachari, friend to both Tilak and Gandhi, noted in the preface to the biography, that he collected information on Savarkar’s life from trial records, Rowlatt Report, Indian nationalists and friends o f Savarkar, and conversations with Savarkar himself. About Savarkar’s politics, Rajagopalachari wrote near the end of the preface: “I am one of those who admire his heroic spirit in spite of my politically differing from his views”
Hi, RegentsPark. While reverting my edit you have reasoned: "we don't need to include details of every biography in this article" could you please elaborate on that. The edit I made was with regards to when and who gave the title Veer to Savarkar. I had cited a cover page of a book as WP:RS. As there was a lengthy debate on this topic on Talk page, to add a WP:Honorifics Veer and the same was accepted with WP:CON though, it did not have any reliable Sources much before I edited the page. What I did was just added a reliable source to show that Savarkar was referred as Veer in a 1924 Book (As popularized as in 1926 by Chitra Gupta). If you are convinced about my intentions, I request you to Revert my edit, or if you feel the Section I've edited is inappropriate for this passage, may please add it to relevant Section. TIA.
which followed some discussion on this issue. The discussion was centered around a Biography "Life of Barrister Savarkar", which was published in 1926. With reference to this I provided another source clarifying that the prefix Veer was added 2 years before the said biography in 1924 and I've also cited a cover page of that 1924 book. I hope my edit did not flout any guidelines or deviate from the article. Santoshdts ( talk) 08:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)User:Winged Blades of Godric
— [[User:Note:- Salam notes ...Incidentally, he is said to have added the prefix 'Veer' to his name himself through a biography, he himself authored. Called Life of Barrister Savarkar, the book came out a couple of years after Savarkar was released from prison.... by User:Winged Blades of Godric]]
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
SwantantryaVeer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar is the full name of the patriot For Mahatma Gandhi you must instead mention Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Varad52 ( talk) 15:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This must be done Varad52 ( talk) 15:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
"Gandhi's assassin, Nathuram Godse". At that time, Gandhi was well and alive! How can you claim that Nathuram Godse was Gandhi's assassin? Do you have any source to corroborate the fact that Nathuram Godse had decided to murder Gandhi as of the year 1924? Kindly remove "Gandhi's assassin" phrase from this section unless you can provide proof that he was already committed to the assassination plot. 122.177.216.231 ( talk) 14:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Want to add more to the facts of the extradition case. Damned697 ( talk) 14:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Aditiy ( talk) 10:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
He was represented by Karl Marx's grandson Jean Longuet in The Hague for his international human rights and wrongful detention court battle in which his legal case was argued. Jean Longuet persisted and personally handed over the copies of the memorandum to the members of the court. [1]
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Revert
this change as |influences=
is not a supported {{
Infobox person}} parameter.
108.56.139.120 (
talk)
20:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Indian freedom fghter Radram ( talk) 13:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The section of text added by AryaGyaan contains a copyvio of this source – the paragraph starting "The cow was, for him" is directly copied from the source, which has a copyright notice at the bottom. Deepfriedokra, since you've full-protected the article I can't add the copyvio-revdel template, but could you revdel all revisions including the text added by AryaGyaan at 11:13, 23 April 2021 (including mine, sigh)? Thanks! Wham2001 ( talk) 19:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
For the sake of completness as an encyclopedia article, the article should also cite various controversies surrounding Savarkar. I see no mention of any controversies in the main article except his involvement in Gandhi's death. To mention few
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dated=
ignored (
help)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedar Borhade ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
These is the talk page to adress the issues of the user Dhattaa the first claim of Dhattaa is that i have copied mostly from savarkar.org but the truth is i have used diverse sources like quint,indian express,Savarkar Samagara etc the second claim of Dhataa is that my another source is my own book.Fistly,the books's name is Savarkar:_Echoes_from_a_Forgotten_Past which is written by Vikram Sampath not my me. Now.that i have adress the claims, I don't find resonable that my edits have been reverted.That why,I request Deepfriedokra agian add my text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AryaGyaan ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Today is Savarkar's birthday, Hindu nationalists are removing various parts of this page showing that Savarkar supported Nazism and Fascism. Please lock this article to prevent edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molkaka ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.197.230 ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel it looks incomplete — Preceding unsigned comment added by RushilShandilya ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi there,
The hyperlink of hindutva ideology that Savarkar's wiki page redirects to, speaks of a different/concocted exclusive ideology as is practiced today by perhaps some people. That page has minimal to no mention of hindutva as Savarkar ideologised it. It's ambiguous/misleading that we attribute his name as a founder on an ideology he didn't even form by hyperlinking to this new age hindutva page, just because someone decided to use the same name for their new movement. 'The Hindutva : who is a hindu' "book" wiki page is of Savarkar's own book with the "themes" section being the hindutva that he professed/founded. Please redirect the mentions of hindutva on Savarkar's page to the "themes" section of his book page to avoid the ambiguity. Alternatively, this savarkar biography article has its own sub section on Hindutva which is focused on Savarkar's hindutva - you can redirect it to that itself. Just not to the standalone hindutva article which is unrelated to Savarkar.
Thank you, TruthBeforePolity ( talk) 16:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, to add the recently released (only chronicled?) biographies of this person to the "further reading" section. The biography link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savarkar_(book) TruthBeforePolity ( talk) 16:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved ( non-admin closure) Bada Kaji ( talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 12:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar → Veer Savarkar – Veer Savarkar easily qualifies to be the title under the WP:COMMONNAME clause. A simple google search of "Savarkar" reveals that almost all of the contemporary discourses address him as "Veer Savarkar". Although Veer being a honorific title, allegedly self styled, it supersedes it for being used commonly, just like how MK Gandhi's article is Mahatma Gandhi. Appu ( talk) 19:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Appu ( talk) 19:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
independent, reliable English-language sources. Independent scholarly sources appear to refer to Savarkar as "Vinayak Damodar Savarkar" or "VD Savarkar". I also agree with Ivenvector's analysis above. Wham2001 ( talk) 19:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Hoping to evade arrest, Savarkar moved to Madame Cama's home in Paris." to "Hoping to evade arrest, Savarkar moved to Bhikaiji Cama's home in Paris." 1.39.30.28 ( talk) 02:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2405:201:D006:904B:6031:1085:CDE0:EE ( talk) 09:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. It does not appear there is consensus for this change.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
10:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Yosoko ( talk) 14:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Dear Wiki, You have wrongly mentioned Swatantryaveer (Freedom fighter) Veer Savarkar as "Indian Politician". Please correct the search heading description from incorrect as #politician to correct as #freedom fighter. We in India praise him as one of the great freedom fighter along with Lokmanya Tilak, Subhashchandra Bose, Shaheed Bhagat Singh and many such great sons of India. Do some research before lebelling our freedom fighters as politicians. He was in British jails for almost two decades in his life for India's freedom struggle along with nationalists. By mentioning him as a politician, Wiki is insulting our sentiments. Wiki can mentiin Jawaharlal Nehru as a politician on the basis of his contesting political positions, carrying out political agendas and even enjoying political seats in government in power. Hope you will correct this promptly. Jai Hind 🇮🇳
Thanks n regards, (Redacted) 103.225.134.119 ( talk) 04:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The article can be improved by adding Revolutionary in the introductory line. Savarkar seems to be involved in revolutionary activities since his early years and has been called revolutionary throughout history and biographies.
Vinayak Chaturvedi, Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California cites him as a 'revolutionary' in his A revolutionary's biography: the case of V D Savarkar Postcolonial Study Journal.
Janaki Bakhle, Associate professor of Indian history at the University of California, mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: Echoes of Forgotten Past (Book) in India Today.
Swati Parashar, professor at the Gothenburg University calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: A contested Legacy (Book) in The Hindu.
Madhav Khosla, professor of Political Science at Ashoka University, calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in his online article in Hindustan Times.
TCA Srinivasa Raghavan, current Director-General of the Indian Council of World Affairs mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his article on Calcutta Telegraph.
Author and Historian, Manu S. Pillai cites Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his review article of the book Savarkar: A contested Legacy in Open The Magazine.
Biographer Dhananjay Kheer and historian Vikram Sampath have cited him as a revolutionary in their respective biographies about Savarkar. (Life of Veer Savarkar and Savarkar part 1 and 2).
Wikipedia defines Revolutionary as 'In politics, a revolutionary is someone who supports abrupt, rapid, and drastic change, usually replacing the status quo.' Savarkar received Two transportation for life (a total of fifty years) at the Kala Paani, a colonial prison settlement established by the British. Savarkar was convicted for waging war against the King for providing arms in Jackson’s murder case.
Sources: Vinayak Chaturvedi Janaki Bakhle Swati Parashar Madhav Khosla TCA Srinivasa Raghavan Manu S Pillai Dhananjay Kheer Vikram Sampath Waging of war against the King Yosoko ( talk) 07:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Sampath equips readers with all the necessary insights and details to revisit and re-evaluate existing opinions about Savarkar — the atheist/ Hindutva ideologue, the freedom fighter/ revolutionary, the prisoner/ survivor, the amateur historian/ poet, the modernist/ nationalist reformer, the hardline political activist/ theorist.
During his years in London, Savarkar had continued the revolutionary propa-ganda and activities against British rule in India." He drew his violent national-ism in part from Giuseppe Mazzini [1805-1872], the revolutionary icon of national liberation, who had developed the tactics of secret societies and guer-rilla warfare in Italy.. Savarkar's revolutionary propaganda eventually led to the assassination of Lt. Col. Sr William Cuaon-Wyllie, aide-de-camp at the India Office, London, by his follower Madanlal Dhingra in 1909." A.M.T. Jackson, district magistrate of Nasik, was later assassinated by Anant Laxman Kanhare, 17, an arts student, in Aurangabad in December 1909." The murder of Jackson revealed a much larger 'revolutionary conspiracy' linked to the Abhinav Bharat, which had 'advocated, prepared for, and conspired to bring about an armed rebellion or revolution and ... to overthrow the Govemment by criminal force or show of criminal force' in India.• The masterminds of the conspiracy were iden-tified as the Savarkar brothers." In his confession to the trial court, Chutterbhuj Jhaverbhai Amin, of India House, London, admitted that Savarkar had instructed him to pack a parcel containing 20 Browning automatic pistols, plus ammunition during his travel to India from London in 1908; one of these pistols had been used in Jackson's murder.• Savarkar was charged in the Jackson murder trial......
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Vinayak Chaturvedi, Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California calls him a 'revolutionary' in his A revolutionary's biography: the case of V D Savarkar Postcolonial Study Journal.
Janaki Bakhle, Associate professor of Indian history at the University of California, mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: Echoes of Forgotten Past (Book) in India Today.
Swati Parashar, a professor at the Gothenburg University calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: A contested Legacy (Book) in The Hindu.
Madhav Khosla, professor of Political Science at Ashoka University, calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in his online article in Hindustan Times.
TCA Srinivasa Raghavan, current Director-General of the Indian Council of World Affairs mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his online article on Calcutta Telegraph.
Author and Historian, Manu S Pillai cites Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his review article of the book Savarkar: A contested Legacy in Open The Magazine.
Hope this would suffice. Thanks.
Vinayak Chaturvedi Janaki Bakhle Swati Parashar Madhav Khosla TCA Srinivasa Raghavan Manu S Pillai
Yosoko ( talk) 13:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
References
The need of it: Savarkar seems to be involved in revolutionary activities since his early years and has been called revolutionary throughout history and biographies.
Vinayak Chaturvedi, Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California cite him as a 'revolutionary' in his A revolutionary's biography: the case of V D Savarkar Postcolonial Study Journal.
Janaki Bakhle, Associate professor of Indian history at the University of California, mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: Echoes of Forgotten Past (Book) in India Today.
Swati Parashar, a professor at the Gothenburg University calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: A contested Legacy (Book) in The Hindu.
Madhav Khosla, professor of Political Science at Ashoka University, calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in his online article in Hindustan Times.
TCA Srinivasa Raghavan, current Director-General of the Indian Council of World Affairs mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his online article on Calcutta Telegraph.
Author and Historian, Manu S. Pillai cites Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his review article of the book Savarkar: A contested Legacy in Open The Magazine.
Biographer Dhananjay Kheer and historian Vikram Sampath have cited him as a revolutionary in their respective biographies about Savarkar. (Life of Veer Savarkar and Savarkar: Echoes from the forgotten past).
Wikipedia defines Revolutionary as 'In politics, a revolutionary is someone who supports abrupt, rapid, and drastic change, usually replacing the status quo.' Savarkar received Two transportation for life (a total of fifty years) at the Kala Paani, Port Blair which was the first and only colonial prison settlement established by the British. Savarkar was convicted for waging war against the King for providing arms in Jackson’s murder case.
References: Vinayak Chaturvedi Janaki Bakhle Swati Parashar Madhav Khosla TCA Srinivasa Raghavan Manu S Pillai Dhananjay Kheer Vikram Sampath Waging war against the King Yosoko ( talk) 15:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Please consult this discussion. Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 13:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Keer is an unreliable hagiographer.
Cupidvogel, you have used two articles by Vikram Sampath, who is not only an uncritical biographer but also (apparently) a plagiarist. Another two citations are to Keer, who is widely accepted to be a hagiopgrapher. Three citations are to op-eds by "Rajiv Tuli" (member of the state executive of Delhi RSS) and "Vinay Nalwa", whose credentials are unknown. One citation is to Savarkar himself and one is to The Bridge Chronicle, which is not a RS.
That leaves us with two more sources (arguably, the most reliable of the lot but short of HISTRS), which you have misrepresented. Shamsul Islam writes that Savarkar had defended casteism as an integral component of Hindu nation but nonetheless fought against untouchability - this was not because of some grand egalitarian vision but preventing conversion of LC Hindus to Islam! Ashraf repeats such a narrative. And this is indeed the consensus in scholarship, as quotes from Megha Kumar and Aparna Devare attest to. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
"Savarkar held that those who regarded such inhuman faith as abhorred the touch of a human being and yet gladly touched animals like dogs and cats were themselves a blot on humanity."is language that's barely appropriate to an Op-Ed, let alone an encyclopedia) and your section title isn't neutral. More importantly, you are the one seeking to add content to this article; you need to establish consensus in its favor. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
nobody apart from [me] has saidKeer to be a hagiographer. Please consult Judith M. Brown's review of the work in Archives ( British Records Association) - Vol 9 - Issue 43 - p. 178-179 - April 1970. Or, Jyotirmaya Sharma. “History as Revenge and Retaliation: Rereading Savarkar’s ‘The War of Independence of 1857.’” Economic and Political Weekly 42, no. 19 (2007): 1717–19. I can go on. Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
the only known international historian of some repute to have called him so was Audrey Truschke
Chaturvedi [Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California, Irvine] expressed his disappointment at Sampath's lack of ethical standards; Bakhle [Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California, Berkeley] requested that Sampath offer a public apology for what was unequivocal plagiarism and retract the publication.
Three citations are to op-eds by "Rajiv Tuli" (member of the state executive of Delhi RSS) and "Vinay Nalwa", whose credentials are unknown. One citation is to Savarkar himself and one is to The Bridge Chronicle, which is not a RS.
in the contexts mentioned here, which is about Savarkar and caste. If they have written anything these topics, please bring them. TrangaBellam ( talk) 06:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Among the new sources is a popular biography by "Chirayu Pandit" and "Uday Mahurkar". Pandit's scholarly credentials remain unknown while Mahurkar's appears to be a quid pro quo relationship to the incumbent ruling party in India. Interestingly, the book is foreworded by the supremo of a Hindu Nationalist organization. I cannot find any reviews over mainstream media. Yet another popular biography by "Vaibhav K. Purandare" has been cited. I am uncertain about Purandare's qualifications but a review over The Caravan is uniformly negative.
Two blogs (open the link) by a "Rajesh Pathak" (credentials - ?) have been used. Consult WP:TOI in particular.
Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Prabodhan Pol [a historian at Manipal University] has drafted an article on Ambedkar-Savarkar relations. An interesting line runs: "For example, Savarkar’s ‘Patit-Pavan’ temple, which was built exclusively for untouchables in Ratnagiri received biting flak in the Janata."
It is obvious that Patit Pavan Temple etc. cannot be inserted until some scholar decides to interrogate the archives and write upon it in details.
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request that Indian Politician as description be changed to Indian Freedom Fighter 122.172.86.36 ( talk) 11:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
No reliable source cited for many statements like below:
“Savarkar was openly critical of the decision taken by the Congress working committee in its Wardha session of 1942 to a resolution which said to the British colonial government: "Quit India but keep your armies here", which was intended to defend India against a possible Japanese invasion; Savarkar was opposed to any form of Britain's presence in India whatsoever.” 2A02:810D:B5BF:FB5C:6491:5DF1:2E02:3F22 ( talk) 22:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Dear Luke Emily, I have read your remark hence I have provided this citation below.
https://archive.org/details/swatantraveersavarkarsadashivarajaramranade
I am from Veer Savarkar's native province of Maharashtra hence can state that Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade (not to be confused with another author Sadashiv Bhaskar Ranade) was a prominent writer in that era. Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade described Savarkar as Veer or Swatantraveer in 1924 hence the book written by Chitragupta in 1926 in any case cannot be regarded as the first to describe him as Veer as someone else had already done that 2 years ago.
https://archive.org/details/swatantraveersavarkarsadashivarajaramranade Nikhilc83 ( talk) 15:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Nikhilc83, the english source is not mentioning the writer. Also, the writer does not change the fact that he called himself brave while writing in the third person(even if someone else did that 2 years earlier). I am not an expert on the subject and we can ping other editors. If there are too many opinions, it may be better to move 'veer' to the body and give all opinions. Also, please can you translate the title of the source in English, please? LukeEmily ( talk) 16:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Dear Luke Emily, Let us understand first of all that Veer Savarkar is a venerated freedom fighter in India. It is not agreeable that a respected person is described in the first paragraph of his introduction itself that he called himself a hero in 1926 (when there is ample evidence that a contemporary writer of that era gave him the same title 2 years ago). Facts speak beyond the barriers of language. The book mentioned in the citation is in the Marathi language which describes itself as a biography of Veer Savarkar. This is a web citation but i have images stored with me of the original book of Swatantraveer Savarkar by Sadashiv Ranade of 1924 edition duly stamped by the publishing house as well as by the library which housed it. Thanks to you for considering my request and appreciate your kind cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilc83 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC) LukeEmily ( talk) 21:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove [9]. The source is WP:BIASED mouthpiece as National Herald is owned by Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi of INC, [10] [11]. 2409:4073:2E80:6E9F:89AC:944D:8395:6F49 ( talk) 09:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fact: Writer Sadashiv Ranade described Savarkar as Veer or Swatantraveer in his book in 1924 among available records.
Please Remove Below Line as it is incorrect: penned by Savarkar himself, in a biography that he wrote about himself under the name "Chitragupta".[3][4] Nikhilc83 ( talk) 10:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Fact: Writer Sadashiv Ranade described Savarkar as Veer or Swatantraveer in his book in 1924 among available records. Nikhilc83 ( talk) 10:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Dear Luke Emily, keeping both references is ok of Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade's book of 1924 and Chitragupta's source of 1926 however then Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade's reference ideally must come first as it was 2 years earlier than Chitragupta. Moreover Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade's book is in Marathi and does not have an English translation however it is widely known in provincial circles and is available on Amazon too. Nikhilc83 ( talk) 18:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
Aaron Liu (
talk)
22:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add before “In 1948…”
Savarkar assured the Sikhs that "when the Muslims woke from their day-dreams of Pakistan, they would see established instead a Sikhistan in the Punjab.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).}}
References
This page needs to be re-written based on historical facts again. Sarvarkar never proposed the two-nation theory, he was infact against it. Please correct this. 2607:FEA8:4AD9:CE00:A79:F6CE:FCC8:2E51 ( talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This whole paragraph "In his Ahmedabad addressal, he supported Two-nation theory. The Hindu Mahasabha under Savarkar's leadership endorsed the idea of India as a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation). Savarkar assured the Sikhs that "when the Muslims woke from their day-dreams of Pakistan, they would see established instead a Sikhistan in the Punjab." Savarkar not only talked of Hindudom, Hindu Nation and Hindu Raj, but he wanted to depend upon the Sikhs in the Punjab to establish a Sikhistan." Is extremely misrepresented.savarkar was the founder of hindutva and the concept of akhand bharat inspired by mazini and shivaji.its stupid to even suggest savarkar advocated for two seperate nations.savarkar saying "there are two antognastic nations living together" does not mean he advocated for a seperate nation for hindus and muslims.
The last sentence is extremwly shady."wanted a sikhistan".i.mean seriously?please decide if he advocared for akhand bharat or khandit bharat.the article contradicts itself multiple times and the single source used for this sentence is not reliable.the author is not reliable at all.more sources required.looks like thus article has vested interests hellbent on showcasing savarkar as the reason for partition which is extremely stupid.why not blame savarkar for khilafat movement too? Or for mopla. Must be him.
I request neutral admims and editors to take a look into this.@
Kautilya3 @
TrangaBellam @
Borgenland @
Ivanvector
117.222.200.239 (
talk)
16:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Sock of Observer1989