Sanjeev Bhakay
asked:
Is it a fact that Savarkar advocated Rape as a political tool to subjugate rivals ?
To answer questions about
Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History,
please sign up.
Sagar
Savarkar advocated responding in kind to any aggression in the name of religion. In the religious riots that followed partition, he advocated that each time Hindus were killed for being Hindu, the same treatment be meted out to the aggressors.
In the same vein, he laments that kidnappings and rapes as perpetrated by cruel muslim rulers in the name of religion should have been reciprocated by Hindu kings when they won to dissuade any future action of the sort.
In the same vein, he laments that kidnappings and rapes as perpetrated by cruel muslim rulers in the name of religion should have been reciprocated by Hindu kings when they won to dissuade any future action of the sort.
Parshya
He never explicitly said that.
His book goes on and on about how Hindu women were raped by the Muslims, then made to breed children and sold as slaves, then the Portugese Missionaries wrote to their Royal Court asking them permission to do the same etc etc.
He then says that the Hindu kings don't do that because they believed in the virtues like non violence, chivalry in war when women are captured.
He concludes saying virtues have their place. Not knowing this and blindly being virtuous led you to lose everything in invasions.
I used to think he was some casteist supremacist or something but turns out he was proponent of inter caste marriages and temples etc and wanted to do away with the caste system. Goes on and on on that.
By Hindu the picture is not of temple and cow but people in a geography sans the abrahamic beliefs. On Muslims it mostly says they were Hindus once.
But not outright kato unko woh humse neech hain type.
His book goes on and on about how Hindu women were raped by the Muslims, then made to breed children and sold as slaves, then the Portugese Missionaries wrote to their Royal Court asking them permission to do the same etc etc.
He then says that the Hindu kings don't do that because they believed in the virtues like non violence, chivalry in war when women are captured.
He concludes saying virtues have their place. Not knowing this and blindly being virtuous led you to lose everything in invasions.
I used to think he was some casteist supremacist or something but turns out he was proponent of inter caste marriages and temples etc and wanted to do away with the caste system. Goes on and on on that.
By Hindu the picture is not of temple and cow but people in a geography sans the abrahamic beliefs. On Muslims it mostly says they were Hindus once.
But not outright kato unko woh humse neech hain type.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more