Karnataka’s Information Technology and Biotechnology Minister, Priyank Kharge, has stirred debate by asserting that Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a prominent Hindutva ideologue, was the first to propose the two-nation theory in India, long before Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League embraced it. In a detailed post on X on Partition Horrors Remembrance Day, Kharge, the son of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, traced the origins of this divisive concept to Savarkar’s writings and speeches, challenging the narrative often associated with the partition of India in 1947.
Kharge cited Savarkar’s 1922 work, Essentials of Hindutva, where he defined Hindutva not solely as a religious identity but as a cultural and territorial allegiance to India as both “Fatherland and Holyland.” This laid the ideological groundwork for viewing Hindus as a distinct nation. Kharge further referenced Savarkar’s speech at the 19th Hindu Mahasabha session in Ahmedabad in 1937, where he declared, “There are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India. India cannot be assumed today to be a unitarian and homogenous nation. On the contrary, there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems, in India.”
The minister also highlighted Savarkar’s 1943 remarks in Nagpur, where he stated, “I have no quarrel with Mr Jinnah’s two-nation theory. We, Hindus, are a nation by ourselves, and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations.” These statements, Kharge argued, show that Savarkar’s vision of two separate nations predated and aligned with Jinnah’s later advocacy for Pakistan.
Also Read: BJP’s Telangana Rise: Rao Eyes 2028 Power
To bolster his argument, Kharge quoted B.R. Ambedkar, who observed in his writings, “Strange as it may appear, Mr Savarkar and Mr Jinnah, instead of being opposed to each other, on the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both not only agree, but insist that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other Hindu nation. They differ only as regards the terms and conditions on which the two nations must live.” This convergence of views, Kharge suggested, reveals a shared ideological foundation between Hindutva leaders and the Muslim League’s push for partition.
Kharge’s post, shared on August 17, 2025, drew significant attention on X, with users engaging in heated discussions. Some defended Savarkar, arguing his statements reflected the socio-political realities of the time, while others supported Kharge’s view, seeing it as a critical reassessment of historical narratives. The timing of the post, coinciding with Partition Horrors Remembrance Day—a day dedicated to reflecting on the human cost of India’s 1947 partition—added weight to the debate, prompting questions about the ideological roots of the division that led to one of the largest mass migrations in history.
Historical records indicate that Savarkar, as president of the Hindu Mahasabha from 1937 to 1943, consistently emphasized Hindu unity and a distinct national identity, often framing Muslims as a separate entity. His 1937 speech was particularly significant, as it came at a time when communal tensions were rising, and the Muslim League was beginning to formalize its demand for a separate Muslim state. Jinnah’s two-nation theory, articulated more prominently in the 1940 Lahore Resolution, echoed similar ideas but from a Muslim perspective, culminating in the creation of Pakistan.
Kharge’s remarks have reignited discussions about the complex interplay of ideologies in pre-independence India. By invoking Ambedkar, a revered figure known for his sharp critique of both Hindu and Muslim communalism, Kharge positioned his argument as a call to reexamine history through a lens of intellectual honesty. The minister also questioned whether the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which often venerates Savarkar as a nationalist icon, acknowledges this aspect of his legacy.
As India continues to grapple with its historical and political narratives, Kharge’s claims underscore the enduring relevance of the two-nation theory debate. The partition, which displaced millions and left deep scars, remains a sensitive topic, and such discussions highlight the need for nuanced understanding of the forces that shaped modern India.
Also Read: Uddhav’s Silence on Awhad Sparks Outrage!