Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Vinayak Damodar Savarkar argued that Hindus should not be barred from temple worship because of caste, and that Brahmins and Mahars should be able to eat together. His stated position covered access to existing temples as well as shared temples open to all Hindus. Savarkar-focused source accounts also describe public efforts to put these ideas into practice; those event narratives should be treated as attributed accounts, not independent confirmation.
Did Savarkar support temple entry across caste lines?
Yes. Statements attributed to Savarkar opposed excluding Hindus from temples on the basis of birth-based caste distinctions. In a 1931 text, he was quoted as saying: “All important holy places, temples, holy and historical sites (such as the Ram temple at Panchavati in Nashik, Sethubandh Rameshwar etc.) should be open with the same regulations to all Hindus, irrespective of varna or caste.” The Savarkar.org collection attributes this statement to him.
The same principle appears in earlier statements recorded by that collection. A 1924 quotation objects to denying entry to people then described as “untouchables,” invoking saints Chokha and Ravidas. In a 1928 item in Shraddhanand, Savarkar was quoted distinguishing ritual impurity from caste: “I can understand impurity but not untouchability. If a Brahmin is impure he may be denied temple entry. On the other hand, even a Mahar who is pure should be allowed temple entry.” The historically used term “untouchable” is quoted here only to preserve the wording of the source; it is not the preferred contemporary descriptor. The collection gives the 1924 and 1928 statements.
Did he favor separate temples or shared access to existing ones?
He favored shared Hindu institutions, not temples reserved exclusively for people classed as untouchable. A 1929 statement attributed to him rejects separate, exclusive temples as the right solution and argues for temples open across caste lines. It also supports opening old temples to all Hindus. That distinction matters: support for a new common temple was not presented as a substitute for access to existing temples. The source collection records this position.
#1 Best Overall
The collection’s account of Patitpavan Mandir in Ratnagiri describes it as a common temple and says Savarkar maintained that any Hindu who bathed and wore clean clothes could perform puja. It identifies Bhagoji Seth Keer as helping construct the temple. These are details reported by the collection, rather than independently corroborated here. Read the collection’s account of temple access and Patitpavan Mandir.
Did Savarkar support Dalits and Brahmins eating together?
Yes. He opposed rotibandi, the restriction on sharing food across caste lines, and treated breaking it as part of challenging caste-based social barriers. In a statement dated 1931, he argued that a common meal did not erase caste: “There is no harm in eating what is medically permissible with any medically fit individual, not in a common plate but as a common meal. It is insane to believe that caste changes forever simply by sitting and eating next to an individual from a different caste.” In a 1935 statement, he used Brahmins and Mahars as an explicit example: “How easy it is; Brahmins and Mahars may together gorge themselves with sweets and you may be certain that caste distinction will vanish!” Both quotations are reproduced in the Savarkar.org collection.
His argument was broader than a single pairing. The collection says he advocated common meals that included other communities it names as Bhangis and Matangs, as well as Mahars and Chamars. “Dalit” is the contemporary umbrella term used in the question; the attributed historical excerpts use community names and older terminology.
What public activity do the accounts describe?
The Savarkar.org narrative reports inter-caste dining programs in Ratnagiri on 8 March 1931 and 6 March 1936, and in Malvan in January 1934. It describes resistance to these events and presents them as efforts to challenge dining restrictions across caste groups. These dates and descriptions are claims made by that source collection, not independently verified event findings in the material available here. The collection’s account describes the reported dining programs.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
How firmly are these claims established?
The quotations and event accounts cited here come primarily from Savarkar.org, a Savarkar-focused collection that presents selected quotations and narratives. A separate official government release also characterizes Savarkar as supporting temple entry for all Hindus and opposing the taboo on inter-caste dining, but a ceremonial government account is not independent historical analysis. The material cited here does not establish scholarly corroboration of the quotations’ context or the reported event narratives. Accordingly, his recorded position can be described from these attributed statements, while claims about how particular events unfolded should remain attributed to their source.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
