Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

Part I

@Joshua Jonathan sorry, for the revert, I may be missing something (not quite familiar with the scholarship on this person), but reading the two cited sources, it seems sources are not supporting The prefix "Veer" (meaning 'brave') was given by himself. One source (an opinion article) has the title "Savarkar praised and called himself 'Veer' in biography penned by himself", but the article itself does not seem to discuss this. Second source also does not seem to support it.

Also, even if supported by the two newspaper sources, seems based on "pov-pushing" concern and edit-summary by IND123456, I think this seems an exceptional claim and would help if supported by better sources - and added in the body instead of lead with context / attribution / quotes for better clarity. Asteramellus (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The citations are not WP:RS and require further corrboration, and since the articles referenced don't discuss the claim I don't see how adding this would be appropriate WP:UNDUE. Normstahlie (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I too agree that the sources refered do not fulfill WP:RS and appear to be WP:UNDUE and pov pushing. Joshua Jonathan also reverted the edits I made by removing the news articles as sources. They appear to be politically motivated articles, aren't published by reliable neutral historiographical source either. It appears to be pov pushing. I would request to discuss this topic, so that the appropriate decision is made. IND123456 (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Asteramellus: Is have to agree that those two sources do not support the statement "The prefix "Veer" (meaning 'brave') was given by himself." Yet, what they do make abundantly clear is that the statement "He is known among followers by the honorific prefix Veer meaning "brave"" needs the addition that this qualification is questioned by others; likewise, he's also been called "one of the most divisive figures in Indian politics" and "the most controversial Indian political thinker of the twentieth century." No doubt, there are many more sources which support these qualifications. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua. I see that this was added in the Legacy section - it combines the honorific "Veer" with other evaluative characterizations "divisive" and "most controversial" in a single sentence. This seems WP:SYNTH (a bit similar to what was discussed on Vishnu talk page) - not sure if the sources connect these points in this way or support presenting them together in a single sentence. Also it seems "divisive" and "most controversial" are evaluative/interpretive and context and attribution may be missing.

Also, just want to note two recent edits I saw by IND123456, which are undue and rightly reverted on Indic Script () and Vedic period () - I agree that minority / contested views are undue and agree with those reverts (Jimbo Wales' guidance at WP:UNDUE is helpful here ".. is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.") - Maybe applying similar standards here may help with disagreements and support consistency across articles. Asteramellus (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that few of my recent edits back then did not fulfill Wikipedia protocol such as WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. That was because I hadn't studied those protocols and regulations in detail.I apologize for that. Now I have studied those points well. I also appreciate Joshua Jonathan's efforts to add a more comprehensive content in the Legacy section. IND123456 (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding "divisive" and "most controversial" are evaluative/interpretive and context and attribution may be missing, this does indeed seem to be missing, which begs the question: why is this information missing? Why is this article rated B-class if the controversies surrounding him are not explicated? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

And regarding the acquiration of this qualification of Veer, see The Wire, [https://thewire.in/history/veer-savarkar-the-staunchest-advocate-of-loyalty-to-the-english-government

How then, one might wonder, did Savarkar acquire the title ‘Veer’?

A book titled Life of Barrister Savarkar authored by Chitragupta was the first biography of Savarkar, published in 1926. Savarkar was glorified in this book for his courage and deemed a hero. And two decades after Savarkar’s death, when the second edition of this book was released in 1987 by the Veer Savarkar Prakashan, the official publisher of Savarkar’s writings, Ravindra Ramdas revealed in its preface that “Chitragupta is none other than Veer Savarkar”.

In this autobiography masquerading as a biography written by a different author, Savarkar assures the reader that:

“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.”

Without mincing words in the name of modesty or moderating the use of adjectives in the name of literary minimalism, Savarkar wrote 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?”

Telling, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to see the preface of the second edition of Life of Barrister Savarkar, where the editor claimed that the author ‘Chitragupta’ was actually Savarkar himself, and let me remind you again using News articles as statements of facts from less established news outlets are often considered less reliable see WP:NEWSORG. Also the person who has written the article Pavan Kulkarni is a harsh critic of Hindu Mahasabha and does not explicitly maintain WP:NPOV language in his articles but that is obviously not for me to decide and it's better to get a clear consensus on this.

Nonetheless, it would be better yet again to provide corroboration for this claim with proper scholarships. Another point I would like to make is the ambiguity regarding the identity of chitragupta, unless we have an admission from savarkar himself, ramdas could have only had made deductions about Chitragupta's identity which wouldn't neccessarily be definitive proof. Normstahlie (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The Wire is a reliable source according to WP:RSPS. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, however the discussion here was regarding if "Savarkar gave himself the title Veer", which isn't indicated anywhere the article. Normstahlie (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua and thanks for splitting the sentence. Seems the concerns raised earlier are missed - I tried summarizing the sources issue in another topic earlier, but summarizing the concerns here with bit more clarity:

1. Sources - qualification which has been questioned by others is supported by National Herald's opinion article and scroll.in article. Are these two sources considered WP:RS?

Also, for most divisive qualification is also from a newspaper op-ed - is this source considered WP:RS?

2. WP:UNDUE - Even if these sources are considered reliable, do they support wording e.g. qualification which has been questioned by others or he has been called or one of the most divisive figures in Indian politics - are they giving more weight per what Jimbo Wales has noted at WP:UNDUE? (viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then-whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it, or not-it doesn't belong in Wikipedia)

3. Attribution - words like questioned by others, he has been called - do they need attribution / context?

4. WP:SYNTH - last edit with splitting the sentence helped this concern a bit, but keeping "divisive" and "most controversial" (from different sources) are still in a single sentence, without attribution - is this still a WP:SYNTH concern?

This is already a long discussion for just two lines of content - may be best to discuss these concerns here before revising the content. Asteramellus (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Joshua Jonathan and @Asteramellus, the claim is also supported by peer reviewed pieces like

Chaturvedi, V. (2013). A revolutionary’s biography: the case of V D Savarkar. Postcolonial Studies, 16(2), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2013.823257 Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

"The prefix was first given by himself"

Adding this topic to discuss this concern separately here. Asteramellus (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

It is pretty clear by the given Wire source that Savarkar glorified himself with the epithet, in his autobiography. The source literally quotes it. — EarthDude (Talk) 21:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not familiar with scholarship on this person, but reading the Wire source, I don't think it supports "The prefix was first given by himself". Since is it a newspaper article, most likely there are scholarly sources on this - so better to add with such sources (and wire source can be in addition to that). Asteramellus (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The quote is very clear and shows Savarkar's self-glorification. I really don't think it matters that The Wire is a news source, considering it is reliable as per the consensus at WP:RSPS. — EarthDude (Talk) 13:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@EarthDude@AsteramellusIf I may, there are multiple sources that back it up, wherein he called himself "Veer" in a biography that he penned himself pretending to be someone else. There are multiple independent sources at varying levels of reliability, including peer-reviewed scholarship. So this is def not a fringe claim; it is accepted across the historiographical spectrum, including by sympathetic biographers [basically supported by even biographers that support him].

The first is Chaturvedi, V. (2013). A revolutionary’s biography: the case of V D Savarkar. Postcolonial Studies, 16(2), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2013.823257 The article treats the Chitragupta pseudonym as Savarkar's and discusses the text as Savarkar's self-authored work. This is not an opinion piece but rather a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal indexed by Scopus and Web of Science.

Then there are several articles:

https://indiafoundation.in/articles-and-commentaries/the-revolutionary-leader-vinayak-damodar-savarkar/

this is published by the India Foundation (a think tank with connections to the ruling party that supports savarkar, not a left-leaning source)

I am quoting from the article

"Quite curiously, Savarkar wrote a biography of himself as a revolutionary, written in the pseudo-name of Chitragupta, the mythical accountant of Yamaraj the Lord of Death, entitled 'Life of Barrister Savarkar'." In other words, for Savarkar, just like works such as the history of 1857 or later his seminal work, Hindu Pad Padshahi on Maratha history, writing his own biography was meant toinfluence and inspire fellow-revolutionaries.

India Foundation is not a "leftist" source. It is a policy think tank closely associated with the BJP. Even from this quarter, the pseudonym authorship is stated as fact.

Next is Vikram Sampath's biography (Penguin Viking, 2019)

I am quoting from there :

"Towards the end of 1926, the first English biography of Savarkar titled The Life of Barrister Savarkar was published in Madras under a curious pen name 'Chitragupta'."

Sampath's biography, was reviewed in India Today by Janaki Bakhle (UC Berkeley) and in Open Magazine by Manu S. Pillai, and is published by a major commercial press and is widely cited. It also does not dispute that Chitragupta was Savarkar.

The Wire (May 2017)

as @EarthDude said wire is reliable... listed as reliable per WP:RSPS

So def... The view that Savarkar authored the Chitragupta biography is not a minority view. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

the discussion was initially about, who "first" gave savarkar the alias "Veer", and not what he wrote down in his biography himself, I would need to cross verify these sources and will try to get back to you in some time. Normstahlie (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I think there are numerous, fellow revolutionaries and freedom fighters who gave him the pseudonym Veer and not solely himself. Normstahlie (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes but as stated, the argument is indeed about whether he first gave himself the name. There are multiple scholarly sources that confirm that the title was given by him, in the book he wrote himself under the pseudonym Chitragupta. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The mentioned source do not have such indication, all of them just state that Savarkar used the pseudonym Chitragupta and wrote his biography praising himself as a revolutionary under the ephithet "Veer", it doesn't give a clear indication as to whether the title was first given to him by himself rather just simply states the former. The initial usage of "Veer" attached a epithet with Savarkar was by author Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade who officially used "Swatantraveer" in a 1924 biography, Swatantraveer Savarkar Yanche Sankshipt Charitra. Normstahlie (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Here's a source which attributes Savarkar's first homage biography to Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade.

Also the Vikram Sampath Source mentioned earlier, debates whether the author of "The life of barrister Savarkar" was actually written by Savarkar himself the author lists other potential names. Normstahlie (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

thanks. Yes, multiple sources says he wrote the book "Life of Barrister Savarkar" under the pseudonym Chitragupta. But it it not clear how the sources support the words we are discussing "The prefix was first given by himself". Asteramellus (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it's best to approach this discussion with utmost caution since Savarkar is a highly scrutinized and controversial figure in Indian History. This is also a contentious topic it would be better to stick only to reliable scholarships since news articles are considered generally less reliable when compared to proper scholarships and are also often prone to cognitive biases.

Anyway I would like @Asteramellus@EarthDude@IND123456 and other people involved in this discussion to let us know their opinion.

Ps: I might not be available for a few upcoming days, but I will refer from other sources and clarify my position further. Normstahlie (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, @Normstahlie is correct in this respect. The topic itself is highly charged. News articles may be politically and ideologically charged, and can't be treated as neutral in any way, as it is, many newspapers and letters have a particular stance or political alignments. We must consider this seriously. Thx IND123456 (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

The article from The Wire does sort of imply that Life of Barrister Savarkar was the first time the "Veer" title was used for him, but it doesn't seem to say so explicitly. We should certainly explain in the article that he wrote a flattering "biography" of himself while pretending to be a different person, and we should probably mention that he uses "Veer" to describe himself in that book. But I don't think we should say the title "was first given by himself" unless reliable sources directly state that.

For what it's worth, I totally disagree with IND123456's broader argument that the article should portray Savarkar more positively. It's just that I'm not seeing the evidence we need to make this particular claim. Cadddr (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I very much second @Cadddr The Wire article is 100% reliable, and is journalistic in nature. it isn't an opinion piece, you can tell by reading it. Journalistic pieces present evidences, and thats what the wire piece does Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I support this, it seems pretty reasonable. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Just noting here - the part that he wrote his biography under a pen name (which one author says "was a common practice by this point for authors who wanted to avoid detection or arrest by government officials") is mentioned in the Legacy section ("Chitragupta is ...Savarkar").

Also, regarding the wire source, better to rely on scholarly work instead of journalistic sources for this article. The wire source includes some opinion/analysis with wordings such as "his propagation of Hindutva hurt the freedom movement by dividing society", "relentless pleas", "actively collaborated", "pushing his Hindutva ideology", "deepened the communal divide", "such is the man who was declared" etc. Asteramellus (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

The terms you pointed out are not opinions. "Relentless pleas" relates to the mercy petitions of Savarkar that can be found in the National Archives. "Actively collaborated" means he assisted the recruitment of British forces during World War II when Bose was building his Indian National Army. This is an actual historical event, not a subjective remark.

Regarding the pseudonym used by Savarkar... please give a WP:RS source to back what you are saying about how common this was. As to my understanding this was not the case, but anyways what needs to be emphasized is that the biography Chitragupta is written in a highly self-congratulatory tone and praises Savarkar as a "born hero". So I agree with @Cadddrand @EarthDude, we should talk about this. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @Asteramellus that it's better to rely on academic sources, but just I don't think it really matters in this case, since you've cited academic sources above that say the same thing. As long as we' avoid saying that the title "was first given by himself", I don't think we need to rely on the Wire source.

As for the quote about using a pseudonym being common, Asteramellus was just quoting the Chaturvedi article in Postcolonial Studies that you provided above. But Chaturvedi goes on to explain that although it wasn't unusual to use a pseudonym, what's unusual is that he wrote an extremely flattering book about himself that "has played a central role in the ways Savarkar has been remembered and commemorated, especially in hagiographical accounts in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Further, reading Savarkar as the author of LBS provides new insights into his own role in promoting discourses about his identity. In other words, Savarkar—in the guise of Chitragupta—was responsible for providing perhaps the most significant narration of his life-story in the first half of the twentieth century that later biographers often adopted in their own respective works." So Chaturvedi very much believes it's noteworthy that Savarkar wrote the biography pseudonymously. Cadddr (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

So what we can establish and add to the article for now in my opinion is to settle that Savarkar in his biography written under the name Chitragupta (later determined that Chitragupta was Savarkar himself) praised himself as a very brave and strong activist and so on.... This would resolve the problem to find an exact citation for the specific word Veer. Though we can continue to discuss about it. IND123456 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think I agree. Cadddr (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The fact that the epithet Veer was first seen in this specific autobiography is a detail we can't leave out. — EarthDude (Talk) 05:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@EarthDude I'm confused. In your reply to my comment above, I thought you agreed that we haven't found a reliable source saying that this autobiography was the first to use "Veer". Cadddr (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr Oh, that's my bad. I meant to say we can't leave out the fact that the epithet Veer also appeared in his autobiography, not that it was the first one. In p. 391 of Savarkar and the Making of Hindutva, the year 1924 was when the first hagiography of Savarkar was published, titled, 'Swatantryaveer Vinayakrao Savarkar yanche Sankshipt Charitra' (Translation: 'Concise Biography of Nationalist Hero Vinayakrao [honorific] Savarkar')'. I think Chaturvedi's 'A Revolutionary's Biography: The Case of VD Savarkar' is the best academic source we can use for the information on the Chitragupta autobiography. — EarthDude (Talk) 06:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't mean that we should leave the prefix Veer aside. I suggested the above solution as for now. I explicitly mentioned that we can continue discussion on the title Veer in the mean time. I hope my position is clear. IND123456 (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Savarkar being the one who first came up with the epithet is the only thing which has been disputed. I don't see a reason for waiting around for seemingly no reason and spending more editor time on a minor detail when there isn't much issue editors have with it. — EarthDude (Talk) 07:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree with you about no reason to spend more editor's time on a minor detail. If scholarly sources are supporting the fact that the epithet Veer was first seen in this specific autobiography - it can be added. I will have to spend time and read the sources, but I recall reading in one of the sources that another person used it in a magazine or something before this book was published - I maybe wrong - will try to find. Asteramellus (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Found the source where I read - It is in "Vikram Sampath's biography (Penguin Viking, 2019)" that Flyingphoenixchips gave in one of the reply above. It says: "Notably.. function in Nasik in 1924, Veer Wamanrao Joshi, the famous Marathi journalist and playwright, gave Savarkar the honorific of 'Swatantrya Veer' or 'The Valorous Soldier of Freedom'. Another renowned Marathi poet Vaishampayan also often referred to Savarkar by this title." Maybe there are also other scholars who have analyzed it differently and states what you are suggesting. Asteramellus (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

sorry, you mean the book that Savarkar wrote was titled 'Swatantryaveer Vinayakrao Savarkar yanche Sankshipt Charitra' (Translation: 'Concise Biography of Nationalist Hero Vinayakrao [honorific] Savarkar')'? Asteramellus (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)