Ahistoricity of Savarkar’s Rehabilitation Project
An aggressive campaign to rehabilitate VD Savarkar (1883-1966) as great
Indian freedom fighters is under way. He is being touted as a legendary Indian
nationalist, freedom fighter who spent 50 years in the Cellular Jail [CJ].
Multiple mercy petitions of his are hailed as a ruse to secure freedom in order
to work for uprooting the British rule, last but not the least, he is glorified
as a rationalist who fought against the Untouchability.
Let us compare these claims with the writings of Savarkar and
records of his activities available in the archives of the Hindu Mahasabha in
order to know the truth.
Savarkar’s journey from Indian nationalist to Hindu nationalist
It is true that Savarkar penned THE INDIAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 1857
in 1907 in which he glorified the joint struggle of Hindus and Muslims in the
1857 rebellion. In this tome, proscribed by the British rulers, he underscored
the fact that Hindus and Muslims “were both children of the soil of Hindusthan.
Their names were different, but they were all children of the same Mother;
India therefore being the common mother of these two, they were brothers by
blood”. He went to the extent of praising the Jehadi spirit Moulvi Ahmed
Shah in the liberation war of 1857. “The great and saintly Ahmed Shah had woven
fine and cleverly the webs of the Jehad—the War of Independence—through
every corner of Lucknow and Agra.”
However, Savarkar’s incarceration at the CJ brought fundamental
change in his idea of India. His first official biographer, Dhananjay Keer corroborated
the fact that while leaving the Cellular, he gave this mantra: “One God, one
country, one goal, one race, one life, one language” which was later concretized
as Hindutva. The reason for discarding commitment to an all-inclusive India and
turning Islamophobic was provided by Savarkar himself: “A large number of the
wicked warders consisted of Mussalmans…And the prisoners under them were mostly
Hindus. The Hindu prisoners were persecuted…”
It will be interesting to know that Savarkar was the only one at
Cellular Jail who presented the persecution at the hands of the warders as a
Hindu-Muslim issue. Barindra Kumar Ghosh (known as Barin, younger brother of
Aurobindo Ghosh) in his memoirs, THE TALE OF MY EXILE made it clear that Muslim
prisoners too suffered at the hands of these Cellular Jail officials. ““In the
Andamans it is they [warder, petty officer, jamadar etc.] who are in-charge of
everything and have the authority…Ramlal sits a little cross-wise in the file,
give him two blows on the neck. Mustafa did not get up immediately he was told
to, so, pull off his mustache. Baqaullah is late in coming from the latrine,
apply the baton and unloose the skin of his posterior—such were the beautiful
proceedings by which they maintained discipline in the prison.”
Barin was also witness to the fact that there were kind hearted
Pathan warders who on many occasions “secretly brought out a dish of meat…I do
not know whether any food prepared by the famous Draupadi herself could have
been as savoury as that dish with suh a gusto did I devour it”.
The truth is that Savarkar used the persecution by the Muslim
jail officials as an alibi to legitimize his abandonment of commitment to
Indian nationalism. The renowned historian R. C. Majumdar who is regarded as a
true ‘Bhartiya’ by the Hindutva brigade while sifting heaps of official papers
relating to the Cellular Jail in the course of writing of his landmark book on
the CJ, Penal Settlement in Andamans could not avoid commenting, “that the
incarceration in the Andamans had produced a great change on the great
revolutionary leaders [Savarkar, his brother and Barin] and their attitude
towards the British Government and their view of destroying it by revolution or
secret conspiracies had suffered a radical change”.
Savarkar preceded Jinnah in propounding two-nation theory
Muslim League [ML] under MA Jinnah demanded Pakistan in March 1940.
Long before it Savarkar had laid down two-nation theory. In his book HINDUTVA
(1923) he declared India to be the homeland of Hindus only and Muslims could
not be part of Indian nationhood. He declared: “The root meaning of the word
Hindu, like the sister epithet in Hindi, may mean only an Indian, yet as it is
we would be straining the usage of words too much-we fear, to the point of
breaking-if we call a Mohomedan [sic] a Hindu because of his being a resident
of India.”
Muslim league under MA Jinnah demanded Pakistan in March 1940. Long
before it Savarkar had laid down his two-nation theory. In his book HINDUTVA
(1923) he declared India to be the homeland of Hindus only and Muslims could
not be part of Indian nationhood. He declared: “The root meaning of the word
Hindu, like the sister epithet in Hindi, may mean only an Indian, yet as it is
we would be straining the usage of words too much-we fear, to the point of
breaking-if we call a Mohomedan [sic] a Hindu because of his being a resident
of India.”
Savarkar
took over the leadership of Hindu Mahasabha [HM] in 1937. While addressing the
19th Session of Hindu Mahasabha at Ahmedabad in the same year stated: “As it
is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India…India
cannot be assumed today to be a Unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the
contrary there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems, in
India.”
Hindu Mahasabha led by Savarkar declared unconditional support to
the British government during Quit India Movement
The Quit India Movement began on August 9, 1942 as per
Gandhi's call to 'Do or Die' in order to expel the British from India. The
British rulers swiftly responded with mass detentions on August 8th itself.
Over 100,000 arrests were made which included the total top leadership of
Congress including Gandhi, mass fines were levied and demonstrators were
subjected to public flogging. Hundreds of civilians were killed in violence,
many shot by the police and army. Congress was banned. It is not generally
known that during these times of repression Savarkar announced full support to
the British rulers. Addressing the 24th session of the HM at Kanpur in 1942,
Savarkar outlined the strategy of the Hindu Mahasabha of co-operating with the
rulers in the following words: “The Hindu Mahasabha holds that the leading
principle of all practical politics is the policy of Responsive Co-operation
[with the British].” He called upon HM councillors, ministers, legislators and
conducting any municipal or any public bodies to offer “Responsive Co-operation
which covers the whole gamut of patriotic activities from unconditional
co-operation right up to active and even armed resistance…”
What it meant at the political front was unambiguous. HM and
ML joined hands in running coalition governments in Bengal and Sind (and later
NWFP). Defending this collusion between HM and ML against Congress Savarkar
stated, "In practical politics also the Mahasabha knows that we must
advance through reasonable compromises. Witness the fact that only recently in
Sind, the Sind-Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the responsibility of
joining hands with the League itself in running coalition Government. The case
of Bengal is well known. Wild Leaguers whom even the Congress with all its
submissiveness could not placate grew quite reasonably compromising and
socialable [sic] as soon as they came in contact with the HM and the Coalition
Government, under the premiership of Mr. Fazlul Huq and the able lead of our
esteemed Mahasabha leader Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji, functioned successfully
for a year or so to the benefit of both the communities."
It is to be noted that Mookerji was deputy premier and held the
portfolio of suppressing QIM in Bengal.
Backstabbing Netaji Subhash Chander Bose
The Savarkar rehabilitation squad wants us to forget about the
terrible betrayal of Netaji by Savarkar. When Netaji was planning to liberate India
militarily, Savarkar offered full military co-operation to the British masters.
Addressing 23rd session of Hindu Mahasabha at Bhagalpur in 1941, he
declared: “our best national interests demands that so far as India’s defence
is concerned, Hindudom must ally unhesitatingly, in a spirit of responsive
co-operation with the war effort of the Indian government in so far as it is
consistent with the Hindu interests, by joining the Army, Navy and the Aerial
forces in as large a number as possible and by securing an entry into all
ordnance, ammunition and war craft factories…Again it must be noted that Japan’s
entry into the war has exposed us directly and immediately to the attack by
Britain’s enemies…Hindu Mahasabhaits must, therefore, rouse Hindus especially
in the provinces of Bengal and Assam as effectively as possible to enter the
military forces of all arms without losing a single minute.”
According to HM
documents Savarkar was able to inspire one lakh Hindus to join the ranks of the
British armed forces.
Savarkar’s mercy petitions were no ruse but instruments of abject surrender
Veer Savarkar submitted minimum 5 mercy petitions [MP] in 1911,
1913, 1914, 1918 and 1920. Savarkarites claim that these were submitted not as
an act of cowardice but “as an ardent follower of Shivaji, Savarkar wanted to
die in action. Finding this the only way, he wrote six letters to the British
pleading for his release”. A
perusal of the two available mercy petitions will prove that there cannot be a
lie worse than the claim that Savarkar’s MP petitions were in league with the
tricks which Shivaji used to hoodwink the Mughal rulers successfully. The mercy
petition dated 14th November, 1913 ended with the following words:
“[Therefore] if the government in their manifold beneficence and mercy release
me, I for one cannot but be the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress
and loyalty to the English government which is the foremost condition of that
progress. …Moreover my conversion to the constitutional line would bring back
all those misled young men in India and abroad who were once looking up to me
as their guide. I am ready to serve the Government in any capacity they like,
for as my conversion is conscientious so I hope my future conduct would be. By
keeping me in jail nothing can be got in comparison to what would be otherwise.
The Mighty alone can afford to be merciful and therefore where else can the
prodigal son return but to the parental doors of the Government?”
The petition dated 30th March 1920 from this prodigal
son of the British masters ended with the following words: “The brilliant
prospects of my early life all but too soon blighted, have constituted so
painful a source of regret to me that a release would be a new birth and would
touch my heart, sensitive and submissive, to kindness so deeply as to render me
personally attached and politically useful in future. For often magnanimity
wins even where might fails.”
There
was nothing wrong on the part of the CJ detainees in writing mercy petitions to
the British. It was an important legal right available to the prisoners. Apart
from Savarkar, Barin, HK Kanjilal, and Nand Gopal too submitted petitions.
However, these were only Savarkar and Barin who sought forgiveness for their revolutionary
past. Kanjilal and Nand Gopal did not demand any personal favour but status
of political prisoners.
Savarkar secured remission of 37.5 years in his sentence of 50
years
Savarkar was incarcerated at Andamans on July 4, 1911 for two life
terms [50 years]. On May 2, 1921 [after NINE years TEN months] he was
transferred along with his elder brother, Babarao, to the mainland. He was
finally released conditionally on January 6, 1924 [total imprisonment TWELVE
years SIX months] from Yeravda Jail.
Was Savarkar a rationalist who stood for scientific temper and
fought against Untouchability?
Savarkar is glorified as a rationalist and crusader against
Untouchability. Let us compare these claims with Savarkar’s beliefs and acts as
recorded in the HM archives. He declared Manu to be the lawgiver for Hindus and
emphasized that once we “re-learn the manly lessons” he taught with others.
According to him “our Hindu nation shall prove again as unconquerable and
conquering a race as we proved once” when lawgivers like Manu ruled. He
declared Manusmriti to be “most worship-able after Vedas…Today Manusmriti
is Hindu law”.
He gave personal guarantee that “the Hindu Maha Sabha shall never
force any legislations regarding the entry of untouchables in the ancient
temples or compel by law any sacred ancient and moral usage or custom
prevailing in those temples. In general the Mahasabha will not back up any
Legislation to thrust the reforming views on our Sanatani brothers so
far as personal law is concerned”.
Savarkar
defended Hindu Princes who were British stooges
Savarkar was a great defender of the Hindu princes ruling native
India. According to Savarkar, the Hindu princes were not only co-religionists
but also descendants of the brave Hindu kings in the past and thus their ‘power
in emergency’. In fact, Hindu Mahasabha and RSS both proudly described the Hindu
princes ruling native India in league with the British rulers as ‘Shakti-sthan’ (centres of power) of
Hinduism. It surely meant that Hindu sectarian leadership had neither any idea
about the aspirations of toiling Hindu masses nor believed that Hindu princes
were nothing but fifth column of Britain in India. The crucial fact should not
be missed here that only those princes (both Hindu and Muslim) who remained
absolutely loyal to foreign rulers by contributing men and material in
suppressing the ‘Mutiny’ were retained as native rulers by the colonial masters
in the post 1857 period.
These Hindu rulers as true and committed henchmen of the White
masters never allowed any democratic activity in their kingdoms. There were
endless instances of rape, killing, maiming and terrible persecution of
political activists demanding basic human rights in these native states. Indian
freedom struggle is witness to innumerable cases when subjects in these states
were not allowed even to unfurl Tricolour.
Mysore was a Hindu princely state where 26 patriotic Indians were
massacred by the police of the ruler for daring to salute Tricolour.
Shockingly, it was in defence of this massacre which had sent a wave of
indignation throughout India that Savarkar sent the
following message to the Mysore Hindu Sabha session at Shimoga on April, 17,
1941: “The chief aim of the Mysore State Hindu Sabha must be to consolidate and
strengthen the Hindu power in the Hindu State and to stand by the Maharaja and
the Hindu State in weal and woe extending the most loyal and patriotic support
to them in defending the Prince and the State against any subversive activities
carried on by any non-Hindu forces or by the Hindu dupes of the Pseudo
Nationalistic organisations.”
Savarkar advised Queen of England to hand-over India to Nepal King
as he was the King of all Hindus of the world
Savarkar even suggested to the British Queen of England that India
before it slips out of her hand “should be handed over to an equal an
independent ally of Britain like His Majesty the Nepal King” who was the
sovereign of all Hindus of the world.
These are really sad times for the largest democracy in the world
that a personality antithetical to all its ideals is being presented as an icon
with total disregard to historical facts available even in the Hindutva
archives.
Shamsul Islam
14-11-2021
[A truncated version appeared in THE STATESMAN, 14-11-2021.
Link:
https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/savarkars-rehabilitation-1503024319.html
Link
for some of S. Islam's writings in English, Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Malayalam,
Kannada, Bengali, Punjabi, Gujarati and video interviews/debates:
http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam
Facebook:
https://facebook.com/shamsul.islam.332
Twitter:
@shamsforjustice
http://shamsforpeace.blogspot.com/
Email:
notoinjustice@gmail.com
