09-08-2004, 08:53 PM
Veer Savarkar in perspective by Bulbul Roy Mishra
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Veer Savarkar was no more when I was born, and hence, my understanding of him and his philosophy is entirely based on contemporary writings, current analysis, historic documents and my own perception. Born in 1883, Savarkar was fearless, determined and dedicated to the cause of liberation of his motherland from his early childhood, as is evident from the records.
His "Monkey Brigade" when he was just 11, leading role in Shivaji and Ganesh Utsav when in high school, founding of the Abhinav Bharat Society while studying in a Pune college, and public bonfire of foreign clothes in 1906 bear testimony to his leadership quality and love for the motherland. As his activities were anti-British, he was expelled from college. However,hisscholastic journey to study law in London was not prevented.
While in London he wrote a biography of Gieuseppe Mazzini, the great Italian revolutionary, which became a source of inspiration for the Indian freedom fighters. His magnum opus, The Indian War of Independence, 1857, written in London but published in Holland by Bhikaji Cama without a cover or a name, and was smuggled into India by a Muslim friend, belied the British disinformation that it was just a sepoy mutiny.
Savarkar also designed the first Indian national flag while in London, and Madam Cama unfurled it at the World Socialist Conference at Stuttgart, Germany. In 1910, he was arrested in London on the charge of transporting pistols illegally to India and abetting assassination. While being deported to India for trial on the vessel Morena, he escaped through a toilet window and swam his way to Marseilles. Unfortunately, the French police arrested him and handed him over to the British. He was eventually sentenced to 50 years of rigorous imprisonment, and thrown into the dungeons of Andaman.
After 16 years in prison, Savarkar was transferred to Ratnagiri jail and later kept under house arrest. In 1937, he was unconditionally released. By that time Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent movement snatched the momentum and, therefore, leaders like Savarkar slipped into the background. During this period, Savarkar was actively associated with the Hindu Mahasabha and advocated aggressive Hindutva and the "two nations" theory. He died as a renunciant in 1966.
Though his heroics were undisputed and recognised by tall leaders of the freedom movement including Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Bose, Savarkar is much maligned on three counts by his detractors. First, his statement in 1937 made in the Hindu Mahasabha that India was not a homogeneous nation, but it comprised two nations in the main. Second, his mercy petitions to the British Raj from Andaman jail with a promise of loyalty. Third, his vicarious liability arising from the assassination of Gandhi by Nathuram Godse, a Savarkarite. Let us now examine the above three grounds of detraction.
Taking up the last count first, criminal laws pertaining to assassination or murder do not recognise vicarious liability. Like Marx and Lenin cannot be held liable for killings by Marxists and Leninists in India, it is illogical to condemn Savarkar for the assassination of Gandhi by Godse. Besides, even after painstaking investigation, the allegation against Savarkar was not proved. And, therefore, such baseless allegation - a mischievous political ploy - merits outright rejection.
As for his mercy petitions to the Raj, while the British were extraordinarily kind and understanding toward Gandhi and Nehru, who were often released on humanitarian grounds without asking, Savarkar could not secure his release even after promising good conduct. This proves the British did not trust Savarkar, a follower of Shivaji. The British rejected his petitions after cautious evaluation based on the report of Sir Reginald Craddock's who interviewed him in jail in 1913. Therefore, there is no justification in taking those petitions seriously. Viewed in perspective, the letters were tactically sound as Savarkar had no other escape route, and the nation needed his leadership at that juncture.
Let us now dwell on his "two-nation" theory propounded in 1937. It is undeniable that both Savarkar and the Hindu Mahasabha championed Akhand Bharat under Hindu hegemony, and were against Partition which Jinnah demanded. But it amounts to deliberate distortion of history to say that Jinnah was influenced by the "two-nation" theory of Savarkar, for then neither Savarkar nor the Hindu Mahasabha were a force to reckon with. Gandhi was the undisputed leader. The root of the "two-nation" theory lay much deeper.
Six centuries of Islamic rule in India witnessed large scale migration of Muslims to this country taking pride in their foreign blood in a land of kafirs. They never identified themselves with the rest of Indians including Islamic converts. It was predominantly the descendants of those immigrants who demanded a portion of India for themselves on religious criterion, refusing to accept domination of the Gandhian Congress which to them was a Hindu party.
Savarkar's only fault was that instead of being hypocritical, he spelt it out - called a spade a spade. His aggressive Hindu nationalism was intended to prevent Partition which he had foreseen. That he was not dogmatic is evident from his refusal to consider cow as holy and astrology as rational. He remarked, "It may be that at some time the word 'Hindu' may come to indicate a citizen of Hindustan and nothing else!" That time has since come with a vast majority of Indian Muslims sharing a common heritage, culture and tradition with Hindus and the rest, which was not the case with immigrant Muslims at the time of Savarkar. Thus, one has to understand Savarkar in perspective.
Veer Savarkar, a firm believer in Vivekananda's timeless, universal, non-discriminatory Vedantic Hindutva, chose to make it assertive owing to contemporary realities, until the nation would elevate to a state where all differences became apparent and not real, superficial and not substantial. Any attempt to insult this great patriot's memory either betrays ignorance or deliberate mischief.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Veer Savarkar was no more when I was born, and hence, my understanding of him and his philosophy is entirely based on contemporary writings, current analysis, historic documents and my own perception. Born in 1883, Savarkar was fearless, determined and dedicated to the cause of liberation of his motherland from his early childhood, as is evident from the records.
His "Monkey Brigade" when he was just 11, leading role in Shivaji and Ganesh Utsav when in high school, founding of the Abhinav Bharat Society while studying in a Pune college, and public bonfire of foreign clothes in 1906 bear testimony to his leadership quality and love for the motherland. As his activities were anti-British, he was expelled from college. However,hisscholastic journey to study law in London was not prevented.
While in London he wrote a biography of Gieuseppe Mazzini, the great Italian revolutionary, which became a source of inspiration for the Indian freedom fighters. His magnum opus, The Indian War of Independence, 1857, written in London but published in Holland by Bhikaji Cama without a cover or a name, and was smuggled into India by a Muslim friend, belied the British disinformation that it was just a sepoy mutiny.
Savarkar also designed the first Indian national flag while in London, and Madam Cama unfurled it at the World Socialist Conference at Stuttgart, Germany. In 1910, he was arrested in London on the charge of transporting pistols illegally to India and abetting assassination. While being deported to India for trial on the vessel Morena, he escaped through a toilet window and swam his way to Marseilles. Unfortunately, the French police arrested him and handed him over to the British. He was eventually sentenced to 50 years of rigorous imprisonment, and thrown into the dungeons of Andaman.
After 16 years in prison, Savarkar was transferred to Ratnagiri jail and later kept under house arrest. In 1937, he was unconditionally released. By that time Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent movement snatched the momentum and, therefore, leaders like Savarkar slipped into the background. During this period, Savarkar was actively associated with the Hindu Mahasabha and advocated aggressive Hindutva and the "two nations" theory. He died as a renunciant in 1966.
Though his heroics were undisputed and recognised by tall leaders of the freedom movement including Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Bose, Savarkar is much maligned on three counts by his detractors. First, his statement in 1937 made in the Hindu Mahasabha that India was not a homogeneous nation, but it comprised two nations in the main. Second, his mercy petitions to the British Raj from Andaman jail with a promise of loyalty. Third, his vicarious liability arising from the assassination of Gandhi by Nathuram Godse, a Savarkarite. Let us now examine the above three grounds of detraction.
Taking up the last count first, criminal laws pertaining to assassination or murder do not recognise vicarious liability. Like Marx and Lenin cannot be held liable for killings by Marxists and Leninists in India, it is illogical to condemn Savarkar for the assassination of Gandhi by Godse. Besides, even after painstaking investigation, the allegation against Savarkar was not proved. And, therefore, such baseless allegation - a mischievous political ploy - merits outright rejection.
As for his mercy petitions to the Raj, while the British were extraordinarily kind and understanding toward Gandhi and Nehru, who were often released on humanitarian grounds without asking, Savarkar could not secure his release even after promising good conduct. This proves the British did not trust Savarkar, a follower of Shivaji. The British rejected his petitions after cautious evaluation based on the report of Sir Reginald Craddock's who interviewed him in jail in 1913. Therefore, there is no justification in taking those petitions seriously. Viewed in perspective, the letters were tactically sound as Savarkar had no other escape route, and the nation needed his leadership at that juncture.
Let us now dwell on his "two-nation" theory propounded in 1937. It is undeniable that both Savarkar and the Hindu Mahasabha championed Akhand Bharat under Hindu hegemony, and were against Partition which Jinnah demanded. But it amounts to deliberate distortion of history to say that Jinnah was influenced by the "two-nation" theory of Savarkar, for then neither Savarkar nor the Hindu Mahasabha were a force to reckon with. Gandhi was the undisputed leader. The root of the "two-nation" theory lay much deeper.
Six centuries of Islamic rule in India witnessed large scale migration of Muslims to this country taking pride in their foreign blood in a land of kafirs. They never identified themselves with the rest of Indians including Islamic converts. It was predominantly the descendants of those immigrants who demanded a portion of India for themselves on religious criterion, refusing to accept domination of the Gandhian Congress which to them was a Hindu party.
Savarkar's only fault was that instead of being hypocritical, he spelt it out - called a spade a spade. His aggressive Hindu nationalism was intended to prevent Partition which he had foreseen. That he was not dogmatic is evident from his refusal to consider cow as holy and astrology as rational. He remarked, "It may be that at some time the word 'Hindu' may come to indicate a citizen of Hindustan and nothing else!" That time has since come with a vast majority of Indian Muslims sharing a common heritage, culture and tradition with Hindus and the rest, which was not the case with immigrant Muslims at the time of Savarkar. Thus, one has to understand Savarkar in perspective.
Veer Savarkar, a firm believer in Vivekananda's timeless, universal, non-discriminatory Vedantic Hindutva, chose to make it assertive owing to contemporary realities, until the nation would elevate to a state where all differences became apparent and not real, superficial and not substantial. Any attempt to insult this great patriot's memory either betrays ignorance or deliberate mischief.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->