March the 23rd (2016) is the 85th anniversary of the martyrdom of three of India’s great revolutionaries, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, who were hanged at Lahore for working to overthrow the colonial, ‘firangee’ government. The British government thought that with the physical elimination of these freedom fighters their ideas and dreams of a secular and egalitarian independent India would also dissipate and disappear. The rulers were patently wrong as these revolutionaries and heir ideals continue to be an integral part of the people’s memory, their exploits sung far and wide in people’s lore.

On this 85th anniversary of their martyrdom we should remember, and not overlook the fact, that though it was the British colonial powers who hanged them, there were at the time organisations like Hindu Mahasabha, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Muslim League in pre-1947 India which not only remained alien to the ideals of these revolutionaries but also maintained a criminal silence on their hanging.

It is both comic, ironical and shocking therefore that, of these three communal outfits, it is the RSS — which consciously kept itself completely aloof from the anti-colonial struggle –that has, of late, laid claim to the tradition and contributions of these great revolutionaries. Literature is being produced and the discourse too seeks to appropriate them with false a-historic linkages to Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev.

During the NDA I regime when its two senior swayamsewaks, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishan Advani ruled the country, they had made the astonishing claim that Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, founder of the RSS met Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev in 1925 and continued attending meetings with these revolutionaries and even provided shelter to Rajguru in 1927 when he was underground after killing Sanders.[i]

In 2007, for the first time in its history, the Hindi organ of the RSS, Panchjanya came out with a special issue on Bhagat Singh. In the whole body of pre-Partition literature of RSS we do not find even a single reference to these martyrs. In fact, RSS literature of the contemporaneous period, is full of anecdotes showing its indifference to revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.

Madhukar Dattatreya Deoras, known as Balasahab Deoras, the third chief of the RSS, narrated an incident when Hedgewar saved him and others from following the path of Bhagat Singh and his comrades. Interestingly, this appeared in a publication of RSS itself:
“While studying in college (we) youth were generally attracted towards the ideals of revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh. Emulating Bhagat Singh we should do some or other act of bravery, this came to our mind often. We were less attracted towards Sangh (RSS) since current politics, revolution etc. that attracted the hearts of youth were generally less discussed in the Sangh. When Bhagat Singh and his companions were awarded death sentence, at that time our hearts were so excited that some friends together [we] vowed to do something directly and planned something terrible and in order to make it succeed decided to run away from homes. But to run away without informing our Doctorji [Hedgewar] will not be proper, considering it we decided to inform Doctorji about our decision. To inform this fact to Doctorji was assigned to me by the group of friends.

“We together went to Doctorji and with great courage I explained my feelings before him. After listening to our plan Doctorji took a meeting of ours for discarding this foolish plan and making us to realize the superiority of the work of Sangh. This meeting continued for seven days and in the night from ten to three. The brilliant ideas of Doctorji and his valuable leadership brought fundamental change in our ideas and ideals of life. Since that day we took leave of mindlessly made plans and our lives got new direction and our mind got stabilized in the work of Sangh.”[ii]

Moreover there is ample proof available in the documents of the RSS that establish that the RSS denounced movements led by revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekar Azad and their associates. There are passages in theBunch of Thoughts [collection of speeches and writings of Golwalkar treated as a holy book by the RSS cadres] decrying the whole tradition of martyrs:
“There is no doubt that such men who embrace martyrdom are great heroes and their philosophy too is pre-eminently manly. They are far above the average men who meekly submit to fate and remain in fear and inaction. All the same, such persons are not held up as ideals in our society. We have not looked upon their martyrdom as the highest point of greatness to which men should aspire. For, after all, they failed in achieving their ideal, and failure implies some fatal flaw in them.”[iii]
Golwalkar goes on to tell the RSS cadres that only those people should be adored who have been successful in their lives:
“It is obvious that those who were failures in life must have had some serious drawback in them. How can one, who is defeated, give light and lead others to success?”[iv]

In the whole body of pre-Partition literature of RSS we do not find even a single reference to these martyrs. In fact, RSS literature of the contemporaneous period, is full of anecdotes showing its indifference to revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.

In fact, Golwalkar’s book has a chapter titled ‘Worshippers of Victory’ in which he openly commits to the fact that he and RSS worship only those who are victorious.
“Let us now see what type of great lives have been worshipped in this land. Have we ever idealised those who were a failure in achieving life’s goal? No, never. Our tradition has taught us to adore and worship only those who have proved fully successful in their life-mission. A slave of circumstances has never been our ideal. The hero who becomes the master of the situation, changes it by sheer dint of his calibre[sic] and character and wholly succeeds in achieving his life’s aspirations, has been our ideal. It is such great souls, who by their self-effulgence, lit up the dismal darkness surrounding all round, inspired confidence in frustrated hearts, breathed life into the near-dead and held aloft the living vision of success and inspiration, that our culture commands us to worship.”[v]

Golwalkar did not name Bhagat Singh but according to his philosophy of life since Bhagat Singh and his companions did not succeed in achieving their goal they did not deserve any respect. According to his formula the British rulers would and should be the natural object of worship as they were able to kill revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.

It is difficult to find a statement more insulting and denigrating to the martyrs of the Indian Freedom Movement than this.

It will be shocking for any Indian who loves and respects the martyrs of the Freedom Movement to know what Dr. Hedgewar and the RSS felt about the revolutionaries fighting against the British. According to his biography published by the RSS, “Patriotism is not only going to prison. It is not correct to be carried away by such superficial patriotism. He used to urge that while remaining prepared to die for the country when the time came, it is very necessary to have a desire to live while organizing for the freedom of the country.”[vi]

‘Shameful’ is too mild a word to describe the attitude of the RSS towards these young freedom fighters, who had sacrificed their all in the struggle against the British colonial powers. The last Mughal ruler of India, Bahadurshah Zafar, had emerged as the rallying point and symbol of the Great War of Independence of 1857. Golwalkar while making fun of him said:
“In 1857, the so-called last emperor of India had given the clarion call—Ghazio mein bu rahegi jub talak eeman ki/Takhte London tak chalegi tegh Hindustan ki (As long as there remains the least trace of love of faith in the hearts of our heroes, so long, the sword of Hindustan will reach the throne of London.) But ultimately what happened? Everybody knows that.”[vii]

What Golwalkar thought of the people sacrificing their lot for the country is obvious from the following statement as well. He had the temerity to ask the great revolutionaries who wished to lay down their lives for the freedom of the motherland the following question (as if he was representing the British masters):
“But one should think whether complete national interest is accomplished by that? Sacrifice does not lead to increase in the thinking of the society of giving all for the interest of the nation. It is borne by the experience up to now that this fire in the heart is unbearable to the common people.”[viii]

Perhaps this was the reason that RSS produced no freedom fighter, not to mention no martyr in the movement against the colonial rule. Unfortunately, there is not a single line challenging, exposing, criticising or confronting the inhuman rule of the British masters in the entire literature of the RSS from 1925 to 1947. Those who are familiar with the glorious Freedom Struggle of India and sacrifices of martyrs like Bhagat Singh must challenge this evil appropriation of our heroes by the Hindutva camp which betrayed the liberation struggle. We should not allow these communal stooges of the British rulers to kill Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev once again.

(The author taught political science at the University of Delhi. He is a well known writer and columnist)

The post Bhagat Singh, the Tradition of Martrydom and Hindutva appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a shocking development, the student wing of the RSS put the busts of martyrs Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose with the bust of Savarkar on one pedestal at the University of Delhi, late in the night on August 20, 2019. This clubbing of busts of Bhagat Singh and Netaji with VD Savarkar is tantamount to the second killing of the two great martyrs who laid down their lives for the freedom of the country. Bhagat Singh sacrificed his life for a socialist-democratic-secular Republic and Netaji raised Azad Hind Fauj (INA), consisting of people of all religions and regions, for the armed liberation of India. The contemporary documents are witness to the fact that, while Bhagat Singh and Netaji fought against the repressive British rule and the two-nation theory, Savarkar brazenly sided with the British rulers and the Muslim League in order to defeat the all-inclusive freedom struggle.

‘Veer’ Savarkar Submitted FIVE Mercy Petitions & Got Remission of over 35 years
The most shameful and shocking part of this combination of busts is that, whereas Bhagat Singh and Netaji never acceded to the diktats of the colonial masters, never repented and never sought mercy, this Hindutva ‘Veer’ submitted a total of five mercy petitions in all, in 1911, 1913, 1914, 1918 and 1920. This ‘Veer’ though sentenced for 50 years (in 1910-1911), was in the Cellular Jail for less than 10 years and was finally released in 1924 from Yerwada Jail in Maharashtra. Thus, he was able to secure remission of more than 35 years. There were hundreds of other revolutionaries who, in the Cellular Jail and other jails, remained incarcerated for the full term of their convictions. There were, of course, martyrs like Bhagat Singh, Chandershekhar Azad, Ram Prasad Bismil, Ashfaqullah Khan, Sukhdev, Rajguru and Roshan Singh, who neither begged for mercy nor were shown any leniency. There were also a large number of Ghadarite revolutionaries and Bengal revolutionaries, who refused “to plead with the British authorities for mercy. Nor did they agree to give up their struggle for India’s liberty in exchange of their own personal liberty.”[i]
How Savarkar Backstabbed Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
When Netaji, during the World War II, was trying to secure foreign support for the liberation of the country and to organise a military attack on the northeast of the country, which finally culminated in the formation of ‘Azad Hind Fauj’ (Indian National Army), it was Savarkar who offered full military cooperation to the British masters. While addressing the 23rd session of the Hindu Mahasabha at Bhagalpur in 1941, he said:

“The war, which has now reached our shores, directly constitutes, at once, a danger and an opportunity, both of which render it imperative that the militarization movement must be intensified and every branch of the Hindu Mahasabha in every town and village must actively engage itself in rousing the Hindu people to join the army, the navy, the aerial forces and the different war-craft manufactories.”

It was Savarkar’s direct call for Hindus to join the British armed forces. To what extent Savarkar was willing to help the British would be clear by his words:

“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…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. Consequently, whether we like it or not, we shall have to defend our own hearth and home against the ravages of the war and this can only be done by intensifying the government’s war effort to defend India. 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.”[ii]

Savarkar’s total support to the British war efforts, when leaders like Subhash Chandra Bose were trying to chalk out a strategy to throw out the British rule from India through armed struggle, was the result of a well-thought-out Hindutva design. It was in Madura (22nd session of the Hindu Mahasabha, 1940) that he made his choice clear. His support to the British rested on the logic that “it is altogether improbable that, in this war, England will be defeated so disastrously as to get compelled to hand over her Indian Empire, lock, stock and barrel into German hands”, thus believing in the invincibility of the British Empire.

It was not as if Savarkar was unaware of the strong resentment, which was brewing in the ranks of common Indians, against such an approach. He brushed aside any criticism of Hindu Mahasabha’s decision of co-operating with the British in war efforts as,

“political folly into which the Indian public is accustomed to indulge in, thinking that because Indian interests are opposed to the British interests in general, any step in which we join hands with the British government must necessarily be an act of surrender, anti-national, of playing into the British hands and that co-operation with the British government in any case and under all circumstances is unpatriotic and condemnable.”[iii]

Savarkar spent the next few years in organizing recruitment camps for the British armed forces, which were to slaughter the cadres of INA in different parts of the North-East later. The Madura conference of the Hindu Mahasabha concluded with the adoption of an ‘immediate programme’, which resolved “to secure entry for as many Hindus recruits as possible into the army, the navy and the air forces”.[iv] He also informed them that, through the efforts of Hindu Mahasabha alone, one lakh Hindus were recruited in the British armed forces in one year. It is to be noted that, during this period, the RSS continued to invite Savarkar to address their youth gatherings for motivating the latter to join the British armed forces.

The Hindu Mahasabha, under Savarkar’s leadership, organised high-level Boards in different regions of the country, to help Hindus seeking recruitment in the British armed forces. We come to know through the following words of Savarkar, that these Boards were in direct contact with the British government. Savarkar informed the cadres,

“To deal with the difficulties and the grievances which the Hindu recruits to the Army find from time to time, a Central Northern Hindu Militarization Board has been formed by the Hindu Mahasabha at Delhi with Mr. Ganpat Rai, B.A., L.L.B Advocate, 51, Panchkuin Road, New Delhi, as convener. A Central Southern Hindu Militarization Board is also formed under the Chairmanship of Mr. L.B. Bhopatkar, M.A., LL.B., President Maharashtra Provincial Hindusabha, Sadashiv Peth, Poona. All complaints or applications for information etc. should be addressed by those Hindus who want to enter the forces or have already enlisted themselves in them, to the above addresses. Sir Jwala Prasad Shrivastav; Barrister Jamnadasji Mehta, Bombay; Mr. V.V. Kalikar, M.L.C., Nagpur and other members on the National Defence Council or the Advisory War Committee will certainly try their best to get these difficulties removed so far as possible, when they are forwarded by these Militarization Boards on to them.”[v]

This clearly shows that the British Government had accommodated leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha on its official war committees. Those, who declare Savarkar as a great patriot and freedom fighter, must bow their heads in shame when they read the following instruction from Savarkar to those Hindus who were to join the British forces:
“One point, however, must be noted in this connection as emphatically as possible, in our own interest, that those Hindus who join the Indian [read the British] Forces should be perfectly amenable and obedient to the military discipline and order which may prevail there, provided, always, that the latter do not deliberately aim to humiliate Hindu Honour.”[vi]

The British Government was in regular touch with Savarkar so far as the organisation of its highest war bodies was concerned. It included individuals whose names were proposed by Savarkar. This is made clear from the following thanksgiving telegram Savarkar sent to the British government. Bhide’s volume tells us that,

“The following Telegram was sent by Barrister V.D. Savarker [sic], the President of the Hindu Mahasabha to (1) General Wavell, the Commander in-Chief; and (2) the Viceroy of India on the 18th instant (July 18, 1941).

YOUR EXCELLENCY’S ANNOUNCEMENT DEFENCE COMMITTEE WITH ITS PERSONNEL IS WELCOME. HINDUMAHASABHA VIEWS WITH SPECIAL SATISFACTION APPOINTMENT OF MESSERS KALIKAR AND JAMNADAS MEHTA.”[vii] [As per the original text.]

It is important to note here that even the Muslim League, sub-serving the interests of the British rulers, refused to join Defence Committees established by the government, as done by Savarkar.

Savarkar Believed In The Two-Nation Theory & Formed Coalition Governments with the Muslim League

Savarkar openly opposed the dream of Bhagat Singh and Netaji, of a free, democratic and secular India. On the contrary, he demanded an exclusive Hindu nation and chalked out his Two-nation theory long before the Muslim League. While addressing the 19th Session of Hindu Mahasabha at Ahmedabad in 1937, he said:

“As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India. Several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. These, our well-meaning but unthinking friends, take their dreams for realities. That is why they are impatient of communal tangles and attribute them to communal organizations. But the solid fact is that the so-called communal questions are but a legacy handed down to us by centuries of cultural, religious and national antagonism between the Hindus and Moslems… Let us bravely face unpleasant facts as they are. 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.”[viii]

The fact should not be missed that Muslim League passed its Pakistan resolution in 1940 only. Savarkar, the great philosopher and guide of RSS, not only propagated the Two-Nation Theory long before but entered into alliances with Muslim League in order to break the ‘Quit India’ Movement. While delivering the Presidential address to the 24th session of the Hindu Mahasabha at Cawnpore (Kanpur) in 1942, he defended hobnobbing with the Muslim League in the following words,

“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 a 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 sociable as soon as they came in contact with the Hindu Mahasabha 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. Moreover, further events also proved demonstratively that the Hindu Mahasabhaits endeavoured to capture the centres of political power only in the public interests and not for the loaves and fishes of the office.”[ix]

It is to be noted that, in this coalition government, Syama Prasad Mukherjee, second in command of the Hindu Mahasabha, was the Deputy Premier. Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League also formed a coalition government in NWFP.

With these irrefutable facts from history, even available in the Hindutva organizations’ archives, the appearance of Savarkar’s bust with the great martyrs only means a second killing of the latter.

The post Second killing of Bhagat Singh & Subhash Chandra Bose by the Hindutva Gang appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Inssan abhee tak zinda hae, zinda hone per sharminda hae!”

(Translation: Human beings are still alive; they are ashamed to be alive!) Shahid Nadeem’s Urdu couplet on the silence of the civil society against communal violence. He received forty lashes for writing and singing these lines by the Zia regime in Pakistan.

For almost last four decades, on every anniversary of the horrific 1984 massacre of Sikhs in India, this author has been reminding the nation how the Indian State and judiciary did not bother to punish the perpetrators of this horrendous mass killing of the innocents of the second largest religious minority of our country. On every anniversary the author hoped that now justice would be done and he would not have to write the painful story once again as a reminder. It has not happened in year 2020 also; the saga of the criminal betrayal by the Indian Republic has no end and author like the victims continues to cry before a deaf and dumb Indian State.

However, the shameless Indian State with the 37^th anniversary approaching made noises as if it was working for getting justice to the victims, like in the past! The National Minority Commission was kind enough to issue notices on October 30, 2021 to Delhi, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal, Bihar, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh “to file reports with the Commission detailing the victims, compensation paid so far and arrests and action taken against the accused in these cases.”

Earlier, in January 2021, the UP government told the nation that a “Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up by the Yogi Adityanath government to probe cases related to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Kanpur has claimed to have collected evidence of murder and arson from a house in the district’s Naubasta area where two people were killed and set ablaze [in 1984]”.

It took Indian State only 37 years to achieve these two goals in search for the killers of 1984.

Two kinds of justice

Whenever the country witnesses the large-scale violence against the minorities and Dalits, the search for perpetrators continues endlessly and the criminals are never punished. Major incidents of violence against minorities like Nellie massacre (1983), Sikh massacre (1984), Hashimpura custodial massacre of Muslim youth (1987), pre/post- Ayodhya mosque demolition violence against Muslims (1990-92), Gujarat carnage (2002) and Kandhmal cleansing of Christians (2008) are testimony to this reality. But when the victims are Dalits or minorities no such urgency is shown. In such cases Indian State is fond of playing commission-commission. Commissions after commissions would be constituted to see that the heinous crimes disappear from the public memory. The horrendous massacre of Sikhs in different parts of India in 1984 is a living testimony of this criminal attitude of the Indian justice system.

The status of anti-Dalit violence is no different. The major incidents of persecution and massacre of Dalits:

1968 Kilvenmani massacre, 1997 Melavalavu massacre, 2013 Marakkanam anti-Dalit violence, 2012 Dharmapuri anti- Dalit violence (all in Tamil Nadu);

1985 Karamchedu massacre, 1991 Tsundur massacre (all in AP), 1996 Bathani Tola Massacre, 1997 Laxmanpur Bathe massacre (all in Bihar);

1997 Ramabai killings, Mumbai, 2006 Khairlanji massacre, 2014 Javkheda Hatyakand, (all in Maharashtra);

2000 Caste persecution in (Karnataka);

5 Dalits beaten/burnt to death for skinning a dead cow 2006, 2011 killings of Dalits in Mirchpur (all in Haryana),

2015 anti-Dalit violence in Dangawas (Rajasthan)

These are some of the thousands of incidents of the Dalit persecution. In almost all these cases perpetrators are yet to be identified. Even if identified the prosecution rate never exceeded 20%.

On the other hand, the Dalit, working class and minority ‘perpetrators’ of violence are efficiently put on trial by constituting special investigation teams and punished by fast-track courts. In order to meet the end of ‘justice’, ‘national security’ and ‘wish of the society’ they are hanged and jailed. The latest case is from Assam where a court at Jorhat on October 20, 2020 sentenced one person to death and 24 others to life imprisonment for lynching a doctor in a tea estate on August 31, 2019. Dr. Deben Dutta of the Teok Tea Estate Hospital in Jorhat, was beaten to death by workers. They were angry about Dutta’s absence from duty at the hospital where Somra Majhi, a 33-year-old plantation worker of the estate, was admitted in critical condition. By the time the doctor returned around 3.30 pm, Majhi had died. Angry workers then beat Dutta up and locked him in a room where he died. The perpetrators were found and convicted in 14 months’ record time. It is nobody’s case that workers had any right to kill a person whatever would have been the provocation and instigation. But the issue is that when victims are minorities, working class and Dalits the State and judiciary go into coma.

Betrayal by governments till 2014

After giving free run to the killer gangs the government appointed one man Marwah Commission to find out the perpetrators of the 1984 ‘riots’. As this exercise was proving inconvenient, it was asked to disband itself within short period of its existence and a sitting Supreme Court Judge Ranga Nath Mishra was asked to conduct inquiry into 1984 ‘riots’ who submitted his report in 1987. Shockingly, this fact finding (or fact-hiding) commission headed by Misra observed that

“Riots which had a spontaneous origin later attained a channelized method at the hands of gangsters.”

The massacre was reduced to ‘riots’ as if Sikhs equally fought against the others. It was a brazen lie. The ‘apostle of justice’, Mishra, champion of the theory of spontaneity was not, naturally, able to find out from where these gangsters came! According to Jarnail Singh author of the book I Accuse: The Anti-Sikh Violence of 1984 for this service to the State he was awarded a berth in Rajya Sabha.

Next two decades, not less than nine commissions of inquiry were instituted. For the Indian State it became a routine to announce constitution of some new commission or some more compensation to the families of victims in order to deflect the mounting anger at the times of elections. Highlighting the anti-minority bias of such commissions, H. S. Phoolka, a renowned lawyer, commented that instead of getting convicted many of the political perpetrators get promoted as rulers.

In the latest development Supreme Court of India on August 16, 2017 ordered the constitution of a panel comprising two of its former judges to examine the justification for closing 241 anti-Sikh riot cases probed by SIT in next 3 months. This was November 2018 (15 months since the order was passed) and these three months were yet to be over!

Betrayal by the present RSS/BJP rulers

RSS claims to have always stood for Hindu-Sikh unity. It occasionally expresses its gratitude to Sikhism for saving Hinduism from the Muslim aggression. It may not be irrelevant to note here that RSS does not treat Sikhism as independent religion, which discarded Casteism and Brahmanical hegemony, but part of Hinduism. The RSS/BJP leaders blamed Congress for anti-Sikh violence Modi while addressing a public rally during last parliamentary elections at Jhansi, UP (October 25, 2013) asked Congress leaders to explain who “killed thousands of Sikhs in 1984” and “has anyone been convicted for the Sikh genocide so far”. Modi during Punjab elections and 2014 general elections kept on referring to ‘qatl-e-aam’ or genocide of Sikhs.

Modi after becoming PM in a message (October 31, 2014) said that anti-Sikh riots in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination were like a,

“Dagger that pierced through India’s chest…Our own people were murdered, the attack was not on a particular community but on the entire nation.”

Hindutva icon, RSS whole-timer and PM Modi lamented the fact that culprits were yet to be booked and tried for this massacre. However, Modi did not tell the nation what NDA governments which ruled this country from 1998 to 2004 did to persecute the culprits. Modi also forgot to share the fact that as per the autobiography of LK Advani (page 430); it was his Party which forced Indira Gandhi to go for army action infamously named as Operation Blue Star which killed large number of Sikh pilgrims.

Renowned journalist Manoj Mitta, author of the book When a Tree Shook Delhi: The 1984 Carnage and Its Aftermath straight forwardly tells that

“Despite the BJP rule, there has hardly been any will to enforce accountability for the massacres that took place under the Congress. It’s as if there is a tacit deal between the sponsors of 1984 and 2002”.

It was no over-sight that 2019 parliamentary elections 1984 massacre was totally forgotten. This is not what outsiders or critics of the RSS have been telling. The perusal of the contemporary RSS documents show that major focus was on condemning the Sikh extremism, eulogizing Indira Gandhi and welcoming the crowning of Rajiv Gandhi as new prime minister.

RSS ideologue Nana Deshmukh’s dehumanized attitude towards Sikh massacre

The most important proof of such a dehumanized attitude towards the massacre of Sikhs is a document circulated by Nana Deshmukh, a prominent whole timer and ideologue of the RSS [now deceased]. This document titled as ‘MOMENTS OF SOUL SEARCHING’ was circulated by Deshmukh on November 8, 1984, may help in unmasking the whole lot of criminals involved in the massacre of innocent Sikhs who had nothing to do with the killing of Indira Gandhi. This document may also throw light on where the cadres came from, who meticulously organized the killing of Sikhs. Nana Deshmukh in this document is seen outlining the justification of the massacre of the Sikh community in 1984.

This document also shows the true degenerated and fascist attitude of the RSS towards all the minorities of India. The RSS has been arguing that they are against Muslims and Christians because they are the followers of foreign religions. Here we find them justifying the butchering of Sikhs who according to their own categorization happened to be the followers of an indigenous religion. In this document we will hear from the horse’s mouth that the RSS like the then Congress leadership believed that the massacre of the innocent Sikhs was unavoidable.

This document was published in the Hindi Weekly Pratipaksh edited by George Fernandes, who later became Defence Minister of India in the NDA regime, in its edition of November 25, 1984 titled ‘Indira Congress- RSS collusion’ with the following editorial comment:

“The author of the following document is known as an ideologue and policy formulator of the RSS. After the killing of Prime Minister (Indira Gandhi) he distributed this document among prominent politicians. It has a historical significance that is why we have decided to publish it, violating policy of our Weekly. This document highlights the new affinities developing between the Indira Congress and the RSS. We produce here the Hindi translation of the document.”

The original pages of the Hindi Weekly Pratipaksh edited by George Fernandes reproduced.

Deshmukh in his document ‘MOMENTS OF SOUL SEARCHING’ is seen outlining the justification of the massacre of the Sikh community in 1984. His defence of the carnage can be summed up as in the following:

1. The massacre of Sikhs was not the handiwork of any group or anti-social elements but the result of a genuine feeling of anger.
2. Deshmukh did not distinguish the action of the two security personnel of Indira Gandhi, who happened to be Sikhs, from that of the whole Sikh community. According to his document the killers of Indira Gandhi were working under some kind of mandate of their community.
3. Sikhs themselves invited these attacks, thus advancing the Congress theory of justifying the massacre of the Sikhs.
4. He glorified the Operation Blue Star and described any opposition to it as anti- national. When Sikhs were being killed in thousands he was warning the country of Sikh extremism, thus offering ideological defense of those killings.
5. Sikh community as a whole was responsible for violence in Punjab.
6. Sikhs should have done nothing in self-defence but showed patience and tolerance against the killer mobs.
7. These were Sikh intellectuals and not killer mobs which were responsible for the massacre. They had turned Sikhs into a militant community, cutting them off from their Hindu roots, thus inviting attacks from the nationalist Indians. Moreover, he treated all Sikhs as part of the same gang and described attacks on them as a reaction of the nationalist Hindus.
8. He described Indira Gandhi as the only leader who could keep the country united and assassination of such a great leader such killings could not be avoided.
9. Rajiv Gandhi who succeeded Mrs. Gandhi as the PM and justified the nation- wide killings of Sikhs by saying, “When a huge tree falls there are always tremors felt”, was lauded and blessed by Nana Deshmukh at the end of the document.
10. Shockingly, the massacre of Sikhs was being equated with the attacks on the RSS cadres after the killing of Gandhiji and we find Deshmukh advising Sikhs to suffer silently. Everybody knows that the killing of Gandhiji was inspired by the RSS and the Hindutva Ideology whereas the common innocent Sikhs had nothing to do with the murder of Indira Gandhi.
11. There was not a single sentence in the Deshmukh document demanding, from the then Congress Government at the Centre or the then home minister Narsimha Rao (a Congress leader dear to the RSS who later silently watched demolition of Babri masjid by Hindutva goons as PM of India in 1992) remedial measures for controlling the violence against the minority community. Mind it, that Deshmukh circulated this document on November 8, 1984, and from October 31 to this date Sikhs were left alone to face the killing gangs. In fact, November 5-10 was the period when the maximum killings of Sikhs took place. Deshmukh was just not bothered about all this.
12. It is generally believed that the Congress cadres were behind this genocide. This may be true but there were other forces too which actively participated in this massacre and whose role has never been investigated. It could be one of the reasons that actual perpetrators remain unknown. Those who witnessed the genocide were stunned by the swiftness and military precision of the killer/marauding gangs (later on witnessed during the Babri mosque demolition, burning alive of Dr. Graham Steins with his two sons, 2002 pogrom of the Muslims in Gujarat and cleansing of Christians in parts of Orissa) which went on a burning spree of the innocent Sikhs. This, surely, was beyond the capacity of the thugs led by many Congress leaders.
13. It is shocking that Deshmukh presented 1984 massacre of Sikhs as an issue between Sikhs and Hindus. He wrote: “I feel proud of all those Hindu neighbours who protected lives and property of troubled Sikh brothers without caring for their lives. Such things one being heard from all over Delhi. These things have practically increased the faith in natural goodness of human behavior and particularly faith in Hindu nature.” He remained oblivious to the fact that these were not only Hindus but Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, Communists who defended Sikhs’ lives and properties.

Deshmukh document did not happen in isolation. It represented the real RSS attitude towards Sikh genocide
of 1984. It may be relevant to know here that the RSS cadres did not come forward in defence of the Sikhs. The RSS is very fond of circulating publicity material, especially photographs of its khaki shorts-clad cadres doing social work. For the 1984 violence they have none. In fact, Deshmukh’s article also made no mention of the RSS cadres going to the rescue of Sikhs under siege. This shows the real intentions of the RSS during the genocide.

The RSS English organ, Organizer in its combined issue dated November 11 & 18, 1984 carried an editorial titled ‘Stunning Loss’ which praised Indira Gandhi in the following words:

“It will always be difficult to believe that the Indira Gandhi is no more. One had got so used to hearing her myriad voices for so long, that everything looks so blank without her. The violent manner of her death is the most shocking horror story, giving the nation the creeps…It is a case of treacherous fanatics stigmatizing the whole nation by butchering a remarkable specimen of Indian womanhood…She literally served India to the last drop of her blood according to her own lights.” The same editorial ended with the words supporting newly installed PM, Rajiv Gandhi who “deserves sympathy and consideration”.

Organizer also carried statement of RSS Supremo; Bala Deoras titled ‘Balasaheb condemns assassination, Delhi carnage’ in a single column. He mourned and condemned the carnage but not even once referred to the fact that Sikhs were under attack. For him it was “infighting in the Hindu Samaj”. He also overlooked the fact that it was not only Delhi where Sikhs were butchered/burnt but in many other parts of India too. According to this statement “swayamsevaks have been instructed to form or help in forming Mohalla Suraksha Samitis” for restoring peace and rehabilitation of the sufferers. However, there are no documents available in the contemporary RSS archives to show how these Samitis functioned. It is a fact that RSS which is fond of displaying photographs of its cadres doing social work did not publish any visual of the activity of these Samitis.

In the same statement Deoras reacting to the assassination of Indira Gandhi stated,

“It is shocking beyond words to express the feelings at the murder of PM          Mrs. Indira Gandhi by some fanatic elements. She had been carrying on almost the entire burden of the country since 1966. She was loved and respected not only in this country but all over the world. Her passing away at this critical juncture will create a void in India and also in the world.”

According to the above-mentioned Organizer article,

“RSS Sarkyavah, Rajender Singh issued instructions to all the branches in the country to hold a special meeting in Shakha condemning the dastardly murder of the PM and paying homage to the departed soul. He also  issued instructions to cancel all public functions to be held by RSS during the period of mourning.”

Of course, RSS archives do not contain any instructions from RSS top brass ordering to mourn the Sikh martyrs.
RSS against former PM Manmohan Singh’s apology for 1984 massacre

The RSS continues to downplay 1984 Sikh massacre will be clear by the perusal of charter of demands submitted to the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in last July. The senior RSS ideologue, Dina Nath Batra on behalf of RSS-affiliated Shiksha Sanskriti Utthan Nyas submitted five pages containing list of items to be removed from school text-books. Batra demanded that any reference to violence against minorities in the text-books should be removed which included references to a simple apology tendered by the former PM Manmohan Singh over 1984 violence. It is to be noted that in an apology in Parliament on August 12, 2005, Manmohan Singh, the then PM of India stated:

“I have no hesitation in apologizing to the Sikh community. I apologize not only to the Sikh community, but to the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood enshrined in our Constitution.”

So, the search for finding the perpetrators of Sikh massacre of 1984 continues endlessly. The present RSS/BJP rulers who claim to be co-religionists of Sikhs prove no different from Congress. The only hope is that those Indians who have stakes in continuation of democratic-secular Indian polity will come forward to force the Indian State to identify and punish the killers. The scholars who have been involved in the study of religious violence are unanimous in the conclusion that if 1984 massacre was not allowed to happen, there would not have been 1992- 93 (violence against Muslims in pre/post Babri mosque demolition period), 2002 (massacre of Muslims in Gujarat), Kandhmal 2008 (cleansing of Christians) and many other massacre of the minorities of India. Allowing the 1984 massacre the Indian State, let it be known to all the majoritarian fascist organizations that in such criminal happening the former would remain silent!

Nana Deshmukh awarded ‘Bharat Ratna’

As if it was not enough injustice to the martyrs and survivors of the 1984 massacre, on the eve of the last Republic Day (January 25, 2019) RSS/BJP rulers of India, bestowed the highest national award BHARAT RATN (gem of India) on Nanaji Deshmukh. PM Modi praising Deshmukh said, “He [Nana Deshmukh] personifies humility, compassion, and service to the downtrodden. He is a Bharat Ratna in the truest sense”.

If anybody wants to understand the exact meaning of the proverb ‘to rub salt into the wound’ this Bharat Ratna to Deshmukh is the fittest example!

Must read the full English text of the RSS ideologue Nana Deshmukh’s document, link: https://www.academia.edu/4890979/RSS_IDEOLOGUE_ NANA_DESHMUKH_J USTIFIED_MASSACRE_OF_SIKHS_IN_1984_From_R
SS_archives_

*Views expressed are the author’s own.

The post 37-year-long mockery of searching for the killers of 1984 Sikh massacre appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Hindutva icon from western UP, Sangeet Som after inaugurating a statue of 8th-century Hindu king Anangpal Singh Tomar at Sisauli village near Meerut (October 16, 2017) was once again on in top gear while denigrating Muslims and Islam. However, it was not from his earlier repository of hate like the cow, love jihad, Ghar Wapsi etc. etc. On this occasion, he chose a new theme. It was Taj Mahal being denigrated as part of Hindutva polarizing agenda.

According to a leading English daily in this speech Som told the gathering: “Many people were pained to see that the Taj Mahal had been removed from the list of historical places, what history, history of which place, which history. The person who made Taj Mahal [Shahjahan] imprisoned his father, he targeted the Hindus of Uttar Pradesh and India. If these people still find a place in history, then it is very unfortunate and I guarantee that history will be changed.”

Som continuing his sermon said “In the past few years, there have been attempts to distort history in India and Uttar Pradesh. Today, the governments of India and UP are working to bring that history on the correct path, from the history of Ram to Krishna, Maharana Pratap to Shivaji Rao, they are trying to incorporate them in the books. And the blots which are in our books, be it of Akbar, Aurangzeb, Babur, the government is working to remove them from history.”

This sermon on history was hilarious so far as facts were concerned. One could see the clear imprint of RSS ‘boudhik’ training which produces such intellectuals. Shahjahan becomes Aurangzeb! Shah Jahan, who got Taj Mahal built in the memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal, was told to be the one who jailed his father. On the contrary, it was Shahjahan who was imprisoned by his son Aurangzeb until former’s death. But so far as the aim of communal polarization was concerned there was no confusion and mistake.

Som, a beloved of the RSS, is a seasoned religious bigot. He was implicated in his provocative statements in the Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013 that claimed at least 60 lives and displaced 50,000 people. The Justice Vishnu Sahai Commission report on Muzaffarnagar riots named him among the people responsible for inciting the riots. In the last UP assembly elections, he was also charged with instigating communal hatred after his supporters screened a documentary that allegedly polarized voters. This RSS/BJP leader was also accused of stoking communal tensions in Dadri’s Bisada village after the 2015 mob lynching of Mohammed Ikhlaq.

For his such prominent services to the cause of Hindutva politics, he was felicitated with awards like Hindu Hriday Samrat and Mahathakur Sangharsh Veer by ‘Hindu’ organizations. His prominence in the Hindutva hierarchy can be gauged by the fact that instead of being behind bars, he has been provided Z-category security by the RSS/BJP government.

Som in his speech was condemning those historians and activists who had criticized the absence of iconic Taj Mahal, a UNESCO World Heritage Site from the list of historical monuments in the UP Government tourism booklet released a month ago. Taj Mahal was dropped from the list despite the fact that as per a reply of the then Union Tourism and Culture Minister Mahesh Sharma in the Lok Sabha (July 19, 2016), it had earned a revenue of Rs 75 crore in three years of which only Rs 11 crores had been spent on its maintenance and other important environmental development of the Taj Mahal during the same period.

It is true that a section of the BJP leaders did half-heartedly express difference with Som’s opinion taking care of the fact that their response did not hurt the perpetrator of hate. The UP tourism minister Rita Bahuguna Joshi made it clear that the Taj was part of our heritage. But when asked directly about Som’s denigration instead of condemning the hate campaign against the Taj Mahal she simply said, “Well, every individual is free to make an opinion but as far as the government is concerned Taj is very much on our priority list.”

There is no doubt that Som’s diatribe was neither an exception nor an aberration. He was religiously expressing the RSS/BJP point of view on the monument. Last June chief minister Yogi Adityanath had no hesitation in declaring that He said that “the Ramayana and the Gita represent Indian culture and not the Taj Mahal.” He went on to emphasise that the ivory-white marble mausoleum didn’t represent “Indian culture”.

How the RSS/BJP intends to use the issue of Taj Mahal for its polarizing agenda can be known by the statement of a seasoned RSS/BJP leader, Vinay Katiyar, BJP Rajya Sabha MP which he made two days after Som’s venom-spitting against Taj Mahal. According to him, Taj Mahal was built by Mughal emperor Shahjahan after demolishing a Hindu temple dedicated to Shiva called Tejomahal.

It was no different with the BJP national spokesperson and a senior RSS cadre, G V L Rao, who though expressed difference with Som. But by treating Taj Mahal as a heritage of a killer and the barbaric Islamic rule as Som had done, had no hesitation in declaring that “As a party, we do not have a view on any individual monuments. But, broadly speaking, the period of Islamic rule — around 800 years — was a period of extreme exploitation, insane barbarism and unprecedented intolerance to the other faith. If anyone tries to gloss over these facts, it will be actually distorting history. It is well documented by historians of world stature that Muslim invasion and its rule represented the most oppressive and regressive world over”.

Some of the political commentators are of the view that the issue of Taj Mahal’s ‘barbaric Islamic’ heritage is being hyped keeping in view the coming assembly elections, especially in Gujarat. The RSS/BJP feel that Hindus of Gujarat not solidly backing it there, this issue will help in consolidating Hindu vote-bank there. It may be partly true but the danger of Hindutva mischief with Taj Mahal cannot be underestimated.

We should not forget that that before the murder of Father of the Nation, Gandhiji (January 30, 1948), a strident campaign of hatred was launched against him by the Hindutva gang. This hate propaganda resulted in his assassination was underscored by none other than Sardar Patel led home ministry which went on to record that “It was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organize for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji”.

It was no different when Babri mosque’s demolition was planned and executed during 1990-92. It is well-documented how all Muslims became haram-zade or Babar ki aulad (children of Babar) posing a serious danger to Ram-zade (children of Ram). The hatred campaign against Muslims/Islam was carried on for almost two years and became the most pervasive sentiment among Hindus with a trail of a bloodbath of Muslims in different parts of the country. Riding on it the Hindutva juggernaut led by RSS was able to demolish Ayodhya mosque on December 6, 1992, despite the commitment to the Parliament, PM and Supreme Court that mosque would not be harmed.

The RSS demolition squad must tell us that why despite “the period of Islamic rule — around 800 years — was a period of extreme exploitation, insane barbarism and unprecedented intolerance to the other faith”, the population of Muslims never exceeded 25% of the population and Hindu population never decreased below 75%. Savarkar says that after Humayun no Mughal king of India was from a Muslim mother. ‘800 years of Muslim rule’ kept Muslims pauperized whereas wealth, properties remained with the Hindus. Was it due to the fact that high Caste elite of Hindus joined hands with these ‘Muslims’ rulers? There could be no other reason for the continuation of this insane barbaric, extreme exploitation and unprecedented intolerance Islamic rule for 800 years.

There is real danger to the safety and existence of Taj Mahal. The rulers having allegiance to RSS cannot be trusted despite all kinds of assurances. India has not forgotten how Hindutva bandwagon especially RSS cheated and reneged on the Babri mosque. There can be 3 kinds of immediate dangers to Taj Mahal.
 

1. Mobs are allowed to damage/destroy Taj Mahal for being a symbol of Islamic repressive rule as was done on December 6, 1992, or in 2006-7 in Kandhmal against Churches and seminaries of anti-national Christians. It may be noted that many ‘Hindu’ historians/intellectuals have been claiming that Taj Mahal was a temple.
2. Taj Mahal is damaged/destroyed by forming a fake Islamist group or conspiring with some Islamo-fascist group claiming that mausoleum-like Taj Mahal is not allowed in Islam. It may be noted here that RSS relies on conspiracies for achieving its objects. Dr Rajendra Prasad who rose to be the first President of the Indian Republic warned even first home minister of India, Sardar Patel on this. In a letter to Sardar Patel (March 14, 1948) he wrote: “I am told that RSS people have a plan for creating trouble. They have got a number of men dressed as Muslims and looking like Muslims who are to create trouble for the Hindus by attacking them and thus inciting the Hindus. Similarly, there will be some Hindus among them who will attack Muslims and thus incite Muslims. The result of this kind of trouble amongst the Hindus and Muslims will be to create a conflagration.”
3. Even if Taj Mahal is not demolished its beauty and gorgeousness for which the Taj Mahal is known can be damaged permanently by the conspiratorial use of sub-standard and harmful chemicals for cleaning. This can be done through experts/consultants committed to the cleansing of India of ‘Islamic’ heritage.

In order to check and counter any such attempt the highest court of justice in India, the Supreme Court, must take immediate charge of the World Heritage Site as governments both at the Central level as well as UP level are committed to what creatures like Som,  GL Rao and Vinay Katiyar have been propagating. The UNO, especially UNESCO must monitor the situation to save Taj Mahal.
 

The post Will Taj Mahal meet the same fate as Babri Masjid? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Modi paying tribute to Nanaji Deshmukh

In more than last three decades, on every anniversary of the 1984 massacre of Sikhs, this author has been reminding the nation how Indian State and judiciary did not bother to punish the perpetrators of this horrendous mass killing of the innocents of the second largest religious minority of our country.

On every anniversary the author hoped that now justice would be done and he would not have to write the painful story once again as a reminder. It has not happened in last one year also; the saga of the criminal betrayal by the Indian Republic has no end and author continues to cry before a deaf and dumb Indian State.
 

Betrayal by governments till 2014

After giving free run to the killer gangs the government appointed one man Marwah Commission to find out the perpetrators of the 1984 ‘riots’. As this exercise was proving inconvenient, it was asked to disband itself within short period of its existence and a sitting Supreme Court Judge Ranga Nath Mishra was asked to conduct inquiry into 1984 ‘riots’ who submitted his report in 1987.

Shockingly, this fact finding (or fact-hiding) commission headed by Misra observed that “riots which had a spontaneous origin later attained a channelized method at the hands of gangsters”.

The massacre was reduced to ‘riots’ as if Sikhs equally fought against the others. It was a brazen lie. The ‘apostle of justice’, Mishra, champion of the theory of spontaneity was not, naturally, able to find out from where these gangsters came! According to Jarnail Singh, author of the book “I Accuse: The Anti-Sikh Violence of 1984”, for this service to the state he was awarded a berth in Rajya Sabha.

Next two decades, not less than nine commissions of inquiry were instituted. For the Indian state it became a routine to announce constitution of some new commission or some more compensation to the families of victims in order to deflect the mounting anger at the times of elections. Highlighting the anti-minority bias of such commissions, HS Phoolka, a renowned lawyer, commented that instead of getting convicted many of the political perpetrators get promoted as rulers.

In the latest development, the Supreme Court of India on August 16, 2017 ordered the constitution of a panel comprising two of its former judges to examine the justification for closing 241 anti-Sikh riot cases probed by SIT in next 3 months. It is November 2018 (15 months since the order was passed) and these three months are yet to be over!

RSS/BJP claims 

RSS claims to have always stood for Hindu-Sikh unity. It occasionally expresses its gratitude to Sikhism for saving Hinduism from the Muslim aggression. It may not be irrelevant to note here that RSS does not treat Sikhism as independent religion, which discarded casteism and Brahmanical hegemony, but part of Hinduism. 

George Fernandes’ “Pratipaksh’

The post A Bharat Ratna, RSS ideologue Nana Deshmukh ‘justified’ 1984 Sikh massacre appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The current vociferous campaign for awarding Savarkar Bharat Ratn by Savarkarites claims that this Hindutva ‘Veer’ was a ‘rationalist Hindu’ a leader who ‘ended the practice of Untouchability’, propagated ‘scientific temper’ and died as an atheist. They also persist in saying that his “outlook was absolutely modern and scientific and secular”.  

It is interesting to note that such protagonists of the Hindutva politics who declare the modern times as kalyug (state of moral decay), atheists as the scum of the society, Casteism synonymous with Hinduism and call for scientific temper as a “foreign conspiracy” by Christians and Communists are glorifying these qualities of Savarkar!

However, let us compare these claims of Savarkar being a liberal person with the facts available from the Hindu Mahasabha archives, on the views of Savarkar.    
 
Savarkar wanted Manusmriti as constitution of Hindus
How could a great rationalist and a “crusader against Untouchability” and “practitioner of scientific temper Savarkar” be a firm believer in Manu’s Codes?

He held Manusmriti to be the sacred book for Hindus. As a philosopher and guide of Hindutva, and the RSS he, without mincing words, had said:
 

“Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worship-able after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today the rules which are followed by crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law. That is fundamental.

[VD Savarkar, ‘Women in Manusmriti’ in Savarkar Samagar (collection of Savarkar’s writings in Hindi), Prabhat, Delhi, vol. 4, p. 415.]
 
If this dream of Savarkar, of enforcing the Laws of Manu is ever fulfilled, it is undoubtedly going to be the end of the road for Dalits and women in India. To what miserable and dehumanized status their lives will be reduced to can be known by having a glance at the Codes of Manu about them.
 
Manu’s Laws Concerning Sudras
For the sake of the prosperity of the worlds [the divine one] caused the Brahmana, the Kashtriya, the Vaisya and the Shudra to proceed from His mouth, His arm, His thighs and His feet. (I/31)

One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Shudras, to serve meekly these [other] three castes. (I/91)

A Shudra, who insults a high caste man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out for he is of low origin. (VIII/270)

If he [Shudra] arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears. (VIII/272)

A low-caste man, who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of high caste, shall be branded on his hips and be banished, or [the king] shall cause his buttocks to be gashed. (VIII/281)

Let [the first part of] a Brahmana’s name [denote something] auspicious, a Kshatriya’s be connected with power, and a Vaisya’s with wealth, but a Shudra’s [express something) contemptible. (II/31)

[The second part of] a Brahmana’s [name] shall be [a word] implying happiness, of a Kshatriya’s [a word] implying protection, of a Vaisya’s [a term] expressive of thriving, and of a Shudra’s [an expression] denoting service. (II/32)

The service of Brahmanas alone is declared [to be] an excellent occupation for a Shudra; for whatever else besides this he may perform will bear him no fruit. (X/123)

The remnants of their food must be given to him, as well as their old clothes, the refuse of their grain, and their old household furniture. (X/125)

No collection of wealth must be made by a Shudra, even though he be able [to do it]; for a Shudra who has acquired wealth, gives pain to Brahmanas. (X/129)

Manu’s Laws Concerning Women
By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house. (V/147)

In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent. (V/148)

Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence. (IX/3)

Women must particularly be guarded against evil inclinations,
however, trifling (they may appear); for, if they are not guarded,

they will bring sorrow on two families. (IX/5)

Considering that the highest duty of all castes, even weak husbands (must) strive to guard their wives. (IX/6)

He who carefully guards his wife, preserves (the purity of) his offspring, virtuous conduct, his family, himself, and his (means of acquiring) merit. (IX/7)

As the male is to whom a wife cleaves, even so is the son whom she brings forth; let him therefore carefully guard his wife, in order to keep his offspring pure. (IX/9)

No man can completely guard women by force; but they can be guarded by the employment of the (following) expedients:
Let the (husband) employ his (wife) in the collection and expenditure of his wealth, in keeping (everything) clean, in (the fulfillment of) religious duties, in the preparation of his food, and in looking after the household utensils. (IX/10, 11)

Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), ‘(It is enough that) he is a man,’ they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly. (IX/14)

Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world). (IX/15)

Knowing their disposition, which the Lord of creatures laid in them at the creation, to be such, (every) man should most strenuously exert himself to guard them. (IX/16)

(When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct. (IX/17)

[All laws are the verbatim reproduction from the F. Max Muller (ed.), The Laws of Manu, Low Price Publication, Delhi, 1996. The bracket after every code carries chapter number and code number respectively. For instance (I/31) means chapter I and code number 31 of Manusmriti.]
 
Savarkar committed to Manu Smriti
 
Savarkar remained committed to Manu’s diktats throughout his life. While delivering the presidential address to the 22nd session of the Hindu Mahasabha at Madura in 1940, Savarkar once again underlined the crucial fact of Manu being the law giver for Hindus and emphasized that once we ‘re-learn the manly lessons’ which Manu taught ‘Hindu nation shall prove again as unconquerable’. He firmly believed that once laws given by Manu were enforced ‘our Hindu nation shall prove again as unconquerable and conquering a race as we proved once…’⁷
[V. D. Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan, vol. 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindusabha, Poona, 1963,
p. 426. ]

Savarkarites emphasize the fact that their mentor organized community lunches with Untouchables and went to visit their residential quarters. How serious he was even in these cosmetic reformative actions can be known by the fact that he did it in his personal capacity ‘without involving the Hindu Mahasabha organization into social and religions [sic] activities not guaranteed by its constitutional limits…’⁸ [Bold as in the original text]
[A. S. Bhide, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s Whirlwind Propaganda: Extracts from the President’s Diary of his Propagandist Tours Interviews from December 1937 to October 1941, na, Bombay, 1940, p. xi. ]
 
Savarkar assured Sanatani Hindus who were opposed to Untouchables’ entry into Hindu temples in 1939 that Hindu Mahasabha,
“will not introduce or support compulsory Legislature [sic] regarding Temple Entry by the untouchables etc. in old temples beyond the limit to which the non-Hindus are allowed by custom as in force today.”
[Bhide, p. 128.]

On June 20, 1941 he once again pledged in the form of a personal assurance that he would not hurt the sentiments of Sanatani Hindus so far as the issue of entry of Untouchables in temples was concerned. This time he even promised not to touch anti-women and anti-Dalit personal laws,
“I guarantee that the Hindu Maha Sabha [sic] 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…”
[Bhide, p.425]

Despite all the above facts and many more about the anti-modern ideas of Savarkar being available in the archives of the Hindu Mahasabha itself, he is being glorified as a great rationalist, secularist and believer in social justice!

The reality is that RSS/BJP rulers want Bharat Ratna for him because Savarkar had total faith in the Manusmriti and the much-hated democratic-secular Indian Constitution. Let us not forget who the author of the Constitution was: Dr BR Ambedkar! A so-called “liberal aura” around Savarkar is being manufactured so that vast majority of Indians who stand for egalitarianism and reject Untouchability are persuaded to change their opinion about this architect of not just a Hindu Theocracy but an order –in the name of Hindutva– which is synonymous with Casteism.
 

The post Savarkar wanted Manu Smruti as Constitution for Hindus appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The British responded swiftly with mass detentions on August 8, 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. Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets and establishing parallel governments. Innumerable patriotic Indians were shot dead for the crime that they were holding Tricolour publically. Even before this brute killing,  a terrible massacre took place in Mysore where the armed forces of Mysore Raja who was closely associated to both the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS shot dead 22 Congress activists for saluting, believe it or not, the Tricolour.

What 2019 India, millennials and post millennials, forget, or choose not to remember, Is that the British declared the Congress ‘an anti-national and unlawful organization’, but  allowed only Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League to function, The entire Hindutvacamp ganged up to serve the British masters, They not only opposed the QIM but also provided multi-faceted and multi-dimensional support to the British rulers in suppressing this historic mass upsurge. There are revealing documents that prove this: read them to believe this,
 
SAVARKAR’S CALL FOR ”RESPONSIVE COOPERATION’ WITH BRITISH RULERS

While addressing the 24th session of the Hindu Mahasabha at Cawnpore (now Kanpur) in 1942, Savarkar outlined the strategy of the Hindu Mahasabha of co-operating with the British in the following words: 
 

“The Hindu Mahasabha holds that the leading principle of all practical politics is the policy of Responsive Co-operation. And in virtue of it, it believes that all those Hindu Sangathanists who are working as councillors, ministers, legislators and conducting any municipal or any public bodies with a view to utilize those centres of government power to safeguard and even promote the legitimate interests of the Hindus without, of course, encroaching on the legitimate interests of others are rendering a highly patriotic service to our nation…The policy of responsive co-operation which covers the whole gamut of patriotic activities from unconditional co-operation right up to active and even armed resistance, will also keep adapting itself to the exigencies of the time, resources at our disposal and dictates of our national interest.” [Italics as in the original]

HINDUTVA ICON DR SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE DEPUTY CM IN THE BENGAL MUSLIM LEAGUE MINISTRY TOOK UP THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CRUSHING THE QIM IN BENGAL

Following the Hindu Mahasabha directive to co-operate with the British, Hindutva’s icon, Dr. Mookerjee assured the British masters through a letter dated July 26, 1942.

Shockingly, it read: 
 

“Let me now refer to the situation that may be created in the province as a result of any widespread movement launched by the Congress. Anybody, who during the war, plans to stir up mass feeling, resulting internal disturbances or insecurity, must be resisted by any Government that may function for the time being”

The second-in-command of the Hindu Mahasabha, Dr Mookerjee, also the deputy chief minister in Bengal Muslim league ministry in a letter to the British Bengal governor on behalf of Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League made it clear that both these parties looked at the British rulers as saviours of Bengal against QIM launched by Congress. Assuring him, the letter said: 
“Indian have to trust the British, not for the sake for Britain, not for any advantage that the British might gain, but for the maintenance of the defence and freedom of the province itself.”
 
With this ‘anti-national record’ of ‘Veer’ Savarkar available in the Hindu Mahasabha archives itself; it would amount to a denigration of hundreds of martyrs and victims of the British colonialists attacked and imprisoned during QIM if Savarkar is today honoured with Bharat Ratna. No self-respecting nation should allow it to happen. 
 
(The views of the author are personal; former prime minister, Indira Gandhi issued a commemorative stamp in Savarkar’s name)

The post How the Regime’s Bharat Ratna Nominee, Savarkar, joined hands with colonists to crush Quit India Movement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 It is interesting that no such promise which has national ramifications was made in  Haryana which also goes to the polls with Maharashtra.

This promise made by the Maharashtra state BJP is shocking for two major reasons. Firstly, Savarkar cannot be honoured as a national hero given the legacy he finally leaves behind. He did start as a fighter for an all inclusive India but ended as a British stooge both ideologically and action wise. He propounded the concept of Hindutva which was synonymous with Casteism, subjugation to the British and Hindu separatism. Secondly, to tag Phules with Savarkar is a huge insult to the former who lived and died for a Caste-free and egalitarian society.  

Bharat Ratna to Savarkar amounts to denigration of Indian Matryrs of the Freedom Struggle

(1) This  ‘Veer’ (brave) icon wrote not one or two mercy petitions but six mercy petitions (1911, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1918 and 1920) to the British masters begging forgiveness for his revolutionary past.

A perusal of parts of the two mercy petitions will prove to what lower depths this ‘Veer’ consigned himself before the British rulers. 
The 1913 petition ended with the following words:

“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? Hoping your Honour will kindly take into notion these points.”

His mercy petition of 1920 was also a comprehensive one which offered total surrender. It submitted:

“Whether you believe it or not, I am sincere in expressing my earnest intention of treading the constitutional path and trying my humble best to render the hands of the British dominion a bond of love and respect and of mutual help. Such an Empire, as is foreshadowed in the Proclamation, wins my hearty adherence. For verily I hate no race or creed or people simply because they are not Indians!”

He went on to promise that 

“if the Government wants a further security from me then I and my brother are perfectly willing to give a pledge of not participating in politics for a definite and reasonable period that the Government would indicate…of remaining in a particular province or reporting our movements to the police for a definite period after our release – any such reasonable conditions meant genuinely to ensure the safety of the State would be gladly accepted by me and my brother… 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. 

 
Nothing Wrong in a writing mercy petitions

It is true that there was nothing wrong on part of the Cellular Jail detainees in writing petitions to the British officials. It was, in fact, an important legal right available to the prisoners. There were other revolutionaries in the Cellular Jail who, too, wrote petitions to the British Government.  Apart from Savarkar, Hrishi Kesh Kanjilal, Barindra Kumar Ghose and Nand Gopal also wrote petitions. However, these were only Savarkar and Barindra Ghose (Aurobindo Ghose’s brother) who pleaded to renounce their revolutionary past in order to secure personal freedom. 

Tilak who was serving a six year term (1908-1914) at Mandalay Jail (then in Burma) also wrote two mercy petitions (February 12, 1912 and August 5, 1912) but instead of seeking forgiveness for his seditious acts simply made the following identical request: 

“That as a matter of grace the petitioner now seeks to obtain HisMajesty’s merciful consideration of his case. He has undergone 2/3rds, or four out of six years’ term of his sentence, is now 56 years old, and is suffering for a long time from chronic diabetes; while his family affairs have been brought to a sad crisis by a heavy bereavement which he has recently suffered…The petitioner, therefore, humbly and loyally prays that His Majesty may be graciously pleased to grant…the unexpired portion of the petitioner’s sentence may be remitted by pardon or a remission…”

 
The total surrender to the British masters bore results. The two life time sentences of 50 years at the Cellular Jail accorded to asavarkar, were reduced to less than 13 years. He  spent less than 10 years at the Cellular Jail. Moreover, despite a ban on his political activities he was allowed to organize the Hindu Mahasabha, developments which succeeded in fracturing the more inclusive freedom struggle. He was the only beneficiary of such large-heartedness of the British masters in the history of the Cellular Jail! 
 
( The views of the author are personal)

The post How and Why Savarkar filed Mercy Petition to the British appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One of the “truths” manufactured in the boudhik shivirs (ideological training camps) of the RSS is that it was Jawaharlal Nehru who forced Article 370 on India while Sardar Patel, the first home minister of India was opposed to it.The RSS leaders both inside the Modi government and outside blame Jawaharlal Nehru ceaselessly“as the sole architect of Article 370”, giving Kashmir special status. Now, after this Article was guillotined on August 5, 2019, prime minister Modi is being eulogized as the one great leader who has completed Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s dream of ‘Ek Bharat’. Ram Madhav, the current prominent ideologue of both the RSS and BJP declared that a “Historic blunder committed by Nehru (has) finally (been) corrected.“[i]The RSS also claims that removal of the Article 370 is the realisation of the dream of ‘martyr’ like Syama Prasad Mukherjee who laid down his life for full integration of Kashmir with India.

Thus,the RSS/BJP regime claims that it was Jawaharlal Nehru who was solely responsible for inserting Article 370 in the Indian Constitution despite Sardar Patel’s opposition. This is an atrocious claim even an iota of which is not corroborated by the contemporary official documents specially those documents which originated from the office of Sardar Patel, independent India’s first home minister. Quite to the contrary, a deep dive into a plethora of these documents that concern the accession of Kashmir to India reveal that Sardar Patel was very part of the constitutional process through which Article 370 was inserted in the Constitution. Let us revisit some of the crucial ones to know how maliciously Nehru is being presented as the villain of Article 370.

Sardar Patel Facilitated adoption of Article 370 by the Constituent Assembly while Nehru was in the US on an Official Tour
Vidya Shankar, a senior ICS (predecessor of IAS) was private secretary to Sardar (1946-50) and was Patel’s most trusted advisor. He compiled and edited Sardar Patel’s correspondence in two bulky volumes which are regarded as the most authentic record of Sardar’s ideas and works.
Shankar, in his introductory note to the section of correspondence on Jammu and Kashmir (chapter 3), in fact, sings the praises of Sardar for getting the Article 370 passed, despite hurdles. It is through Shankar’s meticulous contemporary documentation,that we know that, at the time of Article 370 being passedby the Constituent Assembly of India (CA), Nehru was not in India, being away to USA on official visit.

“One of Sardar’s notable achievements in relation to Jammu and Kashmir was the addition of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, which defines the relation of the State to India. This matter was handled by Gopalaswami Ayyangar in consultation with Shiekh Abdullah and his Ministry and with the approval of Pandit Nehru. Although Nehru was himself away in the United States, at the time, his approval had been taken in advance to the draft formula. But Sardar had not been consulted. The Congress party in the Constituent Assembly was strongly, even violently, opposed to the draft article which gave a special position to the State. On principle, opinion in the party was that Kashmir should accept the Constitution on the same terms as other States; and in particular the provision that basic articles, e. g. Fundamental Rights as enshrined in the Constitution would not apply to the State was greatly resented. Gopalaswami Ayyangar failed to carry conviction and sought Sardar’s intervention. Sardar was anxious, in the absence of Nehru, that nothing should be done which would appear as letting him down. In the absence of Nehru Sardar, therefore, undertook the task of persuading the party to change stand. He carried out the task with such success that in the Assembly there was not much discussion, and no much discussion, and no opposition to the Article (370).”[ii]

Thus Sardar actively participated in formulating the Article 370 and getting nod of the Constituent Assembly. He corroborated this fact in a letter to Nehru dated November 3, 1949 when he wrote that
“There was some difficulty about the provision relating to Kashmir…I could persuade the party to accept all the changes except the last one, which was modified so as to cover not merely the first Ministry so appointed but any subsequent Ministries which may be appointed under that proclamation”.[iii]

Manufacturing History, the RSS Way
Article 370 (originally numbered 306A) came for discussion before the CA on October 17, 1949 with President of the CA, Dr Rajendra Prasad in the chair. Gopalaswami Ayyangar moved the resolution by reading the proposed Article with a long comment. In the course of debate only one member, Maulana Hasrat Mohani drew attention towards discrimination meted to the ruler of Baroda State. He stated:
“Sir, I want to make it clear at the very outset that I am neither opposed to all these concessions being granted to my Friend Sheikh Abdullah, not am I opposed to the acceptance of the Maharaja as the ruler of Kashmir. And if the Maharaja of Kashmir gets further powers and concessions I will be very glad…But may I ask a question? When you make all these concessions for Kashmir I most strongly object to your arbitrary act of compelling the Baroda State to be merged in Bombay. The administration of Baroda state is better than the administration of many other Indian Provinces.  It is scandalous that you should compel the Maharaja of Baroda to have his raj merged in Bombay and himself pensioned off. Some people say that he himself voluntarily accepted this meager. I know it is an open secret that he was brought form England and compelled against his will…”[iv]

At this point Dr Rajendra Prasad intervened] “Maulana, we are not concerned with the Maharaja of Baroda here” to which Maulana responded with the following words:
“Well, I would not go into any detail. But I say that I object to this sort of thing. If you grant these concessions to the Maharaja of Kashmir you should also withdraw your decision about the merger of Baroda into Baroda into Bombay and allow all these concessions and many more concessions to the Baroda ruler also.”[v]

Shockingly, Ram Madhav uses only three words of Mohani’s comment “Why this discrimination?” to prove in a true Goebbelsian traditionthat even a Maulana had raised questions about the discriminatory nature of the Article 370![vi] On the contrary, Maulana was not only supporting the Article 370 but also demanding such provisions for Baroda ruler who despite running an enlightened government was removed from his position and his State forced to merge with Bombay.

Sardar Patel, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee & other Hindu Members of the CA agreed to Article 370
The factory of historical lies and manipulation that the RSS manufactures, consciously tries to keep under wraps, the actual debate on the Article 370 in the CA. It took just less than half a day for the CA to admit Article 370 in the Constitution and apart from Dr Rajendra Prasad and Gopalaswami Ayyangarsenior Hindu leaders, namely, Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava, RK Sidhwa, Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzuru, K Santhanam and Mahavir Tyagiparticipated in the discussion; none opposed its ratification. Significantly, many of the members were known as Hindu nationalists. More importantly, Syama Prasad Mukherjee was also a member of the CA and signed the Constitution on November 26, 1949 with Article 370 intact. He did not think it fit even to mildly express his unease against the special status of Jammu & Kashmir. Such an unease was expressed by another member of the CA, a Hindu nationalist, Jaspat Roy Kapoor while discussing the Draft Constitution on November, 21, 1949. He had said: “I only wish that Kashmir should also have been brought in on the same level as other States but, unfortunately, much to our dissatisfaction and chagrin, if I may say so, this would not be done. This is a delicate subject and I will not say anything more on it.”[vii] But Mukherjee was silent.

Task for Congress
It is the Congress, one expected, with this history that should have confronted the Hindutva Goebbels in and outside Parliament, especially since they were falsifying its own history on the question of Article 370. Tragically, it was some of the leading, young Congress members of Parliament who have fallen prey to the divisive game of RSS by voting with the government. A senior Congress leader, Maharaja Karan Singh son of Maharaja Hari Singh has also support the abrogation of Article 370. This has caused further dismay among Indians who have faith in the democratic-secular Constitution of India.
In these circumstances, it is a matter of some solace to history, that the Congress as a party stood in defence of the Indian Constitution. But it should have been more proactive in resisting the RSS/BJP Juggernaut’s narrative that it was Nehru and Nehru alone, who single-handedly “forced” Article 370 on the Indian nation. Congress should have confronted Amit Shah with contemporary documented facts. When the CA gave green signal to Article 370 Nehru was away from the country and Sardar Patel facilitated its adoption.Those who hold Nehru responsible for it are, in fact, denigrating 299Honourable members of the CA (which included Sardar Patel and Syama Prasad Mukherjee) as if they were the bonded labourers of Nehru!Can the RSS/BJP produce one statement either from Sardar Patel or Mukherjee (who was minister in the first Nehru ministry from August, 15, 1947 to April 6, 1950) disowning this Article? Can the Hindutva rulers prove that both these leaders did not sign the Constitution as members of the CA since it contained Article 370?

It is a brazen denigration of the whole process and history of the Constituent Assembly. Nehru becomes a punching bag for the far, supremacist right, sitting in power with a brute majority, because the Congress itself, which carries Nehru’s legacy and is expected to defend his democratic and secular heritage is passing through a stage of inexplicable inertia, bordering on disintegration. This could be caused by an ignorance of the Congress’ own glorious past. What is at stake is not just the survival of the Congress or any other party but the survival of our constitutional polity. Does the Congress leadership realise that ?

Link for J & K accession to India original documents:
http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/instrument_of_accession.html
http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/jk_art370.html

Related Articles:
1.Know The Shameless Betrayal Of Quit India Movement By Savarkar, Syama Prasad Mukherjee And RSS Through Their Own Documents

2. How the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS Leaders ‘Betrayed’ the Quit India Movement
3. Government’s Decision on Jammu and Kashmir: A Long Leap into Unconstitutionality

The post While RSS maligns both Nehru & Sardar Patel on Article 370, why is the Congress silent? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, VD Savarkar, MS Golwalkar

Today, on the eve of 77th anniversary of the glorious Quit India Movement (QIM) we must evaluate the role of the above Hindutva flag-bearers in India’s anti-colonial freedom struggle. QIM, also known as ‘August Kranti’ (August Revolution), was a nation-wide Civil Disobedience Movement for which a call was given on August 7, 1942 by the Bombay session of the All-India Congress Committee. 
 
The August 9 call to Quit India, was a direct response to Gandhi’s call to Do or Die. He delivered this Quit India speech in Mumbai at the Gowalia Tank Maidan on August 8. Since then August 9 is celebrated as August Kranti Divas.

The British swiftly responded with mass detentions on August 8 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.

Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets and establishing parallel governments. Innumerable patriotic Indians were shot dead for the crime that they were holding Tricolour publicly. 
 
Even before that a terrible massacre took place in Mysore, where the armed forces of Mysore Raja who was very close to Hindu Mahasabha and RashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh (RSS) shot dead 22 Congress activists for saluting Tricolour.

After declaring Congress an anti-national and unlawful organization, the British masters allowed only the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League to function.

Most of us know that the then Communist Party of India (CPI) opposed the QIM, thus betraying a great phase of mass upsurge in the history of the freedom struggle. But it is well documented that, despite CPI’s call for keeping aloof from QIM large number of Communist activists participated in it. 
 
However, what role the then Hindutva camp – consisting of the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS – played in the QIM is not known to many The Hindutva camp not only opposed QIM but also provided multi-faceted and multi-dimensional support to the British rulers in suppressing this historic mass upsurge. In this connection, shocking documents are available; these should be read to be believed.

Savarkar-led Hindu Mahasabha joined hand with the British
While addressing the 24th session of the Hindu Mahasabha at Cawnpore (now 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. And in virtue of it, it believes that all those Hindu Sangathanists who are working as councillors, ministers, legislators and conducting any municipal or any public bodies with a view to utilize those centres of government power to safeguard and even promote the legitimate interests of the Hindus without, of course, encroaching on the legitimate interests of others are rendering a highly patriotic service to our nation.
“Knowing the limitations under which they work, the Mahasabha only expects them to do whatever good they can under the circumstances and if they do not fail to do that much it would thank them for having acquitted themselves well. The limitations are bound to get themselves limited step by step till they get altogether eliminated. The policy of responsive co-operation which covers the whole gamut of patriotic activities from unconditional co-operation right up to active and even armed resistance, will also keep adapting itself to the exigencies of the time, resources at our disposal and dictates of our national interest.” (Cited in VD Savarkar, “SamagraSavarkarWangmaya: Hindu RashtraDarshan”, vol 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindu Sabha, Poona, 1963, p 474.)

This ‘Responsive Cooperation’ with the British masters was not only a theoretical commitment. It soon got concretized in the ganging up of Hindu Mahasabha with the Muslim League. Hindu Mahasabha led by ‘Veer’ Savarkar ran coalition governments with Muslim League in 1942. Savarkar defended this nexus in his presidential speech in the same session of Hindu Mahasabha at Kanpur, in the following words:

“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 submissive-ness could not placate grew quite reasonably compromising and socialable as soon as they came in contact with the HM and the Coalition Government, under the premiership of Mr FazlulHuq 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.” (“SamagraSavarkarWangmaya”, vol 6, p 479-80.)

The Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League, besides Bengal and Sind, ran coalition government in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) also during this period.
Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, deputy CM in Bengal Muslim League Ministry, took up the responsibility to crush QIM in Bengal
Following the Hindu Mahasabha directive to co-operate with the British, the Hindutva icon, Dr Mukherjee assured the British masters through a letter dated July 26, 1942. Shockingly, it read:
“Let me now refer to the situation that may be created in the province as a result of any widespread movement launched by the Congress. Anybody, who during the war, plans to stir up mass feeling, resulting internal disturbances or insecurity, must be resisted by any Government that may function for the time being.” (Mookherjee, Shyama Prasad, “Leaves from a Dairy”, Oxford University Press, p 179.) 
 
The second-in-command of the Hindu Mahasabha, Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, also the deputy chief minister in the Bengal Muslim league Ministry, in a letter to Bengal governor on behalf of Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League made it clear that both these parties looked at the British rulers as saviours of Bengal against Quit India Movement launched by Congress. In this letter, he mentioned item wise the steps to be taken for dealing with the situation. It read:
“The question is how to combat this movement (Quit India) in Bengal? The administration of the province should be carried on in such a manner that in spite of the best efforts of the Congress, this movement will fail to take root in the province. 
“It should be possible for us, especially responsible Ministers, to be able to tell the public that the freedom for which the Congress has started the movement, already belongs to the representatives of the people. In some spheres it might be limited during the emergency. Indian have to trust the British, not for the sake for Britain, not for any advantage that the British might gain, but for the maintenance of the defence and freedom of the province itself.” (Cited in AG Noorani, “The RSS and the BJP: A Division of Labour”, LeftWord Books, p 56–57.)

RSS followed Savarkar in opposing QIM
The other flag-bearer of Hindutva, the RSS, was not different in its attitude towards the QIM. It openly sided with its mentor ‘Veer’ Savarkar against this great revolt. The RSS’ attitude towards the QIM becomes clear from the following utterances of its second chief and most prominent ideologue till date, MS Golwalkar. While talking about the outcome of the Non-Cooperation Movement and QIM he said:
“Definitely there are bound to be bad results of struggle. The boys became unruly after the 1920-21 movement. It is not an attempt to throw mud at the leaders. But these are inevitable products after the struggle. The matter is that we could not properly control these results. After 1942, people often started thinking that there was no need to think of the law.” (MS Golwalkar, “Shri GurujiSamagraDarshan” [Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi], vol IV, BhartiyaVicharSadhna, Nagpur, p 41.) 

Thus, the prophet of Hindutva, Golwalkar, wanted the Indians to respect the draconian and repressive laws of the inhuman British rulers! He admitted that this kind of negative attitude towards the QIM did not go well even with the RSS cadres:
“In 1942 also there was a strong sentiment in the hearts of many. At that time, too the routine work of Sangh continued. Sangh vowed not to do anything directly. However, upheaval (uthal-puthal) in the minds of Sangh volunteers continued. Sangh is an organisation of inactive persons, their talks are useless, not only outsiders but also many of our volunteers did talk like this. They were greatly disgusted too.” (MS Golwalkar, “Shri GurujiSamagraDarshan” [Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi], vol IV, BhartiyaVicharSadhna, Nagpur, p 40.) 

It would be interesting to note what Golwalkar meant by ‘routine work of Sangh’. It surely meant working overtime to widen the divide between Hindus and Muslims thus serving the strategic goal of the British rulers and Muslim League.
In fact, the contemporary reports of the British intelligence agencies on the QIM were straight forward in describing the fact that RSS kept aloof from the QIM. According to one such report, “The Sangh has scrupulously kept itself within the law, and in particular, has refrained from taking part in the disturbances that broke out in August 1942”. (Cited in Andersen, Walter K &Damle, Shridhar D “The Brotherhood in Saffron: theRashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh and Hindu Revivalism”, Westview Press, 1987, p 44.)

These historical documented facts make it clear that Hindutva gang led by the RSS not only betrayed QIM but also rendered great service to the British masters by aligning with the Muslim League when the foreign rulers were faced with the nation-wide popular revolt by the Indians. They in collusion mounted one of the fiercest repressions of the freedom fighters. 

The RSS/BJP rulers know that betrayal of the QIM by their Hindutva parents cannot be covered up. It is crystal clear that RSS including its top leaders like Golwalkar (head of the RSS), DeendayalUpadhyaya, BalrajMadhok, LK Advani and KR Malkani who were RSS whole timers during QIM did not participate in this Movement. Thus if the betrayal of the QIM cannot be covered up then rake up polarizing issues with communal motives so that Indians remain at war with each other.
 
 

The post How the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS Leaders ‘Betrayed’ the Quit India Movement appeared first on SabrangIndia.