And then it is the best who hang’

– Albrecht Haushoffer

[January 7, 1903 – April 23, 1945, German geographer, diplomat, author, who faced martyrdom for his resistance to Nazism]

Uday Bhembre, the 87-year-old widely respected Konkani writer, son of legendary freedom fighter Laxmikant Bhembre, who has been a Sahitya Akademi awardee, is a worried man these days.

He has discovered to his dismay that his courage to speak the truth and challenge a narrative being peddled by the ruling dispensation in Goa, especially its Chief Minister Pramod Sawant, regarding well established facts of Goa’s own history, would lead to protests, led by Right-wing formations and many among them trespassing his house at night and pressuring him to issue an public apology.

Not very many people outside Goa know how this great writer – he was even a MLA (1984-89) — had neglected his literary career to fight for rights of Konkani language and has been against attempts to merge Goa into Maharashtra, to preserve its culture.

Thanks to the existence of powerful voices of resistance and a vibrant civil society in Goa, a significant number of people have publicly condemned these attempts to intimidate Bhembre and demanded strict action against the perpetrators and exposed the collusion of the Right-wing formations with people in power. Many even went to meet the noted writer to express solidarity with him.

It all started with Shiv Jayanti celebrations in Goa and the Chief Minister making debatable claims about Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, where he supposedly claimed that it was not the Portuguese but Shivaji Maharaj who ruled over most parts of the state and that Portuguese rule was limited to merely three talukas. He further claimed that Goans were saved from being converted to Christianity as Shivaji Maharaj ruled over most parts of the state.

What was perturbing was that this was not the first time that such unfounded claims were made by the Chief Minister.

A few years ago, the Chief Minister had similarly claimed – incidentally during Shiv Jayanti celebrations only – that Shivaji Maharaj had been close to conquering Goa in the mid-1600s (which was a century-and-half into Portuguese rule, when the colonisers held parts of Goa territories). Had he done so, Goa would have been spared the atrocities of colonial domination. In fact, O Heraldo, a very respected newspaper from Goa, had exposed this penchant for ‘reinvention of history’ while reporting the incident.

As per this report, these claims did not go unchallenged then, too, with the likes of Damodar Mauzo, Jnanpith awardee literateur and Bhembre himself questioning the Chief Minister’s ignorance “…[o]f the historical facts” and understanding of the issue. Underlining the greatness of Shivaji Maharaj, they had talked of RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) tactics to appropriate the Maratha leader and “portray him as anti-Muslim”, emphasising that “no religion was involved in Shivaji’s actions”.

Understanding the gravity of these attempts to ‘rewrite history’ Bhembre had provided details of Shivaji’s foray into Goa then, how he was known to have “courted hostilities as well as woven alliances with the Mughals, the sultans of Bijapur and Golconda and the colonial powers as was common of rulers and chieftains of the day,” in an extensive interview to the reporter. He had based his arguments on historian P S Pissurlencar’s monograph on Portuguese Mahratta Relations, which has been translated into English from its original in Marathi, called, Portugese Marathe Sambandh, and has been published by Maharashtra State Board for Literature and Culture (June 1983)

As per this monograph, Shivaji was after ‘Desais of Kudal’ and he resented that the Portuguese — they occupied Ilhas, Bardez, Salcette and Mormugao at the point — had provided them protection. “His quarrel was not with the Portuguese, but the Desais, who he wanted to capture and punish.”

The Portuguese resisted the attack (an interesting account of it is provided in Pissurlencar’s book: “The Ranes of Rewade, Nanode and Peirna, villages under Portuguese control on the outskirts of Bardez, were used by the Portuguese as bases against the Mahrattas.”) and Shivaji had returned to Bicholim.

Pissurlencar writes:

“…Narba Savant, a nephew of Lakham Savant, Desai of Kudal, one of those Desais who had come to Goa, having taken fright at Shivaji’s movements, went to Vengurla on 15 September 1667, caused a riot and molested the Dutch. He was accompanied by some Portuguese. The Dutch of Vengurla protested against this to the Portuguese and probably complained to Shivaji also. These Desais who were sheltered in Bardez often returned to their original seats of power (vatans) and terrorised people in the neighbouring territory controlled by Shivaji. In order to capture them and also punish the Portuguese who had harboured them, Shivaji dispatched an army of 1,000 cavalry and 5,000 infantry to Bardez on 19/20 November 1667.”

Underlining the overwhelming attempts to present Shivaji as a nationalist icon, Bhembre in his interview had said that Shivaji was more a “guerilla warrior”, more interested in expanding his reach and territories. He also talked about Shivaji’s pragmatism in “striking up military alliances”. In fact, soon after this attack, in December of 1667, he had signed a treaty with the Portuguese, committing to return “all that he has carried away from Bardez”, asking for Portuguese help to build his navy. (All references based on the above mentioned O Heraldo article.)

It may appear incomprehensible to scholars and activists to unpack the ‘intimidatory tactics’ adopted by the Hindutva formations this time, when there is no qualitative difference between how Chief Minister Sawant’s unfounded claims to carve out a ‘suitable’ Shivaji as per convenience of Hindutva’s worldview, did not go unchallenged then also. May be this has to do with the growing audacity of the larger Hindutva Parivar and plethora of its affiliated organisations, after the ascent of a Hindutva Supremacist formation at the Centre for third consecutive third time (albeit with a reduced majority)

Coming back to the protests targeting Bhembre this time, it needs to be mentioned that these protesters, allegedly associated with Bajrang Dal, were targeting his YouTube presentation this time. In this presentation, Bhembre had underlined many things that he had mentioned earlier, as discussed in Pissurlencar’s book,

One, Shivaji never ruled over Goa. He never conquered any territory in the state.

Two, Shivaji, at least outwardly, had good relations with the Portuguese because they had a common enemy. So much so that when Shivaji decided to build his Navy, he requested the Portuguese to give him craftsmen. The Portuguese gave him the craftsmen, who built 20 ships

Third, on the claim that Shivaji stopped the conversions, he was more forthright, emphasising that it is wrong to assume this. The conversions started in 1540, whereas Shivaji was born in 1630. I asked ‘how much time will it take [for conversions] in only four talukas, where the population was less than 2 lakhs?’ So, Shivaji never interfered with that and if Shivaji had done that, he would not have approached the Portuguese for craftsmen…The conversions continued even after Shivaji’s death,”

It remains to be seen whether Goa’s Chief Minister would be ready to take action on the police complaint filed by Bhembre against these trespassers or at least stick to the facts – not unverified claims – in future meetings while talking about history.

It was obvious that in a hurry to push this narrative, the Chief Minister did not even bother to look at websites/blogs associated with the government itself, which themselves seem to counter Sawant’s outlandish claims, showing him in a rather poor light.

Here is what one website associated with the Department of Information and Publicity (https://dip.goa.gov.in/history-of-goa/) tells us:

…In 1510, the Portuguese defeated the ruling Bijapur kings with the help of a local ally, Timayya, leading to the establishment of a permanent settlement in Velha Goa (or Old Goa)… On 19 December 1961, the Indian army with Operation Vijay resulted in the annexation of Goa ..(-do)

The North Goa district administration tells its readers (a similar story:

Goa was under Portuguese rule for about 450 years. Afonso de Albuqureque, first portuguese attacked Goa and occupied it. Due to Portuguese rule over Goa, here Christian religion spread very fast.

One can similarly look at more such websites and blogs to discern the links further.

What prohibits the likes of Pramod Sawant, who are in an undue haste to ‘rewrite history’, from looking at the much more nuanced history that is unfolding around us.

Such people would be rather shocked to know the ‘Portuguese contributions to Peshwa might.’ The well documented monograph by Pissurlencar titled, Portuguese Mahratta Relations throws light on this, too.  

 By 1788, ..there were about 100 Portuguese and over 200 Goan Catholic soldiers enlisted in the Peshwa army. They were recruited for their knowledge of artillery, something the Marathas had failed to master, and gunners in the army were handsomely rewarded in comparison to other soldiers. “In the seventeenth century, every European in India was supposed to be an artillery expert,” writes Romesh C Butalia in The Evolution of the Artillery in India. Dom Noronha, a prominent Portuguese officer born in Goa, is said to have been behind Madhavrao’s gift.[-do]

Any close watcher of the Goa situation knows that attempts to silence the courageous voices like Bhembre are no exception. Merely a month and a half ago, another Sahitya Akademi winner Datta Naik, was similarly in the crosshairs of the Hindutva formations, was charged with ‘hurting religious sentiments, or how the names of Damodar Mauzo and few others were found in the ‘hit list’ prepared by Hindutva terrorists who were nabbed few years ago.

The targeting of renowned writer Bhembre and the intimidatory tactics being adopted to silence him also demands that voices across the country and the entire sub-continent should also rise to unitedly condemn such moves, and pressure the government to nab the perpetrators.

The writer is an independent journalist. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Goa: Who Fears The Truth? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

– A VHP leader addressing a gathering in Delhi.

“..Consume less food, purchase a cheaper mobile phone, anything, only promise to have five tridents in a home”.

– Another VHP leader addressing a meeting in Delhi.

Provocative speeches and distribution of what is being peddled as ‘legally permissible weapons’ , very much in the heart of the national capital ; detailed plans to hold similar events all over the city, on the eve of elections – all this has not stirred the deep slumber in which the law and order machinery found itself in.

Thanks to the inaction, now the campaign to arm a section of radical Hindus has reportedly spread to the womenfolk as well. Plans are afoot to distribute 20,000 daggers to women from the majority community under what is being billed as ‘Shastra Deeksha Samaroh’. In fact, media was agog with footage of daggers being distributed to Hindu women in the second week of January itself.

No doubt, it would be height of innocence to presume that the silence of the officers/ personnel entrusted with maintaining law and order in the city – which is directly under the purview of the Ministry of Home – is inadvertent.

These events are rather difficult to believe in a city still recovering from the ‘riots’ five year ago which saw deaths of innocents from both the communities and damage to their properties, with role of a section of the police itself coming under the scanner.

It is not difficult to imagine the serious impact such radical mobilisation of the majority community can have – with at least 50,000 Hindu men, the actual numbers could be far more, holding fresh tridents/trishuls and 20,000 women possessing daggers – on the social fabric of the city. With Republic Day celebrations approaching followed by elections to the Assembly, with three major players in the wings, it is anybody’s guess that mischievous elements can engage in their dirty tricks, or even a single event/ non-event can bring the peace and harmony in the national capital under cloud.

What needs to borne in mind is that distribution of what are being portrayed as ‘legally permissible weapons’ (the term itself is an oxymoron) – focusing on the majority community – under religious garb have tremendous political overtones and such programmes held in the national capital are no exception.

It remains to be seen how such ‘weapons distribution’ does not come under censure of the Arms Act, 1959. Section 2(1) (c) of the Act defines “arms” as:

Articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offences, or defence, and includes firearms, sharp edged and other deadly weapons, and parts of and machinery for manufacturing arms, but does not include articles designed solely for domestic or agricultural uses such as a lathi, or an ordinary walking stick and weapons incapable of being used otherwise than as toys or of being converted into serviceable weapons.

The programme in Paharganj in Delhi in December 2024, where the regular right-wing rhetoric was very much on display, was not an isolated programme. It was an integral part of a ‘series of far-right gatherings in December 2024’ which had exposed a ‘disturbing pattern of communal mobilisation which was spread across Punjab, Delhi and Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan according to the Citizens for Justice & Peace (CJP).

What one observes that even dates of programmes in Delhi, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh coincided with each other (15 December). According to close observers, all these events, “[w]hich involve distributing tridents and administering oaths to “protect Hindu identity,” have become platforms for promoting exclusionary ideologies and inciting communal hatred”, CJP said. All these gathering where vilifying minorities, glorifying ‘baseless conspiracies like ‘love jihad’ and ‘land jihad,’ ‘ calls for calling for economic boycotts’, and glorifying vigilantism is freely on display thus ‘deepen social divisions but also normalize the idea of violence under the guise of cultural or religious defence’, the CJP added.

For example look at this report of a Trishul Deeksha event held in Nurmaha (Punjab), organised by VHP and Bajrang Dal, where ‘[a] far-right leader made several inflammatory remarks, invoking controversial issues tied to communal tensions.’ He declared: “Now that Ram Mandir is built, Kashi and Mathura remain!”—a direct reference to the ongoing demands by right-wing groups to reclaim the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura. Such rhetoric stokes communal sentiments by framing these mosques as illegitimate structures atop Hindu temples.

Any close observer of the communal situation in the country can vouch that the idea of holding ‘Trishul Deeksha Samaroh’ by Hindutva Supremacists formations is not a recent one and has a more than two decade old history, where conscious attempts were made to vitiate communal atmosphere. In fact, while armed communal mobilisation of the wider populace has always remained on the agenda of these supremacists organisations, such attempts gathered further strength through this campaign. The programme of Trishul Deekshas was taken up as a broader campaign since 1998 which gained in pace and stridency since the Gujarat massacre in 2002. Formally such programmes were termed as symbolic religious exercise supposedly to awaken the people but its intent was clear.

Reports of resistance to such mischievous attempts were also not uncommon. According to a report:

Perhaps in this grim situation it would be soothing to remember that a decade ago public protests led by organisations like PUCL, MKSS and others had pressurised the then Gehlot government to not only bring the VHP led Trishul Deeksha programme under the purview of the Arms Act but also prosecute leaders like Togadia who had been making communal hate speeches in the Trishul distribution ceremonies.

With the ascent of these Supremacists forces in the national polity, of late such programmes are again gaining momentum.

Look at this complaint filed by CJP with Nagpur police against two trishul distribution events, organised by Bajrang Dal & VHP. It provided details of these ‘two Trishul Diksha events held on May 2 and May 9’ respectively by ‘extremist outfits owing allegiance to Hindutva’ where, in addition to distribution of tridents amongst men, hate speeches are delivered exhorting Hindus to take up arms.’ Under these programmes demands for ‘India as a Hindu nation were also raised’, and the speakers ‘indulged in peddling various conspiracy theories to generate hate towards Muslims.’ The petition also talked about how “Bajrang Dal (BD) and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) have been organising such trishul distribution events regularly in the state of Rajasthan, and have been creating disharmony, furthering their communal agenda’.

Within less than three months CJP filed another petition with National Commission of Minorities against ‘arms training camps, weapon distribution events in Assam and Rajasthan’ held on July 30, 2023 and August 1, 2023, flagging “IPC violations, Arms Act breaches, and concerns for public safety and inter-community relations’ in these programmes

According to the complaint, the ‘arms training camp was organised by the Rashtriya Bajrang Dal in Darrang District of the state of Assam’, where ‘around 350 Hindu youths received training in handling firearms, martial arts, survival skills, and quick thinking. The intention of this camp was allegedly to fight against “love jihad” and create a divide among people from different communities, religions, and linguistic affiliations.’ The Rajasthan story was bit different. Here ‘fringe extremist organization of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal’ allegedly distributed sharp-edged tridents among hundreds of Hindu men in Jaitaran, Pali, Rajasthan. Participants took an oath to uphold a “Hindu Rashtra,” pledging allegiance to militant Hindu ideologies.

Within less than a month Sabrang published a detailed article unmasking ‘the Ideological Shift in Rajasthan’s Communal Landscape’ with a special focus on trident distribution and collective pledges taken at these programmes and explained how it “[r]eflects a troubling trend of religious polarisation, challenging India’s secular fabric and communal harmony. The aggressive mobilisation and hate that inevitably accompanies such gatherings sets the stage of stigmatisation and targeting of minorities in the area.’

According to it, such events which hold deep symbolism within the context of Hindutva, signify not only ‘Commitment to Hindutva Ideology’, but also it is openly proclaimed ‘their allegiance to an ideology that seeks to establish India as a Hindu-only nation’, which ‘goes against the principles of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution, that guarantees equal rights and freedoms to all religious communities.’ It further explained how the pledge to protect Hindu Dharam – repeated umpteen times in such gatherings underlines their belief that such elements are under threat from other religious communities and how it ‘fosters an “us versus them” mentality which further leads to ‘social tensions and conflicts.’

Coming back to Delhi, one does not know whether the custodians of law and order in Delhi – who directly work under the central Ministry of Home Affairs, led by none other than Mr Amit Shah, would review their approach and try to rein in these fanatic elements.

An added complexity is the manner in which AAP has never been forthcoming about the politics of polarisation practised by the BJP which is being termed as its own Hindutva Lite politics by analysts.

AAP’s decade old history bears witness to its own game of pandering to the false anxieties of the majority community to try to win them over its own side. A glimpse of its myopic approach vis a vis this issue can be gleaned from its direction to schools to stop admission of ”illegal Bangladeshis’ which contradicts its own policy.

Any neutral observer can see that the task of preserving the secular character of the polity and society becomes extremely difficult and challenging in such times.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Tridents for Men and Daggers for Women appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862

To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth: Voltaire

‘The best defence is a good offence’

PM Modi – the Pracharak who became Prime Minister – was clearly guided by this adage popular in warfare, games, business and even politics, to get his party’s lack lustre election campaign going. A campaign in which he is still struggling to create a narrative in its favour.

What he miserably missed –despite his deep knowledge of what his followers like to call ‘entire political science’ —is a simple bit of advice repeated ad nauseum by thinking people : An ill thought and ill prepared offence can lead you to a mess of your own making.

The idea behind looking for a ‘Muslim League imprint’ to paste on the Manifesto of India’s main opposition party, the Congress, has proved to be one such occasion.

Neither he nor his plethora of advisers and strategists could have imagined that the use of this time tested “M” trump card, would boomerang on them. Questions are now being asked about the ‘Parivar’s’ own ideological ancestry, what they did during the historic anti-colonial movement or especially its peak the ‘Quit India movement’

The battle of ideologies, as the unfolding elections are being portrayed / understood,  on the Congress manifesto was joined by none other than the 81 year young President of the Congress Party Mallikarjun Kharge. Questioning Modi’s search for League imprint on the manifesto Kharge called it Modi’s normal style of distraction when his party finds itself nervous in confronting the electorate. Through the backlash to this speech, what got highlighted was those very points that the Hindutva brigade either like to forget or gloss over.

Kharge’s factual retort veered around four-five points:

One, how his ‘ideological ancestors’ supported British and Muslim League against Indians;

Two, how they opposed Mahatma Gandhi’s call for ‘Quit India’ in 1942, which was a movement chaired by Maulana Azad;

Three, how Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, the then President of Hindu Mahasabha – who was anointed to this post after Savarkar – led his party to form governments in Bengal, Sindh and the North-West Frontier Province in the 1940s in coalition with the Muslim League

Four, Quit India movement – when thousands of Indians were in jail or had gone underground to continue the struggle against Britishers and hundreds had died fighting their peaceful struggle against the colonialists , neither Hindu Mahasabha nor Muslim League joined the struggle. In fact, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was then advising the then British governor about how the Quit India movement of 1942 can be ‘combated’ and how the Congress should be suppressed? And for this, he said that ‘Indians have to trust the British?”

Fifth, more importantly, Savarkar – who is still revered among Hindutva circles, was campaigning for Hindus to join the British military during its war efforts. His call was ‘Militarise Hindus, Hinduise the Nation’

Looking back at these facts given that this issue involves key ideologues of the Hindutva stream – who are still held in high esteem by their cheerleaders – it would be worthwhile to take a detailed look at each of these ‘big names’

We will discuss briefly the case of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, (May 28, 1883 – February 26, 1966), freedom fighter turned Hindutva ideologue, author of ‘Hindutva’ – which is considered essential reading in Hindutva circles – a trendsetter among them, Shyamaprasad Mukherjee, once his deputy in the Hindu Mahasabha who later joined the RSS inspired Bharatiya Jan Sangh and also Golwalkar, the second Supremo of RSS.

Turning Muslims into Second Class Citizens?

A detailed interview of a political leader or thinker when society is in turmoil can be very revealing.

A seasoned American war correspondent, Tom Treanor spoke with Savarkar in a longish interview, in 1944. An extract of this interview –when he was perhaps the only Hindu political leader to not be in jail as in the aftermath of the historic Quit India movement —is revealing. This interview was later postthumously published in his book ‘One Damn Thing After Another: The Adventures of an Innocent Man Trapped Between Public Relations and the Axis‘. Extracts of Savarkar’s interview during that period were published by a webmagazine ‘Dailyo’.[1]

The interview emphasises two things:

One, Savarkar’s vision for an independent India

Two, his increasing isolation in the galaxy of leaders.

Looking at the fact that India’s independence was around the corner and every great leader of the anti-colonial struggle was in jail, – here was Savarkar envisaging treating religious minorities as a second class citizens and if they do not submit to this plan then even initiating a ‘civil war’.

“How do you plan to treat the Mohammedans?”

Tom Treanor asked Savarkar this question without much introduction.

“As a minority,..in the position of your Negroes” replied Savarkar.

Continuing the conversation the reporter asked:

“And if the Mohammedans succeed in seceding and set up their own country?”

“As in your country,” said the old man, waggling a menacing finger. “There will be civil war.”

It was not difficult to understand why he was not put in jail when every big, small leader or activist was in jail or had to go underground. Thanks to his unsolicited help to the British in their war efforts- Savarkar had no qualms in running a campaign in different parts of United India, meetings at which he asked Hindu Youth to join the (British) military.

His slogan was ‘Militarise Hindus, Hinduise the Nation’

This was symptomatic of not just his deep hatred for the Muslims but also his belief that if Hindus join the military in large numbers, it will help/ establish his vision of Hindu Rashtra – where Muslims could be compelled to lead lives as second class citizens – when and after Britishers leave.

Interviewer Tom Treanor could easily foresee how Savarkar was buttressing Jinnah’s case.

If Savarkar has his way, the Mohammedans will get what is known in the trade as sweet damn-all. It’s the sort of attitude which makes Mr Jinnah argue for Pakistan, which is the plan to allow the Mohammedans to secede from the Hindus. [2]

What is interesting to note that despite the fact that Hindu Mahasabha was sharing power with Muslim League and few other parties to run provincial governments in Bengal and North West province, and despite his services to the British empire asking Hindu youth to join British army, for the Britishers also he was a ‘spent force.’

A G Noorani, constitutional expert and political commentator, in his book ‘Savarkar and Hindutva’ shares details of the minutes of the then Head of the Political Department in the India Office named John Percival Gibson. According to the minutes of August 1, 1944 that ‘he did not consider it necessary to acknowledge’ a cable Savarkar had sent to the Secretary of State for India, Leopald S Amery on July 26, 1944 which claimed that the Mahasabha was ‘the only all-India representative body of Hindus’. (Page 92)

Noorani notes that Savarkar adopted the same tactics normally adopted by fading politicians – to remain in the news – which comprised of not only issuing regular statements to the Press but see to it that they are more and more rabid. [3]

With the arrival of independence and newly independent India’s embarking on a path of inclusive development rather increased his isolation and his dream of ushering into a Hindu Nation lied completely shattered.

Hitler’s Fan Club in Colonial India

Hitler’s fan club in colonial India, had many big names on the list.

Savarkar was one of them.

Born on May 28, 1883, to a Marathi Brahmin family, Savarkar was attracted towards anti British movements and was even instrumental in establishing the Abhinav Bharat Society (Young India) drawing inspiration from Mazzini’s ‘Young Italy’ in school days. He went to England to study law where he got further involved in radical political activities. Inspired by the 1857 uprising against Britishers and with an aim to communicate its aims to the dormant masses he even a wrote a book in Marathi titled ‘The Indian War of Independence of 1857’ which talked in glowing terms about the Hindu Muslim unity displayed during this War. Looking at its ‘explosive content’ the government immediately proscribed the book but despite this the book went into many editions, was translated in English and other languages.

Dedicated to the ‘Martyrs of 1857’ the list of heroes included in the book had names like Mangal Pandey, Rani Laxmi Bai, Nana Saheb, Maulvi Ahmed Shah, Azimullah Khan, Tatia Tope, Bahadurshah Zafar, Begum Hazrat Mahal and many others.

Later, he was arrested for instigating radical/violent activities in London as well as his connections to similar activities back home in India and was sentenced to two transportations of life and sent to the Cellular Jail in Andamans. It appears that the tough life in the jail – which was endured by other prisoners without any compromise – broke his spirit and he sent petitions to the British government for early release. A G Noorani in his book ‘Savarkar and Hindutva‘ provides details of this episode in his life.

One is surprised to find that a leader of his stature whose heroic deeds in the prime of his youth for the cause of freedom struggle had electrified the nation had started sending letters of apology and demanding amnesty after being sent to Andamans as part of his punishment for life imprisonment. He even disregarded the fact that an All India Defence Committee had already come up for his release and the Congress Party then had urgently taken up his case before the British regime. But as the book ‘Penal Settlement in Andamans’ by Mr R.C. Mazumdar  vividly demonstrates, he was really so de-moralised with the tough conditions existing there that he promised to serve the government in any capacity in exchange of his release.

After a long time British government conceded to his request and sent him home, put restrictions on him, asked him to not to participate in political activities. He was finally released when there were provincial elections in India in late 30s and Congress party led government came to power in the then Mumbai province.

One can clearly see two phases in his life:

First phase which lasted till few years after he was transported for life to Andamans – when he was all for Hindu Muslim unity.

Second phase, where he emphasised Hindu Unity and propounded the theory of Hindu Nation.

His transformation was so complete that he is considered a ‘pioneer’ theoretician of the Hindutva movement.

Coming back to Hitler, although reports of Hitler’s crimes against humanity were then common knowledge but Savarkar was all praise for him. For example, he had endorsed the persecution of Jews in Germany, noting

“Germany has every right to resort to Nazism and Italy to Fascism and events have justified that those isms and forms of governments were imperative and beneficial to them under the conditions that obtained there.”

Or in a speech delivered in 1940 (after the Second World War had commenced), he said:

There is no reason to suppose that Hitler must be a human monster because he passes off as a Nazi or Churchill is a demigod because he calls himself a Democrat. Nazism proved undeniably the savior of Germany under the set of circumstances Germany was placed in.

This fascination for Hitler was so overpowering that he even publicly attacked Nehru for his opposition to Hitler and had no qualms in hailing the way Hitler treated the Jews. In fact, he was drawing lessons for India, and was of the firm opinion that Muslims of India could be treated in the same manner as the Jews in Germany.

A look at the history of Hindu Mahasabha, which he headed then, tells us how he justified the ethnic cleansing of Jews and wanted to repeat the feat here. A spokesman of the Hindu Mahasabha – the organisation which he headed then – had openly claimed (March 25, 1939) that ‘Germany’s crusade against the enemies of Aryan culture will bring all the Aryan nations of the World to their senses and awaken the Indian Hindus for the restoration of their lost glory’

For a ‘policy of responsive cooperation’ with Britishers

Trajectory of Savarkar’s one time deputy Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was not qualitatively different.

Born in 1901, Shyamaprasad Mukherjee started his political career in 1929 and became a member of the Bengal Legislative Council. He joined the Hindu Mahasabha in 1939 to espouse the cause of the Hindus in India and was a close associate of Savarkar. He was the opposition leader in the state when a coalition government led by Krishak Praja Party – Muslim League coalition was in power 1937-41. Later he joined the Ministry headed by Fazlul Haq as a Finance Minister and continued sharing power during the tumultuous times of the ‘Quit India’ movement when the Britishers faced mortal challenge to their rule. The experiment to share power with Muslim League by the Hindu Mahasabha then was not limited to Bengal alone, it extended to  Sind and as well as NWFP (North West Frontier Province) and was part of a conscious policy adopted by the Hindu Mahasabha.

Prof Shamsul Islam, in his well researched book ‘Religious Dimensions of Indian Nationalism : A Study of RSS’[4] sheds light on this unique experiment when ‘[H]indu Mahasabha and the Muslim League had a coalition government in the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP) also.’ (Page 313) He quotes Baxter:

‘In the Frontier, Sardar Aurangzeb Khan formed a ministry which combined Muslim Leaguers, Sikh Akalis and Mahasabhaites, and placed the Congress led by Dr Khan Sahib temporarily in the opposition. The Mahasabha member of the Cabinet was Finance Minister Mehar Chand Khanna.’[5]

As a close associate of Savarkar, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, who later became President of Hindu Mahasabha in 1944, was a party to all these decisions and had no qualms in British efforts to suppress people’s movement against the British rule. In his book ‘History of Modern Bengal’ Ramesh Chandra Mazumdar provides details of his letter to the then Bengal Governor on suggesting measures against the Quit India Movement. According to him

“[S]hyam Prasad ended the letter with a discussion of the mass movement organised by the Congress. He expressed the apprehension that the movement would create internal disorder and will endanger internal security during the war by exciting popular feeling and he opined that any government in power has to suppress it, but that according to him could not be done only by persecution…. In that letter he mentioned item wise the steps to be taken for dealing with the situation …. “[6]

He was clearly of the opinion that

..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”[7]

He even promised the British government that the government led by them would make every effort to suppress the movement in Bengal. :

“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 defense and freedom of the province itself. You, as Governor, will function as the constitutional head of the province and will be guided entirely on the advice of your Minister. [8]

Hate as Harmony!

The discussion about Modi-Shah’s ‘ideological ancestors’ would remain incomplete without RSS’s Second Supremo, M.S. Golwalkar.

It would be worthwhile to emphasise how keen he was that the cadres of RSS do not join the independence movement; or, how his world view regarding Muslims, Christians and other religious minorities was not at all different from that of Savarkar; or, how he was similarly inspired by the ethnic cleansing of Jews in German and thought of imitating such experiments against the ‘other’ etc,[9]

Perhaps it would be useful to know how in his first theoretical contributions for Hindutva’s cause that appeared as a pamphlet titled We or Our Nationhood Defined (1938) he was clear and straightforward in his appreciation of the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Jews by Hitler and such an unashamed proponent of the submergence of ‘foreign races’ in the Hindu race that later-day RSS leaders have tried to dilute association of Golwalkar with this book. [They have tried their best to create the impression that the booklet was not written by Golwalkar; that it was a mere translation of Rashtra Meemansa by Babarao Savarkar.]

One can also discuss his second book ‘Bunch of Thoughts, which talks of Muslims, Christians and Communists as ‘internal threats’ to the imagine Hindu Rashtra. The chapter on ‘Internal Threats’, which has three subsections titled Muslims, Christians and Communists, begins like this:

“It has been the tragic lesson of the history of many a country in the world that the hostile elements within the country pose a far greater menace to national security that aggressors from outside. Unfortunately, this first lesson of national security has been the one thing which has been consistently ignored in our country ever since the British left this land (sic).”

The book has also made equally controversial statements on the Indian Constitution as well as on affirmative action and denigrates the independence struggle and its heroic participants.

One can go on enumerating instances highlighting the ideological limitations of the Golwalkar-ian project which acted as a hindrance to the building of modern India. It is clear to any impartial observer that the way he tried to divide a wedge between the broad unity of the Indian people on the basis of religion, the way he lauded experiments in ethnic cleansing in Western Europe and the way he glorified Manusmriti till his end, demonstrate that his project was essentially inimical to the cause of social harmony.

It is a different matter that despite espousing a sectarian agenda the Golwalkar-ian project of remaking of Indian society continued to move ahead, albeit slowly. The “success” of the Golwalkar-ian project in winning over a chunk of our society to its side, definitely demands a separate treatment beyond this note.

Not that the Sangh has ever had second thoughts about his vision, rather they have continued to show their adherence to it by organising the “successful experiment” in Gujarat in 2002 or how the CAA-NPR-NRC triad represented the culmination of Golwalkar and RSS’ vision. The only problem they have is in the presentation of the vision. Looking at his controversial pronouncements from time to time on various issues of social-political concern and his transcending of the ‘calculated ambiguity’ on many occasions—a hallmark of the organisation which he built—it is not surprising that he has always come under a barrage of attacks from all those who opposed the Hindutva project.

The best strategy seems to be to disremember him in public and fully implement his essence in practice.[10]

[1] https://www.dailyo.in/politics/tom-treanor-vd-savarkar-mahatma-gandhi-hitler-nationalist-hindu-mahasabha-20207

[2] https://www.dailyo.in/politics/tom-treanor-vd-savarkar-mahatma-gandhi-hitler-nationalist-hindu-mahasabha-20207

[3] https://www.dailyo.in/politics/tom-treanor-vd-savarkar-mahatma-gandhi-hitler-nationalist-hindu-mahasabha-20207

[4] Media House, Delhi 2006

[5] Craig Baxter, Jan Sangh, The Biography of a Indian Political Party’ Philadelphia : University of Pennysylvania Press, 1969, Page 20

[6] History of Modern Bengal’ Ramesh Chandra Mazumdar Part II, Page 350-351

[7] History of Modern Bengal’ Ramesh Chandra Mazumdar Part II, Page 350-351

[8] A G Noorani (2020), The RSS and The BJP : A Division of Labour, Leftword Books, Page 56

[9] https://www.countercurrents.org/comm-gatade150806.htm ; https://countercurrents.org/2022/11/repackaging-golwalker-for-our-times/

[10] 8 https://www.newsclick.in/Modi-Sangh-Parivar-Want-Disremember-Golwalkar

Related:

Why is the BJP calling the Congress Manifesto 2024 to be an “Imprint of the Muslim League”?

Dear PM Modi! It was Hindutva Organisations, not the Congress that colluded with the Muslim League in Pre-Independence India

The post When your past comes back to haunt you: Hindu Mahasabha & Muslim League appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“It’s the day of resurrection…”:

Swami Avdheshanand Giri after Pran Pratishtha ceremony in Ayodhya[1]

1.  A Memorial For a Supremo

‘Rajju Bhaiya Sainik Vidya Mandir’ Shikarpur Tehsil, Bulandshahr.

It was October 2020 when a Sainik School for boys was inaugurated in Shikarpur Tehsil of Bulandshahr District.[2] Right from Indresh Kumar, or Ram Lal, to Mahant of Junagarh Avadheshanand Giri, a seer supposed to be close to the proponents of Hindutva, many leading lights of the RSS and its frontal organisations or co-travellers of their ideology attended the high profile function.

The event made headlines for several reasons:

One, it was called the ‘first Sainik School of RSS’.

Two, a whooping sum of Rs 40 crores was supposed to be spent over it – thanks to the largesse extended by the union (Modi) government.

Thirdly, it was one of those rare occasions when RSS had moved beyond its founder member Dr Hedgewar to build memorials. Remember Rajendra Singh alias Rajju Bhaiya (1922-2003) was the first non-Brahmin and non-Maharashtrian Supremo of RSS from 1994-2000.  This Sainik School is located in the same place where he (Raju Bhaiya) was born.

Normally, an idea to start a school is met with jubilation. This one however had the opposite effect.  There were voices of concern raised by educationists, social activists as well as political leaders,

The added concern was that Vidya Bharati, the education wing of the RSS – which already runs 20,000 schools across India – would now also be running this military school although there was a clarification that this Army School will follow the CBSE curriculum and will have classes running from Class 6 to Class 12.

The same Vidya Bharatii (of the RSS’) whose stated mission is  

“To develop a National System of Education which would help building a generation of young men and women that is committed to Hindutva and infused with patriotic fervour”. [3]

Questioning the whooping sum of Rs 40 crores which would be spent over it, Akhilesh Yadav, leader of the Samajwadi {arty (SP) and former Chief Minister of UP, had, at the time, underlined that since we already have enough such institutions “[r]un by the government so where is the need for RSS to run its own army school,”[4]

He did not hide his apprehensions about what curriculum be taught there.

“RSS apparently wanted to serve its political purpose by opening the army school where the students will “probably be taught lessons in mob lynching and disrupting social harmony”.[5]

The concern expressed by many about this project could not be brushed aside easily. It is a different matter that in today’s mediatised world, things move with such a speed that the issue of a RSS run military school , the RBSVM – Rajju Bhaiya Sainik Vidya Mandir – and the attendant furore soon died down. Little did anyone carry the premonition that the founding of RBSVM was just a trailer of what lay in store: asli film abhi baaki thi‘.

2. Sainik Schools for Swayamsevaks??

‘Centre hands over 62% of new Sainik Schools to Sangh Parivar, BJP politicians and allies‘[6]

We were woken up from this momentary slumber by an investigative report published by Reporters Collective a team of dedicated investigative journalists and researchers – which has also been responsible for intrepid investigations on crucial issues that have generated public debate. What is remarkable that their key concern in taking up this work has been the failure of the mainstream media to ‘hold the powerful accountable to citizens.’ This report investigated by Astha Savyasachi was no less thorough and concerning.

What it effectively brought forth was that Sainik Schools like RBSVM – Rajju Bhaiya Sainik Vidya Mandir, are going to be a model for the future under this regime (until it remained in power). Such schools would come up or are coming up in rest of India which would effectively rely on ‘ideologically slanted organisations to train future cadets’ for the military.

The emergence of these new Sainik Schools has been facilitated by formation of an “Sainik Schools Society (SSS), an autonomous body under the Ministry of Defence (MoD), to run Sainik Schools under Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model’ and government opening doors for private players to run Sainik Schools in India ( 2021).

What appears rather striking to any neutral observer is that despite the fact that these Sainik Schools were being promoted to facilitate entry of eligible students in the military and other security forces, the only criterion of sorts to set up such a school was one related to infrastructure.

‘[a]s per the approval policy document  infrastructure was the only specified criterion that made a school eligible for approval. ‘Thus any school which had the SSS specified architecture like – land, physical and IT infrastructure, finanical resources and staff etc could apply to become one such school.’ [7]

What is clear in the union government’s “scheme”:

“[e]nabled schools linked with the Sangh Parivar and organisations with similar ideologies to apply.”[8]

To date, 40 schools have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Sainik Schools Society (SSS) and the report further explains that out of which

“According to the RTI responses, at least 40 schools have signed MoUs with the Sainik Schools Society between May 05, 2022 and December 27, 2023. A closer review by The Collective reveals that out of the 40 schools, 11 are directly owned by BJP politicians or managed by trusts chaired by them, or belong to friends and political allies of the BJP. Eight are managed by RSS and its allied organisations directly. Additionally, six schools have close ties to Hindutva organisations or far-right rabble-rousers, and other Hindu religious organisations. None of the approved schools are run by Christian or Muslim organisations or any of the religious minorities of India.”

An idea of the people who are being given permission to run these schools can be had from the names of individuals which the report shares. It would be opportune here to share two such names who are widely known not only for their stature within the larger Parivar network but also for their speeches and actions which have raised concerns at deeper levels.

One of them is run by Mahant Balaknath Yogi, the incumbent BJP MLA from Tijara in Rajasthan.[9]  Anyone who has closely followed the assembly elections in Rajasthan would recall that he is called as ‘Rajasthan ka Yogi‘ by his followers and reports had appeared in a section of the press which had said that if BJP regains power in Rajasthan then he would be in the running to get the top post.

It is a different matter the BJP leadership decided otherwise because of its own considerations.

Apart from Mahant Balaknath Yogi, Sadhvi Rithambhara, called as Didi Ma in the Hindutva circles -happens to be another high profile individual from the Hindutva family.

Founder of Durga Vahini, Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s (VHP) women’s wing, and a key figure in the Ram temple movement, her fiery speeches during late 80s or early 90s during the mass movement against the five hundred year old mosque had come under scanner for provoking disaffection and discord in the society. Controversial for her speeches leading to the demolition of Babri Masjid in December 1992, historian Tanika Sarkar described Ritambhara and her speeches as “the single most powerful instrument for whipping up anti-Muslim violence.” The Liberhans Commission which probed the Babri Masjid demolition in Ayodhya, accused 68 people including Ritambhara of leading the country “to the brink of communal discord.”[10]

Even more than 30 years after that deplorable period she still remains significant within the Sangh Parivar and close to several BJP leaders. One learns that Union Home Minister Amit Shah had travelled to Vrindavan in December 2023 to wish her on her birthday.

As of now she runs two schools under this PPP scheme one in Vrindavan titled ” Samvid Gurukulam Girls Sainik School” and another, Raj Luxmi Samvid Gurukulam in Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The report also carries a video link – carried on the Facebook page of the school – and also an extract of Sadhvi Rithambhara’s speech where she addresses the students about ‘honour’, traditions and rituals during a personality development camp. She can be seen commenting on how girls are “out of control” in colleges and social media.

It does give one an idea about what sorts of thing would be taught or silenced.

No doubt it does not need profound wisdom to understand the content of education in all these schools. Would it be any different from the sectarian worldview which is taught in other RSS run schools where the mission itself is to build “[a] generation of young men and women that is committed to Hindutva and infused with patriotic fervour”.

3. FOR MILITARY REGENERATION OF HINDUS! REALLY?

Anyone who believes in Indian Constitution and understands the role of Sainik Schools – which prepare students to be made eligible for entry into Defence Services at various levels and manage to send around 25 per cent of its recruits – should feel deeply concerned with this policy of PPP model in founding of Sainik Schools.

There are many reasons which demand that this policy should be finally dumped:

• One, noted educationists have raised serious concerns over running such schools
• Two, defence personnel have similarly raised serious objections to such schools
• Three, Hindutva Supremacist organisations and their affiliates would be key players in running such schools, organisations whose world view does not resonate with the Constitution
• Four, unfortunately we have around 90 year old experience of such Sainik Schools running in our country – since before independence – mainly run by organisations/ individuals close to the Hindutva Supremacists World View and this has not been very encouraging
• Five, the first decade of the 21st century witnessed emergence of what is popularly known as Hindutva terror groups, who were engaged in terror acts within the country. Right from the Nanded Bomb Blast (2006) to the Malegaon Bomb blasts, we have few such examples where fanatic Hindus tried to engage in terror acts.

Courts are still dealing with these cases but prima facie evidence suggests that such fanatics had an initial exposure to radical ideas and even received training at such schools

Let us take up these reservations one by one:

One, it would be opportune here to revisit how a leading educationist – Prof Anita Rampal – shared her reservations when she learnt about the role of RSS in running a military school in Shikarpur. She broadly raised three points while participating in a panel discussion[11]:

• How any such special school goes against our basic demand that till ten years of age

(At least) there should be common school system for all?

• How studies show that all such ‘military schools’ – which are all filled with male students – encourage a ‘macho’ personality among students.
• Close on the heels of the discussions around New Education Policy Draft presented by Kasturirangan Committee, which even talks of role of retired teachers and retired army personnel in education this project looks worrisome.

Two, as we already mentioned it was the year 2021 when the present ruling dispensation had taken a significant step in the direction of setting up of 100 Sainik Schools in partnership with NGOs, private schools etc. What is worth noting that voices of concern and caution and need for ‘further introspection’ were immediately raised by military personnel (retd) and security analysts.

In his exhaustive piece Lt General Prakash Menon had cautioned ‘Don’t rush into Sainik School public-private partnership. It can dilute and corrut’[12] )  He emphasised that ‘The preservation of Sainik School ‘ethos’ cannot be done without the Ministry of Defence being in control.’[13]

His observations were about composition of students who would take up admissions in such schools, absence of any ‘multi-cultural’ character and most of them coming from a restricted pool and a majority of them anchored in narrow worldview:

Private/NGO schools have local students and may not be multi-cultural. The existing boarding schools available for incorporation will be from a restricted pool with most of them being privately administered. The majority of them will be anchored in narrow religious/corporate/family/social/cultural credos, which could run counter to the essential ethos of Sainik Schools acting as a melting pot for limited identities and catalysing the creation of a large Indian national one. This is a major flaw in the proposal and is derived from structural incompatibility of the proposed partnership model.[14]

He was worried also about the nexus developing between the Union and Private parties to promote an ideologically slanted education much removed from values enshrined in the Constitution and also the long-term strategic consequences of some of our future military leaders imbued in Hindutva/cultural nationalism

The potential greater danger is that of a nexus developing between the Union and the private parties to promote an ideologically slanted version of education that is far removed from the values enshrined in the Constitution. Take, for instance, Vidya Bharathi, one of the oldest and largest groups with a national footprint. Its mission is: “To develop a National System of Education which would help building a generation of young men and women that is committed to Hindutva and infused with patriotic fervour”.

Would such an outlook be compatible with the preservation and promotion of the Sainik School spirit? The long-term strategic consequences of some of our future military leaders imbued in Hindutva/cultural nationalism can remain a part of political debate. But from a national security perspective, decision-making on the issue must preserve national interests that are derived from constitutional values. This will require the political leaderships to put the nation ahead of their parties.[15]

Three, the fact that Hindutva Supremacist Organisations would be key players in such schools should definitely become a matter of concern.

Nobody can suddenly develop amnesia over the fact that Hindutva Supremacists organisations – few of which have been active before independence itself – have a controversial past about which they themselves or their ideological descendants have to do lot of explaining. A number of articles have been written about the fact that such formations did not participate in the freedom struggle and in fact, when broad masses of Indian people were united for anti-colonial struggle, by its actions they tried to weaken the unity.[16]

Their leaders had tremendous fascination for the ‘final solution’ offered by Hitler and yearn to implement it here as well.

In fact, when the newly independent nation embarked on having a new constitution for it – based on one man – one vote – which resolved to do away with all the age old privileges based on caste, gender, race, ethnicity etc, it had opposed its making and had even vouched for ‘Manusmriti’ as its Constitution.

Forget the feverish attempts by the present custodians of such organisations to sanitise their own past and package themselves in a more attractive manner, there are going to be genuine questions about what sort of worldview these future soldiers would be taught in schools which would be run under their or their affiliates guidance.[17]

It would be the height of innocence to think that it would not be an exclusivist worldview of the parent organisation which is premised on an ‘us’ and ‘them’ thinking and which has still not deemed it necessary to admit women in its fold, when equality between different sexes is an established idea.

Perhaps, more importantly, such formations have always maintained that military education is important for students citing rising threat to the nation.[18] Of course, there is nothing unique about this fascination for arming people and providing them military education, if one compares it to other exclusivist organisations.

Four, like every exclusivist ideology/organisation/formation which claims to be centred around a particular religion – may it be Islamism, Zionism, fanatic Buddhism – Hindutva has always entertained a dream of preparing/arming its followers to fight the ‘others’ and slowly albeit not so silently moving closer to usher into its dreamland of Hindu Rashtra. Its ideologues/leaders have been candid enough to point out to the faithful’s the ‘internal enemies’’ and ways to deal with them or exterminate them. All these preparations dotted by regular drills, games and other militant exercises serves as a counter to the much publicised notion by the same people that ‘Hindus are Cowards’.[19]  Or the canard that, “Islam was spread through the sword” which has been an item of belief for the Hindutva fundamentalists.

It was in the mid-1930s when a proper military school was established by Dr B S Munje, mentor of Dr Hedgewar and one of the founders of RSS which was aimed “…to bring about military regeneration of the Hindus” Apart from Dr Hedgewar, and Dr B S Munje, Dr L V Paranjpe, Dr B B Thalkar and Baburao Savarkar – V.D. Savarkar’s brother were present at the inaugural meeting of RSS on Vijaya Dashmi.[20] This military school was to be built on the lines of the The Balilla institutions an idea conceived by Mussolini for the ‘military regeneration of Italy’. Anyone can see that from day one its doors were closed for non-Hindus.[21]

In one of the first exhaustive write-up “”Hindutva’s foreign tie-up in the 1930s: Archival evidence” in Economic & Political Weekly, January 22, 2000 Marzia Casolari [22] had provided details of Dr Munje’s tour of Italy, his meeting with Mussolini and his impressions of The Balilla institutions an idea conceived by Mussolini for the ‘military regeneration of Italy’ and his resolve to develop similar institution with ‘’our institution Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh”

India and particularly Hindu India need some such institution for the military regeneration of the Hindus: so that the artificial distinction so much emphasised by the British of martial and non-martial classes amongst the Hindus may disappear. Our institution of Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh of Nagpur under Dr Hedgewar is of this kind, though quite independently conceived. I will spend the rest of my life in developing and extending this Institution of Dr Hedgewar all throughout the Maharashtra and other province..[23]

It describes how after the death of its founder Munje, merely six weeks after Gandhi’s assassination, it faced a tremendous crisis and it was the role of the RSS activists there which helped it revive.

The Bhonsala Military School was thus revived. But the revival came at a price. With Ghatate acting as Nagpur’s key aide in the whole exercise, the management of Moonje’s school was silently taken over by men belonging to the RSS. “The shift took place during the period between 1953 and 1956,” says Major (Retd.) Prabhakar Balwant Kulkarni—who witnessed the shift and who had been attached to the school in different capacities from 1956 to 2003—in a detailed interview that took place in Nashik. [24]

Five, the project of running a military school under such formations is worrisome also because of earlier experiences which were concretised with the intervention and involvement of Hindutva activists.

e.g. More than a decade back when exposures in the Malegaon bomb blast case were taking place and terror modules belonging to Hindutva formations were under scanner- thanks to the painstaking work done by the then ATS chief Hemant Karkare – an organisation called Maharashtra Military Foundation (MMF) based in Pune run by – Lt Col Jayant Chitale, a retired air defence artillery officer had also made headlines.

In an interview to the ‘Outlook’ reporter[25] Jayant Chitale told him that he had

“Over 1,000 of my boys serving in the three services today. Each one has been brainwashed by me. They are motivated, determined and will do anything for the nation.”

The visitor’s book which Chitale has carefully preserved lists the names of all the young men who were trained under him. Entry on February 20, 1993 tells us that Shrikant Prasad Purohit, Law College, Pune was also enrolled here. The same Purohit, who later became Lt Col in army and was an accused in the Malegaon bomb blast case under various sections of the UAPA and Indian Penal Code with others.

Coming back to the ‘Rajju Bhaiya Sainkik School’ a section of the media is claiming that this is going to be the ‘first Sainik School’ being conceived and run by RSS.  This claim is not based on facts.

Bhonsla Military School (BMS) founded by Munje – leader of Hindu Mahasabha and one of the founders of RSS itself – is a living example that for the last sixty years, RSS or its activists are effectively running the school, which has run into controversy one after the other.

In fact, ‘Shadow Armies’ a book by veteran political journalist Dhirendra K Jha, – which has devoted a full chapter to the Bhonsla Military School – takes a close look at burgeoning of fringe organizations such as the Sri Ram Sene, the Hindu Yuva Vahini, the Sanatan Sanstha and the Hindu Aikya Vedi apart from few affiliated organisations of the RSS itself which according to the author ‘stir up trouble, polarize communities, incite violence in the name of Hindutva.’ It is common knowledge that there is a very symbiotic relationship between the BJP and these ‘Shadow Armies’.  They have accompanied BJP’s steady advance over the last three decades from two Lok Sabha seats in 1984 to 282 in 2014.

The school remained under scanner of security agencies during first decade of 21^st century.

The school, ..has been linked to various attacks by Hindu extremists in the recent past. The Maharashtra Anti-Terror Squad, for instance, found during its investigation of the 2008 Malegaon blasts that several of the accused had been trained at BMS. Witnesses and co-accused told the ATS that they had participated in meetings with senior RSS leaders and their affiliates to plan the bombings, and that these had taken place on BMS premises.[26]

Not only in the Malegaon blasts, ATS investigating the Nanded Bomb Blast Case ( 6 April 2006) which had witnessed deaths of two Hindutva activists while making bombs had discovered that the Himanshu, one of the deceased had organised a training camp at the Bhonsala Military School in Nagpur, apart from other camps. The charge sheet and narcotics analysis of accused in the Nanded blast case made it very clear that a training camp was held in the Bhonsala Military School at Nagpur attended by 100 to 115 people in May 2000 from all over the country.[27]

4. In Lieu of a Conclusion

Much has been written on RSS run schools and their pedagogical programme.[28]

A glimpse of the critique can be had from one such study published quite some time back. (Teaching to Hate: RSS’ Pedagogical Programme, Nandini Sundar, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 39, No. 16 (Apr. 17-23, 2004), pp. 1605-1612 (8 pages) Published By: Economic and Political Weekly, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4414900)

To paraphrase from the above mentioned study, if schools are one of the modes in which nations imagine and reproduce themselves, debates over schooling system are, at heart, debates over style and content of this imagining

Looking at the fact that in today’s India when the RSS and its affiliated organisations and its worldview is on ascendant, and its notion of citizenship, patriotism and nationhood have a wider constituency, it is easy to imagine whether such Sainik Schools being run under PPP model would be seriously inculcating Constitutional Principles and Values among students when the only requirement is that you need to have an infrastructure to run a school?

Definitely not.

Elections are round the corner and whenever a new government takes over, concerned citizens, civil liberty organisations, educationists as well as political formations should impress upon the new government to review this policy and decide to discontinue it.

[1] https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/its-the-day-of-resurrection-swami-avdheshanand-giri-after-pran-pratishtha-ceremony-in-ayodhya20240122225147/

[2] https://www.amarujala.com/delhi-ncr/up-bulandshahr-rajju-bahiya-sainik-school-inaugurated-by-avdheshanand-giri-maharaj?pageId=1

[3] https://theprint.in/opinion/dont-rush-sainik-schools-public-private-partnership-can-dilute-and-corrupt/673499/

[4] https://www.thehansindia.com/news/national/rss-to-open-army-school-in-name-of-rajju-bhaiya-551122

[5] https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/rss-to-open-army-school-dedicated-to-former-chief-rajju-bhaiyya-2078110

[6] https://www.reporters-collective.in/trc/centre-hands-sainik-schools-to-sangh-parivar-bjp-politicians

[7] https://www.reporters-collective.in/trc/centre-hands-sainik-schools-to-sangh-parivar-bjp-politicians

[8] https://www.reporters-collective.in/trc/centre-hands-sainik-schools-to-sangh-parivar-bjp-politicians

[9] . https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/rajasthan-assembly-election-2023-result-who-is-mahant-balak-nath-yogi-all-you-need-to-know-about-bjp-candidate-from-tijara-constituency/articleshow/105693829.cms ; https://hindi.theprint.in/elections/yogi-of-rajasthan-who-is-mahant-balaknath-who-is-in-the-news-with-the-rise-of-bjp-in-rajasthan/635496/

[10] . https://www.reporters-collective.in/trc/centre-hands-sainik-schools-to-sangh-parivar-bjp-politicians

[11] .https://khabar.ndtv.com/video/show/prime-time/rss-is-opening-its-military-school-in-bulandshahar-523031

[12] https://theprint.in/opinion/dont-rush-sainik-schools-public-private-partnership-can-dilute-and-corrupt/673499/

[13] https://theprint.in/opinion/dont-rush-sainik-schools-public-private-partnership-can-dilute-and-corrupt/673499/

[14] https://theprint.in/opinion/dont-rush-sainik-schools-public-private-partnership-can-dilute-and-corrupt/673499/

[15] https://theprint.in/opinion/dont-rush-sainik-schools-public-private-partnership-can-dilute-and-corrupt/673499/

[16] https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/bharatiya-janata-partys-ideological-ancestors-supported-british-muslim-league-against-indians-mallikarjun-kharge/cid/2011944 ; https://sabrangindia.in/why-is-the-bjp-calling-the-congress-manifesto-2024-to-be-an-imprint-of-the-muslim-league/

[17] https://www.newsclick.in/many-silences-mohan-bhagwat

[18] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nashik/india-was-better-off-under-british-rule-mohan-bhagwat/articleshow/11984492.cms

[19] https://francoisgautier.me/2013/02/10/are-hindus-cowards

[20] Page 16, Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags, Tapan Basu, Pradip Datta, Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Sarkar, Sambuddha Sen, Orient Longman

[21] https://kafila.online/2012/03/09/75-years-of-bhonsala-military-school-militarising-minds-hindutvaising-the-nation/

[22] http://www.epw.in/journal/2000/04/special-articles/hindutvas-foreign-tie-1930s.html

[23] From Munje Diary, http://www.frontline.in/cover-story/moonje-mussolini/article6756630.ece

[24] https://caravanmagazine.in/vantage/the-rss-bhonsala-military-school-dhirendra-k-jha

[25] ‘Godse’s War, Nov 17, 2008

[26] https://caravanmagazine.in/vantage/the-rss-bhonsala-military-school-dhirendra-k-jha

[27] https://www.countercurrents.org/gatade100312.htm

[28] http://www.sacw.net/HateEducation/Ramak101198.html ; http://scroll.in/article/815049/indianise-nationalise-spiritualise-the-rss-education-project-is-in-for-the-long-haul, https://caravanmagazine.in/politics/ekal-vidyalaya-abhiyan-rss-fts-vhp-hindutva-west-bengal-trinamool-bjp

The post Militarising Minds, Hindutvaising the Nation | Training Future Military Leaders Imbued in Hindutva Supremacism? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

..Basically, being woke means obsessing about race, gender, and sexual orientation. Maybe climate change too. That’s the best definition I can give. Today more and more people are becoming woke, even though generations of civil rights leaders have taught us not to focus on race or gender. And now capitalism is trying to stay woke too.

(Page 12, Vivek Ramswamy, Woke, Inc: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam)

‘A spectre haunting the Conservative world – the spectre of Wokeism’

The brainstorming by conservatives from US, Germany and other Western countries alongwith academics from India is over. (https://indianexpress.com/article/delhi-confidential/delhi-confidential-woke-talk-9177967/) The host was Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) the youth front of the ruling dispensation here namely BJP – which loves to call itself the biggest organisation of youth in the world.

One does not know whether the organisers had put any such banner regarding the ‘spectre’ or not but few of the available details of meeting tell us that the gathering did discuss ‘wokeism’ apart from other issues.

BJYM’s sudden waking up on the challenge of ‘wokeism’ is not difficult to understand.

It could be easily traced to Sangh Supremo Mohan Bhagwat’s exhortation in his Vijayadashmi Speech – few months back – wherein he had castigated ‘cultural Marxists’ and ‘woke people’. (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/cultural-marxists-woke-people-spoiling-indias-ethos-rss-chief/articleshow/104681467.cms) in no uncertain terms, who according to him were ‘spoiling Indian ethos’. He even accused them of undermining education and culture, promoting conflicts and disrupting social cohesion.

Close watchers of the Sangh trajectory know very well that the Supremo’s Vijayadashmi speech is normally considered a view into the future, which presents an outline about coming challenges – as per its worldview – before millions and millions of members of this hydra-headed organisation.

And a cursory glance at the journey of these ideas of ‘wokeism’ etc within Sangh Circles makes it clear that they have been very much in circulation there since sometime.

It was a year and half back that leading lights of the Hindutva fraternity – ranging from Dattatreya Hosballe, Swapan Dasgupta, Sudhanshu Trivedi – had attended a book release function penned down by an India born American Hindutva ideologue Rajiv Malhotra alongwith Vijaya Viswanathan, who is associated with Infinity Foundation, started by him.

The book titled the book ‘Snakes in India: Breaking India 2:0. (Blueink) discussed ‘‘intense warfare against India’s integrity is the work of a well-orchestrated global machinery driven by a new ideology’. (https://www.firstpost.com/india/snakes-in-the-ganga-rajiv-malhotra-vijaya-viswanathans-book-on-uncomfortable-truths-about-indias-vulnerabilities-11337501.html) and also talked about how “wokeism has penetrated some of the Indian government’s policies. For instance, the National Education Policy 2020 is propagating Harvard’s liberal arts.”

The book had made a concerted attack on Ashoka University – the leading liberal arts and science University – alleging how it is ‘breeding wokeism in India’ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LFjtHGJN8A&list=PLGQElwzyJxtzF1yNxeRuA4gJvyPNhOy5n&index=2)

The closeness of Rajiv Malhotra to the Hindutva lobby could also be understood from the fact that he was appointed as honorary visiting Professor by JNU (2018), a man who had long history of courting controversy (https://www.firstpost.com/india/jnu-appoints-hindutva-ideologue-rajiv-malhotra-honorary-professor-us-based-author-has-history-of-courting-controversy-5479421.html)

As an aside it may be added here that the idea of being ‘woke’ -which deals with ”promotion of liberal progressive ideology and policy as an expression of sensitivity to systemic injustices and prejudices’  originated in the USA and is a  black terminology, (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/25/woke-should-not-be-used-as-a-negative-warns-c-of-es-first-black-female-bishop) which speaks ‘specifically and directly to black people regarding the need to wake up and stay alert, to be consciously aware. So, it is not just a mere word, it is a movement,’ and thanks to the movement Black Lives Matter, a growing section of progressives also has started using it.

Sangh’s growing anxieties vis-a-vis ‘Woke People’ or ‘Wokeism’ raise two broad questions.

The ease with which it is ready to peddle a concept in the Western World.

Why does RSS and the larger Hindutva fraternity – which keeps celebrating its native roots and its celebration of India’s age old culture, civilisation and which never loses any opportunity to castigate the liberals, lefts for import of ‘Western Ideas’ finds the idea of ‘Wokeism’ attractive, which is of very recent origin.

Does it feel confident enough that the way it uncritically accepted colonial understanding of India’s history presented by the likes of James Mill, without even acknowledging it – whose problematic periodisation of India’s history as ‘Hindu Period’, Muslim Period and British Period is still being debated and packaged and peddled it for furthering its own agenda of Hindu Rashtra, this idea of ‘wokeism’ can serve its purpose in today’s times. Does it feel that it presents before it an opportunity to package its agenda of Hindu Unity in a more sanitised form before the new generation? We should not forget that it has never acknowledged the internal asymmetries of Hindu society and has always blamed this lack of unity on ‘others’ and has consciously tried to exteriorise genesis of its problems.

Secondly, does not this idea of wokeism – which as per dictionary is a ‘usually disparaging term’ – which effectively denies that all the talk of systemic insults, humiliations and prejudices by the blacks or the other oppressed is humbug, sits contrary to what RSS itself had been talking about in recent times- like end of caste discrimination or stopping environmental degradation?

One thing is certain that the Sangh ideologues would never address these obvious contradictions in their worldview or would never elaborate how in practice they are very much engaged in blurring all such distinctions between historical insults and humiliations and general grievances of people – the way rightwingers in US, especially belonging to the Republican Party – are engaged in.

Instances galore – especially since around a decade old ascent of Hindutva Supremacism at the Centre and many states, and the idea of Hindutva fascinating a large section of society, where there have been conscious attempt to deny caste discrimination or conflating/mixing it with other discriminations? (https://www.newsclick.in/how-make-caste-discrimination-disappear-universities) Instances where there is growing talk of ‘dereservation’ (https://countercurrents.org/2024/02/dereservation-whether-the-genie-is-out-of-the-bottle-finally/) or legal manouvering even to provide benefits of reservation to the upper castes – denying the Constitutional principles and values that they had their genesis in the historical injustices and discriminations faced by the Dalits, Tribals and other oppressed castes.

The attack of ‘wokeism’ on independent thinking and progressive politics also very much gels with the overall modus operandi of RSS, BJP and other affiliated organisations. Organisations whose longtime project is carving out a Hindu Rashtra out of a formal secular, democratic, socialist and sovereign India.

The manner in which routinely such liberal spaces or intellectuals are castigated as ‘Khan Market gang’ or the way Hindutva has unleashed an organised, systematic and conscious attack on educational institutions – who still valued independent thinking – can be considered a mere detail in this overall pattern of domesticating the thinking people of the country.

One can also say that with growing discrediting of the whole idea of ‘tukde tukde gang’ or ‘urban naxals’ (https://www.newsclick.in/in-search-tukde-tukde-gang) invented and popularised by the Hindutva cheerleaders – which was conveniently used against all dissenting voices, perhaps the idea of ‘wokeism’ or ‘woke people’ can serve similar purpose for them.

No doubt, the ambience at Taj Ambassadors must have facilitated the brainstorming of Conservatives in a good way.

And this brainstorming also presents before all liberal and progressive voices an interesting challenge, how prepared we are to understand the dynamics of Hindutva Supremacism and present an effective alternative in the field of ideas and actions. How is it that despite its essentially inegalitarian, exclusivist agenda based on hate and otherings – Hindutva is ready to package its worldview in a more sanitised and more cool form and more creative ways but we are still far away from it.

*Subhash Gatade is a left activist associated with New Socialist Initiative

Courtesy: Kashmir Times

The post Why Hindutva Is Worried About “Woke People” or “Wokeism”? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Anyway, as one hoped that this chapter around ‘discovery of a new Father of Nation’ was over and one was attempting to turn a new leaf what one witnessed was rather unusual.

The debate around ‘Father of Nation” came back with a vengeance.

Thanks to POTUS Donald Trump who attended the Howdy Modi rally in Houston and the ‘love fest over the weekend’ ( https://jacobinmag.com/2019/09/modi-houston-rally-hindu-nationalism) where he heaped praise on Modi :
 

“I remember India before was very torn. There was a lot of dissension; fighting and he brought it all together. Like a father would. Maybe he is the father of India,” (https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/donald-trump-calling-pm-modi-father-of-india-insult-to-mahatma-gandhi-jairam-ramesh-1603166-2019-09-25)

Any neutral observer of US politics would have told that praising his guests in superlatives has been a regular practice with POTUS which is neither taken seriously by the guests nor the people of America. Only a few days before this Houston rally he had similarly praised Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison as a “Man of Titanium”, “a man of real, real strength, and a great guy”.(https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/21/donald-trump-suggests-china-a-threat-to-the-world-while-praising-scott-morrison-as-a-man-of-titanium) “. And he has had no qualms in even celebrating “a variety of right-wing personalities, meme-makers and conspiracy theorists at his so-called “Social Media Summit” at White House and bringing new respectability to the right’s online fringe. (https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-praises-right-wing-conspiracy-theorists-at-white-house-the-crap-you-think-of-is-unbelievable)
What should have happened is that the matter should have ended there.

Perhaps it would have appeared rather befitting for the moment that Prime Minister Modi should have taken initiative in ‘thanking President of America’ for his words of praise and rather told him very politely that we Indians consider Mahatma Gandhi – who led the anti-colonial struggle against the Britishers – as ‘Father of the Nation’.

Nothing of that sort happened.

Bhakts rather went euphoric that Trump had called Modi ‘Father of India’.

In fact, it appeared that a section of leaders and supporters of BJP were feverishly waiting for such an endorsement from some world leader for PM Modi. Remember it is on record how earlier as well
 

“[a] lot of people closely related to the BJP have often, called Modi the father of this country. In a debate with Kanhaiya Kumar, Sambit Patra was heard saying “Baap hain Modi, humaare nahi, poore desh ke baap hai Modiji (he is the father of the whole country.)”Just before the elections, AIADMK Minister, the then Tamil Nadu minister for Milk and Dairy Development K T Rajendra Balaji had said very proudly, “Modi is our daddy, he is our daddy, India’s daddy.”( https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/tweeple-not-amused-by-modi-being-called-father-of-india)

Union minister Jitendra Singh perhaps gave vent to the overwhelming feelings in the saffron camp when he said that those who “do not feel proud” of US President Donald Trump’s comment that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is the “father of India”, do not consider themselves Indians. (https://thewire.in/politics/those-not-proud-of-modi-being-called-father-of-india-arent-indians-union-minister) It did not matter to him that by calling Modi ‘Father of India’ Donald Trump has in fact insulted Mahatma Gandhi, in his 150 th birth anniversary year.

Not only that Mr Jitendra Singh’s espousal of Modi’s praise by Trump was a great insult to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, who in his address on Singapore Radio on July 6, 1944 had addressed Mahatma Gandhi as Father of the Nation for the first time. It was the period when both Kasturba and Gandhi both had been interned at Aga Khan Palace, Pune in the wake of Quit India Movement. Kasturba passed away while serving her prison term on 22 February, 1944. Netaji’s message read as follows:
 

“………..Nobody would be more happy than ourselves if by any chance our countrymen at home should succeed in liberating themselves through their own efforts or by any chance, the British Government accepts your `Quit India’ resolution and gives effect to it. We are, however proceeding on the assumption that neither of the above is possible and that a struggle is inevitable.
Father of our Nation in this holy war for India’s liberation, we ask for your blessings and good wishes”. (http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/main/q1.htm)

Looking at the fact that the saffron brigade –  kept itself aloof from the independence struggle and Hindu Mahasabha, led by Savarkar, then campaigned among Hindu youths to join British military when they were facing stiff resistance from broad masses of people because of the 1942 Quit India movement, it is rather too much to expect that they would be careful about such niceties ( like respecting freedom fighters)

Secondly, it was clear that for the followers of the Hindutva brigade it did not matter at all that Trump’s praise had come when he finds himself embroiled in a serious controversy. A formal impeachment inquiry against him has been initiated in the House of Representatives ‘charging him with betraying his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain.’ (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/democrats-impeachment-trump.html) making him the fourth President in America’s history to be subjected to such a scrutiny.
Remember this enquiry could be seen just as a tip of iceberg of Trump’s acts of commission and omission.

What is becoming obvious that Trump’s own record as President of USA and earlier is less than noble. A mere perusal of his career by a Opinion Columnist at New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/opinion/trump-ukraine-whistle-blower.html) ‘in forty sentences’ is worth recalling:
 

He has pressured a foreign leader to interfere in the 2020 American presidential election.He urged a foreign country to intervene in the 2016 presidential election. He divulged classified information to foreign officials.He publicly undermined American intelligence agents while standing next to a hostile foreign autocrat. ..He encourages foreign leaders to enrich him and his family by staying at his hotels…He described white supremacists as “some very fine people.”He told four women of color, all citizens and members of Congress, to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came.”..He launched his political career by falsely claiming that the first black president was not really American…He has been accused of sexual assault or misconduct by multiple women…He has encouraged his supporters to commit violence against his political opponents.

The list provides many more details.

Question arises if someone who is known to tell ‘new lies virtually every week — about the economy, voter fraud, even the weather’ (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?module=inline), who has described women, variously, as “a dog,” “a pig” and “horseface,” as well as “bleeding badly from a facelift” and having “blood coming out of her wherever.”(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/opinion/trump-ukraine-whistle-blower.html) or who has ‘obstructed justice by trying to influence an investigation into his presidential campaign ( -do-), praises someone else, then should it be seen as a compliment or an insult and why such elation among followers of Hindu Rashtra.

One knows that such moralistic questions do not trouble – a large section of people – these days anymore, a clear sign of the fact that we have really ushered into a ‘New India’. This is an India where mob rule has slowly overwhelmed the rule of law, where cartoonists are arrested for mocking leaders under the charge of sedition. A new India with its new icons where ‘vigilante killers are being compared with India’s freedom fighters’ (https://thewire.in/history/hindutva-vigilante-killers-freedom-fighters).

This ‘dethroning’ of Mahatma Gandhi from the pedestal of ‘Father of Nation’ and ‘enthronment of Narendra Modi’ in his place reminds one of an episode two years back when in a surprise development, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had literally “[e]jected Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi in the 2017 wall calendar and table diary published by the Khadi Village Industries Commission (KVIC)…Most employees and officials were taken aback to see the cover photo of the calendar and diary showing Modi weaving khadi on a large charkha’, in the same classic pose as Gandhi ji.”(https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/modi-khadi-gram-udyog-make-in-india-mahatma-gandhi-rahul-gandhi-954592-2017-01-12).

A leader of the BJP – who happened to be minister in Haryana goverment – Anil Vij, made it very clear that this was not an inadvertent error and “[a]fter khadi stationary, Mahatma Gandhi would be removed from notes as well.”(https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/khadi-calendar-narendra-modi-mahatma-gandhi-rupee-anil-vij-954953-2017-01-14) He added that “[P]M Modi is a bigger brand name than Mahatma Gandhi for khadi…Khadi is not patented in the name of Mahatma Gandhi. “( – do-)

Or one can as well look at Gandhi’s reduction to a pair of spectacles when Modi government took over in 2014 and when ‘ Swach Bharat Abhiyan’ was launched by Modi with a bang.

Whatever might be their formal claims, these isolated looking examples underline one thing, the saffrons cannot hide their growing unease with Mahatma Gandhi –  whose imagination of an independent India stands at complete variance with their worldview. And are trying to find umpteen ways to unseat him or substitute him with someone more close to their ideals. It is no mere coincidence that the campaign to glorify Gandhi’s killer Godse and demonise Gandhi caught speed only with the ascent of a right-wing government at the centre (since 2014). (https://www.newsclick.in/glorifying-godse-demonising-gandhi).
It was a sign of their desperation that Donald Trump, the ‘serial liar’ (http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news.php?id=135076&sid=6) who himself represents “a threat to America’s future” (-do-) provided them a fig leaf and they had no qualms in going gaga over it but had no idea that this move would similarly flounder adding fresh coat of egg on their face.

The post New India – New Father of Nation? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Who could have been the best prime minister of independent India?
Nehru or (Vallabhbhai) Patel?

For more than last five years, we have been a witness to this manufactured debate—courtesy Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has tried all the tricks in its kitty to create a false binary between these leading stalwarts of independence movement, who called themselves ‘Gandhi’s sipahis’.

Anyway, thanks to the differences of perception within the saffron fraternity, a new competitor to Sardar Patel seems to have emerged from within the Hindutva Brigade who is being projected as someone who would have been a “better PM”.

Uddhav Thackreay, chief of Shiv Sena and at present, a junior ally of the BJP in Maharashtra, recently made his choice clear by stating that if Veer Savarkar would have become the prime minister, “Pakistan would not have come into existence”. At a book release event, he even refused to call Nehru a Veer (courageous), making a rather provocative statement: ‘I would have called Nehru brave if he would have survived jail for 14 minutes against Savarkar who stayed in the prison for 14 long years.’

Definitely, the fact that Nehru spent more than nine years in different jails of the colonialists without ever compromising his basic principles—whereas, the 14 years spent by Savarkar were interspersed with mercy petitions sent by him to the British, wherein he had even expressed his readiness to ‘serve the government in any capacity they like’—did not bother him at all.

What is rather worrisome is that it was no mere expression of an alternate viewpoint. Thackeray even asked the gathering  ‘to beat [Mani Shankar Aiyar] with shoes for showing disrespect to Savarkar’. Senior Congress leader Aiyar had openly said last year that it was Savarkar who himself had proposed the two-nation theory and had coined the term ‘Hindutva’. This had infuriated Uddhav Thackeray to no end. However, it is a fact that Savarkar, in his presidential address in Ahmedabad at the 19th session of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1937, had openly declared that India comprises of two nations. According to him,

“..[T]here 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 … India cannot be assumed today to be a unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems, in India..”

(V.D.Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya Hindu Rasthra Darshan (Collected works of V.D.Savarkar) Vol VI, Maharashtra Prantik Hindusabha, Poona, 1963, p 296)

A year later, he said: “The Hindus are the nation in India—in Hindusthan, and the Moslem minority a community’(Page 25, Savarkar and Hindutva, A G Noorani, Leftword, 2003). Remember Jinnah propounded his two-nation theory in 1939—exactly two years after Savarkar presented it. It was a reflection of the political ambience then that R C Majumdar, a historian with pro-Sangh parivar views, acknowledged that there was ‘one important factor which was responsible to a very large extent for the emergence of the idea of partition of India on communal lines. This was the Hindu Mahasabha.” (R C Mazumdar (General Editor), Struggle for Freedom, Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, 1969, p. 611)
It would be political naivety to think that this euologisation of Savarkar by the Shiv Sena supremo on the eve of elections was spontaneous. On the one hand, it was an attempt to raise an emotive issue to garner a few more votes and on the other hand, this projection of a Marathi icon was Shiv Sena’s oblique way of getting even with its ‘senior ally’ BJP, which has used name of Sardar Patel—a Gujarati—to further its anti-Nehru propaganda. This, in a way, also conveys discreetly that BJP’s “love” for Savarkar has been a very recent phenomenon.

It should be recalled that Savarkar’s plaque was removed from Port Blair’s cellular jail (in 2004) where Savarkar had served his jail term. Vikram Savarkar—Savarkar’s own nephew—in an interview to a national daily had exposed BJP’s lack of interest in his uncle and had castigated them for their sudden love for him. The report read: “It may be noted that he had accused the senior leaders of the BJP for ‘keeping mum despite noticing the removal of his uncle’s quotations from Port Blair’s Cellular Jail’. According to him, Ram Kapse, the then incumbent Lt. governor of Andaman and Nicobar and former M.P Ram Naik ( both BJP workers) ‘did not utter a word when the plaque was removed’.”

The report further says that he is not surprised at the BJP’s lack of interest in Savarkar. “We know very well that the BJP and RSS did not appreciate his (Savarkar’s) philosophy.” Vikram then claims that BJP’s sudden love for the legend is an eyewash. “It is an effort to woo voters for the Assembly elections in Maharashtra,” he is quoted as saying.  (Savarkar nephew hits out at BJP, August 30, 2004, Indian Express)
No doubt the debate around Savarkar’s ‘greatness’ cannot be reduced to the internecine squabbles within the Hindutva fraternity and there is an urgent need to unpack the whole issue for a wider interaction.

One can clearly see two phases in his life.

First phase which lasted till a few years after he was transported for life to Andamans, when he was all for Hindu-Muslim unity. However, in the second phase, he emphasised Hindu unity and propounded the theory of Hindu nation.

Born on May 28, 1883, to a Marathi Brahmin family, Savarkar was attracted towards anti-British movements and was even instrumental in establishing Abhinav Bharat Society (Young India)—drawing inspiration from Mazzini’s ‘Young Italy’ during school days. He went to England to study law where he got further involved in radical political activities. Inspired by the 1857 uprising against British and with the aim to communicate with the dormant masses he even a wrote a book in Marathi titled ‘The Indian War of Independence of 1857’, which talked in glowing terms about the Hindu-Muslim unity displayed during this war. Later, he was arrested for instigating radical/violent activities in London as well as for his connection to the similar activities back home in India and was sentenced to two life sentences and was sent to Cellular Jail in Andamans. It appears that the tough life in the jail—which was endured by other prisoners without any compromise—broke his spirit and he sent petitions to the British government for early release. After a long time, British government conceded to his request and sent him home, put restrictions on him and asked him to not to participate in political activities. He was finally released when there were provincial elections in India and Congress party-led government came to power in the then Mumbai province.

Coming back to the present debate about whether there is any merit in Thackeray’s claim that India would have remained united if Savarkar would have become PM. Question immediately arises whether Savarkar was really for united India. Definitely not. This original proponent of the two-nation theory had this to say at a media conference in August 1943 which was quoted by Congress on its official Twitter handle shedding its normal ambivalence about Savarkar:

“For the last 30 years we have been accustomed to the ideology of geographical unity of India and the Congress has been the strongest advocate of that unity but suddenly the Muslim minority, which has been asking one concession after another, has, after the Communal Award, come forward with the claim that it is a separate nation. I have no quarrel with Mr Jinnah’s two-nation theory. We, Hindus, are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations.”

Thus, Uddhav’s hypothesis is itself superfluous/meaningless. It is like saying that Jinnah could have led a united India after independence.
But what was Savarkar’s own situation in early 1940s when anti-imperialist forces led by Congress and other radical sections of society were waging a ‘do or die’ struggle against the British? It is now history how the formations espousing the cause of Hindutva adopted a compromising attitude. It is worth noting that while the RSS preferred to keep itself aloof from the ‘Quit India Movement’ and concentrated on its divisive agenda, Savarkar, the pioneer theoretician of the project of Hindu Rashtra went one step further. He toured India asking the Hindu youth to join the military with a call ‘Militarise the Hindus, Hinduise the nation’—thus strengthening efforts of the British to suppress the rising tide of the people’s movement.

When Congress party asked the state governments led by it in different provinces to resign, Hindu Mahasabha under Savarkar’s leadership had no qualms in running coalition governments in Sind and Bengal sharing power with Muslim League and justifying this compromise.

“..in practical politics also the Mahasabha knows that we must advance through reasonable compromises.” (V.D.Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya Hindu Rasthra Darshan ( Collected works of V.D.Savarkar) Vol VI, Maharashtra Prantik Hindusabha, Poona, 1963, p 479-480
What is interesting to note is that despite the fact that Hindu Mahasabha was sharing power with Muslim League and a few other parties to run provincial governments in Bengal and Northwest province, and despite the services offered to the British empire, he was a ‘spent force’ for the British. A G Noorani, constitutional expert and political commentator, in his book ‘Savarkar and Hindutva’ (Page 92, Left Word, 2002), shares details of the minutes of the then Head of the Political Department in the India Office named John Percival Gibson. According to him, he minuted on August 1, 1944 that ‘he did not consider it necessary to acknowledge’ a cable Savarkar had sent to the Secretary of State for India, Leopald S Amery on July 26, 1944. It had claimed that the Mahasabha was ‘the only all-India representative body of Hindus’. Noorani notes that Savarkar adopted the same tactics normally adopted by fading politicians to remain in the news, which comprised not only issuing regular statements to the press, but to see to it that they are more and more rabid.

Definitely, the present Shiv Sena supremo would not be even aware of the fact that Savarkar had no qualms in hurriedly applauding Aiyar, the Dewan of Travancore, when he had exhibited the audacity of declaring the state independent. Qutoed in Frontline, A.G.Noorani says:
Sir C.P.Ramaswamy Aiyar, the Dewan of Travancore, had declared the state independent of India! The perfidy did not stop there. He gallantly and speedily appointed an ambassador from Travancore to Jinnah’s Pakistan, thus affirming once more his credentials as an inveterate enemy of India free and whole.And, for this treason, who lustily applauded Aiyar in all of India? Who else but “Veer” Savarkar?

And last but not the least, this iconisation of Savarkar by the Shiv Sena appears at variance with the own track record of the first government led by Shiv Sena-BJP in mid nineties, (with Shiv Sena as the senior partner) when Uddhav’s father Bal Thackreay used to boast that he has the remote control of the government with him. Uddhav will have to explain why never once they (neither Shiv Sena nor BJP) thought of putting Savarkar’s portrait in the state assembly.

Why were they careful enough to keep themselves aloof from Savarkar’s now ‘cherished legacy’?

Subhash Gatade is the author of Pahad Se Uncha Aadmi (2010) Godse’s Children: Hindutva Terror in India,(2011) and The Saffron Condition: The Politics of Repression and Exclusion in Neoliberal India(2011). He is also the Convener of New Socialist Initiative (NSI) Email :
subhash.gatade@gmail.com

Originally published in NewsClick
 

The post Humko Savarkarich Mangta appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
The word lynching conjures up images of a dark period in the history of the United States of America. Between 1877 and 1950, white supremacist gangs murdered 4,000 African Americans, while the government and the police looked the other way. James Baldwin, whose essays Dark Days captures the unfolding violence, wrote, ‘A mob is not autonomous. It executes the real will of the people who rule the State’. In 1888, white supremacists lynched seven African American men for drinking from a well – which they had said was for ‘white’s only’. Baldwin recounts that story and writes, ‘The blood is on the hands of the state of Alabama which sent those mobs into the street to execute the will of the State’.
 
The lyrics quoted above are from the iconic song – Strange Fruit – written by the communist artist Abel Meeropol and sung by Billie Holiday.
 
Lynching in India is not so far away from the American South. The sudden eruption of lynching events in the second decade of the 21^st century is related to the ascent of majoritarian forces in India’s polity and society. One of the first cases of lynching in this wave of murders took place less than a fortnight after the swearing in of the Modi government. Mohsin Mohammed Sheikh (age 28) worked as an Information Technology manager. On 4 June 2014, he was returning home with his friend when a gang associated with the Hindu Rashtra Sena – led by Dhananjay Desai – blocked his path and began to hit him with hockey sticks. It was later discovered that the assialnts had been agitated over one of Mohsin Mohammed Sheikh’s Facebook posts. He was killed on the spot. It was the first communally-targeted killing in Modi-led India.
 
Despite the controversial record of the Sena in the police files, and despite the fact that the Maharashtra government had once contemplated banning the group, the high court judge – Mridula Bhatkar – granted bail to the three men accused of killing Mohsin Sheikh. The order given by the judge is remarkable and deserves quotation,
 
The applicants/accused otherwise had no other motive such as any personal enmity against the innocent deceased Mohsin. The fault of the deceased was only that he belonged to another religion. I consider this factor in favour of the applicants/accused. Moreover, the applicants/accused do not have criminal record and it appears that in the name of the religion, they were provoked and have committed the murder. Under such circumstances, I allow the bail Applications.
 
In other words, if one kills someone out of personal enmity than that is worse than if someone is killed merely on religious grounds. Those who kill in the name of religion should be – by Justice Bhatkar’s logic – given favourable treatment vis-à-vis other kinds of murder. The Supreme Court could not tolerate this judgment. It observed that the high court ruling was ‘coloured with bias for or against a community’. It set aside the order of the Bombay High Court. The rot had run deep. Even a high court judge could take the view that killing in the name of religion was not deeply awful and unlawful.
 
Lynching appeared in India not as individual acts – one person killing another – but as group violence – mobs targeting religious minorities, Dalits, transgender persons and people of a variety of deprived sections. Anyone considered ‘other’ was fair game. Professor Sanjay Subramanyam, who teaches at the University of California, Los Angeles, told Indian Express that the members of the lynch mobs know that nothing will happen to them, that their acts have the approval of higher authorities.
 
Earlier, organised acts of mass violence were repetitive in character and there was a pattern, e.g. processions were attacked, or the violence was timed with public festivals. This was so even in the time of the Mughals. Then, post-Independence, there have been largely urban, organised forms of violence, where various political parties have provided protection to the perpetrators.
 
The difference between the earlier phase of mass violence and the current phrase required further differentiation. Professor Subramanyam continued,
 
But what we are seeing now is not at a single place, there are fewer numbers attacked and it is decentralised, done by little groups all over the place. These groups are either being told or imagine that they have been told to act in this way. Further, after the event, no one in authority is clearly telling them the contrary. There is also an aspirational quality to the violence. …curious thing is that the perpetrators want it to be known. After all, some of the people doing this are even videotaping it. They make sure the information is circulating, intended as a warning, as a signal and controlling device for the social behaviour expected of minorities. It is a form of violence which can pop up here one day and there on another. It is never mass killings but based on the existence of grassroots kind of organisations which believe in doing this, and also to an extent on copycat behaviour. So even if it is decentralised, there is a larger context.
 
If anyone doubts this dynamic, then it is worthwhile to look at the excerpts of a sting operation done by NDTV regarding the killing of a meat trader – Qasim Querishi – in Hapur (Uttar Pradesh) and beating Samiuddin. The police arrested Yudhisthir Singh Sisodia who was the main accused. Let off on bail, Sisodia spoke to NDTV’s A. Vaidyanathan, who had a hidden camera. Sisodia told the court that he had no role in the killing, but when Vaidyanathan asked him about it, he said,
 
I told the jailer that [the victims] were slaughtering cows, so I slaughtered them. My army is ready. If anyone slaughters a cow, we will kill them and go to jail a thousand times.
 
0 0
 
The New India of the BJP is a normal of hatred and bigotry. This new normal is an unholy alliance of corporate interests and Hindutva zealots. It is defined by upturning the rule of law, sabotage of institutions, and the creation of an atmosphere of fear. India has become a republic of fear instead of republic of hope. It is worthwhile following Aarti Sethi’s question about how certain deaths become ‘non-events’. She has in mind the murder of Junaid Khan. In the Indian Express, Kaunain Sheriff M returned to the railway station in Faridabad to find out who saw what when Junaid was killed. He found that nobody saw anything as a young boy lay bleeding to death on Platform number 4. The blood stains, the journalist writes, are ‘still visible’ on the platform and yet no-one saw anything, neither the Station Master Om Prakash nor the post-master Bhagwat Dyal whose office is right across from the platform. ‘I did not see anything’, said Om Prakash. ‘I did not see anything’, said Bhagwat Dyal. They used the same sentence. Even the CCTV did not see anything. One official said, ‘There is a CCTV camera opposite the spot. The wire has been tampered with and it is non-functional’. Sethi recounts what she read from Sheriff M and writes,
 
Then they collectively, and without prior agreement, continued to not see what they had seen after the event. This is the uniquely terrifying aspect of this incident on which this report reflects: the totalising force of an unspoken, but collectively binding, agreement between Hindus to not see the dead body of a Muslim child. Hindus on this railway platform in a small station in north India instantly produced a stranger sociality, a common social bond between people who do not otherwise know each other. By mutual recognition between strangers, Hindus at this platform agreed to abide by a code of silence by which the death of a Muslim child cannot be seen by 200 people in full public view on a railway platform in today’s India.
 
Based on this blindness, Sethi offers two main considerations,
 

1. We are in a radical breakdown of the rule of law in BJP ruled India and in these regions mob rule now obtains. We are in the terror days of state supported goondaraj. From which flows the second conclusion.
2. On the 22^nd of June 2017, the Republic effectively ended. India is no longer a secular constitutional republic but on the precipice of being transformed into a majoritarian state ruled by an ethnic and religious majority.

 
The lynching of Junaid was not seen by 200 people who were on the platform at that time. They did not see the violence. They did not see Junaid. This can be contrasted to the response of Ian Grillot (age 24) when a gunman came to kill Srinivas Kutchibhotla and Alok Musasani in a bar in Olathe, Kansas (USA) in 2017. Grillot put himself in the line of fire, shot in the chest as he attempted to stop the shooter killing more people (Kuchibotla died later of his wounds). When Ian Grillot was hailed as a hero, he said, ‘I was just doing what anyone should have done for another human being. It’s not about where he was from or his ethnicity. We’re all humans. I just felt I did what was naturally right to do’. If he had not acted, he said, he could not have ‘lived with myself if I wouldn’t have stopped or attempted to stop the shooter’.
 
In Portland, Oregon (USA) in 2017, a white man shouted racist slurs at two girls – one of whom wore a hijab. Three men on that train intervened. Two died – Ricky John Best (age 53) and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche (age 23). The third man – Micah David-Cole Fletcher (age 21) was badly wounded. Namkai-Meche’s mother – Asha Deliverance – said of her son, ‘My dear baby boy passed on yesterday while protecting two young Muslim girls from a racist man on the train in Portland. Shining bright star, I love you forever’.
 
The two hundred people on the platform in Asaoti were not suffering from the kind of ethical dilemma that drove Ian Grillot to action, or that drove Best and Namkai-Meche to their deaths.
 
( Extracted from ‘Modinama – Issues that did not matter’ by Subhash Gatade, Leftword, 2019)
 
 

The post Lynchistan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

The post Towards a ‘Suitable’ Ambedkar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Representational image. | Image Courtesy: Money Control
 

The post Militarising Minds, Hindutvaising the Nation appeared first on SabrangIndia.