There is a popular proverb related to education which says that if an incompetent person is appointed as teacher, the academic lives of generations of students are doomed. And when there are many such ‘teachers’ whose only qualification is having been trained in the far right, Hindutva wisdom appointed at the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), what pray shall be the future of school social science education?

Recently, the NCERT released a ‘Special Module’ (for text/teaching) titled ‘Partition Horrors’. This module is described as a ‘supplementary resource’ for Classes 6 to 8 (middle to senior school) – not part of regular textbooks – and is meant to be used for ‘projects, posters, discussions and debates.’ The contents of this module, in fact, is supplementary resource material to pinpoint or understand those men/organisations responsible (read guilty) for the Partition of India as claimed but, in fact, presents an altogether a sectarian narrative driven by the body’s RSS masters.

The Module was released on August 14, 2025 as part of “Partition Horrors Remembrance Day” following PM Modi’s 2021 directive which stated that “Partition’s pains can never be forgotten. Millions of our sisters and brothers were displaced, and many lost their lives due to mindless hate and violence. In memory of the struggles and sacrifices of our people, August 14, will be observed as Partition Horrors Remembrance Day.”

On detailed perusal, `The whole document is full of manipulation, contradictions, and untruths aiming   to hide more than it tries to convey about the Partition. We can divide the NCERT truths into following sections.

Falsehood 1: Muslim League leader Jinnah and political Islam founded two-nation theory

The document states that “Partition was primarily the result of flawed ideas, misconceptions, and erroneous decisions.” The party of Indian Muslims, the Muslim League [ML], held a conference in Lahore in 1940. Its leader, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, said that Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literatures”. [page 5]

The module also traces Partition to Muslim leaders’ belief in a separate identity rooted in “political Islam”. It goes on to stress that “on the basis of religion, culture, customs, history, sources of inspiration, and worldviews, Muslim leaders called themselves as fundamentally separate from Hindus. The root of this lay in the ideology of political Islam, which denies the possibility of any permanent or equal relationship with non-Muslims.” [page 6].

It is true that ML under the leadership of MA Jinnah declared his firm faith in India being not one nation. His argument was that,

“The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their views on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Musalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap.” 

Facts concealed

This statement of Jinnah in defence of two-nation theory is reproduced twice in the short document (pages 4 & 6) but the authors shamelessly hide what Hindu nationalists aligned with Hindu Mahasabha and RSS had been arrogantly arguing for decades preceding Jinnah’s statement.

Privileged Caste Hindu nationalists of Bengal propounded the two-nation theory

Long-long before the appearance of Muslim advocates of the two-nation theory, the ball was set rolling by High Caste Hindu nationalists at the end of the 19^th century in Bengal. Raj Narain Basu (1826–1899), the maternal grandfather of Aurobindo Ghosh, and his close associate Nabha Gopal Mitra (1840-94) were the co-fathers of two-nation theory and Hindu nationalism in India. Basu established a society for the promotion of national feelings among the educated natives which in fact stood for preaching the superiority of Hinduism. He organized meetings proclaiming that Hinduism despite its Casteism presented a much higher social idealism than ever reached by the Christian or Islamic civilization.

Basu was the first person to conceive the idea of a Maha Hindu Samiti (All India Hindu Association) and helped in the formation of Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, a precursor of Hindu Mahasabha. He believed that through this organization Hindus would be able to establish an Aryan nation in India. He visualized a powerful Hindu nation not only overtaking India but the whole world. He also saw,

“[The] noble and puissant Hindu nation rousing herself after sleep and rushing headlong towards progress with divine prowess. I see this rejuvenated nation again illumining the world by her knowledge, spirituality and culture, and the glory of Hindu nation again spreading over the whole world.”

[Cited in Majumdar, R. C., History of the Freedom Movement in India, Vol. I (Calcutta: Firma KL Mukhpadhyay, 1971), 295–296.]

Nabha Gopal Mitra started organising an annual Hindu Mela (fête). It used to be a gathering on the last day of every Bengali year and highlighted the Hindu nature of all aspects of Hindu Bengali life and continued uninterrupted between 1867 and 1880. Mitra also started a National Society and a National Paper for promoting unity and feelings of nationalism among Hindus. Mitra argued in his paper that the Hindus positively formed a nation by themselves. According to him,

“[The] basis of national unity in India is the Hindu religion. Hindu nationality embraces all the Hindus of India irrespective of their locality or language.”

[Cited in Majumdar, R. C., Three Phases of India’s Struggle for Freedom (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1961), p. 8.]

1. C. Majumdar, a favourite of Hindutva intellectuals and a prominent researcher of the rise of Hindu nationalism in Bengal, had no difficulty in arriving at the truth that

“Nabha Gopal forestalled Jinnah’s theory of two nations by more than half a century… [And since then] consciously or unconsciously, the Hindu character was deeply imprinted on nationalism all over India.” [Ibid.] 

Role of Arya Samaj 

The Arya Samaj in northern India aggressively preached that Hindu and Muslim communities in India were, in fact, two different nations. Bhai Parmanand (1876–1947), a leading light of the Arya Samaj in northern India who was also a leader of Hindu Mahasabha, declared Hindus and Muslims as two nations. The following words of his seems to have been borrowed by Jinnah in his March 1940 speech at Lahore quoted in the NCERT module.

“In history the Hindus revere the memory of Prithvi Raj, Partap, Shivaji and, Beragi Bir, who fought for the honour and freedom of this land (against the Muslims), while the Mahomedans look upon the invaders of India, like Muhammad Bin Qasim and rulers like Aurangzeb as their national heroes…[whereas] in the religious field, the Hindus draw their inspiration from the Ramayan, the Mahabharat, and the Geeta. The Musalmans, on the other hand, derive their inspiration from the Quran and the Hadis. Thus, the things that divide are far more vital than the things which unite.”

[Parmanand, Bhai in pamphlet titled, ‘The Hindu National Movement’, cited in B.R. Ambedkar, Pakistan or the Partition of India (Bombay: Government of Maharashtra, 1990), 35–36, first Published December 1940, Thackers Publishers, Bombay.]

Parmanand as early as 1908–9, called for the total exchange of Hindu and Muslim populations in two specific areas. According to his plan, elaborated in his autobiography,

“The territory beyond Sind should be united with Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier Province into a great Musalman kingdom. The Hindus of the region should come away, while at the same time Mussalman in the rest of India should go and settle in this territory.”

[Parmanand, Bhai, The Story of My Life, S. Chand, Delhi, 1982, p. 36.]

Another Arya Samaj luminary Lajpat Rai (1865-1928) in 1924 proposed partition of India into Muslim India and non-Muslim India. He articulated his two-nation theory in the following words:

     “Under my scheme the Muslims will have four Muslim States: (1) The Pathan Province of the North Western Frontier (2) Western Punjab (3) Sindh and (4) Eastern Bengal. If there are compact Muslim communities in any other part of India, sufficiently large to form a Province, they should be similarly constituted. But it should be distinctly understood that this is not a united India. It means a clear partition of India into a Muslim India and a non-Muslim India.”

[Rai, Lala Lajpat, ‘Hindu-Muslim Problem XI’, The Tribune, Lahore, December 14, 1924, p. 8.] 

Hindu nationalist (supremacist) Moonje, Lala Har Dayal, Savarkar and Golwalkar as pioneers of two-nation theory

Dr. B. S. Moonje was another Hindu Mahasabha and RSS leader who carried forward the flag of Hindu Separatism long before Muslim League’s Pakistan resolution of March 1940. While addressing the third session of the Oudh Hindu Mahasabha in 1923, he declared: 

“Just as England belongs to the English, France to the French, and Germany to the Germans, India belongs to the Hindus. If Hindus get organized, they can humble the English and their stooges, the Muslims…The Hindus henceforth create their own world which will prosper through shuddhi [literally meaning purification, the term was used for conversion of Muslims and Christians to Hinduism]and sangathan [organization].“

[Cited in Dhanki, J. S., Lala Lajpat Rai and Indian Nationalism, S Publications, Jullundur, 1990, p. 378.]

Lala Har Dayal (1884–1938), a well-known name in the Ghadar Party circles, too, long before the Muslim League’s demand for a separate homeland for Muslims, not only demanded the formation of a Hindu nation in India but also urged the conquest and Hinduisation of Afghanistan. In a significant political statement in 1925, published in the Pratap of Kanpur, he stated:

“I declare that the future of the Hindu race, of Hindustan and of the Punjab, rests on these four pillars: (1) Hindu Sangathan, (2) Hindu Raj, (3) Shuddhi of Muslims, and (4) Conquest and Shuddhi of Afghanistan and the Frontiers. So long as the Hindu Nation does not accomplish these four things, the safety of our children and great grandchildren will be ever in danger, and the safety of Hindu race will be impossible. The Hindu race has but one history, and its institutions are homogenous. But the Musalman and Christians are far removed from the confines of Hindustan, for their religions are alien and they love Persian, Arab, and European institutions. Thus, just as one removes foreign matter from the eye, Shuddhi must be made of these two religions. Afghanistan and the hilly regions of the frontier were formerly part of India, but are at present under the domination of Islam […] Just as there is Hindu religion in Nepal, so there must be Hindu institutions in Afghanistan and the frontier territory; otherwise, it is useless to win Swaraj.”

[Cited in Ambedkar, B. R., Pakistan or the Partition of India, Maharashtra Government, Bombay, 1990, p. 129.]

It was RSS’ ‘Veer’ V. D. Savarkar (1883-1966), the originator of the politics of Hindutva, who developed the most elaborate two-nation theory. The fact should not be missed that Muslim League passed its Pakistan resolution in 1940, but Savarkar propagated the two-nation theory long before it. While delivering the presidential address to the 19th session Hindu Mahasabha at Ahmedabad in 1937, Savarkar declared unequivocally,

“As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India. Several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so…Let us bravely face unpleasant facts as they are. India cannot be assumed today to be a Unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary, there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems, in India.”

[Samagar Savarkar Wangmaya (Collected Works of Savarkar), Hindu Mahasabha, Poona, 1963, p.296.]

It was no abrupt belief of Muslims (and Christians) being separate nations. Savarkar in his controversial book Hindutva as early as 1923 decreed:

“Christians and Mohamedan [sic] communities…cannot be recognized as Hindus as since their adoption of the new cult they had ceased to own Hindu Sanskriti [culture] as a whole. They belong, or feel that they belong, to a cultural unit altogether different from the Hindu one. Their heroes and their hero worship their fairs and their festivals, their ideals and their outlook on-life, have now ceased to be common with ours.”

[Maratha [V. D. Savarkar], Hindutva, VV Kelkar, Nagpur, 1923, p. 88.]

[1] How religiously RSS believed in two-nation theory even after the birth of a democratic-secular India was made clear when the English organ of the RSS, Organiser, on the very eve of Independence (August 14, 1947) editorially reaffirmed its faith in two-nation theory in the following words:

“Let us no longer allow ourselves to be influenced by false notions of nationhood. Much of the mental confusion and the present and future troubles can be removed by the ready recognition of the simple fact that in Hindusthan only the Hindus form the nation and the national structure must be built on that safe and sound foundation…the nation itself must be built up of Hindus, on Hindu traditions, culture, ideas and aspirations.” 

The ‘Hindu’ narratives make it clear that two-nation theory was the product of Hindu nationalists and Partition was a primary holy task which Hindu nationalists took upon themselves. The module does not bother to tell us that it was borrowed by Jinnah only in late 1930s. A leading English daily of India editorially stated:

“It was a theory which long preceded Jinnah, having been expounded by such names as Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya in the late nineteenth-century Bengal and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in the early part of the twentieth, among countless others.”

[Editorial: ‘Two-nation Gujarat’, The Times of India, April 18, 2002.]

Despite all the above-mentioned facts available in the RSS/Hindu Mahasabha archives the authors of the module continue the tirade that “Muslim leaders called themselves as fundamentally separate from Hindus. The root of this lay in the ideology of political Islam, which denies the possibility of any permanent [sic] or equal relationship with non-Muslims.”

Falsehood 2: Muslim League as party of all Indian Muslims

The module attempts to create a narrative that Muslim League represented all Muslims of India since it “won 73 out of 78 seats reserved for Muslims” in March 1946 elections to the Constituent Assembly. The authors do not disclose that Muslim League won due to highly restricted system of franchise in which a tiny minority of Muslims voted. The Muslim League was able to secure most of the Muslim seats due to the advantage it enjoyed under the prevalent restricted franchise at that time. The elections were held under the Sixth Schedule of the 1935 Act, which excluded the mass of peasants, most small shopkeepers and traders, and countless others from the rolls through tax, property and educational qualifications. According to Granville Austin, a renowned authority on making of Indian constitution, “Only 28.5 percent, of the adult population of the provinces could vote in the provincial assembly elections of early 1946…Economically and socially depressed portions of the population were virtually disenfranchised by the terms of the 1935 Act.”

[Austin, Granville, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, OUP, Delhi, 2014. pp. 12-13.]

Amongst Muslims it was far less due to prevalent poverty and want of education. For example, in Bihar where Muslim League secured 34 out of 40 Muslim seats in Provincial Assembly elections, the eligible Muslim electorate consisted only of 7.8 percent of the total population. It could win as Muslim elite/High Caste backed it whereas 92.2% Muslims of Bihar remained disenfranchised. It was the case in almost all other provinces.   [Ghosh, Papiya, Muhajirs and the Nation: Bihar in the 40s, Routledge, Delhi, 2010, 79.]

Savarkar led Hindu Mahasabha ran coalition governments with Jinnah led Muslim League

The Module describes Jinnah led ML as party of Indian Muslims but fails to take note of the fact that it was this party of Muslims with which Hindu Mahasabha led by Savarkar entered into alliances in order to break the united freedom struggle, specially, the 1942 Quit India Movement against the British rulers. While delivering Presidential address to the 24th session of Hindu Mahasabha at Cawnpore (Kanpur) in 1942, he defended hobnobbing with the Muslim League in the following words,

“In practical politics also the Mahasabha knows that we must advance through reasonable compromises. Witness the fact that only recently in Sind, the Sind-Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the responsibility of joining hands with the League itself in running coalition Government. The case of Bengal is well known. Wild Leaguers whom even the Congress with all its submissiveness could not placate grew quite reasonably compromising and sociable as soon as they came in contact with the Hindu Mahasabha and the Coalition Government, under the premiership of Mr. Fazlul Huq and the able lead of our esteemed Mahasabha leader Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji, functioned successfully for a year or so to the benefit of both the communities. Moreover, further events also proved demonstratively that the Hindu Mahasabhaits endeavoured to capture the centres of political power only in the public interests and not for the leaves and fishes of the office.” [Ibid, pp. 479-480.]

Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League formed a coalition government in NWFP also.

The module, not surprisingly, attempts to defend Jinnah, a co-traveller two-nation theorist. Jinnah is quoted to have said “I never thought it would happen. I never expected to see Pakistan in my lifetime” [page 9]. The message module wants to convey is Jinnah did not expect it, but Congress got Pakistan delivered to Jinnah!

Falsehood 3: Congress Guilty of Partition

In a section titled “Who was responsible for Partition” [page 6], the NCERT module reads: “Ultimately, on August 15, 1947, India was divided. But this was not the doing of any one person. There were three elements responsible for the Partition of India: Jinnah, who demanded it; second, the Congress, which accepted it; and third, Mountbatten, who implemented it. But Mountbatten proved to be guilty of a major blunder.” [page 8]

However, according to the module Congress was primarily responsible for Partition because in 1947 “for the first time Indian leaders themselves willingly handed over vast part of the country permanently outside the national fold-along with tens of crores of its citizens-without even their consent. This was a unique event in human history, when a nation’s own leaders, without a war, peacefully and in closed meetings, suddenly severed crores of their people from the country”. [page 10]

When the present bosses at NCERT trained in RSS ‘boudhik shivirs’ (ideological orientation camps) blame Congress for Partition it is the pot calling the kettle black. It is a highly questionable claim which even facts mentioned in the module do not corroborate. We are told, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel called it “bitter medicine,” while Jawaharlal Nehru described it as “bad” but “unavoidable” [page 5]. Elsewhere, the module reads: “Nehru and Patel accepted Partition to avert civil war and anarchy. Once they did, Gandhi too gave up his opposition”. [page 8] It is interesting to note that for concurring to Partition both wavering Nehru and Iron Man Patel are depicted on the same page!

If the authors of NCERT module had cared to read history honestly, Rammanohar Lohia, a renowned freedom fighter and Socialist leader, the truth would not have been crucified. He was unambiguous in holding that the Hindu communalist who shouted loudest for Akhand or united Bharat, “helped Britain and the Muslim League partition the country…They did nothing whatever, to bring the Muslim close to the Hindu within a single nation. They did almost everything to estrange them from each other. Such estrangement is the root cause of partition.”

[Lohia, Rammanohar, Guilty Men of India’s Partition, BR Publishing, Delhi, 2012, p. 2.]

Falsehood 4: British Rulers Did Not Want Partition

The module reflects the combined Hindu Mahasabha and RSS dilemma of how to navigate the issue of their loyalty to the colonial masters in independent India. Though it declares “Mountbatten proved to be guilty of a major blunder”, the defence of this monster is not far away. Giving him a character certificate, the document goes to declare that “he was not the cause of it” [page 8] Instead of presenting testimonies of the victims (of all religions) of Partition which are available in abundance, the module presents indefensible defence of Mountbatten. It prominently displays the following statement of his: “I did not Partition India. The plan for partition had been accepted by the Indian leaders themselves. My role was to execute it in the most peaceful way possible…I accept the blame for haste…But I do not accept the blame for the violence which followed. That was the responsibility of Indians themselves”. [page 6]”

The document brazenly attempts to belittle the role of British colonial rulers in partitioning India as part of its imperialist project. It is bone chilling to read that it “had long been the known position of the British government that it was against Partition, Congress leaders underestimated Jinnah. Also, Viceroy Lord Wavell repeatedly made it clear, ever since 1940 up to March 1947, that Partition would not resolve the Hindu-Muslim problem. It would only lead to mass violence, administrative collapse, and long-term hostility. His words proved prophetic”. [page 10] There could not have been more shameless defence of colonial masters’ project of ‘Divide and Rule’.

Shockingly, NCERT, appears to be working overtime to de-colonize Indian education resorts to a hardened Anglophile, Nirad C. Chaudhuri in support of the lie that British did not want Partition. Nirad’s quote reads: “I assert with confidence that not even at the end of 1946 did anybody in India believe in the possibility of a partition in the country…The Hindus and the British alike foreswore the principle of unity of India which they had always professed.”

The authors of this document, in fact, borrowed defence of the British rulers from Golwalkar. The most prominent ideologue of RSS did not believe that colonial rule was an injustice or unnatural. In a speech on 8 June 1942, at a time when freedom struggle was rearing to rise to the call of the Quit India movement, Golwalkar declared:

“[the] Sangh does not want to blame anybody else for the present degraded state of the society. When the people start blaming others, then there is weakness in them. It is futile to blame the strong for the injustice done to the weak … [The] Sangh does not want to waste its invaluable time in abusing or criticizing others. If we know that large fish eat the smaller ones, it is outright madness to blame the big fish. Law of nature, whether good or bad, is true all the time. This rule does not change by terming it unjust.”

[Golwalkar, M. S., Shri Guruji Samagr Darshan [Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi] vol. 1 (Nagpur: Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, 1974), pp. 11-12.]

Soft on culpability of Sir Cyril Radcliff

Authors of the module appear as apologists for the crimes of Sir Cyril Radcliff who supervised the land division between India and Pakistan. Radcliff was the person who caused additional blood bath as maps of both the countries were not available even after two days of Partition. The module rightly stated that

“The demarcation of borders was hastily done. Sir Cyril Radcliff was given only five weeks to draw the boundaries. In Punjab, even two days after 15 August 1947, millions of people did not know whether they were in India or in Pakistan…This recklessness and disregard for the fate of crores of people, and all critical matters was a grave act of negligence”. [pages 8-9]

NCERT shies away from censuring him and decided to print his photograph with the following apology of his: “I had no alternative, the time at my disposal was so short that I could not do a better job. I was given a job to do and I did my best, though it may not have been very good.” [page 10]

Falsehood 5: Silence on Partition violence by RSS

The module gives details of horrendous communal violence during Partition. “Nearly1.5 crores were forced to cross the new borders…Communal hostility spread between India’s major religious communities…Another horrifying aspect was the large-scale sexual violence against women and girls. In many places, women jumped into wells to protect themselves”. [page 2]

We know that Muslim National Guards (MNG) created by Muslim League as storm-troopers to maim and kill the opponents played a nefarious role in the partition violence, but they were not the only one. Sardar Patel, the first home minister of independent India in a letter to Golwalkar who was then Supremo of RSS, dated 11 September 1948 corroborated the fact that RSS also had killer gangs. He stated: “Organizing the Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing…It was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organize for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji.”

Cited in Justice on Trial, RSS, Bangalore, 1962, pp.26-28.

Truth: It was an AXIS OF HINDU MAHASABHA-RSS-JINNAH which got India Partitioned

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, a peerless researcher of the communal politics in pre-independence India, underlying the close affinity and camaraderie between Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League on the issue of the Two-nation theory wrote:

“Strange it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other Hindu nation.”[i] 

[Ambedkar, B. R., Pakistan or the Partition of India, Govt. of Maharashtra, Bombay, 1990 [Reprint of 1940 edition], p. 142.]

Ambedkar agonized by the evil designs of Savarkar regarding the Two-nation theory and Hindutva rhetoric over it, wrote, as early as 1940, that,

“Hindu nation will be enabled to occupy a predominant position that is due to it and the Muslim nation made to live in the position of subordinate co-operation with the Hindu nation”. [Ibid., 143.]

The Hindutva lies about Partition of India presented as facts in Partition Horrors would not have been otherwise as the whole project is supervised by a specialist who specializes in historical negationism (denying the truths of the past which simultaneously means presenting false history), Michel Danino, an Indian writer of French origin. He secured Indian citizenship only in 2003. Modi government conferred on him Padma Shri award, India’s fourth-highest civilian award, in 2017.  He is a vocal supporter of Hindutva who enjoys, “[historical] controversies in a kind of perverse way”. [https://indianexpress.com/article/education/academia-margins-to-ncert-row-french-born-scholars-tryst-with-indias-past-10197438/] He is there to undo history and, in the process, undoing the glorious history of making of democratic-secular-egalitarian India. The irony is that it is happening in PM Modi declared Immortality Period (Amrit Kal) of the nation!

Related:

Rewriting NCERT school textbooks: ‘Muslim Raj’ is a mere excuse, the project is to conceal historical facts

2025 NCERT Textbooks: Mughals, Delhi Sultanate out; ‘sacred geography’, Maha Kumbh in

NCERT drops Preamble of the Constitution from Class III and VI textbooks

The post NCERT’s ‘Partition Horrors’: A brazen exercise in white-washing the ‘crimes’ of the Hindu Mahasabha & RSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since then August 9 is celebrated as August Kranti Divas.

The British swiftly responded with mass detentions on August 8 itself. Contemporary official documents confirm that over 100,000 arrests were made which included the total top leadership of Congress including Gandhi, mass fines were levied and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. Hundreds of civilians were also killed by the police and the British army assisted by their henchmen; native rulers. Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets and establishing parallel governments. Innumerable patriotic Indians were shot dead for the ‘crime’ of unfurling and holding the Indian Tricolour, publically. Even before that a terrible massacre had taken place in Mysore where the armed forces of the Mysore Raja who was very close to both the Hindu Mahasabha (HMS) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) shot dead 22 Congress activists for saluting the Tricolour!

Significantly, after declaring Congress both an ‘anti-national and unlawful organisation’, the British masters allowed only Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League to function!

Most of us also know that the then Communist Party of India (CPI) opposed the QIM thus betraying a great phase of mass uprising in the history of the freedom struggle. But it is equally well documented that despite CPI’s call for keeping aloof from QIM a large number of Communist activists participated in it. However, the dubious role of the then Hindutva camp—consisting of the Hindu Mahasabha [HM] and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh [RSS] – in the QIM is under wraps for reasons unknown. The Hindutva camp not only opposed QIM but also provided multi-faceted and multi-dimensional support to the British rulers in suppressing this historic mass upsurge.

Documents, shocking for many a young reader are available to substantiate this:

‘Veer’ Savarkar-led Hindu Mahasabha joined hands with British rulers to suppress the Quit India Movement (QIM)

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

“The Hindu Mahasabha holds that the leading principle of all practical politics is the policy of Responsive Co-operation. And in virtue of it, it believes that all those Hindu Sangathanists [members of HM] who are working as councillors, ministers, legislators and conducting any municipal or any public bodies with a view to utilize those centres of government power to safeguard and even promote the legitimate interests of the Hindus without, of course, encroaching on the legitimate interests of others are rendering a highly patriotic service to our nation. Knowing the limitations under which they work, the Mahasabha only expects them to do whatever good they can under the circumstances and if they do not fail to do that much it would thank them for having acquitted themselves well. The limitations are bound to get themselves limited step by step till they get altogether eliminated. The policy of responsive co-operation which covers the whole gamut of patriotic activities from unconditional co-operation right up to active and even armed resistance, will also keep adapting itself to the exigencies of the time, resources at our disposal and dictates of our national interest.” [Italics as in the original][i]

[Cited in V.D. Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan, vol. 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindu Sabha, Poona, 1963, p. 474.]

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

“In practical politics also the Mahasabha knows that we must advance through reasonable compromises. Witness the fact that only recently in Sind, the Sind-Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the responsibility of joining hands with the League itself in running coalition Government. The case of Bengal is well known. Wild Leaguers whom even the Congress with all its submissive-ness could not placate grew quite reasonably compromising and socialable as soon as they came in contact with the HM and the Coalition Government, under the premiership of Mr. Fazlul Huq and the able lead of our esteemed Mahasabha leader Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji, functioned successfully for a year or so to the benefit of both the communities.”[ii] [Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya, vol. 6, 479-480.]

The Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League, together, besides Bengal and Sind, also ran coalition government in NWFP also during this period.

Hindutva icon Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee was deputy CM in the Bengal Muslim League ministry was responsible for crushing the QIM in Bengal

Following the Hindu Mahasabha directive to co-operate with the British, the present Hindutva icon, Dr. Mookerjee assured his British masters through a letter dated July 26, 1942. Shockingly, it read:

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

[Mookherjee, Shyama Prasad, Leaves from a Dairy, Oxford University Press. p. 179.]

The second-in-command of the Hindu Mahasabha, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, also the deputy chief minister in Bengal Muslim league ministry in a letter to Bengal governor on behalf of Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League made it clear that both these parties looked at the British rulers as saviours of Bengal against Quit India Movement launched by Congress. In this letter, he mentioned item wise the steps to be taken for dealing with the situation. It read:

“The question is how to combat this movement (Quit India) in Bengal? The administration of the province should be carried on in such a manner that despite 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. Indians have to trust the British, not for the sake for Britain, not for any advantage that the British might gain, but for the maintenance of the defence and freedom of the province itself.”[iv]

[Cited in A G. Noorani, The RSS and the BJP: A Division of Labour. LeftWord Books, p. 56–57.]

RSS followed Savarkar in opposing the QIM

THE other flag-bearer of Hindutva, the RSS, was not different in its attitude towards the QIM. It openly sided with its mentor ‘Veer’ Savarkar against this great revolt. The RSS’ attitude towards the QIM becomes clear from the following utterances of its second chief and most prominent ideologue till date, M.S. Golwalkar. While talking about the outcome of the Non-Cooperation Movement and QIM he said:

“Definitely there are bound to be bad results of struggle. The boys became unruly after the 1920-21 movement. It is not an attempt to throw mud at the leaders. But these are inevitable products after the struggle. The matter is that we could not properly control these results. After 1942, people often started thinking that there was no need to think of the law. This movement, specially, spread widely in Bihar. We witness today that trains are stopped, chains are pulled and travel without tickets is very commonly practised there…All this disorder and bizarre situation are the creation of this struggle.”[v]

[Golwalkar, M.S., Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan (Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi), vol. iv, Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd, p. 41.]

Thus, the prophet of Hindutva, Golwalkar, wanted the Indians to respect the draconian and repressive laws of the inhuman British rulers! He admitted that this kind of negative attitude towards the QIM did not go well even with the RSS cadres:

“In 1942 also there was a strong sentiment in the hearts of many. At that time, too the routine work of Sangh continued. Sangh vowed not to do anything directly. However, upheaval (uthal-puthal) in the minds of Sangh volunteers continued. Sangh is an organisation of inactive persons, their talks are useless, not only outsiders but also many of our volunteers did talk like this. They were greatly disgusted too.”[vi]

[Golwalkar, M.S., Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan (Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi), vol. iv, Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd, p. 40.]

It would be interesting to note what Golwalkar meant by ‘routine work of Sangh’. It surely meant working overtime to widen the divide between Hindus and Muslims thus serving the strategic goal of the British rulers and Muslim League. In fact, the contemporary reports of the British intelligence agencies on the QIM were straightforward in describing the fact that RSS kept aloof from the QIM. According to one such report, “the Sangh has scrupulously kept itself within the law, and in particular, has refrained from taking part in the disturbances that broke out in August 1942”.[vii]

[Cited in Andersen, Walter K. & Damle, Shridhar D. The Brotherhood in Saffron: the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism, Westview Press, 1987, 44.]

These historical and well-documented facts make it clear that Hindutva gang led by the RSS not only betrayed QIM but also rendered great service to their British masters by aligning with the Muslim League at a time when the foreign rulers were faced with a nation-wide popular revolt incolving large sections of Indians. In collusion, the HMS/RSS (also with the ML) mounted one of the fiercest repressions of the freedom fighters. Shockingly, this gang is ruling India today describing itself as a symbol of Indian nationalism. We need to convey these facts to the Indians so that these traitors are exposed and charged for crimes committed against Indian people.

Today’s rulers wedded to the RSS and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) know that betrayal of the QIM by their Hindutva ancestors cannot be covered up. It is crystal clear that RSS including its top leaders like Golwalkar (head of the RSS), Deendayal Upadhyaya, Balraj Madhok, LK Advani and KR Malkani who were RSS whole timers during QIM did not participate in this Movement or any other struggle launched for the freedom of India. RSS-BJP rulers continue raking up communal polarizing issues so that betrayal of the QIM is covered up.

Link for some of S. Islam’s writings in English, Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Malayalam, Kannada, Bengali, Punjabi, Gujarati and video interviews/debates:
http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam

Link for procuring Shamsul Islam’s books in English, Hindi & Urdu:
https://tinyurl.com/shams-books

REFRENCES:

[i] Cited in V.D. Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan, vol. 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindu Sabha, Poona, 1963, p. 474.

[ii] Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya, vol. 6, 479-480.

[iii] Mookherjee, Shyama Prasad, Leaves from a Dairy, Oxford University Press. p. 179.

[iv] Cited in A G. Noorani, The RSS and the BJP: A Division of Labour. LeftWord Books, p. 56–57.

[v] Golwalkar, M.S., Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan (Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi), vol. iv, Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd, p. 41.

[vi] Golwalkar, M.S., Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan (Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi), vol. iv, Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd, p. 40.

[vii] Cited in Andersen, Walter K.& Damle, Shridhar D. The Brotherhood in Saffron: the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism, Westview Press, 1987, 44.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

The post How Hindutva forces colluded with both the British & Jinnah against the historic ‘Quit India’ movement: Archives 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.

PM Modi in the eyes of Hindutva bigots represents the resurgent Hinduism and defender of Hindu nationalism against its enemies. The pre-Independence Muslim League led by MA Jinnah is a favourite punching bag for him which also helps him in spreading hatred against Indian Muslims. In any election PM takes the form of a relentless warrior against Muslim separatism. Reacting to the release of Indian National Congress’ manifesto for the forthcoming parliamentary elections in an election rally in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh (which has a substantial population of Muslims and history of religious polarization) he declared that “The manifesto of the Congress, released yesterday [April 5, 2024], shows that it cannot fulfil the aspirations of the country. The Congress manifesto has the imprint of the policies of the Muslim League before Independence”.

‘Congress manifesto reflects policies of Muslim League before Independence: PM Narendra Modi’, The Indian Express, Delhi April 7, 2024.

https://www.telegraphindia.com/elections/lok-sabha-election-2024/congress-manifesto-reflects-policies-of-muslim-league-before-independence-pm-narendra-modi/cid/2011716

Modi as a leader and ideologue of Hindutva can be forgiven for indulging in blatant lies (RSS is the biggest Gurukul or university in the world which trains manufacturing-speaking lies) but not as PM of India. In any accountable democracy he would have been charged for perjury and forced to step down. But in the present scenario when the regulator of Indian elections, Election Commission of India is more an appendage of the ruling party only people of India can teach a lesson to such a lies.

Let us get familiar with the Hindutva archives to know, who the real pals of the Muslim League were in pre-Independent India.

SAVARKAR AS THE ORIGINATOR OF TWO-NATION THEORY

Savarkar, one of the originators of the politics of Hindutva was the Hindu nationalist who developed the most elaborate Two-nation theory. The fact should not be missed that Muslim League passed its Pakistan resolution in March 1940 only but Savarkar, the great philosopher and guide of RSS, propagated the Two-nation theory long before it. While delivering the presidential address to the 19th session Hindu Mahasabha at Ahmedabad in 1937, Savarkar declared unequivocally,

“As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India. Several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. These our well-meaning but unthinking friends take their dreams for realities. That is why they are impatient of communal tangles and attribute them to communal organizations…Let us bravely face unpleasant facts as they are. India cannot be assumed today to be a Unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems, in India.”

[Savarkar, VD., Samagar Savarkar Wangmaya (Collected Works of Savarkar), vol. 6, Hindu Mahasabha, Poona, 1963, p.296.]

RSS AS PRACTITIONER OF TWO-NATION THEORY

The RSS, following into the footsteps of Savarkar, rejected out rightly the idea that Hindus and Muslims together constituted a nation. The English organ of the RSS, Organiser, on the very eve of Independence (August 14, 1947) editorially chalked out its concept of nation in the following words:

“Let us no longer allow ourselves to be influenced by false notions of nationhood. Much of the mental confusion and the present and future troubles can be removed by the ready recognition of the simple fact that in Hindusthan only the Hindus form the nation and the national structure must be built on that safe and sound foundation…the nation itself must be built up of Hindus, on Hindu traditions, culture, ideas and aspirations.”

AMBEDKAR ON HINDU MAHASABHA AND MUSLIM LEAGUE COLLUSION

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, a keen researcher of the communal politics in pre-independence India, while underlying the affinity and camaraderie between Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League on the issue of the Two-nation theory wrote:

“Strange it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other Hindu nation.”

R. Ambedkar, Pakistan or the Partition of India, Govt. of Maharashtra, Bombay, 1990 [Reprint of 1940 edition], p. 142.

HINDU MAHASABHA LED BY SAVARKAR RAN COALITION GOVERNMENTS WITH MUSLIM LEAGUE

The children of Hindu nationalist, Savarkar ruling India presently are oblivious of the shocking fact that Hindu Mahasabha led by Savarkar entered into alliances with the Muslim League in order to break the united freedom struggle, specially, the 1942 Quit India Movement against the British rulers. While delivering Presidential address to the 24th session of Hindu Mahasabha at Cawnpore (Kanpur) in 1942, he defended hobnobbing with the Muslim League in the following words,

“In practical politics also the Mahasabha knows that we must advance through reasonable compromises. Witness the fact that only recently in Sind, the Sind-Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the responsibility of joining hands with the League itself in running coalition Government. The case of Bengal is well known. Wild Leaguers whom even the Congress with all its submissiveness could not placate grew quite reasonably compromising and socialable as soon as they came in contact with the Hindu Mahasabha and the Coalition Government, under the premiership of Mr. Fazlul Huq and the able lead of our esteemed Mahasabha leader Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji, functioned successfully for a year or so to the benefit of both the communities. Moreover further events also proved demonstratively that the Hindu Mahasabhaits endeavoured to capture the centres of political power only in the public interests and not for the leaves and fishes of the office.” Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League also ran coalition governments in Sind and North-Western Frontier Province.

[Savarkar, VD. Samagar Savarkar Wangmaya (Collected Works of Savarkar), vol. 6, Hindu Mahasabha, Poona, 1963, pp.479-480.]

It is tragedy of this nation that a person occupying Prime Minister’s office resorts to brazen lies learnt in RSS shakhas and boudhik shivirs (ideological training camps) which even Hindutva archives does not corroborate. He is betraying the honour, prestige and decorum of the office. The nation must request PM Modi that if he wants to act as a cadre of RSS he should resign from the office and take a seat in the hierarchy of RSS.

The post Dear PM Modi! It was Hindutva Organisations, not the Congress that colluded with the Muslim League in Pre-Independence India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Agra police on Wednesday, April 12, arrested four members of All India Hindu Mahasabha, including its spokesperson Sanjay Singh, for getting an FIR registered against four Muslim men on false cow slaughtering charges on the eve of Ram Navami on March 30.

Only last week, the police arrested Imran Qureshi alias Thakur and Shanu alias Illi, both Muslims, who were also allegedly involved in framing the four Muslim men. “The four persons – Sanjay Singh alias Sanjay Jat, Jitendra Kushwaha, Brijesh Bhadouria and Saurabh Sharma – have been arrested on the basis of evidence we have collected against them,” Agra Assistant Commissioner of Police RK Singh said.

Following these four arrests, police are now looking for the remaining three accused, all Muslims. According to investigations so far, it was the five accused Muslim men had enmity with the four named in the false cow slaughter FIR.

On March 29, the eve of Ram Navami (March 30), Jitendra Kumar, a Hindu Mahasabha leader, filed a complaint alleging he had received information that Rizwan, alias Kalta that three others, including Nakeem, an Agra Municipal Corporation employee, and his brothers Vijju, alias Chottu and Shanu were slaughtering a cow in a thicket near Gautam Nagar and were planning to sell the meat. Kumar told the police that he rushed to the spot with his friends, but by then the accused had fled.

It was on the basis of this Kumar’s false complaint, an FIR was lodged against Rizwan and three others at the Etmaddulah police station under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. At the spot, the police allegedly found cow meat, however, according to police, they found that the four men named in the FIR were not present at the spot. The final conclusion that the complaint was false was arrived at n on the basis of human intelligence, surveillance, CCTV footage and other evidence added the police.

On April 6, police arrested Qureshi and Illi, both residents of Agra for questioning. During the process, Qureshi and Illi, say the police, admitted to the conspiracy of framing the four Muslim men as Nakeem had complained to the police about them in the past, following which they were arrested.

Meanwhile, predictably, the All India Hindu Mahasabha state unit president Rishi Trivedi has said their leaders were being falsely implicated. “They (Mahasabha leaders) had informed police about cow slaughtering and reached the spot before police. Now, police have booked them in the case. It appears to be part of a conspiracy. Sanjay and others booked in the case were reaching the state capital, Lucknow, on Thursday to hold a press conference on this issue, but the police arrested them today,” said Trivedi stated The Indian Express.

Related:

Hindu Mahasabha Members Arrested for Allegedly Slaughtering Cow to Incite Communal Violence in Agra During Ram Navami Parade

The post In false cow slaughter cases, four Hindu Mahasabha members held: UP Police appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Uttar Pradesh Police on Saturday stated that some members of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha butchered cows in order to instigate communal violence during the Ram Navami parade in Agra.

On the eve of Ram Navami, Agra Police arrested four youngsters suspected of cow killing. During a raid during Ram Navami celebrations in Gautam Nagar in the Etmaduddaula region of Agra, the youngsters were apprehended.

According to the police, Sanjay Jat, the Hindu Mahasabha’s national spokesperson, is the chief conspirator. Many others are also reported to be part of the plot. A man named Jitendra Kushwaha reported the cow slaughter at Etmaduddaula police station.

According to DCP Suraj Rai, several facts came to light during the police inquiry. The police arrested two people identified in the FIR: Imran alias Thakur and Shanu.

Shanu informed police that he arrived at Mehtab Bagh at 8 p.m. on March 29 and encountered Imran, Salman, and Sairo. They then decided to slaughter a cow that was wandering about in the street. That’s when Shanu and Imran went to inform Jitendra Kushwaha.

“(Mahasabha leader) Sanjay Jat is the main conspirator. His followers and friends slaughtered a cow in the Mehtab Bagh area on the night of March 29 and told party member Jitendra Kushwaha to file a case against Mohammad Rizwan, Mohammad Nakim and Mohammad Shanu. The police arrested Imran Qureshi, a fourth suspect, and Shanu the next day. Later, the investigation revealed that the named accused had nothing to do with the crime. An inquiry suggests that Sanjay had an enmity with some people and wanted to implicate them in the case,” The Telegraph quoted R.K. Singh, additional commissioner of police of the Chatta area of Agra, as saying.

“The cow was slaughtered on the eve of Ram Navami to disturb social harmony. We had unconfirmed reports about such an incident but got conclusive evidence when they tried to implicate some innocent people,” another cop said.

Some Hindu Mahasabha workers complained about Jitendra Kushwaha and Sanjay Jat, claiming that they personally had the cow slain in order to disrupt Agra’s communal peace on Ram Navami.

Courtesy: The Daily Siasat

The post Hindu Mahasabha Members Arrested for Allegedly Slaughtering Cow to Incite Communal Violence in Agra During Ram Navami Parade appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Today, while celebrating the 126th birth anniversary of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, one recalls the lesser-known fact that he, before leaving India for Europe incognito in 1941 to launch a war against the British regime in India for the freedom of our country, met several leaders. They included Mahatma Gandhi, Mohammed Ali Jinnah and VD Savarkar. He gave an account of those meetings in his book Indian Struggle: 1920-1942, first published in 1997, and that account is of contemporary significance.

MEETING BETWEEN BOSE AND GANDHI IN 1941

During his meeting with Gandhi, Bose stated that the Forward Bloc had launched a Civil Disobedience Movement, and many of the leaders of the Bloc were in prison. He also gave his assessment of the British Empire’s predicament to Gandhi and believed that the Empire would be overthrown. He then requested Gandhi to start passive resistance and allow India to play her part in the second World War. Gandhi said that people were not prepared for a fight and that any step to aggravate and hasten it would be counterproductive.

Bose said his interaction with Gandhi lasted for a long time, and the talks were hearty. He wrote in the aforesaid book that Gandhi wished him success in his “passionate endeavour” to free India from British rule. In the event of India attaining liberation on account of Bose’s struggle, he would be the first to receive a telegram of congratulation from Gandhi.

BOSE’S MEETINGS WITH JINNAH AND SAVARKAR WERE DISAPPOINTING

While Bose’s talks with Gandhi concerning India’s independence were hearty and cordial, his meeting with Jinnah, President of the Indian Muslim League, and Savarkar, President of Hindu Mahasabha, was disappointing. He made a passionate appeal to Jinnah to join the united struggle of people for the independence of India. He told him he would be the first Prime Minister after the country’s liberation.

So far, we only knew that Gandhi persuaded Congress leaders to make Jinnah the Prime Minister of India to avoid the country’s partition. But a peep into the book reveals that in his quest for making India free and keeping it undivided, he made relentless efforts to dissuade those whose actions polarised the freedom struggle and aimed at partitioning the country. Therefore, while his meeting with Gandhi was centred around the idea of making India free through a struggle of people regardless of their faith, his meetings with Jinnah and Savarkar were primarily to keep the country united by persuading them to join the common struggle for freedom and independence.

Despite his fervent pleas to Jinnah that he would become the first Prime Minister of free India, the latter remained hell-bent on his
demand for the creation of Pakistan by dividing India based on religion.

Bose wrote: “Jinnah was then thinking only of how to realise his plan of Pakistan (a division of India) with the help of the British.”

About Savarkar, he wrote: “Savarkar seemed to be oblivious of the international situation and was only thinking how Hindus could secure military training by entering Britain’s army in India.”

He concluded that “…nothing could be expected from either the Muslim League or the Hindu Mahasabha.”

PM MODI SHOULD READ BOSE’S VIEWS ON SAVARKAR

Bose’s writings in the book show that he was unsparing of any communalism, be it of the Muslim League or Hindu Mahasabha headed by Savarkar. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is the only Prime Minister of our country to have invoked the name of Savarkar along with Gandhi, Bose and Nehru on more than one occasion in his addresses to the nation from the ramparts of the Red Fort on the occasion of Independence day, should be mindful of Bose’s articulations that Savarkar was only persuading Hindus to join the British army.

Bose’s leadership and the role the Indian National Army played in its war against the British Army for the liberation of our country upheld our secular ethos as it united people of all faiths for the cause of India and set an example of harmony and reconciliation, which is being demolished by the distortion of history and polarisation process unleashed by divisive narratives of the ruling leaders of the Union government.

BOSE’S SECULAR OUTLOOK DETERMINED HIS UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY

In this context, Bose’s understanding of Indian history by eschewing a religious approach to understanding our past is of immense and contemporary significance. In his book, An Indian Pilgrim, he outlined the composite culture of both communities who shared a common destiny for thousands of years and shaped their future together in the face of all sorts of challenges. In the book, he described the Battle of Plassey as a joint Hindu-Muslim endeavour to confront an adversary which had caused an existential crisis.

“History will bear me out when I say that it is a misnomer to talk of Muslim rule when describing the political order in India before the advent of the British. Whether we talk of the Moghul Emperors at Delhi, or of the Muslim Kings of Bengal, we shall find that in either case, the administration was run by Hindus and Muslims together, many of the prominent Cabinet Ministers and Generals being Hindus. Further, the consolidation of the Moghul Empire in India was affected by the help of Hindu commanders-in-chief. The Commander-in-chief of Nawab Sirajudowla, whom the British fought at Plassey in 1757 and defeated, was a Hindu and the rebellion of 1857 against the British, in which Hindus and Muslims were found side by side, was fought under the flag of a Muslim, Bahadur Shah.”

Such an understanding of our history, free from communal bias, is the need of the hour. It constitutes an antidote to RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) chief Mohan Bhagwat’s reiteration of his predecessor Golwalkar’s manufactured formulation that Hindus are at war with both an external and internal enemy for a thousand years.

It is of immense significance to recall Bose’s secular outlook and correct understanding and interpretation of our past and defeat the communal interpretation of our history reminiscent of James Mill’s two-nation theory – the Hindu nation and Muslim Nation. Historian Romila Thapar, in her recent lecture, “Our History, Your History, Whose History,” stated that such an approach to history based on religion reduced every cause to a single one –religious difference– and ignored and minimised other causes.

Bose’s approach to history discarded the religious approach; therefore, when India is witnessing the replay of the colonial approach to history writing, it is important to revisit Bose’s worldview rooted in our shared heritage and composite culture. In doing so, we would serve the cause of the idea of India and pay fitting tribute to Bose.

SN Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to the late President of India, KR Narayanan. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Netaji’s Secular Outlook, and Why He was Disappointed With Jinnah, Savarkar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dinesh Sharma, the national treasurer of the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha (ABHM), has moved an application before a Mathura district court seeking a survey of the Meena Masjid, which he alleges was built after encroaching upon land owned by the Krishna Janmabhoomi.

Times of India reports that last month, Sharma had filed a suit seeking removal of the Meena Masjid which he claims was built in part from the Thakur Keshav Dev Ji temple located on the east side of the Krishna Janmabhoomi premises. That case is registered before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jyoti Singh. The president/chairman of the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board (Lucknow) and the secretary of the Meena Masjid management committee are respondents in the case. It will be heard next on October 26.

Sharma told the publication, “We have sought removal of the construction in the name of Meena Masjid near Vrindavan Railway Line at Deeg Gate on land owned by the deity.” He alleges that a survey of the land is required as illegal constructions are being carried out on it, and says he will present evidence at the next hearing.

Readers would recall that in 2021 the same Dinesh Sharma had also filed a suit (174 of 2021) seeking removal of the Shahi Eidgah, that stands adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi, and that case is still pending.

At present, nearly a dozen related petitions are being heard by the Mathura Civil Court. Petitioners apart from Sharma include – the deity (represented by next friend Ranjana Agnihotri), Manish Yadav, and advocates Mahendra Pratap Singh and Rajendra Maheshwari Then there are other petitioners such as Jitendra Singh Visen of the Vishwa Vaidik Sanatan Sangh (VVSS), Anil Kumar Tripathi, Pawan Kumar Shastri, Gopal Giri and Pankaj Singh.

Related:

Krishna Janmabhoomi: Allahabad HC directs Mathura court to finish hearing Idgah survey plea within four months
Krishna Janmabhoomi case: Allahabad HC stays case seeking removal of Shahi Idgah
Allahabad HC demands report from Mathura court about delay in hearings about mosque survey
Krishna Janmabhoomi: Daily hearings on maintainability to begin from July 25
Krishna Janmabhoomi: Allahabad HC directs Mathura court to expeditiously decide on plea seeking scientific investigation of Shahi Idgah
Krishna Janmabhoomi: Mathura ADJ directs lower court to hear plea for appointment of Court Commissioner for survey of mosque
Krishna Janmabhoomi: Now plea seeks ban on loudspeaker at Shahi Idgah
Krishna Janmabhoomi: Mathura court restores suit demanding removal of Shahi Idgah
Krishna Janmabhoomi: Court reserves orders on whether petition against Shahi Idgah is maintainable
Krishna Janmabhoomi case: Mathura district court admits plea against Shahi Idgah
Krishna Janmabhoomi case: Appeal against Mathura Court order
Krishna Janmabhoomi: Mathura court dismisses plea against Shahi Idgah
And so it begins: Civil suit filed to remove Idgah next to Krishna temple in Mathura

The post Krishna Janmabhoomi: Hindu Mahasabha moves court for survey of Meena Masjid appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pooja Shakun Pandey alias ‘Annapurna Bharti’ of Niranjani Akhada, has already assured herself a name in Hindutva’s Hall of Hate-Fame, as Sabrangindia had first reported in February 2019 when she re-created the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in Aligarh.  

Today, she is in the news again for her hate-filled statements accompanied by a letter on Friday prayers (Jumma ki Namaz) after last week’s incidents in Kanpur. Parts of the letter read:

“Friday is not a day for prayers. Instead, it is a day for terrorism. The Friday congregations by Muslims are not for worship but for the genocide of non-Muslims, loot, arson and sexual harassment. Hence, the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha presents the following demands before you:

On Fridays, the entry of Muslims in small mosques should be restricted only to 10 Muslims while 25 Muslims should be allowed in bigger ones. Mass prayers should be immediately banned… Mosques, where there are riots and conspiracies on Fridays, should be demolished with bulldozers.”

This speech was prompted by the violence that broke out in Kanpur last Friday when protests over Nupur Sharma’s remarks against the Prophet turned violent. Though a case has been registered against her as reported by NDTV yesterday, no arrest has been made. Taking cognisance, a first information report (FIR) has been registered against the Hindu Mahasabha national secretary by the Uttar Pradesh police. “The case has been registered under the following sections of the Indian Penal code— 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 505,” Aligarh SSP Kalanidhi Naithani said in a video statement. 

After this FIR was filed, Pandey appeared in a TV panel discussion on Aaj Tak, where she summarised the contents of the controversial letter. Pandey defended and justified Nupur Sharma’s comments against Prophet Mohammed while she held the position of BJP party spokesperspn. The BJP has since suspended her after huge international outrage expressed by 20 countries.

Briefly arrested in early 2019 she was released soon after. The Aligarh police today told Sabrangindia that in the 2019 case, a charge sheet has been filed in court but were unable to provide details as to the stage of the prosecution. The Uttar Pradesh Police had then arrested the Hindu Mahasabha national secretary Pooja Shakun Pandey and her husband, Ashok Pandey, from Tappal in Aligarh. Her video of recreating the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi on his 71st death anniversary went viral on social media.

Pooja Pandey was one of the infamous hate-mongers at Haridwar last December. In February, 2022 Pandey spoke at Prayagraj and claimed that those speeches were in the interest of the safety of religious leaders. She also defended repeat offenders Narsinganand and Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi who were under arrest at the time. The latter have been repeatedly flagged by CJP for their divisive statements. At the Dharma Sansad in Haridwar in December 2021, where calls to kill Muslims were made by several speakers, Pandey, the mahamandleshwar of the Niranjani Akhara, gave a call to arms and incitement to mass targeted killing.

At the infamous religio-political gathering, she gave a call for the mass killing of Muslims. “Nothing is possible without weapons. If you want to eliminate their population then kill them. Be ready to kill and be ready to go to jail. Even if 100 of us are ready to kill 20 lakhs of them (Muslims), then we will be victorious, and go to jail… Like [Nathuram] Godse, I am ready to be maligned, but I will pick up arms to defend my Hindutva from every demon who is a threat to my religion,” she had said. 

The story does not stop here. Pandey is a serial offender who is known for her anti-minority remarks. A YouTube interview of the offender, shows Pandey saying, “Today is the time when women need to take swords in one hand along with belans in the other. I request my mothers to not become the weakness of their sons but instead become their strength. Tell them if adharma is happening anywhere I will come with you to cut them up. There won’t be any cases but only a little inconvenience for some days; call us, we will be there with you.” 

When asked about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s critical reaction in 2019 to Sadhvi Pragya’s endorsement of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse, she said that Modi had to “compromise” because of the constitution. She added, however, that it was “Modi and others like Modi” who had in the past explained what Godse and Gandhi were all about.

A well-known leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, Pandey hits the headlines often with the hate she spews against Muslims. Just recently, she was in the news for comments on Modi after the prime minister announced his government’s decision to repeal the three farm laws in the wake of a year-long protest by the farmers in Delhi and other parts of India. Pandey had Modi’s portrait from the Aligarh office of the Hindu Mahasabha removed. She also remarked, “Jiski baat ek nahi, uska baap ek nahi.” 

There is yet another video of April 2020 that shows Pandey making provocative comments against members of the Tablighi Jamaat. A criminal case was filed against her for promoting enmity between different groups on religious grounds and issuing a statement conducive to public mischief. She was briefly arrested, even then. In March 2021, after a minor Muslim boy was beaten up by Hindutva activist Shringi Yadav for entering a temple in Dasna, Pandey had made the preposterous demand that other temples put up boards prohibiting the entry of Muslims, following the the one in Dasna. While the ruling BJP dismissed its association with Pandey, she regularly interacts with leaders of the party like BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya and the Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan as the media

Despite her open call to murder Muslims on multiple occasions, the UP police is yet to arrest Pandey, this time round. She is still invited by mainstream media channels to amplify her speeches targeting the Muslim community.

Related:

Hindu Mahasabha leader who shot at Mahatma Gandhi’s effigy arrested in UP
Is Prayagraj’s ‘Sant Sammelan’ just another edition of Haridwar’s infamous Dharma Sansad?
Narsinghanand arrested: Is it for Hate Speech or misogyny?
Almost a month but no arrests, CJP urges DGP to act soon in ‘Dharam Sansad’ case
SC issues notice in plea urging criminal prosecution in Dharam Sansad case

The post Pooja Shakun Pandey, HMS has a long history of hate speech appeared first on SabrangIndia.