Their pathological hatred of MK Gandhi, who I and countless others call ‘Bapu’, and their desperation to justify his murder, saw them unleash a vicious campaign – from mixing up the Mopla Rebellion in the Malabar to Bapu’s championing of the Khilafat Movement and calling it the beginning of the appeasement of Muslims. They blame him for Partition and accuse him of forcing the government to ‘gift’ Rs 55 crore to Pakistan – blatant lies cleverly mixed with half-truths and fed to the gullible.

It’s understandable that they are desperate to justify Bapu’s murder. When their involvement in his murder was revealed, they had to portray themselves as saviours of Hindus. Many leaders have built their political careers by maligning Bapu and glorifying his murderer. Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself is part of the Sangh, which is sympathetic to Bapu’s killer Nathuram Godse. Modi’s pretended devotion to Bapu is to gain credibility abroad, but it’s a sham.

Bapu, after all, is a soft target and the only thing his followers, ‘Gandhians’, have imbibed from him is to passively turn the other cheek.

The cultural offensive

Several books maligning Bapu have been published and widely circulated by the Sangh. The government banned the circulation of Godse’s statement in court and the book published by co-accused and his brother Gopal Godse, ‘55 Koticha Bali’ in Marathi and ‘May It Please Your Honour’ in English. A statement read in court by Godse, clearly written by his guru Vinayak Savarkar while they were incarcerated in the Red Fort, was circulated by the Sangh and illegal copies of the book were widely available among Sanghis.

Having emerged from their burrows and grabbed power, they have created a coterie of ‘historians’ who write a convenient version of history with fiction and myth freely mixed in. The Sangh then legitimises such ‘history’ and uses it as propaganda.

Initially, plays were written and performed in Maharashtra, such as ‘Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy’. Actor Sharad Ponkshe made such a successful career portraying Godse that he now passes himself off as Bapu’s murderer and is venerated by the Hindutva hordes.

A spate of films has been made on Bapu and Godse, most of them so atrocious that they bombed at the box office. Rajkumar Santoshi’s ‘Gandhi Godse Ek Yudh’ is a glaring example.

The Sangh has now reaped the monetary benefits of its political wing, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), being in power for two terms. It backs propaganda films, the most recent being Randeep Hooda’s ‘Swatantra Veer Savarkar’. The lies begin in the title itself. An apologist of our freedom movement is being shamelessly placed among the ranks of martyrs like Shaheed-e-Azam Bhagat Singh, Shaheed Chandra Shekhar Azad and Shaheed Ashfaqullah Khan. Savarkar gave himself the title ‘Veer’, which makes the title of the film laughable.

Savarkar was no ‘Veer’

Unfortunately, many Indians believe the blatant lie that Savarkar was a ‘Veer’ and forget his centrality to the Gandhi assassination. The court acquitted him because the prosecution did not submit adequate evidence but it did not declare him innocent. The Kapur Commission proved Savarkar’s role beyond doubt and said that an organisation with a nationwide network of fanatics – whose members had deeply infiltrated the government, the bureaucracy and the police – was actively involved in the murder. At that time, there was only one organisation fitting the bill – the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Never mind the fact that the RSS was never prosecuted. Godse and Narayan Apte paid for their crime with their lives, but the kingpins escaped.

What brands Savarkar as a cowardly collaborator are not only his apologies and his multiple mercy petitions to the British but, after he secured his release from kala paani, how loyal he remained to the British, living off the pension provided by the colonial government. Many political prisoners in the Andaman Islands suffered much more brutal torture than Savarkar did, but they endured it and did not become British stooges.

The torture Savarkar was subjected to was also a myth created by him. The British knew how easy it would be to break him and succeeded spectacularly. So much so that after the provincial Congress government of the Bombay Presidency released him from house arrest in Ratnagiri, not once did Savarkar support the freedom movement. All he did was spew communal venom and loyally serve the British.

Savarkar openly advocated the boycott of the Quit India Movement, calling upon his supporters to subvert it. While Bapu and the Congress refused to support the British during World War II, Savarkar called upon his team to actively recruit soldiers – even when he knew that the British would use them to fight Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army. So much for ‘Swatantra Veer’.

Mahesh Manjrekar, who was initially the director of Hooda’s film, received well-deserved criticism when he announced the project. But he left the project soon after, alleging falsification of history.

Hooda’s film claims Savarkar inspired Bhagat Singh; even thick-skinned Sanghis would have been embarrassed by this fiction.

Hooda also claimed that, had Savarkar had his way, India would have gained Independence three decades earlier and blamed Bapu for the delay. India got its freedom in 1947; three decades earlier would mean 1917. Bapu had just launched his first agitation in India, the Champaran Satyagraha, and Savarkar had already made several mercy petitions to the British. So, in 1917, Bapu had a negligible influence on our freedom movement and Savarkar had already embarked on becoming the British’s loyal servant. He would not have worked for freedom.

To a motivated falsifier of facts, however, such details don’t matter. Hooda has loyally completed a task assigned to him – add fuel to the inferno of hate and aim vitriol at Bapu. He will be handsomely rewarded for his service.

The silver lining on the silver screen

There is hope. I end by talking about two films, one a documentary made by a Canadian-India director and my friend Anand Ramayya – ‘Who Killed Gandhi?’ (2013). It is a balanced documentary that throws light on the Gandhi murder conspiracy through the lives of the three main characters: Bapu, Savarkar and Godse. Unfortunately, because of the regime change in 2014, the documentary hasn’t found a theatrical or OTT release in India. It has, however, had several screenings abroad and won awards too.

The other film I admire is ‘Ae Watan Mere Watan’, directed by Kannan Iyer and written by him and Darab Farooqui. This is how historical films should be made – not by incorporating fiction, twisting facts or adding melodrama but by telling the story simply and honestly. There may be creative and technical criticism but no one can fault the honesty of the filmmakers. Personally, I would have loved more drama to bring out the heroism of common Indians who made great sacrifices during the Quit India Movement but I doff my hat to the writer and director for not deviating from the facts.

I admired the cast as well; Sara Ali Khan portrayed admirably someone she had never seen. It is easy to portray a fictitious character but intimidating to portray someone whom many in the present have interacted with and you haven’t. For me, Khan brought Ushaben Mehta – Gandhian and freedom fighter – alive on screen. Emraan Hashmi portrayed Ram Manohar Lohia convincingly, putting aside his stardom to get into the character of an icon. This, too, isn’t easy.

The other actors too did justice to the characters they portrayed; no one played to the gallery. That was left to the story, a tale of valour told honestly.

This is the difference between propaganda and history, the former is devoid of truth, the later needs no embellishment. I wish we had an audience that was enlightened enough to know the difference.

 Tushar Gandhi, great grandson of the Mahatma, is an activist, author and president of the Mahatma Gandhi Foundation. Reach him at gandhitushar.a@gmail.com

Courtesy: https://www.allindiansmatter.in

The post Fiction as history and history honestly portrayed: a tale of two films and a documentary appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The list includes former High Court judges S.N. Dhingra, M.C. Garg and R.S. Rathore, former ambassadors Niranjan Desai, O.P. Gupta, Ashok Kumar, Vidya Sagar, and former Foreign Secretary Shashank. They also praised DU’s decision to drop poet Mohammad Iqbal’s philosophy from the political science syllabus, noting that he was associated with the idea of a separate Muslim nation, which led to the “tragedy of India’s partition”.

‘Distorted history’

Stating that until now the history being taught in India was not truthfully revealing facts, the group added that a grave injustice had been done to many historical personalities who laid down their lives to help India break free from the clutches of British imperialism.

In their letter, the group maintained that the distorted history had been driven by “the Congress and some left-leaning organisations for political reasons”. Dubbing Savarkar a distinguished freedom fighter, poet and political philosopher, the group said that he had left an important and indelible mark on India’s history.

Ideology of Akhand Bharat

“Sarvarkar’s vision of India as one nation was central to his ideology— ‘Akhand Bharat.’ Savarkar’s views on freedom, social reform, and national unity make him an enduring figure in Indian history. By deepdiving into Savarkar’s political ideology, students will gain insight into the factors that shaped India’s nationalist movement and its subsequent trajectory,” the letter said.

The group also criticised the poet Iqbal, saying that it was also necessary for students to understand the impact of divisive historical figures and their contribution to partition.

“Iqbal became radicalised and as the President of the Muslim League, his ideas ran counter to democracy and Indian secularism. Many of Iqbal’s writings have been associated with the idea of a separate Muslim nation, ultimately leading to the tragedy of India’s partition. This concept of the Two Nation Theory played a significant role in the partition of India, resulting in the trauma and suffering of millions of displaced in India’s East and West,” the letter said, adding that the signatories fully endorsed the decision of the Academic Council of Delhi University.

Related:

Teaser of Film on Savarkar: Lies Galore

Decoding politics behind inauguration of new Parliament Complex on Savarkar’s Birth Anniversary

Savarkar as a diehard Casteist

The post Ex-judges, bureaucrats, diplomats support inclusion of V.D. Savarkar in DU’s political science syllabus appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Hence, let us know the truth as told by Savarkar himself or recorded in the Savarkar-led Hindu Mahasabha archives. 

Savarkar’s Hatred for the Tricolour Flag of India

Savarkar, like the RSS, abhorred every symbol of the Indian people’s united struggle against British rule. In a circular issued on September 22, 1941 to be followed by the Hindu Mahasabha cadres, he declared, 

“So far as the flag question is concerned, the Hindus know no flag representing Hindudom as a whole other than the ‘Kundalini Kripanankit’ Mahasabha flag with the ‘Om and the Swastik’ the most ancient symbols of the Hindu race and policy coming down from age to age and honoured throughout Hindusthan…Therefore, any place or function where this Pan-Hindu flag is not honoured should be boycotted by the Hindu Sanghatanists at any rate…The Charkha-Flag [before the present national flag spinning-wheel used to be at the centre of the Tricolour] in particular may very well represent a Khadi-Bhandar, but the Charkha can never symbolize and represent the spirit of the proud and ancient nation like the Hindus.” 

      [Bhide, A. S. (ed.), Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s Whirlwind Propaganda: Extracts from the President’s Diary of his Propagandist Tours Interviews from December 1937 to October 1941, na, Bombay, 1940, p. 470-73.]

Savarkar preceded Jinnah in propounding the two-nation theory

Muslim league under M.A. Jinnah demanded Pakistan in March 1940. Long before it, Savarkar had laid down his two-nation theory. Savarkar became the President of Hindu Mahasabha [HM] in 1937. While addressing the 19th Session of Hindu Mahasabha at Ahmedabad in the same year he stated: 

“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…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.”[i]

[Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya:Hindu Rashtra Darshan (Collected works of Savarkar in English), Hindu Mahasabha, Pune, 1963, p. 296.]

This shameless collusion between Savarkar and Jinnah was described by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in the following words:

“Strange as 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 not only agree, but insist that there are two nations in India – one the Muslim nation and the other Hindu nation.”

 [Ambedkar, BR, Pakistan or the Partition of India, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay, (reprint of 1940 edition), p. 142.]

Hindu Mahasabha led by Savarkar declared unconditional support to the British government during Quit India Movement

The Quit India Movement began on August 9, 1942 as per Mahatma Gandhi’s call to ‘Do or Die’ in order to expel the British from India. The British rulers swiftly responded with mass detentions on August 8th itself. Over 100,000 arrests were made which included the entire top leadership of Congress including Gandhi; mass fines were levied and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. Hundreds of civilians were killed in state-sponsored violence, many shot by the police and the army. Congress was banned. During these critical times of repression, Savarkar announced full support to the British rulers in line with the Muslim League. 

Addressing the 24th session of the Hindu Mahasabha at Kanpur in 1942, Savarkar outlined the strategy of the Hindu Mahasabha of co-operating with the rulers in the following words:

“The Hindu Mahasabha holds that the leading principle of all practical politics is the policy of Responsive Co-operation [with the British].” He called upon HM councillors, ministers, legislators and conducting any municipal or any public bodies to offer “Responsive Co-operation which covers the whole gamut of patriotic activities from unconditional co-operation right up to active and even armed resistance…” 

[V. D. Savarkar, Hindu Rashtra Darshan, Vol. 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindusabha, Poona, 1963, p. 112.]

Savarkar led Hindu Mahasabha (HM) and formed coalition governments with Muslim League (ML) during Quit India Movement

Hindu Mahasabha (HM) and Jinnah-led Muslim League (ML) joined hands in running coalition governments in Bengal and Sind (and later in NWFP) in 1942. Defending this collusion between HM and ML against Congress, Savarkar stated, 

“In practical politics also the Mahasabha knows that we must advance through reasonable compromises. Witness the fact that only recently in Sind, the Sind-Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the responsibility of joining hands with the League itself in running a coalition Government. The case of Bengal is well known. Leaguers whom even the Congress with all its submissiveness could not placate grew quite reasonably compromising and sociable [sic] 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 leadership of our esteemed Mahasabha leader Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji, functioned successfully for a year or so to the benefit of both the communities.

Savarkar was a great defender of molestation and rape as a political tool against the women of adversaries. In his important work of Hindu history, Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History, originally written in Marathi and translated in English in 1971 he included a chapter titled ‘Perverted Conception of Virtues’ (Chapter VIII). He criticized Shivaji and Chimaji Appa for restoring back to the families of the women of defeated Muslim and Portuguese governors. Since Shivaji did not allow molestation of captured women Savarkar complained: “Did not the plaintive screams and pitiful lamentations of the millions of molested Hindu women, which reverberated throughout the length and breadth of the country, reach the ears of Shivaji Maharaj and Chimaji Appa?”

He went on to lament that “It was the suicidal Hindu idea of chivalry to women which saved the Muslim women (simply because they were women) from the heavy punishments of committing indescribable sins and crimes against the Hindu women. Their womanhood became their shield quite sufficient to protect them”.

[‘Perverted conception of virtues’ in V. D. Savarkar (tr. By S. T. Godbole), Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History, Bal Savarkar India, Delhi, 1971, pp. 147-159.]

Epilogue

These irrefutable facts about Savarkar notwithstanding, the Hon’ble PM Modi is going to honour him on May 28, 2023 when he inaugurates the new Parliament Complex. This is bound to accelerate the dismantling of the Constitutional dream of democratic-secular India evolved under the leadership of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar along with the inspiring anti-Caste and anti-Patriarchy gains made during India’s historic renaissance of 19^th and 20^thCenturies in defiance of the Brahmanical hegemony of Varna Ashram through Chaturvarna as ordained in Rig Veda’s Purusha Suktam and later shaped as a Law in Manusmriti.

Undoubtedly, the aforesaid retrogressive message emerging from the inauguration of the New Parliament Complex on Savarkar’s 140th birth anniversary will act against the revolutionary struggle for social transformation for equality and social justice that the ancient Indian civilization has deeply engaged with since 6th and 5th Century B.C. respectively under the pioneering leadership, to name a few, of Gautam Buddha through Baudh Philosophy; Mahavir (24^th Jain Tirthankar) through Jain Philosophy; Srimanta Sankardev (Assam); Basaveshwara (Karnataka); Pandit Iyothee Thass, Singaravelar and Periyar (Tamilnadu); Narayan Guru and Ayyankali (Kerala); Gurujada Apparao and Kundukuri Veersalingam (Andhra Pradesh); Sant Tukaram, Savitribai Phule, Fatima Sheikh and Mahatma Jotirao Phule, Shahuji Maharaj and Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Maharashtra); Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Rabindranath Tagore, Swami Vivekanand and Rokeya Begum (West Bengal); and Swami Dayanand Saraswati (Gujarat & Punjab); Sant Kabirdas & Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (Uttar Pradesh); and the Great Sikh Gurus & Shaheed Bhagat Singh (Punjab). This retrogressive impact of Savarkar’s ideology is precisely what the RSS has been dreaming for since its inception in 1925 by promoting selective re-writing and distortion of the history of ancient, medieval and contemporary India. Yet, history shall never forgive us for the irreparable damage being done to India’s socio-cultural fabric by the grandiose event on May 28, 2023 scheduled on Savarkar’s 140th birth anniversary! 

Researched & Authored (May 24, 2023) by Shamsul Islam, former Associate Professor of Political Science, Delhi University Edited & Epilogue (May 26, 2023) by Anil Sadgopal, Former Professor and Dean, Faculty of Education, Delhi University, & Former Member, CABE

The post Decoding politics behind inauguration of new Parliament Complex on Savarkar’s Birth Anniversary appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Portrait as mirror (April 2003 Year 9, No.86, Communsalism Combat)

In February 2003 it was the Indian Parliament; now, in April 2003, it is the Maharashtra State Assembly. In both these hallowed premises now hang the portrait of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. A man who was implicated in Gandhi’s assassination by none less than the former Indian deputy prime minister and home minister Sardar Patel; a man whose dream for India was that of a militarised Hindu nation chiselled with the politics of revenge and exclusion. We reproduce here two articles from the mainline media that raise serious questions on this highly disturbing development. For more detailed documentation on this issue, readers are invited to visit our website, www.sabrang.com). 

A PORTRAIT of VD Savarkar was unveiled in Parliament by the President, APJ Abdul Kalam, on February 26. On the face of it, the matter may seem confined to “portraiture” and may seem to have ended. In fact, the problems of the ruling party, of the central government and of the constitutional functionaries involved in the episode may have just begun. The implications touch upon the future course of government in India. The issue has a bearing also on the role of certain sections of the print and electronic media, for the portrait episode has acted as a mirror to them as well.

After the facts relating to Savarkar’s involvement in Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination and on certain other issues were brought into the public domain, the authorities had three options. The first was to apologise and turn back from the course on which they had embarked. The second was to postpone the ceremony and verify the facts. The third was to brazen it out. They chose the third. This was facilitated by the existence of sections of the electronic and print media which live for the moment and thrive on party handouts rather than on painstaking and independent investigation. The tradition of closely scrutinising claims made by ruling parties, whichever these may be, seems to have been forgotten.

In view of the political ineffectiveness of the NDA allies, it is the BJP-RSS and the Shiv Sena, which together comprise the effective ruling combine. Spokesmen of the BJP and RSS asserted that they did not need testimonials from the Congress, the principal Opposition party, or from any other quarter. They went on, however, to cite statements made on Savarkar’s death in 1966 by Indira Gandhi, C Rajagopalachari and a famous communist from Maharashtra.

The fact is that Sardar Patel’s letter dated February 27, 1948, to the Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, became public knowledge only in May 1973 when Volume 6 of Patel’s correspondence was published. In the letter, Patel, who was deputy prime minister and home minister, wrote about the plot to kill Gandhi: “It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that (hatched) the conspiracy and saw it through.” (page 56).

Now, Dr. Kalam has, at the behest of the ruling combine, unveiled in the Central Hall of Parliament of the world’s largest democracy a portrait of this very individual. And this has been done to the applause of the ruling alliance. It is surprising that large sections of the media have yet to acknowledge the meaning of the event. Some sections of the electronic media even offered Savarkar’s claimed position in Maharashtra as justification enough.

Patel was privy to the intelligence reports. Many intelligence reports are also referred to by the Kapur Commission of Inquiry in the “conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi”. This Commission submitted its report in 1969. In page 318 of Part II of the report, Savarkar’s involvement with the assassins is clearly recorded. Though Savarkar was not convicted in the murder trial, this had little to do with his political responsibility for the murder. Even as regards Savarkar’s legal responsibility for the conspiracy, it was not a case of “no evidence”. The approver, Digambar Badge, had implicated Savarkar. The trial court took the view, as the distinguished barrister, KL Gauba, records in pages 220–221 of his book Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, that the approver’s evidence required corroboration.

Savarkar was thus clearly implicated in the Gandhi murder case. Although legal responsibility was apparently not proved according to the evidentiary process, his political responsibility is patent. That is why even in the course of the murder investigation, Savarkar pleaded illness and gave, as was his wont, an undertaking. He said in a statement to the commissioner of police on February 22, 1948: “Consequently in order to disarm all suspicion and to back up representation I wish to express my willingness to give an undertaking to the government that I shall refrain from taking part in any communal or political activity for any period the government may require in case I am released on that condition.” (KL Gauba, page 209). Clearly, the giver of the undertaking was apprehensive about the evidence against him.

The ruling combine’s spokesmen have tried to suggest that the Congress, in its protest in regard to the portrait, has been misled by people who are dismissively described as some “Leftists” and “historians from Jawaharlal Nehru University”. However, RC Majumdar did not come under either category. His work, Penal Settlement In the Andamans shows that Savarkar’s earlier record which led to his incarceration in the Cellular Jail in Port Blair, Andaman Islands, is sullied.

From jail he addressed mercy petitions to the British Raj. His mercy petition dated November 14, 1913, is published in RC Majumdar’s book in pages 211–214. In the petition Savarkar wrote: “Now no man having the good of India and humanity at heart will blindly step on the thorny paths which in the excited and hopeless situation of India in 1906–1907 beguiled us from the path of peace and progress. Therefore, if the government in their manifold beneficence and mercy release me I for one cannot but be the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English government which is the foremost condition of that progress.”

In accordance with this undertaking, Savarkar never thereafter took part in the freedom movement. It is significant that this mercy petition also entered the public domain only in 1975 when RC Majumdar’s book was published by the government of India. The earlier petition which Savarkar addressed in 1911 is yet to come to light but is referred to in the 1913 petition.

As has already been repeatedly stressed by the Opposition parties, Savarkar was out of sync with the idea of nationhood which lay at the heart of the freedom movement and which underlies India’s Constitution. For example, on August 15, 1943, Savarkar declared: “I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah’s two–nation theory. We Hindus are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations.” (Indian Annual Register, 1943, Vol II, P.10). He had made a similar statement in 1939, seeking to define Hindus by themselves as a nation. It is not the task of the Indian nation to confer special honours upon those who do not subscribe even to its basic values.

Where do we go from here? So far as the ruling combine is concerned, it has drawn a perfect picture of itself. For the first time since the present government came to power at the Centre, and perhaps for the first time since the Jana Sangh and then the BJP were founded, Savarkarism has been enshrined as the defining characteristic of Hindu communalism. Given the self–portrait of itself that the BJP combine has given the country and the world, its NDA allies need to consider how far they are willing to take their flirtation with it. It has been a costly dalliance. Savarkarism was, as Patel had noted, only the ideology of the “fanatical wing” of the Hindu Mahasabha. A year after Gujarat 2002, this has become official.

The constitutional authorities who facilitated this and lent their office for the purpose are answerable before the world. It is not as if they had not been apprised of the facts. They were warned, though, to be fair, the warning did not come early enough. We should perhaps have been prepared for this outrage when a Shiv Sena nominee was elected the Lok Sabha Speaker. It has also been clear for sometime that political parties alone cannot be relied upon to be alert to all challenges to Indian nationhood. It may be too much to expect an apology from all the individuals concerned. Somnath Chatterjee is an honourable exception.

But in the light of the remarks recorded by Sardar Patel and the other materials, all the constitutional authorities involved, whoever they may be and no matter how high the position they may hold, need to face their conscience and ask hard questions about their fitness to hold the offices they occupy. They are the custodians not merely of their own reputation but of the Republic’s prestige. All of us need to ask the same questions about the roles we claim to perform. It is time for the country, its media and its people to pause and ponder. Capitulation, sectarianism and the glorification of the politics of assassination cannot be part of the Indian self–definition.

This articles by Jyotirmaya Sharma in hinduonnet.com is also worth reading. It is being reproduced below: the original can be found here.

Savarkar’s politics of revenge

BY JYOTIRMAYA SHARMA

The petition from Convict No 32778 to the home member of the government of India, dated November 14, 1913, must simply be seen as an act of self–preservation. Convict No 32778, in this case, was Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. His appeal to the ‘mighty’ English government for being ‘merciful’ does not merit opposition to his portrait being hung in the Central Hall of Parliament. There are other more compelling reasons.

Dhananjay Keer’s biography of Savarkar talks of an incident when the 12–year–old Savarkar led a march of his schoolmates to stone the village mosque. Savarkar’s own account of the incident speaks of him and his friends dancing with joy whenever they heard of Hindus killing Muslims in acts of retribution.

Vandalising a mosque was their contribution to preserving Hindu dharma and establishing national honour. Savarkar’s description of this incident is significant. “We vandalised the mosque to our heart’s content and raised the flag of our bravery on it. We followed the war strategy of Shivaji completely and ran away from the site after accomplishing our task,” says Savarkar.

The Muslim boys in the village retaliated. Savarkar’s band of dharmavir warriors met the challenge with knives, pins and foot rulers. Savarkar recounts the victory of the Hindus in this dharma yuddha. In every sense, therefore, Savarkar is the father of the language of pratishodh and pratikaar, all synonyms for revenge, retribution and retaliation. The BJP, Shiv Sena, VHP, Bajrang Dal, Narendra Modi and Praveen Togadia are heirs and successors of Savarkar.

To understand Savarkar and his spiritual progeny better, it would be useful to re–read his long essay on 1857. Savarkar’s notion of nationalism never went beyond being a pale imitation of Mazzini. What is chilling about his account of 1857 is the use of the term political jihad being waged by Hindus and Muslims together against the English. The most significant aspect of this political jihad was its reliance on violence.

While there could be endless discussion on the efficacy of violence as a tool to further nationalistic ends, what is noteworthy in Savarkar’s account is his justification of violence against English women and children. Here is an example. This is what happened in Bibigadh, in Kanpur. The scene is one where the prison guards refuse to massacre the English. Begum Saheb, the chief officer of Bibigarh, which is under the control of the rebels, sends a message to the butchers’ colony in Kanpur: “In a short while, the butchers entered Bibigarh with naked swords and sharp knives in the evening and emerged out of it late in the night. Between their entering and coming out, a sea of white blood spread all over. As soon as they entered with their swords and knives, they butchered 150 women and children. While going in, the butchers walked on the ground and while coming out they had to journey through blood.”

Savarkar’s unemotional comment here is that the accumulated account between the two races had been squared. Revenge, therefore, was for Savarkar the establishment of natural law and justice. From this axiom, he derives a principle of nationalism. According to him, Hindus and Muslims were ‘two’ nations. He argues that wherever injustice increases and nations go up in flames, wherever nationalist wars are fought, revenge for injustices that the nation suffers is taken by killing the perceived perpetrators from another nation.

Formally at least, Savarkar put forth the two–nation theory before Jinnah. Revenge was, however, impossible without making Hindus more ‘manly’. Here lies the core of Savarkar’s incomprehension of the central tenets of Hinduism. He did make a distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva and accorded the latter unprecedented primacy. His conception of Hindutva, however, had an unlikely source. Savarkar greatly admired the political and religious fervour of Islam. He envied Muslims their social cohesion and valorous fervour, a factor that had made them as a body so irresistible.

The Muslims, according to Savarkar, possessed qualities that made them unassailable whereas the Hindus were hemmed in by metaphysics and tradition. After Chhatrapati Shivaji’s establishment of a Maratha empire, the Hindus had “absorbed much that contributed to the success of the Muhammadans.” It would be useful to recapitulate Savarkar’s thesis about what made the Muslims so irresistible. They had a unified church, which was lacking in Hinduism. This made them better equipped to take on their opponents. In sharp contrast, the Hindus were hopelessly divided in terms of schools of philosophy, debilitating metaphysical propositions, castes and conventions masquerading as tradition.

The Hindus were left to reconcile doctrines such as the karma theory and principled opposition to use of force, all of which lead to a disjuncture between theory and practice. In short, the ‘self’ had absorbed a great deal of the ‘non–self’ to redefine itself. This is the very foundation of political Hindutva. It is based on a cynical misunderstanding of Hinduism, while offering no alternative metaphysics or moral universe. The central tenets of political Hindutva are revenge, retaliation and the sorry principle of ‘might is right’.

Savarkar’s portrait in Parliament is a sad testimony to the disappearance from public life of notions such as gentleness, civility and non-injury. Nothing could be more un-Hindu than that. 

The post Portrait as Mirror, unveiling of Vinayak Savarkar’s portrait in Parliament, then and now appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Sunday, Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant hailed right wing ‘hero’ Vinayak Damodar Savarkar as a ‘glorious patriot’. He also announced that his state government will soon re-print two books authored by Savarkar.

Sawant was speaking at the launch of ‘1957 che Swatantrya Samar’ and said that it was this book that had “ignited the flame of patriotism among many youth and the British regime banned this book. Fortunately, only one copy of this book was saved with a Goan person, and this helped in getting it re-printed.” The other book authored by Savarkar which will be reprinted by the state government is ‘Gomantak’. Both books will then be placed in all libraries in the state.

According to a report in Indian Express, the CM said Savarkar was a “Swatantryaveer” and an “unsung hero, who fought the British regime, faced the most brutal punishment and yet after India’s Independence, a section of people have only spread lies, falsehood and hatred against him… We as Indians have largely failed to acknowledge the life and work of this glorious patriot.” Sawant was speaking at the closing ceremony of the Kumaon Literary Festival (KLF) in Panaji, and praised the book ‘1957 che Swatantrya Samar’, saying it was this that “ignited the flame of patriotism among many youth and the British regime banned this book”. According to the CM, “One copy of this book was saved with a Goan person, and this helped in getting it re-printed.” The CM also released author Vikram Sampath’s book ‘Savarkar (Part 2): A Contested Legacy, 1924-1966.’ 

The Goa CM launched the Hindi and English editions of Sampath’s book and claimed, “Unfortunately, in our country, the history that has been forced upon us, has been the propaganda of the West and what they thought about us. They thought that we were a land of snake-charmers, they thought that we were a country of the poor. But my question is, did they invade us because we were poor? The answer is definitely no. The first person to challenge this vicious propaganda was Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.”

According to Sawant along with the two books by Savarkar, Sampath’s book too will be circulated in libraries of Goa, reported Indian Express. Sampath described Savarkar as a “much-maligned” firebrand revolutionary, a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional genius, who had led a “stormy”, “tempestuous” life and was a complex character who simultaneously meant many things to many people.

Karnataka shows the rightwing way infiltirate books

The Hindutva ideology has now been injected into school curriculum in Karnataka. The state has now included the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) founder Keshav Baliram Hedgewar’s speech as in the Class X Kannada (first language, State syllabus) textbook from the 2022-23 academic year, reported The Hindu. The inclusion was recommended by the Textbook Revision Committee headed by writer Rohith Chakrateertha, in March, stated the news report. 

Titled “Nijavada Adarsha Purusha Yaraagabeku?” (Who should be the real role model?), it will now be a part of the Kannada prose textbook, being printed. The committee had submitted its final report to the government. 

According to The Hindu, Chakrateertha claimed this  was not an ideological imposition, and said “There was no pressure from any political party or organisation. This does not amount to imposing any organisation’s ideology on students. We have chosen Hedgewar as a writer and not on the basis of his ideology or organisation.”

P. Lankesh’s “Mruga Mattu Sundari” G. Ramakrishna’s “Bhagat Singh” dropped

According to the news report, some lessons dropped include works by Karnataka’s iconic writer and journalist P. Lankesh, titled “Mruga Mattu Sundari” and another by Leftist thinker G. Ramakrishna’s “Bhagat Singh”. The lessons that ‘replace’ them are works by writer Shivananda Kalave’s “Swadeshi Sutrada Sarala Habba” and M. Govinda Pai’s “Naanu Prasa Bitta Kathe”, reported the Hindu.

The other lessons dropped “in the detailed text are Sara Aboobacker’s “Yuddha”, A.N. Murthy Rao’s “Vyaghra Kathe”, and Shivakotyacharya’s “Sukumara Swamy Kathe”, and the inclusions now made “Vedic scholar the late Bannanje Govindacharya’s “Sukanashana Upadesha” and Shatavadhani R. Ganesh’s “Shrestha Bharatiya Chintanegalu” stated the news report.

In April 2022, the CBSE dropped poems of Faiz Ahmed Faiz, sections on Non-Alignment Movement, Cold War era, rise of Islamic empires in Afro-Asian territories, chronicles of Mughal courts, and the industrial revolution, from the CBSE’s Class 11 and 12 political science syllabus.

In 2020, The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), had ‘edited’ the Class 12 history syllabus and dropped the chapter ‘The Mughal Court: Reconstructing Histories through Chronicles’.  Then the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) decided that high-school students no longer need to learn about “federalism, citizenship, nationalism, and secularism” and dropped the lesson from the political science curriculum of Class 11 along with those on demonetization. However, the ‘deleted’ topics were then restored in the 2021-22 academic session after much debate.

Related:

Rashtriya Shiksha Shredder: Rahul Gandhi on CBSE’s latest omissions

Films Division, NFAI “repositories of a national treasure”, closure is “means to erase”: John Brittas

Sonia points out ‘misogynistic’ passage in CBSE paper in Lok Sabha; board drops question 

Why does UGC want herds of students to take ‘cow science’ exams?

The post Goa gov’t will reprint books by Savarkar, Karnataka will teach Hedgewar’s speech appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Savarkar rehabilitation project is taking newer forms. The latest attempt [‘How Savarkar fought for a casteless society’, The Indian Express, 28-02-2022] by the Savarkarites is to claim, “He had imagined a nation free of malevolent social evils such as caste cruelty, Untouchability, and injustice towards women. He advocated a casteless society based on notions of social justice coupled with social cohesion. He wanted to uproot the diversity of the caste system and build a nation based on Hindu unity, where Dalits could live with dignity and happiness.” It is also claimed, “He spoke out against scriptural injunctions that advocated caste, such as the Manusmriti. According to Savarkar, these scriptures are often the tools of those in power, used to control social structure and maintain their supremacy.”

Let us compare these claims with the writings and deeds of Savarkar as recorded in the Hindu Mahasabha archives. Savarkar as a prophet of Hindutva and author of the book with the same title in 1923 defended Casteism in Hindu society regarding it as a natural component essential for making a nation. While dealing with the subject under the title ‘Institutions in favour of Nationality’, he declared that the institution of Casteism was the peculiar mark of identifying a Hindu Nation.

“The system of four varnas which could not be wiped away even under the Buddhistic sway, grew in popularity to such an extent that kings and emperors felt it a distinction to be called one who established the system of four varnas…Reaction in favour of this institution grew so strong that our nationality was almost getting identified with it.”

Savarkar, while defending Casteism as an inalienable constituent of a Hindu Nation, went on to quote an authority (not identified by him) who said: “The land where the system of four Varnas does not exist should be known as the Mlechcha country: Aryawarta lies away from it.”

Savarkar’s defence of Casteism was in fact a corollary of his racial approach to the understanding of Hindu nation. While refuting the criticism that Casteism did check the free flow of blood in the Hindu society he presented an interesting logic by making these complementary to each other. He argued that it was, in fact, due to Casteism that purity of Hindu Race was maintained. 

To quote him,

“All that the caste system has done is to regulate its noble blood on lines believed—and on the whole rightly believed—by our saintly and patriotic law-givers and kings to contribute most to fertilize and enrich all that was barren and poor, without famishing and debasing all that was flourishing and nobly endowed”.

Interestingly, Savarkar who stood steadfastly in defence of Casteism, also advocated the elevation of the status of the Untouchables in the Hindu society for a short period. He conducted programmes against Untouchability and entry of Untouchables into Hindu temples. This was not due to an egalitarian outlook but mainly due to the fact that he was alarmed at the numerical loss which the Hindu community had been experiencing due to the steady conversion of the Untouchables to Islam and Christianity which guaranteed them social equality normatively.

Savarkar admitted that due to treating them as outcastes, the then 7 crores [the then population of outcastes in India] strong, “Hindu people-power” did not stand in ‘Our’ (High caste Hindus) favour. Savarkar knew that Hindu nationalists would greatly need the physical power these Untouchables, as foot-soldiers for settling scores with Muslims and Christians. So, while warning his cadres that if the Untouchables did not remain in their fold, they were going to prove a factor which would bring far more terrible crisis for high Caste Hindus, Savarkar lamented the fact that “they will not only cease to be beneficial for us but also become an easy means of dividing our house, thus proving to be responsible for our boundless loss.”

The most authentic record of Savarkar’s beliefs and actions on this issue is available in a compilation by secretary of Savarkar, A. S. Bhide titled as ‘Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s Whirlwind Propaganda: Extracts from the President’s Diary of his Propagandist Tours Interviews from December 1937 to October 1941’. It is an official guide-book for Hindu Mahasabha cadres. According to it Savarkar soon declared that he was undertaking these reformative actions in his personal capacity “without involving the Hindu Mahasabha organization into social and religions [sic] activities not guaranteed by its constitutional limits…” [Bold as in the original text] Savarkar assured Sanatani Hindus who were opposed to Untouchables’ entry into Hindu temples in 1939 that Hindu Mahasabha “will not introduce or support compulsory Legislature [sic] regarding Temple Entry by the untouchables etc. in old temples beyond the limit to which the non-Hindus are allowed by custom as in force today.”

On June 20, 1941 he once again pledged in the form of a personal assurance that he would not hurt the sentiments of Sanatani Hindus so far as the issue of entry of Untouchables in temples was concerned. This time he even promised not to touch anti-women and anti-Dalit Hindu personal laws:

“I guarantee that the Hindu Maha Sabha shall never force any legislations regarding the entry of untouchables in the ancient temples or compel by law any sacred ancient and moral usage or custom prevailing in those temples. In general the Mahasabha will not back up any Legislation to thrust the reforming views on our Sanatani brothers so far as personal law is concerned…”

Savarkar remained a great protagonist of Casteism and worshipper of Manusmriti throughout his life. The institutions of Casteism and Untouchability were, indeed, the outcome of Manu’s Codes which were greatly revered by Savarkar as we will see in the following statement of his:

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

Sadly, Savarkarites bent upon establishing Savarkar’s anti-Untouchability credentials have no hesitation in playing mischief even with a letter Dr. Ambedkar wrote to Savarkar on February 18, 1933. They produce it as a testimonial to establish Savarkar as a crusader against Untouchability which according to the Savarkarites read:

“I wish to take this opportunity of conveying to you my appreciation of the work you are doing in the field of social reform. If the Untouchables are to be part of the Hindu society, then it is not enough to remove untouchability; for that matter you should destroy ‘Chaturvarna’. I am glad that you are one of the very few leaders who have realised this”

Unfortunately, sentences have been picked up from Dr. Ambedkar’s letter deleting all critical comments on Savarkar’s agenda for Untouchables. The letter is produced in full so that the intellectual dishonesty of Savarkarites is known to readers. It read:             

“Many thanks for your letter inviting me to Ratnagiri to open the Temple on the fort to the Untouchables. I am extremely sorry that owing to previous engagements, I am unable to accept your invitation. I, however, wish to take this opportunity of conveying to you my appreciation of the work you are doing in the field of social reforms. As I look what is called the problem of the untouchables, I feel it is intimately bound up with the question of reorganization of Hindu society. If the untouchables are to be a part and parcel of the Hindu society, then it is not enough to remove Untouchability, for that you must destroy Chaturvarnya. If they are not to be a part and parcel, if they are only to be appendix to Hindu society then Untouchability, so far as temple is concerned, may remain. I am glad to see that you are one of the very few who have realized it. That you still use the jargon of Chaturvarnya although you qualify it by basing it by basing it on merit is rather unfortunate. However, I hope that in course of time you will have courage enough to drop this needless and mischevious jargon.” [Emphasis added]

In fact, Dr. Ambedkar came to the conclusion in 1940 that,

“If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country… [It] is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.”

(The article is being published here on the express request of the author; It appeared in The Indian Express, Delhi titled ‘Truth about Savarkar and caste’ on 23-03-2022)

Other pieces by Shamsul Islam:

A historicity of Savarkar’s rehabilitation project

Do not let Hindutva rulers destroy heritage of communal unity of Jallianwala Bagh martyrs

131st Birth anniversary of Frontier Gandhi

On 72nd anniversary of the Indian Constitution

The post Savarkar as a diehard Casteist appeared first on SabrangIndia.