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.

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.

Recently a column titled “How Karl Marx’s grandson fought for Savarkar against British in International Court of Justice” was shared widely. It was written by Arun Anand, a believer of RSS ideology, heading VicharVinimay Kendra for The Print web edition. The title of the article itself is mischievously phrased in such a manner to raise doubts in the minds of people who follow rational thinking in general and in particular the followers of the Left.

Sum and substance of the argument presented in that article is that the grandson of Karl Marx who follows Marx ideology himself supported Savarkar, considered him as India’s freedom fighter and his ideology whereas the Marxists in India are dead against his ideology. The argument presented here is intended to achieve two goals. Firstly, RSS’s think tanks endeavour to transform a deeply contentious and divisive ideologue into a world scale leader who was and has been accepted and revered by all, cutting across the political or ideological differences. Secondly to seed doubts over the staunch opposition of Left in India in general and Marxists in particular to Savarkar’s idea of Hindu Rashtra i.e Hindutva.

Let us look into facts of Marx’s grandson’s alleged endorsement of Savarkar and his ideology.

As it is part of history now, Savarkar tried to escape from British mercantile ship SS Morea while transporting him from London to Mumbai to face court proceedings pending against him at the then Bombay. On being pursued by British police authorities escorting him on SS Morea, the French police personnel caught Savarkar and handed over to British authorities. This was considered as an affront on the right to political asylum in France, the opposition parties, particularly the socialists took it up as a civil rights issue of subjects of the French territory. Most of the socialists in Europe rallied behind the French Socialists. Finally yielding under the pressure from public opinion, French government filed a case of arbitration whose verdict sided with British authority to take Savarkar back into their custody. (Source: https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XI/243-255.pdf.)

We should be careful about this fact. The case before the International Court of Justice was the principle “Once alyssum is refused is returned to the native authority cannot be extradited back as asylum holder.” (Source: https://lawhelpbd.com/case/savarkar-case-1911/) But not in the case of Savarkar and his ideology or his role in India’s freedom movement. It was also a case about territorial rights and respecting the international treaties between France and Great Britain. The author mischievously presented this as a case in which Jean Longuet, socialist leader and grandson of Karl Marx became a vocal supporter of Savarkar and his cause. This kind of false proposition can be made out only by undercutting the specific context of the issue in discussion. This is not a new phenomenon for Sangh ideologues. They intend to give a completely different picture by reordering the sequence, changing the phrases used, picking a selected vocabulary out of context and placing it in today’s political context to make their case genuine for laymen. 

In his commitment to civil rights in general and political asylum rights in particular, as leading intellectual of the French socialist movement of the day, Jean Longuet questioned the authority of British over a subject landed on French territory. While doing so Longuet in his affidavit filed before the International Court of Justice used the word Hindu on several occasions which was a prevalent phenomenon of European writings to use this word to refer to India and Indians. This usage is deliberately being used to showcase as if Longuet endorsed Savarkar’s ideology of Hindutva. This can be seen from the fact that Longuet while referring to Tilak, the towering political personality of the times, and noted freedom fighter as leader of Hindu nationalist party.

Let us quote two sources to establish our contention. Longuet in his commentary in the socialist newsweekly that he edited, L’Humanite , on 12 July wherein he states, “ But it is quite impossible that the matter can be allowed to rest there. In delivering up a political refugee the Marseilles authorities admitting that they had acted on their own initiative have committed an outrage of which account will most assuredly be demanded and in respect of which the sanction of the state itself is necessary.” The Daily Press which is allegedly pro-establishment in its contemptuous comment stated that it was because of Savarkar’s compatriot who lobbied with the French Socialists to take up the cause of right to political asylum. The French newspaper Petit Provincial, a detailed article published titling The Odyssey of a Revolutionary Hindu argued that the arrest of Savarkar and attempt to hush up will be negation of French character and any defence of individual liberty. Petit clearly informed that the Indians (Hindu colony) in Paris, requested Jaurès and Cadenat to intercede into the matter.

Jean Longuet, after reconstructing the sequence of events, concluded his arguments by exposing the Britains double standards of claiming to have been a safe refuge for revolutionaries of other countries in the past, but doing quite the opposite with a revolutionary who challenged their power, “As for violent means, if their employment were sufficient to qualify as murderers or those who advocate anarchist means, England would never have boasted of being in the last century, the  mother of exiles’, the haven of Mazzini, Kossuth, Karl Marx, Garibaldi, refugees from the Commune or the Russian Revolution, as well as French monarchists and dethroned sovereigns after the revolutions of 1830, 1848, and 1870.” (Source: Savarkar: Echoes from A Forgotten Past, page 305). Nowhere in his articles written in this context and in his pleading before ICJ, Longuet endorsed the Hindutva ideology professed by Savarkar at his later part of the life.

(Source: https://savarkar.org/en/pdfs/L_Humanite_translation.pdf)

The international court of justice adjudicated in favour of Britain. There was a huge cry in Europe’s progressive media over the ICJ judgement. The Morning Post decried it as something that had reduced the right to asylum and the international law to farce.

Thus, the whole episode construing Marx grandson’s advocacy for Savarkar’s right to political asylum as his support to ideology professed by Savarkar is the best example how Sangh Parivar constructs its own history out of vacuum in a deceitful manner. The Hindutva ideology was construed by Savarkar during his times at Andaman’s Cellular jail but not during his previous avatar as freedom fighter nor during his days of stay at Gray’s Inn, London. But the Parivar think tanks are bent upon to prove the fact that Savarkar was an avowed Hindutva ideologist from his initial days. This is nothing but hagiography of Sangh’s mark. Nor Longuet was wrong in standing in defence of the right to political asylum and standing for the independence movements of third world countries, which was and is the tradition of Communist and Socialist parties since Marx.

*The author is a scholar in the field of Dalit and Minorities studies.

Related:

Supersizing victimhood: Hindu Right’s appropriation of Islamophobia, the Jewish Holocaust & Indigenous struggles
Hindu Nationalism: From genesis to present ruling dispensation

The post Did Marx’s grandson endorse Savarkar’s Hindutva ideology? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While it is yet to be established if Bengaluru residents will credit the flyover, newly renamed after ‘Veer’ V.D. Savarkar in Yelahanka as a boon to ease its notorious traffic snarls, the name itself may have created some cracks within local groups who may otherwise have supported the state’s B.S. Yediyurappa-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government.

Prominent Kannada groups have now questioned the state BJP government’s decision to name the floover after Savarkar. According to a report in The Print, the organisations have hit out at the decision calling it a move aimed at “appeasing its political bosses”. There is a pro-Kannada lobby, and pro-South Indian pride is also at stake, as the organisations are now asking why Karnataka’s own leaders, including freedom fighters have been ignored so far and “and why someone like Savarkar is being imported.”

“The BJP government is doing this only to create a controversy. Its main objective is to appease its political bosses. It does not have the interests of the state or the people’s sentiments in mind,” Arun Javgal, a member of Kannada activist group Banavasi Balaga, who had been at the forefront of the ‘Namma Metro Hindi Beda’ campaign against the use of Hindi on metro station boards in Bengaluru, was quoted by The Print. He asked, “Why should infrastructure projects be named after people like Veer Savarkar and Syama Prasad Mookerjee? Our land has produced greats like Sir M. Visvesvaraya; what prompts these political parties to name projects after those who weren’t even remotely connected to our history or Kannada culture?” 

According to Javgal,“A park in south Bengaluru is going to be named after Syama Prasad Mookerjee. It is as if they are doing this with a vengeance. All protests and opposition does not matter.” The Print also quoted Kannada film director, poet and activist Kavita Lankesh, who called this an example of the BJP’s “fascist” attitude. “There are hundreds of Kannadigas that we are proud of, whom they could have named it after. How could they even honour him like this? Just like they (BJP) want to impose Hindi as the national language, they are trying to impose this kind of ideology on us,” Lankesh said. The article also quoted  Ashok Chandargi, president of the Belgaum District Kannada Organisations Action Committee, “This is nothing but the agenda of the BJP. What can we do now, they are in power. They think they can make such decisions and get away with them.” 

However, as expected Karnataka’s Tourism and Culture Minister C.T. Ravi defended the decision, and told The Print that Savarkar was a “nationalist” and that’s why they were honouring him.

There had been a controversy raging on the issue months before the flyover was named after Savarkar. Opposition parties had objected to Savarkar being honoured this way and said Karnataa’s own political icons should have been commemorated instead. While it is true that there are many unrecognised social reformers and freedom fighters who deserve recognition from the Karnataka government, Savarkar anyway is at the helm of a contested legacy.

In an opinion column in SabrangIndia Prof. Shamsul Islam, a scholar and activist, had analysed  the Karnataka Govt’s decision to honour Savarkar, in June. Prof. Shamsul Islam, wrote that it was the “Karnataka government led by a senior RSS whole-timer, B.S. Yediyurappa is going to honour Hindutva icon, VD Savarkar by naming two of the newly built major flyovers in Bangalore and Mangalore after him.” He noted  that there was a huge uproar against this decision of the RSS-BJP government as many pro-Kannada organisations with opposition parties and liberal-secular organisations questioned the logic to ignore so many freedom fighters, social reformers and others from within the state. Since the renaming ceremony was taking time, the RSS strong arm outfit, Bajrang Dal  had strung a banner reading “Veera Savarkar Melsethuve (flyover)” in Kannada on the flyover at Mangalore. They also wrote “Bajrang Dal” in saffron paint on the divider of the flyover.[i]

“It would be a sad day not only for Karnataka but the whole country if a seasoned collaborator of the British rulers and Jinnah led Muslim League is glorified in any way,” wrote Prof Islam.  He added historical evidence of Savarkar’s political decisions which the Right Wing nationalists of today conveniently ignore.  Instances such as this: “ Savarkar, like the RSS, abhorred every symbol of the Indian people’s united struggle against the British rule. He refused to accept the Tricolour (at that time there used to be a charkha or spinning wheel in the middle of it) as the national flag or flag of the freedom struggle. In a statement issued on September 22, 1941 for the benefit of Hindu Mahasabha cadres, he declared, “So far as the flag question is concerned, the Hindus know no flag representing Hindudom as a whole 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. It is actually sanctioned and owned by millions of Hindus today from Hardwar to Rameshwaram and flies aloft on every Hindusabha branch office at thousands of centres. Therefore, any place or function where this Pan-Hindu flag is not honoured should be boycotted by the Hindu sanghatan-ists at any rate…The Charkha-Flag [before the present national flag it used to be the one] 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.”[ii]”  Karnataka CM it seems will now have to act quickly to placate the hurt local pride, before the issue blows up any further.

The Bharatiya Janata Party’s national team, meanwhile, has another formidable South Indian to placate urgently. A senior BJP member well known for critiquing his own party, lawyer and Rajya Sabha member Subramanian Swamy has already warned the leadership and called for the sacking of the party’s Information and Technology (IT) cell chief Amit Malviya. Swamy has accused Malviya of running a smear campaign against him using fake tweets, and messages. “The BJP IT cell has gone rogue. Some of its members are putting out fake ID tweets to make personal attacks on me,” posted Swamy,  “If my angered followers make counter personal attacks I cannot be held responsible just as BJP cannot be held responsible for the rogue IT cell of the party.” True to form, the followers of Subramanian Swamy have responded, as commanded. 

Swamy himself has taken on the party, and the education minister over the issue of lesser number of students taking the JEE exams this year. He posted, “out of 18 lakhs who downloaded passes only 8 lakhs turned up to take up the exam. What a disgrace for the nation which extols vidhya and gyan!!”

I just accurate count on how many students took the JEE exams this last week: out 18 lakhs who down loaded passes only 8 lakhs turned up to take up the exam. What a disgrace for the nation which extols vidhya and gyan!!

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) September 9, 2020

When countered over the numbers, Swamy’s supporters sent the ministers screen shots like these…

He then spoke about the Sunanda Pushkar unnatural death case, “the body was available to AIIMS team, and the Team did an excellent thorough job under chairmanship of Dr. Sudhir Gupta. and concluded it as murder. An extensive Report was given to Delhi Police, but DP did not yet file it in Court. Why?” The Delhi Police it may be noted reports directly to the Union Home Ministry

In the Sunanda Pushkar unnatural case, the body was available to AIIMS team, and the Team did an excellent thorough job under chairmanship of Dr. Sudhir Gupta. and concluded it as murder. An extensive Report was given to Delhi Police, but DP did not yet file it in Court. Why?

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) September 9, 2020

Related: 

Did Savarkar, Syama Prasad Mukherjee and RSS betray the Quit India Movement?
K’taka Govt decides to honour Savarkar, a collaborator with both the British & Muslim 
BJP IT cell has gone rogue: Subramanian Swam

The post BJP Vs BJP: From Savarkar to Swamy over flyovers, and onto Twitter appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Karnataka government led by a senior RSS whole-timer, B.S. Yediyurappa is going to honour Hindutva icon, VD Savarkar by naming two of the newly built major flyovers in Bangalore and Mangalore after him. There was a huge uproar against this decision of the RSS-BJP government as many pro-Kannada organisations with opposition parties and liberal-secular organisations questioned the logic to ignore so many freedom fighters, social reformers and others from within the state. Since renaming ceremony was taking time the RSS strong arm outfit, Bajrang Dal strung a banner reading “Veera Savarkar Melsethuve (flyover)” in Kannada on the flyover at Mangalore. They also wrote “Bajrang Dal” in saffron paint on the divider of the flyover.[i]

[https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/savarkar-triggers-flyover-fight-in-karnataka/cid/1778208]

It would be a sad day not only for Karnataka but the whole country if a seasoned collaborator of the British rulers and Jinnah led Muslim League is glorified in any way. Let’s hear from the horse’s mouth what Savarkar did as a collaborator of the enemies of India. 

Savarkar’s Hatred for the Tricolour

Savarkar, like the RSS, abhorred every symbol of the Indian people’s united struggle against the British rule. He refused to accept the Tricolour (at that time there used to be a charkha or spinning wheel in the middle of it) as national flag or flag of the freedom struggle. In a statement issued on September 22, 1941 for the benefit of Hindu Mahasabha cadres, he declared,

“So far as the flag question is concerned, the Hindus know no flag representing Hindudom as a whole 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. It is actually sanctioned and owned by millions on millions of Hindus today from Hardwar to Rameshwaram and flies aloft on every Hindusabha branch office at thousands of centres. Therefore, any place or function where this Pan-Hindu flag is not honoured should be boycotted by the Hindu sanghatan-ists at any rate…The Charkha-Flag [before the present national flag it used to be the one] 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.”[ii]

[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.]

What HMS& RSS cadres did to freedom fighters who dared to carry Tricolour would be clear from the following words of a well-known socialist leader N. G. Goray who was witness to an incident in 1938 when the Hindutva cadres tore up the Tricolour and attacked those who were carrying it:

“Who attacked the May Day procession? Who assaulted men like Senapati Bapat and [Gajanan] Kanitkar? Who tore up the national flag? The Hindu Mahasabhaites and the Hedgewar boys did it all…They have been taught to hate the Muslims in general as Public Enemy Number 1, to hate the Congress and its flag…”[iii]

[Nauriya, Anil, ‘The Savarkarist syntax’, The Hindu, September 18, 2004, Delhi.]

It is to be remembered here that the British rulers were also persecuting those freedom fighters who publically carried the Tricolour in the same manner.

Backstabbing Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose

When Netaji after escaping from India (January 16, 1941) was trying to secure foreign support for the liberation of the country and trying to organise a military attack on the northeast of the country, which finally culminated in the formation of Indian National Army, it was Savarkar who offered full military cooperation to the British masters. While addressing 23rd session of Hindu Mahasabha at Bhagalpur in 1941, he said:

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

[Savarkar, V. D., Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan, vol. 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindusabha, Poona, 1963, pp. 460-61.]

To what extent Savarkar was willing to help the British would be clear by the following words of his:

“So far as India’s defence is concerned, Hindudom must ally unhesitatingly, in a spirit of responsive co-operation with the war effort of the Indian government [British] in so far as it is consistent with the Hindu interests, by joining the Army, Navy and the Aerial forces in as large a number as possible and by securing an entry into all ordnance, ammunition and war craft factories…Again it must be noted that Japan’s entry into the war has exposed us directly and immediately to the attack by Britain’s enemies. Consequently, whether we like it or not, we shall have to defend our own hearth and home against the ravages of the war and this can only be done by intensifying the government’s war effort to defend India. Hindu Mahasabhaits must, therefore, rouse Hindus especially in the provinces of Bengal and Assam as effectively as possible to enter the military forces of all arms without losing a single minute.”[v] [Ibid., p. 460.]

Savarkar spent the next few years in organizing recruitment camps for the British armed forces which were to slaughter the cadres of INA in different parts of North-East later. The Madura conference of Hindu Mahasabha concluded with the adoption of an ‘immediate programme’ which stressed “to secure entry for as many Hindus recruits as possible into army, navy and the air forces”.[vi][Ibid., p. 439.] He also informed them that through the efforts of Hindu Mahasabha alone, one lakh Hindu’s were recruited in the British armed forces in one year. It is to be noted that during this period RSS continued inviting Savarkar to address the RSS youth gatheringsfor motivating the latter to recruit into the British armed forces.

Savarkar declared that India is not one nation

The documents available in the Hindu Mahasabha archives are shocking and make it very clear that Savarkar, like the Muslim League, believed that India is not one nation but consisted of two nations as claimed by Jinnah and the Muslim League. While delivering presidential address to 19th Hindu Mahasabha session at Ahmedabad in 1937, Savarkar declared:

 “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.”[vii]

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

Savarkar joined hands with the British & Muslim League to suppress the Quit India movement

He not only kept aloof from the freedom struggle but also helped the British rulers in suppressing any challenge to their interests. During 1942’s Quit India Movement when whole country was facing brutal repression of the colonial masters Savarkar declared:

“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 Sanghatanists who are working as Councillors, Ministers, Legislators and conducting any municipal or any public bodies with a view to utilize those centers 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.”[viii] [Italics as in the original]

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

Hindu Mahasabha led by Savarkar ran coalition govts with Jinnah-led Muslim League

The Hindu Mahasabha under his sole leadership ran coalition governments with the Muslim League in 1940s. Publicly defending this collusion with the Muslim League, Savarkar in his presidential speech to the 24th session of Hindu Mahasabha at Kanpur in 1942 declared:

“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 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.”[ix]

[Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya:Hindu Rashtra Darshan (Collected works of Savarkar in English), Hindu Mahasabha, Pune, 1963, pp. 479-80.]

Savarkar wanted the king of Nepal to rule India when British left

Savarkar even preached that it was legitimate to have the King of Nepal as ‘Free Hindusthan’s Future Emperor’ if the British leave India. His advice to the British rulers was very clear:

“If an academical [sic] probability is at all to be indulged in of all factors that count today, His Majesty the King of Nepal, the scion of the Shisodias[sic], alone has the best chance of winning the Imperial crown of India. Strange as it may seem, the English know it better than we Hindus do…It is not impossible that Nepal may even be called upon to control the destiny of India itself. Even Britain will feel it more graceful that the Sceptre [sic] of Indian Empire, if it ever slips out of her grip, should be handed over to an equal and independent ally of Britain like His Majestythe King of Nepal than to one who is but a vassal and a vanquished potentate of Britain like the Nizam.”[x] [Italics as in the original]

[Bhide, AS, (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, pp. 256-57.]

Savarkar may be a ‘Veer’ or brave for the Hindutva camp but fact is that he wrote more than six mercy petitions and got remission of almost 40 years out of 50 years’ conviction. If RSS-BJP is so sure of Savarkar’s patriotic credentials, let them make these writings of Savarkar public so that people of Karnataka and rest of the country can reach an objective conclusion.

The post K’taka Govt decides to honour Savarkar, a collaborator with both the British & Muslim League appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Savarkar’s Sanction to Use Rape as Political Weapon appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Even as the ‘Brotherhood in Saffron’ pretends to appropriate the Mahatma’s legacy, assassin Nathuram Godse’s admirers in Maharashtra – the birthplace of the hate-Gandhi ideology, and Gujarat – the birthplace of the Mahatma – continue their campaign to vilify him and glorify the villain

(The article reproduced below was first published as a pamphlet in Gujarati, in response to two controversial plays, ‘Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoye’ and ‘Gandhi virudh Gandhi’. The pamphlet has since been translated into seven Indian languages. The English version has only recently been put out on the website, mkgandhi–sarvodaya.org). 

The killer of Gandhiji and his apologists sought to justify the assassination on the following arguments:   

• Gandhiji supported the idea of a separate state for Muslims. In a sense he was responsible for the creation of Pakistan.   
• In spite of the Pakistani aggression in Kashmir, Gandhiji fasted to compel the government of India to release an amount of Rs. 55 crore due to Pakistan.   
• The belligerence of Muslims was a result of Gandhiji’s policy of appeasement.

​Scrutinised in the light of recorded history these prove to be clever distortions to misguide the gullible. Gandhiji in those days was very active in the rough and tumble of politics. The proposal for partition of the country and violent reaction against it generated tensions which ultimately resulted in sectarian killings on a scale unprecedented in human history. 

For the ethnic Muslims, Gandhiji was a Hindu leader who opposed creation of Pakistan on sectarian grounds. Ethnic Hindus looked upon him as an impediment to their plan to avenge the atrocities on Hindus. Godse was a child of this extremist thinking. 
The assassination of Gandhiji was a culmination of decades of systematic brainwashing. Gandhiji had become a thorn in the flesh of the hardcore Hindus and in course of time this resentment turned into a phobia. Beginning with the year 1934 and over a period of 14 years, on as many as six occasions, attempts were made to kill Gandhiji. The last one by Godse on January 30, 1948 was successful. The remaining five were made in 1934, in the months of July and September 1944, September 1946 and 20th January 1948. Godse was involved in two previous attempts.  
When the unsuccessful attempts of 1934, 1944 and 1946 were made, the proposal regarding partition and the matter regarding release of Rs. 55 crore to Pakistan were not in existence at all. The conspiracy to do away with Gandhiji was conceived much earlier than the successful accomplishment thereof. The grounds advanced for this heinous crime are clever rationalisation to hoodwink the gullible. The staging of the play entitled, ‘Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoye’ is clear proof of the fact that the mindset that led to Gandhiji’s assassination has not disappeared from our national life. 

A civil society is wedded to the democratic method of resolving differences through frank and open debate and evolving a working consensus. Gandhiji was always open to persuasion. Gandhiji had invited Godse for discussions but the latter did not avail of this opportunity given to him. This is indicative of the lack of faith in the democratic way of resolving differences on the part of Godse and his ilk. Such fascist mindset seek to do away with dissent by liquidating the opponents. 

The Hindu backlash was as much responsible for the creation of Pakistan as the sentiments of ethnic Muslims. The hard core Hindus looked down upon the Muslims as misguided malechcha (unclean) and came to believe that coexistence with them was not possible. Mutual distrust and recriminations led the extremists among both the groups to regard Hindus and Muslims as different nationalities and this strengthened the Muslim League’s demand for partition as the only possible solution to the communal problem. Vested interests on both the sides stirred up the separatist sentiment and sought to justify their hate–campaign by clever and selective distortion of history. It is indeed a matter for serious concern for the nation that this mentality has not disappeared even today. 

Poet Mohammed Iqbal who wrote the famous song ‘Sare jahan se achcha Hindostan hamara’ was the first to formulate the concept of a separate state for Muslims as early as 1930. Needless to state, this sentiment was, in a sense, strengthened by Hindu extremists. In 1937, at the open session of the Hindu Mahasabha held at Ahmedabad, Veer Savarkar, in his presidential address asserted: “India cannot be assumed today to be unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main – the Hindus and the Muslims.” (Vide Writings of Swatantarya Veer Savarkar, Vol. 6 page 296, Maharashtra Prantiya Hindu Mahasabha, Pune). 

In 1945, he had stated: “I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah’s two–nation theory. We, the Hindus are a nation by ourselves, and it is a historical fact that the Hindus and the Muslims are two nations”. (Vide Indian Educational Register, 1943, vol. 2, page 10). It was this sentiment of separate and irreconcilable identities of the followers of these religions that led to the formation of Pakistan. 

In complete contrast to this mentality, throughout his life Gandhiji remained an uncompromising advocate of the oneness of God, respect for all religions, equality of all men and non–violence in thought, speech and action. His daily prayers comprised verses, devotional songs and readings from different scriptures. All people, irrespective of their allegiance to different religions, attended those meetings. Till his dying day, Gandhiji held the view that the nationality of fellow citizens was not in any way affected by the fact of their subscribing to religious belief other than yours. During his life, on more than one occasion he strove for unity and equality among Hindus themselves, as well as amity among Hindus and Muslims, even risking his life. The idea of partition was an anathema to him. He was given to saying that he would sooner die than subscribe to such a pernicious doctrine. His life was an open book and no substantiation is necessary on this score. 

Under Gandhiji’s leadership communal amity occupied the pride of place in the constructive programmes of the Congress. Muslim leaders and intellectuals of national stature, like Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Maulana Azad, Dr. Ansari Hakim Ajmal Khan, Badruddin Tayabji, even Jinnah himself, were in the Congress fold. It is natural that the Congress opposed the proposal for the division of the country. But as a result of the incitement on the part of the lumpen elements among the Hindus and Muslims a tidal wave of carnage and lawlessness engulfed the nation. 
Faced with the breakdown of law and order in Sindh, Punjab, Balochistan, North–West Frontier Province and Bengal, Congress lost nerve. Jinnah adopted an inflexible attitude. Lord Mountbatten being motivated by the time–limit given to him by the British Cabinet used all his powers of persuasion and charm to steer all the leaders to a solution quick and yet acceptable to all; but the adamantine attitude of Jinnah made everything except partition unacceptable.   

Beginning with the year 1934 and over a period of 14 years, on as many as six occasions, attempts were made to kill Gandhiji. 

Faced with such a scenario Congress found it difficult to keep up its morale. Gandhiji conveyed to Lord Mountbatten on April 5, 1947 that he would agree even if the Britishers made Jinnah the Prime Minister and left the country as it was. Instead, Lord Mountbatten succeeded in getting the Congress to agree to partition. 

​Gandhiji was in the dark about it; he was shell–shocked when he learned about it. The only remedy available to him was fasting unto death to dissuade his followers from acquiescence to a ruinous course of action. After sustained soul searching he came to the conclusion that in the prevalent situation such a step on his part would further deteriorate the situation, demoralise the Congress and the whole country. 

The factors that weighed with him were the importunate demands of a rapidly changing national scenario and the non–existence of an alternate set of leaders of proven nationalist credentials.  

The most perplexing and yet pertinent question is that Jinnah was the most vocal protagonist of Pakistan and with the intentional or otherwise efforts of Mountbatten he succeeded in carving it out. Then, instead of making the two his targets, why did Godse select one for murder who vehemently opposed the idea of partition till the resolution by the Congress accepting the partition of the country was passed on June 3, 1947 and Pakistan became a fate accompli? Is it that, as Savarkar put it, he had no quarrel with Jinnah and his two–nation theory but he and his apologists had real quarrel with Gandhi and Gandhi alone? 

It is necessary to point out an aspect of Gandhiji’s personality that made him the source of unabated distrust and dislike in the eyes of hardcore Hindus. 

Though he was a devout Hindu, Gandhiji had most amicable and warm relations with many who did not belong to the Hindu fold. As a result of this exposure he had developed an eclectic religious sense based on oneness of God and equality of all religions.Caste divisions and untouchability prevalent among the Hindus distressed him immensely. He advocated and actively encouraged inter–caste marriages. Lastly, he blessed only those marriages wherein one of the partners belonged to the untouchable castes. 

Vested interests amongst high caste Hindus viewed this reformist and other religious programmes with bitter resentment. In course of time it developed into a phobia and thus he became an anathema to them. 

The matter regarding release of Rs. 55 crore to Pakistan towards the second instalment of arrears to be paid to it, under the terms of division of assets and liabilities, requires to be understood in the context of the events that took place in the aftermath of partition. Of the Rs. 75 crore to be paid, the first instalment of Rs. 20 crore was already released. The invasion of Kashmir by self–styled liberators with the covert support of the Pakistani army took place before the second instalment was paid.

While the government of India decided to withhold it, Lord Mountbatten was of the opinion that it amounted to a violation of the mutually agreed conditions and he brought it to the notice of Gandhiji. To Gandhiji’s ethical sense the policy of tit for tat was repugnant and he readily agreed with the Viceroy’s point of view. However, linking his stand in this matter with the fast he undertook, as we will see in the following lines, is an intentional mix-up and distortion of facts of contemporary history. 

The fast was undertaken with a view to restoring communal amity in Delhi. Gandhiji arrived from Calcutta in September 1947 to go to Punjab to restore peace there. On being briefed by Sardar Patel about the explosive situation in Delhi itself he changed his plans and decided to continue his stay in Delhi to restore peace with the firm determination to “Do or Die.” 

The influx of Hindus from Pakistan who were uprooted and who had suffered killings of relatives, abduction and rape of women and looting of their belongings had created an explosive situation. Local Hindus who were outraged by the treatment meted out to their Hindu brethren and the anger of local Muslims against reports of similar outrages on their co–religionists in India made Delhi a veritable witches’ cauldron. 

This resulted in killings, molestation, torching of houses and properties. This caused deep anguish to Gandhiji. What added poignancy to this was the realisation that it happened in India itself just after an unique incident in the history of mankind: doing away of the shackles of a colonial regime by non–violent means. 

It was with this background in his mind that he undertook a fast unto death to restore communal amity and sanity in Delhi. And, as if to allow the critics of Mahatma Gandhi a chance to mix–up and manoeuvre, the decision of the government of India to release Rs. 55 crore to Pakistan came during this period of his fast. 

The following facts dissolve the much–touted thesis that Gandhiji had fasted to bring moral pressure on government of India to relent:    

• Dr. Sushila Nair, as soon as she heard Gandhiji proclaim his decision, rushed to her brother Pyarelal and informed him in a huff that Gandhiji had decided to fast till the madness in Delhi ceased. Even in those moments of inadvertence, the mention of 55 crore of rupees was not made which clearly proves that it was not intended by Gandhiji.  
• Gandhiji’s own announcement about his resolve in the evening prayer meeting on 12th January did not contain any reference to it. Had it been a condition, he would have certainly mentioned it as that.   
• Similarly, there was no reference to it in his discourse on 13th January.   
• Gandhiji’s reply on 15th January to a specific question regarding the purpose of his fast did not mention it.  
• The press release of the government of India did not have any mention thereof.   
• The list of assurances given by the committee headed by Dr. Rajendra Prasad to persuade Gandhiji to give up his fast did not include it.  

We hope these facts would put the Rs. 55 crore concoction at rest. 

With regard to the last allegation regarding appeasement of Muslims, it should be conceded that a certain amount of antagonism between Hindus and Muslims existed in the nation. The colonial power cleverly exploited it during its reign and inevitably the division of the country came into being. Long before Gandhiji appeared on the national stage sagacious leaders like BG Tilak had started attempts to secure the participation of Muslims in the nationalist struggle.

Under what came to be known as the Lucknow Pact, Lokmanya Tilak, Annie Besant and Mohammed Ali Jinnah evolved a formula under which the Muslims would get representation greater than what would be justified on the basis of the percentage of Muslim population. The frank and bold statement of Tilak defending the Pact is an eloquent refutation of the charge that Gandhiji began the policy of appeasement of Muslims.

The author of the play, Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoye, Pradeep Dalvi, described the order of the Maharashtra government banning the staging of the play as an attack on freedom of expression. This is a travesty of truth and a perversion of the fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. 

The constitution also provides for ban on the abuse of this freedom; vide its section 19(2). The implications of what Dalvi and his ilk profess requires to be carefully analysed. Under the guise of defending the freedom of expression, what they are seeking to do is to advocate the right to murder those who do not agree with them. They seek to spread hatred and violence. They want to propagate the pernicious doctrine that under certain circumstances the murder of the opponent becomes an act of religious sacrifice. 

It is revolting to find that the heinous murder of one who was a living embodiment of non–violence, peace and love and who was as defenceless as a naked, new born child should be made a scaffolding for a neo–fascist doctrine. 

​Godse is no more but the mindset that gave birth to such distorted philosophy is unfortunately still with us. One can dismiss what he did as an act of a lunatic bigot. Assassination by itself is not as wicked as the attempts to rationalise, justify, masquerade it as a religious act. Permitting such plays to be staged amounts to permitting mis–education of our children. Only sane response to such insidious propaganda is unequivocal rejection thereof.           
 

The post Gandhi or Godse? appeared first on SabrangIndia.