Re-examining Savarkar…
For most Indians of my generation, Savarkar is a somewhat shadowy figure – rarely mentioned in any detail in history books; even less so at public events or occasions that commemorate India’s independence. For a small few though, he is the archetypical hero – the one who fought fearlessly against the British, the “Veer” (brave).
As some of you would know, by the time India became a republic in 1950, Savarkar was already on the path to oblivion. A few years later, he died – unsung and hardly mourned.  In the 45  years since, he has become a deeply polarising figure in the pantheon of leaders who fought  for India’s Independence.
I had long wanted to read more about him…but something or the other always prevented a detailed research. Â In the meantime, I stumbled on this piece by Sh Arvind Lavakare – and felt this was as good a place to start. On this occasion of his 128th birth anniversary, I hope to begin a re-examination of this great historical figure. Today, excerpts from “A Saint vs. A Patriot” by Sh Lavakare (emphasis added):
…That same cocktail of political ideology had previously caused President K R Narayanan to sit so long on the Vajpayee government’s recommendation of a Bharat Ratna for Savarkar that it was finally forced to wither away. It’s the same ideology that recently boycotted the ceremony to install Veer Savarkar’s portrait in Parliament and even appealed to the nation’s President to refrain from unveiling the portrait.
It was perverse enough that this bunch of democratically elected leaders should have shown total irreverence to the norms of parliamentary democracy by daring to obstruct a decision of a Parliamentary committee that included representatives of that cocktail. Â What is worse is that in opposing Savarkar’s posthumous entry into Parliament, this bunch of politicking creatures overlooked the totality of the revolutionary and inspiring incandescence of freedom that was lit by him in the early 20th century when the country’s British masters were crushing our aspirations and milking our resources.
The life of Savarkar (1883-1966) was so uniquely variegated that it is almost unbelievable that one individual could possess such an intellect, such talent, such intensity as to be a firebrand freedom fighter from childhood, a potential barrister, a writer of history, of poetry and Sanskrit prayers, a social reformer, and a distinctive political ideologue with a prophetic vision on the fate of Kashmir, the formation of Pakistan along with its subsequent hostility, the mass Muslim infiltration from East Bengal into Assam and China’s hoodwinking Nehru on his Panchsheel.
He suffered six months of solitary confinement, seven days standing handcuffed, ten days of cross bar fetters and other tortures in the cellular jail on the infamous Andaman islands of old where he was sent in 1911 to serve a total of 50-year life imprisonment for his alleged involvement in two cases: the murder of the English district magistrate of Nashik and efforts in Bombay to ‘overthrow the legally formed government of the country.‘ He was in the Andaman prison till 1921, from where he was shifted first to Alipore jail and then, in January 1924, released from prison but confined in his movements to Ratnagiri district (in present Maharashtra) with stringent conditions. It was in May 1937, when Jamnadas Mehta of the Tilak Democratic Swaraj Party agreed to support the new Cooper ministry in Bombay on the express condition of Savarkar’s unconditional release, that Savarkar was finally rid of colonial shackles. And he soon plunged into politics, becoming the president of the Hindu Mahasabha, even as those engaged in the freedom movement sought his views and advice. Included in that lot was Subhas Chandra Bose whom he inspired to make India free through military action.
…
But the Congress and Communists of 2003 are not moved by all that Savarkar did or suffered in trying to win freedom for his beloved country, by how Savarkar kindled the minds and hearts of millions, including Bose and Bhagat Singh. They choose, instead, to complain that Savarkar submitted amnesty petitions to his colonial masters for his early release from the Andaman prison and made promises to them of constitutional conduct instead of willing to suffer pain and all, death included, as the price to be paid for upholding his cause. This bunch of politicking creatures also believe Savarkar was a part of the conspiracy which led to Nathuram Godse assassinating Mahatma Gandhi but was let off by the court on a mere technicality. And, finally, this bunch brands Savarkar as a Hindu fanatic, who must have no niche whatsoever in this oh-so secular country of ours. Therefore, they proclaim, Savarkar has no place on the walls of our august Parliament in New Delhi.
Image courtesy: www.Savarkar.org
What is concealed in the criticism of Savarkar’s pleas for release is the remark that McPherson, Britain’s home secretary, put on one such petition. As cited by Shyam Khosla in Rajasthan Patrika of February 26, 2003, that note said, ‘It will be dangerous for the British Empire to release Savarkar. His pleas are a ruse to get out the jail. Once out he will organise an underground movement against the British. I therefore reject the petition on the ground that it will be a danger to public safety.‘ Need more be said? And if prison life had, as alleged, transformed him into a pro-British imperialist, why did Bose, Nehru and M N Roy welcome him to full freedom in 1937? Why did S M Joshi and Achyut Patwardhan want him to join their political party? Why did his Hindu Mahasabha vehemently oppose the Cripps Mission proposals of 1942 and the Cabinet Mission’s plan of 1946?
Regarding Savarkar’s connection with Godse, the Special Court appointed for the trial did not accept the evidence of Digamber Badge who had turned approver and stated that Savarkar had blessed the assassins in their mission. In Godse’s reply to the charge sheet against him — reproduced fully in May it Please You Honour (Surya Bharti Prakashan, New Delhi, 1987) — he had categorically denied the prosecution’s stand that he was guided in his action by Savarkar and that, but for Savarkar’s complicity, he could not have acted the way he did. What’s more, Godse’s reply stated ‘I take the strongest exception to this untrue and unjust charge and I further regard it as an insult to my intelligence and judgement.’ (Ibid page 45). Indeed, Godse’s reply indicated his disenchantment with Savarkar’s belief that free India having got its own government, all parties should conduct their propaganda on constitutional lines rather through anarchical tactics and undemocratic conduct. (Ibid page 56).
In any case, the question remains: Why didn’t the prosecution under Nehru’s Congress government appeal against Savarkar’s acquittal? The answer is in the silence. Â There’s finally that visceral accusation of Savarkar’s Hindutva and his alleged two-nation demand.
The riposte to that is the excerpt below from Savarkar’s presiding address to the Hindu Mahasabha’s Ahmedabad session of 1937 cited at page 117 of “The Tragic Story of Partition” (Jagaran Prakashana, Bangalore, 1984) by (RSS leader) H V Seshadri.
‘Let the Indian State be purely Indian. Let it not recognise any invidious distinction whatsoever as regards the franchise, public services, offices, taxation on the grounds of religion and race. Let no cognisance be taken whatsoever of a man being Hindu or Mohammedan, Christian or Jew. Let all citizens of that Indian state be treated according to their worth irrespective of their religion or racial percentage in the general population.’
Even 66 years after Savarkar spoke the above words, have you got a better enunciation of what secularism should mean for the Indian nation? Silence is the answer. Â In that silence lies the Indian tragedy of prejudiced and pernicious eyes that see a jewel in a pseudo-saint and a thorn in a true patriot.
To round off this tribute, a couple of quotes on Veer Savarkar courtesy, “Rediscovering Gandhi by RP Misra. The first by C Rajagopalachari,
Savarkar was a symbol of courage, bravery and patriotism, an ‘abhitirth’ in the long battle for freedom.
And this one by  the late PM Indira Gandhi:
Savarkar was a great figure of contemporary India and his name is by-word for daring and patriotism. He was cast in a mould of a classic revolutionary and countless people drew inspiration  from him.
Additional references: An essay on Veer Savarkar by Sanjeev Nayyar based on Dhananjay Keer’s biography (can be downloaded from here) and Information on Savarkar gathered by British Secret Police between 1906-09 .
Related Post: “Eclipse of the Hindu Nation” – Excerpts from Chapter 1
Adding for reference: Understanding Savarkar: A look at Vikram Sampath’s book, from which this excerpt:
…(the petition) is almost never quoted in a historical and situation context“…but framed to “suit a contemporary political narrative which is plainly historically disingenuous”
Dear Shantanu
Glad to read this post. My knowledge about Savarkar is limited. I had done some research some time ago and found that during the 1937 annual session of the Hindu Mahasabha in Calcutta, V.D. Savarkar had stated: ‘Let us bravely face unpleasant facts as they are. India cannot be assumed today to be a unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main; the Hindus and the Moslems, in India’. I thought I had found the entire speech somewhere on the internet but don’t have a ready reference.
It is important to note that this divisive comment was made well before the 23 March 1940 Muslim League ‘Pakistan’ resolution in Lahore. That’s why he gets prominence in the academic critiques of India’s partition, as being a Hindu voice for partition – well before the Muslims had crystallised it.
I agree that it would be entirely far-fetched to suggest that Savarkar was the ’cause’ of India’s partition. There were too many factors at work, and his actions could at most have been a minor factor. Indeed he was an atheist, and not a traditional “Hindu”.
It would, however, be useful for his work to be consolidated and analysed critically.
We don’t gain too much by going back in history (there is too much work to do today), but if someone has been maligned needlessly, then we should endeavour to rehabilitate him. The fact that Rajaji held him in high esteem tells me India might have short-changed him.
Regards
Sanjeev
From an email by Savarkar.org team:
Swatantryaveer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (28 May 1883 to 26 Feb 1966) was a fearless freedom fighter, social reformer, writer, dramatist, historian, political leader and philosopher. Unfortunately, Savarkar has been a victim of malice and misinformation. Those who disagree with Savarkar’s political views start with the assumption that he was an obscurantist and a reactionary bigot. As a considerable part of his literature is in Marathi, his thoughts and achievements in several spheres are largely unknown outside Maharashtra. Savarkar is largely known as a revolutionary freedom fighter and exponent of Hindutva. It is not widely known that he was also an outstanding social reformer. His contribution in the field of social reform is relevant even today. Savarkar’s birth anniversary which falls on 28 May provides an excellent opportunity to dispassionately evaluate his contribution as a social reformer. Savarkar carried out a vigorous campaign for social reform through his thoughts, words and actions. Here is a summary of his work as a social reformer.
In 1925, Savarkar organized a survey of the Maharwada in Ratnagiri and singing of bhajans there.
In 1926, Savarkar launched an agitation for free intermingling of students of all castes and ex-untouchables in schools
Savarkar persuaded people from so-called lower castes and ex-untouchables to send their children to schools by distributing free slates, pencils, clothes and money
From 1927 onwards, accompanied by people of different castes, Savarkar would visit the houses of people belonging to different castes on Dassara and Makar Sankranti and distribute apta leaves and til-gul
Savarkar organized mass haldi-kumkum programmes of women belonging to all castes. In this work, he was ably assisted by his wife Yamunabai or Mai.
Savarkar would give free passes to ex-untouchables for the public performances of his play .Sangit Usshaap. and give them prominent places in the audience.
Savarkar and his associates would organize free rides of the ex-untouchable Mahars in tongas around Ratnagiri port. This was to break the taboo of ex-untouchables to travel by public transport.
Savarkar raised a musical band of ex-untouchables by taking a bank loan.
In spite of his own meager financial resources, Savarkar raised a girl belonging to the ex-untouchable Maang community in his own house.
Savarkar personally taught Shivu Chavan, a young boy from the ex-untouchable Bhangi (Balmiki) community to read and write and taught him the Gayatri mantra.
Savarkar brought about the shuddhi (purification/ reconversion) of Hindus who had been lured into alien faiths. He organized the shuddhi of the Dhakras family which had embraced Christianity and even performed kanyadan of their daughter during her marriage.
Savarkar lent public support to Dr. Ambedkar in his Mahad and Kalaram Mandir agitations.
To demonstrate that no profession is lowly, Savarkar and his associates would personally spin cotton.
In 1929, Savarkar started the first pan-Hindu Ganeshotsav. Programmes included public lectures by women and kirtans by persons from the Bhangi (Balmiki) community.
In 1931, Savarkar started the Patitpavan Mandir, the first pan-Hindu temple in the whole country. The trustees included people of all castes and ex-untouchables. Savarkar distributed sacred threads to individuals from the ex-untouchable Mahar and Bhangi (Balmiki) communities. Any Hindu could become the pujari of the Patitpavan temple.
In 1933, Savarkar started the first pan-Hindu cafe which was open to Hindus of all castes and ex-untouchables.
You can find more details at the link below
http://www.savarkar.org/en/veer-savarkar-social-reformer-part-i
http://www.savarkar.org/en/veer-savarkar-social-reformer-part-ii
Link to an award winning documentary on Savarkar directed by Prem Vaidya for the Films Division of the Government of India. It was released in 1983, the birth centenary year of Savarkar http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6998295758226432612#
Veer Savarkar was everything we wanted a leader should be. Look at the clowns dominating the current parliament and indian politics, not one can stand up to him. It was a pity that Lokmanya Tilak died in 1920. Only if it was Savarkar (Or Bose) who had taken over instead of Gandhi not only Hindusthan would have achieved independence sooner, there would not have been no partition and no division of country on language lines.
My blood boils at the disrespect shown to Savarkar by Indian politicians.
Time to make amends. Please.
Someone on a visit to Ratnagiri in 1927 said this:
“As Ratnagiri is the birth place of Lokmanya Tilak, it is a place of pilgrimage to all Indians. I wanted to visit this place because, in addition, it is also a place where Savarkar lives. I had previously met him in London. I admire his patriotism and sacrifices. As he is in internment, it was my duty to come to Ratnagiri to meet him”
This person was none other than Mahatma Gandhi.
India was so unlucky… being it Aurobindo taking Sanyas from politics or Savarkar could not overcome Gandhi, Bhagath Singh being hanged. It would take a long time to undo the consequences from above incidents.
I wonder how beautiful India would have been had Savarkar’s ideology worked?
The Congress spokesperson will say after reading the above that the focus of social work by Savarkar cited above was only Hindus, where are Muslims in it? Did they not deserve any social work/reform?
@Sanjeev Sabhlok
In 1930, the demand for a Muslim state was laid out by Mohammed Iqbal in his presidential address to the All India Muslim League annual session
In 1933, Choudhary Rahmat Ali, founder of Pakistan National Movement, put forth the clear demand for Pakistan. By the end of 1933, the word “Pakistan” became common vocabulary.
We must be grateful to Veer Savarkar for pointing out the unpleasant facts and alerting Hindus to the separatist trend amongst Muslims in the Indian subcontinent in his alleged 1937 speech. He was a far-sighted visionary who could foresee the approaching tempest.
Note: Veer Savarkar did not say that Indian Jews or Zoroastrians or Christians formed a separate nation. He warned India about the nefarious divisive plot being hatched by the Muslims only. That goes to show that he was a pragmatist, not a “splittist”.
Too bad, the Hindus of our grandparents’ generation were as clueless as the Hindus of today. Do not say you were not forewarned…or History will repeat itself if you don’t learn from it.
http://www.bengalgenocide.com/mughalistan.php
i would answer to Congress fellows, ‘Division of work, buddy’. There were hell lot of idiots doing service to each and every person including leeches. So Savarkar concentrated on less-concentrated and important work. May be the nehru-era socialist congress minds do not understand freedom of choice and division of work based on that freedom of choice.
Thanks Shantanu for bringing Savarkar and his thought under the public gaze and scrutiny. I think Savarkar’s more useful contribution lies in the field of niti which deals with (a) what should be done and what should not be done (karma/akarma) and (b) what is righteous and what is not righteous (dharma/adharma). Lokmanya Tilak wrote in his Gitaraasya that the Gita explains niti as the science (nitisastra) of what is doable and non-doable at the individual and collective level (karya/akaryasthiti 16:24) and develops on that basis the socio-religious ethics (kartavyasastra) and the socio-political ethics (samajavyavasthasastra). Following this lead, Savarkar put humanism, rationalism, utility and pragmatism as the guiding principles of his niti. “When Hindus become free, they should strive for the protection of equality, kindness and the righteousness” wrote Savarkar, in a poem entitled “Listen to the future [aika bhavishyala], which happened to be his piece of work. See my blog “Veer Savarkar: the making and unmaking of a hero” on http://www.sulekha.com for more on the topic.
S.Tilak
The name of Savarkar evokes strong emotions and that is why, almost everything that is written about him/against him is so coloured with emotion that it is impossible to separate rational from the irrational, so I will just try to present some random related facts/thoughts below.
Firstly, a lesser known fact about Savarkar’s activities in London is that Lenin attended some of his group meetings. Savarkar must have been very impressive.
Two – Take the case of Narayanan blocking nomination or whatever. The first thing that came to my mind was why, in the period 2002-2004, when Kalam was the president, the block was not undone or removed. What stopped the rulers at that time from getting the job done? To me, the writing about the block seems a case of lady protests too much.
Thirdly, Savarkar did shower starry-eyed praise on Muslim kings, warriors, and most importantly, religious leaders who catalysed 1857 uprising in his book. I have checked that myself after reading a mention about it in a very well researched book by Shesharao More.
That does not detract from his heroic efforts though, and especially, his clear ideas on transforming Hindu religion and abolishing caste based divisions and the savarkar.org team has given an excellent account of his work in the comment above. He was a great philosopher and he practised what he preached.
All the same, let us not criticise today’s politicians for not taking a stand on him or for him.
great work Bengal Voice. actually, i was supposed to tell the same to Shri Sanjeev Sabhlok. anyway, Swatantryaveer Savarkar was undoubtedly all rounder like, poet, author, philosopher, revolutionary and so on and so forth. he was far-sighted and is huge inspiration to the coming generations. great work Shantanu once again. internet is revolution and such messages are spreading rapidly. happy to write this from Nashik.
Sanjeev Sabhlok,
The foundation of two nation theory was laid by Sir Syed Ahmed in his ‘One Country, Two Nations’ Speech given in Meerut in March 1888. Savarkar was then a five year old kid.
You can find the whole speech of Syed Ahmed in “Great Speeches of Modern India”, edited by Rudranshu Mukherjee.
Bengal was partition in 1905 after demanded by Muslim League. Savarkar stood against that partition. Savarkar opposed the partition of India as demanded by Muslim League in 1940s as well.
Hindu Mahasabha, RSS were founded in 1915 and 1925 respectively, much later Muslim League were born, as Congress started surrendering to League instead of opposing as they should have done if they were to stand up to Secularism which they preached.
When Nehru preached secularism in Parliament, SP Mookerjee thundered where was Nehru’s secularism when he surrendered before Jinnah’s demand and partitioned the country based on religion?
Today’s psuedo secularists are no better because they dont have the guts to confront origin of two nation theory is Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.
Go and read history book taught in Pakistan- they show the origin of two nation theory was Sir Syed Ahmed.
Many thanks to Shantanu for this enlightening piece (which he does all the time). Thanks for the research.
That Savarkar was anti British can be proved by his writings before, during and after his long time jail in the Andamans. The political activism once he was fully freed in 1937 can also be analyzed to be anti British. I blame we Hindus who have lack of sense of History to not come up with a book demolishing lies by AG Noorani.
We should pull all of our resources, fund a multi person, multi year project on Savarkar which will throw AGNoorani’s work to the dustbin.
Savarkar is the finest example of nationalism and its ludicrous to even question his patriotism.
Few quick facts:
1) Bhagat Singh published Savarkar’s book ‘The Indian War of Independence 1857’ in 1928. If Savarkar were treated as someone who surrendered to British to get released from the Anandamans, why would Bhagat Singh publish his book?
2) Subhas Bose met Savarkar before went underground. Why would Bose do that if Savarkar were thought to be pro British.
3) Rasbehari Bose, Subhas Bose published Savarkar’s book ‘The Indian War of Independence 1857’ in 1944 when they were in INA. Why would these supreme Nationalist do that if Savarkar were a sold out to the British?
4) In mid 1980s Jyoti Basu wrote foreward of a history book published by West Bengal State Govt that paid huge tribute to Savarkar as a revolutionary. Today CPM condemn Savarkar.
After Advani popularized ‘Hindutva, Savarkar is being targeted by psuedo secularists today as part of political vendetta, to keep their minority votebank happy. However, I doubt how many those who criticize Savarkar actually read his books, specially ‘Hindutva’.
How people saw Savarkar? Read from this ‘Letter to the Editor’. Here is one freedom fighter who waged struggle against British during 1942 Quit India movement also influenced by Savarkar.
http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/28/stories/2004092801951007.htm
Sir, — During the Quit India movement of 1942, I was a young man of 22 and belonged to a group that carried out many sabotage activities against the British soldiers in Pune. In 1942, Savarkar appealed to the youth of Maharashtra to join the armed forces to learn the art of fighting modern war. I, along with a group of six similarly inspired men, joined the Officer Training Centre in Pune in 1943. I was selected for the Air Force but I refused to join because I was keen on joining the army. But many others of my group stayed back and served the nation later in the 1947 Kashmir war.
I am far too old to actively fight the likes of Mani Shankar Aiyar, but only pray and hope that better sense will prevail on him.
Anant Gangadhar Athale,
Pune
savarkar was released by british after he gave an undertaking ( muchleka ) . still he is great, but not greater than those freedom fighters who has not given undertaking.
ASIT GUIN said:
This comment reminds me of what George S. Patton (1885-1945), a U. S. General during World War II, who was known in his time as ‘America’s Fightingest General,’ is reported to have observed: “The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.†In the Hollywood film ‘Patton,’ George C. Scott’s Patton barks to the allied troops: “I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.â€
History of the world is replete with those who followed this line of approach (initially spelled out in the Panchatantra) and emerged victorious over those who chose to sacrifice or die for a ‘moral’ cause or for their motherland. Savarkar was critical of the valiant Rajput fighters who refused to consider the option of a strategic retreat even when hopelessly outnumbered or outwitted; greeting instead a certain death on the battlefield. The world remembers a long line of brilliant generals from Muhammad (easily the best military strategist that the world has ever produced) to Shivaji to Patton who lived to fulfill their dreams because they could take a step backward to move two steps forward.
How do you motivate the ‘other bastard’ (to use Patton’s expression) to sacrifice or die for his country? Make an appeal to his conscience, remind him of his duty to assure a fair play in war and to treat generously the enemy taken prisoner, praise to the sky the virtue of chivalry in war and his moral obligation to treat the captured women folk justly. Thus we find Kafee Khan, the official Mughal historian, who never has a good word for Shivaji (he is always described as a ‘mountain rat’ or a dog) nevertheless praised Shivaji when the latter let go the captured daughter-in-law of a Mughal subedar with full honor.
Several tales in the Panchatantra elucidate how a variety of characters won their battles or successfully attained a set goal by engaging in such tactics. The popular expression vasudhaiva kutumbakam = [for us] the whole earth is [our] family that Hindus are so fond of quoting as a testimony to their sense of inclusiveness, is actually quoted by a wolf to a group of sheep in order to gain access to their compound (well, actually the story is to be found in the Hitopadesha, which is modeled on the Panchatantra). Not surprisingly, the Panchatantra (not the Vedas, not the Vedanta) was the first Indian text to be translated into Arabic in the fifth century and afterwards in major European languages.
In Savarkar and Hindutva: The Godse Connection (2002) A. G. Noorani dismissed Savarkar as an ‘unpatriotic coward’ who sought collaboration with the British betraying the people of India. He criticized Savarkar for seeking clemency and tendering an apology for his acts in order to escape the brutal prison life (Noorani 2003: 18-21). In the light of Patton’s remarks above, we can see why Noorani would have liked to see Savarkar die on the gallows or rot in the prison (see Savarkar and Hindutva: The Godse Connection. New Delhi: LeftWord Books, 2002). Would Noorani criticize Muhammad for moving to Medina?
Savarkar’s written undertaking to not engage in political activity should be understood as part of a strategy that ended his isolation in the Andamans and brought him back to the centre of activity in India where he was free to carry out ‘social work.’ It is mindless to subject the body or the mind to unnecessary privations. Siddhartha realized this truth quite early in his quest for spiritual realization and therefore could successfully attain nirvana.
Shrinivas Tilak
@Tilak Ji
Excellent points, i agree ऊंची छलांग लगाने के लिठघोड़े को दो कदम तो पीछे हटना ही पढता है|
Savarkar’s written undertaking to not engage in political activity should be understood as part of a strategy that ended his isolation in the Andamans and brought him back to the centre of activity in India where he was free to carry out ‘social work.’ : Mr Srinibas tilak ,
NO ! MR TILAK, HAD IT BEEN ONLY STRATAGY AND NOT IDEOLOGY, BRITISH COULD HAVE NOT MAKE MISTAKE TO IDENTIFY THEIR ENEMY AGAIN AND PUT HIM IN JAIL AGIAN . SAVARKAR CEASED TO REMAIN ANTI-BRITISH AS PER HIS UNDERTAKING AND HE BECAME ANTI-MUSLIM. JINNA DEVIDED THE COUNTRY. BUT COUNTRY DEVIDED FIRST. FIRST PEOPLE ARE DEVIDED , THEN COUNTRY IS DEVIDED. SAVARKAR DEVIDED THE PEOPLE.
@Bhaskar Chatterjee:- Great Job done dear.
@All:- Sorry for these word but instead of fighting on virtual world contribute something to Nation. We have only two option for us “FIGHT” or “FLIGHT” it depends up on your dedication and devotion what you want “FIGHT” or “FLIGHT” from my me “FLIGHT” is act of coward. Because dedication and devotion are far better than capability.
” Asafalta Ek Chunauti Hain Sawikar Karo..
Kya Kami Rah Gai Dekho Aur Sudhar Karo..
Jab Tak Na Safal Ho Nind Chain Ki Tyago Tum..
Sangharsho Ka Maidan Chhor Mat Bhago Tum..
Kuch Kiye Bina Hi Jai Jai Kar Nhi Hoti..
Koshish Karne Walo Ki Kabhi Haar Nahi Hoti..”
“मदिरालय जाने को घर से चलता है पीनेवला,
‘किस पथ से जाऊà¤?’ असमंजस में है वह à¤à¥‹à¤²à¤¾à¤à¤¾à¤²à¤¾,
अलग-अलग पथ बतलाते सब पर मैं यह बतलाता हूठ–
‘राह पकड़ तू à¤à¤• चला चल, पा जाà¤à¤—ा मधà¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤²à¤¾à¥¤’। ”
Great work of VD Savarkar that Dr. K B HEDGEWAR created RSS and Shri Guru take it to next height.
Placing this link here for the record:
Gandhi’s assassination and Veer Savarkar: Setting the record straight by Anurupa Cinar.
Hi Shantanuji
Not sure if you have seen this, got this as a share on FB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0S9179jgRc
Regards
Manish
A link to a 45-min documentary on “Veer Savarkar” produced by Films Division (GoI) in 1983 http://youtu.be/Oh-Kv3CjX3E
Excerpts from Holding out for a hero by ASHOK MALIK, September 16, 2004:
…
A jejune magazine article informed us Savarkar was a Chitpavan Brahmin, part of a community that seemingly specialised in ‘‘ideologues … of Hindu nationalism’’. One of them was Bal Gangadhar Tilak, accused of introducing ‘‘primordial†Hindu imagery into public discourse.
It is the sort of sweeping, breathtaking assessment that leaves you gasping. In one sentence, an entire community has been written off as ‘‘tainted’’ by the parameters of contemporary political correctness. In one phrase, the great Tilak has been disowned, handed over to Acharya Dharmendra and the VHP.
A decade and a half after the tempestuous secularism/pseudo-secularism debate, are we back to square one? Does it take one half-won election to have all those discredited leftists and professional time-servers come crawling out of the woodwork?
Why does Savarkar evoke such passion? He was a thinking man’s Hindu, a prodigious mind, an author of repute. His Hindutva (1923) is a persuasive and remarkably evocative document.
As such, to the liberal rabble, he is flesh-and-blood refutation of the charge that Hindutva lacks an intellectual tradition. Hence the fervent desire to destroy him, efface him, erase his memory.
To see Savarkar minus his context is to do disservice to not just him, but to India. The Poona Brahmins, contrary to what conventional wisdom may be, were among modern India’s early elites, along with, for instance, the Parsis of Bombay, the Banglo-Indian bhadralok of Calcutta. These are not groups to be scoffed at; they shaped the consciousness that evolved into Indian nationalism. They are our founding fathers.
…
The big black mark against Savarkar is that he was implicated — though acquitted — in the Gandhi murder case. Even if Savarkar was not directly involved, it is a fair argument that the Hindu political opinion of the times, shaped by the likes of Savarkar, both fed on and fed an antipathy to the Mahatma.
…
Savarkar loved India as much as Gandhi or Nehru did. His idea of India was different — some would say more organic and inspirational — but his credentials should never have been in question. What sort of society is it that mocks its heroes?…
From The Economist’s article about “The man who thought Gandhi a sissy“, Dec 20th 2014, some excerpts…
…In his 1924 book, “Hindutvaâ€, he (Savarkar) drew on cultural, philosophical and religious practices of ancient Hinduism, a rich faith that allows immense variety in how it is followed. But he also distinguished the ideology of hindutva—an attempt to unite disparate Hindus in a political project—from the religion. He himself was an atheist, and disapproved of aspects of traditional Hindu belief, dismissing cow worship as superstitious—a stance that would upset many today. He was an early outspoken opponent of caste discrimination. In the 1920s and 1930s others among the emerging Indian political elite opposed “untouchabilityâ€, the rejection as sub-human of those considered “below casteâ€. But Savarkar went further, saying modern India should drop altogether the idea of dividing people by caste.
…
Aside from his view of Muslims, the big difference between Savarkar and the nationalists in the INC lay in their contrasting attitudes to violence. He also wrote one of the first Indian accounts of the uprising in 1857, centred in Delhi. Known as the “Mutiny†to the British, it is referred to by many Indians as the “first war of independenceâ€â€”echoing the title of Savarkar’s book, “The Indian War of Independenceâ€. It was a gruesome episode, in which hundreds of thousands were killed, but Savarkar was untroubled by the violence, and seemed to justify the murders of British women and children. His works are steeped in a desire for revenge against those who have humiliated Hindus, and his frustration with the passivity of his co-religionists: “I want all Hindus to get themselves re-animated and re-born into a martial race.†In his early years, he circulated manuals on bomb making. He approved of—and probably assisted in—the assassination of colonial administrators. He was suspected, for example, of encouraging a student radical who shot dead Sir Curzon Wyllie, a government official, one summer night on a Kensington street in 1909.
…
Savarkar’s enthusiasm for violence sits uncomfortably with conventional ideas of how India got its independence. India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and then the Congress party (successor to the INC) promoted a pacifist narrative of history, the idea that Gandhi and the likes of B.R. Ambedkar, a social reformer who inspired the Modern Buddhist Movement, triumphed through non-violent resistance. That meant downplaying the bloodshed of 1857, in which atrocities were perpetrated by both sides, and also the roles of Savarkar, Subhas Chandra Bose and Vallabhbhai Patel.
…
The way the story of Indian independence is told is beginning to change. Mr Modi and the BJP are keen to celebrate muscular, nationalist figures.
….
“Notwithstanding his…broad heart, the Mahatma has a very narrow and immature head,†wrote Savarkar
Yet Savarkar remains immensely divisive. He was a fiercely outspoken critic of Gandhi, still India’s top national hero: he called Gandhi weak, a “sissy†and far too willing to collaborate with Britain. Gandhian talk of man’s common humanity he regarded as utopian to the point of naivety. In articles from the 1920s to the 1940s Savarkar lambasted Gandhi as a “crazy lunatic†who “happens to babble…[about] compassion, forgivenessâ€, yet “notwithstanding his sublime and broad heart, the Mahatma has a very narrow and immature head.†Gandhi promoted ahimsa, a Buddhist rejection of violence which Savarkar called “mealy-mouthedâ€. He said Gandhi was a hypocrite for supporting violence by the British against Germany in the first world war. Nor did he cheer Gandhi’s prominent backing for the Ottoman Caliphate Movement, designed to win Indian Muslims to oppose British colonial rule.
….
Yet the final reason why Savarkar should remain unacceptable in modern India goes beyond suspicion over Gandhi’s murder. It lies in his attitude to his fellow, non-Hindu, Indians. In his own writing he relates joyfully how as a 12-year-old boy he led a gang of schoolmates to stone his village mosque and smash its windows and tiles, in the aftermath of Hindu-Muslim riots. Relating how “we vandalised the mosque to our heart’s contentâ€, he adds that when confronted by Muslim boys, he and his pals wielded knives and sticks and chased them away.
Throughout his writing he sets out Muslims as savage, immoral, sensual and eager to destroy the Hindu way of life. In 1937 he wrote of there being “two antagonistic nations living side by side in Indiaâ€, an idea that relies on using religion as the defining characteristic of any Indian, one utterly against the secular constitution of India. And while he occasionally wrote admiringly of the political and religious fervour of Islam, or rather of Muslim political leaders, he did so to encourage his fellow Hindus to match or exceed it.
…
Sarvarkar could be a brilliant, eloquent and progressive leader. He could also be extremist, violent and divisive. If his influence grows, India’s tolerance and moderation will be at risk.
Savarkar unplugged: From film and science to caste and Hindutva by Niranjan Rajadhyaksha