Remembering the Vinayak Damodar Savarkar: Veer for RSS but coward traitor for nation

In recent years, it has become trendy among Hindutva ideologues to pay blind bow to Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966) as a ‘freedom fighter’ and a ‘national hero’. Savarkar has been for a long duration Veer Savarkar in the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak (RSS) folklore and in the school textbooks sponsored by them. A few years ago, the RSS tried to have his statue erected in Marseilles, France, to honour his ‘anti-British’ stance in the early 1920s.  The strategy had to be dumped after a world-wide protest drive to the French President and the Mayor of Marseilles.

The BJP-led government had the courage to suggest his name for the Bharat Ratna (‘Jewel of India’) award. In September 2001, a film was produced on Savarkar projecting him as a great freedom fighter. He was also remembered in the background of the Port Blair Airport, in the Andamans being named after him ― ‘Veer Savarkar Airport’! `On 26^th February 2003, in the middle of a intense controversy, the president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam unveiled the portrayal of Savarkar in the central hall of parliament in New Delhi. As he did so, the BJP and the Shiva Sena MPs and their supporters shouted swatantryaveer Savarkar amar rahe.

But does Vinayak Damodar Savarkar actually worth the nickname ‘swatantrya-veer’(‘fearless warrior of freedom’) Savarakr? Was he such a great, committed, fearless revolutionary hero and freedom fighter throughout his life? These are questions that need a deep study. Much has already been  written in objection against him being considered as a national hero and a freedom fighter. We study again the Savarkar-case in order to jog the memory the people of India, once again, that he does not merit the nickname.

Attempts to generate national heroes

The dilemma with the current Indian fascists is that they don’t have reputable nationalist heroes. The Hindutva protagonists never obsessed at any point of their olden times a person of national status and recognition. But today they are badly looking for affiliations to known leaders of Indian nationalism. Through nationwide grass-root level campaigns, discovery of historical evidences’ and re-interpretation of  history, and the use of print and electronic media, the Hindutva ideologues are trying to scheme that their leaders participated in the freedom fight. And one such figure is V.D. Savarkar, the priest of the Hindutva, which provides the ideological base for much of the present-day communal tensions in the nation.

There are many Hindutvawadis who use all probable ways at their clearance to argue that the contribution of Savarkar in the freedom struggle has been as great as that of Mahatma Gandhi. They also weep for that Savarkar has not been given his due share of credit as a freedom fighter. In order to cure this problem, the combined efforts of the Hindutvawadis, the BJP, the RSS, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Sangh Parivar have ‘conferred’ on him ― much to the disappointment of many reasonable Indians ― the epithet ‘Swatantrya-Veer’. (See for instance, H.V. Seshadri, “The Swatantrya-Veer: Epitome of ‘Swatantrata’ and ‘Veerata’, in V. Grover (ed.), V.D. Savarkar, 1993, 367-375). Some even claim that the two terms ‘swatantrya veer’ and ‘Savarkar’ are always together like flower and its fragrance, the lamp and its light (J.Trehan, “Savarkarism’, 500).

Reasons for questioning Savarkar’s veerata (courage)

It appears that those who have ‘plunge’ upon Savarkar the nickname ‘Swatantrya-Veer’ have suitably hidden the inconsistencies in his participation in the freedom fight, the truth of his servile given up to the British imperialists, and his disobedience with Gandhi and the Indian National Congress in their fight for freedom.

Savarkar underwent a severe transformation during his years in jail in the Andamans between 1911 and 1921. He subjected himself to the British and pleaded mercy on their circumstances and settled to give full support to them. Many documents to this cause are accessible in the countrywide records. He also worked against Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, which were the symbols of Indian national movement. Additionaly, he aggressively promoted the Hindutva ideology, communalism, re-conversion, Hindu Raj (State) and ‘racial intolerance’ towards such minorities as the Muslims, Christians, Communists, Secularists, Liberals, and the like. Thus Savarkar broke away form the conventional freedom movement and adopted a open position expressing this break. He died in 1966, at the age of eighty-three, virtually elapsed by the people of India as they knew that there was no real veerata (bravery) in the self-styled veer Savarkar.

Due to these reasons, many right philosophy individuals in India and outside, have protested against Savrkar being given the description ‘Swatantrya-Veer’ Savarker. Records that were accessible but were kept under wrap for nearly eight decades prove his factual character, not as veer Savarkar but as a coward. Scholars have taken ache to investigate into the original records and the writings of Savarkar himself with the aim of landing at this conclusion. Today he stands exposed as a ‘hero’ with a mud-feet ― much to the humiliation of the Hindutva ideologues who have diligently attempted to endorse him as a national idol.

Savarkar’s flirt with Indian patriotism

Savarkar’s primary anti-British fight was undoubtedly remarkable and it deserves admiration. His Abhinav Bahrat (Young India) drawn its motivation from Giuseppe Mazzini’s Giovani Italia (Young Italy). Savarkar had went to London to study law. While in England he created the ‘Free Indian Society’ with a promise to overthrowing British rule in India. His faction learned the skill of bomb-production from a Russian innovatory in France. Due to his anti-British stand he was deprived of his barristership. He also clandestinely sent to India firearms and narrative on bomb-making. One member of his faction killed a top-ranking official in India Office in London and was sentenced to death. For association in this, and for an additional charges in the Indian magistrates, Savarkar was under arrest, sentenced and was to suffer life-locking up. He was deported from England. The ship carrying him stopped at Marseilles, where he jumped into the ocean and swam to the coast to assert shelter on French soil. But he was captured and was sent to the Andamans. In 1921 Savarkar was transferred to a jail in Rantnagiri in Bombay area.

The nationalism of ‘in the early hours’ Savarkar is epitomised in his The War of Independence 1857 in which he named the rebellion of Indian soldiers against the British ― the so-called ‘Sepoy Mutiny’ ― ‘the War of Indian independence’. It is this ‘initial’ phase of Savarkar’s life alone that the current Hindutva protagonists underline when they project him as a ‘hero’ of India’s fight for independence. They suitably put out of sight his later life which was noticeable by pro-British attitudes  and total non-intervention in any key movement intended at Indian patriotism.

Savarkar’s surrender to the British

The state of affairs in the jails of the Andamans were undoubtedly ruthless but nationalists faced it fearlessly. But Savarkar was not one between them. He appealed for mercy, first in 1911 and then again in 1913, the last during the visit of Sir Reginald Craddock. In a letter dated November 14, 1913 Savarkar (convict no. 32778) wrote to the Home Minister of the Government of India:

“I hereby acknowledge that I had a fair trial and just sentence. I heartily abhor methods of violence resorted to in days gone by and I feel myself duty bound to uphold law and constitution [British] to the best of my powers and am willing to make the reform [i.e., the Montague-Chelmsford reforms of 1919 which did not satisfy the demands of the nationalist movement] a success in so far as I may be allowed to do so in future” (From facsimile of Savarkar’s letter, Frontline, April 7, 1995. Italics added).

We read again:

“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 […] Moreover, my conversion to the constitutional line would bring back all those mislead young men in India and abroad who were once looking up to me as their guide […] The Mighty alone can afford to be merciful and therefore where else can the prodigal son return but to the parental doors of the government” (From facsimile of Savarkar’s lettter, Frontline, April 7, 1995. Italics added).

In reply to the appeal, the British Government freed him under the state that he will reside in Ratnagiri district and will ask for the consent of the government to depart the district and also that he will not slot in any public or private political actions without the approval of the government. The time of condition lasted till 1937.

It is vital to note down here that Savarkar in his letter recognized that he had a reasonable trial. He also acknowledged the conditions set by the British without any regret. He assured that if freed he would be a staunch supporter of the British policies. The language of his letter is undoubtedly servile and it brings out the coward in him.

In 1920 Gandhi wrote in Young India about Savarkar’s approach towards the British: “They [the Savarkar brothers] both state clearly that they do not wish liberty from the British connection. On the opposite, they feel that India’s fate can be worked out in alliance with the British” (The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 17, 462.Henceforth CWMG). Thus Savarkar ‘forfeited’ his assert to be a radical freedom warrior and bartered the nation’s independence to achieve his own individual liberty. This act of giving up to the British alone is enough to demolish all the radical achievements credited to him by his current supporters.

Savarkar as a supporter of Hindu Nationalism

During his custody in the Andamans, Savarkar’s opinion undergone a great alteration. He renounced the fight against British imperialism and altered himself from being a radical nationalist to a staunch supporter of Hindu dictatorship. In the ideological frontage Savarkar came to be very much influenced by German bigotry. He studied with heed Bluntschli’s The Theory of the State, a book which he had not only read but also used when teaching his colleague prisoners. Bluntschli was an advocate of German racial patriotism and his writings influenced many other Hindu nationalists, including M.S. Golwalkar. (C. Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement and the Indian Politics, 32). Savarkar also took motivation from other Western architects of racial nationalism.

Savarkar was a transformed person after his prison term in the Andamans. Then on he never connected with anything even slightly sounding as anti-British. In 1923 he published his controversial Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? which won him the label ‘Father of Hindutva’. Once more, rapidly after his release from the Andamans, K.B. Hedgewar, the creator of the RSS met him in Ratnagiri jail and Hedgewar is said to have obtained Savarkar’s support for the origin of the RSS, inaugurated in 1925.

Savarkar joins the Hindu Mahasabha

In 1937 the conditions of Savarkar’s release were removed entirely. On release he was invited to join the Congress. But he denied and joined the Hindu Mahasabha (The Great Hindu Conference). J.D. Joglekar comments: “The man who wrote ‘Hindutva’ and also many newspaper articles about the ‘Hindu Nation’ was surely not likely to join the Congress”(J. D. Joglekar, “Veer Savarkar: Profile of a Prophet”, 324).

In 1937 Savarkar was elected  president of the Hindu Mahasabha, the political faction of the Hindutva ideologists. R.C. Majumdar mentions that Savarakar was re-elected year after year and the establishment developed into a political and communal body (R.C. Majumdar, The History and Culture of the Indian People. Struggle for Freedom, 611-612). Regarding the communal character of the Hindu Mahasabha Nehru said: “I confess that […] the activities of Hindu communal organisations including the Mahasabha, have been communal, anti-national and reactionary” (J. Nehru, Recent Essays and Writings, 46).

Savarkar then started openly heaping abuses on Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress leaders. He labelled Gandhi as an appeaser of Muslims. He also mentioned that the fight for dominance would commence after the British have left and that the Christians and Muslims were the genuine enemies who could be beaten only by Hindutva. He also had close connections with the RSS ― today’s top organisation of Hindu fascists. Nathuram Godse who assassinated  Mahatma Gandhi was a passionate admirer of Savarkar. Savarkar himself was a co-accused in the murder  of Gandhiji  but was acquitted only due to lack of enough proof.

Pulling out from conventional Nationalism

A mercy letter in itself does not make Savarkar any less of a hero. But we must see what he did in the jail and what was his main worries after the release. His curiosity was in winning the friendship of the Hindus and the British. The old hatred against the British imperialists did not exist any longer. The Hindu Mahasabha aggressively campaigned to employ Hindu young men into the British army and the Congress activists used to call Savarkar a ‘employment officer’. When Gandhi launched the ‘Quit India Movement’ asking people to reject government jobs, Savarkar gave a contradict command saying: “I issue this definite instruction to all Hindu Sanghatanists in general holding any post or position of vantage in the government service, should stick to them and continue to perform their regular duties” (Quoted by A.G. Noorani “The Collaborators”, Frontline, December 1, 1995).

Gandhi tried in vain to encourage Savarkar into the conventional nationalism. He says: “I have tried to woo him [V.D.Savarkar] and his friends. I have walked to Savarkar’s house. I have gone out of my way to win him over. But I have failed” (CWMG, vol. 70, 348).Thus Savarkar and his supporters intentionally dissociated themselves from the massive fight for national freedom from the royally rule.

The tactical plan of the Hindu Mahasabha was to take on the control of India after the independence. Savarkar’s objective was to found a Hindu Raj (State) out of India, and those who opposed it were labelled as fake-nationalists. He said: “The demand for a Hindu Raj, these pseudo-nationalists say, is communal, stupid, mediaeval, theocratical, a menace to the progress of mankind itself” (V.D. Savarkar, “Nehru’s Nightmare ― Hindu Raj? Carpet Knights”, 171). He openly asked the Hindus to go up against the hard work of Gandhi and the Congress. He stated: “I warn the Hindu Electorate categorically for the thousandeth time that unless they remove these Pseudo-nationalist leaders from the helm of our state: the Gandhistic Indianism will allow Moslems inside India to capture keyposts in the army, the police, the state” (V.D. Savarkar, “Nehru’s Nightmare ― Hindu Raj? Carpet Knights”, 173). Such an attitude led Gandhi to say: “I find that the Hindu Mahasabha has made it their dharma to oppose Congress candidates everywhere” (CWMG, 82, 26)

Against the co-existence of Hindus and Muslims

When ‘early’ Savarkar wrote his The War of Independence 1857, he upheld Hindu-Muslim harmony. He also remained courageously opposed to the British. But after his alteration to the Hindutva, on quite a few occasions he gave hints about the impracticality of a co-existence of Hindus and Muslims. In 1939 he said that nationality did not depend so much on a general geological region as on harmony of idea, religion, language and culture. Due to this,  the Germans and the Jews could not be regarded as a nation. Afterwards, in the same year he issued a statement in the 21^st session of the Hindu Mahasabha that the Indian Muslims are on the total extra prone to recognize themselves and their interests with Muslims outside India than Hindus who live next door, like the Jews in Germany.

Savarkar resolutely supported the two-nation theory and the division of India. He said: “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”(V.D. Savarkar, Hindutva, 140).

Muslims and Christians are foreigners

Savarkar’s Hindutva propounded the theory that Muslims and Christians are foreigners and hence, they have no place in India. He said: “Mohammadens and Christian communities possess all the essential qualifications of Hindutva but one and all that is that they do not look upon India as their holyland” (V.D. Savarkar, Hindutva, 113). He affirmed again: “Their holyland is far off in Arabia and Palestine. Their mythology and Godmen, ideas and heroes are not the children of this soil. Consequently their names and their outlook smack of foreign origin. Their love is divided” (V.D. Savarkar, Hindutva, 113). He further noted: “But besides culture the tie of common holyland has at times proved stronger than the claims of a Motherland. Look at the Mohammedans […] Mecca to them is a stronger reality than Delhi or Agra. Some of them do not make any secret of being bound to sacrifice all India if that be to the glory of Islam […] The crusades again attest to the wonderful influence that a common holyland exercises over peoples widely separated in race, nationality and langue, to bind and hold them together” (V.D. Savarkar, Hindutva, 135-136).

Implementation of Savarkarism today

The radical Hindutva ideology of Savarkar or ‘Savarkarism’ dominates Indian political and religious sight today. With the political power in New Delhi in the hands of the Hindutva ideologues a re-writing of Indian history along fascist lines is already underway, and people like Savarkar, Golwalkar, Hedgewar, Moonje and Godse are rising as ‘national heroes’. In the procedure, the reminiscences of joint fight for freedom and its actual symbols and landmarks are being elapsed, and its lofty personalities are replaced by dwarfs and cowards.

There are many who hold cabinet posts in the central government in New Delhi and in the State governments who have been schooled in Savarkarism. Savarkar supposed in a strong militarised India, and in consonance with it the BJP government makes sure that India’s nuclear and missile programmes go ahead without any break. Lal Krishna Advani learned Hindutva form Savarkar and many of his policies are literal implementation of the ideals of his icon. Atal Behari Vajpayee who headed the right wing BJP-led government, Murali Manohar Joshi who directed the saffronisation of Indian education and the re-writing of history along the Hindutva lines, Sita Ram Goel, Ram Swarup and Arun Shourie who were infamous for maligning the minorities through their pen pushing, Narendra Modi who is called the cave man of Gujarat and an adept in the use of political language without alteration or command, the RSS, the VHP and the Sangh Parivar and their affiliates who pamper in brutality, crime and show of muscle power so on, are some of those who are schooled in Savarkarism and who consider him as ‘national’ hero. But Savarkar is not the hero of any true nationalistic Indian who standards secularism and the pluralistic culture of India. Thus Savarkar remains as an icon only for the Hindutva ideologues.