A lamb, lionised!

Part-II

According to Islam, the British did not want to pardon Savarkar till they trusted him and were certain that he would be of use to them. “The ball was in Savarkar’s court and he needed to prove his words by his deeds,” he said.
In his memoirs, Savarkar explained why he kept aloof from the strikes in the jail. “I would have forfeited my right of sending a letter to India,” he wrote. “It was a rule that a letter was allowed to be sent annually by one whose record during the year was clear of any punishment. If I were punished or went on strike, my right would go along with it, and to be deprived of my right was not only to harm the strike but more important than that, to lose the chance of working for the freedom of the political prisoners themselves.”
Savarkar filed his third mercy petition on September 14, 1914, soon after World War I broke out. “I most humbly beg to offer myself as a volunteer to do any service in the present war, that the Indian government think fit to demand from me,” he wrote. “I know that a Kingdom does not depend on the help of an insignificant individual like me, but then I know also that every individual, however insignificant, is duty-bound to volunteer his or her best for the defence of that Kingdom.” The petition was rejected on December 1, 1914.
Savarkar submitted his fourth petition on October 2, 1917. Three more appeals for clemency were filed with the Bombay government by his wife in July 1915, October 1915 and January 1919.
Savarkar’s history ticket says his behaviour and conduct in the Cellular Jail was not found offending since 1914. He twice got the rarest of privileges: he met his wife and younger brother on May 30, 1919, and May 31, 1919.
The work he was assigned to during these years was often of clerical nature. “It is evident from records available and the memoirs of fellow inmates that Savarkar was not put on any hard labour since 1914,” said Islam.
Savarkar submitted his fifth mercy petition on January 24, 1920, and the sixth on March 30, 1920. In his last petition, he assured the British that “every intelligent lover of India would heartily and loyally cooperate with the British people in the interest of India herself”.
“The Congress had passed a resolution asking the government to release Savarkar brothers unconditionally,” said Islam. “And here he was, voluntarily willing to accept any condition for his personal freedom.”
According to Islam, by 1920, Mahatma Gandhi had transformed the freedom struggle into a mass movement by connecting with people irrespective of their caste, creed, religion, gender or language. This had alienated a section of Muslim and Hindu elites. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who would go on become the founder of Pakistan, resigned from the Congress. “It was an opportune time for the British to release Savarkar, [who] had subtly indicated his future course in his last mercy petition by stating that the common dangers from the north of Turko-Afghan fanatics have made him a sincere advocate of loyal cooperation in the interest of both our nations [India and Britain],” said Islam.
Savarkar, along with his elder brother, was finally released from the Cellular Jail on May 2, 1921. He had served nine years and ten months. J. Kuruvachira, historian and professor of philosophy, said Savarkar “forfeited” his claim to be a revolutionary freedom fighter and bartered the country’s independence to obtain his personal freedom.
Author Y.D. Phadke, a staunch Savarkarite, wrote that Savarkar’s mercy petitions were a ruse. According to him, Savarkar was aware of the political developments in the mainland and wanted to be a part of it. “He was a master strategist,” said Ved Rahi, who directed a biopic of Savarkar in 2001. “He felt he was wasting the prime of his life in the jail…. He was entirely justified in writing those letters to get out of the wretched jail, so that he could come back to active politics and freedom struggle.”
Rahi’s assertion is typical of apologists for Savarkar. They point to Savarkar’s contributions to the freedom struggle after his release to defend his conduct in Andaman. Hence, it becomes imperative to study and understand Savarkar’s activities after his release from jail.
Playing by the (British) rules
Savarkar returned to the mainland aboard the S.S. Maharaja, the steamer that had brought him to Andaman. He was kept at Yerwada Jail in Pune as an ordinary prisoner before being released in January 1924 on two conditions: that he would not participate in any political activity, nor leave Ratnagiri district without permission of the district collector.
37VallabhbhaiPatel
Savarkar published Essentials of Hindutva two years after his release from Andaman. “The book not only denigrated Muslims and Christians, but also justified the violent cleansing of Buddhists in the ancient past,” said Islam.
Impressed with the book, K.B. Hedgewar, the founding sarsanghchalak of the RSS, and his mentor B.S. Moonje met Savarkar in Ratnagiri. “It is surprising that the British government allowed Savarkar to write the book and meet Hedgewar and Moonje, considering that he was banned to take part in any kind of political activity,” said Islam. “He was even allowed to revive the Hindu Mahasabha.”
Savarkar was also allowed to attend a public function organised by Moonje in Nasik. “During his stay in Nasik, he rescued some Mahar Hindus from the snare of Agha Khani Mohammedans,” writes author Dhananjay Keer in his biography of Savarkar. “With the permission of the government, he visited Bhagur, Trimbak, Yeola and Nagar, and propagated his new Hindu Sanghatanist ideology.”
Said Islam: “Savarkar justified Hindu communalism as righteous and Hindu separatism as nationalist. He stood in the forefront of the Hindu movement to claim right to play music outside mosques when prayers were on.”
In 1924, Savarkar also started holding ‘shuddhi’ ceremonies, or the reconversion of non-Hindus to the Hindu fold. “This played havoc with the attempts to unite people of all religions into a composite freedom struggle,” said Islam.
Savarkar regularly criticised Gandhi and his “obsession for Hindu-Muslim unity”. All this, despite the ban on him against taking part in any political activity. In 1937, he was elected president of the Hindu Mahasabha. While addressing the 19th session of the Mahasabha in Ahmedabad, he declared: “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. On the contrary, there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Muslims, in India.”
Thus, the theory of two nations, first proposed in Essentials of Hindutva, was passed as a resolution of the Mahasabha in 1937. Three years later, the All-India Muslim League, led by Jinnah, adopted the concept in its Lahore session. On August 15, 1943, Savarkar said in Nagpur, “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.”
On October 9, 1939, Savarkar met Lord Linlithgow, the viceroy of India, in Bombay. Linlithgow wrote a report of the meeting to Lord Zetland, the secretary of state for India. “The situation, he [Savarkar] said, was that His Majesty’s government must now turn to the Hindus and work with their support…. Our interests were now the same and we must therefore work together… Our interests are so closely bound together, the essential thing is for Hinduism and Great Britain to be friends and the old antagonism was no longer necessary.”
According to Islam, the ‘common interest’ of Savarkar and Linlithgow was to oppose the Congress and drive a wedge between it and the Muslims. “His role during the Quit India movement in 1942 was dubious and divisive. As large sections of Indians were repressed and Congress leaders were jailed, Savarkar chose to cooperate with the British,” said Islam.
Addressing the 24th session of the Hindu Mahasabha in Kanpur in 1942, Savarkar justified his support to the British. “The Hindu Mahasabha holds that the leading principle of all practical politics is the policy of responsive cooperation,” he said. Savarkar also declared that he was not bothered of breaking up the “so-called united front against British imperialism” and asked Hindus to cooperate with the British.
THE HINDU MAHASABHA launched ‘military recruitment boards’ across the country to help ‘Hindus’ join the British army. Documents with THE WEEK show that Savarkar was issuing circulars for the militarisation of Hindus. “This was clearly to help the British against the advances of Subhas Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army,” writes Kuruvachira.
Whirlwind Propaganda: Extracts from President’s Diary (a book published by A.S. Bhide that has Savarkar’s diary entries, speeches, articles and notes) mentions a telegram sent by Savarkar on July 18, 1841, thanking the British government for appointing two Hindu Mahasabha nominees to the government’s central defence committee.
Savarkar’s theory of “responsive cooperation” enabled the Mahasabha to ally with the Muslim League and form coalition governments in Bengal, Sind and North-West Frontier Province. Fazlul Huq of the Muslim League became the chief minister of Bengal, while Syama Prasad Mookerjee of the Hindu Mahasabha, the deputy chief minister. It was Huq, as public prosecutor of the British government, who sent Trailokya Nath Chakraborty to the Cellular Jail.
Supporters of Savarkar say he stood for akhand Bharat, or unified India. History, however, says otherwise. Even as he demanded a separate Hindu nation, Savarkar welcomed the possibility of Sikhs in Punjab demanding a separate “Sikhistan”. He was an open supporter of princely states in India, and made it a matter of policy of the Hindu Mahasabha not to interfere in their decisions. On June 18, 1947, Sir C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyar, the dewan of Travancore, declared the state independent. Two days later, Aiyar received a cable from Savarkar, enthusiastically supporting “the farsighted, courageous determination to declare this independence of our Hindu State of Travancore”.
The darkest blot
On January 30, 1948, barely six months after India got its long-cherished freedom, Gandhi was shot dead by Nathuram Godse, who had been a member of the Hindu Mahasabha. “Savarkar was one of the accused in the conspiracy to kill Gandhiji and was acquitted for lack of corroborative evidence,” said Aiyar. “But he was later indicted by the Justice Kapur commission as the main conspirator.”
On February 27, 1948, Vallabhbhai Patel, India’s first home minister, wrote to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru: “It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that [hatched] the conspiracy [to kill Gandhi] and saw it through.”     —The Week
    (Concluded)

 

A lamb, lionised!

Part-II According to Islam, the British did not want to pardon Savarkar till they trusted him and were certain that he would be of use to them. The ball was in Savarkars court and he needed to prove his words by his deeds, he said. In his memoirs, Savarkar explained why he kept aloof from the strikes in the jail. I would have forfeited my right of sending a letter to India, he wrote. It was a rule that a letter was allowed to be sent annually by one whose record during the year was clear of any punishment. If I were punished or went on strike, my right would go along with it, and to be deprived of my right was not only to harm the strike but more important than that, to lose the chance of working for the freedom of the political prisoners themselves. Savarkar filed his third mercy petition on September 14, 1914, soon after World War I broke out. I most humbly beg to offer myself as a volunteer to do any service in the present war, that the Indian government think fit to demand from me, he wrote. I know that a Kingdom does not depend on the help of an insignificant individual like me, but then I know also that every individual, however insignificant, is duty-bound to volunteer his or her best for the defence of that Kingdom. The petition was rejected on December 1, 1914. Savarkar submitted his fourth petition on October 2, 1917. Three more appeals for clemency were filed with the Bombay government by his wife in July 1915, October 1915 and January 1919. Savarkars history ticket says his behaviour and conduct in the Cellular Jail was not found offending since 1914. He twice got the rarest of privileges: he met his wife and younger brother on May 30, 1919, and May 31, 1919. The work he was assigned to during these years was often of clerical nature. It is evident from records available and the memoirs of fellow inmates that Savarkar was not put on any hard labour since 1914, said Islam. Savarkar submitted his fifth mercy petition on January 24, 1920, and the sixth on March 30, 1920. In his last petition, he assured the British that every intelligent lover of India would heartily and loyally cooperate with the British people in the interest of India herself. The Congress had passed a resolution asking the government to release Savarkar brothers unconditionally, said Islam. And here he was, voluntarily willing to accept any condition for his personal freedom. According to Islam, by 1920, Mahatma Gandhi had transformed the freedom struggle into a mass movement by connecting with people irrespective of their caste, creed, religion, gender or language. This had alienated a section of Muslim and Hindu elites. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who would go on become the founder of Pakistan, resigned from the Congress. It was an opportune time for the British to release Savarkar, [who] had subtly indicated his future course in his last mercy petition by stating that the common dangers from the north of Turko-Afghan fanatics have made him a sincere advocate of loyal cooperation in the interest of both our nations [India and Britain], said Islam. Savarkar, along with his elder brother, was finally released from the Cellular Jail on May 2, 1921. He had served nine years and ten months. J. Kuruvachira, historian and professor of philosophy, said Savarkar forfeited his claim to be a revolutionary freedom fighter and bartered the countrys independence to obtain his personal freedom. Author Y.D. Phadke, a staunch Savarkarite, wrote that Savarkars mercy petitions were a ruse. According to him, Savarkar was aware of the political developments in the mainland and wanted to be a part of it. He was a master strategist, said Ved Rahi, who directed a biopic of Savarkar in 2001. He felt he was wasting the prime of his life in the jail. He was entirely justified in writing those letters to get out of the wretched jail, so that he could come back to active politics and freedom struggle. Rahis assertion is typical of apologists for Savarkar. They point to Savarkars contributions to the freedom struggle after his release to defend his conduct in Andaman. Hence, it becomes imperative to study and understand Savarkars activities after his release from jail. Playing by the (British) rules Savarkar returned to the mainland aboard the S.S. Maharaja, the steamer that had brought him to Andaman. He was kept at Yerwada Jail in Pune as an ordinary prisoner before being released in January 1924 on two conditions: that he would not participate in any political activity, nor leave Ratnagiri district without permission of the district collector. 37VallabhbhaiPatel Savarkar published Essentials of Hindutva two years after his release from Andaman. The book not only denigrated Muslims and Christians, but also justified the violent cleansing of Buddhists in the ancient past, said Islam. Impressed with the book, K.B. Hedgewar, the founding sarsanghchalak of the RSS, and his mentor B.S. Moonje met Savarkar in Ratnagiri. It is surprising that the British government allowed Savarkar to write the book and meet Hedgewar and Moonje, considering that he was banned to take part in any kind of political activity, said Islam. He was even allowed to revive the Hindu Mahasabha. Savarkar was also allowed to attend a public function organised by Moonje in Nasik. During his stay in Nasik, he rescued some Mahar Hindus from the snare of Agha Khani Mohammedans, writes author Dhananjay Keer in his biography of Savarkar. With the permission of the government, he visited Bhagur, Trimbak, Yeola and Nagar, and propagated his new Hindu Sanghatanist ideology. Said Islam: Savarkar justified Hindu communalism as righteous and Hindu separatism as nationalist. He stood in the forefront of the Hindu movement to claim right to play music outside mosques when prayers were on. In 1924, Savarkar also started holding shuddhi ceremonies, or the reconversion of non-Hindus to the Hindu fold. This played havoc with the attempts to unite people of all religions into a composite freedom struggle, said Islam. Savarkar regularly criticised Gandhi and his obsession for Hindu-Muslim unity. All this, despite the ban on him against taking part in any political activity. In 1937, he was elected president of the Hindu Mahasabha. While addressing the 19th session of the Mahasabha in Ahmedabad, he declared: 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. On the contrary, there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Muslims, in India. Thus, the theory of two nations, first proposed in Essentials of Hindutva, was passed as a resolution of the Mahasabha in 1937. Three years later, the All-India Muslim League, led by Jinnah, adopted the concept in its Lahore session. On August 15, 1943, Savarkar said in Nagpur, I have no quarrel with Mr Jinnahs two-nation theory. We, Hindus, are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations. On October 9, 1939, Savarkar met Lord Linlithgow, the viceroy of India, in Bombay. Linlithgow wrote a report of the meeting to Lord Zetland, the secretary of state for India. The situation, he [Savarkar] said, was that His Majestys government must now turn to the Hindus and work with their support. Our interests were now the same and we must therefore work together Our interests are so closely bound together, the essential thing is for Hinduism and Great Britain to be friends and the old antagonism was no longer necessary. According to Islam, the common interest of Savarkar and Linlithgow was to oppose the Congress and drive a wedge between it and the Muslims. His role during the Quit India movement in 1942 was dubious and divisive. As large sections of Indians were repressed and Congress leaders were jailed, Savarkar chose to cooperate with the British, said Islam. Addressing the 24th session of the Hindu Mahasabha in Kanpur in 1942, Savarkar justified his support to the British. The Hindu Mahasabha holds that the leading principle of all practical politics is the policy of responsive cooperation, he said. Savarkar also declared that he was not bothered of breaking up the so-called united front against British imperialism and asked Hindus to cooperate with the British. THE HINDU MAHASABHA launched military recruitment boards across the country to help Hindus join the British army. Documents with THE WEEK show that Savarkar was issuing circulars for the militarisation of Hindus. This was clearly to help the British against the advances of Subhas Chandra Boses Indian National Army, writes Kuruvachira. Whirlwind Propaganda: Extracts from Presidents Diary (a book published by A.S. Bhide that has Savarkars diary entries, speeches, articles and notes) mentions a telegram sent by Savarkar on July 18, 1841, thanking the British government for appointing two Hindu Mahasabha nominees to the governments central defence committee. Savarkars theory of responsive cooperation enabled the Mahasabha to ally with the Muslim League and form coalition governments in Bengal, Sind and North-West Frontier Province. Fazlul Huq of the Muslim League became the chief minister of Bengal, while Syama Prasad Mookerjee of the Hindu Mahasabha, the deputy chief minister. It was Huq, as public prosecutor of the British government, who sent Trailokya Nath Chakraborty to the Cellular Jail. Supporters of Savarkar say he stood for akhand Bharat, or unified India. History, however, says otherwise. Even as he demanded a separate Hindu nation, Savarkar welcomed the possibility of Sikhs in Punjab demanding a separate Sikhistan. He was an open supporter of princely states in India, and made it a matter of policy of the Hindu Mahasabha not to interfere in their decisions. On June 18, 1947, Sir C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyar, the dewan of Travancore, declared the state independent. Two days later, Aiyar received a cable from Savarkar, enthusiastically supporting the farsighted, courageous determination to declare this independence of our Hindu State of Travancore. The darkest blot On January 30, 1948, barely six months after India got its long-cherished freedom, Gandhi was shot dead by Nathuram Godse, who had been a member of the Hindu Mahasabha. Savarkar was one of the accused in the conspiracy to kill Gandhiji and was acquitted for lack of corroborative evidence, said Aiyar. But he was later indicted by the Justice Kapur commission as the main conspirator. On February 27, 1948, Vallabhbhai Patel, Indias first home minister, wrote to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru: It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that [hatched] the conspiracy [to kill Gandhi] and saw it through. The Week (Concluded)