Skip to main content

What made Savarkar discard an all-inclusive India, instead turn to Islamophobia?

By Shamsul Islam* 

An aggressive campaign to rehabilitate VD Savarkar (1883-1966) as great Indian freedom fighters is under way. He is being touted as a legendary Indian nationalist, freedom fighter who spent 50 years in the Cellular Jail [CJ]. Multiple mercy petitions of his are hailed as a ruse to secure freedom in order to work for uprooting the British rule, last but not the least, he is glorified as a rationalist who fought against untouchability.
Let us compare these claims with the writings of Savarkar and records of his activities available in the archives of the Hindu Mahasabha in order to know the truth.

Savarkar’s journey from Indian nationalist to Hindu nationalist

It is true that Savarkar penned “The Indian War of Independence 1857” in 1907 in which he glorified the joint struggle of Hindus and Muslims in the 1857 rebellion. In this tome, proscribed by the British rulers, he underscored the fact that Hindus and Muslims “were both children of the soil of Hindusthan. Their names were different, but they were all children of the same Mother; India therefore being the common mother of these two, they were brothers by blood”.
He went to the extent of praising the Jehadi spirit Moulvi Ahmed Shah in the liberation war of 1857. “The great and saintly Ahmed Shah had woven fine and cleverly the webs of the Jehad -- the War of Independence—through every corner of Lucknow and Agra.”
However, Savarkar’s incarceration at the CJ brought fundamental change in his idea of India. His first official biographer, Dhananjay Keer corroborated the fact that while leaving the Cellular, he gave this mantra: “One God, one country, one goal, one race, one life, one language” which was later concretized as Hindutva.
The reason for discarding commitment to an all-inclusive India and turning Islamophobic was provided by Savarkar himself: “A large number of the wicked warders consisted of Mussalmans… And the prisoners under them were mostly Hindus. The Hindu prisoners were persecuted…”
It will be interesting to know that Savarkar was the only one at Cellular Jail who presented the persecution at the hands of the warders as a Hindu-Muslim issue. Barindra Kumar Ghosh (known as Barin, younger brother of Aurobindo Ghosh) in his memoirs, “The Tale of My Exile” made it clear that Muslim prisoners too suffered at the hands of these Cellular Jail officials:
“In the Andamans it is they [warder, petty officer, jamadar etc.] who are in-charge of everything and have the authority… Ramlal sits a little cross-wise in the file, give him two blows on the neck. Mustafa did not get up immediately he was told to, so, pull off his mustache. Baqaullah is late in coming from the latrine, apply the baton and unloose the skin of his posterior—such were the beautiful proceedings by which they maintained discipline in the prison.”
Barin was also witness to the fact that there were kind hearted Pathan warders who on many occasions “secretly brought out a dish of meat… I do not know whether any food prepared by the famous Draupadi herself could have been as savoury as that dish with suh a gusto did I devour it”.
The truth is that Savarkar used the persecution by the Muslim jail officials as an alibi to legitimize his abandonment of commitment to Indian nationalism. The renowned historian RC Majumdar, who is regarded as a true ‘Bhartiya’ by the Hindutva brigade, while sifting heaps of official papers relating to the Cellular Jail in the course of writing of his landmark book on the CJ, “Penal Settlement in Andamans”, could not avoid commenting:
"The incarceration in the Andamans had produced a great change on the great revolutionary leaders [Savarkar, his brother and Barin] and their attitude towards the British Government and their view of destroying it by revolution or secret conspiracies had suffered a radical change”.

Savarkar preceded Jinnah in propounding two-nation theory

Muslim League [ML] under MA Jinnah demanded Pakistan in March 1940. Long before it Savarkar had laid down two-nation theory. In his book “Hindutva” 1923) he declared India to be the homeland of Hindus only and Muslims could not be part of Indian nationhood. He declared:
“The root meaning of the word Hindu, like the sister epithet in Hindi, may mean only an Indian, yet as it is we would be straining the usage of words too much-we fear, to the point of breaking-if we call a Mohomedan [sic] a Hindu because of his being a resident of India.”
Muslim League under MA Jinnah demanded Pakistan in March 1940. Long before it Savarkar had laid down his two-nation theory. In his book “Hindutva” (1923) he declared India to be the homeland of Hindus only and Muslims could not be part of Indian nationhood. He declared:
“The root meaning of the word Hindu, like the sister epithet in Hindi, may mean only an Indian, yet as it is we would be straining the usage of words too much-we fear, to the point of breaking-if we call a Mohomedan [sic] a Hindu because of his being a resident of India.”
Savarkar took over the leadership of Hindu Mahasabha [HM] in 1937. While addressing the 19th Session of Hindu Mahasabha at Ahmedabad in the same year stated:
“As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India…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.”

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

The Quit India Movement began on August 9, 1942 as per Gandhi's call to 'Do or Die' in order to expel the British from India. The British rulers swiftly responded with mass detentions on August 8th itself. Over 100,000 arrests were made which included the total top leadership of Congress including Gandhi, mass fines were levied and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging.
Hundreds of civilians were killed in violence, many shot by the police and army. Congress was banned. It is not generally known that during these times of repression Savarkar announced full support to the British rulers. Addressing the 24th session of the HM at Kanpur in 1942, Savarkar outlined the strategy of the Hindu Mahasabha of cooperating with the rulers in the following words: “The Hindu Mahasabha holds that the leading principle of all practical politics is the policy of Responsive Cooperation [with the British].”
He called upon HM councillors, ministers, legislators and conducting any municipal or any public bodies to offer “… responsive cooperation which covers the whole gamut of patriotic activities from unconditional co-operation right up to active and even armed resistance…”
What it meant at the political front was unambiguous. HM and ML joined hands in running coalition governments in Bengal and Sind (and later NWFP). Defending this collusion between HM and ML against Congress Savarkar stated:
"In practical politics also the Mahasabha knows that we must advance through reasonable compromises. Witness the fact that only recently in Sind, the Sind-Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the responsibility of joining hands with the League itself in running 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 [sic] 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."

It is to be noted that Mookerji was deputy premier and held the portfolio of suppressing QIM in Bengal.

Backstabbing Netaji Subhash Chander Bose

The Savarkar rehabilitation squad wants us to forget about the terrible betrayal of Netaji by Savarkar. When Netaji was planning to liberate India militarily, Savarkar offered full military co-operation to the British masters. Addressing 23rd session of Hindu Mahasabha at Bhagalpur in 1941, he declared:
“Our best national interests demands that 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 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…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.”

According to HM documents Savarkar was able to inspire one lakh Hindus to join the ranks of the British armed forces.

Savarkar’s mercy petitions were no ruse but instruments of abject surrender

Veer Savarkar submitted minimum five mercy petitions [MP] in 1911, 1913, 1914, 1918 and 1920. Savarkarites claim that these were submitted not as an act of cowardice but “as an ardent follower of Shivaji, Savarkar wanted to die in action. Finding this the only way, he wrote six letters to the British pleading for his release”. 
Savarkar declared Manusmriti to be most worship-able after Vedas, said, he won't force legislation on entry of untouchables in ancient temples
A perusal of the two available mercy petitions will prove that there cannot be a lie worse than the claim that Savarkar’s MP petitions were in league with the tricks which Shivaji used to hoodwink the Mughal rulers successfully. The mercy petition dated November 14, 1913 ended with the following words:
“[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. …Moreover my conversion to the constitutional line would bring back all those misled young men in India and abroad who were once looking up to me as their guide.
“I am ready to serve the Government in any capacity they like, for as my conversion is conscientious so I hope my future conduct would be. By keeping me in jail nothing can be got in comparison to what would be otherwise. 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?”

The petition dated March 30, 1920 from this prodigal son of the British masters ended with the following words:
“The brilliant prospects of my early life all but too soon blighted, have constituted so painful a source of regret to me that a release would be a new birth and would touch my heart, sensitive and submissive, to kindness so deeply as to render me personally attached and politically useful in future. For often magnanimity wins even where might fails.”
There was nothing wrong on the part of the CJ detainees in writing mercy petitions to the British. It was an important legal right available to the prisoners. Apart from Savarkar, Barin, HK Kanjilal, and Nand Gopal too submitted petitions. However, these were only Savarkar and Barin who sought forgiveness for their revolutionary past. Kanjilal and Nand Gopal did not demand any personal favour but status of political prisoners.

Savarkar secured remission of 37.5 years in his sentence of 50 years

Savarkar was incarcerated at Andamans on July 4, 1911 for two life terms [50 years]. On May 2, 1921 [after nine years and ten months] he was transferred along with his elder brother, Babarao, to the mainland. He was finally released conditionally on January 6, 1924 [total imprisonment 12 years six  months] from Yeravda Jail.

Was Savarkar a rationalist who stood for scientific temper and fought against untouchability?

Savarkar is glorified as a rationalist and crusader against untouchability. Let us compare these claims with Savarkar’s beliefs and acts as recorded in the HM archives. He declared Manu to be the lawgiver for Hindus and emphasized that we must “re-learn the manly lessons” he had taught. According to him, “our Hindu nation shall prove again as unconquerable and conquering a race as we proved once” when lawgivers like Manu ruled. He declared Manusmriti to be “most worship-able after Vedas…Today Manusmriti is Hindu law”.
He gave personal guarantee that “the Hindu Mahasabha shall never force any legislations regarding the entry of untouchables in the ancient temples or compel by law any sacred ancient and moral usage or custom prevailing in those temples. In general the Mahasabha will not back up any legislation to thrust the reforming views on our Sanatani brothers so far as personal law is concerned”.

Savarkar defended Hindu princes who were British stooges

Savarkar was a great defender of the Hindu princes ruling native India. According to Savarkar, the Hindu princes were not only co-religionists but also descendants of the brave Hindu kings in the past and thus their ‘power in emergency’. In fact, Hindu Mahasabha and RSS both proudly described the Hindu princes ruling native India in league with the British rulers as ‘Shakti-sthan’ (centres of power) of Hinduism.
It surely meant that Hindu sectarian leadership had neither any idea about the aspirations of toiling Hindu masses nor believed that Hindu princes were nothing but fifth column of Britain in India. The crucial fact should not be missed here that only those princes (both Hindu and Muslim) who remained absolutely loyal to foreign rulers by contributing men and material in suppressing the ‘Mutiny’ were retained as native rulers by the colonial masters in the post 1857 period.
These Hindu rulers as true and committed henchmen of the White masters never allowed any democratic activity in their kingdoms. There were endless instances of rape, killing, maiming and terrible persecution of political activists demanding basic human rights in these native states. Indian freedom struggle is witness to innumerable cases when subjects in these states were not allowed even to unfurl tricolour.
Mysore was a Hindu princely state where 26 patriotic Indians were massacred by the police of the ruler for daring to salute tricolour. Shockingly, it was in defence of this massacre which had sent a wave of indignation throughout India that Savarkar sent the following message to the Mysore Hindu Sabha session at Shimoga on April, 17, 1941:
“The chief aim of the Mysore State Hindu Sabha must be to consolidate and strengthen the Hindu power in the Hindu State and to stand by the Maharaja and the Hindu State in weal and woe extending the most loyal and patriotic support to them in defending the Prince and the State against any subversive activities carried on by any non-Hindu forces or by the Hindu dupes of the Pseudo Nationalistic organisations.”

Savarkar advised Queen of England to hand over India to Nepal King as he was the King of all Hindus of the world

Savarkar even suggested to the British Queen of England that India before it slips out of her hand “should be handed over to an equal an independent ally of Britain like His Majesty the Nepal King” who was the sovereign of all Hindus of the world.
These are really sad times for the largest democracy in the world that a personality antithetical to all its ideals is being presented as an icon with total disregard to historical facts available even in the Hindutva archives.
---
*Formerly with Delhi University, click here for some of Prof Islam's writings and video interviews/debates. Facebook: https://facebook.com/shamsul.islam.332; twitter: @shamsforjustice; blog: http://shamsforpeace.blogspot.com/. Forwarded as email alert to Counterview, Prof Islam says about this article: “A truncated version appeared in ‘The Statesman’ (November 14, 2021).”

Comments

Archit said…
This gaandu writer conveniently forgets the acts that the 2 nation their was first propounded by sir syed way before savarkar. But since the writer is a muslim we cannot expect facts.
Jag Jivan said…
What do you expect from a Modi bhakt? Using dirty language on anyone who does not belong to his religion. Maybe he thinks, mazhab sikhata hai apas me bair karna, and not mazhab nahi sikhata apas me bain karna. Mr Archit, you are giving bad name to Hindu, a tolerant religion. Also, you don't know anything about the author, hence just discarding him as a Muslim just because his name sounds Muslim. He a secular, known for taking a firm stand against fundamentalist tendencies in any religion. Read his articles to know this
Archit said…
Anyone who speaks facts or truth is a modi bhakt lol. Cut the crap chutiye their mazhab calls me kaffir and my religion haraam. No one give a fuck to your illiterate shit. I have read quran and I know what they are. You have not posted a single fact gaandu jag jivan. I came to knew about the author when conveniently quoted that savarkar gave 2 nation theory and not sir syed reason because it would muslims is a bad light. They actively battled for pakistan. 96% muslims voted for jinnah do u don't need your gibberish on who is what l. Of you have facts we can discuss if not guck off
Jag Jivan said…
Mr Archit's choicest abuses are a hallmark of a Modi bhakt. When you can't argue, use abuses, that's the new normal, it seems. Great. Let the readers decide on the "civilised" nature of the bhakts
Editor said…
Commentators are welcome to express their views freely. However, we have noticed that some commentators use abuses. We request them to express their point of view freely but without using any abusive language. Civilised language is our basic requirement. Thanks
Archit said…
Fine you got said with what i said now tell me who gave the two nation theory first
? savarkar? lol savarkar was not even born when sir syed said hindus and muslims are 2 distinct nations. Iqbal reiterated it several times. if you cannot quote facts then better not reply to my comment with your non sense and illiterate philosophy. I dont care if he is a secular or fundamentalist. he quoted facts wrong the it is certain why.You cannot just say misquite things and then say oohh weell the guy is atleast secular.
Archit said…
You call names to anyone who dowsnt support your views. bhakt, sanghi, half pants etc are not insults. anyone who call you names is abusive. what a hypocrite
Jag Jivan said…
Calling Modi bhakts is an insult? So you think that those doing Modi bhakti are bad people? Thanks for enlightening me. And are Sanghis or half pants also bad people? Insulting to call them that way? What a great admission. I love that one. Also, thanks a tonne for not using choicest of anti-woman abuses. As for your query on Sir Syed, its for the author to respond.
Shamsul Islam said…
The abusive language used by Mr. Archit does not hurt me as I know he has been brought up and groomed in RSS shakhas and boudhik shivirs where human beings are converted into such species. That's why one of the greatest intellectuals of our times, Professor Ramchandra GUha described the most prominent ideologue of RSS, MS Golwalkar as 'Guru of hate'. The individuals who assassinated Gandhiji were born as normal human beings but were converted into killers by the Hindutva grooming. I am pasting link of a piece of mine on two-nation theory before that a quote from an editorial of The Times of India. "The two-nation theory which ostensibly led to the vivisection of the country was first propounded by a rabid Muslim communalist by the name of Mohammed Ali Jinnah. The fact is it was a theory which long preceded Jinnah, having been expounded by such names as Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya in the late nineteenth-century Bengal and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in the early part of the twentieth, among countless others."
[Editorial: ‘Two-nation Gujarat’, The Times of India, 18 April 2002.]

Guilty men of the two-nation theory: A Hindutva project borrowed by Jinnah
https://sabrangindia.in/article/guilty-men-two-nation-theory-hindutva-project-borrowed-jinnah
Shamsul Islam said…
My dear Jag Jivan ji, thanks for your intervention seeking a civilized and saner debate when primary source material about Savarkar is presented. The British stooge, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan has many more serious crimes for which he was culpable but not the crime of originating the two-nation theory. as you will f find in my piece, link for which I pasted earlier here. I would love to have separate discussion on the crimes of SSAK.
Archit said…
Calling modi bhakts is a pejorative. only if you can understand it. And how do you someone is a modi bhakt or not? i never sdaid anything about modi or bjp. so you call anyone modi bhakt just because he/she didnt agree with you? and then you lecture civilized conversation etc. Even if one is a modi supporter who gave you the right to insult him? bjp fought democratically and won you can cry all you want but you cannot change the reality.
Archit said…
In his address, Iqbal called for the creation of "a Muslim India within India", especially in North-western India.[8] Iqbal demanded the right of self-government for the Muslims.[9] as he said:

India is a continent of human groups belonging to different races, speaking different languages, and professing different religions [...] Personally, I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India.

Archit said…
NOw mr shamshul said he is not hurt by my comments. and i groomed by rss. please i dont need lectures from someone who is got his degree from madarsa and maulvis. You should be last one to lecture about being human because it is your religion that calls for annihilation of all the on muslims or conversion. it your community that exhorts sir tan se juda and even killed people in the name of Muhammed not just in India but worldwide. Ramchadra guha is not one of the greatest intellectual or historian for that matter. will Durant is one of the greatest historians and his commentary of indian and islamic invasion of India is widely accepted all over the world. The two nation theory was first propounded by Sir syed For instance, in 1876, Syed Ahmed Khan exclaimed when speaking at Benares: “I am convinced now that Hindus and Muslims could never become one nation as their religion and way of life was quite distinct from each other. Now I am convinced that these communities will not join wholeheartedly in anything. dont give me this non sense about bankim chandra or savarkar. you cannot fool the people anymore in this day and age. Jinnah didnt even talk about 2 nation theory in early 1900s. Sir Syed Ahmad forbade the Indian Muslim population from fading over to the Congress nationalist movement. He clarified that Indian Muslims put together their own nation and, for their own best interests, shouldn't support Congress-driven movements for self-rule. and the most laughable thing in your argument is hindu leaders penned 2 nation theory whereas 46 election results show over 90% muslims voted for jinaah. whhat a baboon lmao. DO you mean svarkar was appealing to muslim population and was with jinaah? who made you the editor?

TRENDING

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

By Rajiv Shah*   The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual. 

'Flawed' argument: Gandhi had minimal role, naval mutinies alone led to Independence

Counterview Desk Reacting to a Counterview  story , "Rewiring history? Bose, not Gandhi, was real Father of Nation: British PM Attlee 'cited'" (January 26, 2016), an avid reader has forwarded  reaction  in the form of a  link , which carries the article "Did Atlee say Gandhi had minimal role in Independence? #FactCheck", published in the site satyagrahis.in. The satyagraha.in article seeks to debunk the view, reported in the Counterview story, taken by retired army officer GD Bakshi in his book, “Bose: An Indian Samurai”, which claims that Gandhiji had a minimal role to play in India's freedom struggle, and that it was Netaji who played the crucial role. We reproduce the satyagraha.in article here. Text: Nowadays it is said by many MK Gandhi critics that Clement Atlee made a statement in which he said Gandhi has ‘minimal’ role in India's independence and gave credit to naval mutinies and with this statement, they concluded the whole freedom struggle.

Attack on Gaza: Western media 'went out of the way' to obscure, protect perpetrators

By Sonali Kolhatkar*  Israeli forces killed more than a hundred Palestinians and wounded more than 700 on February 29, 2024 during a distribution of food aid in Gaza city, pushing the Palestinian death toll to 30,000 since October 7, 2023. The food aid massacre was straightforward in its deadliness as armed Israeli forces aimed weapons at desperate, hungry Palestinian civilians and killed many of them. It was also plausible within the context of who has firepower and who doesn’t, and wholly consistent with Israeli atrocities, especially those committed since October 7, 2023.

Living standards in 'model' Gujarat worse than major states: Govt of India document

By Rajiv Shah  Amidst raging controversy over whether the latest Government of India’s “Household Consumption Expenditure Survey 2022-23 Fact Sheet: August 2022-July 2023” suggests that India’s poverty levels are actually down to 4.5 to 5%  during the decade-long Narendra Modi rule, a state-wise breakup in the 27-page document shows that “model” Gujarat’s average consumption expenditure is far below most of the so-called developed states.

India second best place to invest, next to UAE, yet there is 'lacks support' for IT services

By Sreevas Sahasranamam, Aileen Ionescu-Somers*  The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is the best place in the world to start a new business, according to the latest annual Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) survey. The Arab nation is number one for the third year in a row thanks to a big push by the government into cutting-edge technology in its efforts to diversify away from oil.

Not livable in summer, Chitrakut PM-Awas houses 'push' tribals in moneylender trap

By Bharat Dogra*  Those who are in-charge of implementing the PM-Awas scheme of rural housing can rightly take pride in what has been achieved in Dafai hamlet (Karvi block, Chitrakut district, Uttar Pradesh). All the Kol tribal families here are extremely poor and vulnerable. In a rare achievement, almost all of them have received housing assistance under PM Awas. 

Stressing on standardisation, efficiency, capitalists 'intensify' workers' exploitation

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak*  The productivist ideology lies at the core of the profit-making pyramid of capitalism. It perpetuates a relentless cycle characterized by busy schedules, workplace tension, an imbalance in work-life equilibrium, and a pervasive sense of alienation. 

Development? This tribal hamlet in Chitrakut has no toilets, no electricity connections yet

By Bharat Dogra*  As we moved away from the starting point of the Bundelkhand Expressway and a famous pilgrimage site into a side-road, the hills of Chitrakut here appeared to be more and more isolated. Another turn, and we appeared to have reached almost a dead-end. However it is here that over 80 households of the Kol tribal community have been living for a long time.

WTO 'loses legitimacy': CSOs shut out of normal participation in MC13 at Abu Dhabi

By Deborah James  Given unprecedented repression of participants, the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) at Abu Dhabi should not continue until historical and international standards and human rights for participation in global governance are restored.

Buddhist shrines were 'massively destroyed' by Brahmanical rulers: Historian DN Jha

Nalanda mahavihara By Our Representative Prominent historian DN Jha, an expert in India's ancient and medieval past, in his new book , "Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History", in a sharp critique of "Hindutva ideologues", who look at the ancient period of Indian history as "a golden age marked by social harmony, devoid of any religious violence", has said, "Demolition and desecration of rival religious establishments, and the appropriation of their idols, was not uncommon in India before the advent of Islam".