Opinion Rahul Gandhi’s comments and the undying Savarkar row: The record must be set straight

Savarkar called the 1857 uprising the First War of Independence and was categorical that Indian independence will be attained with the joint efforts of both Hindus and Muslims. He drew inspiration from the ideas of nationalism that were put forth by the Italian thinker Giuseppe Mazzini and the French philosopher Ernest Renan, especially his 1882 treatise, ‘What is a nation?’. Savarkar followed the 1871 Census closely and realised that the Indian situation vastly differed from the European one.

Europe was religiously homogeneous while India was heterogeneous. He realised that there was tension and mutual distrust between the Hindus and the Muslims. He feared conversion of Hindus to other faiths and was disgusted with the practice of kidnapping for forcible conversion to Islam. With the British administration unwilling or unable to stop these undesirable acts, Savarkar noted that even prisons were not free from conversion and he tried his best to stop it. Contrary to Jaffrelot’s assertion that Savarkar was a Hindu zealot, the fact was that he was a pluralist in religion and did not advocate a narrow sectarian line. In his view, the propagation of any religious belief was justified, provided it was done in a just and peaceful manner. What he found unacceptable were the efforts of Muslims and Christian missionaries to convert Hindus by dubious means.

Jaffrelot’s charge of Savarkar being a collaborator of the British has to be understood in the context of Savarkar being contacted for his views on the 1919 Montagu-Chelmsford reforms which were in the offing. It was a move to win over the revolutionaries to the constitutional method. Savarkar’s reply addressed immediate concerns and also contained a future projection of a commonwealth of nations. He welcomed the proposal for constitutional advancement but with a reminder that past revolutionary acts were also directed towards the same end. Savarkar wrote, “I have rejoiced to hear that the Government has changed its angle of vision and means to make it possible for India to advance constitutionally on the path of freedom and strength and fullness of life.” It was an “honourable truce” and his expectation was that other revolutionaries would accept it. During 1920-21, Vithalbhai Patel, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and even MK Gandhi pleaded for Savarkar’s release.

Meanwhile, momentous changes were taking place on the national scene. With the sudden demise of Tilak, Gandhi’s leadership was assured and along with the Ali brothers, he started the Khilafat and then the Non-Cooperation movement. Without proper planning, Gandhi promised swaraj within one year. When Savarkar came to know about these developments he was suspicious of Gandhi’s advocacy of and predicted that Khilafat would be a calamity. He also reflected on the application of cooperation and non-cooperation in the political arena. His theory of politics was built on responsive and mutual cooperation.

In August 1921, as a direct consequence of the Khilafat movement, many Hindus were massacred in Malabar district. It took four months to re-establish order. There was also large-scale forced conversion. Savarkar was in the Ratnagiri jail and came to know about these developments. He tried to provide a blueprint for Hindu nationalism which, according to Dhananjay Keer, reflected his “deep reflection and an intense reaction to Gandhism which had surrendered to the anti-national demand of the Muslim reactionaries and had helped to feed and fan Muslim fanaticism”.

The ill effect of incorporating Khilafat as a part of India’s struggle for freedom was noted by Muhammad Iqbal who provided theoretical support for the creation of Pakistan. Commenting in a letter to one of his friends in 1925, he wrote “You have rightly observed that the influence of professional theologians (maulvis) had declined steeply as a result of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan’s movement but the Khilafat Committee has re-established their prestige among Indian Muslims due to committee’s need for political fatwas. This was a grave mistake which has perhaps not been realised by anyone till now.”

Savarkar was prohibited from undertaking any political activity, yet his views and heroism attracted many to meet him and be inspired by him. As a rationalist, Savarkar knew that to achieve his objectives, sustained and devoted work was essential but as he was prohibited from any political activity till 1937, he could only do it indirectly. The process was not smooth as the Gandhians made it a point to oppose him. But he was undaunted. Savarkar considered Gandhian policies toward Muslims as one of appeasement. He was surprised that the failure of the Non-cooperation Movement and the Khilafat Movement and the abolition of the Caliphate in Turkey did not impact Gandhi. Hindu-Muslim unity remained an obsession with Gandhi even when many pro-Khilafat leaders were openly working for the conversion of Hindus to Islam.

Savarkar believed that as long as the divisiveness continues, Hindus should be united as one cannot ignore “the stark realities of life”. During the Second World War, he supported the recruitment of Hindus into the army, to maintain parity between the Hindus and Muslims in the armed forces. Is it revisionism to make a proper appraisal of Savarkar’s contribution to India’s struggle for freedom, for which he made immense sacrifices?

The writer retired as Professor of Political Science, Delhi University