Vinayak Damodar Savarkar :- A Patriot or Traitor? Addresing the Criticisms. {P-02}

Namaste. 

Continuing our Savarkar series from where we left, here in this blog we will address all the Criticisms that Savarkar has on his list, concluding finally that was Savarkar was a true patriot or just another overly glorified man.

1. Always the Conspirer - Not the Activist.

Savarkar's critics say that he was the key consiperer behind many murders, but never picked up any weapon himself. On 1st July 1909, Madanlal Dhingra assissinated William Wylle. Savarkar believed in revolution and inspired Dhingra's admiration in the cult of assassination. Just after a month of this, Ganesh Savarkar was convicted on the charge of sedition and sentented to transportation for life, is said to have been instigated by Savarkar's orders; yet Savarkar himself never wielded any arms.

His critics describe this cowardance as typical of Savarkar's conduct, and it is striking, ofcourse, that nearly 40 years later Savarkar was again thought to have encouraged Nathuram Godse to murder Mahatma Gandhi, without himself having taken up arms. He also supplied Bomb Manual to Indian Revolutionaries.

2. Mercy Petitions

In India, Ganesh Savarkar had organised an armed revolt against the Morley-Minto reforms of 1909 for which he was arrested and sentenced to transportation of life, moved to the Cellular Jail in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The British police implicated Savarkar in the investigation for allegedly plotting the crime. Hoping to evade arrest, Savarkar moved to Madame Cama's house in Paris. He was nevertheless arrested by police on March 13, 1910.

1. Savarkar was lodged in the Cellular Jail on July 4, 1911. Within six months, he submitted a petition for mercy.

2. In October 1913, the Home Member of the Viceroy's Executive Council, Sir Reginald Craddock, visited the Jail and met Savarkar among others. His note of November 23, 1913, recorded Savarkar's pleas for mercy. Savarkar had submitted his second mercy petition on November 14, 1913: "I am ready to serve the Government in any capacity they like... . Where else can the prodigal son return but to the parental doors of the Government?", the `revolutionary' and `nationalist' wrote (emphasis added, throughout). Craddock accurately recorded "Savarkar's petition is one for mercy". That formulation was repeated in the petitions that followed.

3. On March 22, 1920, a Savarkar supporter, G.S. Khoparde, tabled questions in the Imperial Legislative Council, one of which read: "Is it not a fact that Mr. Savarkar and his brother had once in 1915 and at another time in 1918 submitted petitions to Government stating that they would, during the continuance of war, serve the Empire by enlisting in the Army, if released, and would, after the passing of the Reforms Bill, try to make the Act a success and would stand by law and order?" The Home Member Sir William Vincent replied: "Two petitions were received from Vinayak Damodar Savarkar - one in 1914 and another in 1917, through the Superintendent, Port Blair. In the former he offered his services to Government during the war in any capacity and prayed that a general amnesty be granted to all political prisoners. The second petition was confined to the latter proposal." Thus there was one in 1917 besides that of 1913 which is perhaps the one Vincent referred to as one of 1914; perhaps not because Savarkar referred to two others of 1914 and 1918.

4. The document published here for the first time, dated March 30, 1920, supplied an omission in the writer's book. It is craven. He begged for "a last chance to submit his case before it is too late". Vincent disclosed that Savarkar had recovered from dysentery five months earlier. His life was not in danger. He demeaned himself by citing cases of fellow prisoners, Aurobindo Ghosh's brother Barin and others. "They had even in Port Blair been suspected of a serious plot." He was the loyalist. "So far from believing in the militant school of the type, I do not contribute even to the peaceful and philosophical anarchism of a Kuropatkin [sic.] or a Tolstoy. And as to my revolutionary tendencies in the past:- it is not only now for the object of sharing the clemency but years before this have I informed of and written to the Government in my petitions (1918, 1914) about my firm intention to abide by the constitution and stand by it as soon as a beginning was made to frame it by Mr. Montagu. Since that the Reforms and then the Proclamation have only confirmed me in my views and recently I have publicly avowed my faith in and readiness to stand by the side of orderly and constitutional development."

He added for good measure: "I am sincere in expressing my earnest intention of treading the constitutional path and trying my humble best to render the hands of the British dominion a bond of love and respect and a mutual help. Such an Empire as is foreshadowed in the Proclamation wins my hearty adherence." So much for his nationalism.

Savarkar concluded: "I and my brother are perfectly willing to give a pledge of not participating in politics for a definite and reasonable period that the Government would indicate... .This or any pledge, e.g., of remaining in a particular province or reporting our movements to the police for a definite period after our release - any such reasonable conditions meant genuinely to ensure the safety of the State would be gladly accepted by me and my brother."

 In his appeal and willingness to sign a statement renouncing revolutionary activities, Savarkar sparked intense criticism and controversy, which has continued till today. Critics allege that he BARGAINED for his freedom at the expense of his ideals, while supporters assert that Savarkar was merely seeking to escape one way or another, and resume his activities.

On May 2, 1921, the Savarkar brothers were moved to a jail in Ratnagiri, and later to the Yeravda Central Jail. He was finally released on January 6, 1924 under stringent restrictions. He was not to leave Ratnagiri district and was to refrain from political activities for next five years. However, police restrictions on his activities would not be dropped until the Congress came to power in 1937.  Now let us see how Savarkar's thoughts and ideals drastically changed after his final release. 

Life after Jail and Restrictions Freedom.

 During his imprisonment Savarkar's views began turning increasingly towards Hindu cultural and political nationalism, and the next phase of his life remained dedicated to this cause.

Scholars, historians and Indian Politicians have been divided in their interpretation of Savarkar's ideas. A self-described atheist, Savarkar regards being Hindu as a cultural and political identity. While often stressing social and communial unity between Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains, Savarkar's notions of loyalty to the fatherland are seen as an implicit criticism of Muslims and Christians, who regard Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem as their holiest place.

Hindu Mahasabha

Although disavowing revolution and politics, Savarkar grew disenchanted with the Congress's emphasis of nonviolence and criticised Gandhi for suspending Non Cooperation Movement following the killing of 22 policemen in Chauri Chaura in 1922. He soon joined the Hindu Mahasabha, a political party founded in 1911 and avowed to Hindu political rights and empowerment. At his Ratnagiri times, he worked immensely against untouchability.

In the wake of the rising popularity of the Muslim League led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Savarkar and his party began gaining traction in the national political environment. Even as the League adopted the Lahore Resolution in 1940, calling for a separate MUSLIM STATE based on the Two-Nation Theory, Savarkar publicly stated that he did not disagree with Jinnah's contention that Hindus and Muslims were a separate nation.

 It is often alleged by Indian Communists that Savarkar was employed by the British government in the divide and rule strategy to rule India. Even if he was a real patriot with strong Hindu revivalist feelings, still it narrowed the Indian Struggle for Independence at large.

--------

This is but a tiny speck of all the mud that modern India throws at Savarkar's image. Now, which view is correct? Was he a true patriot or a narrow-minded coward? Well, when you observe all the criticisms of Savarkar, all of them solely rests on the particular events that took place in Savarkar's life, where a slightly off point of view can distort the entire history and entire image of Savarkar.

Thus, you'll see that those who glorify Savarkar and those who criticise him, are in an endless maze of historical proofs and references. Even if I myself write here that

" tHeRe wAS a CoUsiN bRotHer oF SavaRkAr wHo cALLeD hiM aN uTTeR IdioT  in  a book called XYZ on the page number XYZ. "

Then you have only two choices, either to believe me and not believe me. Well, I may give you two-three logical arguments also.. But still, that logic cannot change what had actually happened.

Thus, to judge Savarkar as a whole personality as a patriot or a traitor is utter lunacy. And make this clear - those who ceaselessly either praise him or condemn him have some or the other agenda behind it. They may distort entire course of history and come up with their own cock-and-bull stories.

I take every historical record as a source of inspiration. I catch all the qualities of these historical figures like we take moral values from fairy tales. We have no option.

Talking about the use of propagandas, lies and distortion of history to invoke excitment and drama in the society by Indian politicians, that's a topic for another blog :)

Ever yours in the service of truth,

Daksh Parekh.