Author: Priyadarsi Dutta
Publication: Pioneer
Date: March 12, 2003
On June 7, 1985, the British Parliament
adjourned its proceedings for an extraordinary reason. MPs paid tributes
to a person once the empire classified as its deadly enemy -Swatantryaveer
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966). They converged at the auditorium
in the Westminster's Annexe where a documentary on Savarkar by Prem Vaidya
(adjudged the best Filmfare documentary for 1983) was scre-ened. The book
Five Stormy Years: Savarkar in London by Dr Harindra Srivastava, the greatest
authority on Savarkar alive, was released.
On June 8, the 70 to 80 MPs (and
ambassador of Greece) converged at the India House in London that was the
epicenter of Savarkar's revolutionary acts in London between 1906 and 1911.
The chief guest was cricketer Sunil Gavaskar, who of course had little
to contribute to the occasion. 97-year-old Labour MP Lord Fenner Brockway
(1888-1988), in his impeccable style, said all charges levelled against
Savarkar by British Empire were "completely baseless and fraudulent". He
said that to have a patriot like Savarkar was a matter of great pride for
any country.
What an irony that the Indian Parliament
had to lag behind the Westminster by 17 years plus to venerate the volcano
of patriotism, Veer Savarkar. To compound the irony the opposition boycotted
the function on February 26 en masse. How else could they have expressed
their gratitude to a man who, during World War II enlistments, single-handedly
turned the Indian Army from Muslim dominated to the extent of 75 per cent
to Hindu dominated to the same extent by his whirlwind propaganda throwing
the Muslim League into a tizzy. Else, immediately after Partition, much
parts of Secular India ran extreme risk of being captured and turned into
Dar-ul-Islam.
At that time the Congress, a tell-tell
manifestation of "Cow-headed Hindu complacency" had pledged "na ek bhai,
na ek pai" (not a person, not a paise to army). But "Secular" Congress
forgot its firman reached no more than five per cent of Muslims. If today
our "Secularists" blow hot and cold in Parliament, and many leading newspapers
write garbage on Hindutva day in and day out, it is because they are safely
defended by a Hindu-Sikh army. And to this end they must be grateful to
Savarkar who had envisioned a "steel strong frontiers" for India. "Savarkar,"
says Dr Srivastava, "was probably more concerned about country's border
than even the country."
With all his glimpses into world
history and discoveries of India, Nehru strangely could not understand
the importance of country's martial strength. Vis-a-vis China, he thought
that the world too thought like a Hindu. It took a hard Mongoloid slap
for him to realise that the world was not Hindu. Pity, he had taken a leaf
from Savarkar's wisdom that there is no golden age in nation's life without
military virility. The Gupta Age was golden not just culturally and intellectually,
but because it could produce 90-year old King Skandagupta who could die
in harness fighting the Huns near Punjab, and not even in his capital Ujjain.
The Maurya-Buddhist age, on the contrary, might have charisma of humanism
but was emasculated India opening gates for second phase of Greek invasion.
To this end Savarkar crystallised his vision "Hindutvaisation of Politics,
and militarisation of Hindus".
The other pet charge conspicuously
devoid of substance is that Savarkar was an accused in Gandhi's assassination.
What does that prove? Should Savarkar, who was honourably acquitted in
the Gandhi assassination case after 84 sittings spanning seven months,
still be branded Gandhi's assassin? Is it not a contempt of court?
But there was no evidence to prove
Savarkar guilty except for Digamber Bagde's statement. On the other hand
Nathuram Godse, who shot Gandhi, had said he had acted independent of Savarkar.
If the Congress government was honest why did it proscribe the publication
Godse's eloquent submission May it please Your Honour. It took 30 years
and a Supreme Court order for Gopal Godse to get the ban rescinded. The
book has been translated into several languages since then.
After Partition Gandhi's popularity
had greatly reduced. Savarkar would have been naive to think of eliminating
such a failing political figure. Noted Jana Sangh leader Balraj Madhok
writes in his book, Rationale of Hindu Rashtra, that Gandhi would have
died without fame had he been left to his own. It was Godse who immortalised
Gandhi. However, history's verdict is still to come.
