Author: Shreerang Godbole
Publication: Vijayvaani.com
Date: February 26, 2011
URL: http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1636
Congress leader Digvijay Singh recently stated
(26 Jan) that Savarkar had the original idea of the two-nation theory which
was later adopted by Jinnah. This is not the first (and one may safely assume
not the last) time that Veer Savarkar has been blamed for putting forth the
two-nation theory. Notwithstanding Digvijay Singh's political compulsions
in spreading this piece of disinformation, a factual rebuttal is in order.
The entire case of the Savarkar-baiters rests
on a solitary sentence culled out from his nearly 6000-page literature. Fortunately,
Savarkar has himself answered the charge that he had put forth the two-nation
theory. The sentence in question can be found in Savarkar's Presidential address
to the 19th session of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha at Karnavati (Ahmedabad)
in 1937. Savarkar stated, "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."
If critics read the entire speech (http://www.savarkar.org/content/pdfs/en/hindu-rashtra-darshan-en-v002.pdf),
it shall be evident to them that Savarkar had not advocated the two-nation
theory. Savarkar was one of the few Hindu leaders who made a deep study of
Islam from its scriptures. He had read a translation of the Quran even while
he was a student in England. In the Andamans, Savarkar had read the Quran
first in its English and subsequently Bengali and Marathi translations. Responding
to the opinion of his Muslim friends that the real beauty of the Quran lies
in its original, Savarkar asked them to read each page from the original and
then had them translate it for his benefit into Hindi. As Savarkar describes,
he heard them recite the Quran with great concentration and after keeping
his mind clean and pure as a devout Muslim. In later life, Savarkar read several
books written by Western authorities on the Quran. His deep study of Islam
is evident from his numerous articles such as those on Kemal Pasha, Khilafat
movement and various Islamic sects. Savarkar had learnt to read and write
Urdu. Thus, Savarkar's views on Islam and Muslims are not those of an ignorant
bigot.
The context
Savarkar's Presidential address is not a run-of-the-mill
political speech. After dwelling on the definition and significance of the
word 'Hindu', the status of Hindus as a nation unto themselves, the mission
of the Hindu Mahasabha, unified Indian State and the cooperation of the minorities,
Savarkar turned his attention to the attitude of the Muslims. He stated. "As
it is, 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. Our well-meaning but unthinking friends take their
dreams for realities… The solid fact is that the so-called communal questions
are but a legacy handed down to us by centuries of a cultural, religious and
national antagonism between the Hindus and the Moslems. When time is ripe
you can solve them but you cannot suppress them by merely refusing recognition
of them."
It is in that context that he made that statement.
The Islam-scholar, historian and hard-headed realist in Savarkar was simply
stating a bland fact and not endorsing it. This is further confirmed two sentences
later when he referred to the options before Hindus under the circumstances.
He stated, "…to form an Indian State in which none is allowed any
special weightage of representation and none is paid an extra price to buy
his loyalty to the State. Mercenaries are paid and bought off, not sons of
the Motherland to fight in her defence. The Hindus as a nation are willing
to discharge their duty to a common Indian State on an equal footing."
It is noteworthy that the President of the Hindu Mahasabha was not seeking
any rights for the Hindus that he was not willing to grant to the Muslims!
Throughout his life, Savarkar advocated equal rights for all citizens in a
unified Indian State.
Savarkar's defence
Misunderstanding was created after Savarkar
made the above utterances. Hence, Savarkar clarified his statement to journalists
on 15 August 1943 in the office of the Marathi weekly Aadesh in Nagpur. He
also clarified his position in an interview given in Mumbai on 23 August 1943,
and published in Aadesh on 28 August 1943 [English translation below]:
"I had clarified this (my statement that
there are two nations in Hindusthan) in my Nagpur interview. But instead of
reporting this, journalists simply reported that I accept the two-nation theory.
This has resulted in the whole misunderstanding. I am surprised that a storm
has been raised now on this issue. Because I have always been referring to
the two-nation theory right from my Ahmedabad speech. It is a historic truth
that the Mussulmans are a nation.. I had clarified the historical and racial
background of this theory in Nagpur. Islam is a theocratic nation based on
the Koran right from its inception. This nation never had geographical boundaries.
Wherever the Mussulmans went, they went as a nation. They also came to Hindusthan
as a nation.. Wherever they go, Mussulmans shall either remain foreigners
or rulers. As per the Koran, those who are not Mussulmans are kafirs, enemies
of Islam. Even today, after praying in the mosque, Mussulmans ask for atonement
for committing the sin of living in a kafir-ruled state. As per the principle
of Mussulmans, the earth is divided into two nations: Dar-ul Islam (land of
Islam) and Dar-ul Harb where Islam does not rule (enemy land). As per their
religious command, their campaign on Hindusthan was as a separate nation.
They conquered the Hindu Nation as a enemy nation, not as One Nation. The
Hindu Nation arose again and having defeated the Mussulmans at various places,
saved the whole of Hindusthan to establish Hindu Padpadshahi also as a separate
Hindu Nation opposed to the Muslim nations. This history certainly cannot
be denied. In the recent past, the educated class among the Hindus mostly
through the vehicle of the Congress tried its utmost to champion territorial
nationalism by saying that at least in Hindusthan, Hindus and Mussulmans are
one nation because they reside in one country. Though the effort was well-intentioned,
the Mussulmans never gave up their principle of theocratic or scriptural nationalism
and the feeling of being a nation separate from the Hindu Nation. And they
never shrank from stating this right. Seizing the right opportunity and taking
advantage of the Congress policy of surrender, the Muslim League once again
emphatically put forth that same old theory of the Mussulman nation being
a separate nation. If one turns a blind eye to this reality, the Hindu Nation
is bound to be divided. So we do not care if you consider yourself to be a
separate nation. The effort towards Hindu consolidation is to emphatically
state that the Hindu Nation is a self-evident and unified Nation. The Mahasabha
came forward as a separate and mighty national organization of the Hindu Nation.
Hindu Nationalism gave a cutting edge to the effort of consolidation.
People still do not understand the important
thing that stating the fact of Mussulman and Hindu nations being present in
Hindusthan is not to accept the Pakistani adamancy of carving a country of
the Mussalmans. If I call someone a grihasta (householder), it does not make
him a resident of my griha (house). Whether the Mussulmans consider themselves
a separate nation or not, at least as far as Hindusthan is concerned, they
are a minority compared to Hindus. Like the English, they have come here as
foreigners and if they want to stay in Hindusthan, they should do so only
as a minority community. An independent, unified, indivisible and single State
should be established in Hindusthan. Hindusthan is the Fatherland and the
Holyland of Hindus and even today they are an overwhelming majority in this
their country. Hence, even if there are in this country, by force or tyranny,
the English, Portuguese, French or those invaders such as the Americans or
Japanese who call themselves a nation., Hindusthan should be considered politically
a nation of the Hindus as per the principle of peoples' power. If they want,
minorities may stay here merely as minority communities. This is the objective;
this is the oath of Hindu consolidation. This objective should be achieved
through consensus if possible. Else, by strength and should opportunity arise,
by force, this or the next generation of Hindus shall achieve this objective.
While two or two hundred nations that consider themselves separate from the
Hindus have presently entered Hindusthan by force and are demanding Partition
of Hindusthan, it is not by a woolly-headed and cowardly denial of this fact
but rather by understanding, facing and changing it shall an independent,
undivided and indivisible Hindu nation alone shall without doubt, remain in
Hindusthan. But as in our history when the Hindu Nation successfully rallied
under the Hindu Flag, the Hindus should come forward and rise unitedly."
Savarkar was then asked that if Hindus and
Mussulmans are two nations, how will they form a single nation? He answered,
"We should not confuse between Nation and State. Even if the State goes,
the Nation remains. When the Mussulmans were ruling over us, the government
(State) was theirs. But the existence of the Hindus was most certainly intact.
Even so, there is no problem in a common State of Hindus and Mussulmans. In
the past, we had nations (rashtra) such as Maharashtra, Saurashtra, Devrashtra
(near Berar). Where are these nations? They mingled with each other. The Shakas
and Huns came to Hindusthan as nations. But what is the evidence of their
existence today? We digested them. So if the Mussulmans want, they could amicably
stay with Hindus as a minority community. In the past, nations such as Prussia,
Bavaria etc. existed in Germany. But today, they have all together formed
the German nation. By law, no one in Germany may call himself Prussian or
Bavarian but German only.
"Regarding the Mussulmans in Hindusthan,
it may be said that you (Hindus) are trying to rope them with you but do the
Mussulmans so desire? In the end, desire is the most influential and important
factor for a nation. If they consider themselves separate, what is achieved
merely by saying that you consider them your own? And hence, we need not worry
whether they come with us or not. And there is no reason why we should sacrifice
Hindu interests and plead with them to perforce say that they are not a separate
nation. Hindus are a nation unto themselves. Considering this, the Hindus
should continue the freedom struggle by consolidating themselves irrespective
of whether the Mussulmans come with them or not. If they so desire, they may
stay here, else they shall go where it pleases them."
Savarkar's consistent view on this subject
was best summarized by him in his Presidential address in Nagpur in 1938.
He said, "It is absurd to call us (Hindus) a community in India. The
Germans are the Nation in Germany and the Jews a Community. The Turks are
a Nation in Turkey and the Arab or the Armenian minority a Community. Even
so the Hindus are a Nation in India - in Hindusthan and the Moslem minority
a Community."
It is undeniable that Muslims consider themselves
as a nation or Ummah. It was not Savarkar's invention nor did he ever endorse
this Islamic concept. It is noteworthy that the Afro-American religious movement
started by Wallace D. Fard Muhammad in Detroit, Michigan, in 1930 was named
'Nation of Islam'.
Jinnah's inspiration
To say that Jinnah adopted Savarkar's idea
is arrant nonsense! Can Digvijay Singh or his ilk quote a single sentence
from Jinnah's speeches or writings where he has named Savarkar as his source
of inspiration? In a letter to newly elected Congress President Badruddin
Tyabji (1888), Sir Syed Ahmed wrote, "Is it supposed that that the different
castes and creeds living in India belong to one nation, or can become nation,
and that their aims and aspirations be one and same? I think it is quite impossible."
The answer given by Tayyabji, the former President of Digvijay Singh's Grand
Old Party is even more revealing. Tayyabji writes, "Now I am not aware
of anyone regarding the whole of India as one Nation and if you read my Inaugural
address, you will find it distinctly stated that there are numerous communities
or nations in India…"(Source Material for a History of the Freedom
Movement in India, Vol.2, pp 70-73).
The idea of an independent, sovereign Islamic
State carved out of India was first publicly stated by Sir Muhammad Iqbal
in his Presidential address to the Muslim league in 1930. Iqbal said, "I
would like to see the Punjab, the North West Frontier Province, Sind 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 be to me the final of the Muslims at least
of the North-Western India." Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto accurately observed
that "the starting point of Pakistan goes back a thousand years to when
Muhammad-bin-Qasim set foot on the soil of Sind and introduced Islam in the
sub-continent".
It is a travesty that Congressmen who accepted
the Islamic demand of a separate State on the basis of religion and Leftists
who fervently believe India to be a hotchpotch of multiple nationalities,
should hurl the charge of advocacy of the two-nation theory on Savarkar, a
lifelong champion of a unified India.
- (The writer is a Pune-based specialist in
diabetes and hormone disorders. He has authored books on Islam, contemporary
Buddhist-Muslim relations, and played a major role in developing www.savarkar.org)
