Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has intrigued historians, academicians, and political thinkers alike, particularly in the 21st century. As India finds itself at a crossroads between tradition and modernity, the compass of Hindu thought has been continually recalibrated to meet emerging challenges. In this evolving sphere, Savarkar has emerged as a torchbearer for the modern Hindu, offering new dimensions of morality that could guide the future. However, since Savarkar is associated with a political ideology, there are consequently polarising assessments of the man.
Arun Shourie’s latest book, ‘The New Icon: Savarkar and the Facts’, offers a critical assessment of the various debates surrounding Savarkar’s life. Rather than following a chronological approach, Shourie opts for a selective examination of key controversies, engaging with each as distinct battles. This approach has led to the omission of the history of the Ratnagiri phase of Savarkar. As we will later see, this leads to various lapses in understanding Savarkar.
The total number of sources used by Shourie nears 150. He has used many primary sources including the India Office Records. The usage of secondary sources is minimal. However, there are certain omissions in facts which might have stemmed from a selective reading of works on Savarkar. He also does not use the huge repository of evidence concerning Savarkar, kept in the National Archives as well as Prime Ministers Museum & Library. Therefore, his assessment of Savarkar is misplaced at times and can be considered incomplete.
There are a lot of other books that are heavily critical of Savarkar, with each having a significant cross-section of contentions. Some of the notable critiques are: 1) Hindutva and Violence: V. D. Savarkar and the Politics of History by Vinayak Chaturvedi; 2) Savarkar and the Making of Hindutva by Janaki Bakhle; 3) Savarkar and Hindutva: The Godse Connection by AG Noorani; 4) Hindutva: Savarkar Unmasked by Shamsul Islam; 5) Hindutva: Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism by Jyotirmaya Sharma; 6) Savarkar: Kala Pani aur Uske Baad by Ashok Kumar Pandey.
Most of these critiques have certain commonalities. They believe that Savarkar had a change of heart in the Andamans. He then sold his conscience to the British and worked for their interests. He is also shown as a rabid communalist who operated on sheer prejudice. Savarkar is also portrayed as a collaborator who fooled the public and gave messianic speeches feeding on the fickleness of communal emotions. The weapon at work is Savarkar’s mercy petitions which are taken at face value to give a simplistic and unsympathetic treatment to his character.
However, plethora of evidence that I’ve come across portrays Savarkar as a more complex individual than the black and white treatment that is accorded to him. Janaki Bakhle contends that Savarkar was kept under detention so that he could keep writing articles that could bash Gandhi and polarise the Hindu-Muslim communal divide more. Even Shourie has somewhat the same conclusion in essence, however he makes no mention of the detention years, barring some essays on caste annihilation. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Savarkar was constantly threatened with being sent back to jail for violating the terms of his release. His communal write ups were criticised by the British and he was warned to repeat such instances in the future.
In 1925, one year after his release from jail, Savarkar wrote an inflammatory article in the Mahratta titled ‘Suffering Muslims of Kohat’. This did not go well with the British and Savarkar was threatened with prosecution based on the article’s contents. D.O. Flynn, a British Government official, sent Savarkar a letter on 6th May 1925.
In the letter he writes: “I am directed to state that the Government considers that your response [defending the article] is far from satisfactory. It should have been obvious to you that an article of the nature which you published in the issue of Mahratta on the 1st March 1925 was bound to inflame the feelings and increase the tension between Hindus and Muhammedans and was contrary to your undertaking not to engage in any manner in political activities without the consent of the Government. I am therefore to request you to refrain in future from any similar writings as they would necessitate a reconsideration of the question of your release by the Government.” [Source: National Archives]
He ends the letter with a complimentary close ‘I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant’. This letter debunks two critiques: 1- Savarkar was encouraged to create a polarising environment. 2- The complimentary close was an accepted format of communication rather than a proposal of servility.
This was not the only instance as in 1927, Savarkar wrote a play called ‘Ushap’. The play featured Muslim characters discussing caste oppression, portraying their faith in a positive light. However, there were subtle introductions to themes of a Muslim man pursuing a Hindu girl and of forcible conversions. Savarkar again got a letter of warning from the Government.
The letter reads: “The Governor-General in Council considers that Mr. Savarkar was very ill-advised in publishing this play at a time when Hindu-Moslem feelings are hypersensitive. The book is certainly not a publication that one would expect from a party who is at large through the clemency of Government and under the express condition that he would not engage in political activities, which Mr. Savarkar was informed in Government letter No. 724/3266, dated the 6th May 1925, a copy of which was forwarded to you. The book included attempts to influence feelings and arouse communal tension. The Governor-in-Council therefore considers that Mr. Savarkar should be asked to withdraw the book from publication.” [Source: Savarkar Private Papers: Microfilm Roll 22, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML), New Delhi]
There was no encouragement from the Government for such an approach. Hence, Savarkar was at loggerheads with the Government for his articles. In fact, due to such a hardliner approach, as also Savarkar’s activities in support of the revolutionaries, he was denied release five times and his term of detention was renewed. Only in 1937, due to a more sympathetic provincial government consisting of more Indians, Savarkar was released.
The question is: Why was Savarkar kept under detention? If it was only for the sake of writing articles, he could have been released. Savarkar was a prolific writer who wrote copiously, hence, that could have continued. Also, the speeches of Savarkar as well as his political activities could have been of ‘more use’ to the British, as is anyways the allegation presented by these authors. Hence, these seem to be motivated allegations, which are presented with the sole motive of criticising the individual.
There is a lot of correspondence available from the British Government officials, which notes that they regret Savarkar’s release as he showed no change of heart. Even Janaki Bakhle provides such evidence in her book. Yet, she comes to a very different conclusion which seems to be quite inconsistent.
Savarkar has often been criticized without due consideration of contradictory evidence. An objective narrative would, at the very least, maintain some degree of sympathy to better understand an individual. Unfortunately, Savarkar is seldom afforded that luxury. His life after London has been used as a battering ram to dismantle any respect for his sacrifices, with selective facts cobbled together to paint an incomplete picture. In fact, metaphorically he still seems to be jailed in the Andamans, as his life afterwards is assessed to punish him. His legacy still remains in the confines of the prison cells.
Shourie inherits from the vast range of controversies around Savarkar. He seems to have studied the critical works in depth, as he has also mentioned in his preface, and has come out with his own takes. In the first section ‘Much to Learn’, Shourie appreciates Savarkar for attacking the notions of cow worship, ritualism and caste. To Shourie, Savarkar comes across as a rationalist who poses a huge challenge to contemporary Hindus as well.
In the next section ‘History is Made Up’, Shourie contends that Savarkar planted myths about himself that could glorify him. He questions the myth around Savarkar’s escape from the ship in Marseilles. He correctly identifies the flaw between the general narrative as well as Savarkar’s portrayal vis-a-vis the official evidence. However, he also alleges here that Savarkar himself published his biography ‘Life of Barrister Savarkar’ under the pseudonym Chitragupta. But, Shourie himself points out that Life of Barrister Savarkar has deviations from Savarkar’s own portrayal of the swimming incident. Therefore, his claim behind the authorship is too speculative.
Shourie then proceeds to the relationship of Savarkar with Subhas Chandra Bose and the INA. Here, he contends that Savarkar has constructed another myth, that of working in collaboration with Subhas Bose. Shourie has raised some interesting questions about the viability of the claims. He assesses Savarkar’s claims to be baseless. But there’s a lot of contradictory evidence in the National Archives that hints at Savarkar’s contributions to the INA. Since he has not looked up the archives, such assessments are incomplete.
Shourie claims that the motive of promoting Savarkar is to erase Gandhi. But according to him Savarkar had propagated myths to claim accolades in the freedom struggle. He even questions Savarkar’s contributions during the Abhinav Bharat days, that is, his time in London. Thus, everything is questioned and almost nothing positive is deemed to be true. The assessment thus does not strive for any balance.
Shourie makes another claim, that of Savarkar’s ‘self-image’ as a rhetorical tool to inflate his image in the eyes of the people. Thus, to him Savarkar has glorified himself wholeheartedly in his own writings. Again, he uses ‘Life of Barrister Savarkar’ as an example to support his claim. He also questions Savarkar’s claims of ‘leading’ and ‘inspiring’ people. However, Savarkar’s inmates in the India House have considered him as their leader in their own writings. Similarly, many other biographers of revolutionaries in the India House have concluded that Savarkar was indeed the leader of the group and his influence on these figures was immense.
In the next section ‘The Revolutionary Writes’, Shourie ridicules Savarkar for citing Shivaji’s examples to explain his own actions in life. He even calls Savarkar not even a ‘25-paise Shivaji’. Shourie writes,
“The moment he got out of the corner, Shivaji resumed his struggle, Savarkar, on the other hand, did what he pledged to do—that is, to be of use to the British. He formulated the two-nation theory—which was ever so convenient for the British. He denounced the Congress at every turn—which was ever so convenient for the British. He hurled pejoratives at Gandhiji—which was ever so convenient for the British. He poured scorn at the ‘Quit India’ movement—which was ever so convenient for the British. He supported the British in their war effort—which was ever so convenient for the British.”
This is the recurring problem in Shourie’s assessment. He considers Gandhi and the Indian National Congress to be sacrosanct in their position in the freedom struggle. If they face any opposition from Savarkar, that is supposed to be some sort of treason. This assertion is also strengthened by the absence of any discussion on the Ratnagiri phase of Savarkar. Any neutral study on that phase would conclude that Savarkar was constantly in struggle with the Government and there was no question of cooperation.
Another common assertion is that Savarkar’s release was strategically advantageous to the British, as his views aligned with their interests. Arun Shourie, Bakhle, Noorani, Islam and Ashok Pandey make this allegation. Shourie also takes the reader through Savarkar’s correspondence with the Government after 1938, which he obtained from the India Office Records. Having already called him a Hitler sympathiser, Shourie proceeds to prove Savarkar was a British collaborator. To achieve this objective, Shourie gives no context of Savarkar’s objectives and challenges he was faced with. Instead, he walks the reader through every conversation interpreting it with a single-focus, to prove Savarkar was a collaborator.
The problem is, Savarkar indeed asked for complete independence but later downgraded it to the demand for Dominion Status. Shourie slams Savarkar for such a transition and considers it tantamount to collaboration. However, Savarkar was walking on a tightrope nearing World War 2, when he realized that the Hindus were in far lesser numbers in the army as compared to the Muslims. He was working on improving the composition, without which it was reckless to demand for complete independence. His contention was that there was a possibility of civil war at the wake of the British leaving India. This worry was echoed by Dr. Ambedkar in his book ‘Pakistan or the Partition of India’.
In absence of context, Savarkar appears to be lenient with the British since he also needed cooperation from their part for getting Hindu Mahasabha recognized as a representative of the Hindus of India. However, the ‘cooperation’ never came. Neither was it expected to. In the power vacuum followed by Congress members’ resignations and boycotts, especially after the Quit India movement and the arrests of the leaders, Muslim League was promoted by the British because they seemed to have aligned their interests with the British to a great measure. Shourie thus presents all these conversations at face value and bashes Savarkar based on them.
Most of the critical thesis by various aforementioned authors is strengthened by Savarkar’s bitter assessments of Muslims. Most of these authors are of the opinion that Savarkar was not just critical but was dipped in prejudice against Muslims. This, according to them, was one of the reasons Savarkar proved to be of great use to the ruling dispensation.
This allegation resurfaces repeatedly in almost all critical assessments of Savarkar. But a discerning student of the Khilafat Movement would know that many Indian leaders got disillusioned by the Muslim reaction to the Non-Cooperation movement. This included leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai, Dr. Ambedkar, Annie Besant, Rabindranath Tagore, Shri Aurobindo and several others. Savarkar’s theoretical reaction to the question of Muslim communalism was no different than these leaders. However, in terms of practical application of the understanding, Savarkar definitely represented an extreme of Indian politics.
Savarkar is supposed to be a hardliner in his speeches. But even Aurobindo echoes Savarkar’s approach in a conversation on 18 April 1923, when he said,
“I am sorry they are making a fetish of this Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use ignoring facts; some day, the Hindus may have to fight the Muslims and they must prepare for it. Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindu has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organize themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve the problem. Otherwise we are lulled into a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem when, in fact, we have only shelved it.” [Source: Sri Aurobindo and India’s Rebirth, Michel Danino]
Savarkar has tried to practically implement what is proposed by Aurobindo. His emphasis on a strong Hindu organization was also a mechanism to counter the separatist forces that appeared as an impending challenge. However, his unrestrained approach in speeches indeed had a polarising potential. But, doesn’t Shourie contend that the Hindu Mahasabha was too weak to influence the national politics.
In fact, I contend that Gandhi and Savarkar were the two sides of the same coin with regards to the Muslim question. Both realized that there was no sense of unity among the Hindus and Muslims. Gandhi chose to make it his primary mission to achieve this unity. That means he understood that the society was already divided, and hence, unity was a dreamland that he wanted to bring to reality. In fact, there was no Savarkar in the political discourse during the riots that took place after Khilafat, the notable ones being Moplah and Kohat.
Gandhi spent all of his energy and efforts in effecting this unity. However, in the process he adopted the approach of: If you don’t agree with us, we will give you everything we have so that you agree. Savarkar on the other hand used to present the idea: If you come, with you; if you don’t without you; and if you oppose, in spite of you – the Hindus will continue to fight for their National Freedom.
The limits of their approach reveal stark contrasts. Gandhi ends up preaching Hindus to give up their lives against Muslim aggression, but not react at all. In other words, he expected Hindus to be suicidal but non-violent. Aurobindo termed this paradox of Gandhi’s nonviolence as ‘violence on self’. Later on, nearing the partition days, Gandhi himself is seen lamenting at his failure to achieve the Hindu-Muslim unity. His fixation on this mission certainly did not bore fruits.
In contrast, despite vehemently criticising the partition, Savarkar ends up hoisting the tricolor flag at his house on 15 August 1947, along with the saffron flag. Savarkar taught Hindus to respect themselves and fight for what they thought was right. In Savarkar’s worldview, wars were inevitable. If you don’t fight against aggression, you succumb to it. His idea was to strive for responsive ahimsa. The nonviolence which can defend itself against external violence.
Savarkar is a convenient scapegoat for the blame of polarisation. Many other leaders, including the aforementioned ones, also held such views. They are seldom criticised for their writings and speeches. In fact, Savarkar attempted to create a strong Hindu front which opposed the partition tooth and nail. Ambedkar also considers it a delusion on Savarkar’s part when he already felt the two communities were antagonistic and yet could live together. Ambedkar also represents the same understanding and provides the solution of complete transfer of population of the two communities.
Shourie’s omissions have been useful to critique and villanise Savarkar. Now that the false icon has been demolished, he ends the book with a plea: ‘Save Hinduism from Hindutva’.
(Note: It should be noted that the objective of the reproduction of Savarkar’s writings is to refute Shourie’s arguments in his book and should not be deemed as the author’s endorsement of Savarkar’s views. The author is only reproducing neutral observations of historical facts.)
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.