I want my Savarkar: II

09.16.04 | 20 Comments | Filed Under Commentary, Indian Politics

I’d written about the Savarkar issue last week, trying to point out the futility of straining to appropriate him and/or indulging in meaningless mudslinging, although I should admit that I’m attempting to look at the positive aspects of mudslinging. In the same entry, I had also chided Moron Mani Shankar Aiyar and others, who denounce Savarkar without (with?) knowing the sacrifices they undertook in their quest to free India.

A few days later, I happened to read the ever-secular Vir Sanghvi pontificate at length, in the usual garb of objective analysis. In summary, his marvellous piece of analysis has this to say:

  • It is shameful for the Congress in Maharashtra to glorify Savarakar
  • People espousing the Congress or Secular ideology cannot (should not?) accept Savarkar
  • Savarkar’s ideas ran diametrically opposite to Gandhi’s (so?)
  • The Congress has no ideology: it is only thirsty for power and will do anything for it (so what’s new?)

Now the question I ask of Vir is this, in the light of what he himself has written: It is understandable for the BJP/Shiv Sena et al, to claim Savarkar as their own, so don’t trust (aka don’t vote) them; that done, the Congress is equally vile from another perspective: so, to whom do the people of India turn? No prizes for guessing the answer.

Amidst all this, I read a very good analysis of the Savarkar issue in the Indian Express. Ashok Malik minces no words in expressing his admiration for Savarkar, in doing him honours due to a fierce fighter and patriot.

A jejune magazine article informed us Savarkar was a Chitpavan Brahmin, part of a community that seemingly specialised in ??ideologues … of Hindu nationalism??. One of them was Bal Gangadhar Tilak, accused of introducing ??primordial? Hindu imagery into public discourse.

It is the sort of sweeping, breathtaking assessment that leaves you gasping. In one sentence, an entire community has been written off as ??tainted?? by the parameters of contemporary political correctness. In one phrase, the great Tilak has been disowned, handed over to Acharya Dharmendra and the VHP.


Who is next? Now, should we be surprised if the Congress, which choreographed the 1984 Sikh massacre, says tomorrow that Bhagat Singh should not be honoured because he belongs to a community which murdered “India” Indira Gandhi?

Why does Savarkar evoke such passion? He was a thinking man?s Hindu, a prodigious mind, an author of repute. His Hindutva (1923) is a persuasive and remarkably evocative document.

As such, to the liberal rabble, he is flesh-and-blood refutation of the charge that Hindutva lacks an intellectual tradition. Hence the fervent desire to destroy him, efface him, erase his memory.


How many “respected” journalists and other media persons who deride Savarkar, have really read what he has written? Some, like Sanghvi make an appearance of having done scholarly research about all that he has said and/or written; I’ll grant them the benefit of doubt, but they are more adept at the art of quoting out of context as well as employing the heinous device of selective quoting. Savarkar’s complete works are available in 10 volumes, and it is only after reading them thoroughly (not to mention objectively) that one can come to a conclusion about the man, his thoughts, ideology, etc. Instead, these eminences, when they quote, do so from his “Essentials of Hindutva” and pick stuff from it which in the current parlance are politically incorrect. Let it be known that Savarkar was an agnostic person who defined Hindutva and Indian nationalism in terms of patriotism and a society/civilization based on scientific mode of thought. For those who are quick to quote his politically incorrect statements, here is a sample of what he has also said:

AASINDHU SINDHU PARYANTA YASYA BHARATBHOOMIKA PITRUBHOO PUNYABHOO SHCHYAIVA SAH VAIH HINDU RITI SMRITAH

Those all are Hindus for whom this land spread between Indian Ocean and the river Sindhu is Fatherland and Holyland.

This has been historically, roughly the geographical boundary of (the now-truncated) India. Now, what is so offensive in this? Why do our eminences leave this out when they quote him? Which is exactly what Malik says albeit differently.

To see Savarkar minus his context is to do disservice to not just him, but to India.


Context is king. When somebody says that women shouldn’t be allowed to work, that their place is in the kitchen, their only function is to produce babies, etc, it is propah to examine this statement in the context (by context I also mean period in history) in which such statements were made. Just try making that statement today, in public. A certain Mr.Dhoot had done something similar to this, and the now-defunct Jivha’s blog rightly raised a campaign to protest against a Rajya Sabha seat to this nincompoop. The call for “radical” Islamism today precisely rests on this foundation: anachronism–to somehow try to recreate a “glorious past” heritage.

The Poona Brahmins, contrary to what conventional wisdom may be, were among modern India?s early elites, along with, for instance, the Parsis of Bombay, the Banglo-Indian bhadralok of Calcutta. These are not groups to be scoffed at; they shaped the consciousness that evolved into Indian nationalism. They are our founding fathers.
Yet, it is also true that they were marginalised by Gandhi?s mass politics.


Today’s offshoots of some of these Poona Brahmins are scattered all over in the Left parties howling from rooftops about class inequality and other outdated Marxist blabber. Does doing so negate their identity as Brahmins? Or using a bit of psychoanalytic lingo, can we see in them a desperate attempt to overcome their guilt for having been born as Brahmins? Or is it that by adopting Marxism, they have overnight become progressive, and therefore, their identity-by-birth has evaporated? Gandhi’s mass politics was the breeding ground of much of today’s sycophancy in politics. Moreover, the idea of non-violence in politics was pretty novel, it was a first of sorts in human history. The outer trappings–of khadi and charka–were easy symbols to manipulate masses: look its effect today, now that it has been overdone a million times: every person, party, organization takes to satyagraha-till-death at the slightest pretext, and nothing comes out of it.
If you listen to today?s television debates ? or read the ghastly chapter on Savarkar in Freedom at Midnight, packed with cheap shots that mar an otherwise readable book ? you would imagine the build-up to the Mahatma?s murder was an open-and-shut, black-and-white affair.

Like many Indians, I was mesmerized by the overtly romanticized story of Indian freedom as is found in Freedom at Midnight. And I recently read somewhere that the first few(?) editions of this book portrayed Savarkar to be a homosexual. Not that I have any problem with people’s sexual tendencies: but given the bias against homosexuality, (that still exists) the authors have somehow tried to link Savarkar’s alleged role in Gandhi’s murder to his alleged homosexual tendencies. I also tend to go with Malik’s comment about the black-and-white affair. If anything, Gandhi’s murder was the extreme expression of millions of Hindus whose sentiments had been hurt by Gandhi’s insistence on allowing Muslims to butcher Hindus, and his call to Hindus to offer no resistance.

I’ve already ranted enough. Go read the whole piece. It’s thoughtfully written.

Tags: , , ,

timeline

20 Comments

Leave your comment

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

If this is the first time you are commenting, your comment maybe held in moderation. Please wait till I approve it.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

:

: