Rationalism Of Veer Savarkar Godbole V. S.

1. Rationalism Of Veer Savarkar Godbole V. S.

2. 8 Realism / 357
3. 9 Change with country, times and people / 411
4. 10 Utility of all human activities / 601
5. :v.iarVN 7;
6. Try to persuade your opponents
7. Why we should respect our opponents
8. No twisting of facts to suit one’s views.
9. National good is more important than the unity
10. What is true unity?
11. Right to disagree
12. Public good or Popularity?
13. You disagree with my views, but do you know what they are?
14. FREEDOM OF THOUGHT IN THE LITERARY FIELD
15. A plea to my opponents
16. Personal Opinions
17. Literature damaging the sanctity of current beiiefs
18. Progressive literature / Literature of new thoughts
19. Communism and Freudism
20. Objectionable literature.
21. FREEDOM OF PERSONAL CHOICE
22. A CODE OF CONDUCT
23. MEAN MINDED AND INTOLERANT OPPONENTS OF
SAVARKAR
24. Savarkar exposes the intolerance of his opponents
25. Indian freedom struggle did start before Gandhi
26. It Is no sin to work outside the Congress Party
27. Yesterday’s moderates were more tolerant than today’s Congressites
28. If you do not agree with Gandhi or Nehru, you are no good
29. We have factions - so what?
30. It does not matter if mistakes are made
31. Have confidence in yourselves
32. Savarkar refused to become Gandhi’s puppet
33. ' ‘ ■ YAJ<1 HIA^ QWA 30fT2Ut 30 381433
34. SENSE OF JUSTICE IN FIELDS OTHER THAN POLITICS
35. * Moplas
36. Sponsors of Purification of ianguage
37. Commendable work in Baroda state
38. FRATERNITY
39. • Universal brotherhood of mankind
40. SAVARKAR’S PERSECUTION BY THE ENGLISH
41. IN LONDON (1906-1910)
42. Savarkar not assigned to work outside the prison.
43. End of second strike but no concessions to Savarkar
44. Savarkar brothers sent back to india against their wishes.
45. asked for.”
46. SAVARKAR BACK IN INDIA
47. SAVARKAR’S RELATIONS WITH MUSLIMS
48. IN LONDON (1906-1910)
49. ** Repercussions of wearing of badges in memory of heroes of 1857
war
50. ** We congratulate Haidar Reza. (16 October 1906)
51. ** Haidar Reza attends Ganeshotsava at Nasik (12 November 1908)
52. ** Vijayadashami celebrated in London (November 1909)
53. * Water deliberately made foul
54. * Partiality of the English officers
55. The tide turns
56. * Ram Ram not Salam
57. Greetings with folded hands
58. Is the re-conversion childish?
59. Childish play of the elderly
60. Don’t advocate conversion by terror
61. We need to re-convert those whom we abandoned
62. Savarkar puts a stop to conversion of Hindus to Isiam.
63. * Misunderstanding about the purification of ianguage
64. * SAVARKAR AND PRISON OFFICER MR BARRIE
65. * HUMANISM OF SAVARKAR
66. WHY WAS SAVARKAR’S IMAGE TARNISHED BY HIS
OPPONENTS?
67. Some background information
68. Why was Savarkar’s image tarnished by his opponents?: Reason No. 1
 69. Savarkar was reaiistic in deaiing with Musiims, his opponents were
not.
70. Hindus facing popuiation haemorrhage
71. SUICIDAL PRACTICES
72. 1929
73. 1932
74. 1934
75. Examples of impending danger
76. 1940
77. 1941
78. 1942
79. HOW TO DEAL WITH MUSLIMS?
80. 1924
81. 1927
82. 1932
83. 1939
84. 1929
85. 1939
86. 1941
87. 1942
88. On 10 August Savarkar said in Deihi, “Don’t be afraid of bioodbath.
Cowardice causes more harm and bioodshed.”
89. Why was Savarkar’s image tarnished by his opponents?: Reason No. 2
90. Why was Savarkar’s image tarnished by his opponents?: Reason No. 3
91. Foolish notions about Hindu Muslim unity of Savarkar’s Hindu
opponents
92. Plight of Hindus in the Sind province
93. Savarkar exposes true nature of Shaukat Ali
94. • Cowardice of Vinoba Bhave
95. Non Hindus must never be admitted to tempies and places of Hindu
worship.
96. Why does not Vinboba go to Pakistan?
97. * Perverted idea of bravery
98. 1948
99. 1949
100. 1942
101. 1944
102. d) errad»Nl9aja eftfoiecl t>eH eH40iMnodOo ^;n ydt
103. UNTOUCHALIBITY AMONG OTHER RELIGIONS
104. Untouchability among Muslims
105. Dr Ambedkar carried out a movement for allowing the untouchables to
take water from the public lake in Mahad.
106. Muslims. You are no different than Hindus, is that not so? Maulana
ducked Savarkar’s question.
107. Dr Ambedkar’s sons will return to the fold of Hindu Dharma
108. Divisions among Christians
109. Buddhism and untouchability
110. • Buddhism enforced untouchability not abandoned it
111. This historical truth was too much for Dr Ambedkar and his followers
to bear. They kept very quiet about it.
112. _. dgy wasil i iw^
113. Support for just demands of untouchables
114. Untouchables drawing water from public tanks
115. Some other works
116. SUPPORT SWADESHI (INDEGINUS INDUSTRIES)
117. ENOUGH OF TALKING
118. Active Reformers
119. Inability to understand and face the truth
120. • During Internment In Ratnagiri (1924-37)
121. WARNING HINDUS ABOUT DANGERS FROM MUSLIMS
122. 1924
123. 1926
124. 1928
125. 1929
126. 1931
127. CONSTANT ACTIVITIES IN THE LITERARY FIELD
128. Purification of language
129. . .r^
130. ■- ■ ’trt-s?aaKQir-rv >• 4i.j
131. Know thy enemy well
132. Savarkar says further,
133. INDIA AND INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
134. On 1 August 1937 he said In Pune • Limits of Russia’s ideals
135. Age of Nationalism
136. Japan and India
137. Thugs and super-thugs
138. Look at the basics
139. Chamberlain and Gandhiji
140. Why should we have a feud with Germany, Japan and Italy?
141. Where is the moral force?
142. What did China lack?
143. Sword Is more important than poetry.
144. Tiger and the cow
145. First, Rifie clubs
146. You cannot foretell who would be your enemy In a speech of 1940,
Savarkar said,
147. • Effects of some events are evident only after a century
148. • Partition of india
149. A word of warning
150. We should not be impatient to expect instant results but must strive to
make a success of this social reform.
151. Would embracing other religions benefit the untouchables?
152. They do not want to abandon their traditions
153. Look at the historical example of brave King Khushuru
154. If you feel you would benefit by embracing other religions, do so.
155. What a tremendous self-confidence! What a realism I!
156. Embracing Buddhism will make your life miserable
157. MISCELLANEOUS
158. • A Hindu temple in London
159. • Importance of the English language
160. .1
161. SAVARKAR IN INTERNMENT (1924-1937)
162. Praise for the revolutionaries
163. Revolutionaries of Chittagong reply to the oppression of Sir Tegart.
164. Revolutionaries are not terrorists
165. AFTER RELEASE FROM iNTERNMENT (1937-1947)
166. Relative importance of literature
167. Look at other countries
168. First the firepower then ethics and philosophy
169. As with nation as with literature
170. Throw away the pens and bear arms
171. I cannot see it any longer
172. Why do you call us aggressors?
173. Justifiable violence
174. Struggle in Bhagyanagar (Hyderabad)
175. MEMORANDUM BY THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IN INDIA
TO ALL COMMANDERS ON THE FIRST INA TRIAL.
176. IMPORTANCE OF MARTYRS
177. VARIETY OF MEANS
178. What good is just one means?
179. We are now free. Say No to revolutionary activities
180. DHARMA (RELIGION)
181. Religion is a tremendous force
182. Well, the question then arises, what is religion?
183. RELIGIOUS TEXTS
184. How should we read religious texts?
185. * Objections to the rationalist approach
186. KORAN
187. Background information on Koran
188. Same words, different meanings
189. Koran - Divine or man-made?
190. How was Koran revealed?
191. Which is the true Koran?
192. Contradictory orders
193. Factions arise among Musiims
194. Al Aswad
195. Paigambars (Prophets) after Mohammed
196. Recent (Paigambar) Prophet
197. EXTREMES OF INTERPRETATIONS
198. God creates the world
199. MANUSMRITI
200. In short, Savarkar says —
201. Who drafted Manusmriti?
202. * Names of girls
203. * Arguments with learned Brahmins
204. Etan dwijayato deshansanshryeranprayatbhih
205. But these orders are conveniently ignored by the Shastris. They have
been living in the forbidden land!!
206. WOMEN
207. I have written these articles only to illustrate how our society treated
women in the days of Manu. I am not at all discussing
208. IDEAL MARRIAGE
209. Savarkar continues
210. Where does the fault lie?
211. EATING: WHAT IS PERMISSIBLE AND WHAT IS NOT
212. Manusmriti could not have been written at the time of earth’s creation
213. SUMMARY OF THOUGHTS ON RELIGIOUS TEXTS
214. Modernist tendency
215. Orthodox tendency
216. Baseless accusations against Savarkar
217. Savarkar carries on —
218. Beneficial cross-examination
219. New Goddess: The Goddess of Reason
220. Some important examples form Indian History
221. What about today?
222. That is what we Hindus are becoming today!!
223. Look at Europe
224. Religious freedom
225. In another article Savarkar wrote —
226. • Obsession of ‘going by the book’
227. What about today?
228. * Marriages of divorced men/women in church
229. SOCIAL ISSUES
230. • Reforms do not mean blind following of Europeans.
231. Follow the example of the English language
232. How Hindus blindly follow the westerners today
233. Neckties
234. Limit of our inteliectuals
235. CODE FOR REFORMERS
236. In November 1927, he was at a village named Devarukh, He said —
237. * British women
238. * Weights of men and women
239. * Exchange rates
240. WHILE IN JAIL ON THE ANDAMAN ISLANDS (1911 TO 1921)
241. If I decide to die, that is how I will die
242. My mind rebels
243. World War I (1914-1918) - use of curiosity about the war
244. Je ka ranjale ganjale
245. What can the women do?
246. Datavyamiti yatdanam diyate anupakarine
247. BEAUTY OF WOMEN
248. Beauty of women is the cream of nature’s creation.
249. Asyah sargavidho prajapatirabhuchhandro nu kantipradah
250. Harastu kinchit pariluptachairyah Chandradayarambha Evamburashih
251. Prasid vishramyatu veer vajram
252. A sad fact of life
253. Excess of Rationalism is Fanaticism
254. This was a tremendous step forward. Savarkar commented—
255. On 23 July 1928, Savarkar wrote in the local newspaper Balawant. He
said
256. USE THE BRITISH ADMINISTRATION
257. What did the agitation in Bhagyanagar (Hyderabad) achieve?
258. WORLD WAR II - UTILISE IT FOR OUR BENEFIT
259. Turning to Savarkar’s days, let us take three examples
260. Savarkar explained
261. Now let us recapitulate some of Indian history.
262. And what were the Muslims doing during this turmoil? Shahid Hamid
telis us,
263. Shahid Hamid tells us
264. Savarkar continues
265. Riktah Kumbharivambare
266. ft
267. English / British
268. Chapter five - Savarkar the Social reformer
269. Chapter six - Savarkar the doer
270. Chapter nine - Change according to Countries, Time
271. and People
272. Chapter ten - Utility of all Human Activities
273. A word of Gratitude
274. England
275. America
276. Switzerland
277. About the author
278. VEERSAVARKAR
Rationalism Of Veer Savarkar
Godbole V. S.
Saachi Din

This book was produced in EPUB format by the Internet

Archive.

The book pages were scanned and converted to EPUB format

automatically. This process relies on optical character
recognition, and is somewhat susceptible to errors. The book
may not offer the correct reading sequence, and there may be
weird characters, non-words, and incorrect guesses at structure.
Some page numbers and headers or footers may remain from
the scanned page. The process which identifies images might
have found stray marks on the page which are not actually
images from the book. The hidden page numbering which may
be available to your ereader corresponds to the numbered
pages in the print edition, but is not an exact match; page
numbers will increment at the same rate as the corresponding
print edition, but we may have started numbering before the
print book's visible page numbers. The Internet Archive is
working to improve the scanning process and resulting books,
but in the meantime, we hope that this book will be useful to
you.

The Internet Archive was founded in 1996 to build an Internet

library and to promote universal access to all knowledge. The
Archive's purposes include offering permanent access for
researchers, historians, scholars, people with disabilities, and
the general public to historical collections that exist in digital
format. The Internet Archive includes texts, audio, moving
 images, and software as well as archived web pages, and
provides specialized services for information access for the
blind and other persons with disabilities.

Created with abbyy2epub (v.1.7.6)

Picture #1

Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

By

Dr. V. S. Godbole

(England)

ISBN No.

Publisher

Dr. Vijay Bedekar,

Itihas Patrika Prakashan,

‘Shivashakti’

Dr. Bedekar Hospital,

Maharshi Karve Marg,

Thane 400602 Hindusthan (India)

□
© Mrs. Vinita Vasudev Godbole □

First edition

March, 2004

Printer

Vaibhav Barve

Shree Vedvidya Mudranalaya Pvt. Ltd., 41 Budhwar Peth, Jogeshwari Lane,

Pune 411002 Hindusthan (India)

Price Rs. 400/

A request for the reader

This book has been written for the readers in India whose mother tongue is
not Marathi and also for the millions of readers outside India. Some
elementary knowledge of the Indian History is expected of them. However,
I have added explanations in places with these readers in mind. If you are
not familiar with the Indian History, customs and practices, please skip over
the related sections. You would still be able to appreciate the book. You
would find more information in Appendix C - Glossary.

The Prologue is an essential reading for understanding the Indian history

during 1880 -1966, to get necessary background information. You may
browse and move over to the Preface if you wish.

As far as possible I have quoted from the original sources. But with passage
of time language changes and readers may also be not familiar with the
relevant history. I have therefore given explanations after such passages
which readers would find enlightening.
I would sincerely ask all readers to read calmly and dispassionately the
chapter on ‘Dharma (Religion) and Religious Texts’, Please resen/e your
judgement till the end. Also, while reading the chapter ‘Savarkar the Doer’
one must appreciate that we are dealing with the social conditions as were
prevalent in India in 1920s and 1930s. The customs and traditions of those
days may sound absurd to us today, but what I have described is the truth.
Society does not move forward without efforts of persons like Savarkar.

Some historical facts may make uncomfortable reading. However, they are
given with a view to enabling the reader to understand what happened in the
past. They are not given, out of vengeance or for scoring points. We need to
learn from history, but that must be the true history.

If you find any errors, please ignore them while reading the book

but do let me know them for making any corrections in the next edition.

My^mments and explanations are in Italics while the references and

quotations are in normal type.

V. S. Godbole

14, Turnberty Walk Bedford MK41 8AZ UK

Prologue

Who was Savarkar ?

Vinayak Damodar, popularly known as Veer Savarkar was the unsung hero
of the Indian freedom struggle against the British during the period from
1906 to 1947.

* By the age of seventeen, towards the end of his schooling days, Savarkar
was saying to his friends in secret, “ We must stop complaining about this
British officer or that officer, this law or that law. There would be no end-to
that. Our movement must not be limited to being against any particular law,
but it must be for acquiring the authority to make the laws itself. In other
words, we want The Absolute Political Independence.”
Jawaharlal Nehru was able to say so publicly 30 years later, after Savarkar
had brought about tremendous changes in the thinking of Indian masses due
to his activities, sufferings and movements.

* During his college days in 1905, Savarkar had organised a public bonfire
of foreign (British) clothes in Pune, to express the public resentment against
the British Raj. Mahatma Gandhi followed suit 16 years later.

Passive Resistance’ as a weapon for advancing workers’rights was first

attempted by the French farmers on their vineyards in July 1907. On that
occasion, Savarkar wrote, “ However attractive, noble and easy to follow
the passive resistance may appear to be, the use of force is ultimately
required to achieve success. ” Subhash Chandra Bose, having followed
Gandhi for nearly two decades, also came to the same conclusion, but 30
years later! On the advice of Savarkar, he slipped out of India during World
War II and formed the Indian National Army from among the Indian
Prisoners of War held by the Japanese. This daring attempt was a major
factor, which forced the British to leave India in

* In 1902, Savarkar started his secret revolutionary society - the Abhinav

Bharat. The wording of the oath taken by the members of that society has
been preserved by the British Secret Police and is reproduced in Appendix
B. The aim of the Society was Absolute Political Independence for India to
be achieved by all means including by incessant armed struggle. When
India won independence in August 1947, many prominent leaders of the
Congress party at the time were former members of Abhinav Bharat. They
included Balasaheb Kher (the chief minister of Bombay Province),
Ravishankar Shukla (the chief minister of Central Provinces), Sir Sikandar
Hiyat Khan (the chief minister of Punjab). Even the President of the
Congress Party Acharya Kripalani was himself a member of Abhinav
Bharat.

Shree Rajagopalachari (Rajaji), the only Indian to become the Governor

General of divided India had openly admitted in 1937 that it was the life of
Veer Savarkar that inspired him to join in the freedom struggle. In fact he
wrote a book in 1924 entitled ‘Life of Barrister Savarkar’ under the
pseudonym Chitragupta. In 1938 Dwarakaprasad Mishra, a well-known
Congress leader from the Central Provinces (Madhya Pradesh) had also
admitted that he took inspiration from Savarkar. Yashavantarao Chavan, the
former Chief Minister of Maharashtra, who became India’s Defence
Minister in 1962, was a secret admirer of Savarkar. Even Manavendranath
Roy, the left wing politician, took inspiration from Savarkar.

Thus, Savarkar’s contribution to the Indian freedom struggle against the

British was considerable. So, why did the western mass media deny him
any credit and publicity? Why did he remain in obscurity ? I have answered
these questions partly in chapter Four entitled ” Why was the image of
Savarkar tarnished by his opponents ?” I say ’partly’ because this book is
only about his rationalism. Let us now look briefly at the Indian History.

India’s struggle for freedom from the British Rule

The English East India Company vvas started in London in 1600. In 1666,
they got a foothold in Bombay (then, a group of 60 islands). They started
building fortifications and keeping armies under the pretext of safeguarding
theirtrade. Their major military victory came in 1757 at the battle of Plassey
in Bengal. It took them nearly next 100 years to gain the control of the
whole of India. In 1857, there was a massive uprising against their rule in
India. Though the East India Company succeeded in suppressing the revolt,
the British Crown took over the administration of India from the hands of
the company. A lull followed for a generation. Afterwards, the Indian
Freedom Struggle went through four phases.

The Four Phases of Indian Freedom Struggle (1) The Moderates

First came the Moderates, men like Justice Mahadev Govind Ranade (1842-
1901), Surendra Nath Banerjee (1848-1925), Gopal Krishna Gokhale
(1866-1915). They were great visionaries, men of utmost sincerity and
devotion. They sought reforms and better government. They pleaded with
the British for a fair play.Ranade had a rather grandiose conception of the
destiny of the Indian nation. In a public speech delivered in 1896 at
Calcutta, Ranade said, renovated India will take her proper rank among the
nations of the world and be the master of the situation and of her own
destiny. This is the goal to be reached.”
Ranade was one of the founder members of the Indian National Congress
(commonly known as the Congress Party or simply as Congress) which
held its first session in 1885. But, after just three years, British Rulers
forbade Ranade and other Government servants to attend the annual
sessions of the Congress.

Some moderates thought that an armed rebellion against the British was
impossible or Impracticable. Others thought that the British would not
stretch their patience to the limit of human endurance and make armed
struggle inevitable. But NONE would

have denounced the Indian independence won by the armed struggle.

It must be emphasised that, unlike the followers of Gandhi, the Moderates

were never obsessed with non-violence. Time and again, they had made
resolutions to the effect that the Arms Act of 1858 by which Indians were
disarmed should be repealed.

The greatest of the Moderate leaders was Dadabhai Naoroji (1825-1917).

Dadabhai literally means the eldest son in a family and he lived upto it in a
way. He was affectionately called the Grand Old Man of Indian Politics. His
invaluable works was ‘Poverty and Un-British Rule in India’ published in
1901. He proved meticulously that the British were draining away the
wealth from India to the tune of £30 to £40 million per year (equal to £1235
to £1646 million per year at 1998 prices). Dadabhai had suggested that such
exploitation was Un-British. Hence the title of his book.

In 1892 he was elected as a Member of the British Parliament from the

Finsbury Constituency in London (total votes cast5,600). But he soon
realised that he could not do much. The Irish had been sending their M.Ps
to the British Parliament fora long time. They were White and Christians.
Even then, they could not achieve anything through the British Parliament.
Dadabhai was not elected as an MP in the 1895 election. [Note - In 1800,
the Irish were given 100 seats in the U.K Parliament of total of 660 M.Ps.
But a Catholic could not become an M.P in Ireland till 1829.]

(2) The Militants

Next came the Militants. They propagated that, without a direct action, the
British would never accede to the Indian demands. They proposed the
boycott of British goods. They said, “ If you cannot avoid buying foreign
goods, buy non British goods.” They emphasised self-reliance, support to
indigenous industries, mass agitation and even going to jail if
necessary.Their undisputed leader was Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856 -1920).
He was popularly

IX/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

called Lokamnya Tilak by the masses. They bestowed the title

‘Lokamanya’ (people’s leader) as opposed to Rao Bahadur and other
honours bestowed by the British rulers.

• In 1882, he went to jail for exposing the inhuman treatment meted out by
the British Authorities to the adopted son and then heir apparent to
Maharaja of Kolhapur. While in jail, his weight went down by 24 pounds.

• During the outbreak of BUBONIC PLAGUE in 1896/97, Tilak refused to

leave the plague infested city of Pune, stayed with the people and shared
their suffering and misfortune.

• In 1897, he was sentenced to 18 months hard labour, this time for sedition.
Again, in jail, his weight went down from 135 pounds to 105 pounds. This
time, there were grave doubts about whether he would come out alive from
prison.

• In 1908, he was sentenced to transportation for 6 years to Mandalay in

Burma. The British newspapers recognised that, unlike other leaders, he
was the leader of the masses.

The transportation involved a travel of3,000 miles (compare this to the

distance between Paris and Moscow which is 1,540 miles). He was
confined to an area of 150 ft by 50 ft and kept in complete isolation except
for the company of a cook. At that time, the average male life expectancy in
Britain was only 48 1/2 years, much less in India, while Tilak was 52 years
of age. There was no parole for him when his wife was on the deathbed in
June 1912.
The Indian militants achieved a spectacular victory in 1911. Bengal had
been partitioned by Viceroy Lord Curzon in 1905. India was outraged by
his arrogance. Mass agitations and demonstrations followed. British
authorities moved the capital of India from Calcutta to New Delhi in 1911.
At the Delhi Durbar, King George V was forced to announce that the
partition of Bengal was annulled. This was achieved when Tilak was away
in jail in Mandalay in Burma since 1908, and when Gandhi and Nehru

were not even heard of. Tilak was appropriately called The Father of the
Indian Unrest by the British.

During a period of 30 years (1889 -1919) he tried to make Congress as an

instrument of constant agitation and wanted it to have an annual programme
of action instead of just meeting once a year for four days, passing
resolutions and doing nothing for the rest of the time. Dadabhai’s complaint
was that leaders of the Congress did not believe in continuous, constant,
consistent whole-time work. That is what Tilak strived to achieve. The
Moderates were reluctant to become active. Things came to a head in 1907
when at its annual session in Surat, it appeared as if the Congress party
would split. Tilak avoided the split.

Tilak founded the Home Rule movement in 1916. When charged with
sedition, Tllak’s lawyers successfully argued that pleading for progressive
political rights for the people in itself could never be seditious. Bombay
High Court accepted that argument.

(3) The Revolutionaries

The Revolutionaries went one step further. Their leader was Vinayak
Damodar Savarkar popularly called Veer Savarkar (1883-1966). Since
1900, he had been preaching Absolute Political Independence for India as
their aim. This was to be achieved by incessant armed struggle whenever
possible.

He said, “ Tilak and his followers are carrying out their activities
(movements) within the law and look what happened. The British rulers did
not hesitate to send him to jail in 1897. If a movement is within the law
today, the British can change that law tomorrow and make the movement
illegal. Today or tomorrow, we will have to seek the authority to make the
law itself. At some stage, an armed struggle is inevitable. No one ever got
independence without a fight. Why not start such a struggle today. Why
waste time ?”

• Savarkar studied Law at Grays Inn, London. Despite having completed his
studies and passed examinations in May 1909,

he was not called to the Bar because of his political activities. The decision
of the benchers of Grays Inn not to call Savarkar to the bar was so
outrageous that hereafter Indians deliberately called him Barrister Savarkar.
One has to remember that ‘political activities’ meant seeking independence
from the British Rule in India and NOT political activities, as we
understand today.

• Savarkar came to London in 1906 with a passport issued by the

Government of India. However, in July 1910, he was arrested under the
Fugitive Offenders Act and sent to India to stand trial for trying to
overthrow the British Raj.

• In 1910, he was sentenced to TRANSPORTATION FOR LIFE, TWICE to

the Andaman Islands, 1000 miles [1600 Km] East of Madras (Chennai),
The sentences of transportation were to be served IN SUCCESSION - a
total sentence of 50 years, unparalleled in the history of the British Empire.

All his property and possessions including his clothes and even his
spectacles were confiscated and sold at public auctions. When Savarkar was
in jail, Bombay University withdrew his B.A degree.

• Savarkar was allowed to write a letter once a year to his younger brother
Narayanrao. Leaders of India’s provinces used to visit Narayanrao, read the
letters, copy them, translate them in various Indian languages and publish
them in respective regional newspapers. This brought about changes in the
mental outlook of Indians.

• Due to Savarkar’s efforts, there arose a succession of revolutionaries. For

example, Khudiram Bose (1908), Madanlal Dhingra (1909), Anant
Kanhere, Karve and Deshpande (1910), Bal Mukund, Avadhabihari,
Amirchand and Vasant Vishwas (1915), Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and
Sukhdev (1931), Udham Singh (1940) and many more.

Those who were sentenced to death went to the gallows fearlessly. Their
courageous behaviour was admired even by

the British officers and must have made tremendous impact on the minds of
millions of Indians.

Those who were not sentenced to death were sentenced to Trarisportation

for Life to the Andaman Islands. They too accepted their fate with fortitude.
The first one to be sentenced this way was the elder brother of Savarkar,
named Babarao (Ganesh)

Some idea of the extent of the activities of the revolutionaries can be

gathered from ‘Who’s Who of Indian Martyrs’(3 volumes) published by
Government of India. Another valuable source is the annual indices of the
Times (of London). One should look under ‘India - unrest’.

It was the defiance of the revolutionaries, which inspired the masses, and
they eventually became ready to join in the freedom struggle. After the
revolutionaries, India was ready for mass movements.

(4) Mass movements and armed uprisings

Finally came Mahatma Gandhi (1873-1948). Talk died in August 1920.

Samara ivas in jail on the Andaman Islands till 1921, transferred to
mainland India but kept in jails till 1924 and was forced to stay in
internment till 1937. Gandhi, who returned to India from South Africa in
1916, had a free hand. He made three brilliant changes.

He proposed a 4 Anna (quarter of a Rupee) annual membership of the

Congress Party, thus spreading the freedom movement to the masses.

* He initiated the idea of Indians wearing clothes made from Khadi (home
spun Cotton ). It gave a uniform to the Congress workers throughout India.
* Gandhi aiso gave Congress an organisational structure.

It should be remembered however that, Gandhi benefited

enormously by activities of Tilak and Savarkar. Tilak, over a period of 30

years had made Congress Party and instrument of constant agitation. While
Savarkar had created political awakening. Both had shown way forward by
their own example.

By 1920, the Congress Party had been in existence for 35 years. And as
luck would have it, the Moderates who constantiy hindered the progress of
Tilak, gave way, withdrew from Congress and formed the Liberal Party.

Gandhi led the mass movements of 1920, 1931 and 1942. At the same time,
there were various attempts of armed uprisings. In 1943, Subhash Chandra
Bose had formed the Indian National Army from among the Indian
prisoners of war captured by the Japanese. Later, Bose died in a plane crash.
His attempt did not succeed, but the writing was on the wali for the British.

The British had to grant independence to India in August 1947. At that

time, many Congress Party leaders were still members of Savarkar’s secret
society - the ‘Abhinav Bharat’.

Savarkar regarded the work of his generation like that of sappers and
miners in the army. They remove and defuse mines, remove obstructions,
overcome watercourses, streams and rivers either by building bridges or
diverting water through pipes, fill potholes and build roads. Their job is
extremely dangerous but their work ensures the speedy advance of the
soldiers who follow them. Similarly, Savarkar did all the hard work that
paved way for the rest to follow later.

Moreover, he was like an engine of a railway by whose driving force all the
carriages automatically move forward just as a thread follows the needle.

Savarkar and other leaders and their followers

Savarkar met and influenced many men from all quarters.

Moderates

In 1900, Justice Ranade went to Nasik to lay the foundation stone of the
Town Hall. Savarkar composed a poem, at the request of citizens of Nasik,
welcoming Ranade.

Savarkar joined the Fergusson College, Pune as a student in 1902. G K

Gokhale the moderate leader was then the Principal of that college. Two
years later Gokhale became a Member of the Central Legislative Assembly
in Calcutta and left the college. Gokhale and Savarkar met each other again
in London in 1908. Gokhale was on a deputation sent by the Congress Party
while Savarkar was studying to become a Barrister. They deeply respected
each other. Time and again Savarkar had said, “Among the Moderates, we
regarded persons like Gokhale as fatherly figures.”

Savarkar also met Ramesh Chandra Dutta, a retired high-ranking civil

service officer, in London in 1908. He persuaded Dutta that the 1857 war
was a War of Independence from the British. Dutta was President of the
Indian National Congress in 1899.

In 1909, Surendranath Banerjee came to London as a delegate for the

Imperial Press Conference. Dhingra shot and killed Sir Curzon Wyllie on 1
July 1909. On the 5th, a meeting of Indians was convened at the Caxton
Hall, London to condemn Dhingra. When Savarkar rose to oppose the
motion, he was hit by an Eurasian named Palmer. Banerjee was furious. He
said, “Savarkar was perfectly within his rights to express his opinion. It was
outrageous to attack him in this way.” He left the hall in protest.

28 years later, Savarkar paid tribute to Banerjee. He said, “Banerjee

opposed the methods of the revolutionaries. But no one grieved more at
their sufferings than Banerjee. It was largely

through his efforts that we were released from the Andaman Islands and
sent back to mainland India.”

In 1909, Savarkar returned from Paris to London, knowing very well that he
was going to be arrested. His health was very poor. It was therefore decided
by his friends that someone should accompany him on his journey. Miss
Perry Ben, a grand daughter of Dadabhai Naoroji accepted that
responsibility.

Militants

In the period 1900-1920 there was a famous Trio known as LalBal-Pal. Lai
was Lala Lajpat Rai of Punjab, Bal was Bal Gangadhar Tilak of
Maharashtra and Pal was Bipin Chandra Pal of Bengal. Savarkar knew
them very well.

Lala Lajpat Rai used to come to India House, the Indian students' hostel in
London where Savarkar lived. He and Savarkar shared platform on many
occasions during the public meetings held in the Caxton Hall, London.

Savarkar studied in Pune during 1902-06. He was well known to Tilak who
had given him a reference for the Shivaji scholarship offered by Shyamji
Krishnavarma to study in London.

Tilak’s lawyers Dadasaheb Karandikar and Dadasaheb Khaparde came to

London to appeal against Tilak’s sentence of Transportation to Burma for 6
years. Savarkar met them both and they contributed substantially towards
the cost of the publication of his famous book ‘Indian War of Independence
1857.’

B C Pal used to visit India House. He and Savarkar shared common

platform on some occasions during public meetings in the famous Caxton
Hall, London.After completing his studies in 1909, Savarkar lived in Pal’s
house in London for some time.

Revolutionaries

It goes without saying that a large number of revolutionaries were inspired

by Savarkar.

When Savarkar was in internment in Ratnagiri (1924-37), Bhagat Singh and

Rajguru met him secretly in 1929. They published Savarkar s famous but
banned book ‘Indian War of Independence 1857.’Both went to the gallows
on 23 March 1931 in Lahore, for revolutionary activities.
Gandhi and his followers.

Savarkar came to London on 24 June 1906. His activities started

immediately thereafter. Gandhi came to London in October leading a
deputation on behalf of Indians in South Africa who were facing severe
discrimination there.

Gandhi had no reason to visit India House. He was 14 years older than
Savarkar and was not new to London. He had studied Law in London
during 1888-1891. But the reputation of Savarkar was such that Gandhi
could not resist the temptation of meeting him.

Despite having passed his examinations, Savarkar was not called to the Bar
in July 1909 due to his political activities (namely, for the freedom India
from British rule). Gandhi was once again in London in October. Savarkar
had organised a public gathering of Indians to celebrate Vijayadashami. He
requested Gandhi to be the Chairman.

In his speech Gandhi said, “Though I have my differences with Savarkar, I

consider it a great honour to be in his company today.” Referring to the fact
that Savarkar was not called to the bar, Gandhi said, “ May India bear the
fruits of his sacrifices.”

The two leaders met again in 1927. Gandhi, while on a tour of Maharashtra,
happened to visit Ratnagiri where Savarkar was interned. As Savarkar was
ill, he invited Gandhi to his house.

Gandhi and his wife Kasturaba giadly accepted the invitation on 8 March.

In response to a civic reception given by Ratnagiri Municipaiity, Gandhi

said, “ I wanted to visit this place because it is a place where Savarkar lives.
I had previously met him in London. I admire his patriotism and sacrifices.
As he is in internment,' it was my duty to come to Ratnagiri to meet him."

Gandhi benefited enormousiy from the political awareness created by

Savarkar. Gandhi became the President of the indian National Congress and
was free to move all over India, but Savarkar was kept away from the
people by the British ruiers for 27 years.
* In July 1939 Subhash Chandra Bose was publicly honoured by Savarkar
in Mumbai. Bose calied on Savarkar again in Mumbai in June 1940. On his
advise, Bose siipped out of India and later formed the Indian National
Army.

When Savarkar was in internment in Ratnagiri in 1930, a youth of 16

named Y B Chavan met him and later became the Chief Minister of
Maharashtra state in 1960 and Defence Minister of India in 1962. It was
under his guidance that the Government of india started to compile ‘Who’s
Who of Indian Martyrs?’ it was published in three voiumes, in 1969, 1972
and 1973.

* Another visitor was Mr N V Gadgii commoniy known as Kaka (uncle)

Gadgii. He was a member of the Constitution Assembly that drafted India’s
constitution, which came into effect on 26 January 1950. Gadgii signed the
constitution in Devanagri script to show his pride in the Indian script. He
was a minister in Nehru’s cabinet and became the Governor of Punjab in
1957.

These are just a few examples.

Sa varkar publicly disbanded his revoiutionary society the Abhfna v Bharat

in Pune in May 1952. At that ceremony he said, “It is

absurd for the Congressmen, because they are now in power, to say -
Gandhi came, we (congressmen) went to jail and hey presto, we won the
freedom from the British. Nothing can be more childish, selfish or insulting
to other freedom fighters.”

He then paid a glowing tribute to the contribution by the people of all

persuasions for the Indian freedom struggle. He paid respects to the
Revolutionaries, Militants, Satyagrahis (followers of Gandhi) and even the
Moderates.

It is time to look briefly at the biography of this great man.

XIX / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

A brief biographical sketch of Veer Savarkar EARLYYEARS

Savarkar was bom on 28 May 1883 at Bhagurin the Nasik District of

Maharashtra. He had two brothers. Elder one was named Ganesh but called
Babarao, and younger one, Narayan but called Bal. Savarkar himself was
named Vinayak but called Tatya. He was sent to Nasik for his secondary
school education. There he started his friends’ circle called ‘Mitramela’. He
joined the Fergusson College of Pune in 1902. Now, the Mitramela’became
secret revolutionary society, ‘Abhinav Bharat’, whose aim ivas The
Absolute Political Independence for India.

Partition of Bengal by Viceroy Lord Curzon came into effect on 6 October

1905. Nine days earlier, Savarkar organised a bonfire of foreign (British)
clothes to express public anger against the British. He spoke at the
occasion. As a result, he was promptly asked to leave the students’hostel of
Fergusson College, Pune. He was also fined 10 rupees, a large sum in those
days, by the Principal. Gandhiji followed Savarkar’s example by organising
a similar bonfire of foreign clothes in October 1921.

In 1905 Savadrar obtained his B A degree and then studied Law. Shyamji
Krishnavarma, a Barrister and a Sanskrit scholar living in London had
offered a scholarship for studies in England. Savarkar won the scholarship
on the recommendation of Lokmanya Tilak. He came to London in June
1906 and stayed for the next four years. He was eager to come to London
mainly for the following reasons:

( 1 ) Tomeetyoungstudents from all provinces of India, transform their

views and attitudes and to involve them in the Indian freedom struggle. It
was possible to hold such meetings in London again and again. Moreover,
in London, it was also possible to meet many elder Indians from various
walks of life. Such gatherings were very difficult in India, because of the
distances involved and lack of transport and communications. These
persons came

from middle and upper classes and were well educated. Indians back home
admired them and looked up to them for guidance with great expectations.
Savarkar wanted to attract them all to the Indian freedom struggle. He
began his task by starting regular Sunday Meetings. Under the banner of
Free India Society, many topics of significance to India were discussed.

(2) To establish contacts and form alliances with revolutionaries from other
countries like Ireland, Egypt, Russia, China, Turkey and Iran. It was
anticipated that they would agree to organise concerted, co-operative,
simultaneous attacks on British interests.

(3) To learn how to make bombs and other explosives from revolutionaries
of other countries. This was achieved by Senapati Bapat and Hemchandra
Das in 1907.

(4) To smuggle arms and ammunitions into India.

(5) To attempt armed uprisings against the British, whenever opportunities

arose. First such attempt was made in May 1917 by Vishnu Ganesh Pingale
and Kartar Singh at the time of World War I. Subhash Chandra Bose made
another attempt in 1943 during World War II. There were many other
attempts in between the two world wars.

ASPECTS OF SAVARKAR’S WORK IN LONDON (1906-

1910)

1. Literature

(a) Biography of Mazzini.

Savarkar wrote in Marathi a biography of Mazzini, the Italian freedom

fighter, who freed Italy from Austrians in 1870. Two thousand copies of the
first edition were quickly sold in 1907. When the second edition was due to
be printed, the British administration declared the book as seditious and
banned it.

(b) Indian War of Independence 1857.

In 1857 there was a massive uprising in India against the rule of the East
India Company who managed to suppress it. But, that war always inspired
Savarkar and his followers.
Savarkar wrote atxtve book in Marathi. It was translated in English by his
friends and secretly published in Holland in 1909. The Government of India
promptly banned it.

(c) Newsletters

Savarkar sent 43 newsletters to Marathi newspapers explaining the

strengths and weaknesses of the British peopie.

(d) ‘Choose’, Oh Indian Princes

In this leaflet, Savarkar appealed to the Indian Maharajas for their help in
the freedom struggle. He said, “ The Indian Freedom Struggle has started. It
will go on until India is free from the British Rule. Help us, and one of you
may become the King of the whole of India. If you do not help us, even
your names will not be remembered by the future generations.”

He issued this appeal in August 1909.

(e) A leaflet in Gurumukhi

This asked the Sikh soldiers to rebel against the British.

2. India on the International Scene

In August 1907, the International Socialist Conference was held in Stuttgart

in Germany. Savarkar sent Madam Cama as India’s representative. It is here
that the First Indian National Flag was unfurled. It had 8 lotuses for eight
major provinces of India, Sun and Moon to show the eternity of India and
the famous words ‘Vande Mataram’

3. Homage to the martyrs of the 1857 war

Savarkar organised a function in May 1908 to pay homage to the Indian

martyrs of the 1857 war of Independence against the rule of the East India
Company. His friends and the participants vowed to carry on their struggle
till India became free.

4. The Fire Spreads

Influenced by Savarkar’s work, there arose a succession of revolutionaries.
The list extends from Khudiram Bose (1908) to Udham Singh (1940).

5. Trials and Tribulations

Despite having completed his studies, Savarkar was not called to the bar in
May 1909. He was arrested in London in July 1910, sent to Mumbai
(Bombay) to stand trial for sedition and attempting to overthrow the British
Raj. When the ship carrying him was anchored at the French port of
Marseilles, Savarkar made a dramatic attempt to escape by jumping through
a porthole and swimming ashore.

Though Savarkar was on the French soil, British police inspectors who
pursued him, arrested him and took him to back to the ship without
obtaining permission from the French authorities. This was in flagrant
violation of the International Law, an insult to France. But, because Britain
was the world power, the British authorities thought that they would get
away with this. Supporters of Savarkar raised this issue in the French
newspapers.

Eventually the episode resulted in the hearing at The International ourt of

Justice in Hague. It created a great sensation throughout urope. Europeans
became aware of the fact that the Indians wanted to overthrow the British
rule.

When Savarkar was brought in front of the Special Judge in Bombay, he

stated, “ My case is due to be heard before the International Court of Justice
in The Hague. The proceedings in India should therefore be postponed till
the International Court gives its verdict.” This request was refused, as the
British rulers were most anxious to send Savarkar to jail.

JAIL LIFE (1911-1921)

* In 1911, Savarkar was sentenced to TRANSPORTATION FOR LIFE

TWICE, to be served in SUCCESSION, a sentence unparalleled in the
history of the British Empire. Savarkar was sent to Andaman Islands, 1,000
miles [1,600 kilometres] to the east of Chennai (Madras). He had to wear a
badge showing his date of release in 1960, and the letter ‘D’ to indicate that
he was a dangerous prisoner. These were intended to humiliate Savarkar.
But, these had exactly the opposite effect, as the prisoners were

largely the most dangerous criminals. Someone serving a sentence of 50

years and with a letter ‘D’ for dangerous was naturally considered as the
highest among such prisoners.

* So fearful was the life for the prisoners on the Andaman Islands that it
was nicknamed Kalapani - the black waters. Its very name struck terror in
the hearts of even the most hardened criminals.

* The food was of poor quality and inadequate, hygiene primitive; living
conditions harsh and filthy, punishments inhuman. Even the water was not
potable. The whole set up was dehumanising.

* Majority of the prisoners were illiterate and most dangerous common law
criminals. There were very few Political prisoners. Not only that they had
no privileges as ‘political prisoners’ but were also treated much worse than
the common criminals. They were therefore concerned for their mere
survival.

* Savarkar ivas kept in isolation for a number of months, except for meal
breaks. Even then, he did not stay docile. With his remarkable ability to
organise Savarkar secured co-operation between 'political prisoners’ and
common criminals. It was vital that people in India should know the
condition in Jail on the Andaman Islands. It must be remembered that, in
the prison, it was a serious offence to keep even a scrap of writing paper ora
pencil. Writing material was only provided when writing letter to relatives
back home, once a year.

* Despite formidable restrictions, within eight months, he managed to

smuggle a letter written by one Hotilal Varma to Surendranath Baneqee, a
moderate leader of Bengal. Banerjee fearlessly published that letter in his
paper ‘Bengalee ‘on 20 April 1912. An outcry followed in India. People
learned of the draconian conditions imposed on the freedom fighters in jail
on the Andaman Islands.
* Savarkar ivas allowed to write a letter to his younger brother Narayan
(Bal) once a year. Leaders of various provinces used

to make copies of these letters and publish them in various languages in

India. These had considerable impact on the minds of the Indian people
during 1912- 1920. They learnt what great sacrifices Savarkar brothers were
making. Slowly they realised that to seek independence for India was their
duty. It was not a crime.

The Sun burns with a temperature of millions of degrees Centigrade but

ensures that we have at least 20 degrees Centigrade temperature in our
bodies. In a similar manner, avarkar was serving 50 years hard labour for
seeking freedom or India. And, that too, on a remote island of Andaman
2,000 miles away from his home. This fact gave courage to millions ho
were now prepared to suffer for a few years for India’s freedom.

* Indian merchants, while travelling in the Indian Ocean, used to old their
hands and bow towards Andaman Islands to show their respects to Savarkar
and other political prisoners.

* Savarkar’s sufferings had its repercussions in America also. In 1914, the

Gadr Party was founded in California by Lala Hardayal, a friend of Sa
varkar. Leaflets published by the Gadr Party showed Savarkar under the
yoke, travelling round and round in circle like a bull to work the grinding
mill producing oil from coconut. Many felt ashamed. They said to
themselves, “ what an outrage that an educated patriot like Barrister
Savarkar should suffer such hardships for us and we should waste time in
wining and dining.” They joined the freedom struggle by organising many
armed uprisings against the British. Savarkar learnt of all these events, from
those who were captured and sentenced to Andaman Islands.

SAVARKAR BACK IN INDIA (1921 - 1924)

Savarkar’s sentence of Transportation did not mean imprisonment or 50

years. The prisoners were normally allowed to work outside he prison and
settle on the island, bring their families from India or get married if they
were unmarried. However, Savarkar and his elder brother were kept in
prison for 10 years and then forcibly
sent back to mainland India in May 1921. They were thus denied the right
to settle outside the prison after 3 years, as was the usual practice. That was
the British Rule ofLaw.Once in mainland India, Savarkar was separated
from his elder brother, transferred from prison to prison and eventually
released in January 1924 on the conditions that —

(a) He will abstain from any participation public or private in politics.

(b) He will reside at Ratnagiri, a remote placet50 miles south of Mumbai

(Bombay). It had no railway and no telephones. It was not easily accessible
by road. When Savarkar was released from prison in Pune he had to go to
Mumbai by train (a distance of 120 miles) and then by boat to Ratnagiri (a
distance of 150 miles). There was no other way.

IN INTERNMENT IN RATNAGIRI (1924 -1937)

• Savarkar’s book 'Mazi Janmathep’ [in Marathi] (My transportation for

life) was published in 1924. It describes the horrors of jail life on the
Andaman Islands.

• As Savarkar could not take part in politics; he concentrated on social

problems that had besieged the Indian society. His social work during 1924
to 1937 is described in the chapters ‘Savarkar the social reformer'and
‘Savarkar the doer’. We are now enjoying the fruits of his social reforms of
sixty years ago. It is true that Savarkar had to concentrate on social reforms
because he could not take part in politics, but he regarded both Political and
Social reforms as equally important.

In short, the Hindu society made considerable progress towards the removal
of untouchability and the reduction of excesses of caste system. These two
are his major achievements. His only weapon was his power of persuasion.
He, not only changed the outlook of the people, but also induced them to be
active, instead of wasting time in irrelevant discussions. He stayed in
Ratnagiri, which was at that time, a stronghold of traditionalists, and
managed to eradicate untouchability in that town. In 1933, an

effigy of Untouchability was publicly burned in Ratnagiri.

• During his internment, Savarkar started to write his biography. First two
chapters related to the political situation in India from 857 to 1906. These
were published in the Marathi magazine hraddhanand of Mumbai in
1929/30. Immediately, the Governor f Bombay Province warned, “ Mr
Savarkar, even writing your emoirs amounts to t aking part in politics, a
breaeh of ynnr

condition of internment .” TTius, the British Authorities did not allow

Savarkar even to write his biography, let alone publish it.

AFTER RELEASE FROM INTERNMENT (1937-1966)

• Savarkar was to be interned in Ratnagiri for only five years, but on four
successive occasions the British authorities increased the duration and
extended the internment to a total of 13 1/2 ears. He was finally released
from internment, unconditionally n 10 May 1937 by an interim government
of Jamnadas Mehta. In the meantime. Gandhism had spread over India
during the previous 22 years. Savarkar vehemently opposed Gandhi’s
philosophy, because it destroyed the martial spirit and led to constant
capitulation to Muslim demands. He tried to build Hindu Mahasabha as a
strong political force, a rival to the Congress Party that had grown over 52
years - a formidable task by him indeed. This was made extremely difficult
by the fact that the Congress Party was already in power in seven major
provinces of India.

• In April 1939, he started an unarmed struggle for seeking egitimate rights

for the Hindus of Hyderabad (Bhagyanagar). Hindus from all over India
took part in the struggle. In the end, Nizam, the ruler of Hyderabad, was
forced to grant substantial concessions to Hindus in July of that year.

• World War II started on 3 September 1939. In that War, Savarkar aw an

excellent opportunity to impart military training to Hindus, t must be
remembered that, by 1939, thd Indian Army was 75% usiim. The same
trend was being followed in the Navy and the Air Force, which were Just
being formed. Savarkar, by his
persistent campaigns and encouragement to the Hindu Youth, changed this
situation and eventually Hindus came to occupy 75% of positions in the
armed forces. And it was these soldiers who formed the backbone of the
Indian National Army of Subhash Chandra Bose. Bose’s attempt was to
overthrow the British by force of arms. It did not succeed, but it eventually
forced the British to withdraw from India. However, instead of admiring
Savarkar’s foresight, the Congressites had constantly twisted the facts and
said that when the Congress Party was engaged in a life and death freedom
struggle against the British Savarkar did not help them, he did not even stay
neutral but acted as an agent of the British. [Gandhi’s famous slogan was
Karenge ya Marenge - we will the fight and win or we will die fighting]

• In a speech in 1938, Savarkar warned Hindus not to elect Congress Party

members as their representatives in the Legislative Assemblies as they
would not protect Hindu interests. He said, “ if by voting for Congress, you
have decided to commit suicide, not even Lord Brahma (the creator) can
save you.” Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened, in that Congress
was voted to power in 1946. During the crucial elections of 1945/ 46,
Congress leaders had declared, “ We will oppose the partition of India tooth
and nail. Enough is enough. There shall no longer be any capitulation to the
Muslim League. If they create any problems they will be crushed. Sword
will be met with sword.” Congress won handsomely. Hindu Mahasabha lost
heavily. And yet, it was the same Congress leaders who conceded to the
partition of India in June 1947. They shamelessly witnessed the slaughter,
looting, violation of women, and many other indescribable barbarities
committed on Hindus by Muslims in West Pakistan and East Pakistan (now
Bangladesh), without raising a finger.

• In 1948, there was an attempt to implicate Savarkar in the Gandhi

Assassination Trial, but it failed. In 1950, East Bengal (now Bangladesh)
witnessed hornble massacre of Hindus once again. Instead of sending the
army to teach Muslims a lesson, Nehru and Patel (the so called Iron man)
arrested Savarkar and

other leaders of Hindu Mahasabha and put them in jail without trial under
the Preventative Detention Act. Nehru-Liakat AH pact followed. Yes, it was
the same LiaquatAli whose craftiness utterly frustrated and angered Patel in
1946. Patel had suffered two heart attacks before. Yet, he flew to Calcutta to
persuade Congress leaders of West Bengal to accept Nehru-Liaquat AH
pact, which was not worth the paper it was written on.

Savarkar was released from jail in 1951 on the condition that he ould not
take part in politics for one year. A few months later, he delivered his
famous lectures, ‘Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History.’

The aim of Savarkar’s secret society Abhinav Bharat was to free India from
the British rule. That was accomplished. Therefore, in May 1952, he
disbanded that society publicly in Pune. This author saw him for the first
time at this function.

• In 1956, he came to Pune despite medical advice to celebrate Lokamanya

Tilak’s birth centenary. He spoke on the grounds of the famous Shanivar
Wada. It was the fortune of this author to be able to be present.

• In 1957, Savarkar went to Delhi to commemorate the centenary of the

1857 war against the British.

• The year 1960 was a landmark In the life of Savarkar. He had een
sentenced to transportation for life twice in December 1910. adit been his
misfortune to serve that sentence in full, he would ave been released on 23
December 1960. There were elebrations throughout India in 1960-61.
Savarkar’s health was very poor. He therefore attended only one function in
Pune. That was his last public appearance. He started his speech with a few
feeble words. He said, I cannot spaak for long. I get severe pain in my
stomach if I speak. But, you have gathered in such large numbers to honour
me that I felt obliged to attend.” Within one minute, his tone changed and
he spoke with full vigour, as in his hey days. The transformation was
astonishing indeed. One needs to

listen to the audiotape of that speech which is available. Even if you do not
understand a word of Marathi, you can appreciate the sudden
transformation in his tone.

• In 1966, Savarkar decided that his life’s mission was accomplished. Like a
yogi, he decided to abandon his body. In February of that year, he fasted for
20 days and breathed his last on 26th of that month.

One year earlier, Mamarao Daate had published the entire works of
Savarkar in eight volumes. The same was reprinted in 1996 by Savarkar’s
secretary Balarao Savarkar.

Savarkar’s life can be broadly divided into the following four periods

In London (1906-1910)

In jail on the Andaman Islands (1911 -1921)

In internment in Ratnagiri (1924 - 1937)

After release from internment (1937 -1966)

Savarkar will always be remembered as a revolutionary, a freedom fighter, a

politician, a statesman, a fine orator, a poet, a historian and as a man of
many other attributes. Books, mostly in Marathi, are available on various
aspects of his character. However, the fact that he was a rationalist is not so
well-known as it is hidden in the depth of his writings, speeches and deeds.
For example, when we read his book ‘My Transportation for Life’, we are
shocked by the horrors of prison life that he suffered. But, the same book
also makes us aware of his remarkable quality of both preaching and
practising of freedom of thought and expression, his belief in universal
brotherhood of mankind, his unrelenting efforts to improve quality of
human life, his ever present optimism and realism. And the same can be
said of all his literature.

I have discussed Indian politics of 1906-1947 to enable the reader to

understand and appreciate Savarkar’s Rationalism. The question now arises
- why rationalism ? Let us see.

Preface

Why Rationalism ?

Any Nation or Society, if it has to survive the changing times and ttacks on
it by outsiders need the ability to think. At least its pper class, intellectuals
or leaders need to have the ability to ask questions, collect and analyse the
data, draw appropriate conclusions and modify its behaviour. Hindus had
lost this abilit since the first attempted invasion of Sindh by Muhammad
BinKasim in the 8^ century. No Hindu leader ever found out the detils of
Islam and discussed the means of countering the threat by its followers, the
Muslims.

In the 11*^ century, Muhammed of Gazni carried out raids in North India
for several years. Every year he would attack after the harvest. But Hindus
never thought of any early warning system or devising any schemes of
resistance. They simply blamed their misfortune. They had lost the ability
to think.

The ability to analyse failures and natural catastrophes is essential for

survival. For example, no one bothered to carry out the study of defeat of
Prithvi Raj Chavan by Muhammad Ghori in 1192. As a result, Hindus could
not prevent the onslaught of successive Muslim invasions till the advent of
Shivaji in the 17^ century.

To the young trainee graduates in Engineering, we say, “ you learn far more
from failures than from successful designs and constructions.”

After the onslaught by Muslim invasions no one asked the question - If a

Hindu can be converted to Islam, even by force, why can’t a Muslim be
converted to Hindu dharma even voluntarily? That is how sterile we had
become In our thinking.

Hindus displayed the same inaptitude about the English. There were no
attempts to study their strengths and weaknesses or how to counter their
bullying tactics.

On 10 May 1943, Savarkar was honoured in Pune by writers, publishers,

newspaper editors and other literary dignitaries. In their address they quoted
a famous Sanskrit shloka ‘Shastrer hatastu ripavo na hata bhavanti.'

‘Pradnya hatahcha nitaram suhata bhavanti’

‘Shastram nihanti purushasya sharirmekarri ‘Pradnya kulam cha, vibhavam
cha, yashaachya hanti.’

In short, it means that a weapon can only kill a person’s body and not his
spirit. But if a person’s intellect is lost, he loses everything.

Arya Chanakya was the Brahmin who helped Chandragupta to overthrow

the king of Nanda dynasty in Northern India in ancient times. In one of
Savarkar’s poems, Chanakya says, “ Oh Lord, I ask for only one thing.
Keep my intellect sharp and with it, 1 will create a new nation.”

Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

Savarkar did not lead any Rationalist Movement as such. But if we look
carefully at his life, we realise that his preachings and practices all his life
had the hallmark of rationalism. His sole aim was to make the Hindu Nation
strong and powerful and that Its people can live their lives in comfort.

It is the purpose of this book to explain, HOW. Some readers may find it
convenient to read Appendix C before starting with Chapter one.

INDEX

1 Freedom of expression and a code of conduct /1

* On his way to England (June 1906)

* Savarkar in London (1906-1910)

* Savarkar in jail on the Andaman Islands (1911-1921)

* Savarkar in internment in Ratnagiri (1924-1937)

* After release from internment (1937-1966)

* A code of conduct
* Mean minded and intolerant opponents of Savarkar

2 Sense of justice and fair play / 46

* In politics

* In other fields

3 Fraternity / 66

* Universal brotherhood of mankind

* Savarkar’s persecution by the English

* Savarkar’s relations with Muslims

* Savarkar and Prison Officer Mr Barrie.

* Humanism of Savarkar

4 Why was Savarkar’s image tarnished by his opponents 7/104

5 Savarkar the social reformer / 223

* Why do we need social reforms?

* Untouchability

* The highs and lows among the Untouchables

* Untouchability among other religions

6 Savarkar the doer / 270

* In social reforms

* Shuddhi

* In politics
* In literary activities

7 Thoughts on God / 333

* Blessings of God

* Gods of the feeble are feeble too

8 Realism / 357
* Politics

* Social Reforms

* Miscellaneous
9 Change with country, times and
people / 411
* Introduction

* Ways of gaining India’s freedom

* Importance of Indian Revolutionaries

* Indian National Army

* Importance of the Martyrs

* Variety of means

* What, after the English have gone?

* Politics and Administration

* Religion and Religious texts

* Tendency of ‘Going by the book’

* Social Issues

- Buddhism

- Islam-does it preach tolerance and equality?

- Status of women in Bibfe

* In conclusion
10 Utility of all human activities /
601
* Let us use our life for something noble.

* While in jail on the Andaman Islands (1911 -1921)

- If I decide to die, that is how I will die

- Educating the illiterate prisoners

- World War I (1914-1918)

- use of curiosity about the war

- Educating the Political Prisoners

- Agree to the compromise and get out of jail.

* During internment in Ratnagiri (1924-1937)

- Vratavaikalye

- Beauty of women

- Excess of Rationalism is fanaticism

- The caste system: put it to better use

- Ganeshotsava

- Use the British Administration

* After release from internment (1937- 1966)

- Use the Rajas and Maharajas

- Aim of Literature

- What did we achieve by Bhaganagar (Hyderabad) movement ?

- World War II

- utilise it for our benefit

- Self-immolation

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Following seven books in Marathi were published by Balarao Savarkar. I

have translated the contents into English. I have used suitable English titles
as listed below

* Savarkar’s autobiography - The Prologue

Savarkar’s biography by Balarao Savarkar

* Ratnagiri Era (R Era)

* Hindu Maha Sabha Era (HMS Era)

* Struggle for Undivided India Era (SUI Era)

* End of an Era

* Abhinav Bharat - speeches made during the days of its disbandment

* Purification of language

Following two books were published by Balarao Savarkar. These were

originally written in English

* Echoes from Andaman (Savarkar’s letters from Andaman jail)

* Hindu Rashtra Darshan (Savarkar’s speeches as President of Hindu Maha

Sabha) (HRD)
Balarao Savarkar also published the following English translation

* My Transportation for Life Qail life of Veer Savarkar)

Other books in Marathi

* Inside the enemy camp (Savarkar in London), published by Parachure

Prakashan Mumbai

* Samagra Savarkar Vangamaya (Entire works of Veer Savarkar) Volumes 1

to 8. Edited by Mamarao Daate, published by Maharashtra Hindu Maha
Sabha 1963-65 (SSV)

XXXVI / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

I have translated the contents into English Other books in English

Ambedkar, Dr. B. - Thoughts on Pakistan, 1946

Azad, Maulana A.K. - India Wins Freedom, 1959

Bose, Subhash Chandra - Cross Roads, 1943

The Indian Struggle (1920-1942) Hamid, Major General Shahid -

Disastrous Twilight, 1986 Khare Dr. N. B. - My Political Memoirs, 1959

Nehru Jawaharlal - Discovery of India, 1946

Wavell Lord - Viceroy’s Journal, 1973

Zenkin Taya - Reporting India, 1962

Chapter One

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT & EXPRESSION AND

A CODE OF CONDUCT

, / •_,-fir , ^ ^
'■■ ,; !?^, •'' ■ Xjbc^ * w of Virrr Siv^r*.'*!

1 tui^ trat^slat^ ttM-: oiMlsnts img Et Othwf tbo*C9 ir Crtl^hstt •

shww

)Li
Art 4 )edksr, Or. B. ^

A?ac, Mautena A.K. Bo80,'S^^a3^ Cfiar)^

ii iiX^i

Hamid. Major rionaral ShaTick Dimi'jjtM Khare Of. N. a • -- ^ ',r.

My/\>Pvaar'<ern v

Nehpj Jawa^\a^^3^ * '* * -t. / Dtoccwgry pf Atc'

WlRvaW Lord - ^

ZenKJn Teya •i

4k

-■- 'V ,,

-. \

anOialqsftO ' . . v;

- ^ . "" MOI333fl‘OCa A THOUGHT ^O MOa33m **

OMA > V
TOtiOHOOTOaaOOA

r.'

Vr^

• „ ■■: ,:^-v>.*rS^ .-.

:v.iarVN 7;

.ft'

'» U''^ ■ ^ .rS^'-'SWfcc*''?

r V*r ■• :- ■

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT & EXPRESSION AND A CODE OF

CONDUCT

The prerequisite of any rational approach is the readiness to listen to the

views of other people, discuss those views and to reply to them in a logical
manner.

Savarkar used to listen to his critics, reply calmly to the accusations made
against him, no matter how mischievous or malicious the accusations were.
He never used to lose his composure.
Savarkar never claimed that he was the only wise man. He invariably gave
explanation for the rationale behind his thoughts. He always tried to
convince others and win them over to his point of view by logical
arguments.

ON HIS WAY TO ENGLAND (JUNE 1906)

• In June 1906, Savarkar was on his way to England to study Law. On board
the ship ‘s.s. Persia’, he met many young Indian students. No matter what
the topic of discussion between them was, he always tried to connect it to
the Indian freedom struggle. He says,

“Thus, the youth were awakening to the Indian politics and so, political
debates began to take place. At first, most of them were neither informed
nor were interested in the subject. Some even said that it was one of the
conditions for their scholarships that they must not take part in any political
movement. I used to say:‘Fair enough. You cannot take part in political
movements, but that does not prevent you from taking part in political
discussions. So, why not join In?’ How such small beginnings eventually
led them to join in the freedom struggle is explained later.”

Savarkar shared a cabin with a student named Harnam Singh who had lost
his father at an early age. Like Savarkar, he too was going to England for
further studies on a scholarship awarded by the Maharaja of Nabha state.
But, as the ship left Mumbai

(Bombay), he became restless. He thought ‘financially I am alright, so why

am I going to England ?’ Savarkar successfully prevailed upon him to
change his mind completely. He describes the circumstances:

“Harnam soon became sea-sick. He was bedridden and could not eat. I
nursed him as much as I could. But he also became home sick. He wanted
to go back to his family. He could not stand the separation and the thought
of being away from home for so long. Finally he said to me, ‘Savarkar, you
are the only close friend I have. You will laugh at me, but I cannot bear the
pain of being away from my family. We are not short of money at home. I
wish to see my relatives right now. It takes fifteen days even to hear from
one’s relatives. How can I stay for so long in a foreign land? I do not want
to become a Barrister. Once we reach Aden, I will purchase a return ticket
and go back to India. In a way, I feel ashamed that I am so weak, so fickle,
but

Savarkar interrupted and said, ‘You love your family so much. You should
not be ashamed of that. It is but natural that you should feel restless and
homesick. However, if we love our kith and kin so much, should we not be
prepared to suffer for the sake of the very same people? At times, one must
suffer separation from one’s family for a higher aim in life. I feel just like
you. I too wish to meet my family right now, but I am controlling my urges,
for achieving higher things in life. We must resist such temptations. It is our
very love of our people that should give us strength to survive through the
period of separation.’

Savarkar then reminded Hamam of Guru Govind Singh (1666 1708), the
10th and the last Guru of Sikhs, who organised them into a fighting force
and raised the sword to protect Hindus from the onslaught by the Mughals.
His eldest son Ajit Singh aged 17 was killed in the battle ofChamkour.
Then, his second son Juzar Singh aged 13 went out in the battlefield. He too
died fighting the Mughals. The next day. Guru Govind Singh escaped the
siege with his family. However, he got separated from his remaining two
sons who were captured by the Mughal Subedar of Sarhind

5/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar -

on 27 December 1704. When they refused to embrace Islam Jovar Singh

aged 8 and Fateh Singh aged 5 were bricked up and left to die by the
Mughals.

Savarkar continued, “Both of us revere Guru Govind Singh. Was that

warrior a heartless person? Of course not. He was a sea of affection. When
he heard that Jovar Singh and Fateh Singh were bricked up and left to die,
he exclaimed ‘My great heroes! They died for the Hindu dharma.’ Suppose,
those youths had been tempted by love and had stayed away from the
battlefield, or that Guru Govind Singh himself had embraced Islam out of
fear, would we have considered them worthy of our respect? Guru Govind
Singh’s family may perhaps have lived longer but would have been
despised the same way as many Hindu families had been despised because
they embraced Islam for similar reasons. They would have never become
immortals to Hindus.”

“If we say that we are the disciples of Guru Govind Singh, then we must be
prepared to suffer the separation from our beloveds for the betterment of
our people, our nation, our religion. We must not budge even an inch. So,
what should be our aim? Should it be to earn money by becoming a
barrister or passing the Indian Civil Service (ICS) examination? Nay. Our
aim must not be so low; it must be the freedom of India. We are going to
England to work for that very reason and any other reasons must be
secondary.”

“Just like you, I also think that each time it would take at least a month to
receive a reply from India to my letters. But my mind takes me back to the
days of the East India Company. It used to take 6 months for their ships to
travel from England to India via the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa
and the same time for the return journey. And yet, Englishmen came to
India on successive voyages. They fought with our forefathers and
established their rule in India. If we want to defeat them, we must be
prepared to suffer hundred times more than they did.”

“There were times when our ancestors established huge colonies from
Indochina to further east up to Mexico and up to Iraq in the west. They too
travelled extensively on the high seas. However, after the Muslim invasions
in Northern India there was a break in the seafaring adventures. But now we
must dream of flying the Indian flag all over the world once again. This zeal
will give us the courage to bear the individual sufferings.”

“After listening to such discourse, Harnam Singh abandoned his plan to

return to India from Aden. I changed his viewpoint completely. In the end
he asked me, ‘tell me, what can I do for my motherland?”

(Inside the Enemy Camp pp 15 to 18)

In 1908, Indian students used to wear badges honouring the heroes of the
1857 war against the rule of the British in India. There were skirmishes in
England between Indian students and British authorities. Hamamsingh wore
such a badge. But he refused to remove the badge. He also did not
apologise for wearing the badge. He therefore had to leave the Agricultural
College at Cirencester. British authorities put pressure on the Maharaja of
Nabha and forcpd him to withdraw the scholarship of Harnam. His
Principal Mr John McClellan wrote to the India Office, ‘It is a great pity
that Harnam has not apologised and returned to the college for continuing
his studies. He was about to be given a gold medal.’

This just shows how much Savarkar influenced and transformed Harnam
Singh.

SAVARKAR IN LONDON (1906-1910)

• In March 1909, Savarkar was interviewed by Campbell Green of the

Sunday Chronicle. Savarkar said, “India House is an inexpensive students’
hostel. One does not need to hold any

specific opinion or persuasion for staying here. Persons like

you who believe that the British Rai is beneficial to Indians also come here.
They put forward their views. We have arguments. Those who convince
others by logic and reason win the day.

Their opinions spread.”

(SSV4 p 125)

* Koregsonkar and Dube were two Indians who stayed in India House for
some time. At a later date they helped the British. However, both
acknowledged that the freedom of expression was prevalent in India House,
where Savarkar was the manager.

Koregaonkar, in his testimony in 1910 said, ‘All sorts of opinions used to

be freely discussed in India House.’

Dube said to a newspaper reporter, ‘I went to India House where I

understood all Indians were welcome. I spent two or three weeks there.
There were a number of Indian students who entertained a variety of
opinions on political questions. Residence in the house certainly does not
imply agreement with any political creed. (Daily News of 10 May 1909)

* Savarkar’s personality was such that even Gandhi could not resist the
temptation of going to India House. The two met for the first time in
October 1906. During a public speech in 1937 Savarkar said, We argued. In
1899 /1900 Gandhi had helped the British to deprive the freedom of the
Boers in South Africa. How was this consistent with his principle of non-
violence? But that was his attitude. He wanted to preserve the British
Empire. During our arguments, we revolutionaries used to sit on one side of
the table and Gandhi and his followers on the other side. Day by day
Gandhi’s followers deserted him and joined our side. Eventually a day came
when Gandhi was sitting alone on one side and all others were sitting on the
other side.’

(SSV4 pp 407/8)

Today, it is difficult for us to imagine that Savarkar was prepared to argue

even with Barrister (later Mahatma) Gandhi, but did argue with him openly.

* Despite having such differences, Savarkar invited Gandhi as the

Chairman for the function, which he organised to celebrate

Dasara (Vijaya Dashami) in London in October 1909. In his

speech, Gandhi said, “.I have my differences with Savarkar

but I consider it a great honour to sit beside him. Let our country benefit
from his patriotism and the great sacrifices he has made.” (Gandhi was
referring to the fact that because of his political activities, Savarkar was not
called to the Bar in June 1909, even after he had successfully completed his
studies. That was his sacrifice).

Savarkar spoke for forty five minutes. Gandhi concluded the ceremony by
saying that everyone should carefully note what Savarkar had said and
make the sacrifices accordingly. Vande Mataram was sung at the end.

(SSV4 pp 144/6)
Within one year of the above event, Savarkar was sentenced to
transportation for life, twice.

SAVARKAR IN JAIL ON THE ANDAMAN ISLANDS (1911 1921)

In July 1911, Savarkar reached the Andaman Islands. His elder brother
Babarao was already there, since 1909 serving a sentence of Transportation
forUfe. In 1919, their youngest brother Dr Narayanrao met his elder
brothers in Andaman. He gave the news that Babarao's wife Yesu was dead.
Savarkar wrote:

• My brother gave me the news. To accept it was like drinking a venomous

poison. But I said to myself — This life is eternally changing. At some
time, such separations are bound to happen. We should be grateful to God
that we lived together for so long. Moreover one’s life is a drama. From
now on, the actors and actresses are bound to disappear from the stage one
by one. And what about the life hereafter? Babarao believes in
reincarnation. According to his belief, the soul of Mrs Yesutai must be
listening and even participating in our conversations.

I do not believe in life after death. But then, I believe that, as a warrior, she
breathed her last in the cause of our freedom

9 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

struggle. A flame extinguishes when all the oil is burned out. Similarly
Yesutai has gone. She did her duty. She has gone beyond happiness and
sorrow. It is therefore unnecessary for us to lament over her death.

(My Transportation for Life pp 431/2)

Savarkar openly admitted that he did not believe in life after death, but his
brother did. He gave expressions to both opinions.

• In 1921, British Administration decided to close the penal colony in

Andaman. Savarkar immediately saw a danger in that order. “If the
prisoners were sent back to India, they were going to rot in Indian jails,
whereas in Andaman, they had an opportunity to make a living outside the
prison, settle on the island and get married or bring their families from
India. Moreover, since 1857, many prisoners had suffered hardships while
working that made the colony worthwhile. With the departure of the
prisoners, all that would go to waste. After independence, the Andaman
Islands were going to be of use to India only if people had settled there.
But, how were the illiterate prisoners going to understand all that?”

He started to say to the prisoners, ‘Do settle in Andaman.’ The British

officers, for their own interests, also wanted the same thing. They wanted to
preserve their perks, privileges and positions. So, they too asked the
prisoners to stay in Andaman. As a result of getting the same advice from
opposing camps, the prisoners were baffled. On the face of it, it appeared
that Savarkar was now siding with his archenemy- the British authorities.
They could not understand why Savarkar, having fought with the same
British officers tooth and nail for so long, was now siding with them.

Savarkar wrote

Sacrifice popuiarity for the sake of public good

“The interesting thing was that many times I had propagated a certain view
for the public good. But many people, not being foresighted, criticised me
and I became unpopular. The more

unpopular I became, the more determined I was to propagate my view for a

certain line of action. I always believed that it is wrong to avoid
unpopularity and not to express a view on the action that was being
pursued, knowing very well that their action was against the public interest
in the long run.”

At the same tine, I did not think that those who opposed me were doing
anything wrong. They have the right to form and express their own opinions
just as I have. I was prepared to compromise a little if necessary, but would
never abandon a cause to seek popularity. I know of many instances where
persons were willing to sacrifice everything - their properties, even lives for
a cause, but avoid becoming unpopular. But that is ultimately detrimental to
the people’s interest. Therefore, time and again, I have avoided the
temptation of becoming popular at the cost of public good.”
(My Transportation for Life p 516)

Here, we need to note three characteristics of Savarkar.

1. He was prepared to accede the right to think and express views even to
the uneducated, illiterate, crooks and felons of the penal colony of
Andaman.

2. He always tried to persuade others (even those prisoners) by arguments

and not by threats, bullying, coercion or blackmail.

3. He always believed that popularity should be sacrificed for the sake of

public good.

Savarkar was forcibly sent to mainland India in May 1921, as the British
Authorities did not want him to settle on the Andaman Islands. They
wanted to detain him in jail In India.

SAVARKAR IN INTERNMENT IN INDIA (1924-1937)

Critics welcome

• On 6 January 1924, Savarkar was released from jail on the condition that
he will live in Ratnagiri. Due to a plague outbreak

thore, ho was allowod to go to Nosik in July. After five months, hb went to

see the Home Minister in Mumbai (Bombay). On 15 November 1924, he
was honoured in that city. At that function he said, ‘Only the people who
agree with my opinions have gathered here today. But I will be equally
pleased to meet people who do not agree with me. It is essential to know the
opinions of others for and against one’s own opinions.’

(R Era p 73)

This is the behaviour of a true Rationalist. He wants to meet even his

opponents and know their views.

• Savarkar used to read criticism against him from 1924 to 1966, i.e. from
the day of his release from jail to the last day of his life. He systematically
preserved such paper cuttings with his comments. [What confidence must
he have in his views!] (REra p 170)

Researchers have invaluable material in those cuttings. Savarkar gave all

those cuttings to Balarao Savarkar, his private secretary, who later informed
the author that he gave them to Kesari Maratha Tmst of Pune. It should be
microfilmed and sent to all leading Universities of the world. Today we can
decide who was proved right, Savarkar or his opponents. It is astonishing
that all the prophesies of Savarkar came true, but none of his opponents had
the courage to say sol be it Nehru or Dr Ambedkar.

Freedom of expression even to the opponents

* Savarkar was interned in Ratnagiri from 8 January 1924 to 10 May 1937.

He concentrated on social reforms, as he was forbidden to take part in
politics. We will see later how he allowed his opponents of social reforms to
express their opinions. He analysed those opinions and told the people why
they were wrong. He always maintained that his opponents must also be
allowed to state their case.

THAT IS RATIONALISM.

While in internment, his major contributions were his fight against the
practice of untouchability and incessant efforts to reduce

the excesses of the caste system. Today, we in India do nqt have the social
problems of the 1920s and the 1930s largely because of his efforts. It is
therefore difficult to imagine the obstacles that he faced. Let me quote one
of my personal experiences to illustrate:

In 1965, my mother felt that we should perform the religious function called
Mantrajagar - chanting of mantras in praise of Lord Shiva. I asked our
family priest to make necessary arrangements. He invited other priests.
They all came to our home on the specified day. Two Brahmins asked,
‘Who is the host (yajaman)?’ As soon as they heard that the host was Mr
Godbole they got up and said, ‘Oh, Godboles are Apastambhis (religious
rebels), we are Rugvedis. We cannot chant the mantras here .' They left our
home.
Even as late as in 1965, Brahmins were NOT prepared to chant Vedic
mantras in the home of another Brahmin of a different sect!! That will give
the reader some idea of the social structure and the problems faced by
Savarkar during his internment nearly 40 years earlier.

While carrying out social reforms, Savarkar always preached and practised
the freedom of expression. Let us take three examples.

* In November 1927, Savarkar toured the area around Sakharpe and

Devrukh within the district of Ratnagiri. He emphasised how the removal of
untouchability and re-conversion of Muslims and Christians are beneficial
to the Hindu society. At the end of the meeting he said, ‘Does any one have
any questions?’ No one came forward. Some asked for more time. Savarkar
agreed to answer their questions the next day.

On the second day, some questions were asked. Savarkar answered them
and said, ‘We do not want to impose our reforms on you. You join our side,
only if you are convinced of our rguments. But, we will not budge from our
work of the removal

'of untouchability even if you threaten to treat us as outcasts.’ fR Era p 152)

•\11 September 1929

Al the beginning of any festivity, Hindus always worship Ganesh, the Lord
of wisdom. In Maharashtra, there is a festival called Ganeshotsava in the
month of August/September lasting for 10 days.

During its celebrations in Ratnagiri on 11 September 1929, the programme

was set out as follows:

Savarkar would speak for 45 minutes on whether or not those who used to
be regarded as untouchables should be allowed in the temples. His
opponents would be given one hour to put fon/vard their arguments. Finally
Savarkar would reply to the objections.
When the time came, people were in no mood to listen to Savarkar’s
opponents. Savarkar then read the arguments of his opponents and replied
to their objections.

(R Era pp 197/8)

* As in any other field, in social reforms too, Savarkar did not go to any
extreme length. In his essays on abandoning of the caste system he wrote, ‘I
am not proposing that marriages must be inter caste. If a man and a woman
are suitable because they have agreeable tastes, physiques, habits, education
and are attracted to each other, there should be no objection to that marriage
simply because they belong to different castes.’ (REra p216)

Dining together

It is well known fact that in all societies one does not dine with someone
you consider below your status. Dining together does reduce the bitterness
caused by the caste system. In 1924, even the people belonging to the high
castes of various denominations did not dine together per se. People within
one caste, but belonging to different sub castes also did not use to eat
together. For example, Chitpavan Brahmins and Deshastha Brahmins of

Maharashtra did not use to eat together, even though they were Brahmins.
Under such circumstances, dining together by peopie of all castes
(including the untouchables) was beyond anybody’s imagination. But,
Savarkar managed to organise such functions and persuaded people to
attend such functions in large numbers.

First such programme took place in 1930. On 22 February 1931, Savarkar

inaugurated the famous Patit Pavan Mandir, which was open to ALL
Hindus. On the third day, Savarkar asked the visitors to join in the
combined dinner. However, Shankaracharya, Masurkar Maharaj,
Pachalegavkar Maharaj, Chowde Maharaj and even Sheth Bhagoji Keer,
who bore the cost of building of the temple, refused to join in.

Savarkar said, ‘I respect the wishes of those who do not wish to join in.
They can have their dinners separately according to the tradition. I do not
insist that they must join in. However, those who wish to eat together
should also be free to do so.’

(R Era p 229)

THAT IS THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE ! THAT IS RATIONALISM!!

* Savarkar emphasised the same point in his article in December 1936. He

wrote,‘\Ne want to abolish the caste system and propagate dining together.
But, we do not insist that every one must take part in such communal
dinners. Those who do not want to join in must not regard others as sinners
or behaving unethically. That is all.’

(S.S.V3 p 638)

Reformers must tolerate opposition

* Many conservatives were furious at Savarkar’s social reforms. They

started saying that, had the Maratha Peshawas been the rulers today,
Savarkar would have been sentenced to trampling under the foot of an
elephant. Responding to such utterings.

Savarkar wrote in August 1936, “We, the reformers, have realised that
unless we eradicate the division by castes, the Hindu society cannot make
any progress. We do not feel that by propagating our views on this subject
we are hurting religious feelings of any one. We say to our opponents - if
you feel that our opinions are wrong, you put forward your arguments. We
do not object to that. On the contrary, we say that, just as the reformers have
the right to propose social reforms, the society, reluctant to reform, also has
the right to boycott the reformers.”

(S.S.V3. p 419)

What self-confidence! What a freedom of expression and choice!!

Try to persuade your opponents
* As was expected at the time, many opposed Savarkar’s programmes of
dining together by people of ALL castes. Again, in December 1936,
Savarkar wrote:

“Among the people who boycott our programmes for dining together, there
are many conservatives who sincerely believe that it is a sin to dine together
with people of all castes. They naturally feel hurt by such reforms. They do
not want to keep any contact with the reformers. That is but natural. We
should not be angry with them. We must NEVER ever hate them. We
should gladly suffer their boycott and persecution till they change their
minds, as long as they adopt legal and peaceful means. As far as possible,
we should avoid any contacts with them and carry on with our reforms.”
Why we should respect our
opponents
And whyshouid not the reformers be disgusted at the opposition from the
conservatives? There is a very good reason. Savarkar explains —

“We require dynamism and movement for the good of the society. But we
also require stability and restraint to some extent. A train needs an engine as
a driving force. But it also needs brakes. Our Hindu nation has shown
remarkable capacity for both survival

and revival under enormous threats from outside. There is a danger that the
reformers may get carried away. They therefore need a control, some
exercise of restraint. To what extent and proportion are they necessary is a
matter of judgemerit. We need to understand that reforms and restraints are
complimentary. It is therefore vital that we try to convince the consen/atives
of our point of view, try to persuade them and try to convert them. That is
essential for the nation’s good."

(S.S.V3, pp 632/3)

This philosophy of Savarkar is truly great! What a pity that he did not get
the publicity he deserved.

• How understanding and considerate was Savarkar of the views of his

opponents? Let us take an example. In one of his articles, in the 1930s, he
wrote:

“I had to face social boycott because of my propagation of social reforms.

But this led to some interesting situations. There were many who had deep
respect for my patriotism but were angered by my dinings with the Mahars
(one of the castes considered untouchable at that time). Whenever a
marriage was taking place in such conservative families, they sincerely
wished that I should attend the ceremonies and eat with them. They
invariably invited me. Usually I did not use to go to anybody’s house for
dinner. But they used to insist on my coming. They would prepare a special
place for me with all the decorations and silver dishes.”

“On arrival I used to express my joy at the wedding, but would say to the
family members, ‘Listen, I do not want to cause any embarrassment to you.
It is well known that I propagate and do take part in dining with the Mahars.
It is not right that my eating at your place should lead to spoiling the
atmosphere at your festivities, as many of your guests may not like to dine
with me. So, I suggest a compromise. In accordance with the tradition, you
would provide dinner to the Mahars and other untouchables outside the
compound. I would sit in their company. Then there would be no ill feeling
of any kind.’ This statement would melt the hearts of those conservatives
who then would insist on me

joining the main party. The dinner would be served without any hitch.”

(SSV3 pp 632/3)

This just shows how deeply and sincerely Savarkar respected the opinions
and practices of others. There is one important point of note:

Even at the height of strict observance of untouchability, it used to be a

common practice among High Caste Hindus to offer food to the
untouchables during marriage ceremonies. True, they would sit OUTSIDE
the house as was the custom at that time, but were given the same food that
was served to the main guests. They were not given leftovers. This vital
detail is always overlooked.
No twisting of facts to suit one’s
views.
In 1933, Savarkar wrote four articles in the Kirloskar magazine about the
position of women as seen in Manusmriti. He emphasised that Manusmriti,
like any other religious text, cannot be a guide for ever. But even here, he
conceded the freedom of thoughts to people. In the first two articles he
states:

“We quote from Manusmriti only to explain the position of women in the
then contemporary Hindu society. We are not at all discussing whether the
rules and restrictions are relevant today. We recommend that Manusmriti is
a record of what happened in the past. It should be read as a history.”

“However, if some one wants to read it as a reiigious text or as a set of ruies

for eternity, we will give the original text and its meaning in simple words.
Where we want to make our comments we will give them in brackets. We
will not twist the original text, nor exclude any part of it to suit our
purpose.”

(SSV4 pp 261/2/3)

• Samarth Ramdas Swami was a great saint of the 17th century in the days
of Shivaji. In one of his well-known verses he says:

Movement is strength, whosoever practices it But it must be blessed by the

divine.

Commenting on this verse, Savarkar said, “Usually people interpret it in a

particular way. There is moral and immoral, just and unjust, divine and
satanic. Of these, the first category is based on truth, justice, and humanity
and it will be successful. But, before the success can be achieved, one must
get the divine blessing for such a movement. And how does one do that? By
practising various penances, rituals and rites, such as standing in front of
fire in mid-day sun, standing in water for hours, fasting, reciting the name
of RAM (pronounced RAAM) millions of times, reading certain spiritual
books thousands of times. All such activities must take place first, then the
movements for material progress.”

“Before we analyse whether or not the above hypothesis is correct, I must

make one thing clear. We are not concerned with unknown and un-
measurable objectives like peace of mind, enlightenment, self-purification,
or what may happen in life after death. Those who believe in such
objectives may follow the path proposed. I have no objection to that. I
simply want to emphasise that if we want to succeed on earth, all the above
methods are ineffective.”

(SSV3 p 299)

Savarkar emphasised time and again that if we want success on earth, we

must gain material strength. However, if anyone wants to practice penances
of any kind for their own satisfaction, they should be free to do so.

THAT IS THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE. THAT IS RATIONALISM.

AFTER RELEASE FROM INTERNMENT (1937 - 1966)

• Savarkar was released from internment in Ratnagiri on 10 May 1937.

Afterwards, he toured India and was honoured in many

cities. On 4 July 1937, he spoke at the famous Shivaji Mandir in Pune. He

said:
National good is more important
than the unity
For the sake of national good, one must say and do what is necessary. If by
that action, you dislike me, I must accept that. Let me make some points
clear. First take ‘unity.’
What is true unity?
Unity is national strength. One voice, one demand, one struggle,
concentrated effort is of course desirable. But we must not take the meaning
literally. In politics, we interpret Dharma, Truth, and Non-violence
differently. Similarly we must interpret Unity.

When Unity bestows strength and benefits a nation, it is a virtue. But

suppose a group of blind men have complete unity of thought and they are
travelling along a road. One of them has some sight and realises that the
group is heading towards a pit. Should he keep quiet for the sake of the
unity or should he shout ‘danger ahead I’ Under such circumstances
disunity is a virtue. A variety of opinions is sometimes beneficial than
unanimity.
Right to disagree
At present, in India, we have many parties, that is but natural. In free
countries, there are parliaments representing the people. And it is the
parliaments who rule the countries. If a parliament passes a resolution
unanimously or by majority and one wants to oppose it, there is a ‘Right of
revolt’ However the revolter must be prepared to suffer the consequences.
At present we must add that, in India, the dissenter must not join forces
with the enemy, (i.e the dissenter must not help the British rulers) because
mere disagreeing with majority is not enough when facing an enemy.

If I disagree with the opinion of the majority, I will stand alone. Even if, out
of the population of India of 350 million, 349.999 million are against me, I
will state my views for the benefit of our nation and face the consequences.
Jesus was alone for a long

time. Even at the time of his death, he did not get more than 12 disciples.
But he stood by his preachings. Today half the world is Christian.
Columbus suggested that America was on the other side of the ‘known
world’, despite the ridicule from many. Had he kept quiet for the sake of the
unity of opinions, America would not have been discovered. His single-
handed assertion led to the discovery of America. There are so many
examples where the opinion of a single person has ultimately prevailed and
was eventually accepted by the majority.
Public good or Popularity?
One has to sacrifice many things for the sake of the national good,
including the sacrifice of popularity. We must not harbour the notion that
unpopularity is a sin. It is not. Many leaders are afraid to speak out the truth
for the fear of becoming unpopular. That must not happen. My motto is
‘Public good, not just praise from the public.’ Praise? who does not want
praise? Even the fiery Lord Shiva is susceptible to praise. We all want to be
praised, but public good is more important than that. If one can achieve
both, praise from the public as well as the public good, it must be
considered a great achievement.

(SSV4 pp 360-361)
You disagree with my views, but do
you know what they are?
• On 31 July 1937, Savarkar was honoured in Pune by the socalled
progressive - i.e. leftist students. They said, ‘We dislike today’s Savarkar.
We want the revolutionary Savarkar of 1909. We honour that Savarkar
’Accepting the greetings Savarkar said:

“You say that you do not agree with my views, but they do not become
wrong for that reason. You also say that you disagree with all my political
opinions, but have you tried to find out what they are? I say that India must
achieve Absolute Political Independence. Do you disagree with that?”

After this beginning, the students showed unease and wanted to disrupt the
meeting. Savarkar said, ‘I have listened calmly to

what you have said against me, now you must listen to me. That is the basic
decency to be observed at a public meeting. I say that we should achieve
independence by whatever means available and we must impart military
training to our youth. Do you disagree with that ?’

‘I also stress that, in the Legislative Assemblies, the members should be

treated equally, irrespective of their caste or religion.

I do not ask for 5 votes for 4 Hindus, but I strongly oppose 6 votes given to
4 Muslims, today.’

[That was indeed the fact. See Nehm’s Discovery of India, 1974, p 383\

(HMS Era pp 41/2)

• On 8 August 1937, Savarkar was honoured at Solapur. He said, ‘You have

honoured me not because you all agree with all my opinions. We all change
our opinions. Sometimes it is essential to change them. If you agree with
my opinions, fine. If not, you can disregard them. I am not saying that what
I say is 100% correct and infallible.’

(SSV3 p 355)

THAT IS HUMILITY. THAT IS RATIONALISM.

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT IN
THE LITERARY FIELD
• On 12 December 1937, Savarkar spoke at The Central Province Literary
Conference at Nagpur. He emphasised the need to change the Devanagri
script. He said:

“Some of my suggestions are for the rejuvenation of old styles. Moreover,

the modified script is easy to follow. Some say that my reforms will destroy
the beauty of the written language. But this is not true. People are not used
to the new script, that is all. If the Education Minister and the editors of
newspapers are keen, the new Devanagri script which is easy for the
printing presses will be widely used. I am not suggesting that you should
follow all my suggestions. If other people have better ideas, let them

make suggestions for improvement, let the scholars examine them and carry
out improvements.”

(SSV4 p 444)

Only a true Rationalist will say “I have some suggestions, but I am not
saying that you must accept them all because they are mine. Let others also
make suggestions.”

• 22nd Annual session of Marathi Literary Conference was held in Mumbai

on 15 April 1938. In his Presidential address, Savarkar again emphasised
the freedom of expression:
A plea to my opponents
Should some people feel that my doctrine for the purification of the
language is far fetched, I can only say that I will respect their opinion. I will
wait till they change their mind. I make only one request. Persons like me
who are proud of our language will suggest new words to substitute the
ones from English or Urdu language. Our opponents should not feel angry
at that. If the new words are sustainable, they will be accepted by the
masses and will survive. Our opponents are suggesting that Marathi
becomes richer by importation of words from English and Urdu. How can
they then say that it becomes poorer by CREATING new words from
Sanskrit or Marathi? Surely the ability to create new words shows the
vitality of any language!

Those who agree with me should be determined to use the word Nirbandh
instead of Kayada (Law). Those who disagree can use the word Kayada as
long as they want.
Personal Opinions
So far, I have discussed what all Maharashtrians and Literary Conferences
can and should do. I must emphasise that these are my personal opinions.
My opinions as the President of this conference will of course be those
agreed to by the passing of various resolutions. I do not say that my
personal opinions will be acceptable to everyone. All the participants
should feel free

to express their opinions. No one should feel offended if the conference

passes resolutions contrary to my personal opinions.
Literature damaging the sanctity of
current beiiefs
Literature falls into two categories. Realistic Literature e.g Mathematics,
Astronomy, Physics, History, and Literature relating to fiction e.g. drama,
poetry, novels, stories.

Realistic Literature must tell the truth. Real life, the scientifically proven
truth is always beneficial to the society. If it hurts old or new beliefs
(feelings), that should be tolerated. The beliefs and feelings which
withstand the test of truthfulness will survive.

There are many concepts about the formation of the earth, the Sun and the
Moon, the stars and the motions of the planets, as described in the Koran,
the Puranas or the Bible. These were challenged by European scholars. The
history of their persecution in the name of religion is well known. But
today, throughout Europe, school children are taught that those concepts as
mentioned in the Bible and the scriptures of other religions are false. We
must learn from that example. There must be no persecution of scholars.

There must be the freedom to express the truth. If, at times, some feel that
such free expressions are blasphemous, let them analyse those propositions
and put forward their counter arguments. Mankind always benefits by
discussion and debate, as it helps to establish the truth.
Progressive literature / Literature
of new thoughts
The same principle applies to the progressive literature. Nothing becomes
acceptable or unacceptable simply because it is new. A child is not
necessarily more experienced than its mother or wiser than its father. It is
wrong to assume that any literature will be truthful or meaningful just
because it is called progressive. A toddler is full of energy as a youngster.
Many times it runs ahead of its mother. But it can also easily fall in a pit.
Truthfulness or usefulness of any new literature can be established only
after it

is allowed to be published and discussed. The freedom of expression is

therefore crucial.

We must not be carried away by a thought simply because it is new. At the

same time, we should not also suppress any thought simply because we feel
that it is whimsical, mischievous or outrageous. It is beneficial to criticise
the new concepts and defend the old ones. Many times new thoughts have
proved useful in the same way as the Sun’s rays penetrate a dark room or
like the X-rays revealing hitherto unknown details that could not be seen by
the naked eye. There must always be a place for both old and new thoughts.
Communism and Freudism
Communists want to emphasise that all the literature (in Marathi and other
languages) is a result of the economic struggle between the capitalists and
the workers. Followers of Freud see all human activities as resulting from
the sexual desire as well as from the struggle to satisfy that desire. Both are
equally one sided.

Man has been given the stomach by the Creator. It is one of the organs of
the body and NOT the only organ . We human beings evolved through the
needs of all the human organs. And the same can be said of the literature,
which cannot be merely explained by the existence of capitalists and
proletariat, or by the need for sexual gratification. It is absurd to suggest
that the works of Maratha saint Dnyaneshwar of the 13th century were a
ploy by the capitalist world, or that Buddha was a Communist because he
abdicated his throne. On similar lines, it is fanciful to suggest that the
Yogasutras were created as an intoxication to the workers so that they
would not complain about their exploitation. It would be foolish to say that
Mahabhashya of Shankaracharya of the 7th century was the creation of his
desire to satisfy unfulfilled sexual desire, because he was a celibate.
However, it must be said that such one-sided propositions help us to
understand our values, concepts, beliefs and history. The literature by
Communists and the followers of Freud should

therefore be welcome and not cursed. At the same time, counter arguments
must also be made and be given the widest publicity. [Communists did not
want the latter part. They always wanted the freedom for themselves while
denying it to others.]
Objectionable literature.
The freedom does not however mean anarchy. The literature that is blatantly
derogatory to an individual, or to a section of a society, or is created with
the intention to insult and offend using foul / uncivilised or repugnant
language should be banned. (SSV4 pp 461-484)

• The above was the famous speech in which Savarkar emphasised the
importance of military training. He pleaded that the Indian youth should
throw away the pen and bear arms. Yet, in the same speech, he stressed the
importance of the right to the freedom of thought and expression.
FREEDOM OF PERSONAL
CHOICE
• On 28 December 1940, Savarkar was speaking at Madura during the
annual session of All India Hindu Mahasabha. He said, ‘Let me put forward
my views on the present World War. These views do not have to be
accepted because they are expressed by the President. I do not consider
their acceptance as a matter of prestige for me as the President. Consider
them as the views of a member.’

(HMS Era p 398)

• Savarkar was present at the centenary celebrations of the public library at

Nasik (Maharashtra) on 19 January 1941. On that occasion he said, ‘Try to
read as many books as possible. Do not form your opinions by reading
books written from only one particular perspective. Read books of authors
of different views. After a comparative study of various opinions, make up
your own mind. Only then does a person become a staunch supporter of a
particular opinion.’

(SUI Era p 10)

• In his letter of 28 January 1943 to Raja Maheshwar Dayal, Savarkar says,

‘We may disagree on certain points, but I am not going to be indifferent or

discourteous to you for that reason. Every one is entitled to form his or her
own opinions and express them without fear of upsetting others. No one
should be preventing from expressing their opinions to seek favours.’

(SUI Era p 185)

• Marathas have been going on pilgrimage to Pandharpur, 220 miles South

of Mumbai (Bombay) since the 17th century. British administration banned
it on 15 June 1944. The ban was lifted after a strong protest from Savarkar.
Speaking at the occasion, he said, ‘I do not practice idol worship. However,
those who practice such worship with all the sincerity must be allowed to
do so. If a ban is imposed on such people, we must rush to their rescue and
defend the fundamental right of the freedom of worship.’

(SUI Era p 278)

• Savarkar’s private secretary Balarao remembers an incident in the 1950s.

He says,

“Savarkar’s dinner used to be plain and simple. Sometimes he used to eat

fish, if advised to do so by his doctor. The mother of the famous singer Lata
Mangeshkar or his biographer Dhananjay Keer used to provide fish. Once
Savarkar requested Mr Keer to provide fish on a Thursday and the second
time he made a similar request on the day of Ekadashi (11th day of the
Lunar Month).”

“Keer saw no problem, but his wife was not so reformist. She pointed out
that it would be wrong to eat fish on those special days. Keer had also felt
uneasy. But he said to his wife ‘I consider Savarkar as a godly person.
There should be no objection to acceding to his request.’ Mrs Keer agreed.
Later, I narrated this story to Savarkar. He never upset Mrs Keer again. He
always wanted to break the meaningless and harmful traditions, but he
never forced others to do the same. Those who did not agree

with his arguments were free to practice their beliefs as they wished.”

(End of an Era pp 298/300)

• After the Indian independence, Savarkar wanted to disband his

revoiutionary organisation Abhinav Bharat. He did so publicly in 1952 as
soon as the circumstances made it feasible. On that occasion he gave a
series of public speeches. There were some adverse criticisms. Savarkar
read them all One objector was Mr N G Gore, a Socialist leader. In a paper
called Janavani, Gore wrote on 15 May 1952, ‘Why should Savarkar preach
liberating the Sindhu river (lost to Pakistan) today? First, India should solve
its economic problems and then, at a later stage, think of such actions.’
[Surprise.^ surprise II Gore did not say that we must never liberate the
Sindhu, it was only a difference of when the iiberation should take place.]

Balarao, private secretary of Savarkar, felt that such adverse comments

should not be printed in the book of Savarkar’s speeches of 1952. Savarkar
told him,

‘It is wrong to publish only favourable comments.’ And accordingly,

Balarao printed Gore’s adverse comments too. (End of an Era p 128)

Gore became the Indian High Commissioner in London in 1978. We have

seen how Savarkar valued the opinions of other peopie. Therefore, he
always observed a code of conduct. His criticism was never at a personal
level.
A CODE OF CONDUCT
On 3 August 1928, Savarkar replied to the criticism in the editorial of a
newspaper named Pratap. He says, ‘To criticise Gandhi’s policy of non
violence and to criticise Gandhi as a person are two quite different things.’
(Savarkar never did the latter.) (SSV4 p204)

• Speaking at Pune on 2 August 1939, Savarkar said, ‘at present we have

three parties each individually headed by Gandhiji, Babuji and Bhaiji.
Gandhiji means Gandhism, Babuji means the Forward Block of Subhash
Chandra Bose, and Bhaiji means Manavendranath (M N) Roy. Please
remember that when I mention these three, I refer to their principles NOT
personalities. As individuals, Gandhi, Bose and Roy are patriots and I
respect them as such.’

(SSV4 pp 525/6)

• Whiie speaking at Pune one year iater (2 August 1940), he said. Today we
have followers of Gandhi, Bose and Roy in our country. True, they all mean
well for India. The question is, what should be our attitude towards them? I
will explain this logically. If you find that I am criticising them, please
remember that I am criticising their policies and not personalities.’

(SSV4 p494)

Savarkar was thus open minded, honest and iiberai in his deaiings with
other peopie. We wiii see more exampies in the chapter on his sense of
justice and fair piay. However it must be emphasised that to preach and
practise the freedom of thoughts and expression were extremeiy difficuit
during the days when he did, especiaiiy as his opponents and adversaries,
never reciprocated in the same manner towards him. They were mean
minded, wicked and intoierant. And yet, Savarkar never iost his poise. Let
us see how.
MEAN MINDED AND
INTOLERANT OPPONENTS OF
SAVARKAR
Savarkar was reieased from Jaii on 6 January 1924 on two conditions,
namely that:

(1) He wiii reside at Ratnagiri (Maharashtra)

(2) He wiii abstain from any participation pubiic or private in poiitics.

initiaiiy, these restrictions were appiicabie for five years oniy, but

the British Administration increased their duration by two years on four

successive occasions, to a total of thirteen and a half years. There was a
public outcry against such an arbitrary, oppressive and vindictive treatment
given to Savarkar. In 1936, many sympathisers decided to send a petition to
the British Governor and express the public anger. Gandhi, Nehru and other
Congress leaders refused to sign that petition. Neither they nor their
followers were affected in a similar manner. They therefore wanted to show
off that they were so proud that it was below their dignity to request the
British for the release of Savarkar. But then, at the same time, they never
raised their voice against injustice being done to Savarkar. The true reason
behind their refusal was that they did not want Savarkar to be released.
Savarkar exposes the intolerance of
his opponents
• Government of India Act 1935 granted Autonomy to Provinces.
Accordingly, the elections to Provincial Legislative Assemblies were held
in February 1937. Congress Party had not decided whether or not they
should form governments in various provinces. In Bombay (Mumbai)
province, Jamnadas Mehta of the Swaraj Party formed an interim
government and he set Savarkar free unconditionally on 10 May 1937. Two
months later. Congress Party formed ministries in various provinces to run
provincial governments.

* Speaking about these events, Savarkar said in Pune on 1 August 1937,

Today you are all ministers of the Crown. You went to the Governor’s
house and took an oath of allegiance to the Crown in the Legislative
Assemblies. Where was your pride this time that previously prevented you
from signing the petition for my release? Surely, that was not the true
reason. At least you should have given your true reason {i.e. that you did
not want me to be released). What a pity that I have to say this to the very
men who make so much fuss about TRUTH.”

(SSV4 p 369)

• That was just the beginning of the intolerance of the Congress Party.
During the 1931 civil disobedience movement, the British Administration
confiscated the lands, houses and properties of many people who took part
in that movement. After coming to power, the Congress Party returned
those assets back to the Congressmen. BUT SAVARKAR AND THE
REVOLUTIONARIES WHO LOST ALL THEIR EARTHLY
POSSESSIONS WERE NOT COMPENSATED. As far as the Congress
was concerned their sacrifices did not count, as they were not followers of
GandhijiU
* Referring to this attitude Savarkar said at Thane on 11 December 1938,

‘Congress government has returned lands confiscated from peasants by the

British during the Bardoli Satyagraha (in Gujarat). That is good. But by the
same token why should they not also honour those who went to jail, went to
gallows before 1920? Why should not those freedom fighters also be given
back their properties?’

(HMS Era p 158)

Alas, that was not to be. Savarkar’s famous book ‘My Transportation for
Life’ was published in Marathi in May 1927. It described the horrors of the
jail life on the Andaman Islands (Kalapani). The prison conditions were
harsh, food was of poor quality and inadequate, hygiene was primitive, and
punishments were inhuman. The political prisoners were subjected to hard,
backbreaking physical labour. Many times their hands bled. But their
incessant struggle for changes to such conditions over a period of 10 years
made the jail conditions much more tolerable. Jail conditions were therefore
far less rigorous for the Congress Party leaders and their followers when
they went to jail in 1920 and 1931. Besides, they were given much shorter-
term sentences than those given to the revolutionaries.

Thus, compared to the jail conditions meted out to Savarkar brothers and
the revolutionaries on the Andaman Islands, the prison sentences suffered
by the Congress Party followers were insignificant. Congress Party made
such a hue and cry about

TRUTH as being their cardinal principle. But, That kind of truth

(comparison between prison conditions suffered by Savarkar and others and
those endured by Congress leaders) was not suitable for their propaganda.
They wanted to suppress it. They wanted to blow their own trumpet. When
Congress came to power in 1937 its leaders were perfectly happy to
continue the policy of the British in banning Savarkar’s books including
‘My Transportation for Life’ which was banned in 1934.

How dare you forget efforts of likes of Lala Hardayal?

• Savarkar spoke at Pune on 14 May 1939 during the famous spring series
of lectures called Vasant Vyakhyanmala. He explained the tremendous
efforts made by Lala Hardayal and other revolutionaries during 1906-1918
in Europe and America and how they suffered for the cause of the Indian
freedom struggle. He said, '...But Pattabhi Sitaramayya [the Congress Party
historian]does not know this history. Is he saying therefore, that these
events did not take place? Is this what they call the TRUTH? In
Sitaramayya’s opinion, the Indian Freedom Struggle started only in 1920. A
son may think the world began from the time of his birth, but will he dare
say that his father was born after him?’

Such were the efforts made by Lala Hardayal and others in the cause of our
freedom struggle. Communications have now become much faster. Today
we may not realise the significance of what Lala Hardayal and others did.
But is that the reason for saying that the history of Indian Freedom Struggle
started only in 1920? How dare you say this when persons like me are still
alive? If Germany had won the First World War, they had agreed to insist
on the Indian Independence as a precondition of any peace treaty. Credit for
that goes to the efforts made by Lala Hardayal.’

(SSV4 pp 407 to 411)

Indian freedom struggle did start
before Gandhi
Subhash Chandra Bose and Pattabhi Sitaramayya were opponents of each
other. Both stood for the election of President

of the Congress Party in 1939. Despite the backing of Gandhiji,

Sitaramayya was defeated by Bose. Vindictive Gandhi thereafter forced
Bose to resign. However, the titie of Bose’s book was ‘The Indian Struggle
(1920-42).’ The implication being that as Gandhi started his non co-
operation movement in 1920, that is when the Indian freedom movement
started. Before Gandhi, there was no freedom movement. Though Bose and
Pattabhi Sitaramayya were opponents of each other, both implied that the
Indian freedom struggle started only in 1920.
It Is no sin to work outside the
Congress Party
In 1937, many had suggested that Savarkar should join the Congress Party.
It can be said that they were simpletons. Savarkar made it clear that he
could not protect Hindu interests after joining the Congress and therefore he
would not join that party. At that juncture, people who still said that
‘Savarkar should join the Congress,’ had become mentally bankrupt.

When it was clear that Savarkar would not join the Congress Party, its
members did not take part in various public functions held to honour him.
That is understandable. But they tried to disrupt the meetings, sabotage and
throw stones. They physically abused and attacked people who were
honouring Savarkar. Gandhi and Nehru never condemned such intolerant
actions of their followers.

• On 4 July 1937, Savarkar spoke at the famous Shivaji Mandir of Pune. He

said, ‘It is quite wrong to think that just because the majority of the people
belong to the (Indian National) Congress Party, it is a sin to work outside
that party according to one’s own wishes. We all should work for our
nation. Congress Party, Swaraj Party, Hindu Mahasabha are all like flowers
for the same altar. Our goddess is the same, temple is the same, but we
worship differently. There should be no dispute between the worshippers
and their ways of worshipping.’

‘Mistakes are bound to be made, whether by the Congress or by any other

party. It is now clear that the Congress party has made

33 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

some mistakes. But while making mistakes, it is wrong for anybody to

pretend that we do not make mistakes.’
‘If you do not agree with the policies of the Congress party and feel that
you can do something substantial for the country, by all means resign from
the Congress and found your own party. However, you must then do more,
or at least as much as the Congress. Only then would you be justified in
launching a new party. And if more parties spring up with this aim, the
Congress should not feel angry, threatened or dismayed, but like the Spartan
warriors {of ancient Greece), they should welcome such people who would
be doing more work than them. The test of any party is not whether or not it
is inside the Congress Party, but whether it is doing work beneficial to the
country.’

(SSV 4 pp 322/3)
Yesterday’s moderates were more
tolerant than today’s Congressites
• On 2 August 1937 Savarkar spoke at Tilak Smarak Mandir of Pune.

‘. Compared to the politics of the present generation, I prefer

the politics of the moderates of the previous generation. None of them

wasted time in discussing whether the means were moral or immoral. The
means, which achieve our just aim in the shortest time, are moral - that was
their definition of morality.’

‘Surendranath Banerjee was considered a moderate, but he felt deep

anguish for the sufferings of political prisoners in the jail on the Andaman
Islands. It was because of his efforts that we were released from Andaman.
During World War I, he sent a message of sympajthy, affection and support
for us through a German Prisoner of War. He and other moderates were
strongly opposed to the methods of the revolutionaries. But they treated us
the revolutionaries as if we were their own children. Surendranath frankly
told the British, ‘If you want peace in India, you must first of all release the
revolutionaries in Andaman.’ Bhupendranath Basu was even more
moderate than Surendranath. But even he never branded our means as
immoral. Banerjee. Tilak or Gokhale.

never said that patriots were only those who followed them .’

(SSV4 pp 367/8)
If you do not agree with Gandhi or
Nehru, you are no good
Gandhi and Nehru had sown the seeds of intolerance. This fact is crystal
clear from the speeches and writings of their followers. In their books, only
the followers of Gandhi and Nehru were patriots. Worse still, all the
opponents of Gandhi and Nehru were traitors. Even those who disagreed
with Gandhi and Nehru and who called their folly a folly, blunders as
blunders - were all traitors. We get some idea of that intolerance from the
above speech of Savarkar. It is no secret that for a long time and to a large
extent even today, many feel that those who opposed Gandhi and Nehru
were traitors. That was the intolerance and bigotry inflamed by Gandhi and
Nehru.

The Chinese invasion in 1962 on the North East (NEFA) and North West
(Ladakh) frontiers of India exposed the foolishness of Nehru’s Foreign and
Military policies. Even then, Mr H R Mahajani, the editor of Lokasatta, a
Marathi newspaper of Mumbai (Bombay) wrote, ‘Those who oppose
Nehru’s policies know nothing about International Politics.’

In 1962, The Government of India had issued orders that those who
opposed Nehru should be regarded as traitors.

Let us return to the days of 1937.

• On 26 November 1937, Savarkar spoke atAkola. He said, After struggling

for a long time, we have gained some rights - no point in denying that. But
after that achievement, the bureaucracy, which was our target, has moved to
the background. And various factions have sprung up. That is no surprise. It
was inevitable. But we must remember that we have not fully achieved
what we had set out to achieve. Until that time, our different factions must
complement each other. A bird attacks its prey with both wings acting
together, similarly our factions must co-operate to achieve our aim.’
We have factions - so what?
‘Why should we worry that we have some factions? That is healthy and it is
a sign of vitality. There are no factions in a graveyard. The dead bodies lie
in whatever positions they are kept. You may not agree with some of my
opinions. I may not agree with some of the opinions of others. Nothing
wrong in that. The conservatives feel that our salvation lies in keeping old
traditions. Reformists feel that we will only survive if we change our ways.
Communists think that our gaining power is only justified if the condition
of the working class is improved. Congress feels that only their path will
achieve glory for India. Hindu Mahasabha feels the same. But ultimately all
have the same aim - progress of the Hindu nation.’
It does not matter if mistakes are
made
‘Once upon a time, we revolutionaries were very very few. But we declared
Absolute Political Independence as our aim. The vast number of our people
were indifferent. We thought ‘are we making a mistake?’ At one time, we
were alone. Today, thousands are welcoming us. Times change. After 30
years, our bodies, which were previously in chains in prison, are now being
garlanded. Today we feel that mistakes of yesterdays were not mistakes at
all.’

‘Only a few days ago, Mahatma Gandhi thought that he made Himalayan
blunders. Did not Jawaharlal Nehru feel only yesterday that it was a mistake
to form governments in various provinces? The main test is EXPERIENCE
- do we learn from mistakes? Some may feel that the activities, which I am
going to undertake, are wrong. I do not feel the slightest bit of
embarrassment by their thinking.’
Have confidence in yourselves
‘Today you may consider that my opinion is wrong. But I was not wrong in
proclaiming complete independence as our aim several years ago. Similarly
after ten years you will find that I had been right all along. If you do not
want to join me, at least trust me.

That is all that I ask.’

(SSV4 pp 343/4/5)

• A classic example of intolerance of the followers of Gandhi is seen in

Saane Guruji’s book Bharatiya Sanskriti - in Marathi (The civilisation of the
people of Bharat i.e. India). It was published in 1937. In the preface he says.
Our civilisation is broad

minded.Wherever there is something truthful, beautiful,

admirable, we borrow it for our society. We enrich ourselves by

such thoughts.Our civilisation will worship, adore and

assimilate greatness wherever it is found.Our civilisation

continuously collects great ideas. It encompasses all kinds of people. We

dislike narrow mindedness... When we say Bharatiya Civilisation, we think
of sacrifice, self control, service, devotion, love, affection, knowledge,...’

And yet, in such a book, there is no mention of Veer Savarkar or any

revolutionary! Saane Guruji did not see any greatness in their lives, because
they were not the followers of Gandhi!! [Acharya Vinoba Bhave was the
well-known leader of Sarvodaya movement. Saane Guruji was Bhave’s
disciple]
Savarkar refused to become
Gandhi’s puppet
• On 1 January 1938, Savarkar was honoured by Maharashtrians
ofKarnavati (Ahmedabad). He gave his reasons for not joining the Congress
Party,

‘... Consider the dishonouring of helpless Hindu girls of North West

Frontier Province. Imagine that such atrocities are being committed on your
daughter or sister and then tell me if you want me to be one of those who
keep quiet about such events. If you want to bestow honour on those who
keep quiet, I do not want your honour. I will not be a ‘Yes Sir’ man and
keep quiet.’

‘Had I gone to America and settled there, I may have become a President of
that country, but then that would not be a sign of a hero. In a similar
manner, it is not the sign of a hero who sets aside his honest opinions and
becomes a ‘Yes Sir’ to the puppet

master of Congress (i.e. Gandhi). If I wanted easy life and praise from
public, I would have gone over to Gokhale rather than to Tilak. Even Tilak
never agreed with me during the day. He would only agree at midnight. And
still, he used to say, ‘time for the armed uprising has not yet arrived.’ I do
not want to ‘become a Nariman ‘by expressing my honest opinions.’

(SSV4 p351)

Readers might ask - what does the phrase ‘become a Nariman’ mean?
Subhash Chandra Bose wrote, ‘... to make matters worse, from 1922
onwards political issues could no longer be considered in the cold light of
reason, but would be unnecessarily mixed up

with ethical issues.And worst of all was the tendency on the

part of the orthodox followers to regard everything that he (i.e. Gandhi) said
as the gospel truth without reasoning or arguing

and to accept his paper Young India as their Bible.Only

hope for Indians lies in some sane rationalism and in modernisation of the
material aspect of life.’

K F Nariman was released from jail in July 1933. He spoke in

Pune (Poona).‘ the remedy lay in securing for Gandhiji, in

place of the late Motilal Nehru, another political taskmaster - a plain

speaking outspoken giant and not lip sealed mummies who always shake
their heads like spring dolls, perpendicularly or horizontally, according as
the Mahatma pulls strings straight or sideways.’....

Bose continues, ‘It was refreshing and heartening to find in the Working
Committee at least one man who could think boldly and have courage to
call a spade a spade.’

(The Indian Struggle 1920-1942 by S C Bose, Asia Publishing House,

1943, pages 127 and 295)

Motilal Nehru died in 1932. He could stand up to Gandhi. Both Nariman

and Bose had stated that after Motilal’s death all the other Congress leaders
had become lip sealed mummies, manipulated by Gandhi.

A few days after this speech, Mr Nariman who had the courage to call a
spade a spade and dare criticise Gandhi’s policy, was sent into exile by
Gandhi. In October 1938 another person of independent mind Dr NB
Khare, the Chief Minister of the Central Province was removed from his
office by Gandhi. He remained a rebel congressman in wilderness for the
next 10 years. Gandhi got rid of Subhash Chandra Bose in 1939 and
Manavendra Nath Roy a few years later. Thus Gandhi did not let a single
man of significance and independent thinking to remain in Congress.
• Even the so-called Nationalist Muslim, Maulana Azad wrote, ‘I have
always had the feeling that these colleagues and friends (of the Working
Committee, such as Sardar Patel, Dr Rajendra Prasad, Acharya Kripalani)
did not exercise their own minds on most political issues. They were out-
and-out followers of Gandhiji. Whenever a question arose, they wanted to
see how he would react.’

(India Wins Freedom 1959, pp 94/95)

Azad had clearly stated that the members of the Working Committee of the
Congress were puppets, manipulated by Gandhi. Whenever a question
arose, they wanted to find out his opinion and then say that they too were of
the same opinion.

We can pity those blind followers of Gandhi. But their attitude was to brand
all opponents of Gandhi as Traitors. That was disgusting. And as the result,
they had the audacity to say that the Indian Freedom Struggle started in
1920, because Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement started in 19201 There
was no limit to their tyrannical absurdity.

Muslims would honour Savarkar, but not Congressite Hindus.

• In September 1938, Savarkar went to Karachi. As it was a predominantly

Hindu city, the Congress party had a majority in the City Council. Muslim
councillors were in favour of honouring Savarkar, saying that he was a great
man. But Hindu (Congress party) councillors defeated the motion, as
Savarkar opposed

39/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

Gandhi’s policy of constant capitulation to Muslim demands and had the

audacity to say so in public. The City Council did not honour him. Of
course, after the partition, those brave Hindu Councillors fled Karachi and
sought refuge in (Hindu) India. (HMS Era p 240)

Hindu Mahasabha leaders were formerly in Congress

• On 4 October 1941, Savarkar delivered a public speech in Mumbai
(Bombay). Referring to the Congress Party, he said,

‘.In the 1930s, many leaders of Hindu Maha Sabha took part

in the freedom struggle and fought shoulder to shoulder with you, even
though they did not agree with your principles. Mr Bhopatkar was the first
one to be arrested by the British. Dr Munje was the President of Central
Province Congress Party for four years. He utterly detested Gandhi’s
attitude towards Moplas who committed heinous atrocities on Hindus in
Malabar. And therefore Munje joined Hindu Maha Sabha. Jamna Das
Mehta was the President of Bombay Provincial Congress Party. ....
Chandakiran Sarda was a member of the Congress Party at Ajmer. Dr
Nayadu was a member of your Working Committee. How dare you say that
their sacrifices and hardships today are less important, because they are no
longer in the Congress?’

‘Hindu Maha Sabha has many members who were until recently in the
Congress party. As long as they were in Congress, their sacrifices were
praiseworthy, they were great patriots. But, as soon as they joined Hindu
Maha Sabha, the same patriots become selfish traitors in your eyes. That
intolerance must be denounced.’

(SSV4, pp 541/2)

One should mention here that in the 1921 non-cooperation movement and
the 1930 civil disobedience movement, even Savarkar’s younger brother Dr
Narayanrao and Dr Hedgewar founder of the RSS, took part. And yet,
Subhash Chandra Bose wrote, ‘The Hindu Mahasabha consisted not only of
erstwhile Nationalists, but also a large number of men who were afraid of
participating in a political movement and wanted a safer platform

for themselves.’

(The Indian Stmggle 1920-42 p 134)

Bose conveniently forgot the satyagraha in Bhagyanagar (Hyderabad) state

in 1939, which was launched by the Hindu Maha Sabha.
Some Congress leaders felt uneasy at Gandhi’s capitulation to Muslims

The Congress Party was determined not to defend any Hindu interests. No
one, who opposed this policy, could stay in Congress. Let us take two
examples:

* On 30 April 1938 Savarkar spoke at Tilak Smarak Mandir in Pune. He

said,

‘Some 40 to 50 Congress leaders, who cannot speak out openly but who felt
offended by the constant visits by Gandhi to Jinnah’s house, started calling
on me and requested that I should intervene and stop this disgrace.’

I said ‘I will not go to Jinnah or Gandhi and definitely not without an

invitation. It would be proper to meet them at a neutral place, but some of
you must come.’ They said ‘Please don’t say that. We have to keep our
mouths shut.’ Some suggested that Annarao Bhopatkar (a prominent Hindu
Maha Sabha leadei) could mediate instead of me. I said, ‘We stand out from
you as different because we are not in the Congress. If not, our condition
would have been the same as yours (i.e. we too would have been unable to
protect Hindu interests). Is that not the case?’ (SSV4 p376)

* On 30 September 1941, Savarkar said in Mumbai, ‘There are some in

Congress who are concerned with current movements which will cause
maximum damage to Hindu interests in order to please the Muslims, but
they cannot openly express their thoughts. Kanahyalal M Munshi had to
keep quiet while he was in Congress. As soon as he got out, he started
denouncing the treachery of Congress.’

[K M Munshi was the founder president of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,

Mumbai.]

• Congress wanted the freedom of thought and expression, but only for
themselves and not for others. At the Madura (Madurai) Session of All
India Hindu Maha Sabha held on 28 December 1940, Savarkar said,
‘Congress leaders talk of agitating against the British for the cause of the
freedom of speech but they do not grant the same freedom to their
opponents. They try to crush those opponents by violent methods.’
(HMS Era p 393)

• In December 1940, Hindu Maha Sabha was going to hold its annual
session at Bhagalpur in Bihar. Using the pretext of the oncoming Bakr-id
festival of Muslims, the British Government banned that session. Under the
leadership of Veer Savarkar, Hindu Maha Sabha followers used ingenious
tactics by which they made a mockery of the ban. The government order
banning the session became a laughing stock. Nehru and the Congress did
not protest against the ban, while at the same time expressed concern over
the suppression of human rights at that time in Russia and China!!

A typical example of intolerance of Congress leaders

• Congress Party came to power in seven major provinces in July 1937. Let
us Just see one more example of its intolerance.

In October 1938, Savarkar had gone to Meerut to canvass for the Hindu
Maha Sabha candidates for the forthcoming elections to the United
Province (U P) Legislative Council.

‘On 2 October 1938, after two public meetings, thousands of Hindus of

Meerut took out a procession of Veer Savarkar. It started at 6 p.m. After half
a mile, it was obstructed by Muslim troublemakers. The police had
approved the procession beforehand and some 12 police officers had also
accompanied the procession. At a small mosque near Gudribazar, a large

42 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

crowd of Muslims armed with sticks had gathered. They started to argue
that, as the area had a large Muslim population, the procession must not
pass through it. They had clearly planned this move in advance and they
were prepared for a fight. Hindus became furious.’

‘Police officers agreed that the justice was on the side of the Hindus. But,
they said that they did not have enough men to disperse the crowd of nearly
one thousand Muslims. They suggested that Hindus should postpone the
procession till reinforcements arrived. In the meantime, Muslims felt
encouraged by the lack of police action and started attacking Hindus, who
also started to fight back. By chance, one hundred armed policemen arrived
on the spot along with the Commissioner of Police of the City and the
District Superintendent of Police (DSP). They agreed that the Hindus had a
just cause and that the Muslims had stored large quantity of stones, bricks,
knives and sticks in their houses and shops. However, they argued that in
the interest of peace, Hindus should abandon the procession.’

‘Savarkar condemned this suggestion. He emphasised that it was the duty of

the police offi^rs to protect the legitimate rights of the law abiding Hindus,
not those of the Muslim hooligans. Police officers placed the armed police
between Hindus and Muslims and asked Hindus to surrender their sticks.’

‘Savarkar said, ‘You should first disarm the Muslims and free the passage
for the procession.’ Police officers said that they were unable to do so. They
asked Savarkar to come down from his seat. In their opinion, it would cause
bloodshed, if the procession were allowed to proceed. They accused that
people were becoming belligerent by Savarkar’s preachings. Savarkar
openly said to his followers that such an accusation was baseless. Hindus
were not in a mood to abandon the procession. They said quite openly that
the procession was taking place as per the plan approved by the police. It
was the duty of the police to protect the Hindus along the route of the
procession. If the police

could not deal with the Muslim ruffians, they should move aside and let the
Hindus deal with the situation.’

‘In the end, the armed police attacked the Hindus and forced them to
disperse. But they did not attack the Muslims. Police officers kept on saying
that they had orders to prevent bloodbath at all costs.’

After reporting the above incident, the editor of Marathi daily Trikal
commented, ‘It is impossible to understand the attitude of the police. If
armed robbers attack a locality, these police would arrest the householders
to prevent them from fighting the aggressors and let the robbery take place.
Who are the ministers that gave such orders?’

(HMS Era pp 271- 4)

There are many instances like this too numerous to quote. In May 1938, the
Congress Government in U.P published circular ordering government
servants not to keep any contact with Savarkar. Govind Vallabha Panta, the
Chief Minister of U P, asked the police to watch Savarkar’s activities, as if
he was a gangster.

• Such intolerant behaviour of Nehru and the Congress did not stop even
after the Indian independence in August 1947.

In 1958, Savarkar was 75. He was publicly honoured in Mumbai (Bombay)

by the people of all parties including socialists and communists with the
exception of the Congress Party. On that occasion, Mr Bharucha, a Parses
and former leader of the Congress Party said, ‘Today, tension is mounting in
Punjab. The Indian Government should seek the help of Savarkar. He is
popular among both Sikh and Non Sikh Hindu communities. He can
certainly find a solution. But, the government has a grudge, a vendetta
against Savarkar. Therefore, they will not seek his help. It is a disgrace that
not one Congress minister is present at this ceremony. The Congress leaders
are so ungrateful that they do not realise how much debt they owe to
Savarkar. There

is only one reason for their hatred of Savarkar - he is a Maharashtrian. The

black marketers, smugglers, bootleggers are acceptable to the government
as soon as they put on the Gandhi cap.’

What a damning indictment of the Congress Party!!

• In April 1962, Shreeprakash, the former Governor of Maharashtra called

on Savarkar. He could NOT do so as the senring Governor of Maharashtra.
He saw Savarkar the day after relinquishing his office.

Credit to Savarkar

* Savarkar suggested a iarge number of words derived from Sanskrit to

repiace existing words in English. They are now in daily use. For example

Parliament - Sansad
The Lower house of Parliament - Lokasabha

The upper house of Parliament - Rajyasabha

Minister - Mantri

Secretary - Sachiv

Secretariat - Sachivalaya

Commissioner - Ayukt

Hail - Sabhagruha

Radio - Nabhovani /Akashavani.

As suggested by Savarkar, we have acquired the ability to create new words

ourselves. He showed us how this can be done and now we are doing it. For
example Television’ - Door Darshan.

The motto of Indian Air Force is ‘nabhaha sparsham diptam’and that of the
Indian Navy is ‘Sham no Varunaha’

On the tricoiourflag, charkha (spinning wheel) has been replaced by

‘Dharma Chakra’ (it is notAshok Chakra)

Savarkar’s contributions are too numerous to quote. It is a pity that he was

never given credit in the open for many changes that he caused.

45 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

* It is widely known that in 1954 Rajendraprasad, President of India, went

to Andaman. He visited the cell where Savarkar was kept and paid his
respects to Savarkar.

* Nehru died on 27 May 1964. Within four months of Nehru’s death, the
Congress Party recognised Savarkar’s contribution to the Indian Freedom
Struggle. In October 1964, he was granted a Government pension as a
freedom fighter.
Savarkar left this world by self-immolation on 26 February 1966.

It is enlightening to see how, despite such un-gentlemanly behaviour of his

opponents, Savarkar maintained his composure throughout and displayed a
remarkable sense of justice even to all his adversaries.

Yoj fr SB fe W ^b tf # i qi ii la|Nj ^ ^

accdpfabte fo the go^^9fj0^r^ «itllte\|laiC«V^«»ii5;f i V) zrthvjm 'iiKft

rnrtK\N .Wftt yeWl no \wb _

_ , \s/)'ra afcyvt^itthiflpWiu

BennngGoymvrc^K^*tar^,:-;=i H&wn'-wv.vwl

^XbbVKM ^fW(i ,y«ort aoe o) ^pvne^rt^JSrtirt^ 1 V

bnaauDAOiOirxi

ijS'i

- Si*^if •>

, . ‘"■- ♦;■.

■ <^V jT. •- ■ ;

~ ___ . > .'&anB^0v/ba«M\te

PtaHandftf '’ ' ^

ThBU>w»rhau99<jfPafHArt)erit-.U>kasaohJ j

i7te upper house ofPariianwn • fta^yasatJha Ulstery^^rtri . “ : v^

Soornt^. Sachiy '. '

Secmtariat • Sadhivak^ , ^ , 1-3

'Oom/7iisis*)f>^ ' . • ''.ia ^

HaM • Sabhagiuha 15*=

fitedto - f<fabtiovani /AJaashavun;}^'*'

-t^ <

Acsitggdsladby Ssvorlf&r. weh^vescqxiifedih&cb’fi^tOGrastB new

MtJfcte <5u»e.V«ML He shaw9d ;a hdw thkcmbe ddhe and new we are
cfcWTgit For axanipie 'Tatevtaion' • C?oorbbrtshan, *

. .. " ‘•'

thenwOooftndi^Mificuria Is ‘nabhahe'af^iirsNim cV?taaT*ar»tf j If^t oft^

fndSaa'Naivy is ‘Shajit w Vamnaha' ' - • * '

-r.^ f ^ "*^‘

^ ■ ■• ..JiL

Bit ' la ;. t

tbdMjtjfoLrftag. cbafhna {^lintng^^ttaat) hfttb^n n^anod < tjy Vhame

Cbekta’ no* Acho/t Ch^a)'

-' . A' r: . • B ... 'TWT '

BH'Aadmdec^ffbi/Sons aro loo tc tjiiQta. Ufa a

^ rfwf ho'M ^36 ne\ot {^en credit bi ths vp&n lor^njwy o;’vwij|^
tfsB/hefliusotf. . ^ *' . .

•>

Chapter Two

SENSE OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY

■ ■yTmr

-/v "4- - i

^ •!-*» ^ V. ^ .Vi*.

i- _.- iv., ?•*'■■'7^^'-/

<*' »■ * '

V.*

' • /. ^ •*1.“ ■

^ • #!■. 7 :* jf,-• *■

i-: *'

^ "' '•i.

;v >
'■ .• ' lA ■'ii: »»'

.« <<

•A^•

•«,>? M€>i^

> . oWr TsJqBriO

V " 'w • *

L.J tt
' ‘ ■ YAJ<1 HIA^ QWA 30fT2Ut
30 381433
1 ^ 'sT

'" mi

SENSE OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY IN

POLITICS

SAVARKAR IN JAIL ON THE ANDAMAN

ISLANDS (1911-1921) Dispirited poiitical
prisoners
Savarkar was sentenced to transportation for life, twice. In July 1911 he
reached the Andaman Islands. Very soon, a Hindu warder sent him a
message. The note detailed the situation in the prison so that Savarkar
would know how to behave with various individuals. Savarkar wrote

• Patriots turned traitors

“At that time, the only political prisoners were the revolutionaries from
Bengal tried in the Maniktola conspiracy case, my elder brother Babarao,
and three or four editors of Swaraj paper of Allahabad.”

“The warder who sent me the warning was a former Bengali friend of mine.
The message was that I should not trust the political prisoners as a whole.
After their arrests some Bengalis had turned spies for the British. Therefore
there were two factions among them. A certain person has decided to
escape the rigours of prison, such as working under the yoke of the oil-
producing mill, by giving names of those who were not caught at the time
of the trial. In addition he has turned a government spy and informs every
move we make. Therefore please do not trust him.”

“I was not much surprised by this news. Some of the Indian revolutionaries
had lost courage as soon as the police started rounding up the suspects.
They were vying with each other for the betrayal - that much I knew from
outside. And yet, although some had fallen, not all had turned traitors. And
those who had lost their courage due to the harsh regime and rigours of
prison life had shown considerable daring, patriotism and made sacrifices
previously. One must not forget those qualities, which they had displayed in
the past.”

• Spies for the foreign rulers

“Some prominent Bengali revolutionaries found the prison conditions

intolerable and had turned government agents to escape the terrible
conditions in jail. They passed information about their colleagues,
followers, even about persons like myself whom they only met in
Andaman."

“It must be emphasised once again that the harsh prison conditions were
responsible for such demoralisation. Only those who maintained courage
despite such hardships could blame the persons turned traitors. But those
who had been sitting comfortably in armchairs had no right to condemn
them.”

“Such treachery was not confined to Bengal or to India. People have

behaved even more disgracefully in political or religious revolutions in
countries such as Ireland, Russia and Italy. It would therefore be a folly to
lose one’s heart or blame a particular province or a section of the
population.”

• A peculiar example

“I know the case of a Bengali revolutionary. He was in his thirties, well

educated and a fiery writer. He used to preach Geeta to the revolutionaries
saying that the soul is immortal and indestructible. He used to inspire many
young men. But then he had to face prison himself. While working under
the yoke of the oil mill,, he found that even bulls could not sustain such
hardships. Once he became unconscious. There was no escape and it was
not a question of one or two days. He had to spend years like that. Rebellion
was no good. It simply increased the hardships. His body pains signalled to
him to find an escape. What could he do? He talked to his friend who was
similarly demoralised and contacted the authorities. One day a high-ranking
officer came around. This Bengali revolutionary begged on his bended
knees and pleaded,

‘Please Sir, do something and save me from these hardships.’ The officer
told him to see the Jailer.”

• Treachery

“This Bengali revolutionary was given a paper and pen by the Jailer. He
gave full account of the conspiracy in which he had taken part. But even at
this stage he felt ashamed. He sent an astonishing message to his friends
informing them of what he was doing. He said in it, ‘I find the prison
conditions intolerable.

I tried to commit suicide, but failed. I do not have the courage to try again.
In the past, you had killed persons like me who had turned traitors (e.g.
Narendra Goswami in Alipore conspiracy trial of 1908). If you do that, I
will not blame you, but I have no control over my mind and see no way out
but to betray you.’ After three days, he was released from the mill and was
asked to pick oakum i.e. beating with stone, the skin of coconuts to release
fibres. But, he was neither released from the jail to settle outside, nor given
any less physically demanding work.”

“This revolutionary had the sense to know that what he was doing was
despicable. But others had lost all shame. Two or three Bengali colleagues
of this revolutionary saw a god sent opportunity as it were in my coming
there to Andaman. They spied on me in order to get concessions from the
prison officers. One can understand illiterate or vicious criminals doing that,
but these educated political prisoners did not miss the opportunity.”

“In the end, I decided that until I knew all the political prisoners intimately
and made detailed enquiries, I should not make up my mind. And even if I
found that some of them had turned government spies, I should respect
whatever service they had rendered to our freedom struggle. All that I
should do was to be cautious.”

{My Transportation for Life pp 99-103)

It was easy to denounce those revolutionaries who had turned traitors. But
Savarkar does not do so. He states that —

(1) It was the harsh, intolerable prison conditions that led to their downfall.

(2) One must have respect for the daring feats they had carried

out in the past for Indian freedom struggle.

That is sense ofjusticel That is Rationalismil

Moderate leader Gopal Krishna Gokhale dies

In February 1915, Barrie the Jailer told Savarkar that Gokhale, the moderate
leader, was dead. Savarkar wrote:
I could not believe the news for a moment. It was so sudden, so unexpected.
Barrie was surprised by my expression of deep sorrow. He said, ‘But was he
not against you?’

Savarkar replied, ‘No. No. I was educated in the college, which he founded.
We had differences of opinion, but were not adversaries. He was
undoubtedly one of the great patriots of his generation.’

Barrie said, ‘Is it not a fact that, in your trial, evidence was produced
showing that you had conspired against him. And is it not true that he said
that, unless you were arrested, there will be no peace in India.’

Savarkar replied, ‘One should not believe in such gossips. We met each
other in London and had discussions. We had nothing but respect for each
other and this fact is known to others who were present at the meetings.
Perhaps he did not approve my methods, but that does not make him less of
a hero. As for the conspiracy, it is true that some of my friends felt agitated
by Gokhale’s speeches in London and wanted to physically assault him. I
condemned such a course of action and did not allow that resolution to pass.
I convinced them that such an action against an Indian leader would be
totally inappropriate.... If only every Hindu would be as patriotic and serve
his country as Gokhale...’ Barrie noted every word of our conversation.

{My Transportation for Life p 183)

Let us examine some background. Gokhale was a member of the Central

Legislative Council since 1904. He started to come to London leading
deputations of the Indian National Congress

(commonly known as the Congress Party). Savarkar criticised Gokhale’s

efforts, as can be seen from his three newsletters.

*17 August 1906

Indian budget was going to be discussed in the British Parliament on 20

July. Gokhale stated, ‘My nation stands expectantAnd what happened?
What did the Liberal Mr Morley give you? What did you get other than his
extremely crafty speech? Did he not say that the leaders of the Indian
National Congress are opium eaters? .... Can’t you understand that you are
being despised among all the free and honourable men throughout the
world? How come you feel no shame by this?

{SSV4 p3Cf)

Bengal was partitioned by Viceroy Lord Curzon in 1905. Afterwards, Sir

Fuller, the Lt Governor of East Bengal banned the famous song ‘Vande
Mataram’. Ultimately Fuller was forced to resign due to public outcry. Let
us see Savarkar’s newsletter at that time.

* 5 October 1906

As soon as Fuller’s resignation was accepted by the Viceroy, Gokhale gave

an interview to the Daily News (of London). He said, ‘The public mood
will come to its normal state.’

Savarkar wrote sarcasticaliy, ‘In other words, the agitations will quieten
down. Our movement was only against Fuller. We were not agitating
against Britain looting India to the tune of Rs 400 million per year
(equivalent to £1,300 million per year at 1998 prices). As the result, India is
becoming bankrupt. Every year, people in India die due to famine in the
same numbers as in the recent Russo-Japan war. But, our agitation was not
particularly related to this aspect. We simply agitated against Mr Fuller.
Now that he is gone, people will become acquiescent.’

(SSV4 p37)

On 10 May 1908, Savarkar organised a function to pay homage to the

indian martyrs of the 1857 war. At the end of the ceremony, it was decided
that a Nationai Fund shouid be raised. Savarkar accordingiy met Mr
Rameshchandra Dutta, a retired iCS officer and Gokhaie to seek coiiection
from them. They discussed poiitics and poiiticai movements, in the end
Gokhaie said, ‘Come Mr Savarkar. Let us meet again in six years time and
discuss whether India progressed politically by your methods or mine.’

A few months iater, news reached London that Lokamanya Tiiak was
sentenced to Transportation for 6 years to Mandaiay Burma. We need to
note two facts in order to understand the monstrosity of this sentence. The
transportation invoived a travei of 3,000 miies, iargeiy over sea. (That is the
distance between London and New York.) Average mate iife expectancy in
Britain at that time was oniy 48 1/2 years, much iess in India and Tiiak was
aged 52. There was a protest meeting held in London. Savarkar wrote

* 21 September 1908

.Mr Gokhaie himself should have taken a lead in organising

such a meeting. But, since he did not take a lead, Indians of all persuasions
decided to hold a public meeting. There was no disagreement between the
Moderates and the Militants. Barrister Parekh, a Moderate leader and a
follower of Dadabhai Naoroji was in the chair. It was disgusting that
Gokhaie did not offer his support to such a meeting.

Some Indians called on Gokhaie and asked him to be the Chairman for the
meeting. He refused. He was asked, ‘will you speak at the meeting
condemning the severity of the sentence?’

He declined.worst of all, he did not even attend the public

meeting held in Caxton Hall, London. A resolution was passed at the

meeting condemning Gokhale’s attitude and escapism.

And yet, on 9 March 1915, in his letter to his younger brother Savarkar
wrote —

“It pained me very much to hear that Honourable Gokhale was dead. He
was after all a great patriot. True, at times, especially in panics, he used to
say and do things, which he himself must have been ashamed of a few
months after, to own. But then, his life was dedicated to the service of
Motherland and there was very little personal and selfish about him. All
along his life, he served Her and for the good of Her, as he saw it. How
anxious I was to see him, before death parted us; and to compare notes as
he had said to me in London when we saw each other for the last time. We
could not agree on certain points and he said, ‘Well Mr Savarkar, come! We
will see each other after some six years and then would compare notes!’
Maharashtra must send some one - worthier than he - to his place in
(Legislative) Councils. If every Indian could do at least as much as he did!”

(Echoes from Andaman p 18)

We can understand the reason behind such sincere remarks. Why was
Gokhale making trips to London? To try to alleviate sufferings of Indians,
to seek their material advancement and not for any personal gain.

About Gokhale, a high-ranking British author tells us, “Gokhale founded

the Servants of India Society at Poona in 1905. The members of this order
are bound by their vows to devote their lives to public service and to
forswear all private gains. They are committed to a frank acceptance of the
British connexion ‘as ordained, in the inscrutable dispensation of
Providence, for India’s good.’

(Political India 1832-1932 edited by Sir John Cunningham 1932,

p 186)

Let us set aside, for the time being, the acceptance of the British connexion
as the divine dispensation. That bubble was bound to burst in due course of
time. After the partition of Bengal, Gokhale himself had condemned
Viceroy Curzon as a tyrant like Aurangzeb. And that too as the President of
the Indian National Congress in December 1905. Did not Dadabhai demand
'Swaraj'

in his presidential speech at the 1906 annual sessions of the Congress?

Gokhale was setting example of devoting one’s life to India’s service.

Therefore Savarkar had deep respect for him. That was the sense of justice.

SAVARKAR IN INTERNMENT IN INDIA (1924-

1937)
After being interned in Ratnagiri in 1924 till his self-immolation in 1966,
Savarkar had always treated the Congress leaders, its followers and all his
other opponents with fairness. Let us see some examples.

A fitting repiy to a mischievous critic

* In July 1928, one Mr Ganesh Shankar Vidhyarthi, the editor of newspaper
Pratap of Kanpur wrote an insulting article about revolutionaries in jail in
Andaman. He asked ‘How dare they plead for clemency? Why did they not
die in jail instead?’ The editor was a strongly anti-Savarkarite person.

In a fitting reply Savarkar wrote

So, Mr Editor of Pratap, you dared to look at the martyrs through

binoculars. We showed how ridiculous you look if the same binoculars are
reversed to look at you. We had done so, with great reluctance and sadness.

Referring to the recent apology rendered by Mr Vidyarthi to a British Court,

Savarkar said, ‘Before we conclude, we must say that if you throw away
your binoculars you will find that when you apologised to the court, you
just followed the example of the same martyrs whom you despised. For it is
said:

Kataryam kevala nitih Shauryam shwapad chestitam

56/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

Apasthapah sametabhyam Ubhabhyam anviyesha saha

A philosophy may appear to be akin to cowardice. Bravery can be equated

to animal behaviour. One therefore has to be sensible in the interpretations
of certain actions of great men.

At the moment, there is a public enquiry about the atrocities committed on

prisoners in Nainital jail. What you wrote about that incident was purely to
alleviate the public suffering. And on many occasions in the past, you have
performed such public service. We must point this out to be fair to you. It is
our duty to do so. Just as we feel that others should consider the pros and
cons of any cause and judge us fairly, we also try to treat others in a similar
way.
You wrote mischievously about our relations with Gandhi. We will reply to
that, at a later day, may be when Gandhiji himself asks for any explanation.
But today, that great patriot is conducting the Satyagragaha of Bardoli like a
General. And we consider that everyone should stand shoulder to shoulder
under such circumstances and help each other. Therefore, today we will
only say such words and behave in such a way as will help Gandhi. We
oppose him only when it is absolutely necessary in the interest of our
nation, and not as a matter of all time policy. While fighting with the enemy
we are one. That is our policy. Will the Editor now understand our stance?’

(SSV4pp 204/5)

* Praise of Nehrus

It may be surprise to many that Savarkar had paid respect when it was due,
to Motilai and Jawarhaial Nehru. In an article of 13 December 1928 he
wrote,

‘Pandit Motilai says that a Party which embraces all factions, including the
revolutionaries, is more important that than the Indian National Congress. ..
This is very true. Congress composed of all factions is truly a ‘National
Congress’, for it represents the nation.’

Later he wrote, ‘Forget the Revolutionaries. At present, the Congress

cannot even accommodate the Swaraj Party of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.
Even though Jawaharlal does not indicate

his means of achieving Swaraj. However, just as it is

necessaiy to be able to chant Mantras correctly before performing any Vedic

ceremonies, it had become essential to be able to state clearly what our aim
must be. And for that we must thank the elder statesman Pandit Iyengar and
young Jawaharlal.’ (SSV4pp 205/6)

AFTER RELEASE FROM INTERNMENT

(1937-1966)
India’s political progress since the death of Tilak
•On 1 August 1937, Savarkar spoke at the Tilak Smarak Mandir in Pune.
He reviewed the India’s political progress since the death of Tilak —

“Today, all the members of the Legislative Assemblies wear Khadi clothes
and the Gandhi cap. This is undoubtedly a progress. The dress, which was
once an anathema to the British bureaucracy, is now worn by the leaders
who are now in power. Had Lokamanya Tilak been alive today, he would
have been delighted by this advancement. Even so, it must be remembered
that we still have not achieved our goal.”

“And therefore. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has quite rightly warned that this
is NOT Congress Raj and it is definitely NOT Swaraj. By saying so, he has
demonstrated that he has understood the responsibilities of a national leader.
Out of all the politicians, I feel a bit close to Nehru. I may be able to work
with him to some extent.”

“It must be said that our country has made considerable progress in a
constructive way under the leadership of Gandhi. We lived together in
London (in 1906 and 1909). Our differences are just as they were 30 years
ago. Gandhi is well known, but there are many others who remain
unknown. We can see the light on the horizon because of the sacrifices of
all of them. There is still

time for the Sun to rise.”

(SSV4 pp 368/369)

•On 9 August 1937, Savarkar said at Solapur:In 1906, we had to say the
words ‘Absolute Political Independence’ in secret. Today we can say them
openly. I am delighted to note that it has become the objective of the
Congress Party. Sacrifices of many freedom fighters have enabled this
transformation. We must remember those who were sent to gallows under
Martial Law Administration recently in this very city of Solapur. We need
also remember the 250 prisoners on the Andaman Islands who are on
hunger strike. I am very pleased 'to note that Nehru has declared that we
should observe a day of remembrance for them. We must stand shoulder to
shoulder in this freedom struggle and support our people irrespective of
their political persuasions.

Constructive Work of the Congress Party

Time and again, Savarkar had to criticise Congress policies, which were
harmful to Hindu interests. However, he acknowledged the constructive
work of the Congress in his presidential speech at the 1938 session of the
Hindu Maha Sabha at Nagpur. Acknowledging this debt Savarkar said, ‘I
am the last man to ignore the benefits that we Hindus reaped from the
Indian National Congress movement even from the Hindu point of view. It
had though only consequentially and without that special end in view,
contributed immensely to the consolidation of Hindudom as a whole by
rubbing off their provincial, linguistic and sectional angularities, divisions
and diversities, provided them with a common political platform and
animated them with the consciousness of a common National being with a
definite common goal of a united and central state. Errors that have crept in
may be rectified but the good that came out need not be disowned.’

(Hindu Rashtra Darshan p 43)

Praise of the Moderates

Savarkar was a crown prince of the revolutionaries. But, he always

respected the moderates for what they did for the betterment of India. Let us
just take two examples:

* In the Prologue to his autobiography, he wrote about the politics of 1890

to. 1920 and explained how Tilak became the undisputed leader of the
ihasses. Afterwards he says

‘i had to state here that Tilak had certain qualities that were lacking in other
contemporary leaders. But, this statement is not made to demean or regard
as inferior, other leaders or their contribution. Individually, they had their
specialities; their service to India was praiseworthy. For example, it used to
be said that Justice Ranade sen/ed India in the ‘spare time’ after working for
the British rulers. That statement is true. However, it must also be borne in
mind that it would have taken a common man at least seven births to
accomplish what Ranade did in his ‘spare time’....”

(Autobiography: The Prologue)

* After his release from internment in May 1937, Savarkar spoke at Pune
on 4 July 1937.

The Congress Party was once in the hands of the Moderates. I do not attach
any blame to them. In their days, they did whatever they could for the uplift
of India. They were not in any way behind the firebrands of today. They
were great rebels of their days. We always regarded persons like G K
Gokhale as fatherly figures. (SSV4 p362)

The Congress Rulers after Indian independence

Let us read some of his speeches after the Indian independence

* December 1949

At the annual session of the Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar said, “.. We should
note that the rising prices, black marketing and other vices exist in other
countries too. They are inevitable to a certain extent during the transition
period. Can we honestly say

that black marketing will stop if our party the Hindu Mahasabha was to
become the ruling party tomorrow? If we are honest, we must say that there
are good and bad persons in all parties. After all, the Governing Party and
the Opposition are reflections of each other. The calibre of persons in both
is bound to be the same.”

(End of an Era p 76)

* In 1950 he said, ‘It is wrong to say that everything that the Congress
rulers have done is bad. They have done many good things on which we can
work for the next ten years. We have made considerable advancement. 75%
of our efforts have borne fruit. Do business on that capital, but do not say
that you have got no capital at all.’
(Krantighosh p28)

On 12 May 1952, Savarkar spoke in Pune, ‘ The Congress Party has now
been entrusted with transforming our condition after the departure of the
British. But, suppose that this work had fallen on any other party, be it my
Hindu Mahasabha, Socialists or the Communists, it must be emphasised
that they too would have made such mistakes. This may be due to
inexperience, selfishness or any other reason. If we take water from a lake
in different pots, the quality of water in all pots would be the same.
Similarly, various Indian political parties have sprung up from the same
Indians and are therefore bound to have the same virtues and vices.’

(End of an Era p 126)

Give credit to all patriots for India’s freedom

* In 1952, Savarkar disbanded the secret revolutionary society Abhinav

Bharat. At that occasion he paid homage to all the Indian patriots. He said,
‘This function has been arranged for disbanding the revolutionary society.
The Abhinav Bharat. We have therefore gathered here today to pay homage
to the Revolutionaries. However, it is wrong to suggest that India

became independent only because of the revolutionaries. That would be a

mistake. That would be just as one sided as the propaganda of the
Congressmen who have been wrongly claiming that only they won the
freedom of India from the British. That was born out of sheer selfishness. It
was false, biased and displayed the partisan attitude of the Congressmen.’

‘I got the first opportunity to express my views on this subject in 1949. In

the Calcutta session of the Hindu Mahasabha I said, The credit for securing
freedom of India from the British goes, not to any one group or movement,
but to people of all political persuasions over the last three generations and
their efforts.’

‘Of course, the lion’s share should go to those who were involved in various
armed uprisings. The Militants too have their share. We must express our
gratitude to the nationwide movements of those who called themselves non-
violent and non-cooperative. But, even the Moderates from Dadabhai
Naoroji to G K Gokhale must also be given their due share. From my
experience, I go even further and say that those who did not take part in any
of above activities but wished the freedom fighters well and prayed to God
for their success must also have some share.’

Praise Mr Chavan

* Savarkar’s last public speech was in 1960. He admired Yashavantrao

Chavan. the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra. He said, ‘Chavan has said
that all the youth who are studying in colleges should undergo military
training. As long as Nehru does not object, Chavan will carry forward this
mission because whatever he is, he is a Brave Maratha. I know this at my
heart. I do not need any other proof.’

{End of an Era p236)

Savarkar publicly bestowed just praise on Chavan.

SENSE OF JUSTICE IN FIELDS
OTHER THAN POLITICS
* Moplas
In 1920, Mopla Muslims cximmitted indescribable atrocities on Hindus of
Kerala. In 1926, SavaiKar wrote a novel on this subject entitled, ‘Mopla
Rebellion - what’s it to me?’Towards the end of the novel is a scene. A well
is full of bodies and limbs of Hindu men, women and children brutally
murdered by the Muslims. A Sanyasi (one who has retired from family life)
visits that well and is horrified by the scene. He says, ‘Muslims have built
such monuments of their hatred all over India. Oh Lord, teach them to
behave with sanity from now on.’

‘Yes my Lord’ comes a voice from a person who approaches the Sanyasi.
He turns around to see who that person was and sees an old Muslim who
says to the Sanyasi, ‘Sir, don’t be alarmed. I am a Mopla.’

Sanyasi says, ‘You may be a Mopla. That makes no difference to me. If,
like other Moplas you have come to kill me, I would not be alarmed. Look
at the dead bodies in the well. Even 14-yearold girls have accepted death
rather than embrace Islam. I am a Sanyasi, we perform funeral service on
ourselves when we become Sanyasis. I am therefore not afraid to die. On
the other hand, if you are disgusted at the massacre of Hindus and want to
repent, despite being a Mopla, I am still not surprised. We do not say that
Moplas or Muslims or Christians or any other group of people AS A
WHOLE are brutal. Of course they too are human beings. They too have
among them some good, pious, God fearing, kind men and women. When
we protest against the brutalities committed by any group, we only protest
against the brutality NOT against the group as a whole.’

{SSV2 p348)

And yet, Savarkar was branded as anti-Muslim by his opponents!

* Social reforms
Just as in other fields, in social reforms too, Savarkar always gave due
credit to others. During his internment, Savarkar changed the outlook of
people tremendously and as the result, an effigy of untouchability was burnt
in Ratnagiri in 1933. During the ceremony he said, ‘we have now achieved
something. I congratulate both the traditionalists and reformists for that.
People of both these persuasions did not go to any extreme, they ditched
their inborn complexes for the betterment of the Hindu nation and therefore
we achieved our gaol of abandoning untouchability. I emphasise that more
than half the share goes to these people. What could have I done single-
handed?’ (SSV3 p512)

What humility!!

• !n an artide entiHed, ‘P!ease don’t hurt our reUgious feetings’ he says —

‘Any faction is bound to have some short tempered or some

foolish people.True, the traditionalists have some

hypocrites among them, are we saying that they do not exist among the
reformists? As far as possible I ensure that I should not have bias of any
kind. The sole purpose of my preaching of social reforms is the progress of
our Hindu nation. And therefore,

I am trying to convince our traditionalist brothers and sisters by logical

arguments, no matter how many times they denounce me. From the past
experience I am convinced that many honest persons among them will
eventually join my side.’

{SSV3 p425)

We must note two characteristics of Savarkar. He had the honesty to say

that there were hypocrites among the reformists. He was also confident of
convincing even the deeply traditionalists with his arguments.

* Literary field
In 1938, Savarkar was the President of the Maharashtra Literary
Conference. In his presidential speech, he honoured those who spread out
the purification of Marathi language.
Sponsors of Purification of
ianguage
Now, out of the 250 odd new words we recently introduced, most of them
have been used by many authors, therefore it cannot be said that they are all
useless. Some have spread all over India. Prof Madhavrao Patwardhan, Mr
Athavale, Mr Bhide, Mr Devadher and other propagators have surpassed
even me in their work. Now, the well-known heavyweight gentleman
Principal Atre has joined our side. Professor Patwardhan, when speaking as
the President of Maharashtra Literary Conference addressed the gathering
without using a single foreign word. He was the first President to do so, not
me. Late Professor Bhanu and others who are no longer alive and Professor
Patwardhan and others of today’s generation had proposed and brought in
use many new words and enriched Marathi language. They brought success
to our cause.’
Commendable work in Baroda
state
‘Maharaja Gaikwad of Baroda has been in the forefront of many reforms.
He has recently helped to produce a dictionary of Sanskrit words that can be
used for today’s legal and administrative framework. It is entitled,
‘Shasanakalpataru.’ We salute the Maharaja for this worthwhile project.
When I visited Baroda, it came to my notice that he has banished many
foreign words from the workings of several departments. Shivaji (the great
Maratha King of 17th century) too had undertaken such work. And the
Maharaja has now made the second such attempt.’ (SSV4 pp 459/460)

It is worth remembering that Savarkar emphasised the importance

purification of the language while in jail on the Andaman Islands (1911-
1921). He describes the necessity of such movement in his book ‘My
Transportation for Life’ He

65/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar -^-

converted even the illiterate prisoners to his point of view. They stopped
using unnecessary foreign words. And yet, he also praised others who have
done similar remarkable work under much easier circumstances.

It is easy to appreciate qualities in one’s followers and admirers. But only a

true rationalist like Savarkar would find worthwhile qualities in even his
fallen comrades and his adversaries, give credit to others who had much
easier life than he. It is one thing to do this at heart, it is quite another to pay
glowing tribute as Savarkar did in the open.

It was but natural therefore that Savarkar, who demonstrated such sense of
fair play all his life, should be a Humanist and believe in the universal
brotherhood of man. Let us now turn to this side of his character more fully.

Chapter Three FRATERNITY

- *eb/ 9^:AkKa^iursi<!S\\^SvfiA.^*

- '--. .i- l '• ■ ■ -Av, ^ - -j(^- ^

ciXf\pfy»J atfsn am /w»50«^ to hkpaf>f ^

afopfX'd U9KV tiw*ooef8s«ry >»#

,■

c:: s

p«a(£«c^ otfiorp h6o< /«v« rtom sini^ <.fm

mtxh cinoiJrnatancpi. • •

:.r *•!

♦ !' . - ,

Uka&s^ttk guc^lSaff tot >>ivafsBr^ a

Pitf t^»y a frtje />®-SBvaf*^' ivtiMScrlhif ♦''df^hJT.

qua/Mft ki amy Wi ialfan cammOoft ancf h^g ’

to oihfMf H’O h&H /uucft wisie' iirirW

to dk» ?/>« af hoiffi. 4 fa anot^ pHy ■*'’’^1^-*^

Sa>‘9rka/dU m l^ :^n: ' ■ '*^^ ''

£ mu but naiutBi /'idfa/ons tfNif ^

ffiiodj swMP of fttcpiey oafm Hfef^^houta Oe ^ Hifnm^l.apo tmf k ^ v ^ in

-tho uf t f ro maj l aro^ur ^ ood man
Ihh $}<to ctNs rrfon tuOy.

. ' eeirfT lefqailO .

^_ ___ .Vv -. .

f* >- K

^ , % YnHfl3TA«=l

.sJ!,-'-:f4^'

-*. ■ .. f

'■|^- .;.^'

' * .--ar ,

. •■ •'. L- ’

ori

V‘.4.T‘'V';»:0T

. .1:. ^

>f... - .-.- Mr
FRATERNITY
• Universal brotherhood of
mankind
• Guy Aldred was a British sympathiser of Savarkar. It was however
surprising that the two never met even in London. In a letter dated 29 April
1947 in reply to Guy’s letter Savarkar said, “You may think, judging from
my recent lectures and articles, that I have become a narrow minded
nationalist. At present I have to concentrate all my efforts on Hindu Nation.
However, the ultimate aim has to be humanity and not Nationalism.... I
wish that mankind would evolve through Nationalism and Federation of
States. Earth is our common Mother, Human beings constitute our one
nation.”

(SUI Era p 398)

• In his ‘Memoirs’ published in 1949, Savarkar wrote, “I never hated

English for just being English, neither did I encourage others to do so. The
English are our enemy as long they are ruthlessly ruling over us. Once they
abandon that attitude they would be our friends, because all the mankind is
one. Not only that, if any other country was to trample the just freedom of
the English, we would fight for their justice. I said this time and again. Our
real caste is Human beings, our religion is Humanity, our country is Earth,
and our King is God. That is and has always been our attitude.”

(Autobiography - Nasik)

• These thoughts were not formed just in 1949but were expressed by him
much earlier. In a letter dated 6 July 1920, Savarkar wrote from the prison
in Andaman to his younger brother, “We believe in an universal state
embracing all mankind and wherein all men and women would be citizens
working for and enjoying equally the fruits of this earth and this sun, this
land and this light, which constitute the real Motherland and Fatherland of
man. All other divisions and distinctions are artificial though
indispensable.” (Echoes from Andamans p 49)
Savarkar’s thoughts are very clear and openly expressed. Why was he then
branded by his opponents as reactionary and petty minded? Before we seek
answer to this question we must remember that Savarkar propagated
Humanism not by sitting comfortably in armchair. He was prepared to call
the English as his brothers even though they mercilessly persecuted him all
his life. Let us now examine the persecution he suffered.
SAVARKAR’S PERSECUTION
BY THE ENGLISH
IN LONDON (1906-1910)
* Savarkar studied Law at the Grays Inn in London. He passed his
examinations and was due to be called to the Bar. Sir Curzon Wyllie of the
India Office was trying behind the scenes to ensure that this did not happen.
The secret correspondence between Sir Wyllie and the Grays Inn is now
available to researchers. Savarkar was charged with 3 offences by the
Benchers of Grays inn. The trial was held in camera. Charges were added
halfway through the trial. Savarkar was cross- examined by some of the
best Barristers. But nothing could be proved. Eventually the Benchers gave
their verdict, “Though none of the charges was proven, there is still
suspicion about Savarkar. He will not therefore be called to the Bar as yet. ”

So, what happened to the great principle of the English Law that a person
must be considered innocent until proven guilty? That was flagrantly set
aside. And by whom? by the Barristers who practiced, preached and taught
the English Law I!

* In 1910a warrant for the arrest of Savarkar was issued under the Fugitive
Offenders’ Act. Savarkar came openly to London with a passport issued by
the British rulers in India. So, how could he suddenly become a ‘Fugitive’ ?
This point was brushed aside by the British courts. That is what is called
The British Rule of Law II

* Savarkar was sent back to Bombay by ship to stand trial there. On the
way when the ship was anchored off the coast of France

70/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

at Marseilles, Savarkar made a dramatic attempt to escape by jumping

through a porthole of the ship and swimming ashore. He was chased and
arrested by the British police, but the episode caused an uproar in Europe as
Britain had violated the sovereignty of France. Eventually the case was to
be heard in the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Savarkar
requested at his trial in Bombay that the British should suspend the court
proceedings until the Court in Hague gave its verdict. This request was
refused. When Savarkar’s case was heard in The Hague, the Government of
India had already declared him a convict. This affected his case badly.

BEFORE BEING SHIPPED AWAY TO THE PRISON ON ANDAMAN

ISLANDS

Savarkar was sentenced to Transportation for life, TWICE. The sentences

were to be served in succession. In his appeal Savarkar said that as human
beings have only one life, the sentences should be concurrent and not in
succession. He was shamelessly told, “The sentences have to be served in
succession. And, after the end of the second sentence the kind hearted
government will release you. ”

Savarkar replied, “But death may be even kinder. What would you do if
Lord Yama, the god of death released me earlier? ” (My transportation for
life p 3)

Savarkar was kept in jail at Thane awaiting transport to the Andaman

Islands. His younger brother Narayan (Bal) was also in the same jail. But
the prison authorities did not allow the two to meet. How heartless can one
be I!

PERSECUTION IN PRISON ON ANDAMAN ISLANDS (19111921)

• Savarkar reached the jail on the Andaman Island on 4 July 1911. Within a
month. The Bombay University informed him that they had withdrawn his
degree of Bachelor of Arts.

• Savarkar tried to find out how many years he would be kept in jail before
being let out to work outside the jail but on the islands. He says,
“According to the prison regulations, prisoners are normally allowed to
work outside the prison after six months. The British have a grudge against
me. So, may be, they will keep me in jail for one year. Warders have been
telling me that, in the past, no one had been kept in jail for more than three
years. I may therefore be kept in jail for three years at the most.

n
(My transportation for life p 89/90)

In fact, he was kept in jail for more than ten years.

Remissions to all prisoners except Savarkar •King George V succeeded

Edward VII in 1911. On that occasion the prisoners were granted remission
of one day for every year of their sentence. Accordingly, Savarkar should
have been granted a remission of fifty days. In fact, he was not granted a
single day’s remission.

• Savarkar narrates his experience of prison life, “During the six months of
my first year, for I was kept in my cell all day. Most prisoners after a period
of six months are released from jail and allowed to work outside, on the
islands. But I was allowed to come out of my cell only in isolation to work
(picking the oakum or making coils of rope) outside in open ground so that
no one would be able to talk to me. The only time I could mix with other
prisoners was at meal times.”

(My transportation for life p 210)

Savarkar not assigned to work
outside the prison.
• Later on, there was a strike in the jail for changes in the treatment of
prisoners who demanded to be treated humanely. They had some success.
Some of their demands were met. Savarkar says, “After these concessions, I
started making repeated appiications for being allowed to work outside the
jail,

I pointed out that during the first year and a half I was prosecuted only
twice for breaking prison rules and sending secret

messages. Many others who had been found guilty of far worse offences
and even thosa who took part in the strike had been released from jail to
work outside the prison but on the islands.

I should therefore be released from jail in a similar way.”

He got a reply, “But, you are not one of those prisoners convicted of
sedition. You are but an ordinary prisoner.” (pp 230/2)

Savarkar immediately responded, “Even among the ordinary prisoners,

there were many who were caught breaking out of jail, some of them had
even tried to escape from the Andaman Islands. They were allowed to work
outside the jail after one year, they even became Petty Officers. Why not
me?”

On this, the Chief Commissioner replied, “It is true that your behaviour in
jail has been very good as compared to those prisoners who were allowed to
work outside the jail. But, your past history is terrible.”

Savarkar remarked, “If our past history is to be considered what is the point
of having a blameless prison record? You will keep me in jail if my
behaviour is good. You will keep me in jail if my behaviour is bad.”
Savarkar, after consulting the fellow prisoners decided to send a petition to
the prison governor. It read,

(1) Prisoners in jails in mainland India get concessions like the permission
to write letters to the relatives. They can be regularly visited by their family
and friends. They are entitled to remission for various reasons e.g. good
behaviour. We are denied all these facilities because we have been
sentenced to transportation.

(2) On the Andaman Islands, ordinary prisoners are given clerical work.
They are allowed to move freely outside the prison. Some become Petty
Officers. We are denied all these facilities on the grounds that we are
‘special category’ prisoners.

(3) When we ask for special concessions as ‘special category prisoners’, we

are told that the prison authorities cannot show partiality and give us any
concessions that are not available to ordinary prisoners. (p 232)

Thus, the prison system has created a ‘special category’ class

for us only to deny us any concessions, and to face disabilities and

disadvantages of all three categories.

We cannot accept this unfair situation any longer. If we are not going to be
treated fairly, we will refuse to work, come what may.

Savarkar and others made such petitions to the prison governor. Their
demands were rejected. This led to another strike. Savarkar wrote:

“The prison discipline was shattered by the agitation of the political

prisoners. Prison authorities gave them all kinds of punishment with the
exception of caning. But no one would work. Eventually the Chief
Commissioner agreed to allow the strikers to work outside the prison and
give them lighter (less physically rigorous) work. He also agreed to write to
The Government of India to ask if the prisoners can be classified as
‘political prisoners’. The strike ended.” (pp 236T7)
End of second strike but no
concessions to Savarkar
However, Savarkar, his elder brother and six others were not allowed to
work outside the jail. He again argued. Those who took part in the strike
have been allowed to work outside the jail. There were some who were
previously working outside but had refused to work, were therefore sent
back to jail, took part in the strike, and were sent outside again. That was
good, because circumstances forced them to take part in the strike. I did not
take part in the strike. So, why am I being singled out and not allowed to
work outside the prison?” There was no answer. Chief Commissioner
replied, “We cannot allow you to work outside the prison due to your past
history. ”

Once again Savarkar pointed out, “Past history of other prisoners has not
prevented you from sending them outside. Moreover, the whole philosophy
of prison on Andaman is based on looking at the behaviour of a prisoner in
jail only - not at his past history.”

Savarkar got a written reply. The Government of India has

ordered that you should not be allowed outside the prison.” The authorities
refused to state how long Savarkar was to be k6P| jail. They also refused to
allow Savarkar to send an application to the Government of India.

During their exchanges, Superintendent said. “It is true that we have no

answers to your questions, but you encourage strikes. Savarkar said, “But
those who took part in the strikes have now been allowed to work outside
the prison. How can you say that it is a greater offence to encourage strikes
than taking part in the strikes? That goes against the Penal Code. I did not
encourage Indubhushan to commit suicide. It was not I who made Ullahskar
Dutta to become insane. It is the harsh, inhumari prison conditions that
induce the prisoners to resort to strikes and not me.”
“If you treat the ‘political prisoners’ at least as leniently as^you treat the
thieves and murderers, there would be no strikes.”

The logic of my arguments was accepted by prison officers even by Barrie.

But they said, “Your case is not in our hands. The Government of India has
ordered that you should be kept in prison. We are helpless.”

“After many such exchanges, one day Savarkar was told that he would be
allowed to work outside the prison. But, unexpectedly, all of sudden there
was considerable commotion. The prisoners were frightened. Some were
handcuffed. There were searches everywhere by the prison officers. There
was a rumour that the authorities had discovered a plot by prisoners for a
mass escape. But the searches did not discover even a light match, let alone
a bomb. Eventually Savarkar was told, “There is no question of you ever
being allowed outside. You will be kept in prison either till you complete 50
years of your sentence or till your death, whichever is earlier.” (pp 243/4)

• Once again Savarkar encouraged fellow prisoners to make specific

demands. After a few days of unease, they applied to

the prison governor. “Tell us what our offence is. Sedition, conspiracy,
revolution, whatever the offence you think that we have committed, be
specific and charge us with the offences and let there be trials.”

Prison officers replied rather hesitantly, “We do not have enough evidence
to charge you with any offence. However, there is no question of you ever
being let outside.” (p 245)

Savarkar commented “In a place like Andaman, prisoners cannot be

defended by their lawyers, there is no jury and there are officers like Barrie
who can fabricate evidence. And still the authorities could not prosecute
any one. This just shows how fictitious the accusations were. But, even if
the alleged offences were baseless, they were very convenient for the prison
authorities. It enabled them to persuade the Government of India that it was
dangerous to let the ‘political prisoners’ outside the prison.” (p246)

• There was one more strike. In December 1914 came a proclamation from
the Government of India
(1) Among the political prisoners, those who are ‘term convicts’ will be
sent to India where they will be granted normal remissions and concessions.

(2) Those who have been sentenced to ‘transportation for life’ will be kept
in prison for 14 years. If their behaviour is good, they will be let out after
the 14 years.

(3) While in prison during the 14 years, the political prisoners will be given
better quality food and clothing. After 5 years they will be allowed to cook
their own food and will get 3/ 4 to 1 rupee per month, (pp 255/6)

End of the third strike but again no concessions to Savarkar

Thus ended the third strike. The ‘term convicts’ were sent to India. Most of
us who were sentenced to ‘transportation for life’ were given permission to
cook our food. Some were given work in library, some in printing press;
some were engaged in preparing maps. They could even earn 10 rupees per
month and were regarded as millionaires on the island. However, I was
excluded

from these benefits. I was given no supervisory or clerical work. My elder

brother and I had to do the same physically exhausting work of making
ropes as before. I was again kept in isolation.

{My transportation for life pp 230-257)

• Promotion to Second Class for names sake '

In November 1916, as per prison rules, Savarkar was at last promoted to

second-class prisoner. In his letter to his younger brother Savarkar wrote,
“In your letter you asked, ‘what concessions did I get.’

Can I get out of the prison? NO Can I keep writing material? NO.

Can I work with our elder brother or at least talk to him? NO. Have I been
exempt from harsh physical work? NO.

Have I become a warder? NO.

Have I been allowed to stay outside my cell? NO.

Can I write more letters? Oh NO.

Will I be allowed family visits? NO. Other prisoners are granted this
concession after 5 years. I have been in the prison for more than 8 years.

Well, you will then ask, “what is the benefit of being promoted to second
class?’

The benefit was that I was promoted to second class. Do you understand?”

(My transportation for life pp 405/6)

This sarcastic letter indicates how callously the British authorities treated
Savarkar.

• First World War ended in 1918. Britain won the war. Did it affect the
prisoners on the Andaman Island ? Oh yes. Savarkar says, “All the
prisoners got remission of one month for every year of their sentence. Some
old inmates were released. Some political prisoners too benefited. But for
me ? No. Not a single day’s remission and not to taik of eariy reiease.”

(My transportation for life pp 419/420)

• In 1921, Savarkar nearly completed ten years in prison. He writes,

“Most political prisoners were given physically lighter and supervisory

work. They could go outside the prison for their work. Many ordinary
prisoners were released and sent to India. I therefore applied for being
released ‘on ticket to go out of the prison. I was told. Ten years had not yet
been completed.”

“And what happened after ten years ? I was still kept in the prison!!”

{My transportation for life pp 475/6)

• Savarkar continues to tell his experiences, “After ten years I had requested
to be given a ‘ticket’. I was shamelessly told that a ‘prison ticket’ had been
given to you and your brother. ‘Getting a ticket’ means that the prisoner is
allowed to go outside the prison and follow a trade or profession, build a
home, call wife and children from India and settle into a civilian life. When
ordinary prisoners were given such ‘tickets’ after 3 years, we were given
the same after 10 years and that too within the prison!! Nothing could be
more heartless. Because we struggled so hard for humane treatment for all
the prisoners, we were being made an exception to the ruie.”
Savarkar brothers sent back to
india against their wishes.
At long last came news that the Savarkar brothers were going to be sent
back to India. Savarkar wrote, “I never believed in such rumours. But my
friend said that he had seen the order himself. Well, that may indeed be true.
Ordinary prisoners were being allowed to settle outside the prison with their
families from India, after serving three years of their sentence. British
authorities could no longer sustain the arrogance of not allowing the same
concession to me even after ten years. But they did not want to do that. At
that time many prisoners were being sent to mainland India. The authorities
wanted to make a show that we too were being treated the same way and
sent back home. They could then keep us in prison again in mainland India.
Most people did not know these details. They thought that the British were
exercising clemency for us. We were granted what we never
asked for.”
(My transportation for life pp 525-527)
SAVARKAR BACK IN INDIA
• In May 1921, Savarkar brothers were brought to mainland India. On
arrival, they were separated. They lost all the concessions they won after
struggling for 10 years. They had to start all over again. As we said earlier,
Savarkar, after being transferred from prison to prison was finally released
from prison in January 1924 on the conditions that

(1) He will live in Ratnagiri, Maharashtra.

(2) He will not take part in politics.

These conditions were applicable for five years only. But the British
authorities increased the duration several times to a total of 13 1/2 years.
The British Government was forced to grant Provincial Autonomy by the
Government of India Act 1935. The Congress Party won majority in the
Bombay province, but had not decided whether or not to accept the political
office. The interim government formed by Cooper & Mehta released
Savarkar unconditionally on 10 May 1937, after the British authorities had
interned Savarkar unlawfully for 13 1/2 years.

AND yet, after all this history of persecution, Savarkar openly wrote in
1949, “I never hated the Englishmen for being English, nor did I tolerate
any such hatred among others.”

That is true humanism. That is rationalism.

Now let us see what he thought about the Muslims and how he came in
conflict with them.
SAVARKAR’S RELATIONS
WITH MUSLIMS
IN LONDON (1906-1910)
The Muslims whom Savarkar met in London were mostly educated, middle
class youth. It was possible to argue with them and convert them to
Savarkar’s thinking. Sikandar Hiyat Khan,

who later became Chief Minister of Punjab, was a member of Savarkar’s

secret revolutionary society, The Abhinav Bharat.

One Harishchandra Koregavkar testified against Savarkar during his trial in

Bombay in 1910/11. In his testimony he says

* Savarkar celebrated the remembrance day of the 1857 war on 10 May

1907 in the house of Nitindas Dwarakanath in Acton area of London.
Alikhan, a Kashmiri Muslim was in the chair.

* Muhammad, a Muslim cook worked for some time in ‘India House’ the
student’s hostel where Savarkar lived,

* Hyder Roza was a Manager of ‘India House’ for some time. He was a
good friend of Savarkar.

* Ali, a Muslim from Aligad, lived in India House. He too was a close
friend of Savarkar.

* Let us now see some Newsletters sent to India by Savarkar from London.

** Shivaji’s birthday celebrated in London (May 1908)

Last Saturday we celebrated Shivaji’s birthday under the auspices of Free

India Society. People from Madras, Bengal, Bombay, Punjab and other
provinces and of various religious backgrounds such as Hindus, Muslims,
Parsees and Jews took part in the celebrations.

Mr Iyer, B.A said in his speech, ‘The birth of Shivaji proved that our
motherland has vitality just as it had in the days of Vedas. Shivaji, who
fought against Muslims in his days, would have fought for justice for
Muslims today, because his fight was against injustice, slavery and foreign
domination.”

(SSV4 pp 86/87)

The speech is of Mr Iyer, but was reported by Savarkar

** Homage to Martyrs of the 1857 War

On 10 May 1908, Savarkar organised a programme to pay homage to the

martyrs of the 1857 war. Indians gathered in India House in the Highgate
area of London. Savarkar began the

programme by explaining the history of the Great War and told of the
contribution of Bahadur Shah and Shreemant Nanasaheb. Mr Khan (a
Muslim) paid tribute to Raja Kuvarsingh. Mr Das honoured Rani Laxmibai
of Jhansi. Mr Master (a Parsee) and Mr Yerulak (a Jew) also spoke in
honour of other heroes. (SSV4 pp 89/90)
** Repercussions of wearing of
badges in memory of heroes of 1857
war
After 10 May 1908, many Indian students in England wore badges in
memory of the heroes of 1857 war. There were skirmishes with various
college authorities. Two students of Cirencester Agricultural College,
Hamamsingh and Rafiq Mahmmad Khan, refused to apologise for wearing
the badges. They left the college. One was a Sikh and the other a Muslim.
British regarded them as bastions of the British Empire. Therefore this
incident was mentioned in debates in the British Parliament.

Savarkar arranged a public function to honour the two.

(SSV4 pp 91/92)
** We congratulate Haidar Reza.
(16 October 1906)
Last Sunday a meeting was held in London by the Free India Society. Mr
Aiikhan was in the chair. Two resolutions were passed.

First expressed gratitude for the patriotism of Sardar Ajitsingh (Uncle of

well known revolutionary Bhagatsingh).

Second praised Haidar Reza. For last two years, Reza has been sowing
seeds of patriotism among the citizens of Punjab and U.P. The attendees
expressed satisfaction at Reza’s efforts of bringing together people of
various factions and classes for the struggle of our liberation. They
expressed their gratitude to him. (SSV4 pp 103/4)
** Haidar Reza attends
Ganeshotsava at Nasik (12
November 1908)
Some fifteen days ago, Reuter news agency wired London that there was a
big riot between Hindus and Muslims in Nasik and that British soldiers
have been called in from Deolali to keep the

law and order.This came as a surprise to all of us in London.

Brahmins of Nasik had invited Haidar Reza to attend Ganeshotsava. The

whole of India was thrilled by this affinity between Hindus and Muslims.
And just a week later, we heard the above news. We were convinced that
those who did not like the strengthening of bond between Hindus and
Muslims must have hired hooligans to create a riot. We have recently seen
such an example in Bengal... when all such thoughts were being expressed
came another telegram from Reuter ‘yesterday’s telegram about the Hindu
Muslim riot was without foundation.’ (SSV4 pp 105/6)
** Vijayadashami celebrated in
London (November 1909)
A gathering of Indians was arranged in the Queens Road Hall to celebrate
Dasara. ...It started with usual Hindu rituals. Barrister Gandhi (later
Mahatma) made an impassioned speech. He said, “I would not have
believed that such functions take place in London. It is surprising that,
though this is a Hindu function Muslims, Parsees and others participate.”
Gandhi then asked Aziz AN, his friend from South Africa, to pay tribute to
India. AN spoke beautifully for two minutes. He said that India, the land
dear to both Hindus and Muslims, should soon become powerful and
prosperous.

Savarkar spoke at the end of the celebrations. He said, “Hindus are at the
heart of India. But as various colours of rainbow impart beauty to the sky,
our country would become beautiful with the blend of specialities of
Muslims, Parsees, Jews and other minority communities.” (SSV 4 p 146)

** In 1909 in the preface to his famous book Indian War of independence

1857, Savarkar wrote, “In the days of Shivaji, Hindus hated Muslims. It
was just because the oppressors at that time were Muslims. But it would be
foolhardy to hold indiscriminate hatred against Muslims today.”

Thus, Savarkar’s relations with Musiims were very friendiy and

compassionate. The question is what happened on the Andaman islands to
change this situation? Let us see.

IN PRISON ON THE ANDAMAN ISLANDS (1911-1921)

In the early 1900s the most dangerous, vicious, hardened criminals who
could not be controlled in normal prisons in India, used to be sent to the
Andaman Islands, some 1000 miles (1600 Km) east of Chennai (Madras). It
is true that they included both Hindus and Muslims, but their situations
were quite different.
We Hindus still naively believe that to the British, Hindus and Muslims
were the same. That was not the case in the past nor is it the case today.
Unlike prisons in Britain, some prisoners were promoted to supervisory
capacity as Warders, Tindals or Jamadars (Petty Officers). Prison authorities
used to control the prisoners through these men. They were extremely
trustworthy in the view of the authorities, but they were the most fanatical
Pathan, Sindhi and Baluchi Muslims. Thus began the misfortune of Hindu
prisoners.

Savarkar has given his experiences in his book‘‘My transportation for life”

There were some Hindu prisoners who were promoted to the positions of
officers. But the Pathan prisoners conspired to remove them by fabrication
of various charges and Pathans always worked for promotion of other
Pathan prisoners. This led to the Pathan, Sindhi and Baluchi officers
encouraging Muslim prisoners of their respective provinces to constantly
harass Hindu prisoners.

Pathan, Sindhi and Baluchi Muslims were most brutal and obsessed with
hatred of Hindus. Punjabi Muslims were comparatively milder than these
three. Muslims from other provinces such as Bengal, Maharashtra and
Tamilnadu were neither that brutal nor did they hate Hindus so much. But
the brutal Pathan, Sindhi and Baluchi prison officers used to taunt other
Muslims - “Oh, he is still a half Kafir” which encouraged them to follow
the example of the Muslim officers.

* Theft of food

When some Hindu prisoners were given milk on doctor’s advice, Pathan
officers used to confiscate it.

Prisoners were given daily a bowlful of rice and two chapattis (Indian
bread). Punjabi and Pathan warders ate only chapattis. They did not like
rice. They would forcibly take away the chapattis from Hindu prisoners
compelling them to live only on rice. If they refused to comply, they were
told, “We will take care of you.” In practice, this meant nothing but
persecution during work and false prosecutions on trumped up charges.
Pathan, Punjabi and Sindhi Muslim officers were united and would prevent
any complaint reaching the higher authorities. They considered such
persecution as their religious duty sanctioned by Koran.

The Petty Officers were even worse. They were allowed to go outside the
prison and therefore were not allowed to eat inside the prison. They were
required to cook their own food outside. But they wanted to save money.
So, they too forcibly collected their fo(xi from Hindu prisoners. If anyone
refused, he would be beaten up under false pretences.

Warders at least gave back their portion of rice to Hindu prisoners after
taking away their chapattis, but the Petty officers gave nothing back. They
just openly stole food from Hindu prisoners and made them go hungry.

Mirza Khan the petty officer had become very powerful. His reign of terror
went unchallenged. He would wink at a Pathan Warder to collect his quota
of chapattis. As the meals were served, the Warder would collect the
chapattis. If any one refused to cooperate, Mirza Khan would beat him
alleging that he sat outside the line or looked arrogantly at Mirza Khan and
would get away with impunity.

Prisoners were also given a bowlful of yoghurt once or twice a week.

Pathan warders and Petty Officers would steal large quantity of this too for
their consumption

English prison officers were expected to treat Hindus and Muslims equaiiy.
But they connived at such practices and deiiberately ignored the piight of
Hindus, (pp 197-9)
* Water deliberately made foul
Whenever a Hindu wanted to take water from the water tank, Muslim
warders would put their dirty feet in the tank. Poor Hindus had no choice
but to drink that dirty water. Then the Muslim warders would boast that
they had insulted and humiliated a Hindu in this manner, (pp 498)

Savarkar, being totally helpless had to face such inbred fanaticism of

Muslims. Gandhi, Nehru, Patel or Bose did not have to face such incidents.
* Partiality of the English officers
Muslim warders and even Muslim prisoners were allowed to keep the
Koran and other religious books. Many times, they would engage
themselves in reading them to avoid work. But Hindus were not allowed to
keep or read their religious books and were discouraged from doing so by
Engiish officers. If by chance some English officer gave permission to read,
Muslim Jamadars would not pass on the book. If by luck, on a day off, a
few Hindus started to read together say Ramayana by Tulsidas, a Muslim
Tindal or Mirzakhan was bound to be furious and would ask them to stop. I
have witnessed many such instances. Pathan and Punjabi Muslims
considered it their religious duty to prevent Hindus reading such ‘budparast
(forbidden by Islam)’ books. After great deal of complaints and skirmishes
Hindus were eventually allowed to keep a religious book or two.

Hindus were subjected to further discrimination when it came to religious

holidays. Muslims had their religious holidays like Id or Ramadan. On
those days Muslims were allowed to wander freely without doing any work.
But Hindus were denied holidays on their religious days like birthdays of
Lord Rama and Krishna, Divali etc. If by grace of an English officer any
such holidays were granted, the Muslim officers would give Hindus a
choice of

doing work or being confined to their cells. Poor Hindus had no choice but
meekly accept work, which was lesser of the two devils.

I had to fight for such injustices.

(pp 259/260)

Ramrakha, a revolutionary, was denied the right to wear his holy thread
(janeo). Consequently he refused to take food and eventually died.
Thereafter, British authorities allowed Hindus to wear the holy thread.
Thus, even for such a minor concession, a Hindu had to die. One can only
imagine the conditions of those days and the struggle that Savarkar had to
put up with.

Savarkar has given his experiences in his book “My transportation for life"
Let us see two of the examples of viciousness and arrogance of Muslims.
They were always raring fora fight with Hindus and show their hostility.

— Muslims would turn to prayers to avoid work

‘.Among the Muslim prisoners there were a large majority

who did not normally pray (Namaz). However, if a group of prisoners was
allocated a physically hard task, every Muslim prisoner in that group would
suddenly realise that it was his religious duty to say Namaz, not five times
but seven times a day. British officers would allow time off to Muslims for
their prayers but poor Hindus had to carry on working.’ (pp 323/5)

** Your Bangh - our conch

Another trick Muslims adopted to tease Hindus was Bangh (calling for
prayers) in the early morning. Muslims did not normally get up till forced
by the prison authorities. But all of a sudden it occurred to them that they
had a religious duty to call other Muslims for prayers. This was, in effect,
an excuse to disturb the sleep of Hindus under the guise of practising Islam.

After I was transferred from Andaman, Muslims suddenly began to shout

loudly ‘Allah ho Akbar’ calling other Muslims for prayers in the early
mornings. This upset the Hindu prisoners as it

disturbed their sleep. They could not accept this harassment and started to
retaliate by singing devotional songs (bhajans). But the British authorities,
which would not prosecute Muslims for their bhangs, started to prosecute
Hindus for violating the prison regulations. They said that singing loudly
was not essential for Hindu prayers. Undaunted, some Hindus smuggled
conchs and started blowing them in the early mornings. Their argument was
that reciting songs loudly may not be an essential part of Hindu worship but
blowing conchs was certainly necessary. And every Hindu started to blow
conch as soon as Muslims started saying ‘Allah ho Akbar’
In the end, British authorities had to say to the Muslims, “Listen. You stop
shouting ‘Allah ho Akbar’ and we will ask the Hindus to stop blowing
conchs.” Muslims had no choice.

The dispute that could not be settled by logical arguments and appeals was
thus settled by blowing conch.

(My transportation for life pp 498, 197-199, 259/260, 322-325)

Savarkar not only faced such fanaticisms from Muslims head on but he
actually turned the tide by his efforts. Now let us examine the events of his
last year in Andaman Islands.
The tide turns
Due to Savarkar’s successful resistance to Muslim offensive many Hindus
were promoted to supervisory posts. The arrogant Muslims who had been
used to their unchecked power, started to say to the English officers, “Sir,
now there is a Hindu Raj in Port Blair (capital of Andaman). We are greatly
concerned that we will face prosecutions on false pretences.” This was clear
indication of their thinking. They feared that Hindus would retaliate and
seek revenge for the past misdeeds of Muslims. Hindus, because of their
nature, never persecuted any Muslims. In addition, I had always supported
ordinary Muslim prisoners who did not share the fanatic zeal of Pathans and
other Muslims. I taught them to read and write. I wrote their applications. I
did whatever I could for their welfare.

(My transportation for life p 448/9)

* Ram Ram not Salam
In November 1920, Savarkar was appointed Foreman of the oil store. He
wrote

And at once the news stmck terror in the hearts of Muslim Tindals,
Warders, Petty Officers and prisoners. In the past my Muslim predecessors
of the post had made heavy demands on all prisoners to satisfy their greed.
They had mercilessly persecuted Hindus (Kafirs). Now the post was
occupied by me, the one who propagated and practiced the conversion of
Muslims to Hindu Dharma. Muslims saluted me with folded hands and said,
‘Sir, please have mercy on us. Save our skins.’
Greetings with folded hands
I need to explain why they prayed with folded hands. When I entered
Andaman Islands, I noticed that Hindus would say ‘salam’ whenever they
saw a Muslim. They said ‘salam’ even to fellow Hindus. I was very
surprised. A warder from Maharashtra informed me that once he had said
‘Ram Ram’ to petty officer Mirzakhan (nicknamed ‘little Barrie’). He
furiously taunted, ‘Eh you kafir. Do not take the name of Ram Ram. You
must say ‘salam’ to me.

On hearing this, I was determined that I will NOT say Salam to any
Muslim. I will always say ‘Ram Ram.’ If any Muslim was prepared to say’
Ram Ram’ to me and many Muslims from Maharashtra did say that, I was
prepared to say ‘salam’, but if I met any fanatical Muslim who would insist
in saying’salam’ I would refuse point blank to say ‘salam’. Other Hindus
followed suit. This ied to skirmishes but I did not change my attitude.

And now I had become the Foreman. Muslims felt obliged to pray with
folded hands. I never said that they should not say ‘salam.’ But then Hindus
too should insist on saying ‘Ram Ram.’ If the Muslims were prepared to
say ‘Ram Ram’ Hindus could reciprocate by saying ‘salam.’

[Note Rama is the name of a famous Hindu God. It is customary for Hindus
to greet one another with folded hands and say the

words ‘Ram Ram.’ An Arab would welcome another Arab with the words
‘Salam Alekum’ and the latter would reciprocate with words, ‘Alekum
Assalam.’ Since Islam was spread by Arabs, Muslims of India picked up
the custom of greetings this way.]

I said to Muslim warders and petty officers, ‘I will not take any bribes. Just
do your jobs honestly. But if you conspire against me or persecute any
Hindu, expect no mercy from me.’

(My transportation for life pp 495-497)

Muslims have not changed since 1920s

These events took place in 1920. Now today, more than three generations
later, Muslims are just as domineering as ever. Some time during 1985 to
1990, various local radio stations were started in England. In West London,
there is a station named ‘Sunrise Radio.’ They had a ‘phone in’programme.
The listeners would put questions or express their opinions to the producers
who, in turn, would respond to them on air.

On 8 July 1990 (Sunday) I heard following conversation: Mr Khan - ‘At the

beginning of your programme you say ‘namaste’ or ‘Sat Shree Akal. ’ We
Muslims do not like that. You should say, ‘Salam Alekum’

Producer- ‘Do you know the meaning of ‘Namsate’ or ‘Sat Shree Akal’?

Mr Khan - No.

Producer - O. K. Do they mean ‘kill all Muslims’ or ‘bum Koran’ ? Mr

Khan -1 do not know. But you should say, ‘salam alekum. ’

It was impossible to satisfy Mr Khan. No Muslim said, ‘what does it

matter?’ Muslims have not changed one little bit. We Hindus are just as
gullible and simpleton as we were a hundred years ago.

Now let us return to the subject of Andaman. Due to partiality of the British
officers, Muslim religious fanaticism had spread unchecked.

Proselytization by Muslims on the Andaman Islands

Savarkar experienced at first hand the great lengths to which Muslims

would go to convert Hindus to Islam and increase their population. He
wrote:

* After the ferocious battles of the 1857 war of independence, British

authorities stopped encouraging Christian missionaries to spread
Christianity in India. In the jail on the Andaman Islands the British
authorities made no attempt to spread Christianity among the helpless
prisoners.”
“However, even under the wretched conditions on the Andaman Islands,
Muslims continued to harass and force Hindus to convert to Islam. It was
surprising that even though the British authorities did not encourage spread
of Christianity, the same should connive at the practices of Muslims.”

(My transportation for life p 277/278)

Savarkar then gave a detailed account of how Muslims carried out their
activities of conversion of Hindus to Islam in prisons in India through
Muslim criminals. He continues:

* If this is the situation in jails in India one can only imagine what was
happening on the Andaman Islands. Right from the start, the British
authorities appointed religiously fanatical Muslims like Pathans and
Baluchis to the positions of supervision. And the political prisoners were
invariably Hindus. Muslim officers would threaten Hindus with harsh
punishments, make false accusations against them and prosecute them for
the violation of prison rules. They said quite bluntly, ‘If you want to escape
the rigours of prison life, you must convert to Islam.’ I was witnessing this
practice every day. Every fortnight at least one Hindu was being forced to
become Musiim. I could not bear this injustice. But, I was restricted to my
cell. When I pointed out the situation to other Hindu prisoners, I found that
they were totally unconcerned and said, “well, what is that to me?”

Resistance to Muslim aggression

It is true that illiterate, uneducated Hindus showed no concern. But even the
political prisoners did not dare challenge the Muslim aggression. In a way it
was understandable. As it was, their lives were ruined. They were suffering
the most rigorous physical punishments. Mere survival was difficult. How
could they, in addition to their troubles, bear the wrath of Muslim officers
who were forcing Hindus to convert to Islam?

But there were some who did not have the honesty of admitting that they
had no energy left to fight Muslim fanaticism. They instead, condemned
any moves to protest and resist Muslim aggression as foolhardy. They
pretended that they were about to embrace Islam just to please Muslim
officers.
These cowards went one step forward. Whenever a need arose to save a
Hindu from forcible conversion, they said, “Oh, why complain about this ?
These are fallen criminals. What does it matter if they convert to Islam? If
they are attracted to Islam through temptation or fear, they are not worth
remaining as Hindus. Let them go. Of what benefit are they to Hindus? It is
childish to protest.”

British prison officers too would argue in this way. Cunning Muslims would
preach the same. Even today there are many simple-minded Hindus who
express the same opinion, (p 282) Muslims have not changed, Hindus have
learnt nothing from history

Savarkar then gave reasons for stopping the conversion of Hindus to Islam
and reconverting those who had embraced Islam. That was in 1911. Ninety
years later, his reasons are just as important and valid as then. Aggressive
attitude of Muslims and Christians has not changed and Hindus have
remained as simpletons as ever and are still putting forward the same
foolish arguments today. Let us turn to recent events.

In February 2002, Muslims burned to death 30 Hindu women

and children trapped in a railway carriageway at Godhra in the province of

Gujarat. That ghastly event was no surprise. Hatred of Hindus is inborn
among Muslims. What is surprising is the sheer stupidity of Hindus.

Pandurangshastri Athawale is a well-known social worker in Gujarat. In his

biography (Deha Zala Chandanacha) he proudly says, “Many Christians
and Muslims approached me and asked me to convert them to Hindu
Dharma. I flatly refused. ... / will not change anyone’s religion. Everyone
should follow his/her own religion and join our (i.e. Athavale’s) Swadhyaya
movement.

. Prophet Mohammed had done enormous work. I consider

him as reincarnation of God.” (pp 484 and 504).

The biography was first published in 1999, 0^ edition in year 2000. We

wonder what the learned Brahmin says now.
With passage of time, hatred of Hindus by Muslims has not diminished and
Muslims are just as barbaric today as they were 1,000 years ago. We
witnessed this in the treatment of Indian soldiers by Pakistanis during the
war in Kargil (Kashmir) in 1999, of Border Security Force jawans by
Bangladeshi villagers (April 2001) and of Hindu women and children by
Muslim mobs in Godhra in Gujrat in Feb2002. Every time Muslims have
declared that YES it is their reiigion to attack Hindus so barbarously. And
yet, when he had a chance, Athawale refused to converts single Muslim to
Hinduismil He is asking them to keep to their religion and seek salvation!!
May be, he would prefer to be burnt alive in Gujarat.

Let us look at Savarkar’s reasoning in 1920s

Is the re-conversion childish?
Our opponents say that it is childish to stop conversion of the fallen,
criminals and convicts, though they were born as Hindus. But they never
asked ‘why have the Muslims been waging war on Hindus for the last
thousand years to convert even these criminals to Islam?’ You say that
Muslims are fanatics. So, why

are even the educated, enlightened Europeans and Americans playing the
same game? Why are they collecting millions of pounds and sending
missionaries to Indian villages and even forests and try to convert the poor
and even tribal Hindus to Christianity by hook or crook? Why are they
playing this childish game? (p 283)

You say what good are such fools and greedy people to our Hindu society? I
say, “What good are they to Muslim or Christian societies? Why are they so
obsessed with the conversion of those? We will accommodate the crafty and
vicious criminals. Why do Muslims and Christians want to defile their
societies with such converts? They should stop their conversion. Then
Hindus too would have no reason to play the childish game in return.”

But, if this conversion and re-conversion is not childish and on the other
hand these foreign kings, rich businessmen, priests and learned men and
women feel the need for conversion of Hindus in order to dominate India
we Hindus too have a right to defend our culture and civilisation and
religion for the good of the world. You must understand the gravity of our
efforts.

I say to Muslims and Christians, ‘Why do you want to spread your religion
among the fallen, drunks, and vicious criminals? For uplifting their souls?
Then for the same reason we too feel that they should remain Hindus.’ As
Lord Krishna said, “swadharme nidhanam shreyah. Paradharmo
bhayavahaha.” Better to remain a poor Hindu than embracing an alien
religion.
We need to seek salvation precisely for the fallen ones

You want to convert Hindus to your religion, no matter how vicious or

fallen they may be. And you do so by offering him easier work, by
providing substances such as tobacco, at times even by threatening to kill.
Why? To increase your numbers and thereby your strength. It is precisely
for that reason that we too want them back in our fold. Hence we re-convert
them back to Hindu religion.

It is well known that once a person is converted from Hindu religion and
forcibly kept in Islam or Christianity his progeny automatically becomes
Muslim or Christian and increases the number of useful citizens belonging
to those religions. There is no rule that the progeny of thieves and convicts
aiso become thieves and scoundrels. England sent away such rejects of their
society who in turn created states like Canada and Australia. These
criminals are like fertilisers for farming. ‘Human body rejects’ create
fertilisers that help grow crops. In a similar manner the criminals would
create new societies and their progenies be useful to your religions.

It is therefore our policy to prevent at all costs the conversion of any

Hindus. We will try our best to re-convert those who left Hindu religion in
the past. A Hindu thief is less harmful than a Muslim thief. A Hindu thief
will only steal but not break idols in a temple. A Muslim thief will not only
steal but also destroy an idol in a temple and strike a blow at a Hindu
cursing him as a Kafir. We must always remember that such possibility is
always very likely.

Therefore I always preached, “if you cannot stop being a thief or cannot
stop drinking, that is understandable but do not leave our fold. Remain a
Hindu. It is a crime to steal. But it is thousand times worse to leave the
Hindu fold.” For centuries we allowed exodus of our men under false and
stupid notions of purity. We allowed the downtrodden of our society to
leave Hindu religion by proclaiming ‘his religion is his business.’ And the
result? We created hundreds of arch-enemies. Moplas from Kerala were
originally Hindus. By royal order of a Hindu King, half the family members
were converted to Islam so that they became seafarers. Today, they have
lost their identity and have become the most ardent enemies of Hindus. That
was the result of cutting of pony tail and growing beard !! (pp 284/5)
[Brahmins wear pony tail and Muslims grow beard, both are symbols of
respective religions]. We must not let that happen again.

[Jinnah and Iqbal had Hindu grandfathers, ZulphikharAli Bhutto’s mother

was a Hindu. We all know the disastrous consequences for Hindus from
their forefathers embracing Islam. If a Sen becomes Hussein he spells
disaster for Hindus].
Childish play of the elderly
It is therefore of utmost importance to keep even the most wicked or useless
criminals in the Hindu fold and to bring back those who left our religion.
Even if they remain Hindus for names sake that should be our objective.
Mopla riots of Malbar in 1920 were the result of our forefathers not having
played that childish game mentioned above. It is a social need. It is also a
spiritual need. May be one of them could become like Valmiki who
composed Ramarayan! Valhya was a highway robber and a murderer. He
was told by a sage to recite the name of RAM for his salvation. He could
not say that. He could only say Mara (you die). The sage told him, ‘carry on
reciting’ Mara Mara eventually became Ram Ram and Valhya became the
sage Valmiki. So do keep even the scoundrels in the Hindu fold. If
anything, it would be good for them.

(My transportation for life pp 281-286)

* Savarkar’s fight was directed against unjust attitude of the Muslims. He

was saying
Don’t advocate conversion by
terror
“Everyone should be free to preach their own religion/ faith/ way of life by
convincing logically. The trouble with Muslims is that they would not
hesitate to resort to violence, thuggery, massacres, abduction and rape to
achieve their objective. Christians used the same methods. But recently they
have changed to civilised manners. Though we blame the Muslims for their
methods Hindus are equally responsible for providing opportunities to them
by clinging to the short sighted and foolish traditions.”

“Hindus need to abandon two harmful notions. They should be prepared to

accept clean food and water from anyone irrespective

of religion. They should accept that even if they were forced to take unholy
water or food, to do so places them at no disadvantage and they remain
forever Hindus. Then Muslims will have no alternative but to stop their
conversions. I sincerely believe that. It will also be necessary to welcome
back those who became Muslims because of our rigid notions about food
and water.”
We need to re-convert those whom
we abandoned
To be honest, we do not need to purify those who were forced to accept
other religions. We need to purify ourselves because we were brutal in not
accepting those people back in the Hindu fold. We kept them in the chains
of other religions.

In this way, on the one hand it would become more difficult for Muslims to
convert Hindus, even harder to retain those converted in their fold. They
can convert by logically arguments. But then those can also revert back to
Hindu religion. This will remove the main source of anger among Hindus
who see their brethren being forcibly converted to Islam. After all both
communities no longer possess military power. There is no harm in
propagating their religions by logical approach.

I have always maintained that our movement to mobilise the Hindus

(sanghatan) and the re-conversion (shuddhi) will lead to peace between
Hindus and Muslims. I raised objection to forcible conversion by Muslims
for the first time in 1913. From that year till my stay in Andaman Islands
and subsequently in jails in India and from 1924 when I agreed to stay in
internment, I have been busy in this work.

(My transportation for life p 326)

Savarkar puts a stop to conversion
of Hindus to Isiam.
Let us now see how Savarkar stopped conversion activities of Muslims on
the Andaman Islands.

The Jail Superintendent, after much fights and disputes agreed that Muslims
were trying to convert Hindus by force and

inducement. But he said, “Mr Savarkar, why do you always blame the
Muslims. Why don’t you convert Muslims to Hindu religion?’ The question
was deliberate and mischievous. He knew at heart that Hindus do not
convert people from other religions. That was never the practice. A Hindu
can become Muslim. But, how can a Muslim become Hindu? This sort of
stupid logic had been ingrained in the minds of Hindus for centuries.

Savarkar discussed the issue with the Superintendent and as a result, he

stopped a Hindu prisoner being converted to Islam. At the same time
Savarkar accepted the challenge. In dealing with such a situation, logical
arguments were of no use. You must be unto Caesar what Caesar is. Dirty
tricks of Muslims were met with more cunning dirty tricks and in the
ensuing feuds Muslims complained to the Superintendent, “Sir, save us
from Savarkar. He will convert us to Hindu religion.” Then Savarkar
reminded the Superintendent of the challenge he had set. He said, “You
thought that Muslims are not gullible enough to abandon their religion and
the Hindus cannot retain their men in their fold, let alone be aggressive. But
this is fallacy. If Hindus want to, they too can covert others to their religion.
Yourself as well as the Muslims have now realised that. We used to
complain that Muslims convert us to their religion. Now they are
complaining that Hindus convert them to their religion. If you want to avoid
such disputes you must forbid conversion within the jail.” The
Superintendent discussed the matter with the Commissioner of Andaman
Islands and eventually issued an order to jailer Barrie forbidding
conversions within the jail and even propagating for conversions was
banned. Thus trade of Muslims went into liquidation. Hindus never had any
trade. Muslim religious fanaticism was checked in the jail, at least.

(My transportation for life pp 294,304)

* Co-operation even during the struggie

Savarkar wrote, “My account of prison life is full of such struggles ith
Muslims because unfortunately majority of Muslims were religious fanatics
who hated Hindus to the hilt. But it must be said that even in the jail, I came
across Muslims who were not

obsessed with conversion zeal, It is well known how friendly and cordial I
was with them. Many prison inmates knew this.” “Muslims, be they normal
or fanatics developed respect for me and the political prisoners because
apart from fighting their religious aggression, we took the side of fellow
prisoners against any injustice by the authorities. We made no distinction
between Hindu prisoners and Muslim prisoners. We were trying our utmost
to change the inhuman conditions on the island. As we won concessions,
Muslim prisoners too benefited from them. We suffered terrible physical
abuses from the prison authorities during such struggles. It was but natural
that even the fanatic Muslims should feel some gratitude towards us. It
would have been a surprise if this was not the case. Moreover we also
blamed Hindus for their senseless beliefs of that encouraged conversion
activity of Muslims.”

(My transportation for life pp 325/6)

In the chapter on mobilisation and propaganda, Savarkar said, “Just as the

political prisoners fought for justice for Hindu prisoners they fought against
injustice done to Muslim prisoners too. Due to their efforts, all the prisoners
were granted concessions resulting in better quality food, lighter work and
remissions etc. Therefore Muslim prisoners too respected the political
prisoners. They pleaded not to expose their tactics (illegal practices). Some
Muslims turned nationalists and helped us. But as we had to undertake re-
conversion of Muslims to Hindu religion and fight for the rightful place for
Hindi language, those Muslims (who turned nationalists) were also upset by
their inborn religious fanaticism.”
(My transportation for life pp 259/260)

The year was 1914.

In the chapter on Re-conversion Savarkar says, “At times I said to myself -1

have suffered enough physically during the struggle with prison authorities.
My social activities like re-conversion caused me more pain. I felt helpless.
I thought that I had done enough, now it is time for others to carry the can.
However, this did not last long. News would reach me that a Hindu is
surrounded

by Muslims bent on harassing him or that prison authorities are beating a

particular inmate. It did not matter to me who he was.

I just could not stay aloof. I would treat that insult or injustice as if it was
my own and suddenly spring into action.”

(My transportation for life pp 313/4)

It must be stressed that Savarkar thus used to fight against injustices

committed on Muslims too.
* Misunderstanding about the
purification of ianguage
What applied to Muslims also applied to the Urdu language. Savarkar
describes how he stopped the undue influence and use of Urdu language on
Andaman Islands. He says,

“My movement was not for the hatred of Urdu. I myself learned to read and
write it. We will accept the Urdu script as one of the scripts and also that it
is the language of some Muslims. It can survive as such by all means. I
have no objection to that. But we will not accept the demand of Muslims
that Urdu should become the national language instead of Hindi. We oppose
Urdu to that extent. It was unjust that schools, which were run on taxes paid
predominantly by Hindus, should teach Urdu. We opposed the use of Urdu
because of its long-term effects on the minds and manners of Hindus. So we
fought tooth and nail for the eradication of Urdu.”

“We learn French or German. In the similar manner we should learn Urdu.
But we will not tolerate the domination of Urdu over Hindu languages.”

(My transportation for life pp 491/2)

To understand the unjust demands of Muslims, let us take the statistics of

India in 1946. One well-known author wrote “Urdu is not only not spoken
all over India but is not even the language of all the Musalmans of India. Of
the 68 millions of Muslims only 28 millions speak Urdu (that is what they
told census officers). The proposal of making Urdu the national language
means that the language of 28 millions of Muslims is to be imposed
particularly upon 40 millions of Musalmans or generally

upon 322 millions of Indians.”

(Thoughts on Pakistan by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, 1946, p 264)

Savarkar fought religious fanaticism of Muslims on Andaman Islands but
he always maintained his sense of justice. His book ‘My Transportation for
Life’ was published in Marathi in 1927. Savarkar narrates his early days in
Mumbai (Bombay) before being put on ship bound for Andaman Islands.
He says,

“Three of the most vicious Muslim gangsters were kept as Warders to keep
watch on me. But one of them gave me the news that my younger brother
Narayan (Bal) was also kept in the same prison. Not only that, he provided
the writing material for sending him my message.” That warder would have
certainly been severely punished for that daring act. But he did do it.
Savarkar does not hide the fact that the warder was a Muslim. (My
transportation for life pp 23 to 27)

Savarkar wrote, “I never hated Muslims, Christians or even the tribal

people. I never even despised them. Whenever a tendency to use terror by
anyone or a group of people is evident I condemned that person or group of
people.”

{My transportation for life p 326)

It is a great pity that this book ‘My Transportation for Life’ was proscribed
by the British rulers In 1934 and the English edition was not published till
1950. It was vital that the English verion should have been published in
1927 for all India circulation, as soon as the book in Marathi was published.
Savarkar’s thoughts did not spread In India in the crucial period 1927 to
1947.
* SAVARKAR AND PRISON
OFFICER MR BARRIE
* As soon as Savarkar entered the jail on the Andaman Islands he was
introduced to his jailor Mr Barrie. During the conversation, Barrie said, You
see Mr Savarkar, I am not an Englishman I am an Irishman.’

Savarkar replied, ‘Well, even if you had been an Englishman I would not
hate you just for that. I have spent some years of my youth in England. I
admire many of their national characteristics.’ (My transportation for life p
84)

* Some time in 1914 Savarkar wrote, “So far, I had to describe the harsh,
brutal side of the character of Barrie, time and again. But there was also
another side to his character. I need to mention that. It is unjust to blame an
individual beyond a limit.”

“True, he was very harsh. There is no doubt about that. But, as a jailor he
had to be harsh. He was responsible for keeping under control the most
dangerous and vicious criminals who had no scruples. They were sent to
Andaman Islands because the prison authorities in India could not cope
with them. Any person in Barrie’s shoes had to be tough and harsh. That it
was so was no fault of Barrie. I told him time and again. But because he
was forced to be tough and harsh for a long period of time, he really
became heartless at least within the jail. With very little education he had
not developed any taste for poetry, drama, novels, music and painting. The
brutality of prison life was his only entertainment.”

“However, apart from his conduct in the jail, he sincerely respected me.
Whenever any European merchants, editors or military officers came to
Andaman Islands, they invariably called on me. During World War I, some
naval captains of Royal submarines also came to see me and discussed
current affairs and treated me as an equal. When Barrie saw this, he
naturally developed a respect for me. His wife used to be very pious. His
only daughter had passed Matriculate examination in Rangoon and had
become a teacher. Other prisoners said that these two ladies curbed the
excesses of Barrie’s excessive punishments. And certainly they had much
sympathy for me. Miss Barrie used to visit Andaman during school
holidays. She invariably visited me. We discussed many subjects. In my
individual capacity I would reciprocate the affection and civility to Barrie
and his family.”

“From time to time, Barrie would send me some gifts to show his respect.
Some of my inmates did not like that and became crossed. They asked me
‘how could I accept fruits and other presents from him?’ I argued with
them, “What have we got against him as an individual? Whenever Barrie or
members of his family show their friendship and respect, we too must
reciprocate. That is civilised behaviour. That is our duty.”

(My transportation for life pp 378/379)

* Barrie eventually retired. Savarkar tell us, “Barrie’s health deteriorated

rapidly. He had to be carried on board ship by prison staff. He reached India
but died soon afterwards tragically. His memory was preserved by political
prisoners whom he badly treated and would remain so until they die. And
that is the way it should be. He was instrumental in the persecution of
political prisoners but only as a part of the system. But that gave him too
much importance. A faceless institution becomes real in the form of certain
individuals. That is inevitable. Otherwise good or bad, Barrie would not
have been remembered after his death.” “However, even in those helpless
prison conditions he had said a few words of consolation to me. Also, he,
his wife and daughter expressed sympathy for me at times. I will always be
grateful for that.”

(My transportation for life pp 446/7)

We must remember that this Barrie bore a grudge and always did treat
Savarkar harshly. He had kept on telling higher authorities that Savarkar
was at the root all the trouble in the prison. Savarkar could have easily and
justifiably described him as xxxx. But he did not do that. Only because he
sincerely believed in universal brotherhood of man.
* HUMANISM OF SAVARKAR
* Savarkar said that be it Muslim prisoners or the British rulers, everybody
should co-operate with one another for the good of mankind.

“We revolutionaries must remember that politics does not just

102/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar -

mean co-operation or non-cooperation but responsive cooperation. And that

is the way it ought to be morally. If a problem can be solved by co-
operation with the opposition, then cooperation it must be. If not, you have
to be non-cooperative, whether peaceful or violent. But that must be
temporary, restricted to a particular situation only. Non-cooperation is not to
be the principle. It is a temporary measure only. All mankind should
cooperate. That should be the real ultimate aim. It should benefit both
parties.”

(My transportation for life p 523)

These are his thoughts in 1920. They were publicly expressed in his book in
1927.

• In November 1925, Savarkar met Maulana Shaukat AH in Mumbai. In his

conversation with him too Savarkar emphasised humanism.

“In short, I say to you that we Hindu organisers do accept that you too have
the right to organise. But that organisation should not be aggressive in its
approach just as we are not. Our aim is to eradicate untouchability and
preach our religion just as Christians and Muslims do, without resort to
violence as Muslims often do. We are creating voluntary organisation for
the protection and all round progress of our society. Our ultimate aim
should be to forget the differences of religion or the state that we belong
and pray in one language and worship one God in a place of worship for the
betterment of whole mankind.”
(SSV3 p765)

Savarkar did not say that Muslims should not organise. All he said was that
it should not be anti-Hindu. Once again he proclaimed that all the mankind
was one.

• If a society sticks to its old religious textbooks it inevitably does

enormous damage to itself and falls behind ether societies. In the June
1937issue of Kidoskar magazine he stated that Muslims must abandon the
tendency to follow the Koran literally in today’s

world. That book is more than 1,000 years old and cannot be relevant today.
He says,

“1 urge Indian Muslims to abandon their blind adherence to their scriptures,

give up outmoded practices and put their faith in modern science. It is my
heart felt wish that Indian Muslims should abandon their adherence to
unreasonable creed and put their trust and faith in modern science. Their
intellect should be freed from the double hobble of bigotry and fanaticism.
Then and only then the Muslim community will become progressive,
educated and prosperous. If only they realise that outdated creed will not be
able to compete with the power of science, they will also follow the path of
modern Turkey and step into the 20*’ century. If the Muslim community
became progressive and forward looking through the study of science, it has
enormous benefits for them. And for Hindus? If Muslims were to
modernise it has considerable benefits for Hindu ’ '

(S.S.V3 p648)

When Savarkar’s thoughts are so clear and unequivocal why was his image
tarnished? Before we seek answer to this question, let us look at some
historical background. Some readers would find it convenient to refer to.
Appendix C for certain unfamiliar words / phrases before moving on to next
Chapter.

Chapter Four

WHY WAS SAVARKAR’S IMAGE TARNISHED BY HIS OPPONENTS?

i''. .r(?V'irM

ft rv.'o

ii'leia/r: facS^y

. Vf

S’: 'IL J.^-, k.f .;•■/

"socriirr It ta <'<:/ i

;:' ■ :■ - j . '^tr .'tdiVJ^Qrt*

' ' •• '!^0h io raodam sci^rtcc; ^Sfp^^4c:^

irORJ r'TO o-HibW o^'b;i;-‘ i"/ ^1; ^• i. : -,‘ ■- ^vr.

.n (t o ■> y that lalc .’ wilt’not

b'H c:iic u, rfofr^Mo v.-i'ri the pdiver of top . jv. ; ^ •u;''nv; 'epp»h oi l:\y]ti^
"u'kiiy r-'O • teo .>;■. r i

'iMu«|.n>(>wjThjn?y'x i •?{. ! c,-' .. .i^a *cwv4F P« 'd lfe ) » ir)o

ii'*i'S: aj -i^rne hisjonu-^J ta^-ki-'roLrndi. Scfm- ■ 'P.>s/s vi'ptM

•'f.'fCt’t fuBiifTsoeijf h: fti , /t •*', ctri. rn

wr^rct.:/'pt^r^^^ movfn . Chsfjh^
WHY WAS SAVARKAR’S IMAGE
TARNISHED BY HIS
OPPONENTS?
Some background information
HINDU - MUSLIM CONFLICT (1920-48) Lokmanya Tilak died on 1
August 1920. He never abandoned the fight for just rights of the Hindus. He
always exposed haughtiness of the Muslims.

In May 1921, Savarkar was brought to mainland India from Andaman

Islands. He was transferred from jail to jail for three years. He was kept in
internment from January 1924 to May 1937. One of the conditions of
internment was that he would not take part in politics. In addition, his
writings would have been proscribed by the British Authorities under the
pretext that these threatened Law and Order. While working within these
restrictions Savarkar had to warn as well as awaken Hindus of the
disastrous consequences of policies of Gandhi. During those sixteen years
Hindus were blinded by and obsessed with Gandhism and Communism
(Socialism).

After his release from internment in May 1937, Savarkar was the only
leader who openly vowed to protect Hindu interests and fight for their
legitimate rights. His opponents could not accept that situation. They,
therefore, branded Savarkar as communal, intolerant of other communities,
the enemy of the Hindu-Muslim unity, mean minded and even a traitor. We
have already seen how this image was false and perverted. Let us look
briefly at the events from 1921 to 1948.

• In 1921, during the months from August to December, Mopla Muslims of

Malabar (Kerala) committed terrible atrocities on Hindus. Their
descriptions make horrifying reading even today. According to report of
Servants of India Society founded by Gokhale, 1,500 Hindus were killed,
20,000 were forcibly converted to Islam and the property of Hindus worth 3
crores (30 million Rupees at 1921 prices) was destroyed or looted.

And yet, according to a report by the Congress Party, only 3 Hindu families
were forcibly converted to Islam. Gandhi wrote,
“.brave God-fearing Moplas who were fighting for what they

consider as their religion and in a manner which they consider as religious

...”

In other words, the action of Moplas was fully justified because committing
monstrous attacks on Hindus was sanctioned by Koran. They were simply
doing their religious duty.

In the end, the British Authorities had to send in the Army to defeat the
Moplas. In their action, 2,339 Moplas were killed and 24,167 were
sentenced to various prison sentences.

• In 1946, during the month of August, Muslims of Calcutta rioted for four
successive days, killing 5,000 Hindus and wounding 15,000. And in
October, in the districts of Chittagong and Noakhali, Bengali Muslims
massacred 150,000 Hindu men, women and children and barbaric atrocities
were committed on thousands of Hindu women.

• During the period 1921-1946, at the time of partition of India in 1947and

even aftenwards, Muslim riots and atrocities on Hindus continued unabated.
The history of those atrocities, though revealing and disgusting, is not the
subject matter of this book. However, it is astonishing to see that Hindus,
even today, are still blinded. Allow me to quote some of my experiences.

Nathuram Godse shot and killed Gandhi on 31 January 1948. His younger
brother Gopal Godse was sentenced to Transportation for Life as a co-
conspirator in the plot to assassinate Gandhi. He was released in 1964.
Later, he wrote a book about the events of 1947/48. In 1980,1 received a
copy of his book ‘Assassination of Gandhi and T. One day, my friends were
discussing the book. People of my age cannot forget the terrible events
leading to Gandhi’s assassination. I told my friends, “Even Gandhi’s
staunch followers were disillusioned and disgusted with his policies. One
such man was well known

Maratha named P. K. Atre. When Gandhi visited Noakhali (now in

Bangladesh) towards the end of 1946, terrified Hindu women asked him,
“Bapu (Father), how can we protect ourselves from dishonour by Muslim
thugs?” Gandhi replied, “You commit suicide by taking poison or jumping
into a well.”

Atre was furious. In his weekly Nayayug he wrote, “We do not need this old
man to tell us that. Hindu women have been doing that for centuries.”

A scientist friend of mine asked, “But, why did the Hindu women ask that
embarrassing question to Gandhiji?” During the discussion afterwards he
said, “I do not see what Nathuram achieved by killing an old man like
Gandhi. He was not affected by the partition in the slightest.”

/ replied, “Our friend is right. If our friend’s sister was kidnapped or his
own mother raped by Muslims it would have been a different matter.” My
friend was stunned and kept quiet. It was nauseating to note that even his
well educated wife did not denounce her husband. And yet this friend was a
Fullbright scholar who obtained a Ph.D. from Harvard University in
America!!

• In those days (in 1980) I had an argument with another friend. He was
saying that Hindus did not suffer as a result of partition of India in 1947. He
said, “Well, it is true that we lost thousands of square miles of fertile land,
thousands of Hindus were dispossessed of their property and wealth, untold
Hindus were killed, thousands of Hindu women were dishonoured. But we
cannot say that they suffered as a result of partition." 777/s friend was a
graduate from India and obtained a further degree in England. Yet such
were his thoughts.

• It is even more agonising and disgracefui that the Sindhi, Punjabi and
Bengali Hindus who fled to India as refugees in 1947/48 have no memory
of the atrocities committed on them. They feel

no shame. They do not seek revenge. Most of them are proMuslim and
against the philosophy of Savarkar. Today, theirgirls shamelessly marry
Muslim boys. Of course, they convert to Islam. And yet no Muslim girl
marries a Hindu who is son of a former refugee and converts to Hindu
Dharma. What a shame!
• Sindhis who settled in England run a magazine entitled 'Amar Sindhu.’

A friend of mine gave me a copy of its issue of August 1987. It had

Gandhi’s picture on the front page! After all these years, Sindhis do not
understand that it was Gandhi’s policy of appeasement of Muslims that led
to partition and forced their mass expulsion (ethnic cleansing) from their
homeland. At least, a part of Punjab and a part of Bengal was saved as
Hindu lands due to the efforts of Savarkar. But Sindhis lost all their land to
Pakistan due to Gandhi, thousands of them were massacred, untold Sindhi
women were dishonoured. And yet Sindhis regard Gandhi as a hero!! They
pay homage to him on 15 August - the day of partition and independence of
India.

• / was born and brought up in Pune. There was a Sindhi gentleman named
Vasvani who lived in Camp (Cantonment) area of the city. Hp was a pioneer
in the field of education of Sindhi refugee boys and girls. He was also well
known for his philosophical discourses. I never met him, but heard of his
activities. The Citizens of Pune Camp named a street after him to show
their respect. (Sadhu Vasvani Marg).

In 1983 Indira Congress changed the name to Prince Agakhan Marg to

appease Muslims. Not one Sindhi protested, no one disfigured the new
nameplate. No one became angry. How shameless can the people be?

This is the situation TODAY. We cannot even imagine how obsessed

Hindus were by Gandhism during 1920 to 1948.

There are six main reasons why Savarkar’s image was tarnished by his
opponents.

1. Savarkar was realistic in dealing with the Muslims his opponents were
not

2. Savarkar’s Hindu opponents refused to protect Hindus during Muslim

riots

3. Foolish notion of Hindu Muslim unity of Savarkar’s Hindu opponents

4. Savarkar’s Hindu opponents would not protect Hindu interests

5. Savarkar’s Hindu opponents lacked logical thinking

6. Cowardice of Savarkar’s opponents.

Let us examine the six reasons in detail.

Why was Savarkar’s image
tarnished by his opponents?:
Reason No. 1
Savarkar was reaiistic in deaiing
with Musiims, his opponents were
not.
Like a true rationalist, Savarkar was realistic in dealing with the Muslims.
He was not a daydreamer like the majority of Hindus. While in jail in
Andaman Islands, he studied many religious texts including Koran. He
says, “I first read an English version of Koran, then a Bengali version. After
I was transferred to mainland India,

I read a Marathi version. Some of my Muslim friends emphasised that I

would enjoy the true beauty of Koran if it were read in Arabic. I therefore
read every page with as much devotion and sincerity as they would. A
Hindi translation was also done for me. I also read the English translation of
Koran written by Mohammad Ali in England.”

(My transportation for life p 272)

Savarkar as a realist exposed the mentality of Muslims ever since his

internment in 1924. Hindus, instead of thanking him for being frank on the
issue, cursed him. Surprisingly, the opposition came from two camps. The
orthodox Hindus and the followers of Gandhi.

In internment in Ratnagiri (1924-1937)

Hindus facing popuiation
haemorrhage
As early as 1925, Savarkar warned that the Population of Hindus is rapidly
diminishing. He said in Shirgav on 23 February 1925, “During the last
1,000 years, population of Hindus has been drastically reducing. In Asia,
Hindu population used to be 600 million. Today we are only 250 million.
Recent census (1921) has shown that even this shrinking population is still
further reduced by 2 to 2million Why? because of our lethargy. Taking
advantage of Gandhi’s obsession with Hindu-Muslim unity, Muslims have
converted Hindus by mere terror especially in

Sindh and the North West Frontier Province. We are also to blame for not
accepting into our fold the Hindus who were forcibly converted to Islam
and want to return to Hindu fold. Now it is therefore of utmost importance
that we should constantly practise re-conversion (Shuddhi) and abolish the
untouchability.”

“Look at the reality. Today in India we have a population of 310 million. Of

this, 220 million are Hindus and 70 million Muslims. If we allow the
situation to continue and in 30 or 40 years time, the ratio becomes 50 / 50.
Just think what will happen!!!”

(Ratnagiri Era pp 81/82 and 86/87)

Alas, orthodox Hindus did not listen. They proposed no methods of

countering Muslim aggression. They were blind to the reality and did not
realise the danger from Muslims. They therefore opposed Savarkar’s social
reforms - the removal of untouchability and Shuddhi. They even tried to
make Savarkar and his followers as outcasts!!

• There were many critics who ridiculed Savarkar’s efforts for Shuddhi (re-
conversion to Hindu Dharma). They said, ‘Oh, why are yeu bothered with
numbers? Let those want to leave the Hindu fold do so.’
Savarkar replied,” Yes, numerical strength is also a strength.” In his article
published in the Shraddhanand magazine of 17 February 1927, he says,

“But, my friends, why don’t you first teach that philosophy to our Muslim
brothers and Christian Missionaries? See how impatient they have
become!”

“The Aga Khan is spending millions of rupees in Gujarat on printing anti-

Hindu booklets and distributing them in thousands and also trying to
convert youngsters in hundreds. Look at the followers of Hasan Nizami.
They do not hesitate even to use prostitutes for conversion of Hindus to
Islam. Then there are gangs of Muslims in Sind and Bengal, who use
knives, swords

and daggers to abduct and force Hindu girls and young boys into the
Islamic fold. The courts have been working full time to sentence them for
such offences. Listen to the resolutions of Muslim conferences in Delhi.
Everyone from Muhammad AN to local gangster is screaming ‘Every
Muslim must convert at least ten to twelve Hindus to Islam.’

They dream of the day when Muslims will outnumber Hindus in

Hindusthan. Their ambition is to increase the Muslim population from 70
million to 150 million, from 150 to 170 million, from 170 to 200 million so
that more and more power - the dominance over Hindusthan, entire
administration will fall into Muslim hands. And they are quite open about
this ambition, make no mistake.”

“Look at Jinnah, Abdul Rahim, Gazanavi, that worker in Khilaphat

movement. Every Muslim is screaming, ‘increase Muslim population’
Increase our numbers!! We want power in proportion to our numerical
strength in Punjab and Bengal because we have a large Muslim population
there. We are less populated in Mumbai and Madras therefore we must be
given privileges. In villages our percentage is such and such. Therefore give
us so many seats on the Local Boards. Give us representation on District
Boards, and on Provincial Legislative Councils. Everywhere, Muslims are
obsessed with just one thing increasing their population.”
“All the time you say that Muslims are your brothers and Christians are
your friends. So, why don’t you shower them with your preaching - ‘why
are you so obsessed with numbers?’ How is it that you do not condemn
their monstrous, murderous attacks on Hindus? Forget our attempts of re-
conversions.”

“Time has come to expose the hypocrisy of our opponents who are
suggesting that our Shuddhi movement is purely to increase our numbers.
Of course, we want to increase our numerical strength. That is essential. If
we do not have number of people, whose qualities are we going to
improve? For the last thousand years, foreign religions have been busy at
increasing their

numbers. If we do not show our concern about our numbers, there will be
no Hindus left. Whose qualities would we improve then? You may say, ‘just
improve those who would be left.’ And what happens if they too leave the
Hindu fold?”

“Moreover, there is a limit to the increase in growth potential of a person or

any society. No matter how much we feed an ant, it will never become an
elephant. A bunch of grass remains a bunch of grass no matter how much
you feed. If we want to tie an elephant, a stick will remain a stick, but when
they are in large numbers together, large number of cotton fibres can be
formed into a rope which will tie an elephant.”

“Look at our epics and mythology. Our heroes in them were experts at
handling ten different weapons. But even they did not win battles without
the support a number of their backers. A famous saying about Lord Rama
was that none of his arrows was ever wasted. Yet he too needed the help of
a very large number of monkeys. Then only he could attack Lanka. This
was despite the fact that Rama was a r^ncarnation of Lord Vishnu. Ravan
himself is said to have ten heads and twenty hands. He too could not fight
without the help from thousands of Rakshasas. What about Lord Krishna?
He too could not conduct the Mahabharat War single-handed. From his
devotee Arjun to the demon like Ghatotkacha he had to collect hundreds of
thousands of soldiers to fight the war. Without them he was helpless.”
“You know the story of Muhammad Paigambar. In Mecca he was a
messenger of God, but he was all alone. He had to say his prayers (namaz)
in secret. He had to flee to Medina. But he increased his strength by
accepting to his creed, the poor, downtrodden, good or bad disciples
whomsoever he found. It was only then that he could enter the city of
Mecca. He always looked after the numbers as.well improving the quality
of his followers.”

‘The history of Muslim conquests is written in red ink with the obsession of
numbers. In Africa, whenever a territory was

conquered, Muslim ruler would demand half the tribute in cash, half in
women who were then distributed among the soldiers to produce Muslim
children."

“Muslims and Christians are increasing their numbers by force, deception

or by creating temptations even for the thieves and youngsters to this day.
Their action is not just for the benefit of the individual but also for
increasing their numerical strength. Today we are seeing millions of their
followers as against only a few that existed before and therefore they have
become intransigent. Who can deny that it is the result of their policy of
increasing their numerical strength?”

“Suppose Muhammad Paigambar had not adopted this aggressive policy, he

would have probably been left alone. Today we are seeing 200 million
Muslims all over the world (these are the figures of 1937. In 2002 there are
said to be 1,100 million Muslims on earth).”

“What happened during World War I? In which areas wefe the Germans
deficient? Did they lack fighting ability? No. They were superior to their
enemies in science, arms and bravery. But when America intervened, the
balance of numbers shifted in favour of Germany’s enemies. That was the
main reason for the German defeat. In view of this, and when we are faced
with the adversaries whose main zeal is to increase their numbers, it is
suicidal to preach, ‘Why bother about the loss of numbers? We only
increase the quality of those who remain.’ There is nothing that can be more
self-deceptive.”
[Note -In the period from June 1914 to June 1917 Britain, France, Germany,
Austria and other nations were all exhausted by the war. As soon as
America entered the war with her 100,000 fresh soldiers on the side of
Britain, the balance tilted firmly in favour of Britain and France. THAT IS
THE TRUTH.]

Savarkar continues, “Grandma tells stories to children about a giant who

holds ten men in one hand. But even the children who

believe in such stories know that the giant cannot hold all the men. There
will still be some who escape and fight the giant. How interesting that the
truth which even such children understand should elude our opponents. Or
may be, it is no surprise at all because to appease the Muslims, they must
say something against ‘Shuddhi’. They know very well that there is nothing
objectionable in Shuddhi. So they become naive and say, ‘Oh Hindus, don’t
worry about numbers. Let millions abandon Hindu Dharma. Whatever
small numbers will remain we will improve their quality.’ As if others are
going to reduce their abilities. Along with the numbers, their abilities are
also going to increase and when it comes to a fight for survival, those who
outnumber will survive.”

[Note -This is precisely what happened in World War II. Many

documentaries have recently been released and shown on the BBC about
the ferocious battles that were fought between Germany and Russia. One
historian uses the simile of elephant and ants. An elephant (Germany)
crushes thousands of ants (Russians) but, the ants that survive attack and
destroy the elephant. During World War II Russia lost20 to 25 million
soldiers. In the battle for Stalingrad alone, Russia lost a million soldiers. We
can quote two simple examples in our daily life. A blade of grass can easily
be torn, but it is difficult to tear a bale. The bale also gathers weight and
may even need a crane to lift. Take a sheet of writing paper - it has hardly
any weight. But when they are bound in large numbers for a book - it has
significant weight.]

Savarkar concludes, “If some one was thinking that we are only worried
about numbers, we do understand that only numbers will not suffice. That is
true. Qualities of people do matter. But, who told them that our movements
of Shuddhi and abandonment of the practice of untouchability are purely for
increasing our numerical strength? Who told them that we need only
numerical strength and not the strength of increased abilities?”

(S.S.V. 3 pp 29/39)

Muslims and the numbers game

* Muslims have been busy increasing their numbers all the time, even
today. One can only look at the census reports published every 10 years.

Under the pretext of following their religion, they want freedom to marry
four wives and produce as many children as possible.

* And on what basis was India partitioned? It was on the basis of

population!

British Government, in its paper of 3 June 1947 clearly states, “1941

Census figures will be taken as authoritative (Tor deciding on partition/”

* Morley Minto reforms of 1909 introduced separate electorates for

Muslims. There were censuses in 1911,1921,1931 and 1941. Muslims
cleverly inflated their population figures and Hindus, following the advise
of Gandhi and Nehru, boycotted the census and suffered as a consequence.
Let us take an example.

* In 1901, out of 48,500,000 people in the United Provinces (U.P)

41,300,000 were Hindus and nearly 7,000,000 were Mohammedans.

(India - Its administration and progress by Sir John Stretchey 1903, p320)

Now, the question is, if the 1901 census of U.P showed only 6% Muslims,
how did they become 15% of population in 1931? The same picture
emerged in other provinces too.

But Hindus remained aloof to such a game played by Muslims. They were
blind to reality and did not realise where the inflated percentage of Muslim
population was leading. The British not only gave separate electorates to
Muslims but also awarded them seats in Legislative assemblies, way above
their percentage of population. -As the Muslim inflated their population
every

f census the seats awarded to them also went up in leaps and 1 bounds.
However, Gandhi and Nehru advised Hindus to refuse ^ to take part in
collection of information for census. They said, 1t is disgrace that we
should be counted like cattle.” But they did f not advise Muslims also
accordingly. Hindus paid dearly for their

folly. Ultimately when India was partitioned it was based on ^ census of

1941.

I On one hand Muslims inflated their population figures and at the > same
time they infiltrated into other Hindu provinces (and the I trend continues
even today). Let us see what a British Viceroy

j had said.

' Viceroy Lord Wavell, in his diary noted:

22 December 1943

i ‘We went on to Assam and spent three days at Shillong.... The

native Assamese are lazy and likely to be ousted by more pushing but less
attractive Bengali Moslems. The chief political problem is the desire of the
Moslem ministers to increase this immigration into the uncultivated
Government lands under the slogan of ‘Grow more food’ but what they are
really after is ‘grow more Muslims.’

(Viceroy’s journal 1973, p 41)

More than 60 years had passed. And yet more and more Bengali Muslims
are still infiltrating into Assam with the blessings of Nehru, Indira Gandhi,
Rajiv Gandhi and other leaders. Once an M.P raised the question about this
infiltration in the Indian Parliament. Nehru shamelessly replied, ‘You see
we have made good economic progress, that is why Muslims migrate into
India.”

What about today? No change in Muslim mentality.

• Fifty five years have passed since Indian independence. Have ^ the
Muslims changed? Not even a little bit. In Britain, Hindus

and Muslims both equally suffer racial harassment and discrimination.

Moreover, the slang word used contemptuously by the English for all
Asians, is Paki (Pakistani) and not Indian.

And yet even under this condition, Muslims have not left their game of
misleading, abducting and running away with Hindu girls, convert them to
Islam and perpetually keep them in Muslim fold. The magazine Sangh
Sandesh frequently carries information on such Muslim atrocities. What a
pity that we still do not take note of the Muslim frame of mind.

• Have Muslims outside India changed with times? NOT ONE LITTLE
BIT!

Osama Bin Laden became notorious for masterminding the destruction of

Twin Towers of World Trade Centre in New York on September 11,2001.
Soon, newspapers gave his background. His father produced 57 children.
Bin Laden himself had three wives and 12 children.

• The European Convention on Human Rights was absorbed into British

Law in the year2000. Immediately, Muslims demanded that they MUST be
allowed to marry four wives, as it is their human right to do so. This means
of course that each Muslim will produce 14 children, because the wives
have human rights too to bear children.

• In 2000/2002 we heard heart-breaking stories of asylum seekers in Britain.

These Muslims claimed to have suffered unbelievable atrocities committed
on them by the likes of Saddam Hussein, but they still have another wife
back in their own countries. Savarkar, therefore quite rightly advised.

Say no to Hindu-Muslim marriages

• In his days Savarkar told Hindus quite openly, “Don’t give your daughters
to Muslims. It would be foolish. That would only increase the Muslim
population. Muslims will not give their daughters to Hindu boys.”

• In a letter dated 14 August 1928, he wrote, “I do not want a caste

distinction, but I want Hindutva to be retained. I have no objection to taking
food or water with or from non-Hindus, as long as hygiene and individual
tastes are observed. However,

we must draw a line at marriages. Inter marriages with nonHindus will only
increase non-Hindu population. When nonHindus are prepared to give and
take, inter-marriages may be considered. NOT AT PRESENT.”

(S.S.V3PP 643/4)

• During his internment in Ratnagiri, Savarkar wrote essays on

‘Abandonment of the caste system.’ In his essay of 5 May 1931, he states,

“Every Hindu should state Hindu as his caste. We preach that everyone is
indeed born Hindu. (To be honest every one should consider himself/herself
as Human being. But as long as Christians and Muslims do not accept this
ideal notion but simply want to forcibly convert Hindus into their fold,
Hindus must be on guard). In every census, we should state Hindu as our
caste, other descriptions such as goldsmith, washer-man should be
considered as professions.”

(S.S.V3 p 480)

• Savarkar wrote an article entitled, ‘What do we need to do to break the

caste system based on birth?’ in Kirloskar magazine of January 1935.

“Inter-caste marriages should take place. Any barrier to it needs to go.

There should be no worries about who marries whom. But, in the present
climate, there must be no inter-religious marriages unless the boy or girl is
converted to Hindu Dharma. As long as Muslims want to remain as
Muslims, Hindus too must remain as Hindus. When non-Hindus practice
only Humanism, Hindus too may follow suit. At present, it will be foolish
and suicidal to do otherwise.”
(S.S.V3 pp 86/87)

• Savarkar expressed the same feelings in his article entitled, “break down
the seven barriers.” published in Niithid magazine in August 1935.

Let us now see how Savarkar exposed the mentality of Indian Muslims

MUSLIM MENTALITY 1924

On 6 September Savarkar delivered a public lecture on the subject of

‘Attacks on the Hindus’. He said, “I have made a thorough study of the
Koran. In many places it does say ‘enforce Islam on Hindus (Kafirs) or kill
them.’ It ordains that every Muslim must try to convert a non-lslamic state
into an Isiamic one. During my imprisonment, I met ordinary Muslims as
well as their Mullahs and understood their intentions clearly. Maulana
Muhammad All has recently declared publicly, ‘If Afghanistan was to
invade India we would not resist them.’ Our friends who want to live in
day-dreams have conveniently forgotten these remarks. Read Dr Munje’s
report on atrocities committed by Muslims on Hindus in Malabar. In Sind,
Punjab and Bengal there are persistent attempts to convert Hindus to Islam.
In Bengal it has been revealed that 73% of criminal cases involved
kidnapping of Hindu boys and giris by Muslims. In courts, the culprits have
openiy declared that their religion (Isiam) sanctifies such deeds. Look at
recent riots in Gulbarga and Nagpur. If you want to stop this vicious cycle,
you have to take part in Hindu Sanghatan (organisation). Don’t aspire for
the mirage of Hindu Muslim unity.”

(R Era p 65)

• On 9 September 1924, Muslims created serious riots at Kohat in the North

West Frontier Province. 20,000 Hindus were displaced. Savarkar wrote a
sarcastic article, ‘The suffering Muslims of Kohat’ published on 1 March
1925. He says, “Our people were doubting my word. Now they should read
statements made by Maulana Shaukat Ali on the horrors of Kohat. Shaukat
Ali said, ‘Muslims have been converting Hindus to Islam for hundreds of
years. It is therefore their right to do so. Hindus however, have only
recently started re-conversion. It must
therefore be condemned. It will break Hindu-Muslim unity.” (R Era pp
82/84)

1925

November 16 and 17.

While discussing social reforms, Savarkar pointed out how in Kerala,

Muslims tried to convert untouchables (Ezvas) in Palghat area to Islam.
Their designs were thwarted by Swami Shraddhanand.

(R Era p 105)

1927

January

Swami Shraddhanand of Arya Samaj openly practised Shuddhi. He

converted thousands of Muslims in Rajasthan back to Hindu Dharma.
Angered by this, a Muslim fanatic named Abdul Rashid murdered the
Swami. And what was the reaction of Muslims? They rejoiced and
distributed sweets. In Calcutta Municipal Corporation, Muslims opposed
the resolution for condolences, they prayed for the murderer Rashid and
collected funds for his defence. When Hindus observed a day of mourning,
Muslim shopkeepers refused to close shops.

(SSV4 p53)

May

Muslims want to turn India into a predominantiy Musiim country

• Savarkar had condemned Gandhi’s policy of appeasing Muslims all the

time, in an article “which religion is peace loving?’ (27 May 1927) “Does
Gandhi know how many Muslims were forcibly converted to Hindu
Dharma or how many mosques were demolished by Marathas when they
achieved power? Not one. No Muslim was forced to embrace Hindu
Dharma and no mosque was demolished. So, which religion is peace
loving? Islam or Hindu Dharma?”
“We have no ulterior motive in opening up the past nor is there any reason
to do also. We only want to emphasise that if a

diagnosis is wrong, the treatment can be more harmful than the disease
itself. In a similar manner, Gandhi’s diagnosis is wrong and historically
proved to be unsound also. That is why we had to dig up the past events to
demonstrate.”

“The truth is that the majority of Muslims do not consider Hindusthan as

their land. They detest the large number of Hindus living here. That is the
root cause of the current conflict. Apart from a handful of reasonable
Muslims majority of them would like to see Hindusthan as a majority
Muslim country like Iran or Afghanistan or even Turkey. When that
happens they will love this land as their own. Barrister Amin has recently
said in a conference in Delhi that every Muslim must convert at least three
Hindus to Islam in the next ten years. After which, the independent country
will be Islamic. That is at the heart of the trouble. And no Muslim leader
condemns this tendency, no one even attempts to do that.” (S.S.V3 p 100)

November

Savarkar informed readers of the expulsion of Hindus from NWFP by

Muslims.

(SSV4 pp 165/7/8)

1928 24 May

Savarkar gave yet another example of the arrogance of Muslims. Read the 1
December 1927 edition of the paper Mublik Akhabar. It contains a telegram
sent by one Mahamand Farukh, editor of Umal-l-lslam to the Governor of
Punjab. He says ‘as the idol worshipping is against Islam, Muslims
becomes furious when they see Hindu processions which carry idols of
Hindu Gods. Therefore they must not be allowed to pass outside not only
Mosques but also Muslim shops!! The government is just and will prevent
provocation of Muslims by such processions.’
Savarkar commented — “This just goes to show how ignorant the Hindus
are. Above news appeared in December, we heard

about it in May, six months later. 1 had warned about the mentality of
Muslims. Once you stop music in front of their Mosques because it is said
to be against Islam, you have given Muslims a licence. They will demand
that Hindus should not blow conch or ring small bells, not only when
passing before Mosques, but also in front of any Muslim house. They will
then say that idol worship is against Islam. So, Hindus should stop that
practice. Just think, where will it end? Muslims are already demanding that
Satyartha Prakash of Arya Samaj should be banned because it criticises the
teaching of Islam.”

(SSV4 pp 190/1/2)

1930

In Ratnagiri, Savarkar agitated for the boycott of foreign made sugar.

Muslim shopkeepers of the town, except one, resisted the move.

(R Era p221)

Hindus preferred to be blind to reality In 1924 while speaking at Aligad,

Mahomed AN the famous disciple of Gandhi said, “However pure Mr
Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view of
religion inferior to any Musulman, even though he be without character.”

The statement created a great stir. Many did not believe that Mahomed AN
who testified to so much veneration for Gandhi, was capable of entertaining
such ungenerous and contemptuous sentiments about him. When Mahomed
AN was speaking at a meeting held at Aminabad Park in Lucknow, he was
asked whether the sentiments attributed to him were true. Mahomed AN
without any hesitation or compunction replied,” Yes, according to my
religion and creed, I do hold adulterous and a fallen Musulman to be better
than Gandhi.” This was reported in Times of India dated 21 March 1924.

(Thoughts on Pakistan by Dr Ambedkar pp 302/3)

And what happened to Mahomed AN after death? As per his

wishes his body was taken to Jerusalem for burial there. So much for his
love for India. '

(Ambedkar p 330)

Despite Muslims being so honest Hindus were blinded to reality by Gandhi

and Nehru. What could Muslims do?

SUICIDAL TENDENCY AMONG HINDUS

It is astonishing how suicidal even the staunch Hindus were. Let us take
three examples.

* On 19 January 1931, Mr Bhopatakar of Pune, the editor of the paper

Bhala wrote, “only those who accept and respect the trio, Gaay (cow),
Gayatri (famous mantra) and Gajanan (Lord Ganesh, the lord of wisdom)
are Hindus. If by our definition, 20 to 30 million Hindus cease to be
counted as Hindus in the next census, we are least concerned.”

(R Era p 222)

* A well known Mathematician of Pune Mr G.M.Joshi had his arguments

with Savarkar in January 1934. Savarkar asked, “Mr Joshi, is it not
necessary that we should re-convert the Hindus who were forcibly
converted to Islam?”

“There is no need whatsoever for such re-conversion” replied Mr Joshi.

(R Era p 298)

Even today, Muslims are trying to convert Hindus to Islam by every

despicable means available all over the world (in Europe also). Now
compare them with the staunch Hindus of the 1930s!! At a stroke, i.e. by
mere three words, Bhopatkar was willing to make 20 to 30 million Hindus
as non-Hindus. And Mr Joshi, B.A (Honours) was saying that there was no
need to re-convert the Hindus of Malabar (Kerala) who were forced to
accept Islam by terror in 1921 !!
As the English saying goes, ‘With friends like these, who needs enemies?”
SUICIDAL PRACTICES
Savarkar has given some glimpse of suicidal practises of Hindus
1929
* Hindu girls who have not been married by the age of 12 are left
abandoned in mosques in Kashi (so that they could be married to Muslims
and raise Muslim children).

{SSV 3, pp 506/7)

* In Central Province, there is a community of Rajputs named Halabi. They

consider it as their duty to give away to MUSLIMS illegitimate children
born to widows and unmarried Hindu women. But when some well
intentioned Hindus asked for those children, they were told, “Oh no, we
will only give them to Muslims, not to you. And without that action the
fallen women would not be accepted by our community.” Thousands of
children born illegitimate in this community become MUSLIMS!! Mr
Jagannathprasad Varma recently wrote an article about this practice in the
paper Kesari.

(SSV3 pp 410/1/2)
1932
While concluding the Vasant Vyakhyanamala at Ratnagiri on 22 May
Savarkar pointed out that during the recent riots by Muslims in Kashmir,
4,000 Hindus had become Muslims because they ate food prepared by
Muslims.

{R Era, pp 261/262)
1934
* In March, while Savarkar was visiting a village named Khed, he came to
know that at Sanglat (Tarkhede) some Hindus belonging to Burud {those
who make articles from bamboos), Nhavi (Barbers) and Sutar (carpenter)
castes ate food with Muslims. As a result they faced social boycott from
their respective castes and were forced to become Muslims. Savarkar

then sent his followers to carry out shuddhi of those people. (REra p306)

This was 10 years after Savarkar had come to live in Ratnagiri. One can
only imagine how much more difficult the re-conversion must have been on
the Andaman Islands.

* In April Savarkar came to know of yet another story. In a village named

Mahad, a dumb girl belonging to Katkari caste became pregnant. As a result
the villagers made her family outcast who then had to embrace Islam as a
result. Once again Savarkar sent his disciples to re-convert the family back
to Hinduism. (REra p307)

* With encouragement from Savarkar, some charitable institutions were

started by well meaning people. In a letter of 4 December 1934, Savarkar
wrote to Mr Navare of Shraddhanand Women’s Institution of Mumbai.

“I accept that our assisting the fallen women might suggest to some that we
encourage immorality. However, at present, it is not possible to find and
punish the guilty party, i.e. men who make such women pregnant. As long
as Muslim Mullahs and Christian Missionaries are on the lookout for such
helpless women to increase their numerical strength, we have no option but
to look after such women.”

“It is far more despicable to allow such women to fall pray to Muslims and
Christians than to look after them or not being able to punish the guilty
party. Many thanks for all the work you are doing. May God bless you.”

(R Era, pp 320/321)
1935

Savarkar wrote a true tragic story in Balwant paper of Ratnagiri in its issue
of 27 March.

“In the village Devarukh, a helpless Hindu woman beggar gave

birth to a child on 13 March in a Dharmashala. A Muslim scavenger offered

her money and clothes if she agreed to become a Muslim and sell her son to
the scavenger. When two Hindu Mahasabha workers saw this, they offered
her some help and asked her to desist from her decision. Immediately the
Muslim took all the clothing back which he had given to her. He even
refused her permission to keep the clothes to protect her modesty at least till
the Hindu workers could make some arrangements. Besides he set fire to
the clothes and bedding he had given to her. When the Hindu workers
narrated her story to the Hindu villagers, they offered her some food and
milk. But after 10 days, no one would give her any shelter as she had taken
food from the Muslim scavenger!! In the end the Hindu workers sent her to
a Hindu women’s institution in Ratnagiri.”

Referring to this pitiable case, Savarkar wrote, “My friends, every day we
know such incidents happen. Help such helpless women. That is a service
to God.”

(REra pp 328/9)

OPPOSITION FROM ORTHODOX HINDUS

One can understand opposition to Savarkar by Muslims, unfortunately he

also had to face opposition from Orthodox Brahmins and upper classes who
were blind to reality. They also did not realise the serious threat posed by
Muslims. Here are some well-known examples.

1921

In August came the news of terrible atrocities committed by Moplas on

Hindus in Malabar. In Nagpur there was a movement to start reconverting
those Hindus who were forcibly converted to Islam. A public meeting was
held under the chairmanship of Shankaracharya Dr Kurtakoti of Karveer
and he agreed that Shuddhi of Hindus forcibly converted to Islam should
take place. And who opposed this move? Muslims? NO. It was the
conservative, orthodox Hindu Brahmins who opposed!!. Their leader Veda
Shastra Samapanna Telang of Nagpur put out a

statement on 19 October 1921 that during Kaliyuga (present age), there are
only Brahmins and Shudras, i.e. there are no Kshatriyas (warrior class) and
Vaishyas (business community) (Biography of Dr Munje by Mrs 1/ Hardas,
1981 part 2 page 49)

The learned Brahmin did not think, “What happened in Malabar can easily
happen in my town, Muslim rioters will not hesitate to dishonour my wife
and daughters. How can I protect myself?" That did not bother him at all.
Moreover, if Hindus do not have any Kshatriyas, who will maintain law and
order and protect our Dharma? The learned Brahmin did not provide any
answer.

1929

January

Brahmins of Kashi decided to accept Shuddhi but not the removal of

untouchability.

(R Era p 183)

December

Savarkar tells us of an extraordinary declaration.

Shreemad Paramhansa Parivrakacharya Jagadguru Shree Shankaracharya

Sharada Peethadhishwar Shreeamd Rajarajeshwarashram Maharaj - put out
a statement for untouchables.

* Do not be tempted to make an attempt to enter Hindu temples.

* It is your interest to follow the traditional religion (i.e. observe

untouchability).
* If you do that, in the next birth, you would be born in a High caste family.

(SSV4 pp 230/234)

1930

November

In his article on ‘desirability or otherwise of present caste system’ Savarkar

examined the ridiculous concepts of cleanliness and purity of mediaeval
Hindus. He wrote, “Once, our ancestors went as far as Indo-China,
Zanzibar, Guatemala, but after it was

declared that any Hindu who crosses the sea would lose his caste and cease
to be a Hindu, we lost all overseas trade and became dependant on
foreigners. The funny thing was if foreign merchants came to our towns and
cities there was no ban on any relations with them. That did not affect
anyone’s caste. And thus we find that our kings granted concessions to
foreign merchants to trade in India, the concessions which, they would not
grant to their own kith and kin. Our people would lose their caste by
seafaring. But it would not matter if foreigners take away our country and
rule over us and drain our wealth to foreign countries. That was
acceptable.”

(SSV3 p437)

1931

Bhalakar Bhopatkar, editor of the paper Bhala (spear) of Pune opposed all
social reforms of Savarkar. He vehemently maintained that caste division
MUST remain. He did not accept invitation to go to Ratnagiri. Savarkar
was interned in Ratnagiri and could not go to Pune for a discussion.

{R Era, p 243)

1933

* Famous Mathematician, Mr G M Joshi of Pune stated in December that

one who crosses the seas cannot remain a Hindu. (R Era p298)
1939

Davare, one of the followers of Savarkar took part in Bhaganagar

Satyagraha for upholding the rights of Hindus in Hyderabad state. But he
still believed that untouchables should not be admitted to public places like
cafes.

(H MS Era, p 149)
Examples of impending danger
Even during his internment, Savarkar had pointed out the impending danger
to Hindus. Here are some examples.

1928

March

In Ankaleshwar in Bhadoch District of Gujarat, 30 Untouchables became

Muslims. Immediately, they were allowed to draw water from public wells
though they were denied that right by high caste Hindus when they were
Hindu untouchables. (SSV4, p 177)

1931

September 27

In Karadgar near Belgaum, High caste Hindus would not allow

untouchables to draw water from public wells. So, 450 Mahars became
Muslims. Immediately they got equal rights and started drawing water from
public wells. The Mahars abandoned their gods and converted their temple
into a mosque. But that was perfectly acceptable to High caste Hindus
there.

(R Era pp 248/9)

Savarkar bluntly asked, “What would happen if this trend continues?” The
conservatives were un-concerned.

Survival is a basic human instinct. When faced with a calamity, civil war or
insurrection one asks, “How can my family survive? How can I protect the
honour of our women folk?” But not high caste Hindus.

One could set aside humanity or philosophical arguments, at least for the
mere survival High caste Hindus should have listened to Savarkar, but they
did not.

After Release From Internment (1937-1966)

After May 1937 Savarkar was free to express his views and concerns in
public.

Here are some examples

On 30 December 1937, during the annual session of Hindu Mahasabha,

Savarkar, in his presidential speech, explained the mentality of Muslims in
India without any reservations.

“Whatever may happen some centuries hence, the solid fact of today cannot
be ignored that religion wields mighty influence on the minds of men in
Hindusthan and in the case of Mohammedans, especially their religious
zeal, more often than not, borders on fanaticism! Their love towards India
as their motherland is but as handmaid to their love for their Holy land
outside India. Their faces are ever turned towards Mecca and Madina. But
to the Hindus Hindusthan being their Fatherland as well as their Holy land,
the love they bear to Hindusthan is undivided and absolute. They not only
form the overwhelming majority of Indian population but also have on the
whole been trusted champions of Her cause. A Mohammedan is often found
to cherish an extra-territorial allegiance, is moved more by events in
Palestine than what concerns India as a Nation, worries himself more about
the well being of the Arabs than the well being of his Hindu neighbours and
countrymen in India. Thousands of Mohammedans could be found
conspiring with the Turkish Khilaphatists and Afghans with an object to
bring about a foreign invasion of India if a Mohammedan rule could thus be
established in this land.”

(Hindu Rashtra Darshan pp 14/15)

Savarkar emphasised all along that Hindus must realise the true disposition
of Muslims, appreciate the problems created by them and face them with
vigilance.
“In Hindusthan there are two nations opposed to each other. It is wrong to
assume that they have united into one nation or that the unification can
simply happen by a wish. Many politicians make this childish mistake. Our
well intentioned but thoughtless friends assume that their dreams are true.
They therefore do not understand the communal problem and blame
‘communal’ organisations. The so-called communal problem has deep roots
in the century old conflict: religious, cultural and national. In due course of
time, you will be able to resolve it, but you cannot suppress it by denying its
existence. It is much better to analyse this deep-ro'oted malaise instead of
ignoring it. Let us be honest

and face the unfortunate situation. We can do only one thing at the moment.
No one will get special concessions or representations. We will not try to
buy loyalty by any offerings. That is all that we can do at this stage.”

(S.S.V6 p296)

Speaking as the President of Hindu Mahasabha he said in 1938 at its annual

session, “The main criterion to forge a nationhood is the desire to forge
such a union. The important question is - do the Indian Muslims have a
desire to be united with Hindus? That is the 26 million dollar question.
Congressite Hindus never cared to answer this basic question. They stopped
their sessions for hours for the Muslim prayers, Namaz but never
considered this question. Even today, in their free time they do not seek the
answer.”

“It is not enough to say that the Muslim League is communal. There is
nothing new. Muslims as a whole, including those who are in the Congress,
are communal. We need to understand why they are so communal.
Congressite Hindus never dared to raise this question. They knew that the
search would invalidate their assertion that the geographical unity leads to
national unity. They feared that their dream of Indian unity would prove to
be a mirage. You cry - Religious fanaticism, thick headedness, and
foolhardiness. But, for Muslims, Religious fanaticism is something to be
proud of. It is useless cursing that tendency. You must face it head on.”

“Congress leaders are ignorant of the history, religion and political outlook
of the Muslims. It is but natural that the Muslims should be disinterested in
the geographical concept of nationhood of Congress leaders.”

“Indian Muslims have not come out of the shell of their deeply rooted
religious loyalty and religious concept of a state. As per their religious
belief, the world is divided into two parts, Muslim land and enemy land. All
territories settled by Muslims or ruled by Muslims are Muslim lands. The
lands populated by non

Muslims or ruled by non-Muslims are enemy lands and no Muslim must

have any loyalty to that enemy land. Not only that, every Muslim must, by
his capacity, by hook or crook, convert non-Musiims to isiam even by force
or coercion if necessary. It is also their duty to invite a Muslim nation to
invade such an enemy territory to conquer that land. It is no use quoting a
few sentences here and there. Read the Koran fully to understand the
Muslim attitude. Moreover, it is not what the book says, what is important
is how its followers behave. If you study the history of Muslims and their
current behaviour, you will realise that they follow the pattern that I have
just depicted.”

“Any Muslim, if he is a true Muslim, and most of them are deeply religious,
is unable to be loyal to Hindusthan either as a state, nation or territory.
Because that is an enemy land. Here nonMuslims are in majority and here
the rulers are non-Muslims. So, on both accounts, Muslims are alienated.”

“If Muslims have despised a community most, it is the Hindus. Because

whatever their differences with Christians or Jews, their religious texts have
something in common with Koran. But, Hindus are 100% Kafirs.”

(S.S.V6 p320)

• On 1 August 1939, Savarkar spoke at the famous TilakSmarak Mandir in

Pune. He discussed the policies of Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose and
Manavendra Nath Roy. The last leader had just published a book on the
history of Islam. Savarkar commented,

“Roy has testified that he has read Muslim texts and that Islam treats all
human beings equally. He further said that throughout the history, Islam
was never spread by violence or force of arms.”
“Well, I too have read some Muslim texts. Islam treats everybody equally
but whom? It treats other Muslims equally, not nonMuslims. Their religion
divides the world into two sections. Muslim and non-Muslim. They regard
non-Muslim lands as lands of

the enemy, which must be conquered by the sword. YES. This is what their
religion propagates.”

(S.S.V4 p528)

• On 2 August 1941, speaking in front of the famous Shanivarwada in Pune,

he reiterated his thoughts, “No matter what concessions Congress offers to
Muslims, they will ultimately sting Congress and will not stop until the
break up of Bharat. Because, according to Islam, the world consists of only
two parts. One, which accepts Islam and the other, which does not - the
lands of Kafirs. Their religion itself says quite bluntly ‘any one who does
not accept Islam or wants to change faith from Islam shall be punished by
death.’ The roots of their current riots are in this thinking. It is stupid of the
newspapers to say that the riots were caused by Gundas (even though they
were all Muslims) and they were opposed by the other set of Gundas (who
were all Hindus). There is no need for any commission of enquiry or any
testimonies. Just examine carefully Mr Jinnah’s speeches and pamphlets.
He says quite openly that their riots are political and are for the creation of
Pakistan and will not stop until they get Pakistan. Try to understand the core
of their arguments and be determined to oppose them firmly.”

(S.U.I Era p 141)

• Three days later he said, “Muslims are fiercely religious and therefore
Pakistan is cast in their own frame of mind. Their religion says quite clearly
that any one who renounces Islam and accepts another religion shall be
killed. And even today, Muslims will not hesitate to carry out such a
punishment. That is their concept of bravery, whether one thinks it right or
wrong. They do not care. Just a few years ago, in North India, one Muslim
was killed by another Muslim simply because he embraced Hindu Dharma.
And in the subsequent trial, his Muslim Barrister declared in open court that
the killing was justified according to Koran.”
Well, you may think that this episode was imaginary. Here is the proof
quoted in a book by a weii- known Indian leader. He says,

“Nathuramal Sharma was murdered by Abdul Qayum in September 1934. It

was an act of great daring. For, Sharma was stabbed to death in the court of
the Judicial Commissioner of Sind where he was seated awaiting the
hearing of his appeal against his conviction under section 195 of the Indian
Penal Code for the publication of a pamphlet on the history of Islam. ... Mr
Barkat AH, a Barrister of Lahore, ... argued the appeal of Abdul Qayum. He
went to the length of saying that Qayum was not guilty of murder of
Nathuramal because his act was justifiable by the law of the Koran.”

(Thoughts on Pakistan by Dr B.R.Ambedkar, 1946, pp 156/7)

Savarkar continued, “If a Muslim renounces Islam he should be denounced

as a fallen and should be liquidated and if a Kafir (non-Muslim) embraces
Isiam he should be regarded as a hero — since this is their religious
commandment. It is easy to see that the creation of Pakistan is rooted in
their religion. Moreover, the British rulers, are also deeply involved in the
creation of Pakistan.”

Pakistan originated in Koran.

“Pakistan has not been created by Jinnah, it was inherent in Koran itself.
Koran states that there are two parts of the world Dar-ul-lslam and Dar-ul-
Har. The first is Muslim land while the second is the land of Kafirs.
Whosoever is a Kafir or belongs to Dar-ul-Har should be killed. Muslims
are fanatically religious. They do not hesitate to put their religious
commandment into practice.”

(S.S.V4 pp 506/7)

No conversion activities ailowed in Islamic countries even today

56 years after above lecture of Savarkar, Archbishop Kerry of England

visited Pakistan. Covering his visit to that country, British newspapers of
6/7 December 1997had to admit that even today, in Pakistan, if a Muslim
renounces Islam and becomes a Christian, he is subjected to death sentence.
YES, that is the fact of life today.

Perhaps now, the reader could appreciate why Mother Teresa chose to stay
in Calcutta and not in Dacca.

If the Hindus want to be blind to the reality, what can the Muslims do?

• Savarkar’s 61^ birthday was celebrated in Mumbai in May 1943.

Accepting people’s congratulations he said, “If Muslims were to join in and
form a new nation with us Hindus, we would be delighted. We want that.
But what is the point of running after those who say, ‘We do not belong
here. We have nothing in common with you.”

(S.U.IEra p201)

* Even 60 years after Savarkar’s 61^ birthday we Hindus are determined

not to be wiser by our history. On 15 August 1997, fifty years had passed
since the partition of India. No one remembered the barbaric atrocities
committed by Muslims on Sikhs and Non-Sikh Hindus. A group of Hindus
marched from Amritsar to the border with Pakistan. They chanted slogans
‘Hindu Muslim Bhai Bhai’ (Hindus and Muslims are brothers). They
offered sweets, flowers and fruits. Not even a donkey came from Pakistan
to greet these lunatics. Undaunted by this rebuff, Hindus are determined to
make such attempts every year on 15 August. What I am saying is not the
fantasy. The monthly ‘India Today’ and The Daily Telegraph (of London)
published this news with photographs.

On 11 October 1997 BBC 2 broadcast a programme ‘50 years on

Independence: Indian Art and Culture’. (11:20 to 11:50). In it the above
behaviour of stupid Hindus was shown.

MUSLIMS AND URDU

As Muslims wanted to show that they were different from Hindus they
maintained that Urdu was the mother tongue of ALL Muslims, and
therefore, in the interest of Hindu-Muslim unity Hindus should accept Urdu
as national language. Gandhi and his followers
meekly accepted this demand.

Here are some examples

1937

While speaking at Badoda (Gujarat) on 12 September, Savarkar stated that

Urdu has become a state language in Bihar.

(SSV 4 p 439)

1938

Savarkar was elected President of Maharashtra Literary Confrence. In his

address on 15 April he said, “Even among Muslims, Urdu it is NOT mother
tongue of the majority. But they are so obsessed that even Muslims of
Bengal, Madras and Konkan region of Maharashtra are demanding that
Urdu become the national language. Muslims do not want unity with
Hindus. They want our total capitulation.”

“For the last two years, Nehru was President of the Congress. He ordered to
make Urdu the National language. Subhash babu (Bose) went even further
and said that Roman script be the national script of India. This is a mere
ploy to appease Muslims.

I say to you that even this will not satisfy Muslims.”

{SSV 4, pp 472, 475/6)

On 20 May, Savarkar delivered a speech at Ajmer. He pointed out that, in

the NWFP, rights of the minority i.e. Hindus (including Sikhs) are openly
ignored. Hindi and Gurumukhi are banned and Hindu children are forcibly
taught in Urdu. On the other hand in C.P and U.P, Muslims are in minority,
but, at their request, even Hindus are being forced to learn Urdu!!

(SSV 4 pp 345-8)

1944
*ln May Savarkar pointed out, “Even Bengali Muslims have now become
obsessed with Urdu. I had warned the Bengali Hindus about this danger 7
years ago, they did not believe me.”

{S.U.I. Era pp 274/5)

* In June Savarkar said that as Sir Mirza Ismael the Divan (Chief Minister)
of the state of Jaipur is a Muslim, he has declared'that Urdu was the state
language of Jaipur. In Bengal and Konkan (Maharashtra), Muslims are
demanding that the affairs of their states should be run in Urdu.

(S. U. I. Era pp 276)

Notes

* Jinnah himself could not speak Urdu. In public he used to speak in

English and that was translated into Urdu.

* On 15 February 1948, Jinnah visited Dacca and declared that Urdu was
the national language of Pakistan. There were huge demonstrations by
Bengali Muslims against this declaration in Dacca.

In 1971 Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan. Encyclopaedia Britannica of

1974 (volume 13) tells us - Urdu was the mother tongue of only about 7.6
percent of the population of the Pakistan in 1961; it was a minority
language in every province.

* One has to remember with dismay that even Bose did not have the
courage to advise Muslims that they should love their own respective Indian
languages and not be obsessed with Urdu!!

MUSLIM DEMANDS WILL GO ON INCREASING ALL THE TIME

Ever since 1927, Savarkar had been warning Hindus that Muslim demands
will be ever increasing, you give them an inch they will take a mile.

(SSV3,pp 51/52)

1937
December 12

Savarkar addressed the Central Province Literary Conference at Nagpur. He

said, “Our writers have been obsessed with Hindu Musiim unity and have
started perverting our History to please Muslims. Recently I have read some
school textbooks. It stated that in the century, Harpaldev of Devagiril was
imprisoned

by Muslims, when in fact they skinned him alive! Again it was mentioned
that, in the 17*^ century, Maratha King Sambhaji was imprisoned by
Aurangzeb, when in fact he was tortured to death and tiis body was cut limb
by limb. Why do you write such false history? Because it exposes the
barbarism of Muslim rulers and makes today’s Muslims angry? Do not
falsify history to please them.*

^SS\/4 pp 439-444)

1939

31 August

While speaking at Law College, Pune, Savarkar said, “The Congress Party
always wants to grant concessions grossly disproportionate to the
percentage of Muslims in our population. But I warn them that Muslims
will never be satisfied. I say to Muslims, ‘If you come, with you, if you do
not, without you, if you oppose by defeating you, Hindus will win their
independence.” (HMS Era p 247)

1940 IMay

While on tour of Southern India, Savarkar again warned that Muslims will
constantly increase their demands. Stop appeasing them. There is no end to
it.

(HMS Era p 334)

1943
On 9 June, Savarkar was publicly honoured in Mumbai. Wrangler R P.
Paranjape was in the chair and he said, ‘Savarkar is right. Muslims will
never be satisfied with a compromise.’

(S.U.I Era pp 207/08)

Nehru, in his book Discovery of India expresses his utter frustration in

trying to satisfy demands of the Musiim League (ref pages 386 to 394). But
did he learn any lesson? NO.

TREACHERY OF CONGRESS LEADERS

The followers of Gandhi were obsessed with the mirage of Hindu Muslim
unity that they went to unimaginable lengths to appease Muslims. When
they came to power in 1937, they used the power to encourage the
intransigence of Muslims even further. Here are some details.

1938

2 January

Nehru said to Jinnah ‘We will give you whatever you ask for’, which meant
a death warrant for Hindus of Bengal. {HMSEra.p 72)

7 February

Savarkar attended the meeting of Working Committee of Hindu Maha

Sabha at Delhi. He explained that the Jinnah / Rajendra Prasad treaty and
Nehru’s endorsement of it were dangerous. (H M S Era p 79)

24 February

Swami Satchinand of Hindu Maha Sabha warned Bose, the President of

Congress Party that Congress will accede to Jinnah’s demands and Bose
needs to protect the Hindu interests in Bengal. (HMS Era p 85)

In May, Jinnah made his infamous 14 demands (HMSEra.p117)

1939

On 23 March, Savarkar attended the SP' annual session of Bihar Hindu

Sammelan. In his speech, he explained the treachery of the Congress
Leaders,

“Sadly, in U.P there have been more Muslim riots under the Congress
Administration than under the British. Replying to accusations of partiality
by the Muslim League, various chief ministers have openly stated how they
always suppress Hindus

and do not pay any attention to their grievances. Mr Panta the chief minister
of U.P said, ^we have ruled that during the days of Muhram, Hindus should
not play any music, not only in front of mosques, but even in their own
temples. In Barabanki, Hindus were forbidden even to blow conch during
Muharam. In Jaunpur, Hindus were forbidden to throw coloured liquids on
each other. Hindus need permission to carry out any procession, Muslims
have no such restriction.’

{SSV4, pp 337/8)

Savarkar also said, “In NWFP in the region of Bannu, Pathans constantly
kidnap Hindu girls and sell them like vegetables. When this question was
raised in the Central Legislative Assembly, Congress leaders said, ‘Induced
by poverty, Pathans carry out such raids to satisfy their sexual need. There
is nothing communal or ant-Hindu in such activities. No police actions
should be taken against Pathans.”

{HMSEra,pp 196-8)

How shameless can one bell But Gandhi’s capitulation to Muslims knew no
bounds.

On 1 August, Savarkar spoke at Pune. Once again he exposed the treachery

of Congress Administrations. In U.P the Chief Minister Mr Govind
Vallabha Panta published a leaflet in Urdu {called Itlak) and distributed it to
Muslims only. But, Hindu Maha Sabha found a copy and distributed
thousands of copies to Hindus. Panta says, ‘In U.P Muslims are only 12%
of the population, {even this was an inflated figure) yet in no department of
the civil sen/ice are they less than 33%, in police they'are 75%. Among one
caste of Hindus there is a tradition of women beating drums during the
marriage ceremony. As soon as we heard that Muslims object to this, we
banned the Hindu tradition. In Benares, Muslims rioted, but we put out a
curfew for 48 hours on Hindus only.’

{SSV4, p 529)

December

Hindu Maha Sabha held its annual session in Calcutta. In his presidential
speech, Savarkar pointed out how, in U.P, the Congress government badly
treated Hindus. Out of 4 men promoted to the post of collector 3 were
Muslims, out of 14 Deputy Collectors, 8 were Muslims.

And what was the end result of this blatant partiality to Muslims? When the
Congress Ministry resigned in November 1939, Muslims celebrated it as a
day of liberation!! [Despite Muslim League’s joy at resignations of
Congress Governments in various provinces. Dr Rajendra Prasad, President
of Congress made friendly gestures towards Mr Jinnah!!]

(H M S Era p291)
1940
December

In Karnavati (Ahmedabad), in the municipal elections, Hindus voted

Congress into power with disastrous consequences. In a big school there,
1,100 students were Hindus and 80 were Muslims. Vande Mataram, the
famous national song was banned because Muslim students objectedi
{HMS Era, p 394)

* Muslims committed terrible atrocities on Hindus in Sind. But the

Congress remained silent.

{HMS Era, pp 395/6)

* Rajaji and other Congress leaders declared that if Muslim League insisted
on Pakistan, no one would oppose it.

{HMS Era, p 397)

1941
In December, the Muslim League government in Bengal banned Durgapuja
in Dinajpur, Maimansingh and Budge. But Congress did not protest. Hindus
defied the ban.

(S UI Era, p 153)
1942
* On 1 March, Savarkar spoke in Lucknow. He said, “Britain needs the help
of Hindus to fight Japan, yet Rajaji is offering 50% seats of power to
Muslims.”

(S UI Era pp 72/73).

Indeed on 1 May Rajaji declared in Madras ‘Give Muslims whatever they

ask.’

(S.U.l Era, p SI)

September

It is astonishing how even some Hindu Maha Sabha leaders were anxious to
talk to Jinnah. They never asked, ‘Why Jinnah should not be anxious to talk
to us? Why should he not make the first move?’ Despite the appeal from
Savarkar Dr Mukharjee did go to see Jinnah.

(S.U.I Era, pp 102- 6)

December

Gandhi shamelessly wrote to Jinnah, “If the Muslim League would co-
operate with Congress and demand immediate independence on the
condition that allied forces remain in India we will not object if ALL the
power in the hands of the British is transferred to Muslim League.

(S UI Era, pp 120/1)

Can treachery go any further?

One may then ask - what could have been done?

HOW TO DEAL WITH
MUSLIMS?
Savarkar offered two answers - Shuddhi and no capitulation to Muslim
demands.

Support shuddhi

Savarkar appealed to Sadhus, Sanyasis and religious Gurus to make Hindus

strong, powerful and united. He clearly warned, “You will survive only If
the Hindu nation survives.”

One can easily ask-what happened to Hindu Gurus in Pakistan? They too
had to flee to India.
1924
In September, Savarkar was honoured by Sadhus of Panchavati (Nasik). He
said to them, “Our Sadhus should not just recite the name of Rama, they
should make Hindus strong.”

{R Era, p 65)
1927
Savarkar asked, “If a Hindu becomes Muslim by taking food with him, why
does not that particular Muslim become Hindu by the same token?”

(S S V3 pp 499/500)
1932
In January the British Government went into action against the Congress
activists in response to Gandhi’s Civil disobedience movement. They also
declared Bhramhacharya Ashram of Masur illegal. Masurkar Maharaj, who
carried out shuddhi, was arrested. (R Era. p 254)

It was clear that though the Maharaj had not taken part in Gandhi’s
movement, British Administration did not like his work of shuddhi. So they
arrested him and declared his organisation illegal. BUT all the Sadhus
remained silent!!
1939
In March, Savarkar started his movement to uphold the legitimate rights of
Hindus in Hyderabad state. During one of his speeches, he said, “Oh
sadhus, mahantas, gurus and Shankaracharyas don’t just eat sweets offered
to you, work for Hindus. It is you who should have taken part in this
movement to uphold the dignity of Hindus. Where are those who make
annual pilgrimage to Vithoba in Pandharpur? Where are the followers of
Sant (Saint) Ramdas?”

(H M S Era p 207)

Be firm with Musiims . »

• In Bengal, there is a place called Patvakhali. There were hardly one or two
Hindu processions that passed outside the local mosque. But in 1927
Muslims demanded that the processions must stop their music in front of
the mosque. A satyagraha by Hindus followed. It carried on for eight
months. Savarkar wrote, ‘It should be clear to our enemies that Hindus have
such tenacity. And therefore they have survived for thousands of years and
will survive for thousands more.’

(S.S.V4 pp 155/156)
1929
• After the Muslim riot of 1929 in Bombay, Savarkar wrote, “Thus ended
the much threatened riot. It went through the stages of birth, life and death.
Now let us do a post-mortem on it. Hindus were going to be routed but in
fact so many Hindus are still alive. What a surprisell Rather it is difficult to
know how many Hindus died in the riot.”

“Ever since January we were reading various reports of public and private
meetings of Muslims in Calcutta warning that the end of Hindus is fast
approaching. Before the riot Muslims had made various prophesies,
especially after the Nehru Report on Indian Constitution. Shaukat Ali said.

‘Hindus tease me and pass the Nehru Report? They will soon be taught a
lesson. Now our knives will come out.’ Mohammad Ali said, ‘Hindus are
like dirt. They will be blown off In sky.’ The magazine, Muslim Outlook
said, ‘If it comes to that, we will invite the Pathans and establish a Muslim
rule over Hindus.’

Mullas and Maulavis issued many Fatwas and added to the gloom. They
only disagreed on how many Hindus can one Muslim kill. Some said five,
some hundred. We worked that the average figure was 29 and that too
Hindusthani Muslims, when Pathans join in, Hindus will be wiped out in no
time.

Then came the news that riots have started in various parts of Mumbai. We
read that all Muslims have become one and are attacking Hindus. And...?
We saw Pathans, but running away in fear. They were shouting ‘Please
help. Save us from these Hindus.’ What a surprise. It was even more
surprising to see Shaukat Ali also screaming that Hindus were liquidating
Pathans. Very soon both Shaukat Ali and Mohammad Ali fled Bombay and
reached Delhi.

Thus, even though an average Muslim was to overpower at least 29 Hindus

and thousands of such superior Muslims attacked, Hindus have survived.
The long awaited riot had come and gone. It is true that thousands of
Hindus have left Bombay, but they included large proportion of shrewd
persons who did not want to be present at the time of police enquiry and get
caught.”

“At present not many persons are going to testify in front of the Simon
Commission, but this riot can testify. Sir Simon need not ask the question.
‘If the British Police were to go, who would protect you?’ This riot has
answered the question. For several days there were no effective police
stations in Bombay. We did not feel the presence of the British Authorities
for some days. AND yet Hindus survived. They beat and triumphed over
the Muslim rioters from building to building. They can similarly survive
happily in the rest of India without the British.”

Finally Savarkar made a sarcastic remark, “The Government should

consider one thing carefully. In future, if there are rumours of such riots and
they subside without any damage to Hindus, the situation will backfire. Just
as Hindus will not be afraid of the riots, they will also not be afraid of the
British and throw them out.”

(S.S.V4 pp 213-217)

• In the 1920s, a Punjabi Muslim published a poem entitled ‘Kishan Teh

Geeta Jalani Padegi’ It was highly offensive and repugnant to Hindus. As a
reply, Rajpal, an Aryasamaj preacher published a booklet entitled ‘Rangila
Rasool’ depicting sex life of

Prophet Mohammad, based on historical facts. Muslims filed suit in court

against Rajpal. But as his book just contained only factual information, the
courts released him. Eventually a fanatic named llamdeen murdered Rajpal.
In 1929 Savarkar wrote,

“And things went badly wrong for llamdeen. Despite various attempts, he
was hanged and the matter came to a close. When Rajpal was murdered
Maulavi Jafar proudly said, ‘the matter now came to a close.’ But it really
came to a close only after the hanging of llamdeen.”
“Now that llamdeen has been buried in ground, time has come to take stock.
It is quite clear that Muslims paid dearly for their fanaticism. Life of one
Hindu cost three Muslims lives. The first Gazi (i.e. the person who kills
Hindus that are despised as Kafirs) who attacked has been sent to seven
years rigorous imprisonment. The second Gazi was sent to fourteen years
hard labour. Third Gazi llamdeen did manage to kill Rajpal, but he himself
was hanged. In addition Muslims had to pay court costs and cost of appeal
to the Privy Council to a total of 4 to 5 lakhs of rupees. If Muslims want to
continue the feud, let them carry on. Let us say that every Muslim is a Gazi.
Even so, they are only 70 million. At the rate of three Muslims suffering for
the price of one Hindu life more than 237 Hindus will survive! Even if
Hindus were to die in the ratio of one to one, there will still be 190 million
Hindus left. And Muslims? NONE. {No Hindu leader was even prepared to
use such language except Savarkar. But that is the only language, which
Muslims understood.)

“Muslims should realise that the old days are gone. This is an era of Hindu
Sanghatan. Muslims thought that by killing one man like Rajpal, Hindus
would be frightened and become meek. Now they know othenvise.”

“It all started with a Muslim man writing ‘Kishan Teri Geeta Jalani Padegi’
Rajpal then had to publish ‘Rangeela Rasool’ which contained historically
correct account of sex life of Prophet Mohammad. The courts had no choice
but to declare Rajpal

innocent. If Muslims wanted, they should have replied to the allegations

made in Rajpal’s book or pointed out any mistakes / inaccuracies in it. But
Muslims do not know what logical argument is. Until now they always
resorted to violence. But those days have gone. Rajpal carried on with his
work of Arya Samaj. He died because he rightly protested against the
blasphemous accusations against revered Lord Krishna. Hindus cried for
him. Muslims too had to cry for llamdeen and the matter came to a close.”

“Just as Rajpal, Mr Patwardhan of Alibag in Maharashtra too cost the

Muslims dearly. The Pathan who stabbed him was hanged, if Muslims want
to play the tactic of eye for eye, tooth for tooth, we are ready. At that rate,
ALL Muslims will be wiped out and 190 million Hindus would still remain
in India.”
“Someone may ask us. ‘how long can eye for eye, tooth for tooth’ will go
on? We say, “as long as Muslims do not come to their senses.” There is no
point in saying that we should not sink to their level. In this instance we
have no choice. We did not start the fight. It was forced upon us. AND in
the end we have to face the facts .”

(S.S.V4 pp 225/227)
1939
On 22 January Savarkar spoke in Mumbai. He said, “We do not want to
drive Muslims out of India, but will not tolerate their treachery. They
cannot remain here as our enemies.”

(HMS Era p 178)

On 9 August, Savarkar spoke at Solapur, “Hindu Muslim unity will never

be achieved by making concessions to Muslims. How many concessions did
Tilak make? How many did Deshbandhu Das offer? What about Gandhi’s
blank cheques? They never worked. It is the Muslims who should feel the
need for unity with Hindus. Otherwise, the effort for unity is futile.”

(SSV 4, pp 355-7)

On 28 December Savarkar, in his Presidentiai speech at annual session of

Hindu Maha Sabha, clarified the constitution of future India. He said,

“Everyone will have to take the oath of allegiance to Hindusthan, hen only
one would have the freedom to practise one’s religion, worship and
association.”

{HMS Era. p290)

1941
In April, Savarkar commented on demands of the Muslim League. “What
we are offering, namely, representation in proportion to population is in the
interests of Muslims.

Referring to constant threats from Muslims that unless their demands are
wholly accepted Hindu Muslim unity will be destroyed, Savarkar retorted,
“In the course of time such parasites have come and have been destroyed,
but the Hindu nation has survived.”

(S.U.I Era. p 38)

• Hindu Maha Sabha (H.M.S) was going to hold its annual session in
Bhagalpur in Bihar province in December 1941. The British administration
banned the session under the pretext that the forthcoming Muslim festival
of Bakar-id would clash with dates of HMS session and cause public
disturbance. Under the leadership of Savarkar, HMS workers used such
tactics that they made a mockery of the government ban. After the session,
Savarkar returned to Bombay. While speaking on this event, he said,

“Oh Hindus, if you unite like this, a day wiii come when Mr Jinnah of
Musiim League wiii have to say, ‘We do not want Pakistan. Please just
allow us to live in India.”

(S.S.V4 pp 548/552)
1942
Once again on 2 August Savarkar reiterated in Pune ‘Muslims should get
representation in the seats of power, based on their

percentage of population as per the League of Nations formula.’ He said the

same thing at Bhagalpur session of Hindu Mahasabha in December.

(S. U. I. Era, p 127 &p 176)

1945

In March, Savarkar condemned Bhulabhai Desai & Liaquat Ali formula and
said “Muslims will not get more than 22% representation in seats of power,
as per League of Nations formula.”

(S UlEra p 316 also p323&p 328)

In June, Lord Wavell published his plan. It meant parity of Muslims with
Hindus. Congress was so obsessed with getting power that it accepted this
plan.

(S U I Era, pp 328/9)

On 22 October, Savarkar declared, “Congress accepts parity for Muslims

who are only 22% of population.“

(S U I Era, p 340)

1947

In April Savarkar declared, “Treat Muslims as they treat Hindus. That is the
only way of getting some sense into their heads.”

(S UI Era p 374)
On 10 August Savarkar said in
Deihi, “Don’t be afraid of
bioodbath. Cowardice causes more
harm and bioodshed.”
{S UI Era, p 413)

Alas, that was not to be.

Many Congressmen and Socialists asked then and still ask today, “what
does it matter whether a person is a Hindu, Muslim or Christian? After all,
they are all human beings.” But they never put the counter question to
Muslims, “what does it matter if a Muslim embraces Hindu religion? “They
scrupulously avoid

asking that question even today! No wonder they regarded Savarkar as a

great obstacle in their way.

* Masurkar Maharaj took inspiration from Savarkar and converted

Christians of Goa to Hindu Dharma in 1925. But the Portuguese authorities
refused to recognise the conversion and would not count them as Hindus.
Things did not change even in 1962 when Goa was liberated, due to anti-
Hindu policies ofNehru.lt was only in 1972 that the converted Hindus were
recognised as Hindus due to the efforts of Mamarao Daate and other
workers of ^^'tidu Maha Sabha. If religion does not matter, why the delay
of 50 years in the re-converted Hindus being counted as such? Yet, no
Congressite or Socialist ever asked that question.
Why was Savarkar’s image
tarnished by his opponents?:
Reason No. 2
Savarkar’s Hindu opponents refused to protect Hindus during Muslim riots

Hindu leaders saw and realised that Hindus were suffering terrible
consequences as a result of riots and obstructionist/ stubborn attitude of
Muslims. And yet the Hindu leaders preferred to turn a blind eye to Muslim
atrocities hoping that they would go away. This was the tradition right from
the days of Gokhale. Mr Parvate, a biographer of Tllak, describes events of
1893,

“But in 1893, the Hindus of Bombay became the victims of Muslim wrath.
The origin of this riot has to be traced back to Prabhaspattan in Junagadh
State of Saurashtra as it then was. For some unknown or unreported reason,
there was an imbroglio between Hindus and Muslims on account of tazias
in the Muharram festival. As a result there were arrests and court trials and
people who were convicted of this offence or that, were sent to jail. Things
did not end there. A number of Hindu temples were profaned, idols broken
and burnt and the priests of

the temples soaked in oil and burnt alive by Muslims.

The Gujarati Hindus were very greatly aggrieved, because Prabhaspattan

was their sacred place. Bombay Gujaratis went to their rescue. They held a
public meeting in Bombay in which a generous merchant known as
Lakhmidas Khimji took the lead. A demand for open inquiry was made and
a fund was started in aid of the distressed and helpless Hindus.”

“It was revealed later that the success of the Muslims at Prabhaspattan had
elated them and their religious heads were actively instigating poor and
excitable Muslim masses to attempt similar outbreaks from place to place.”
“All of a sudden, without the city having any pre-motion or warning of any
kind, there broke out a big (Muslim) riot in Bombay on August 11, 1893.
Some people came out of the Jumma Masjid

near the Crawford Market and began to march in the direction of a temple
of Shiva near the Hanuman Lane. ...More such bands of people armed with
lathis emerged from the Masjid and proceeded in the direction of Bhendi
Bazar, Grant Road, Kamathipura and smashed the idols. The next day,
workers in the textile mills who were mostly Maratha Hindus retaliated.
Police were unable to cope...the military had to be called in.”

“Once there was peace, newspapers began to discuss the possible causes of
these riots and various suggestions began to be made to prevent repetition.
Some blamed the meetings held for organising relief measures, others
objected to the work of cow-protection societies, while certain others found
fault with the ignorance of Muslim masses, whose passions were awakened
on the least provocation. But none would say that such ignorant and
inflammable people must be sternly dealt with. Tiiak’s Kesari came forward
to do this.”

“But when it came to holding public meetings and informing Government

what people thought about the outbreak of riots the

so called Moderates began to develop cold feet.At last a

meeting of Hindus only was decided upon and it was held on September 10.
Ranade and the Bombay leaders were against a public meeting being held.”

“In all his advocacy, Tilak used clear and bold language as he hated
equivocation and euphemisms (like using the phrase ‘Hindus and Muslims
are equally responsible for the riots’). The sentiments of Ranade and others
were the same but they either lacked Tilak’s courage or considered that it
was wisdom to acquiesce in whatever happened and appease the
wrongdoers even when they showed no sign of repentance.”

“These people, then referred to as reformers, were quite loud and vehement
in their attacks on Ganesh festival, but were altogether meek and dumb
before the haughtiness, unreasonable and irreconcilable attitude of
Mussalmans.”

“Tilak did not chose to lie low either before the Government or the Muslims
when it came to defending the legitimate rights of Hindus ... his moderate
opponents were unable to secure even a single Mussalman to consider the
question (of riots) in the serene and cold light of reason, when men like
Ranade and Gokhale were ever ready to adopt a policy of harmony and
conciliation and never used strong or blunt language.”

“Ranade and Gokhale were the most conciliatory and considerate of men
and ready more to give than take and yet they could not catch hold of a
single reasonable Muslim to adopt their line of mutual agreement by
conciliation, compromise, reasonableness, preparedness to yield to the
utmost and what not.”

(Bal Gangadhar Tilak by TV Parvate 1972, pp 95 to 114)

This was the situation some 26 years before the rise of Gandhi. Tllak’s
mantle fell on Savarkar. Followers of Gandhi took the place of moderates.
At least moderates like Ranade and Gokhale kept quiet about the Musilm
riots, but Gandhi’s followers and Socialists shamelessly justified Muslim
deeds. They naturally felt that Savarkar was an obstruction in their path. Let
us take some examples:

• After Savarkar was returned from the Andaman Islands to mainland India
in May 1921 he was kept in jail in Ratnagiri. Muslims (Moplas) committed
terrible atrocities on Hindus of Malabar during August to December 1921.
In Ratnagiri jail Savarkar met some Hindus who had taken part in Gandhi’s
non co-operation movement. Savarkar recollects, “A fellow prisoner
vehemently shouted, ‘Muslims (Moplas) never committed the atrocities in
Malabar.” Another prisoner said, “It does not matter even if they did
commit those atrocities. Hindus should even embrace Islam en mass if
necessary, but win Swaraj (independence).”

(My Transportation for life, p 544)

The Mopla riots were followed by Muslim riots in Sarhanpur in

1923, and in next year in Gulbarga, Amethi, Sambhal and Kohat (NWFP).

•After the tragedy of Kohat (NWFP) where thousands of Hindus were

displaced and dispossessed, Gandhi was still preaching, “I must ask the
Hindus even today to die and not to kill.”

After his internment in Ratnagiri in January 1924 Savarkar exposed the

hypocritical attitude of Congress leaders towards the behaviour of Muslims.
He could do so publicly only after his release from internment.

• Savarkar exposed the Congress attitude towards Muslim riots, just two
months after his release from internment. On 13 June 1937, he said,

“Congress turns a blind eye to this problem. In the North West Frontier
Province, Hindu girls are abducted and molested by the fakirs of Impi. This
matter was raised in the Central Legislative Assembly by Bhai Paramanand.
Some Congressmen said, ‘Oh, this is merely a matter of boys chasing girls.’
Dr Khan (Nehru’s friend) said, ‘The abducted girls should be given to the
terrorists on the border and no measures taken against them.’ This speech
was humiliating indeed. But some Congressmen even laughed at Khan’s
remarks.”

(H.M.S Era p 10)

That is how low they had sunk.

• Indian Socialists had been obsessed with the thought that Hindus and
Muslims have the same economic problems. So, there was no Hindu-
Muslim conflict. Savarkar had exposed the falsity of their approach on
number of occasions. For example, take his speech in Nagpur as President
of All India Hindu Mahasabha in 1938.

The bloody orgies to which the Hindus were subjected by Moslem fanatics
in Malabar and Kohat are enacted on this scale or that

even in the presidency towns (i.e. major towns) all over India every now
and then. The Frontier Moslem tribes carry out raids and perpetrate
unspeakable atrocities on the Hindu people there with a set purpose of
exterminating the Kafir in that region. Only the Hindu Merchants are
looted, only the Hindus are massacred and only the Hindu women and
children are kidnapped and held to ransom or converted perforce to Islam.”

“On the top of it all comes in the Psuedo-Nationalism of the Congressites

who practically condone and explain away these Moslem atrocities by
inventing such fake excuses: There is nothing anti-Hindu in these Moslem
raids! It is only economical and sexual starvation of the tribes that goad
them on to these crimes. Let us feed those starved souls and they will be
good citizens!’

“But it is curious that these starved poor raiders find no young Moslem
damsels to kidnap, bum no Moslem houses and go about assuring the
Moslem by the beat of drums that they shall not hurt a hair of any Moslem
provided he shelters not a Hindu Kafir!” (Hindu Rashtra Darshan, pp 30/31)

• On 23 March 1939, Savarkar spoke at Bihar Regional Hindu Sammelan.

Once again he depicted the picture of Muslim activities quite vividly, “Let
us make a start from the North West Frontier Province. What I am telling
you is well documented. In NWFP there are tribes, which thrive on robbery
even today. They say quite openly when they would rob a particular
locality. Hindus (including Sikhs) warn the Congress Ministry accordingly
of the impending danger and ask for protection. Government does nothing.
If the protection force is sent, it arrives at the locality after the robbery had
taken place. If they send police they arrive at locations where there has been
no robbery.

When people blame the Congress Government for inaction, the ministers
say,” There is nothing communal or anti-Hindu about this. Poor Pathans
make such attacks due to hunger.” .

But I ask them, “My good man, if the attacks are made by hungry Pathans
how is it that they NEVER attack rich Muslims. They kidnap women of
Hindus (including Sikhs) only. WHY?” These robbers say openly, ‘we are
coming to rob Kafirs (Hindus) only.’ A story appeared in press recently. A
Hindu had four daughters. After an attack by robbers, one committed
suicide, one was abducted. Other two sought refuge with a Muslim
neighbour. The women of that house called in the robbers and handed over
the two Hindu girls to them. One of them managed to escape and testified
before a Magistrate.”

(S.S.V4 pp 335/6)

• There were Muslim riots in May 1941in Kamavati (/^medabad), Mumbai,

Kanpur, Patna and other places. In a leaflet produced for the occasion,
Savarkar said, “The earlier Hindus forget the Congress propaganda that the
riots are caused by anti-social elements, the better. If the rioters were simply
hooligans, they would have looted Muslims as well as Hindus, destroyed
mosques as well as temples. But has this ever happened? From the Mopla
atrocities of the 1921 till today we have witnessed many riots, but has the
picture changed? NO. There is a method in madness. The earlier Hindus
realise the anti-Hindu aggression behind the riots the better.”

(S.U.I Era p 40)

• In a speech published on 5 August 1941 Savarkar said, “When Muslims

riot, they are not instantaneous actions or on the spot reactions to some
events. There is a discipline behind these. Real rioters are not the hooligans
but Muslim leaders. Muslims gather in mosques. When they get out, how
do they invariably attack and destroy temples?”

(S.S.V4 p507)

• And here is a rare confession from a Congress leader.

1946 November

After the Noakhali massacre of Hindus in Bengal, Acahrya J B Krupalani,

President of the Congress Party visited the riot affected

area. In a leaflet he stated quite clearly, “During the riots, Muslim thugs
massacred Hindus of all castes and ranks or classes systematically as
planned by Muslim League leaders.

They only looted Hindus. NOT one rich Muslim was affected.” (S.U.IEra
p360)
• Indian Communists had sold themselves to Comrade Stalin. But they
never said, “We will solve the problem by the methods used by Stalin in
dealing with Muslims in Russia.” Never once they asked, ‘How is it that
one never hears of Muslim riots in Russia?’

• I remember an event while I was in the secondary school. It was probably

1954. Mr N.G Gore, a socialist leader of Pune had returned from a tour of
Eastern Europe, then ruled by various Communist governments. He
described his impressions in an article entitled, ‘Government of the People,
Power in the hands of the Communist Party.’ This was published in
Kirloskar magazine. I remember having read it. But Gore never wrote a
single word about how various Communist Governments solved the
Muslim problem.

Gandhi and his followers deliberately ignored the monstrous atrocities

committed by Muslims on Hindus. Like the three wise monkeys, they
pretended, ‘I see no evil, I hear no evil, I speak no evil’ The Communists
and the Socialists conveniently hid under the pretext that the Muslims are
induced to rioting by their poverty and deprivation. They never asked the
question “Why is it that in such riots, Muslims always dishonour Hindu
women?” And therefore their concept of Hindu Muslim unity was a mirage.
Why was Savarkar’s image
tarnished by his opponents?:
Reason No. 3
Foolish notions about Hindu
Muslim unity of Savarkar’s Hindu
opponents
If Muslims simply wanted to keep to their separate ways, they would not
have created any-problem. But under the pretext of achieving Hindu
Muslim unity they were destroying (and are still destroying) Hindus. Tiger
eats a goat and achieves a kind of unity with it. Muslims wanted that kind
of unity. Savarkar scorned such concept of unity. He said, “We would rather
be extinct than have such unity. However, the Hindu race was not born to
become extinct.”
Plight of Hindus in the Sind
province
Soon after being interned in Ratnagiri, Savarkar wrote an article in 1924
about the plight of Hindus in Sind province.

• “Until now we believed in the deceptive propaganda of unity. We were

told

‘No one should mention any religion for the sake of unity’ and we believed
in that. But now we realise that while preaching unity to us, the same
Muslim leaders were secretly converting Hindus to Islam. When we were
collecting funds for the Khilafat movement, Muslims were using those
funds to help newspapers and editors for propagating Islam and
denunciation of the Hindu Dharma. We know many Hindu editors have
helped the Khilafat movement, nay we ourselves have done the same.”

“While we were supporting the Khilafat movement, from the same

movement Muslims were thinking of various ways of converting Hindus.
Some Hindu volunteers who had visited Khilafat movement offices had
been converted to Islam. And yet, at the same time Muslims condemned the
Shuddhi movement as being anti ‘Hindu Muslim unity.’ In short, they are
saying that Hindus must not preach their religion even by peaceful means
and seek converts, but Muslims have a right to convert Hindus even by
force of a stick or dagger. That is madness. That is suicidal. The

earlier this unity is dead the better.”

“Muslim domination did not stop at this. Even in Sindhi language, Muslims
would not tolerate the use of words like ‘guru’. But, at least now, some of
us have opened their eyes. We never knew that hundreds of Hindus were
being secretly converted to Islam every year. If we knew of any
conversions, we ignored the news and did not understand its importance.
We knew that the population of Hindus was decreasing in successive census
but did not realise why this should be so. We never understood the cancer
that was spreading. Now we know the Muslim design and have slowly
started to stand up to it.”

“When we received such a letter from a fellow Hindu from Sind, we said to
him that millions of Hindus all over India fully sympathise with their plight.
It is true that we are facing danger of Muslim aggression, but if the Hindus
are awakening in Sind that is a good sign. We had been warning them for
number of years that they were facing a time bomb. Awake. Awake. This
Hindu Muslim unity is disastrous to you. Every Sindhi Muslim is a preacher
of Islam and is a sworn enemy of Hindu Dharma. Just two months ago we
were explaining the Muslim design and our Hindu leader from Sind said,
‘Sir, you do not know the situation in Sind. Hindus and Muslims in Sind
work hand in hand in public affairs. There is no animosity between the two.
As for conversion, one or two Hindus may be embracing Islam but there is
no danger of Muslim aggression or forcible conversion en masse. Shuddhi
will not work in Sind. No Muslim will ever convert to Hindu Dharma.’

And yet the entire caste of Sanyogi is prepared for such conversion!!”

(Ratnagiri Era, pp 28/29)

Savarkar exposes true nature of
Shaukat Ali
• Savarkar met Shaukat Ali, the famous Muslim leader in Mumbai in
November 1924. Their conversation is worth reading:

Shaukat AN: “Very good. You see, what is this Hindu and Muslim? With
great effort we achieved Hindu Muslim unity. But, there is a danger that this
Hindu Sanghatan movement will destroy that unity. We cannot face fellow
Muslims. They say, ‘like Hindus we too will start Muslim Sanghatan.’ For
the greater good of Hindusthan we must all consider as Hindis
(Hindusthanis) and forget all petty differences. You are a great man who
started war with the British. But, today you are trapped in Hindu Sanghatan.
I was told that while you were in Ratnagiri you had sowed seeds of
disaffection between Hindu and Muslim population of Sind province. It is
good that you are going to abandon that work.”

Savarkar: “What you say is quite right. But, I was waiting for an
explanation from you.”

Shaukat AN: “What explanation?”

Savarkar: “When are you going to abandon the Khilafat and Aul Ulema
movements?”

Shaukat AN: (furiously) “In our country we have a third party, the British
who have conquered us. Time has come to unite and defeat our common
enemy. Instead, you have started this Hindu Sanghatan. What a pity! You
see you Hindus have always been beaten by Muslims (in better terms, we
have beaten you with shoes). Things are very different for Muslims and
Hindus. You will only achieve independence if you co-operate with
Muslims etc, etc.”

Savarkar: (intervened and stopped the same old record) “ Listen,

I cannot discuss politics with you. Time is being wasted unnecessarily.

What you said about history contains two mistakes. First of all, history of
Hindus has not started just a thousand years ago, may be Arabia’s history
goes back only that long. Secondly, in the last thousand years we have been
beaten, it is true. But it is equally true that we Hindus have more than
revenged our defeats. From Attock in the north to Rameshawar in the south
Marathas have beaten you in every battle. We had played king makers of
the Kings of Delhi. So, forget the history. The main question is

this - are you going to abandon Khilafat, Ulema and Tan Zin (Muslim
Manhattan) movements? Answer that first.”

Shaukat Ali: “But I told you that we have nothing hidden in the Khilafat
movement. Hindus need not fear anything from that because it is being run
under the leadership of a Hindu (i.e. Gandhi).”

Savarkar: “May be. If Khilafat is not harmful to Hindus because its leader is
a Hindu then why should Hindu Sanghatan be harmful? That is also under
being run under the leadership of another Hindu. You will say that because
a Hindu leader was found for the Khilafat movement, Hindus believed in it,
Hindu Sanghatan has not found a Muslim leader therefore Muslims do not
trust it. I ask you this - Many Hindus have suffered for Khilafat, but they
accepted the sufferings for the sake of Hindu Muslim unity. Hindu Saghatan
is also for the same purpose i.e. Hindu Muslim unity, but no Muslim leader
has come fonvard to lead that movement. Is that not an indication of your
partiality? Out of gratitude for the support Hindus gave to Khilafat
movement, Muslims should have sympathised with Hindu Sanghatan.”

“You say there is nothing hidden in the Khilafat movement. What have we
hidden in the Hindu Sanghatan movement? We do not have secret
associations. On the other hand it is well known that Agakhani Mission,
Hasan Nizami mission and other Muslim organisations have open and
secret sections. So, instead of advising them that everything should be
openly done, why are you advising the organisers of Hindu Sanghatan?”

‘Time is getting on. A compromise can quickly be reached. Are you going
to abandon Khilafat, Ulema and other activities? For the sake of national
unity and to have a common political movement are you going to abandon
what are purely sectarian Muslim religious organisations? If you do, I will
abandon Hindu Sanghatan, I should not, but will do so for the sake of
political unity.”

Shaukat Ali; “But it is our religious duty to preach Islam to Hindus.

Suppose a Hindu boy comes to me this morning and says to me, ‘I saw God
in my dreams and he told me to convert to Islam.’ I will say to him,’ There
is a mosque, go inside and convert to Islam.’ In our activities, there is
nothing more forcible than this.”

Savarkar: Let us assume that what you are saying is correct. But then that is
precisely what we do. If a Muslim comes to me today and says, ‘I saw God
in the dream and he asked to me to convert to Hindu Dharma.’ I will say to
him,

‘Come, let us go to the temple in front of us and become a Hindu.’ That is

our Shuddhi. Why should it come in the way of Hindu Muslim unity?

Shaukat Ali: “(angrily) O.K. you carry out your Shuddhi, we carry on with
our conversion. Let us see who wins.... I tell you once again; at present
there is unity among Muslims. Our movements of Khilafat, Ulema and
Tanzin are under one command. Muslims will obey me and two of my
companions. They will do what we tell them to do. I can assure you that I
will do nothing to harm Hindus. So, why don’t you trust me and abandon
Hindu Sanghatan? That makes Muslims very angry.....”

Savarkar: “The concept of unification of Hindusthan as one nation and

propagation of its growth started in Maharashtra. It is disgraceful to
condemn Maharashtra as being anti-national and that too by Muslims who
despised even the Indian National Congress and who are obsessed with
seeking special representation for Muslims.”

“You say that you are a leader of all Muslims and they have not disobeyed
you and wiii never do so. Teii me, the atrocities committed by Mopias
(1921), and those during the recent Musiim riots in Gulbarga and Kohat
(1924); the destruction of Hindu tempies and dishonouring of Hindu
women - were they carried out with your consent? If they did, your
apparent zeai of Hindu Musiim unity istotaliy deceptive. On the other hand,
if those atrocities were committed despite of your appeai, it is absurd to say
that those people are in your

control. We Hindus cannot therefore rely on your word.”

Shaukat AN: “But you see when I was imprisoned, people were disunited
and confused and committed the atrocities.”

Savarkar: “Really? You were not in prison when riots took place in
Gulbarga, Kohat and Delhi. Moreover, if your Muslim people become so
disunited as soon as you are away and commit such terrible atrocities, how
can we rely on your word? It is evident that they have inborn tendency to
commit such barbarity at the slightest chance. Even if you are sincere, how
can we rely on your guarantee? A time will come when both of us will be
dead. Hindus will again face the same Muslims. This is a question of their
perpetual safety and security. There is therefore no substitute for Hindu
Sanghatan. Moreover it is not against any body.”

“Hasan Nizami, Agakhani, Khilafat and other movements are aggressive

and harmful to Hindus. You do not want to stop these. They convert Hindus
in large numbers openly and in secret. Your Urdu language newspapers
openly vow to convert tens of millions of Hindus in five to ten years. And
hundreds of Hindus are forcibly converted to Islam. Under such
circumstances it is hypocritical and extremely partial to say to the Hindus,
‘You must not do Sanghatan even for self defence. That will harm Hindu
Muslim unity.’ You stop your conversion activities and then the activities of
Hindus to protect themselves will also cease.”

Shaukat AN: “But you make Muslims most irritant by your activities.
Muslims have been converting for centuries, why did you start your re-
conversion recently? Does it not prove that it is antiMuslim?”

Savarkar: “And who is to blame for that? Hindus never preached any one
else to become a Hindu. Not only that they ignored monstrous attempts of
forcible conversion by Muslims. Same Hindu people have to undertake
Shuddhi today. Whose fault is that?”
“We left our back door open and trusted our neighbours. But they had been
stealing all along. Now we have decided to shut the door and put a lock on
it. And the thieves are telling us,’ we have been stealing for a long time.
Why did you lock the door recently? It is against us (i.e. thieves). This will
damage the unity between us. We say, ‘to the hell with such unity.’ You are
saying, ‘what is yours is mine and mine remains mine.‘The earlier such
unity breaks the better.”

“Christians, Parsis, Jews also organise. But they never object to Hindu
organisation. Why should Muslims feel irritated? The reason is obvious. It
affects their business of increasing their numerical strength. I asked you
several times and I ask you finally, will you wind up Muslim
organisations?”

Shaukat Ali: (with extreme anger) “I will never abandon Muslim

organisations. There is nothing anti-Hindu in them.”

Savarkar: “In that case I too will not abandon Hindu Sanghatan. There is
nothing anti-Musilm in it nor is there any anti Christian, or anti Parsi or
anti-Jew in it.”

(S.S.V3 pp 758/765)

Extreme selfishness of Muslims is quite clear from above conversation.

Unfortunately, Hindu opponents of Savarkar refused take any notice.

• On 26 October 1937, Savarkar said in Pune “Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and

Gandhi honestly wish that there should be unity among people of India and
everyone should compromise for common good. The trouble is that the
world is not honest. What can they do? Our honesty and sincerity will
triumph only when we are powerful to make others honest. I will be
delighted if Hindu Muslim unity is achieved. But at present that is not
possible. The more you compromise more remote that unity will become.”

Two ways of achieving unity

“There are only two ways of compromise with Muslims. Either we should
fully amalgamate with them or we should not give a damn about their
friendship. We should then carry on with our freedom struggle, if they come
along, with them, if not, without them. Hindus have borne lion’s share of
the freedom struggle so far. We may sincerely wish to compromise but the
present situation does not allow compromise. There is no point in denying
the reality. Mere wishful thinking does not help.”

• Savarkar had once again narrated the mental outlook of Muslims in

December 1938. As the President of All India Hindu Mahasabha he said,

“Not that the Muslims do not like to form a united Indian Nation, but their
conception of unity, the national unity of India is not based on her territorial
unity at all. If any Moslem had revealed his mind in the most intelligible
terms possible, it was Ali Musaliar, the leader of Mopla rebellion. In
justification of his atrocious campaign of forcibly converting thousands of
Hindus or putting them to sword - women, men, children - at a stroke, he
proclaimed that India must be united into a Nation and the only way to
bring about lasting Hindu Moslem unity could not be other than that all
Hindus should become Moslems! Those Hindus who refused to do so were
traitors to the cause of Indian unity and deserved deathll Thus the
unsophisticated Ali Musaliar spoke bluntly in his mother tongue. Polished
Moslems like Mohamed Ali and others speak in an elegant language, but
the purport is the same.”

’ (Hindu Rashtra Darshan, p 45)

• During the Passive Resistance (Satyagraha) movement of 1931/

32Acharya Vinoba Bhave, a well-known disciple of Gandhi was jailed in
Dhule, Maharashtra. While serving his jail sentence, he gave lectures on
Geeta. These were later published under the title 'Geetai (teachings of
Geeta)’ Bhave says:'.... Forgetfulness is good. We increase anxiety and
anger by remembering the past. For the sake of Hindu Muslim unity we

must forget the past. Aurangzeb was a tyrant - how long are we going to
repeat that?’

(Chapter 11)
As if Aurangzeb was the only Muslim tyrant. From Mohammed bin Kasim
to the Nizam there were hundreds of monstrous Sultans. Bhave wanted us
to forget them at a stroke. In his own lifetime there were atrocities
committed by Muslims in Malabar. Afterwards they rioted in Kohat,
Gulbarga, Amethi, Sambhal, Calcutta and many other cities. And their riots
had continued unabated. The question was - how to face them? Bhave
preached, ‘oh, just forget about the atrocities!’

While commenting on the 10*' chapter of Geeta, Bhave said, ‘Akbar used
to say - why don’t the Rajputs incorporate their kingdoms into my empire?
The empire will be one. There will be peace.’ (and yet, Bhave condemned
Napoleon and Hitler for expressing similar ambitions)

• On 1 August 1939, Savarkar spoke at Pune. He referred to the policies of

the humanist Manavendra Nath Roy.

“Roy trusts Muslims wholeheartedly and he is preaching ‘give Muslims so

much that they should feel perplexed on what more to ask.’ The trouble is
that nothing satisfies the Muslims. They want to convert all our land
(Hindusthan) into Pakistan. They make no bones about it. They say so
openly. Roy’s policy will lead to the annihilation and extinction of Hindus.
How can any self respecting Hindu accept that philosophy?”

“We cannot accept Gadhism. For the same reason, we cannot accept
Forward Block of Subhash Chandra Bose. Roy’s policies are even worse. If
we want to retain our self-respect and identity there is no alternative to the
policies of Hindu Mahasabha. ^ven after independence, there will be a need
for our party (Hindu Mahasabha).”

“My aspiration, call it prophesy which I say openly - it will come true in a
future generation. That has happened in the past.

Goethe, the German poet depicted in his dream that Napoleon, who then
ruled Germany, would be deposed. His dream came true. My dream will
similarly come true. It is my ambition that we should all gather under the
saffron flag (used by Hindus since times immemorial) be they Hindus,
Muslims, Parsees, Christians or whatever. Each should abide by its way of
life and instead of being aggressive on others, contribute to India’s good.”
(HMS Era. pp 258/9)

• On 23 March 1940 Savarkar delivered his speech as the President of

Tamilnadu Hindu Parishad, "... Our country must be free of the British
domination. But, just as it must be free of George and Edward, it must also
be free of rule of Aurangzeb and Tlpu.”

(SSV4 p 535)

•On 4 October 1941, Savarkar said at Bombay, “You now blame Amery
(then Secretary of State for India) but it was Gandhi who had declared ‘No
Swaraj without Hindu Muslim unity.’ We do not want that Edward be
replaced with Joseph or Akbar. Remember the children’s story about the
revolution of the donkeys? They changed one pitcher for another, but
donkeys remained donkeys. We do not want that. We do not want to replace
one master by another master. We want to become the master ourselves."
(S.S.V4 p540)

This was the crunch of the matter. Gandhi and his foiiowers had been
saying/ What does it matter if the British Raj is repiaced with a Musiim
Raj?’ (say rule of Nizam). No wonder they regarded Savarkar as their arch-
enemy.

At last, Bose becomes wiser.

• Only one leader became wiser - Subhash Chandra Bose. In a public

speech in Pune in 1952, Savarkar explained how he and Bose met in 1940.

My unexpected meeting with Bose

“All of a sudden, by sheer chance. Subhash Chandra Bose came

to my house on 22 June 1940. The details of that meeting are known only to
my close associates. I am making them public for the first time.”

“Bose came to Bombay to meet Jinnah. To use the language of the

newspapers ‘he was going to outbid Gandhiji’. (in other words, he was
prepared to grant concessions to Muslims, which even Gandhi was not
prepared to offer). Leaving that aside, Bose said to me, “I met Jinnah. He
asked me, ‘But Mr Bose, on whose behalf are you negotiating?’

I said, ‘On behalf of the Congress Party.’

Jinnah said, ‘But Congress has ousted you from all posts of authority!’

I said, ‘But, surely I am a recognised leader of the Fonward Block. Jinnah

said, ‘Agreed. But is the Forward Block a organisation of the Hindus?’

I said, ‘All right then, I wish to discuss the Hindu Muslim problem with you
as a Hindu.’

Jinnah said, ‘In that case you better see Savarkar first. He wants to represent
the Hindus. If he comes here, we can discuss your proposals. There is no
point in discussing between individuals. ‘And therefore I am here’ Bose
laughed once more. ‘After all, I did want to see you this time.’

{Sangata speeches of 1952, p 48/49}

Bose learnt that when negotiating with Muslims, the question that would
always be asked is - ‘who are you?’ and the only answer was ‘I am a
Hindu’. True he had to be smacked by Jinnah, but he learnt the lesson.

The question then arises, ‘how should Hindus deal with Muslims?’
Savarkar’s answer was straightforward. He said to Muslims ‘if you come
with us, with you; if you don’t, without you, if you obstruct, by pushing you
aside’ (we will march on and achieve our goal) - that was the formula.

Bose went out of India in January 1941 as advised by Savarkar. First to

Germany then to Japan. He formed the Indian National

Army (INA) out of the Prisoners of War captured by the Japanese in

Singapore. I.N.A was composed of Hindus and Muslims. But that unity was
achieved on the lines of philosophy of Savarkar not of Gandhi.

In his book ‘Discovery of India’, Nehru wrote. The story of the

Indian National Army-spread suddenly throughout the

country and evoked an astonishing enthusiasm.... They became also the
symbol of unity among the various religious groups in India, for, Hindu and
Moslem and Sikh and Christian were all represented in that army. They had
solved the communal problem among themselves, and so why should we
not do so?’

Once again it must be emphasised that such unity was achieved only on the
basis of the preaching of Savarkar.

Why was Savarkar’s image tarnished by his opponents?: Reason No. 4

Savarkar’s Hindu opponents would not protect Hindu interests

In those days, Hindu leaders felt uneasy at protecting Hindu interests. And
Hindus still trusted the same leaders who betrayed them time after time. Let
us examine some of its background.

The Muslim League was founded in Dacca in December 1906. Maulana

Azad was present at the ceremony. He says, ‘The aims were

(i) To strengthen and develop a feeling of loyalty to the British Government

among the Musalmans of India.

(ii) To advance the claims of Muslims against Hindus and other

communities in respect of service under the Crown, thus safeguarding
Muslim interests and rights.”

(India Wins Freedom by Maulana A.K. Azad 1959, pp 110/111)

Thus, the only aim of the Muslim League was to claim their share of the
spoil after Hindus had made sacrifices and struggled for power.

It was therefore essential that Hindus needed to start organising themselves

to counter the Muslim designs. Punjab Provincial Hindu Sabha was started
in 1907. Its first session was held in 1909. All India Hindu Mahasabha was
started in 1918.

In 1921, Mopla Muslims committed terrible atrocities on Hindus of

Malabar (Kerala). Under pressure from Gandhi, the Congress Party
remained silent on the atrocities. Afterwards there were serious Muslim
riots in Gulbarga, Nagpur, Lucknow, Shahajahanpur, Jabalpur, Kohat and
other places. But the Congress would not take the side of Hindus and say a
word against the Muslims because it was not a Hindu organisation!!

In Nagpur, Dr. Hedgewar said, “It was surprising that though

Muslims were only 13% of population in Nagpur, they were not afraid of
the Hindus. On the other hand, it was a great shame that Hindu women
needed escorts to attend their routine women’s functions.” He therefore
founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (R.S.S) on the day of Dasara in
1925.

In 1922, Deshabandhu Das openly declared, “when the Congress is in

control of Calcutta Municipal Corporation, 60 % of jobs will be reserved
for Muslims.’ And what did the Muslims offer in return? Absolutely
nothing!

The Government of India Act 1935 granted Provincial Autonomy. The

elections were held in 1937. The Muslim League Chief Minister stated, ‘In
Bengal, Muslims are 51% of population. But in Government service 60% of
vacancies will be reserved for them.’ In practice, suitable Muslims could
not be found. So, what to do? The solution was simple. If the required
qualification was B.A, a Hindu candidate would be asked to answer a paper
at M.A level and a Muslim candidate would be asked to answer a paper at
Matriculation level. Even then, suitable Muslims could not be found.
Subhash Chandra Bose’s brother Sharat Chandra Bose said, ‘No problem.
There should be a very simple test for the Muslims. Once they passed it,
they should be declared to have passed and fit to fill in the post.’

Savarkar’s Presidential address at Bihar Provincial Hindu Sammelan,

Mongyr, 23 March 1939.

(S.S.V4 p 339)

You do not believe this speech of Savarkar? Here is the proof given by an
English reporter
‘For a generation before partition, they (Bengali Hindus) had been
discriminated against in favour of the local Muslims; a Muslim with a
Matriculation would get a job where a Hindu had to have an M.A.’

(Reporting India by Tanya Zinkin 1962, p 24)

Taya Zinkin was married to an I.C.S officer. After 1947 she remained in
India as a reporter for the Guardian newspaper.

Subhash Chandra Bose did not utter a word against such lunacy. So, what
were the Hindus supposed to do? As long as Lala Lajpat Rai lived, due to
his influence, whatever was the policy of the Congress Party was also the
policy of Hindu Maha Sabha. During elections, Hindu Maha Sabha workers
could not even say This is what our party would do for Hindus, that
Congress would not.’

Constant agitation and revolutionary activities by Hindus forced the British

to grant political reforms. British created a separate electorate for the
Muslims. But Hindus did not even have a Hindu electorate. It was called
‘General Electorate.’ Only Savarkar objected to this name at the 1938
annual session of Hindu Mahasabha at Nagpur. ALL other Hindu leaders
were happy being called ‘general’.

{HMS Era. p 164)

When the Muslims had not asked for any concessions, Hindu leaders like
Das had offered substantial concessions. When Muslims saw this, their
demands naturally increased unabated. The word Pakistan does not contain
B for Bengal. But once stupidity of Hindu leaders was evident, Muslims
said, ‘Oh, we want the whole of Bengal. We also want Assam. We want a
corridor to join the East and West Pakistan.’ When Hindus continued to
capitulate, why would not the Muslims demand the earth?

Only Savarkar opposed this constant capitulation to Muslim demands.

• And yet, how blind to reality were the Hindu leaders!! In July 1944,
Senapati Bapat, one ofSavarkar’s close associates while in London put out a
leaflet. In it he said, “I do not regard acceding to the demand of Pakistan
more harmful than the British Ruie over us. Gandhi is seeking Jinnah’s heip
to iiberate us from the British Raj. But I do not think Gandhi in any way
wiil harm the interests of Hindus!!”

(S.U.IEra p286)

Can mental bankruptcy go any deeper? After experiencing Gandhi’s

constant capitulation to Muslim demands and the enormous damage he did
to the Hindu interests, Bapat had the audacity of putting out the above
statement. What can we say about the other leaders? Despite the bloody
orgies organised by Muslims year after year against Hindus, Bapat did not
wait even for one moment to ask himself ‘If Pakistan was to become a
reality what would happen to Hindus there?’

This episode is all the more sadder because Bapat was not an armchair
preacher. He suffered various jail sentences during previous 30 years. He
even took part in the 1939 Satyagraha of Bhaganagar (Hyderabad) against
Nizam. He never thought for one moment -‘this is a struggle for Hindu
rights in a state ruled by a Muslim. People would call me a communal.’
And yet he was so careless about Gandhi’s treachery.

No wonder Savarkar’s tough stand on relations with Muslims was not

acceptable to the majority of Hindus. This was a matter of great misfortune,
but true. In December 1938 Savarkar said in Nagpur, “Every Hindu is
required by the constitution to vote for whomsoever he likes. So long as
bayonets do not exhort your votes against your own will for an anti-Hindu
candidate, so long as it is the easiest and legitimate thing for you to vote for
a Hindu Nationalist. If every Hindu does that easy duty for his race
Hindudom is saved. And if the Hindus do not even do that much and
determine to commit a cultural and political and racial suicide by voting for
an anti-Hindu and anti-National organisation as the Congress has grown
today into one - not even Bramhadeva (the creator God) can save you.”

(Hindu Rashtra Darshan, p 66)

Unfortunately that is precisely what happened. Hindusthan (India) was

partitioned and the Frankenstein of Muslims is once more going to threaten
our very existence.
Hindus were (and are) concerned about all others except themselves.

• As though being suicidal in dealing with Muslims was not enough, Hindus
were also showing deep concern for the fate of all other communities of the
world except their own. And the situation has not changed even today.

In 1929 Amir AmanuHa of Afghanistan was deposed. There was

commotion in India. Protests, demonstrations followed. ‘On to Kandahar’
was the slogan heard all over India. On that occasion, Savarkar wrote in
Shraddhanand magazine on 2 February 1929, ‘Oh Hindus you show
concern about the throne of Afghanistan but where is your own throne? ...
Today Hindus have time to worry about everyone else on earth. They do not
have time to consider their own fate!’

(S.S.V3 pp 811/816)

• Savarkar constantly criticised the same tendency among Hindus after his
release from internment in 1937.

In a speech in Pune on 1 January 1938, he said, “Only the nation that comes
to our rescue is our friend. Recently Japan has attacked China, so you show
sympathy by sending a telegram to Chaing Kai Shaikh. Tell me, at the time
of Jallanwala Bagh Massacre (1919), did you receive a telegram of
condolences from Chaing Kai Sheikh?”

Speaking at Calcutta on 20 Febaiary 1939, he again said, “Indians have sent

medical team to help China in their hour of need. But did China ever send
any help to us?” He said further, “There is a scheme to send a boatload of
rice to war-torn Spain (during the Spanish civil war). I ask you, ‘Did Spain
ever send us a grain of rice during all the famines that we suffered under the
British rule?’

(S.S.V4,pp 421/427)

No one bothered to ask such questions, let alone seek answers. Let us see
what Nehru said on the occasion “In India also there were those who
objected to our lining up with republican Spain
and China, Abyssinia and Czechoslovakia.those objectors

were overwhelmed by the mass sentiment the Congress had created and
hardly ever gave public expression to their views.

“In 1938 the Congress sent a medical unit consisting of a number of doctors
and necessary equipment and material to China. For several years this unit
did good work there.”

(Discovery of India by J Nehru pp 421/2)

Note - Nehru had ducked the questions raised by Savarkar. If he had

answered them Nehru would have realised the folly of his policy. Nehru
was a day-dreamer all his life. He believed that people who loved
democracy all over the world have something in common. That is why he
wanted to establish relations with republican front in Spain and also in other
countries. He therefore stated that though there were some persons in India
(he would not name Savarkar) who asked awkward questions, majority of
the masses followed the Congress Party.

• On 13 May 1939, Savarkar addressed a large gathering in front of the

famous Shanivar Wada of Pune. The subject was the unarmed struggle for
Hindu rights in Bhagyanagar (Hyderabad). He said

Why sympathise with the foreigners?

“I really laugh at those Congress leaders and their friends the Anglo Indian
newspaper editors when they say that Hindus from outside Hyderabad are
taking part in our struggle. These objections are raised by the very persons
who care about all other peoples of the world. When China is attacked by
Japan these persons can send medicines, they cry for the fate of Arabs of
Palestine, they lose sleep when Czechoslovakia is destroyed, they can send
boatloads of grain for the people of Spain. These very persons do not ask,

‘We are outsiders. What right have we got to help these people?’ When you
started movement for the Sultan of Turkey when he was deposed 7as
Khalif, who was he to you?”

“Thus, you can worry about all such people even though they were no
relations of yours so why do you now object to us helping our blood
relations?”

(SSV4 p386)

• Did the mental attitude of Hindu leaders changed afterwards? Oh no. In

November 1956, Soviet Russia crushed the uprising in Hungary. Indian
communists kept quiet. But socialist leaders like N.G. Gore (Indian High
Commissioner in London in 1979) cried and said, “Imre Naz was hanged by
the Russians. Now what will happen to the human values?”

Czechoslovakia - poor fellows!. First they were grinding under the rule of
Nazis. Then they were subjugated by the Russians. Their uprising was
crushed by the Russians in 1968 !

But once the Communists lost power in 1990 and Czechoslovakia became
free, the same Czechs and Slovaks behaved with utter barbarity with their
Gypsies. They said in 1997 that the Gypsies must be sent to the Gas
Chambers. In 1993 the Czech government denied citizenship rights to
100,000 Gypsies. And those Europeans who had cursed the tyranny of
Soviet Russia kept quiet about this event. The BBC did not even mention
this news! We Hindus are just as stupid today as we were in the 1930s.

• Now let us turn back to a well-known book entitled ‘Bharatiya Sanskrit!

‘by Saane Guruji published in 1937 in Marathi. Under the chapter Chara
Purushartha, Saane wrote, “All the exploited workers and peasants are my
relations. I will scream with their pain. Poor people are suffering in Spain,
are they not? Here is one anna (about one penny in 1937) for them from me.
If we have no money, let us at least sympathise with their plight. Their
sorrow is my sorrow. Today all humanity is coming together. Trains, ships,
aeroplanes, wireless, and radio all such discoveries are bringing the
mankind together. Brothers spread all over are coming together. Let them
come near me. How can I remain
away from them? I am forwarding my hand of friendship to them all. I shed
my tears for the pain and suffering of all my brothers.” Only exception in
this was about Hindus. Saane did not extend his hand or his sympathy to
Hindus affected by Muslim riots time after time. He was blind and numb to
their suffering.

[Note - We can understand the attitude of Saane, after all he was

unquestioned follower of Gandhi. The astonishing thing is that even the
staunchest Hindus were (and still are) deeply interested in welfare of
Muslims. Let me quote two examples]

Concern about welfare of Muslims

* Dr N B Khare of Nagpur was a minister in the Central Government

(Viceroy’s Council) during World War II. He was a staunch Hindu. But as
soon as he became a Minister he started to cry for Muslims. The Haj
pilgrimage to Mecca had been suspended due to war, ships were required
for the transport of soldiers and goods for the military and also there was
the danger of enemy submarines. But no Muslim had ever pleaded or
requested Khare that he should do something about the Haj. They sent no
deputations or petitions to him. They did not beg him. At least as a
politician he could have used the occasion to seek publicity for himself, just
as Gandhi did by his fast in 1943. Oh no. He solved the problem at a stroke.
He writes with pride,

“It was the responsibility of my department to make arrangements for the

Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. Realising that this was the religious duty of
Muslim brethren, I appealed to the Secretary of State for India in 1944 to
secure his permission for this pilgrimage and I impressed upon him that it
was improper to keep the Mussalmans away from the pilgrimage for a long
time because it was a religious duty enjoined upon them and requested him
to spare a naval ship to accompany the pilgrimage ship for its protection.
The Secretary of State accepted my suggestion and the Haj pilgrimage was
arranged in 1944.” (and thus within a matter of a few months Khare solved
the problem)

(My Political Memoirs by Dr N B Khare, 1959, p 214)

And what did the Muslims give him in return? An address of welcome!
Even ten years after the partition of India, Dr Khare proudly tells what he
did for Muslims. He became the President of Hindu Maha Sabha in 1950.
He had no regrets.

Khare could have exploited this opportunity in various ways. He could have
got enormous publicity. He could have forced various Muslim leaders like
Jinnah and Mullas and Maulavis to beg to him for the resumption of Haj.

(Muslim Clerics asking favour from a Kafir?). What a wonderful contrast it

would have been for the people of India who only knew Gandhi going to
Jinnah with a begging bowl.

Khare could have used usual delaying tactics of politicians, playing for time
and then doing nothing. He could have said that at a time like this it was
improper for Muslims to go on pilgrimage to Haj and it was a drain on the
exchequer. He could have appointed a Royal commission to look into the
Muslim demand. He could have posed the question - Is it really necessary
for Muslims to go on the pilgrimage to Haj? Could the Indian Muslims not
regard some Dargas in India as holy centres instead?

He could have got public assurances form Muslim leaders that they would
not support demand for Pakistan if Khare was to do this favour.

He could have pointed out that even devout Muslims like Aurangzeb never
went to Haj, neither did the majority of Muslim League leaders.

He could have used this occasion to show that even staunch Hindus like
himself can do favours to Muslims. Therefore there is no need for Pakistan.
He could have also asked some favours from Muslims in return.

He did none of these things. So obsessed was he with doing a favour to

Muslims.

* In 19991 (author) met one Dr Nitu Mandke of Mumbai who was

a visionary. Though he worked in America he left the life of luxury and

returned to Mumbai. He was a Heart Specialist. He wanted to ensure that no
one is denied Heart surgery because he or she could not afford it. He was a
member of Mr Thakare’s organisation - Shivasena and had performed heart
surgery on Thakare. Mandke appealed for funds for his project. At the
gathering of Marathi speaking people of Europe, held in Switzerland in
1999. Dr Mandke showed some slides and his plans. He showed a Muslim
praying in a street corner and said, ‘look this brother Muslim has no proper
place to pray. ’

So, along with the Hospital, Dr Mandke was also going to provide a place
for Muslims to pray. And that is why he wanted us Hindus to contributell

Hindus continue to worry about all other people except themselves

• 46years passed after Dr Khare’s deed. Marathi language weekly Sakai of

Pune used to publish interviews with famous people from all walks of life.
They would tell the readers their habits, best and worst moments of their
lives etc. On 8 February 1992, the weekly published an interview with
Tarkathirta Laxmanshastri Joshi, a well-known and respected Sanskrit
scholar. He was asked, ‘\vhat was the most painful day in your life?'

The day Hitler came to power” replied Joshi.

Hindus have suffered calamities from Mopla atrocities of 1921 to the

horrors of partition ini 947 and similar tragedies even after. But, according
to Joshi, what was the most painful day? The day when Hitler came to
power!!

• In Sanskrit, it is said, ‘mahajano yena gatas sa panthaha’ or We always

follow in the footsteps of the great leaders. In 1993 we celebrated 75^
birthday of the mother of a friend of mine in Bedford (England). At the end
of the function my friend said,' today there is unrest and misery everywhere
in the world. In Rwanda Burundi in Africa, Hutsis and Tutsis are
massacring each other. There is bloodshed in Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia.
Let us all pray and request God for peace on earth. ’

My friend did not mention the expulsions, killings and murders of Hindus
in Kashmir. He just did not want to know. He wanted world peace but had
no feelings for Hindus of Kashmir.
Noakhali massacre of 1946 — forgotten by Bengali Hindus within a year!

• On 3 August 1947, just two months after the Congress leaders deceived
Hindus and consented to partition Savarkar spoke in Pune. He reviewed the
events from 1921 to 1947, “1 have just heard that Sharad Chandra Bose has
put out a statement recently in which he emphasises that by language, race
and culture all Bengalis are one (i.e. there is no Hindu Muslim division
among them). How can you believe in such statements? Do you still
consider Muslims as your brothers when they looted, abducted and raped
your women en mass? No good will come out unless you stop believing in
such humbug.”

(S.U.I Era p 407)

Not even one year had passed since the massacre of 150,000 Hindus in
Noakhali and yet S.C. Bose had the lunacy of putting out such a statement!!

• In 1952, Shyamaprasad Mukharjee founded the Jansangh. Afterwards he

went to see Savarkar. Mukharjee said, “In Bengal, Hindus and Muslims
have been living peacefully.” The Noakhali massacre did not suffice to open
eyes of Hindus. There was even more bloodier massacre of Hindus in East
Bengal (now Bangladesh) in 1950. And yet Mukharjee who was President
of Hindu Maha Sabha in 1946 was saying, ‘Hindus and Muslims have been
living peacefully in Bengal.’

• In 1996,1 appealed to many prominent Bengalis that 25 October 1996

should be observed as a day of remembrance as it marked the 50th
anniversary of Noakhali massacre. We must resolve ‘never again shall we
allow such an event to recur.’ Not one Bengali replied.

/ also reminded the RSS workers of the SOP' anniversary of the Noakhali
massacre. They refused to hold any day of remembrance for our dead. By
sheer chance at the same time i.e. on 12 November 1996, there was a
collision of two aeroplanes near Delhi. Most of the dead passengers were
Muslims. RSS workers rushed to ensure their proper buhall! And their
magazine Sangh Sandesh published in England proudly published this help
given to Muslims, in their issue of November-December 1996.
Why was Savarkar’s image tarnished by his opponents?: Reason No. 5

Savarkar’s Hindu opponents lacked logical thinking

Followers of Gandhi had long given up ability to think, let alone logically.
And the thinking of the so-called leftists i.e. Socialists and Communists was
that disastrous calamities on Hindus were good for the world. Let us see
how Savarkar raised questions in the interest of and for protecting the rights
of Hindus and how these were always ducked by other leaders.

• On 27 June 1937, Savarkar was publicly honoured in Mumbai. In a

welcoming speech Laiji Pendse said, “I belong to the generation of youth
who heard first political thoughts from you. If you enter politics with your
ideology of 30 years ago my generation will follow you.”

“Hindus and Muslims face same problems. We heard that you helped some
landlords in recent elections. Those landlords have been exploiting poor
Hindu peasants. If you realise that you and us will be speaking the same
language. When we praise kings, noblemen and generals you should not
forget the brave Mawala who stood by Shivaji.”

“The problem of Fakirs of Impi will not be solved by cursing them.

Spreading of the British Imperialism in India and Central Asia is the cause
of today’s problems. Hundreds of youth of Maharashtra are prepared to
fight for the defeat of British Imperialism. We hope that your aim is the
same and that you will lead us fearlessly.” (S.U.IEra p27)

Pendse was least worried about rescuing the Hindu women kidnapped by
the Fakirs of Impi. He was least concerned about their fate. He did not give
a damn.

It is also necessary to expose the mischief played by Pendse. Savarkar was

in internment when elections took place in 1936/ 37. Savarkar could not
take part in politics at all. So, how did he help the Hindu landlords? There
was no limit to the mental

bankruptcy of the leftist youth.

Replying to the welcoming speech, Savarkar said, “Even my friend
Manavendra Nath Roy (M.N.Roy) will not say that Socialism

is only concerned with economics.If the Socialists say that

there should be no religion, I do not object to that. But then you MUST
apply the same rule to ALL religions. I will not stand by when only Hindus
are attacked on all fronts.”

• A well-known leader had exposed the fallacy of thinking underlying the

leftists. That is a bitter truth. This is what he said. The poor Muslims will
not join the poor Hindus to get justice from the rich (Muslims). Muslim
tenants will not join Hindu tenants to prevent tyranny of the (Muslim)
landlord. Muslim labourers will not join Hindu labourers in the fight against
capital. Why? The answer is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he joins
in the fight of the poor against the rich, he may be fighting a rich Muslim.
The Muslim tenant feels that if he joins in the campaign against landlord, he
may have to fight against a Muslim landlord. A Muslim labourer feels that
if he joins in the onslaught of labour against capital, he will be injuring a
Muslim mill-owner. He is conscious that any injury to a rich Muslim, to a
Muslim landlord or to a Muslim mill-owner, is a disservice to the Muslim
community, for it is thereby weakened in its struggle against the Hindu
community.”

(Thoughts on Pakistan by Dr B R Ambedkar, 1946, p 236)

Nothing can be more clearer. But the leftists remained in their illusion.

Ambedkar virtually accepted that all the thoughts of Savarkar were correct
but does not mention him by name. That is all.

• On 7 July 1937, Savarkar said in Pune, 'Our leftist friends can understand
German culture, English culture, French culture. So, why can’t they
understand Hindu culture? Just as Germany, England and France are
nations, Hindusthan is also a Hindu nation spread from Sindhu river to the
Bay of Bengal, from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. Our country is one, our
languages are
derived from Sanskrit, our aspiration is one, our customs and philosophy is
one. England may have a history of one thousand years, but scholars cannot
decide how old our history is. So, from that point also we are one nation.
Jews are scattered all over the world. They do not have a homeland and yet
with one religious text they are trying to be one nation. So, why can t we
call ourselves a nation?’

(H.M.SEra p37)

• On 31 July 1937.Savarkar was honoured by the so-called forward-looking

students. Mr S.M Josh! (who later became a well known labour leader) was
in chair. In his address MrBhau Phatak said, “We do not accept the views of
Savarkar of today. We want the Savarkar of 1908 (i.e. We want Savarkar of
ideology of 1908). We disagree with his attitude towards Hindu Rajas and
Maharajas. We do not believe that Hindus can unite just because they are
Hindus and thereby become a political force.” (H.M.SEra p41)

If Hindus could not unite and become a political force, how were the leftists
going to seek Hindu Muslim unity? The Muslims had always regarded
Hindus as Kafirs who must be eliminated by any means. That was the
teaching of their Koran.

The leftists ducked this question. They simply did not want Hindus to unite
and become a powerful force. That was the limit of their thinking. There
was no logic in their thinking.

Replying to the address, Savarkar said, “If you regard religion as a dose of
opium I am all for abandoning religion. But it is no good applying that
hypothesis to Hindus alone. You MUST apply it to ALL religions. Do you
accept that?”

Savarkar hit the leftists on the head. When they preached that Religion is a
dose of opium, they only meant Hindu Dharma. They dare not say that
Islam is a dose of opium. NOT one of them had the courage to say so. And
here was Savarkar openly saying, “I will live as a Hindu and die as a Hindu.
I could not care less if I am not honoured.” No wonder

the leftists regarded Savarkar as a reactionary.

• In December 1937, Hindu Maha Sabha held it’s annual session in
Karnavati (Ahmedabad). In his presidential speech Savarkar said, “Some
scholars propagate the view that we are not a nation. However, they are
quite happy to bestow nationhood on Great Britain, Russia, America and
Germany. But there are factions and divisions in these nations too. They
also have unity and distinctiveness from other peoples. By the same token
we Hindus are also are a nation. For hundreds of years we have common
religion, common civilisation, common language.”

(HMS Era p 66)

Modem books on the English language tell us, “There is no such word as a
Britisher, because there is no British nation. The correct word is Briton. The
nationalities are English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish.”

Here is a news item, which proves the point. It was published on page 1 of
The Times (of London) on 29 November 2001.

78 Britons died on September 11,2001 The number of Britons killed in the

September 11 terrorist attacks (in New York) was 78, the Government
announced yesterday, on the eve of a national memorial service at
Westminster Abbey.

In international football matches one can see teams representing England,

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are four nations.

The four nations benefited from the British Empire. Therefore their quarrels
are less obvious. But they are there. During World War I, soldiers from
Wales were forbidden from speaking their mother tongue, Welsh.

Even today, Glasgow has two football teams. ‘Celtic’ for Catholics,
‘Rangers’ for the Protestants. Their feud goes back hundred years.

The magazine Marie Claire reported in March 2002 how Mark

Scott was stabbed to death in Glasgow for being a Catholic. His girl friend
Cara Henderson tells the story on pages 159-162.
• On 30 April 1938, Maharashtra Youth Conference started its session in
Pune. Dr Hedgewar, founder of the R.S.S was in chair. Savarkar attended
the meeting. On the second day i.e. 1®* May a group of leftists under the
leadership of Mr S.M. Joshi led a march and deliberately passed by the
Youth Conference. They chanted slogans ‘Down with Hinduism’ ‘Down
with Savarkar’ ‘Savarkar Murdabad [death to Savarkar]’ ‘Hindu Dharma
Murdabad’ [Death to Hindu religion]’

Whenever a Hindu procession passes by a mosque, these leftists insist that

silence should be observed in front of the mosque. So why did they not
avoid passing by the Youth Conference? Why were they inciting riots and
hatred? Why were they itching for a fight? They were not intellectuals, they
were cowards to the core! They had no guts to say, ‘Down with Islam.’

The leftists were driven away by the Hindu youth.

On 2 May, the Youth Conference arranged huge procession demanding that

the Arms Act of 1858 should be repealed. Savarkar spoke and the meeting
ended. But some followers of Congress had decided to create disturbance.
One of them raised the tricolour flag and chanted slogans of ‘Pandit Nehru
ki jai [glory to Nehru]’ ‘Hindu Dharma Murdabad [death to Hindu
religion]’

(H.M.S Era pp 107/9)

• In a public speech delivered at Pune on 11 October 1938,Savarkar

exposed the hypocrisy of the Congressites. “I want to ask a question to
these Congressites who condemn Hindu Maha Sabha as communal, ‘in the
voter’s register you are counted as Hindus. When you stand for election you
ask Hindus for their votes, and yet when it comes to protecting Hindu
interests and rights you abandon Hindus under the pretext that you are a
nationalist and trample legitimate rights of Hindus. Why?”

are the same men interested in protecting Mosques? Does God reside in
Mosques only?’ But it is your fault. You give importance to such persons.
You vote for them and elect them to various council seats. How will you
treat a lawyer appointed by you, who states in court that your case is faulty?
You will ridicule him as your enemy’s agent. You will also tell your friends
not to give him any legal work. However, you elect such persons who do
not defend your interests and take side of Muslims. That is a blunder. You
should vote only those who openly declare to defend Hindu interests.”

(H.M.SEra p 207)

And what were Bose and the so called humanist Mr M N Roy doing at this
time? They were eager to co-operate with the Muslim League.

Power to the people but not to Muslims

* In March 1940, Bose made a treaty with the Muslim League during the
election to Calcutta City Corporation.

{HMS Era 328/9)

* In December 1940 it was widely known that M N Roy wanted to start a

new party in association with the Muslim League.

{HMS Era 388/9)

Whatever one may think of Gandhi’s ‘Himalayan blunders’ one has to agree
that he spread freedom movement to the Indian masses. He cleverly
proposed a 4 Anna (quarter of a rupee) annual membership of the Congress
Party. Muslim League on the contrary was restricted to a small minority of
rich merchants, landlords etc. It was NEVER a people’s party. Even Tariq
Ali makes this clear in his book ‘Pakistan: Military Rule or Peoples’ Power’
published in 1970.

Unfortunately the Congress Leaders and the leftists were so obsessed with
appeasing the Muslims that they never asked the question - How can the
Muslim League speak on behalf of Muslims when its membership is so
restricted? These leaders were devoid of logical thinking.

If there are Muslim riots you do need Hindu Maha Sabha. Why?

On 23 March 1940, Savarkar was speaking as the President of Tamilnadu

Hindu Parishad at Salem. He said,
• “After I arrived here some one asked me, ‘Hindus in the south do not
suffer any attacks from Muslims. So what is the necessity of Hindu
Mahasabha here?’ The funny thing is that no Muslim or Christian asks such
a question. It is asked by our own Hindu brothers especially by the
Congressite Hindus.”

But the question itself implied that wherever Hindus suffer attacks from
Muslims there is a need for Hindu Mahasabha. WHY? Why can’t the
Congress protect Hindus? The answer is clear cut. The Congressites do not
protect Hindus and Hindu interests, even after coming to power. Mr
P.K.Atre, a well-known figure in Maharashtra gave a series of lectures
during the election campaign of 1945/6. His speeches are published under
‘Hashya ani Talya’ (laughters and clapping of hands). He bluntly asked,
“Congress ruled for 27 months during 1937-39. What wrong did they do to
you ? Were your temples destroyed? were your girls abducted ?” [In other
words, go to sleep till that happens and when It does happen, the Congress
will do nothingll And yet people used to laugh at such speeches and clap
hands.]

Subhash Chandra Bose wrote, “About this time (i.e. in 1923) Mr (now Sir)
Milan Fazli Hussain became a minister in the Punjab and his extreme
partiality for Moslems in the matter of appointments to public services
caused considerable heartburning among Sikhs and Hindus.”

(Cross Roads by S.C.Bose, 1943, p 101)

But, what did the Congress do? Absolutely nothingl On the contrary when
Congress came to power they too treated Hindus badly and favoured
Muslims.

Let us return to Savarkar’s speech. He said, “The Chief Minister of Sind

Alla Baksh has recently said - in Sind, petrol was

poured on 10 Hindus and they were set alight, 150 Hindus were murdered
and hundreds of thousands of Hindus were looted.”

“If you say that we are alright in the south and ignore what is happening in
the north, within a century you too will have to face the same situation in
Madras. In the past when Muslims invaded Sind and Punjab, we remained
aloof and as the result, Muslims invaded the south also. We must not allow
history to repeat itself. We should not wait till the calamities fall on our
doorsteps. If we had been vigilant in the past we would have ruled vast
empires and the problem of minorities would have never occurred. Jews are
a minority in Germany. Are they raising any problems? If they did, you
know what would happen. If we had been powerful we too would have
burst the bubble of the minority problem.”

“It is wrong to say that there is no Muslim problem in the south. Moplas
committed terrible atrocities on Hindus in south. We had to fight for Hindu
rights in Hyderabad recently. That too was in the south. Nizam has his own
designs. He controls part of Andhra Pradesh. But he wants the whole of
Andhra Pradesh. He also wants a seaport so he will demand Madras or
Machchalipattam.

I say to you, why do you always accept the word of your opponent? Why
not take away tfie half of Andhra Pradesh under Nizam’s control and join it
with the other half ruled by the British? That will unite Andhra Pradesh.”

“Diwan of Mysore, Sir Mirza Ismail has given an advice to this conference.
Hyder AN and Tipu Sultan persecuted Hindus for a long time. Yet, Hindus
still form 93% of population. But in the Legislative Assembly in Mysore
they have been given only 81 % of seats, whereas 6% Muslims have been
given 10% seats. On the contrary, in Hyderabad, 90% Hindus have been
offered 50% seats and that too after our recent fen/ent struggle. This is how
Nizam treats Hindus and Muslims equally.”

“Now look at the percentages in government services. In Mysore, Muslims

have a population of only 6%. But in the state army they

have 65% seats, in the police force they 55% and they have demanded that
in the rest of civil service they should be given 50% seats. Maharaja of
Mysore has forgotten history. His ancestors employed a soldier named
Hyder Ali who treacherously overthrew the Hindu King of Mysore. The
present Maharaja should therefore have said to the Muslims that as you
proved to be such treacherous people you would not be employed in the
state army at all. I do not want repetition of past history.”
“Sikandar Hiyat Khan, Fazul Haq and other chief ministers and ministers
attend annual sessions of the Muslim League and openly guarantee to
protect Muslim interests. Recently the socalled Nationalist Abul Kalam
Azad, the President of the Congress Party has said quite openly, ‘1 will
make sure that Muslim interests are not harmed in any way.’

Savarkar continued, “I ask you, have you ever seen a Hindu King, Divan or
Chief Minister or a leader speaking this kind of language? If he did, these
Congressites and other Hindus also will ridicule him as a communal!!”

Gandhi has recently written in his paper ‘Harijan ’, ‘As Muslims are Indians
I will happily live under their rule.’ I say, ‘Similarly British also belong to
the human race, so why is Gandhi not prepared to live under their rule?’

“Gandhi’s philosophy is basically faulty. If Gandhi is happy to live under

the rule of Jinnah because he is an Indian by the same token why should not
Jinnah live happily under my rule, as I too am an Indian?”

(H.M.SEra pp 315/6/7/8)

No other Hindu raised such embarrassing questions. Little wonder that the
Congressites and leftists regarded Savarkar as a nuisance.

* Maulana Azad’s thinking is clear cut in his statement of 1946 reproduced

in his book:

“.... I am prepared to overlook all other aspects of the problem and judge it
from the point of view of Muslim interests alone. I

shall go still further and say that if it can be shown that the scheme of
Pakistan can in any way benefit Muslims I would be prepared to accept it
myself and also to work for its acceptance by others. But the truth is that
even if I examine the scheme from the point of view of the communal
interests of the Muslims themselves, I am forced to the conclusion that it
can in no way benefit them.” (India Wins Freedom by Maulana Azad, 1959,
p 143)
So, why did Maulana Azad oppose partition? merely because it was not in
the interest of Muslims. That is all.

A frightening picture for Hindus

* We have already seen how Muslims were given seats quite out of
proportion to their numbers, in civil service, in police and in Legislative
Assemblies. Savarkar quoted some more figures:

In Bihar, Muslims were 13% of population, but in civil service they

occupied 26% of vacancies, in education 38% and in Local Government
26%.

In Madras, Muslims were 7% of population, but in excise department they

occupied 16% of vacancies, 10% in education, 15% in Forestry, 18% in
justice department.

In U.P, Muslims were 14% of population (this in itself was a vastly falsified
figure) but in no department they occupied less than 30% of vacancies, they
were 75% in the police!!

(S.S.V4 pp 338/9, 346, 529)

Maulana /\zad tell us, in 1947, a large number of key positions in the
Central Secretariat were held by Muslims, many of them came from
provinces which were to become parts of Pakistan.”

(India Wins freedom, p 203)

Dr Ambedkar conveniently forgets such information and says, “High caste

Hindus want to exclude the Muslims from place and power as they have
done to the lower class Hindus.”

(Thoughts on Pakistan by Dr B.R.Ambedkar, 1946, p 123)

Twisted thinking of Congress leaders

• In November 1942, Savarkar wrote to the secretary of Sind Province

Hindu Maha Sabha, Shree Bhojraj Ajavani and a minister Gokulchand, “if
Hindu Maha Sabha is offered any Ministries by Muslim League, they
should accept on the basis of mutual co-operation and thus protect Hindu
interests.”

He further said, “Some Congressites will denounce our policy. I say to

them,

‘If you dislike our working together with Muslim League, why did you not
denounce Gandhi when he announced that he would accept if Jinnah was
given all powers of the Central Government and when he said that no one
would oppose the creation of Pakistan. Why are they silent on this? They
simply insist that Hindu Maha Sabha ministers should resign. Why don’t
they ask the Muslim League ministers to do the same? Why the partiality? I
am disgusted with their suicidal attitude.”

(S.U.I Era pp 110/1)

Partition of India

Savarkar tried to raise his voice against the partition of India (as it was
then) and the formation of Pakistan. His arguments were based on logic.

In a public speech in Pune on 2 August 1941 he said:• “Some say, ‘Not all
Muslims support Pakistan’ but this is an illusion. Their leaders preach
Pakistan one way or the other. Their venom is clear in the word Pakistan -
the land of the pure, meaning that the Hindus are not pure. They want to
destroy Hindu languages, script, religion and civilisation and build Pakistan
on that rubble. They therefore want Sind, North West Frontier Province
(NWFP) and Punjab in the west, on the east they want whole of Bengal as
they are in majority there, they want Assam because it is on the border of
Bengal. They want Hyderabad as its ruler is a Muslim. But then Hyderabad
is landlocked, so they will demand the port of Madras. They will even
demand Malabar Hill in Bombay as Jinnah lives in that locality.”

“They will say that democracy is bad, but conveniently they want that
system in Sind, Bengal and Punjab because Muslims are in majority there.
They claim Hyderabad as its ruler is a Muslim; they want Kashmir as the
majority of its population is Muslim. So, their logic is this - if democracy is
beneficial, they want democracy, if monarchy is beneficial they want
monarchy. Their thinking is coloured by their selfishness, nothing else.”

Dr Ambedkar accepted this argument of Savarkar but still propagated the

view that Pakistan should be allowed to be formed as a separate
independent state. (Thoughts on Pakistan, p 236)

Savarkar continued, “I am surprised that Acharya J.B Krupalani [then

President of the Congress Party] supports the creation of Pakistan. He has
recently said, ‘well, what difference would Pakistan make? At the most,
there will be one more state.’ Does he not see the horrible condition of
Hindus under Sikandar Hiyat Khan or Fazul Huq even when the British are
still here? Krupalani has not got the faintest idea of what calamities would
fall on Hindus if an independent Pakistan was to come into existence.”
(S.U.I Era p 142)

• While speaking on 30 September 1941 in Mumbai, Savarkar said,

“Jinnah is demanding Pakistan and one scholar has suggested that we

should give away Punjab as a compromise. But I say, “why do you always
want to give away? Why don’t you take some territory instead? Afghanistan
was a Hindu country not long agol why don’t you want it back?”

(S.S.V4 p 548)

• Hindu Maha Sabha held its annual session in Kanpur in December 1942.
In his presidential address Savarkar said, “Some have proposed that there is
no harm in allowing the formation of a Muslim state in the NWFP. They
should think a little. That will prove suicidal. Those Muslims always
wanted to break off from our country and also have the ambition of ruling
over us after the British have gone. Can any other country be so suicidal?”

“Some scholars make detailed calculations and conclude that we should

allow the formation of Pakistan. The provinces making up such a state will
be so feeble financially that they will repent and ask to join India again.
These scholars forget one thing, what makes them think that Pakistanis will
repent? As long as we cowardly accede to every demand of Muslims and
even accept partition, what makes them think that the economically starving
Pakistan will not invade India?”

Dr. Ambedkar made such calculations. In his book ‘Thoughts on

Pakistan’ he says:- u * i

* Hindu Provinces contribute 5191 million Rupees to the Central

exchequer

Muslim Provinces contribute 714 million Rupees only

* Total revenue of the Central Government is Rupees 121 crores out of this
52 crores are spent on Armed forces.

* Majority of recruits of Army come from Muslim provinces.

* In short, the money collected from Hindu Provinces goes to support

Muslim soldiers. So, give away Pakistan, h will economically be so weak
that Muslims will repent and ask to join in India.

(Thoughts on Pakistan, pp 100/101)

Ambedkar had remarked to Viceroy Lord Wavell that Pakistan would not
last longer than 10 years. (Viceroy’s Journal). Time has proved Savarkar
right. Maulafia Azad has given statistics after partition.

“Lord Wavell himself held that 100 crores Rupees should suffice for the
three wings of the Defence forces. Then came partition. One-fourth of the
undivided army went to Pakistan. In spite of this India has to spend 200
crores for the maintenance of her defence forces.... Pakistan has only one
fourth of the territories and armies of India, she is spending at least 100
crores from her own revenues, besides the aid she gets from the U.S.A.

(India wins freedom, pp 226/7)

This was the situation in 1954. Dr Ambedkar was still alive. But he never
ever said that events proved Savarkar right. Let us review some of them.
1944 (June)

• After his release from internment, Gandhi had started negotiations with
Jinnah. Some Congressites were getting disgusted with Gandhi’s constant
capitulation to Muslim demands. At the same time, Rajaji was saying,

‘Gandhi had consented to partition at the time of his famous fast in 1943
during his meeting with him.’

One Congressman asked, “^vhen you go down on your knees to see Jinnah,
why don’t you try to bring Savarkar to your fold?” Gandhi had no answer.

(S.U.I Era pp 279/280)

• Congress won the election of 1945/46 by promising that they will never
consent to Partition. ‘It was therefore immoral on their part to accept
partition. They should resign their seats and seek fresh mandate from the
electorates. ’ That should have been the demand of the followers of Gandhi,
who made so much fuss about ethics. But neither they nor the so-called
rationalists, Communists and Socialists made such a demand.

1947 (May)

British Cabinet declared its intention to grant independence to India after

partition. A few days later i.e. on 29 May 1947 Savarkar put out a public
statement —•

“In the recent elections, Hindus had voted for Congress and not for
partition. Congress leaders and candidates had openly vowed to maintain
unity and integrity of India. That is why people voted for them. The
members of the Legislative Assemblies have therefore no mandate to
accede to the partition. They cannot even consider the partition.”

“The present Constitution Assembly too has no powers to consider

partition. If the Viceroy asks them to consider partition, the members should
refuse to do so and say that they do not have necessary authority. Or they
should resign their seats and seek mandate from electorates in fresh
elections. They can also demand a plebiscite on such an issue.”
“Creation of Pakistan is going to be a constant headache for generations to
come. Elected members of Legislative Assemblies

must never agree to the partition unless they have a clear mandate from the
Hindu electorates. Otherwise they have no moral right to agree to it.”

(S.U.IEra pp 387/388)

1947 (October) —

Savarkar put out a statement

“Some pseudo Nationalists say that the demand for a Hindu state is
communal, foolish, out of date (belonging to middle ages) religious and a
nuisance to humanity. But they refuse to say exactly what a Hindu state
implies. Let us say, for the sake of an argument, that they have to denounce
a Hindu state for the above reasons. But then precisely for the same reasons,
should they not also denounce the Muslim state ? Was their demand not
based only on the basis that the majority are Muslims in those provinces?
So, how did you, being Nationalists, accede to such a demand ? Why did
you not refuse even to listen to such a demand ? And how can you now
denounce a Hindu state?” (S.S.V6 p555)

One can understand the attitude of followers of Gandhi and the leftists but
sadly others also followed their line of thinking. In 1977, Shantanurao
Kirloskar a Maratha industrialist wrote, “Savarkar did not realise that in
later years religion would be a matter of secondary importance!!”

” Why was India partitioned and Pakistan created for Muslims? Because of
religion.

* Why were Hindus massacred in many hots from 1921 to 1950? Because
of their religion.

* Why were Hindus hounded out of East and West Pakistan? Because of
their religion.
* Why were Hindus massacred and hounded out of Bangladesh ? Because
of their religion.

But all these calamities made no difference to Kihoskar. He had taken leave
of his senses.

(Savarkar’s Thoughts: some questions, article by Mr S Kirloskar, published

by Savarkar Darshan Pratishthan, Mumbai 1988)

Savarkar’s arguments were logical as we illustrated above. His opponents

never answered the questions he raised. If they had sought the answers they
would have realised their blunders. The main reason for not seeking
answers was the cowardice of Savarkar’s opponents.

Why was Savarkar’s image tarnished by his opponents? Reason No 6

The Cowardice of opponents of Savarkar

Gandhi once said. “An Englishman will never respect you unless you stand
up to him.” The same applies to Muslims. The more you appease them the
more they will despise you. Unless we realise this, we cannot stop
arrogance of the Muslims. Savarkar faced up to the fanaticism of Muslims
even in the helpless conditions in Andaman, fought with them and won.
Therefore even those fanatic Muslims respected him. There is also a
historical reason behind Savarkar’s triumph.

When people of various Indian provinces faced Muslim invaders, they

fought bravely, be it in Sind or Bengal, Kashmir or Kerala. But once the
Muslim rule was established, they lost their valour. Maharashtra was the
only province where the Marathas under the leadership of Shivaji
challenged the Muslim rule and overthrew it.

Brief history of the Marathas

After the coronation of Shivaji as the King in 1674, Maratha saint Ramdas
expressed satisfaction by saying -udanda jahale pani. Snan sandhya
karavaya.
Now our waters have become liberated and purified and we can now
perform our rituals in unpolluted rivers. No other saint from any other
province realised the importance of this event and expressed such feeling of
joy.

The learned Brahmin Gagabhatta travelled from Kashi (Benaras) to Pune to

see Shivaji at first hand. After meeting Shivaji, he suggested that Shivaji
should be crowned as the King. But Gagabhatta was a Maharashtrian whose
ancestors had migrated to Kashi a few generations earlier. Brahmins from
ALL other provinces showed no such enthusiasm.

There were four Shankaracharyas (like Pope), at Badrinath

(Kashmir), Shringeri (Karnatak), Puri (Orissa) and Dwaraka (Gujrat). None

of them took any notice ofShivaji’s coronation or sent blessings to him.

After Shivaji’s death in 1680, Mughal Emperor Auragnzeb himself with all
the might of his empire came south to conquer the Marathas. Shivaji’s son
Sambhaji fought bravely but was caught by accident in 1689 and tortured to
death by Aurangzeb. Sambhaji’s stepbrother Rajaram had to escape and
take refuge in the fort ofJinji (near Chennai). Sambhaji’s wife was
imprisoned. But Marathas refused to yield. In the end Auragnzeb died in
Maharashtra in 1707. Thus, Marathas, with their tenacity smashed the
Mughal Empire after waging a continuous armed struggle for 25 years.
Therefore they have the attributes to overthrow any foreign invader. It was
no accident that in 1885 the Indian National Congress was going to hold its
founding session at Pune, but the venue was shifted to Mumbai in
Maharashtra due to sudden outbreak of cholera in Pune.

There is therefore a sharp difference in the mental attitude of Marathas and

other Indians when dealing with foreign invaders. That is the main
historical reason behind the cowardice of opponents of Savarkar.

There are only two communities in India who do not fear Muslims the
slightest, Marathas and Sikhs who took inspiration from the Marathas.
Sikhs ruled territories up to Kabul.
In the 1920s in Karachi, only Marathas used to celebrate Shivajayanti (birth
day of Shivaji). After ‘Hindutva’ by Savarkar was published in 1924,
followers of Aryasamaj started to celebrate the birthday of Shivaji. (R Era p
86)

What a sad state of affairs!!

History moulds our minds

in 1960, Savarkar delivered his last public speech in Pune. In that speech he
said, “It is necessary that Marathas should join the armed forces in huge
numbers. Maharashtra must become a strong arm of India. Only you have
both bravery and craftiness.”

China invaded the North East Frontier of India in October 1962. Mr S.P
Gokhale saw Savarkar on behalf of the newspaper Kesari. He asked
Savarkar, ‘who, in your, opinion should be India’s Defence Minister at this
time?’ Savarkar replied, “Yashavantrao Chavan should be the Defence
Minister. Some one from Maharashtra needs to become the Defence
Minister during this emergency. Marathas, even among the Congressites,
show a dogged determination to win and a strong will power which is
lacking among the leaders of other provinces.”

“I say that some one who is Maratha needs to bear the mantle of Defence
Minister, that does not mean I do not trust other people. But one needs
certain special, inner formidable qualities at a time like this, and that is not
seen among the people of other provinces. The whole of India is mine, it is
one. We are all brothers. All our languages are sisters to each other. I accept
all that. But if I say that only a Maratha will withstand in present crisis, no
one should be angry.”

“I see in front of my eyes the days of Rajaram of the 1 T*' century. We need
not despair that we lost this village or that village, this area or that area.
Why should we be frustrated and feel hopeless? Consider those days of
Rajaram of 1680s. Princes gone. Princesses gone, capital gone and yet we
carried on the fight with the might of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. We
defended Jinji some thousand miles away from Pune for 20 years. Did we
not move across the river Chambal and smashed the armies of Mughals?
That spirit is in our blood. That is our history. We have the tenacity to turn
the wheel.”

(Savarkar did not want this interview to be published. It was published by

Mr Gokhale on 26 February 1967, on the first anniversary of Savarkar’s
self-immolation.)

Savarkar’s opponents never showed such dogged determination to defeat

our enemies.

On the Andaman Islands, Savarkar successfully fought the ferocious

onslaught of Muslims. His opponents never attempted such battles. They
always said, ‘Give to Muslims whatever they

demand.’ There was a disgraceful competition about who yields most to the
Muslims.

In a public speech in Pune in August 1939 Savarkar said, “From the point
of Hindu interests, Gandhi is bad, Bose is worse than Gandhi and Roy is
worse than Bose.” (SSV4 p 528)

That was all the difference between them.

After Savarkar was interned in Ratnagiri in 1924, he wrote an article on the

pitiable condition of Hindus in Sind province. After exposing the hypocrisy
and attitude of Muslims aimed at total annihilation of Hindus, Savarkar
said, ‘the earlier this Hindu Muslim unity is destroyed the better.’

(R. Era p 28)

We have already seen the details of his meeting with Shaukat AH in

November 1924. Even at this meeting Savarkar bluntly said, ‘Your unity
means total destruction of Hindus. Muslims are saying that yours is mine
and mine remains mine. The earlier such deceptive unity is destroyed the
better.’

(S.S.V3 pp 758/765)
In May 1927, Savarkar wrote, “Oh, Hindus if need be we can win our
freedom on our own.” His opponents lacked that confidence. Let us see
how their cowardice was evident in various events.

Savarkar’s opponents avoided visiting places of danger

In 1921, Mopla Muslims committed barbaric atrocities on Hindus in

Malabar (Kerala). But no Congress leader visited Malabar to console the
Hindu population, be it Mahatma Gandhi, Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru,
Sardar Patel (that iron man), Deshbandhu Das or Subhsah Chandra Bose.
They all kept away. Only person who visited the riot-affected area was Dr
Munje of Hindu Mahasabha from Nagpur. Let us see what S.C. Bose says
about these riots, “The Moplas of Malabar were a section of the Moslem
community. Their rising was directed against the local

Hindus : nevertheless it was also an attack on the Government and as such

caused them considerable anxiety and embarrassment.”

(The Indian Struggle, 1920-42 by S.C.Bose, 1943, p 69)

There were Muslim riots at various places after this incident. Congress
leaders skilfully avoided visiting them.

In 1946 we saw the massacre of 150,000 Hindus men, women and children.
And yet those who used to proclaim all the time that Gandhi made them
fearless avoided visiting Noakhali in Bengal. The same cowards had the
audacity to say, “Our leader Gandhi toured the area without fear.” This is a
blatant lie. Wellknown Marathi writer P.K. Atre wrote in those terms in his
weekly Navayug (New Era). But here are the facts. Viceroy Lord Wavell
wrote in his diary:

9 November 1946

In the evening Burrows (Governor of Bengal) arrived.... He was very

relieved that Gandhi had left Bengal, it had taken 20 of his best police to
protect him; and he was sarcastic over an American correspondent’s article
headed, ‘Gandhi walks alone!’ (Viceroy’s Journal by Lord Wavell, 1973, p
428)
Of course, it is not in the interest of the English to expose the myth of
fearless Gandhi, therefore they keep quiet about it even today. One must
also remember that the daughter of Surhawardi, the Muslim Chief Minister
of Bengal accompanied Gandhi. What danger did he face?

So, who went to Noakhali? Mr Vishnupant Karkare of Hindu Maha Sabha

of Nagar (Maharashtra) and his six friends went to help the Hindus of
Noakhali wearing all the outward signs of Hindu Dharma. Now, that is
fearlessness.

Thus, the Congress leaders, not only never visited the riotaffected areas
where Hindus were massacred, but if Hindus defended themselves or
reacted to Muslim riots, the same

Congerssites preached good behaviour to Hindus. They had no guts to

preach peace and tolerance to Muslims.

• His opponents preached to Hindus only

• In an article, 'which religion is peaceful?’ dated 27 January 1927 Savarkar

took Gandhi to task.

It is not possible that Gandhi has not read Barrister Amin’s exciting speech
in Delhi recently. But Gandhi is conniving with his Muslim followers about
it by saying, ‘oh, what’s there in numbers?’ Even at a time like this Gandhi
has no courage to lecture to Muslims and yet if an Aryasamajist were to
respond to Muslim propaganda, Gandhi would immediately pounce on him
with all his might, like an angry schoolteacher. We understand that Gandhi
is a Mahatma and therefore cannot take sides. But just as partiality means
siding with one party all the time, it aiso means opposing one party all the
time.’’i\r\ other words, Gandhi is flagrantly partial against Hindus while
pretending to be neutral)

“Gandhi believes that Islam teaches peace, tolerance of others’ views and
being kind to all human beings. Then surely, he must emphasise those
teachings of Islam to his Muslim followers through his paper ‘Young India.’
He arranged lectures on Khilafat by his disciples the Ali brothers. Now he
must ask them to lecture on peaceful teachings of Islam. At times, the
preachings may make Muslims feel bitter but they must be preached in the
interests of the nation.”

“But Gandhi, instead of doing those right things, starts to speak in an

ambiguous way and blames Hindus. When it is crystal clear that Muslims
were entirely at fault in Kohat, Gandhi keeps quiet about it. We have to say
that his diagnosis is wrong and the fault lies elsewhere.”

(S.S.V3 pp 100/101)

• Numerical strength is also a strength - In this article of 17 February 1927

Savarkar emphasised:

“We do want increased strength of quality, but we also need numerical

strength. We will increase our numbers by Shuddhi and abolition of
untouchability. We know very well that numerical strength on its own will
not suffice. You should not waste time in preaching to us with the question,
‘why bother about numbers?’ If you have questions like that ask them to
your Muslim brothers in Jumma Masjid. They need this advice very badly.
Assuming of course, that you have the courage to climb the steps of Jumma
Masjid in the first place!!”

(S.S.V3 p39)

• In his statement put out on 22 May 1941 Savarkar took Dr Rajendra

Prasad (First President of the Indian republic in 1950) to task.

“There were some disturbances in Bihar in a piace called Bihar Sharif.

Prasad has criticised and blamed the local Hindus even when the court of
enquiry has not yet given its verdict. People asked him, ‘why did you not
condemn Muslims for the riots in Dacca, Sind, NWFP and at other
locations? ‘He replied, ‘why blame others? we should improve the
behaviour of our people. Being a Hindu I can only preach to Hindus, only
Muslim leaders have the right to preach to Muslims, I cannot do that.”

“It is time we exposed the hypocrisy of these Congress leaders. Prasad uses
the words, ‘our people’ when referring to Hindus. But since when have
Hindus become ‘our people’ for the Congressmen? Has he broken off with
the Congress? As per philosophy of Congress, Prasad cannot say, ‘Hindus
are my people’. He must treat Hindus and Muslims equally. That being the
case he MUST preach to them both.”

“Moreover, if he pretends that he can only blame his people how dare he
blame the British for the Jalianwala Bagh massacre? Prasad cannot say that
British are ‘my people’. If we extend this line of thinking we must ask how
could he express his anger against the British rule when they are not his
people? How can he condemn the actions of the Japanese and Nazis when
they too are not his people ? On the contrary, Muslims are much nearer

to us than the Japanese and Nazis so why should he not condemn the
barbarities of Muslims?”

“If the Congress leaders will answer the questions raised, they will realise
their duplicity. When it comes to elections they have no shame in asking for
the votes from Hindus. But at all other times, they pretend that they are
Naionaiists and cannot therefore look after Hindu interests at all, be it
during the various Muslim riots, or at the round table conference or in the
Legislative Assemblies.”

“We say to them, enough of your double standards and selfish deception.
Hindu Maha Sabha will protect Hindus from all aggressions and look after
their interests.”

(S.U.I Era pp 40/41/42)

That is logical thinking! That is rationalism!! Those are Savarkar’s

unanswered questions!!!

• Kemal Pasha, President of Turkey from 1923, brought up his country from
middle ages to modern times. He died in 1938. Subhash Chandra Bose
proposed that India should observe 19 November as ‘Kemal Pasha da/. But
he did not want to take the advantage of the occasion and say to Indian
Muslims.

‘You too need to move with times as Kemal Pasha did. You need to adopt
modern practices. Your religion should be a matter of personal behaviour
and a private affair. Like Turkish women, your women too, should drop the
burkah (veil). Since 1926 polygamy was abolished in Turkey. You should
follow its example.’ Bose did not have the courage to say that. He was quite
happy that Muslims remain in the dark ages.

• At this time, Maratha writer Saane Guarji published his book, ‘Bharatiya
Sanskrit! (Indian Civilisation). ’ It has a chapter entitled ‘Experimenting
Sages' He says

“When a society does not change with the times they make a serious
mistake. How can yesterday’s traditions be useful today?

... We cannot use the clothes of summer during the winter and vice versa.
Otherwise we will shiver in winter and suffocate in summer.”

But Saane Guruji was not prepared to preach this philosophy to Indian
Muslims. He was not ready to say. 'A man marrying four women may have
been an accepted practice once but it is out of date today. God has not
created women four times the men in ANY society.’Even this truth, Saane
Guruji was not able to utter because he was a coward.

* It had been a tradition to sacrifice sheep or goat in many temples in India.

Socialists had raised voice against this custom, but they never had the
courage to ask Muslims not to slaughter sheep on the day of Bakr-id or that
not to kill cows. Their courage immediately evaporated. Socialists even
today do not have the courage to condemn these acts of Muslims. That is
cowardice.
• Cowardice of Vinoba Bhave
In 1958 Acharya Vinoba Bhave, one of the well-known disciples of Gandhi
started a movement to allow non-Hindus to the Vithoba temple in
Pandharpur. Savarkar exposed Vinoba’s cowardice in an article.
Non Hindus must never be
admitted to tempies and places of
Hindu worship.
“Christians, Jews, Muslims and followers of other religions have their faith.
Hindus have no objection to that. But they cannot have the same sincerity
and emotions and feelings as Hindus in temples. It is therefore preposterous
for the Sarvodaya followers to preach ONLY to Hindus, “you allow non-
Hindus to your temples. God is one. Therefore it is childish to say that this
temple belongs to Hindus, this mosque belongs to Muslims. All the human
beings are one. Therefore at least Hindus should make a start and say that
their temples are open to the people of other religions .”

“If Muslims enter the temples they will destroy the idols at the first
opportunity. They have never made bones about it.”

“Have you forgotten our history? Sultan Muhammad of Gazani attacked

Sorti Somnath temple in Saurashtra (Gujarat) in 1026 A.D. and proudly
proclaimed.

‘I am the destroyer of Hindu idols. I want to smash the idol worship of

Hindus.’ Many Sultans followed in his footsteps. So severe were their
attacks that it looked as though there would be no need for the Sarvodayis
in future to say,

‘please allow non-Hindus to your temples’ as Hindus nearly faced

annihilation. Unluckily came the Marathas who even defeated and buried
Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in Maharashtra soil and they went on
liquidating Sultans after Sultans. And thus the entity of Hindus was
preserved. Of course it was evident that if any followers of Vinoba were to
request Muslims to open their mosques to Hindus, they would be faced with
flat refusal. Muslims of Kolhapur had put up banners, ‘only those who pray
namaz will be allowed in our mosques.’ Vinoba and his foilowers were
terrified and did not have the courage to argue with Musiims. Moreover,
when Vinoba wanted to visit a Dargah, the Mullah there promptly told him
that no women are allowed. ‘Remove women from your group.’ Vinoba
meekly obliged.”

“Let us take a broader picture. Thousands of temples were destroyed in

Pakistan. As long as Muslims consider the idol smashing as their religious
duty, how dare you suggest that Hindus should allow Muslims in their
temples?”
Why does not Vinboba go to
Pakistan?
“We have a wonderful suggestion. Vinoba and his followers have been
preaching to Hindus good behaviour towards others. And yet Hindus still
do not follow them. There is one thing that Vinoba can do. He should carry
out a satyagraha tour in Pakistan and bless Pakistanis with his lectures. Let
him emphasise virtues of tolerance and mutual respect to Muslims in
Pakistan. After all he has always loved Muslims more than Hindus. And he
believes in the conversion of hearts and persuasion. Vinoba has worked for
the last 30 or 40 years among Hindus alone. Is it not time that he

made a tour of Pakistan lasting for at least one year? He has been extremely
partial to Hindus and has neglected his duties to Muslims. Let him go to
Pakistan, convince Ayubkhan and Sikandar Mirza of their wrong deeds of
the past. Let him rebuild and consecrate temples there, which were felled
during partition by Muslims due to their hatred of Hindus. Let Hindus be
allowed to worship in those temples again. Vinoba will immediately see
that Hindus of India too will reciprocate and allow Muslims to pray in their
temples. What a triumph for the whole humanity that will be. He must show
that he has the courage to conduct such an extensive tour.”

“But, we do not believe Vinoba has the courage. And therefore our temples
will remain sacred places of Hindus just as Mosques are sacred to Muslims.
The places of worship will remain exclusive to the religious groups
concerned. If Vinoba wants the people of all religions to come together let
him open new places of common worship. We have no objection to that at
all.”

Jaya Jagat (let there be peace in the world)

(S.S.V3 pp 699 to 702)

* Perverted idea of bravery
It would not have mattered if the opponents of Savarkar were cowards, but
it was this kind of people (i.e. Congress Party members) who remained in
power for more than 50 years and they tried their best to destroy Hindutva.
They systematically misused their political power to malign Savarkar. They
were terror only to their grandmothers. Let us take some examples.

1946

After general elections. Congress Party came to power in the provinces of

Bombay, Madras, Assam, Bihar, Orissa, Central Province and United
Province (later Uttar Pradesh).

During elections they had vehemently promised that they would

never agree to the partition. And yet Nehru and Patel had decided to agree
to the partition in private. They therefore decided to suppress Hindu Maha
Sabha who would have exposed the betrayal of election promise made by
the Congress.

July

In Bombay, Morarji the right hand man of Sardar Patel (the iron man) was
the Home Minister. At a stroke, he stopped the government advertisements
appearing in Nathuram Godse’s paper Agrani. Government advertisements
were a major source of income of Indian newspapers, without which few
would survive. At the same time he demanded a deposit of 6,000 Rupees (at
1946 prices). A few days later, he confiscated that deposit and closed the
paper. Nathuram started a new paper called, Hindu Rashtra. Morarji
immediately demanded a security deposit of 5,000 Rupees.

August

16P was observed as a ‘Day of Direct Action’ by the Muslim League. In

Calcutta they massacred 5,000 Hindus and blinded hundreds.
September

On the 2"“ Sardar Patel joined Viceroy’s Council as Home Member.

October

On the 2^ (Gandhi’s birthday) Morarji’s police searched the house of

Savarkar in Mumbai and arrested his secretary Mr Damie and his
bodyguard Mr Kasar.

10-17^

In Noakhali and Chittagong in Bengal, 150,000 Hindu men, woman and

children were massacred by Muslims. They wanted to repeat the same in
Bihar, but Hindus were well prepared and retaliated strongly. The ugly
design of Muslims was thwarted. Immediately Nehru declared, I shall bomb
the Hindus of Biharl! And he did bomb them. Details are given in a book
‘What I saw

in Bihar’ by Balshastri Hardas. That was Nehru’s idea of bravery. Of

course, he dare not visit the Hindus of Noakhali.

1947

May

Morarji Desai asked for a deposit of Rupees 20,000 from the English
language newspaper Maratha founded by Lokamanya Tilak. At the same
time, he confiscated the previous deposit of Rupees 5,000. Other papers in
Maharashtra like Kal, Kesari and Trikal were similarly harassed.

Congress administration carried out similar repressive measures in other

provinces where they had come to power.

How perverted were the minds of Congress Party rulers? Those who
resisted Muslim aggression were imprisoned !!

(S UI Era, p 382)
June

On the 3^ Nehru and Sardar Patel openly agreed to partition.

Mr S L Karandikar, member of Bombay Legislative Assembly said, “I do

not know what to say of the Congress administration.

I exposed activities of Muslims and proved how they are smuggling arms
into Bombay, but Congressites blame and curse me for exposing such
activities!! They have not opened their eyes after the horrors of Muslim
atrocities in Noakhali, Punjab and NWFP. They will allow total annihilation
of Hindus but would never seek revenge. They are now resorting to press
censorship. Therefore Hindus must resist Muslim aggression on their own."
(S UI Era p 383)

August

On the 15^- India under the British rule was partitioned between India and
Pakistan.

In U.P, Congress Government threatened to confiscate property of Hindu

Mahasabha leaders and workers and put them in jail permanently.

(S UI Era, p 412)
1948
January

On 30^ Gandhi was assassinated in Delhi.

Morarji had kept constant watch on the house of Savarkar. But after the
news of Gandhi’s assassination was announced on radio he did not rush
police to protect Savarkar. On the other hand, police arrested Savarkar’s
bodyguard Mr Appa Kasar and took him into custody. Savarkar was left to
the mercy of the lynching mob. He was saved by the bravery of Balarao
Savarkar, Tendulkar and Shinde. They threatened to kill any one who dared
to enter Savarkar’s house. But this did not save Savarkar’s younger brother
Dr Narayanrao who lived elsewhere. He was severely beaten by the mob.
He never recovered from the wounds and died a few month’s later.

February

On the Savarkar was arrested as a suspect in the plot to kill Gandhi. He was
aged 64 and for previous one year he was bedridden. And yet, his wife and
his only son were not allowed to see him for 46 days. Trial started on 22
June.

When Gandhi Assassination trial began, the prosecution counsel said,

“After the partition of the country what happened to the minority
communities (i.e. Hindus including Sikhs) in the Dominion of Pakistan is
well-known. Mahatma Gandhi did all that he could to restrain any sort of
counter-attacks on the minority community (i.e. Muslims) in the Dominion
of India.”

(Rex versus Nathuram Godse and others. Case for the Prosecution.)

In other words, Nehru and Sardar Patel did not even suggest that if they
protected Muslims in India, Pakistan would do the same for Hindus in that
country. They did not even expect that much. They were simply interested
in protecting the Muslims of India for the sake of it.
1949
* Nehru and Sardar Patel tried to implicate Savarkar in the Gandhi

Assassination trial, but failed and on 10 February, Savarkar was declared

innocent. Thousands of people had gathered outside the Red Fort of Delhi
where the trial took place to congratulate Savarkar but Sardar Patel ensured
that this did not happen. As planned beforehand, the Magistrate of Delhi
issued a warrant forbidding Savarkar from leaving the Red Fort. After a few
minutes, Savarkar was issued with another warrant under the Punjab Public
Security Measures Act, which forbade him from entering Delhi area for
three months. Savarkar was then escorted by the police to Delhi railway
station and thence to his house in Mumbai. (12 February 1949)

2SP May was Savarkar’s birthday. Punjab Government forbade any public
celebrations on that occasion.

THAT is how firm Sardar Patel was.

1950 (March)

Hindus in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) were massacred by Muslims

once again. Even peace loving persons like Jaya Prakash Narayan started to
say, ‘if this carnage of Hindus does not stop India must send in troops.’
Taya Zenkin was then the reporter of Guardian the British newspaper. She
met Sardar Patel. In his interview Patel told her how firm he was going to
be with Hindu Maha Sabha. He said:

"... You know Gandhi was murdered by one of them. But we are not going
to stand any nonsense. We have no option but to protect our Muslims , no
matter what Pakistan does to their Hindus. You see, we are a secular State.
Our Muslims have stayed here out of economic necessity ; those who had
anything to gain from migrating have already gone. It would therefore
require terrific rioting before all our Muslims would leave. You might argue
that we would then be better off, but it would not be so; we would be left
with a nation of criminals. Besides, no government can allow chaos. So you
see, we shall go on shooting as many Hindus as necessary to protect our
Muslims .”

“Pakistan has no such problem; the Hindus are so afraid there that they can
be squeezed out without difficulty. And Pakistan has no Constitution; it can
be tough with the press, for instance, in a way we cannot. If I were to close
down the Amrit Bazar Patrika because it had been carrying out a gallop poll
on whether we should go to war, they would appeal and our judiciary is so
independent that it would reverse the order in the name of freedom of the
press. This is why I asked the press to co-operate with the Government; in
Pakistan they can just apply censorship. And if they say Islam is in danger,
everyone will rally behind the Government. So far as I am concerned, I will
believe that the Delhi Agreement is working only when the refugees go
back to Pakistan, not only those who have just come, but the million and a
half who have left since 1948.”

Taya Zenkin adds (in 1962) - The refugees of 1948 have not gone back.
Indeed another million and a half have come.

(Ref:- Reporting India by Taya Zenkin, 1962, pp 58-59)

The thinking of the so-called iron man Sardar Patel is explicit from the
interview quoted above. He was a terror to Hindus. The Delhi Agreement
was nothing but Nehru-Liaquat Ali pact. And who was this Liaquat Ali? He
was the Finance Minister in the joint government of Congress-Muslim
League in 1947. It was his cleverness and craftiness that frustrated and
angered Patel very much. After the partition, he became the Prime Minister
of Pakistan. Instead of sending army to protect Hindus of East Pakistan,
Nehru and Sardar Patel invited Ali for talks in Delhi (2 April 1950). In
order to please Mr Ali, Moraiji arrested Savarkar on 4 April 1950 under the
Preventive Detention Act and sent him to Belgaum 400 miles away.
Savarkar was on his way to Punjab to mediate between Sikhs and non-Sikhs
of Punjab where there were signs of a growing rift between the two
communities.

Nehru-Liaquat Ali pact was signed on 8 April 1950. Any damn fool would
have realised that it was not worth the paper it was written on. Patel of all
people should have realised that from his personal experience. Moreover, he
had already suffered from

two heart attacks. Even then he flew to Calcutta to persuade the Bengali
leaders to accept that pact. And what was his brave act? He arrested and
detained Savarkar in jail!!

In April 1950, many other Hindu Maha Sabha leaders were also arrested
under the Preventive Detention Act. One of them was Ashutosh Lahin who
was a revolutionary and a co-prisoner of Sa varkar in Andaman. His
experience is given in Dr NB Khare’s autobiography.

“He met Pandit Nehru and acquainted him with the sorry tale of Bengali
refugees and requested him to render some help to those down-trodden
human beings. Pandit Nehru refused to do so, as Pakistan was a foreign
country. Lahori replied, ‘well, you do not do anything. We ourselves will
form some armed bands and infiltrate into East Pakistan secretly to help the
Hindoos there. You simply connive at it.’ Pandit Nehru at once flared up
and said, ‘ If you do so. my army will shoot you from behind .’

(My Political Memoirs by Dr N B Khare. 1959, pp 359/360)

1962

In October, China invaded Ladakh and NEFA areas of India. Nehru’s

secretary Mathai remembers, “Nehru lacked the toughness of Churchill and
Churchill-type courage in adversity. He wilted in the wake of the Chinese
attack on India. His health could not stand up to the mental strain. Many
things which he valued crushed around him.”

{Reminiscences of the Nehru Age by M.O.Mathai, 1978, p 57)

But, was it not this same great man who said in 1946, just 16 years earlier.
“I will bomb the Hindus of Bihar.” And he did bomb them with the same
vindictiveness of General Dyer who caused the massacre of unarmed men
women and children atJalianwala Bagh in Amritsar, Punjab ini919.
The house of Savarkar was under constant surveillance by two policemen of
the Criminal Investigation Department ever since Congress Party came to
power in 1946. After the Chinese

invasion, their number increased from two to four policemen on the orders
of Nehru!!

Where were the British during all this time? They never wanted a strong
Hindu Nation to emerge. They therefore cleverly brought to power Gandhi,
Nehru, Patel and the Congress Party. The three leaders hated the Marathas
most. They also never said a single word of appreciation or sympathy for
the revolutionaries who fearlessly went to the gallows. [SSV 4, pp 494-501]

Here are some indicators.

BRITISH, GANDHI, NEHRU AND CONGRESS

1924

In Febmary / March, a plot to overthrow British Rule by force was

discovered in Kanpur. On 21 May Times of India wrote, “The deeds of
Anarchists have been regarded with satisfaction by many who would not do
such things themselves just as in Bombay the release of Vinayak Savarkar
called forth glowing tributes to the heroes of the pre-war assassinations.”

[In other words, since the reiease of Savarkar, Indians have started to
support the revolutionaries]

On 5 June it wrote, “We have some inklings of this [press campaign] in

Bombay on the release from prison of the notorious Vinayak Savarkar. This
is an attitude, which has been growing more and more common recently
and is likely to be more prevalent if Mr Gandhi’s influence declines as it
has been declining.”

[In other words it is a matter of concern if Gandhi loses his appeal to

masses.]

{R Era, pp 42/43)
1929

Pioneer (Anglo Indian paper of Lucknow), Manchester Guardian, and

Times (of London) newspapers of 12 and 19 March give clear indication of
the British attitude towards Gandhi and Revolutionaries.

Savarkar wrote, “Today, the English newspapers invariably call Gandhi a

Mahatma. Various articles in them give a clear indication that they expect
Gandhi would eliminate the revolutionaries in India. He is an excellent tool
for that. They make no bones about it.”

{SSV 3, pp 101/2/3)

1931

January

Commenting on the unrest in India following Gandhi’s arrpst after the

launching of his mass-disobedience movement, Manchester Guardian
wrote, “It is necessary to destroy the revolutionary movement. But the way
to achieve this is not more suppression. That will merely create the
impression in the minds of Indians that Gandhi’s methods would not work.
Indian masses would then follow the Revolutionaries and abandon Gandhi.
Such an outcome is highly undesirable to both England and India.”

{R Era, p 226)

1937

Nehru’s Autobiography was published in London. However, at

the same time the British Administrators had forbidden Savarkar from even
writing his autobiography!!

There is a long list of Savarkar’s biographies and books banned by the

British.

* His biography of Mazzini (in Marathi) was banned in 1908.

* Indian War of Independence 1857 was banned in 1909.

* The Drama ‘Usshyap’ was banned, in 1927.

* The magazine Shrddhanand run by Savarkar’s brother and which carried

Savarkar’s article was banned on 10 May 1930.

* In July1931, his biography in Urdu was banned by Punjab Govt followed

by bans on biographies in Tamil, Kannad, and Marathi. {REra pp 248/9)

* My Transportation for Life (in Marathi) was banned in 1934. {R Era p

307)

* On 24 Oct 1940, another of his biography in Tamil was banned. {HMS

Era p 369)

* In November 1941 even a small biography of him by G.P. Parchure was

also banned (S UI Era p 157)

* November 1943 biography by S.L.Karandikar (in Marathi) was banned.

(S UI Era p 243)

Thus, the British wanted Hindus to know only about Gandhi and Nehru and
NOT Savarkar.
1942
May

Savarkar had asked that 10 May should be observed as AntiPakistan Day.

Immediately the British rulers banned such public meetings throughout
India.

{SUIEra,p119)

12 December

Dr Munje (of Nagpur) wanted to go to America for propagating views of

Hindu Mahasabha and explain its Anti-Pakistan stand. He was denied
passport by the British.

{SUIEra p 116)
1944
During 9 to 27 September, Gandhi carried out negotiations with Jinnah in
Mumbai. The British Administration banned demonstrations by opponents
against the negotiations.

(S UlEra p 291)

The British were delighted by Gandhi’s capitulation to Jinnah. Whatever

was insulting, humiliating to Hindus, was encouraged by them.

Further explanation is given in the last chapter ‘utility of all human

activities’. British shrewdly used the well-known Gandhi’s fast in
February1943 and the trial of IN A soldiers to play in the hands of the
Congress Party and ensure their victory at polls in 1945/46.

222 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

We have seen how the image of Savarkar was constantly maligned by his
opponents. He had become an eyesore to them. They were in power till his
self immolation (i.e from 1946 to 1966) and even after his death they
continued to misuse their political power and carry their vendetta against
him. It was therefore that Savarkar the Social Reformer remained
completely unknown. Let us now see that side of his character. Some
readers would find it convenient to refer to Appendix C for certain
unknown words / phrases before moving on to next chapter.

' jy ' " H ' Ci Sis5ta}'«2

Jt

tiOwiMn:>o: afit«o]ia)tanM8rAoi‘9|)ftottf|4|i^«i^
d) errad»Nl9aja eftfoiecl t>eH
eH40iMnodOo ^;n ydt
'n.inHi.'^f’. !^\ri 10]

m:

;^^f1^ttV0A9laiJ yieddkirnao benismor idrrhol&R \ aiv ^

.letoffifirb elrl ^6/9^ . r'^MpiKvinu niahao lo) 0 xlbnaqqA of laAc^ oi ‘ ""

Thi^, tfier nafqafto fx»diol*r».^lfQffv S’^Nohm fiiyimrSn^VM ^ ■,

1^2

.May

•rl

1.

^vatkar had A9H;^Kf tnor lOMay stvKM 1M Jv

ImmeOialefy tNJBrttehrvrfara iJawi^aiJc^lwiowL M

ii*r ‘ •
meatiwge mroOglTtitrt t>Kfla

V ■■ u ^iSUf lEf^/P lt^ r /O

•^ *-'■ .* ^^". , f'W* ^■..,

v‘4,p*j ®' 12pec4?(9>«i' ‘' ‘ ••■■’■ • *■ “j:

Or Mtjnfa (of htogpiir) Wnmedio go b An^enca for oropcaabna

; ': ^rteiiiraof Wr*da MA»‘iasQt#'.a aoVd eiJqpJaln rts Anti-Pabafah stfln^‘

d

f I fr M« vk» a<iK>i 0 cl fsa^rt by theBrUsh, ;:'^f^/iyy‘iSUISrapli5^^

■’' During 9 tb 37 Soutombai. Ga^-uffil oanlijd out

"'’^^Jinnah id MombaL Titb Brlffah Xy^ilnJafratbO/l^^ h ' ctomoitttratJ ane

by Oppc^«n» agarrtat the nagottations, ^

4 (sm Bmp'll} ■* r .1,

j '’•; '4 .'T?ti. BHrith cWIghied bv aanfdhta ^r^'jtbjurtka^t to cHftiih!

■ .• vr ■WhBt«r/0fWtof(lsti1tbg,hunviiiu:it1f b HioouStWgKW^^

Ii^-. -VyV' k __

Btjr^reipUmatfon !$ f^^Pki^cfisunffryil^
.. ^ . .f£j V «.VoMfK f,r«Jd tha Bxnohtjfpsfin

'• ail

)--Yvr '- . (.•s^''\-l- ■ ^

'i-i^ ,!>-■ ■ ■•■■);,-riiiaa c ri^JCJHSHiSRJ- Jfc ■ ^ ^ ^ /''filial *

>li

Chapter Five

SAVARKAR THE SOCIAL REFORMER

- ^ , I. '■ '

’ *. -„ . f. V* ,--r

.r

qavarkar the social reformer

As we saw before, during the period from 1924 to 1937 Savarkar was kept
in internment at a place named Ratnagiri. He was forbidden to take part in
politics. Therefore he concentrated on social reforms. But social reforms
did not mean easy life, nor did it mean preaching reforms to masses while
sitting comfortably in an armchair. He himself has said, “Social reforms are
not for the faint hearted. One must be prepared for a tough fight all the
time.”

(S.S.V3 p 640)

WHY DO WE NEED SOCIAL REFORMS?

Savarkar had answered the question -at least four times.

• In 1936, he wrote,

“Though I said it hundred times before, 1 say it again so that no one should
have any doubts about the reality that for the progress of the Hindu nation,
we need both political and social reforms. Consider politics as a sword and
social reforms as a shield. Both are complimentary to each other. One is
ineffective without the other,”

(S.S.V4 p 638)
• In 1937, he said at a village named Shirode,

“Some may feel that social reforms are much less important than gaining of
political power. But they are closely related to each other. It is therefore
essential that we pay attention to social reforms too. It is no good assuming
that social reforms will take place with the passage of time. Some times that
may appear to be the case. However, those changes took place because
some one in the past made efforts for them. Therefore we must make
persistent efforts for the changes that we wish to see in future.” (R Era p
372)

• Savarkar organised social functions where people of all castes sat together
for meals (sahabhojan). At such a function on 1 July 1937 he said, “The
abolition of the caste system is far more

important than the mere thinking of politicai movements. It is true that

many sociai reforms cannot be pursued with ^vigour without Political
independence, but a start has to be made for those social reforms, which
would enable us to sustain our freedom after independence.”

(HMSEra p31)

• On his 60^ birthday he said, ‘if we gain independence without social

reforms, it wili not last long.’

(S.U.IEra p202)

It must be emphasised that Savarkar regarded Sociai reforms as a type of

work NOT the oniy work.

(R Era p 244)

Seven shackles that inhibited the Hindu society

At the time of Savarkar’s internment, the Hindu society had been

handicapped by seven shackies. It was unorganised, weak and disintegrated
into hundreds of fragments by traditions of several generations. The seven
shcackes were as foilows
(1) Shuddhibandi (prohibition of re-conversion)

Hindus never spread their religion and sought converts. They would never
say to Muslims and Christians, ‘You should become Hindus’ On top of that
they were not even prepared to accept to their fold those who voluntarily
wanted to become Hindus. They were also not prepared to accept back to
Hindu Dharma their own people who were forced to become Muslims or
Christians. On the other hand, if a Hindu took food from the hands of a
Muslim, other Hindus would regard him as lost to Hindu Dharma forever
and have become Muslim. Similarly if a Hindu were to take water from a
Christian other Hindus would hound him out and treat as if he had
embraced Christianity, his progeny too would be lost to Hindu Dharma
forever.

(2) Sparshabandi (untouchability)

Total population of untouchables was at par with the population

of Muslims. And yet this huge mass had become dead wood for the Hindus.
This was totally unjust and foolhardy. Moreover there was no one
homogenous group of untouchables. They were also fragmented among
hundreds of castes and sub-castes.

(3) Betibandi (prohibition of inter-marriages)

There were no inter-caste marriages. There were no marriages even

between sub-castes of the same caste. For example, in Bombay there were
no marriages between Pathare Prabhus and C.K.Ps (Chandraseniya
Kayastha Prabhus) though both belonged to the Prabhu caste. Thus the
whole society was fragmented.

(4) Rotibandi (prohibition of eating together by people of different castes)

Just as inter caste marriages were forbidden so too were dining together.
People honestly believed that it was a cardinal sin to do so. Savarkar’s
personal secretary Balarao Savarkar remembers that in 1924 even
Deshastha and Kokanastha Brahmins did not dine together. Of course this
did not matter to either caste, but the question of untouchables was quite
different and pressing.

(5) Sindhubandi (prohibition of seafaring)

It was forbidden to cross the seas to go to foreign lands. This was getting
less rigorous with the passage of time. But, even in the 1930s there were
some Brahmins who believed that those who crossed the seas had ceased to
be Hindus.

(6) Vyavasayabandi (prohibition of following other caste’s profession)

At one time, castes came into being by the kind of profession they carried
out such as carpentry, tailoring or shoe making. That gave some protection
to their livelihood. This too was getting broken.

(7) Vedoktabandi (prohibition of learning of Vedas by nonBrahmins)

It was forbidden for non-Brahmins to learn Vedas. They were also

forbidden to foiiow rituais according to Vedic traditions. This was more a
matter of sentiments rather than being any practicai obstacle.

The most important was the forbidding of eating together. Once this was
broken, others couid easiiy become reiaxed and eventualiy be broken.
Savarkar wrote

“Social reforms have become an integral part of the process to uplift the
Hindu nation. Unless we break the seven shackles like Rotibandi, which we
ourselves have put on us, we Hindus cannot become united, powerful and
progressive. The caste system based on birth, which created high and low
among us, has to go. This demon has become unconquerable for several
centuries mainly because of Rotibandi. But our movement for dining
together of people of all castes is creating huge holes in the castle of caste
system. And therefore such functions have now become a duty.”

(S.S.V3 pp 638/9)

Mental bankruptcy of Hindus

In social behaviour as well as in politics, Hindus had become mentally
bankrupt. It is difficult to give up values that were nourished since
childhood. Many times the reforms were agreed, but the question was,

‘How to abandon the traditions of generations?’ We can understand that

dilemma faced by many, but the extent to which some had gone to justify
traditions is unbelievable. Let us take four examples

In an article published in September 1934 issue of Kirloskar, Savarkar

wrote

• Principles of today’s social reforms

“These staunch conservatives have declared that our

untouchables are more distant to us than alien non-Hindus (i.e. Muslims and
Christians) because the non-Hindus by birth are equal to us and the
untouchables are by birth untouchables. This is, they say, according to our
scriptures.” (S.S.V3 p 369)

In Pune, the untouchables carried out a satyagraha for getting entry to

Pan/ati temple. Many were badly beaten up. Savarkar wrote sarcastically an
article entitled‘Three thousand Mambajis in Pune’ which was published in
Shraddhanand magazine on 16 October 1929,

• Not only in Maharashtra, in Munshiganj in Bengal also, the high caste

Hindus beat the few untouchables who were seeking entry to the famous
Kali Mandir. Not only that, they kept some 25 MUSLIM guards on duty so
that the sanctity of inner sanctum of the temples will not be violated.

We feel that in Pune we made a mistake. In Malvan fort (Konkan region),

they employ Pathans to protect the sacro sanctum of the temple. We never
thought of bringing in a contingent of Muslim guards to protect Parvati
temple. We must confess that we just did not think of similar measures!!

(S.S.V3 p504)
• In 1928, in Ratnagiri (where Savarkar was interned) those Hindus who
invited Muslim musical bands to play at marriage ceremonies did not allow
untouchables to come anywhere near their homes.

(R Era p 179)

• Due to the efforts of Savarkar, a musical band of untouchables was started

in Ratnagiri. But in 1930, consen/atives of the Vitthal temple invited
Muslim musical band for their Ganeshotsava. (REra p217)

What can we say to this lunacy? In 1921 Muslim Moplas committed

barbaric atrocities on Hindus of Malabar. Afterwards, the Muslim riots and
their atrocities on Hindus continued unabated throughout India. And still
the Hindu conservatives

considered Muslims who killed cows and ate beef, violated Hindu women,
to be so clean and pure that they invited them to protect the sacro sanctums
of our temples!!

A dassic example of mental bankruptcy is seen in the bell at the Mahalaxmi

temple at Kolhapur. ChimajiAppa, brother of BajiraoI defeated the
Portuguese in 1735 and uprooted some of their church bells, which Chimaji
gave as war booty to some temples. One of them was given to Mahalaxmi
temple in Kolhapur. However, it broke in 1901. The new bell was brought
from England in 1902. But NO Brahmin objected to this bell prepared by
beefeaters of London. That did not spoil or defile the Goddess. But if any
untouchables try to enter Hindu temples Brahmin priests would become
furious. This bell cracked in 1990 and a new one cast in local foundry was
erected in 1993. It was cast on 1 January 1993 and not on any Hindu
auspicious day. Also, it has inscriptions in Roman script, not Devanagari.

There were four characteristics of Savarkar, the Social Reformer

(i) To persuade people by logical thoughts.

(ii) To expose the truth about the highs and lows that existed among the
untouchables.
(Hi) To expose the untouchability prevalent among Muslims and Christians
and answer to their deceptive propaganda.

(iv) To lead by practical examples to abandon the practice of untouchability

and remove caste barriers by organising sessions of ‘eating together’ by all
castes.

Let us see what his thoughts were on the subject of untouchability.

UNTOUCHABILITY

Within four years of being interned in Ratnagiri i.e. in September

1927 Savarkar had expressed his opinions on untouchability.

His thoughts are so plain that there is no room for any doubt. In

his article entitled ‘A warning to our untouchable brothers’

published in the magazine Shraddhanand, he says:

“The present tradition of untouchability among Hindus is unjust and

suicidal. No one needs to be told how sincerely 1 am working towards its
abandonment, least of all the readers of ‘Shraddhanand’. It is a hideous
crime to regard the 70 million untouchable people as worse than animals. It
is contempt not only of the whole humanity but also of the sanctity of our
inner soul.”

“Some may argue that I am advocating abandonment of untouchability

because such action is beneficial to the Hindu society. I must now state
quite clearly that even if untouchability was proved to be beneficial to the
Hindu society, I would have just as vigorously preached for its
abandonment.

When I refuse to touch some one because he was born in a particular

community but play with cats and dogs I commit an offence against
humanity, because I consider fellow human beings as less than animals.”
“When we consider any aspect of our religion it is impossible to justify this
inhuman tradition. What benefits the abandonment has, is a secondary
consideration. Abolishing untouchability is true religion.”

“On many occasions it is difficult to grasp the true meaning of religious

principles. It may also be difficult to understand some abstract concepts. We
therefore have to preach in a different tone. We therefore say, ‘pray to God
for your prosperity, for gaining children, health, wealth and other earthly
pleasures.’ Similarly, if people have not been enlightened enough to
consider that untouchability should be rejected, we have to preach that at
least on some occasions one need not and should not observe
untouchability, and this is according to our religious scriptures. Indeed there
are examples in the past where Untouchabilty had not been observed by our
forefathers, at least under certain circumstances, (there are always
exceptions to the rule).”

“Children do not understand the benefits of education. So, we say to them,

‘if you go to school I will give you sweets.’ The reasoning behind this is
that once the children start going to school, they will develop an interest in
learning, and slowly they will attend schools to learn rather than for sweets.
Similarly, we have to convince large number of people about the
undesirability of untouchability. Our true religion is lost and people
consider suicidal traditions like untouchability as religion. We therefore
have to say, ‘Time is running out. We cannot wait till you are fully
convinced that untouchabiliy is inhuman. Therefore, we ask you to abandon
it because it is suicidal for the Hindu nation.’ That is vital and it is our
duty.”

“While doing this duty we have to explain that many untouchables are
being tempted to accept Islam and thereby we lose our numerical as well as
intellectual strength. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that
untouchability is sanctioned by our scriptures we have to point out that the
same scriptures also state that under certain circumstances this practice
need not be observed. For example, it is stated that when faced with a
national calamity, no one should be considered as untouchable (rashtra
viplave sprushta-asprustir na vidyate).”
“Many people accept this argument and are prepared not to observe
untouchability, at least on some occasions. And once they do that and as a
result come in contact with untouchables, they realise the prejudices against
untouchables that they harboured for several centuries. They realise how
unjust and unjustifiable the tradition has been and later they reject the
practice as being against humanity for all times. They even start calling
them ‘former untouchables’. That has been my experience which includes
people from all walks of life, from learned but strongly traditionalist priests
to illiterate farmers.”

‘Why am I saying all this? Readers of ‘Shraddhanand’ may feel that I am

preaching abandonment of untouchability for exceptional circumstances
only. I have explained why I have to do that. That is only a tactic to get the
people moving forward. I

wish to emphasise that untouchability is unjust and suicidal, and for the
sake of humanity, it has to be abolished. That is \the main reason behind my
movement. Other reasons are secondary and accidental.”

(@.S.V3 pp 483/4/5)

• The Varna system and the untouchables

Savarkar was well aware of the difficulties in changing peoples’ social

attitudes. It Is very hard to abandon traditions that have been prevalent for
generations. He was therefore trying a stepby-step approach. He wrote an
article in the paper Kesari in December 1930. ‘Sanatan Dharma' (ancient
religion) does not mean caste division.

In Geeta (a Hindu sacred book) Lord Krishna says, ‘I created the four
classes (Varnas) according to the qualities required and duties expected of
each of them.’ (chaturvarnyam maya srushtam, gunakarma vibhagshah)
Chapter 4, verse 13. But he does not say that the Class is determined by
birth. Moreover, the Smritis also declare, ‘Janmana Jayate Shudrah.
Sanskarat Dwija Uchyate.' i.e. at birth every one is a Shudra. It is the
upbringing that distinguishes the twice born (i.e. the first three Varnas) from
others.
Let us ignore even these clear remarks and say for the sake of argument that
Varna is decided by birth. But then, there are ONLY four Varnas. Are those
traditionalist Hindus who say that they will observe the four Varnas
prepared to treat the untouchables at least as the Shudras, because there is
no mention of fifth Varna? The scriptures say, ‘Brahamnah Kshatriyo
Vaishyah, Trayo Varnah Dwijatayah. Chaturtha rajaka jatistu Shudro nasti
too panchamah. i.e. there are three Varnas who are twice born namely
Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. The fourth Varna is Shudras. There is
NO FIFTH VARNA. In that case Is it not the duty of the traditionalists who
are so proud of Chaturvanya (system of four classes) to destroy the fifth
Varna (i.e. treat the untouchables as Shudras). If they do just that, we would
make tremendous progress.

Savarkar scholarly puts forward his argument. He is appealing/ to the

traditionalists to abandon untouchability at a stroke as th^ fifth class to
which they belong just does not exist in the Hindu scriptures. He asks them
to do at least that much /

(SSV3 pp 444/5)

• During his internment Savarkar openly proposed that the untouchables

should be allowed into Hindu temples, unhindered. When some Brahmins
objected on the basis that this would spoil the God, Savarkar retorted on 8
September 1927, “What kind of God is he that gets spoiled by being seen
by untouchables? God is all-powerful and forgiving. He gives salvation
even to a sinner who repents. He liberates and he forgives. Is that not what
Lord Krishna preached?”

(SSV3 p 43)

THE HIGHS AND LOWS AMONG THE UNTOUCHABLES

When we say ‘untouchables’ we invariably imagine a homogenous society.

That was not the case then and it is still not the case today. There are bound
to be variations in any group of people. But they have many castes and
subcastes and are further divided by languages and regions. Only Savarkar
had the courage to point this out to them and insist that their caste hierarchy
too must go. Let us examine these two points.

• 14 August 1924 was the day of Rakshabandhan, in the Hindu calendar.

While addressing a gathering at his birthplace Bhagur, Savarkar said,

“Howsoever we may fight with each other, our religion and God are one.
Today is the day of Rakhi Pournima (full moon). The purpose behind this
festival is that people should come together. Untouchability is an insult to
humanity but is practised by many castes. In Maharashtra, the Mahars do
not touch Mangs, while Mangs consider Dombs as untouchables. We must
forget these differences. We are all Hindus. That is the common
denominator.”

After his speech, Savarkar put a rakhi on the hand of an untouchable named
Kashinath Bhikaji Jadhav Ozarkar. .... In the end, all the residents of Bhagur
put Rakhis on hands of one another irrespective of their caste.

(ftatnagiri Era, pp 56/57)

• Savarkar delivered some public speeches in Nasik on 6 September 1924.

While addressing a gathering of untouchables in the Ram Mandir he said, “I
do not call you as untouchables but call by your castes such as Mahar,
Mang, Dhor etc because we are all equals. Just now, one Mahar said to me
‘Oh, I am not a Bhangi.’ What he meant was that he was superior to a
Bhangi. When I visited Bhagur, I attended a function of Mahars. I drank the
milk given to me by a Mahar. But when I asked him to give a cup of milk to
a Bhangi who was present, he was hesitant. And thus WE ALL (not just the
people of high castes) feel that some others are inferior to us. We must all
reject that notion.”

(R Era p 153)

• In November 1927, Savarkar visited Devarukh village. There, the

Chamars had stopped drinking Madi Quice from a tree, which tastes like
alchohol). They built a temple from the money thus saved. But they did not
allow Mahars in the temple. Savarkar explained to leaders of Chamars how
it was unjust, and with their co-operation Brahmins, Chamars and Mahars
all came together in the temple thus exemplified the saying in Savarkar’s
poem ‘Tumhi Amhi Sakai Hindu, Bandhu! Bandhu!!’ We are all Hindus
and brothers of each other.

(R Era p 153)

Now an event of 1930

Mahar priest would not perform marriage ceremony of a Bhangi

• In Ratnagiri, a marriage ceremony was to take place in the Bhangi

community (of Kathiavad). They knew that a Brahmin priest would not
officiate, so they went to a priest of the Mahar community. He too refused
as Bhangis are considered a lower caste by Mahars. They then approached
Savarkar. He taught

Tatya Damie and Vasudev Hardikar how to perform the ceremony and gave
them copies of appropriate books. The two went to/ Bhangi locality and
performed the marriage ceremony td according to Vedic rites. /

(R Era pp 204/5) /

• On 26 April 1931, Somavanshi Mahars (a sub caste of Mahars) held their

conference in the famous Patit Pavan Mandir of Ratnagiri. In his address
Savarkar said, “You blame Brahmins for the caste system, but you have
divisions among yourselves such as Pani, Bele, Daravane, Kokane etc. How
can a Mahar who does not touch a Bhangi or Dhor say that a Maratha or a
Brahmin must not regard him as untouchable?”

(R Era pp 240/241)

Even beggars believed in hierarchy of the caste system

• Savarkar organised a 'get together meal for all castes’ (sahabhojan) in

Ratnagiri in 1930. How difficult was arranging such a function? This can be
gathered from the fact even beggars refused to participate. On 7 January
1934 Savarkar organised such a function in Malvan. The Weekly paper
Sindhudurg reported,
“In Malvan, beggars freely wander in the town on Sundays. That has been
the tradition. In the morning a Mahar woman beggar approached a lawyer
who was in favour of sahabhojan. He said, ‘why do you beg? Today there is
‘sahabhojan’ in the town. Go there and you will get a free meal.’ The
woman beggar replied, ‘Sir, what are you advising me? I would rather
starve to death than take meal from such a function. I do not want to mix up
with people of lower caste than mine.’

(R Era p301)

• In his article, ‘so, what is the solution to the problem of caste

division?’ published on 13 December 1930, Savarkar wrote — ‘The

division of people according to the caste they were born in is not a
conspiracy of a few Brahmins or Kshatriyas or a combined plot of a few
Brahmins and Kshatriyas.”

“Vaishyas too cannot say to Shudras that the caste division has been the
result of word of Brahmins and political power of Kshatriyas, and that
Vaishyas are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. When the word of
Brahmins and power of Kshatriyas lost its effectiveness, as has happened
today, why is it that not only the Shudras but atishudras (lower than
Shudras) also are preserving their caste? They do it on purely voluntary
basis. They are not sticking to their caste just to obey the word of a
Brahmin or to yield to the power of a Kshatriya. The division by caste
afforded each caste to consider some other caste as inferior to their own.
That is the main reason for their behaviour. That is the truth. We must
realise this fact.”

(S.S.V3 pp 450/1/2)

Balarao Savarkar, in his biography of Veer Savarkar has given five

examples in the volume Ratnagiri Era.

* On 1 May 1933, Savarkar started a Caf6 open to all Hindus. He employed

a Mahar servant to serve water, tea etc. Famous biographer Dhananjaya
Keer was in trouble for taking tea in this caf6. His Bhandari community
declared him an outcaste for some time. (p288)

* In November 1933, there was a gathering of teachers in the district of

Ratnagiri. During teatime and while taking meals they always sat
separately. Teachers from Bhandari and Maratha castes ridiculed Brahmin
teachers for not sharing meals with them. They themselves, however,
refused to share meals with Mahar and Chamar teachers, (p 296)

A Mahar would not take tea from a Bhangi

* On 26 March 1934, Savarkar went to a village named Khed. Next day he

drank water in Maharwada in the house of a Mahar. During his discussions,
he said to them that they too should drink water served by Dhor, Chamar or
Bhangi without any hesitation. He delivered a public speech on 28 March.
During his speech a Mahar brought a cup of tea and asked Savarkar to drink
it. Savarkar obliged. The Mahar felt ashamed. Savarkar

said, “You put me to the test. Now it is your turn.” and he asked a Bhangi to
serve tea to this Mahar who hesitated. Savarkar said, “Please don’t make
such a show again. Untouchability is not being obsen/ed by Brahmins only.
Untouchables do the same. We are all guilty of this offence.” (p 305/6)

This is where Savarkar is different from others who biamed (and even today
biame) only the Brahmins.

• On 20 April 1934, Savarkar went to Malvan. Next day he was honoured in

Chamarwada, but many Mahars did not attend the ceremony as they
considered Chamars as inferior to them.

(p 308)

• In 1936, Dr Ambedkar announced that untouchability among Hindus will

remain even after hundred years. So untouchables should change their
religion. Replying to Ambedkar’s allegations, Savarkar wrote, “Even if we
assume that Ambedkar is right, by the same token the divisions within
untouchables too will remain after 100 years. Mahars of Maharashtra will
not intermarry or dine with Chamars of Mahrashtra, or Dheds of Gujrat or
other untouchables of Bihar and Bengal. Moreover untouchability will also
not vanish by embracing Islam.”

(R Era, p 351)

Savarkar wanted to say that why was Ambedkar only cursing High caste
Hindus? Why could he not use his energy in removing the divisions among
untouchables?

• In an article in 1935, Savarkar wrote, “If the Mahars are saying that in
order to destroy the differences of the caste system, a hundred girls from
Brahmins and Vaishyas must be given in marriage to Mahars and Chamars,
we can also say that they too must give away similar number of girls to
Bhangis and Dheds. When we do that they come to their senses and talk
sensibly.” (S.S.V3 p 85)

• On 3 July 1937, Savarkar was honoured in Pune by two groups

of untouchables, one who wanted to change their religion and other who
wanted to remain as Hindus. Savarkar said, “This venom of highs and lows
based on birth must be kept at bay by all. There is untouchability and
hierarchy among untouchables too. Both are harmful and must be
destroyed.”

(H.M.S Era pp 32/33)

• In January / February 1935 issue of Kirloskar magazine, Savarkar wrote

an article entitled, “If we want to remove the division based on castes by
birth, what exactly are we supposed to do?” He states:

“But it is not just the high castes who persecute untouchables. Persons of
one group of untouchables persecute persons of another group of
untouchables whom they consider as their inferior or as ‘their untouchables’
with just the same vigour. Consider a hot summer’s day. A Mahar is thirsty,
on a village well there are crows and dogs drinking water, but he is
forbidden to drink water from that well. He becomes furious and curses the
Brahmins and Marathas who will hound him out. When he says that they
are demons he does tell the truth. But if a Bhangi was to take water from a
well in a Maharawada, the Mahars also hound the Bhangi with equal wrath.
Then the Mahars become Brahmins to that Bhangi.”

“Recently there was a Satyagraha by Mahars who wanted to enter the Rama
Mandir of Nasik. They were badly beaten up by Brahmins and Vaishyas.
True, that was unjust. But it should not be forgotten that if a Bhangi were to
enter a Mariaii temple of Mahars, they too would have thrashed that Bhangi
just as badly.” (S.S.V3 p80)

Rajputs, Jats, Chamars and Bhangis - they are all guilty of maltreating
lower castes

• In the article ‘The obsession of going by the book’ published in Manohar

magazine of June 1935, Savarkar once again explains how people of one
caste consider people of another as ‘lower’ than themselves.

In the state of Jaipur (Rajasthan), there is a small village named

Khudi. On 28 March 1934, there was a marriage procession of Jats in which

the bridegroom was riding a horse. When Rajputs saw that, they became
furious, because according to the tradition, Rajputs consider Jats as low
class and Jats have no right to ride a horse as it is considered a vehicle of
Kshatriyas (Warrior class). Rajputs therefore attacked the procession and
beat the men badly. Well, the Mughals had sat on the throne of Rajputs, but
that did not make Rajputs angry. Thereafter the English became the masters.
This too did not make the Rajputs furious. But when they saw a Jat, another
Hindu, who purchased the horse with his own money and rode on it, that
made the Rajputs’ blood to boil!! A Jat cannot even sit in front of a Rajput
and this fellow rides a horse. How dare he! Rajputs showed their valour by
attacking the marriage procession. So severe was their attack that one man
was killed and 40 were badly injured.

The Kshatriyas, who blamed Brahmins for determining that they were
lower than Brahmins, themselves considered Jats as lower than them and
beat them badly.

Now you feel sympathy for the Jats, read another item of news. On 27 April
1935, Lala Mohanlal, Secretary of Harijan Seva Sangha reported from
Lahore the following item In the Rohatak area (Haryana) lies a village
called Chiri. It has a community of 100 houses of Chamars. The water from
wells of the area is tasteless, but the Chamars did not even have a well of
their own. With great difficulty they persuaded a Jat to give them land in an
un-inhabited area. They were successful in digging a well and as luck
would have it, it had sweet water. They were delighted and distributed
sweets in the whole village. This made the Jat landlord very furious. He
said to himself, ‘we have tasteless water in our wells and these Chamars
have sweet water.’ He confiscated the land back from Chamars who
pleaded for water. They requested that at least part of the well should be set
aside for them. The Jat landlord told them, ‘if there need be water would be
given from a distance but Chamars must not desecrate the well!!’

Rajputs consider themselves superior to Jats by birth. When

they saw a Jat riding a horse and attacked him Jats said, ‘well the Rajputs
should blame their luck. They cannot afford even a donkey and we are
fortunate enough to have a horse. Who are the Rajputs to object? This class
distinction has been created by our religious texts, and needs to be
destroyed.’ But when it came to dealing with the Chamars, the same Jats
went by the same texts to deny well water to Chamars!!

Now you feel sympathy for the Chamars? Read on.

The Chamars are regarded as untouchables by the Jats who denied them
access to well. True, But the same Chamars refuse to take water from the
hands of a Bhangi. I organised many functions for ‘dining together’ of
people of all castes. The Chamars attend such functions and demand to sit
alongside Brahmins and Marathas. But should a Bhangi join the function,
the Chamars abandon the dinner and get out. They say, ‘Eh, we are
Chamars, we are Rajavanshi. These Bhangis are utter dirt. We will not even
sit with them let alone share food with them’. During many functions, I
have noticed that Chamars refuse to share food with Mahars and Mahars
did the same with Bhangis. They would say, ‘if there need be, we would sit
with Brahmins as equals, but not with others.’

Thus, those who blame the texts for creating caste hierarchy should
remember that they practice the same caste system. We are all at fault. The
system created some castes lower than our own. Therefore every one
followed the system. Now we all must abandon it because any division
based purely on birth is unjust. The new society has to be built on equality
among all Hindus. That is the best course of action.

(S.S.V3 pp 175/178)

Everybody is obsessed with superiority compiex

• ‘The Pros and Cons of the present caste system’ that was the title of
Savarkar’s article published in the Marathi language newspaper Kesari on
29 November 1930. He emphasises the same theme again.

A large number of Hindus are embracing other religions because

of the madness of this caste system. These non-Brahmins, these followers

of Satyashodhak Samaj have separated from us due to the caste system.
Many times, the followers of Satyashodhak Samaj preach equality in such a
language as to make a learned Pandit blush, he scolds (quite rightly) the
arrogance of caste superiority of Brahmins. However when the Mahars and
Mangs want to put into practice these noble principles Satyasamajis become
furious and physically attack the Mahars and Mangs. It’s all because of the
fanaticism ingrained in the caste system. Brahmins want to show their
superiority to Marathas, who in turn want to become Brahmins of Mahar.
They in turn want to become Brahmins of Mangs.

Thus, the madness is not ingrained just in Brahmins, the whole of Hindu
society from Brahmins to Chandals is obsessed with it. (S.S.V3 pp 539/540)

• On 25 February 1933, on the day of Shivaratri, the citizens of Ratnagiri

burned an effigy of Untouchability, not as a mere show but because they
had abandoned the practice of untouchability. On that occasion Savarkar
said

“I have observed that you have now abolished untouchability not only in
your behaviour but also in your hearts. I have witnessed this transformation
for the last two years. I am therefore gladly giving my consent to your
function.
Savarkar also wrote an article on this day in which he said, ‘Untouchability
was practised not just by high castes but by untouchables themselves - they
treated some of their own people as untouchables in daily life. The
existence of untouchability was the fault of both (high and low castes) and
now both should co-operate to abolish the custom.”

(S.S.V3 pp 509/510)

What is the picture outside Maharashtra?

While in internment in Ratnagiri, he wrote an article about the condition of

some untouchable castes in Madras Province.

‘As soon as one utters the word Untouchables, people imagine that they are
ONE group of people who are being oppressed by another group of High
caste people. But we need to understand that there are many castes and sub-
castes among the untouchables. Again, they have their own hierarchy and
among them each high caste persecutes the lower caste.’

For example, in Maharashtra, we have Mahar, Chamar, Mang, Vadar and

other castes among the untouchables. They are again divided according to
regions. Among Mahars we have Kokanastha Mahars, Deshastha Mahars
and Varhada Mahars based on regions. Among Varhada Mahars there are
many subcastes and they are all watertight, keeping no relations with each
other, not eating together, not intermarrying!! Now this is just the picture in
Maharashtra, what on earth is the situation elsewhere? Let us take Madras.

• Some Untouchable castes in Madras (Tamilnadu)

Cheruma (Pulia) - These untouchable people live in Malabar. Those in

north Malabar are called Pulia, while those in south Malabar are called
Cheruma. Hence the two divisions. But that is not the end of it. Among
Cheruma there are 27 sub-castes e.g. Kanakka-Cheruma, Palla- Cheruma,
Elaran, Rolan, Budan. There are 12 sub-castes among Pulias, among whom
Cherumaria consider superior to other Pulias.

All Cherumas are treated untouchables by Brahmins and Kshatriyas and

also Shudras. One can only feel sorry for them. But then what are we going
to say to those belonging to Pula, Paria, Nabadi and Ulladan who are treated
as untouchables even by the Cherumas? Mind boggles. The persecution
passes from one layer to the other. How can the untouchables say that they
are badly treated by High Castes when they themselves practice the same
towards the castes among themselves for the same reason?

If a Cheruma woman makes connection with a man from Paria or other

communities whom Cherumas regard as low and

untouchables, she becomes an outcast and then easily falls pray to Muslim
or Christian conversion activities.

Paha, Mai and Madiga

These are other main untouchable castes in Madras. Parias beat drums, but
most work on farms as tied labourers. Mai and Madiga are in Telagu areas
while Parias live in Tamil areas. Of course, there are watertight
compartments between all of them - i.e. no dining together, no
intermarriages. One is astounded at the fragmentation of our society. How
can we unite our Hindu nation and make any progress in the world ?

I chose the example of untouchables in Madras to give the reader a glimpse

of the problem we face. It is enough to make any reasonable person sick of
the system. We must once again emphasise that untouchables too are guilty
of the practice of untouchability in as much as that they too treat many of
their own people as untouchables.

Time has come to kill this demon. Nothing can be easier. The demon dies
simply by our wish. We must not only abandon untouchablity but also
uproot the hierarchy of caste system based on birth.

(S.S.V3 pp 516/522)

• In his article ‘Vajrasuchi’ Savarkar again touched the subject of caste

distinction.

Among the Shudras, we find some who proclaim, ‘Oh, these upper three
classes (Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas) had been mean and kept us
down all the time by the caste system. All men are born equal’ But the very
same people loath the lower Shudras, do not eat with them, do not
intermarry with them and would not even touch people of Mahar caste.
When Mahars conducted a Satyagraha for entry into the Parvati temple in
Pune, those who attacked them included many men form the Maratha caste
(not just Brahmins) In Nasik, those who refused entry to untouchables in
the temple of Rama included many Banias and Shudras.

Many Kshatriya kings had punished untouchables for riding a horse.

Recently in Jhansi, there were disturbances for the same reason. In
Maharashtra, when a Maratha woman decided to marry a non- Maratha boy,
there were threats of inter-caste riots. In the district of Nasik, very recently
Shudras attacked a ‘Pandav Pratap procession’ of Mahars. In many villages
Marathas and Shudras refuse to allow their children to sit with Mahar or
Chamar children. This happens every day.

According to some religious books (Smritis), a Shudra sitting with a

Brahmin is subject to punishment. Shudras condemn such Smritis and yet
practise the same when dealing with untouchables. Moreover even among
the untouchables, the same practice holds good. There is dispute between
Mahars and non-Mahars. Many Chamars refuse to accept leadership of Dr
Ambedkar as he is a Mahar.

Curiously enough even among Mahars, Deshastha Mahars refuse to accept

Dr Ambedkar as their leader as he is a Kokanstha Mahar. They want to start
a movement of their own. It is not just in Brahmins that we have divisions
according to regions i.e. Deshasthas and Kokanasthas, Vaishyas, Mahars are
similarly divided on those lines.

Recently, Mahars were very angry that Brahmins, Banias and Marathas
denied them entry into Rama Mandir of Nasik and resorted to beating them.
But should Bhangis try to exercise similar right in a Mahar temple, they
would also be treated with similar contempt. Last month on the fort of
Raigad, many Brahmins and Marathas left the Shivotsava as soon as
Mahars came to join them for dinner. But we must remember that Mahars
act similarly. If Bhangis arrive at a ‘dining together’ function, Mahars get
up and leave. They consider an insult to share food with Bhangis.
(S.S.V3 pp 540/542)

• In his article ‘what should be our attitude towards the community

associations?’ Savarkar stated

In the state of Travankore (South India), temples have been opened to

untouchables but to only Ezuvas. Paluva and Paha castes are not allowed in.
Among Parias, many are just as advanced as Ezuvas but Ezuvas are against
allowing them entry in to temples. High castes regard Ezuvas as
untouchables, but they in turn treat Paluas and Parias as untouchables. And
they regard that action as just and as per Hindu scriptures. WHY? Because
of the differences in birth. According to the religious texts, Ezuas are
untouchables because of their birth, and Ezuas regard Paluas and Perias as
lower for exactly the same reason!

We congratulate the Maharaja of Travancore and his Divan Mr Iyer for the
opening up of temples to Ezuvas. However it must be remembered that like
the Patit-Pavan Mandir all of the Hindus are still not allowed in temples in
Travancore state. Then there is the question of right to worship according to
Vedic rites. ALL Hindus enjoy and exercise this right in the Patit-Pavan
Mandir but that is still denied to untouchables, including Ezuvas in
Travancore.

It must also be remembered that no Muslim Divan (chief minister) had

initiated this move of allowing at least Ezuvas in the temples. That difficult
task was carried out by Mr Iyer, a Brahmin. Those who hate Hindu Dharma
and propagate that Hindus will never abandon untouchability should
remember that it was a Kshatriya King and a Brahmin Divan who opened
hundreds of temples to Ezuvas. However, the Ezuvas have not yet changed.
They still regard Paluvas and Perias as inferior to them; they treat these low
castes as untouchables.

Dr Ambedkar has been cursing the High castes for believing in the
hierarchy of caste according to birth. But he conveniently forgets that
people of his own caste Mahar also believe in the same doctrine and treat
Bhangis as untouchables. Nearly 900 miles away Ezuas do the same to
Parias. It is no good cursing
the High castes. People of all castes are guilty of the same belief and
behaviour.

(S.S.V3 pp 618/9)

How Mahars treat others

Dr Ambedkar was born a Mahar. Savarkar has described the characteristics

of Mahars in an article published in Nirbhid of 15 December 1935. The
article is worth reading for that. He says

• The Mahars are extremely proud of belonging to their caste. High caste
people cannot imagine how proud .they are. They are strongly against
sharing food with lower castes such as Bhangis, just as Brahmins. I
(Savarkar) have personally experienced this attitude on many occasions.

When I take food with Mahars, Brahmins denounce me as spoiled, by the

same token when Mahars see me taking food with Bhangis they too
denounce me as spoiled. During my arranged programmes of ‘dining
together’ if Mahars find any Chamars present they will immediately get out
in disgust. What to say if Bhangis are present!

Mahars do not allow Mangs to take water from their wells. Mr Sakat, the
leader of Mangs testifies to that effect. Mahars will not do the work of a
Bhangi, unless in dire emergency.

Mahars are treated as untouchables by High castes but they themselves treat
Bhangis, Mangs and others as untouchables. They become the Brahmins of
the Bhangis, Mangs and others!!

In the next article he says —

If a Bhangi or Chamar or Vadar was to venture into a Mariaee or Vithoba

temple in a Maharwada, he will be hounded out by Mahars just as Mahars
were hounded out of Rama Mandir of Nasik by High caste people. It is
difficult to convince Brahmins that we should practise Shuddhi, remove
barriers to inter caste marriages and abandon the caste system. But it is
equally difficult
to convince Mahars of the same. In particular, it is extremely difficult to
convince Mahars that they should not practise untouchablity when dealing
with other low castes, just as it is difficult to convince the High castes.

(S.S.V3 pp 581/3)

On 13 November 1935, Savarkar invited Dr Ambedkar, a weilknown ieader

of the untouchabies to visit Ratnagiri. In his ietter he wrote

• The responsibility for abolishing untouchability and the division created

by the caste system lies not only on the shoulders of the High castes.
Untouchability and caste division is strongly observed by untouchables too.
From the highest (Brahmins) to the lowest (Bhangis) all have committed the
same sin. Both must show that they have changed their minds. Both
together must absolve this sin. Fault lies with both, question is of degree.
One can say the rigours of the caste system have been broken only if it can
be proven that Mahars share food with Brahmins and Marathas but Mahars
also share food with Bhangis. I am sure you too have experienced that
Mahars (caste of Dr Ambedkar) are not free from caste prejudice and
cannot therefore demand proof of changed mentality from High castes.

(S S V 3 pp 575/6/7)

In 1950, the untouchability was deciared illegal by the Indian constitution.

Savarkar wrote an article entitled, ‘Death knell to the untouchability based
on birth’ He said:

• High castes as well as untouchables performed penance of seif-

purification.

Readers will be baffled by this statement. They will say ‘Untouchability

was imposed by the High caste Hindus on the untouchables. That was
sinful. The high castes have now repented. But what sin was committed by
the poor untouchables?’ The sin was that among the untouchables too there
are many castes who regarded themselves as ‘high castes’ and treated other
untouchabies as ‘low castes’, with the same contempt as
shown to them by the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras (High
caste Hindus). They too had practised untouchability!! Be it Mahar,
Chamar, Mang, Dhor or Bhangi they did now allow into their temples,
people from the castes whom they regarded as ‘lower castes’. They do not
mix with people of ‘lower castes’ and do not share food with them. In
schools, Mahar children did not sit together with Bhangi children. They
considered that as distasteful. I have personally intervened in many such
cases.

I have toured from Kashmir in the north to Travancore in the south and
worked for the abolition of the caste system. And I can testify that in all
provinces untouchables have their own hierarchy and also practise
untouchability. YES within untouchables there are some castes, which they
regard as untouchables (in other words, untouchable’s untouchables).

In Madras, the four upper castes treated Cherumas as untouchables. But

while cursing the upper castes for this, they too treat as untouchables,
Puladi, Paha and others whom they regard as belonging to ‘lower caste’.
The criticism made by the untouchables and laid at the doors of the High
castes re-bounces on them as they too practise the same traditions.

Some ten or twelve years ago Maharaja of Travancore (a Kshatriya) and his
Divan Ramaswami Iyer (a Brahmin) declared all the state temples open to
untouchables. But the Ezuvas who are upper caste among untouchables
opposed the entry of other untouchables!! AND thus untouchables also
have a share in the sin of practising untouchability!! Many of our readers
are unaware of these facts.

(SSV3 pp 659/661)

Even today Mahars are divided into sub-castes. Why?

• In 1966, Dr Moreshwar Vishwanath Patwardhan of Pune published a

research paper running into 174 pages entitled Varna and Jati’ On pages
115/6 he tells us

Mahars - they have 53 castes. They marry within their castes

only. They have 129 surnames. People with same surname do not
intermarry. Many families have their family gods. People having the same
family god do not intermarry. .... Mahars of

different districts also do not intermarry. .Maharas do not

share food with people of Burud, Jingar, Kaikadi, Mochi, Bhangi and Mang
castes.

What applies to Mahars also applies to all other castes. They too follow
similar traditions.

Now let us acquaint ourselves with certain historical facts. Maratha Peshwa
Bajirao II was defeated by the English in 1818. In Pune, Phule one of the
leaders of non-Brahmins, started his Satyashodhak Samaj in 1873. The
name of this society literally means ‘Society for the search of truth. ’ In fact
it was a front for fermenting anti-Brahmin feeling in the people of
Maharashtra. Phule was a great admirer of the British.

India became independent in 1947.

Thus, when the above research paper was published, more than 150 years
had already passed after the establishment of the English rule, which Phule
praised so much. Satyashodhak Samaj of Phule was 93 years old. And yet
how is it that the above situation (as described in Dr Patwardhan’s book)
prevailed in Maharashtra in 1966? Even Mahars had not become one group.
Why? Brahmins did not prevent Mahars from becoming one homogenous
group. Why always blame Brahmins?

It is interesting to ask ‘what did Phule and Ambdekar say about the
untouchability and hierarchy among untouchables themselves?’ Did they
plan any movements against these? Did they at least acknowledge their
existence? If the answers to all such questions are No, No, and No, then
there is no reason to hide that fact. If we have to conclude that persons like
Phule and Ambedkar and their followers like Satyasamajis only spread
hatred against the Brahmins we should not be afraid to say so. This
background knowledge is essential for the evaluation of contribution of
Savarkar.
• Now let us take the case of book ‘Bharatiya Sanskriti’ (Civilisation of
Bharat) by Saane Guruji published in 1937. In the chapter ‘Adwaitacha
Sakshatakar’ he writes

“We have created ‘ponds’ everywhere in our society. Among Brahmins of

Maharashtra we have hundreds of tiny ponds like Chitpavan, Karhade,
Deshastha, Yajurvedi, Shukla- Yajurvedi, Maitrayani and Hiranyakeshi.”

Saane Guruji has spoken truth, but not the whole truth. He avoids saying
that even among the untouchable castes, there are so many ‘ponds’. Only
Savarkar had the courage to state that openly and on many occasions.

• Savarkar was interned in Ratnagiri in 1924. On 13 September 1932, a

Bhangi recited a Kirtan in the famous Patit Pavan Mandir. At the end of the
programme, many attendants touched his feet without asking what caste he
belonged to. (Ratnagiri Era p 266)

Savarkar’s work was thus constructive. We will see more details of this in
the next chapter — ‘Savarkar the Doer. ’ It is interesting to ask, ‘how many
occasions similar to the above were organised by Phule, Ambedkar and
their followers like Satyasamajis?’ The truth is that they were only
interested in cursing the Brahmins. Savarkar did not waste time in
discussing how the caste system came into being, who was responsible for
it’s excesses and the harm it has done. He wrote briefly on the subject. Once
again we see his all comprehending nature and sense of fair play.

‘What is the solution to the calamity?' This article by Savarkar was

published in Kesari of 13 December 1930. He says

• Even in the days of Buddha, the dispute was not about the caste system
but who should be considered superior - Kshatriyas or Brahmins? That is
all. The divisions caused by the present caste system have caused enormous
harm to the Hindu society. Instead of trying to apportion blame to one
particular group or individuals we should accept that we all, from Brahmins
(highest caste) to Chandals (lowest caste) are to blame. We all share
responsibility. Whatever good the caste system has done we all
had a share in it. But now if the damage by the system far outweighs the
benefits we all have a responsibility to abolish it. Instead of fighting among
ourselves we all should co-operate to abolish the caste system.

(S.S.V3 pp 450/1/2)

In his article ‘Vajrasuchi’ he says :•

• As I stated on many occasions it is partial to blame Brahmins and

Kshatriyas for stupidity of the caste system. Everyone right down to the
scavengers is obsessed with this disease. We are all guilty of tyranny of the
caste system. Those who want to curse Brahmins or Kshatriyas should also
curse all other castes as well.

On the other hand it must be noted that many Brahmins had tried to remove
the excesses of the caste system. Buddha named a Mahakashyap a Brahmin
as his successor. Many composers, writer and preachers of Buddha were
Brahmins.

There were many Brahmins among the Santa-Vaishnavas. Chaitanya

Prabhu, Dnyaneshwar, Eknath, Ramakrishna Paramhansa were all
Brahmins.

The founder of Arya Samaj, Swami Dayanand, founder of Brahmo Samaj,

Tagore; founder of Prarthana Samaj, Ranade were all Brahmins.

At the same time among the reformers and saints, we had many Kshatriyas,
Vaishyas and Shudras. Even untouchables like Rohidas, Chokha Mela,
Nand Tirupelluiar are revered by all castes today.

Of course, among Brahmins as well as among the Bhangis we do find

people of arrogance, with tyrannical attitude and those who despise others
because of their caste. But at the same time, we also find many reformers
among them. If we were to say that all Brahmins and Kshatriyas are loafers
and all others are Samaritans, does this not amount to accepting the
arguments of the supporters of the caste system? Because the supporters
of the present caste system propagate that some castes are good by birth and
some are bad by birth. We have already proved that this is not the case. The
present caste division is based on birth, NOT on deeds.

(S S V 3 pp 540/1/2)
UNTOUCHALIBITY AMONG
OTHER RELIGIONS
Many untouchables have been suggesting that untouchablity exists only in
Hindu religion, while other religions are free from it. Many High caste
Hindus also believe in this propaganda. That is not the case. Once again it
was only Savarkar who had the courage to say that untouchability exists
among other religions also. Of course, he never said that just because the
untouchability has been practised by other religions there is nothing
singularly wrong with Hindus practising the same. He did not want the
untouchables to be lured by other religions.
Untouchability among Muslims
After Savarkar was brought back from Andaman Islands he was kept in
Ratnagiri jail. He narrates an incident in 1927

• The gangsterism of Muslims, which could not be controlled by the Prison

authorities, was smashed by counter tactics by Hindus. In a similar manner
we exposed the hypocrisy of a Khilafati newspaper editor. He deliberately
touched the water container kept for Hindus saying, ‘What is this artificial
division? Are Muslims not human beings?’ I agreed with him
wholeheartedly and asked a Bhangi to draw water from the same container.
Immediately the Khalifati scolded the Bhangi and said that the water has
now been spoiled and he could not take water from the same container.
After exposing hypocrisy of other Muslims they never touched water kept
for Hindus.

(My Transportation for Life p 548)

Dr Ambedkar carried out a
movement for allowing the
untouchables to take water from
the public lake in Mahad.
Unfortunately it was bitterly opposed by High caste Hindus. Some Mahars
began to say, ‘either remove untouchability or we will change our religion’
Savarkar, though fully ympathetic with aspirations of Mahars wrote ‘a
danger warning to our untouchable fellow Hindus’ in Shraddhanand
magazine on 1 September 1927.

• “The one who talks of abandoning one’s religion in this way must be
regarded as fallen and therefore an untouchable. He should repent and
perform penances to purify himself. I must warn you that even if you
embrace Islam to spite Hindus you would be treated as outcast by Muslims.
Hasan Nizami in his booklet which we term The Alarm bell to Hindus’ says
quite clearly that if and when untouchables like Bhangis and Mahars
embrace Islam, High class Muslims should not interdine or intermarry with
them.”

“I personally know many Muslims who refuse to take water for Namaz
from the hands of Mahars and other untouchables. Some untouchable castes
that embraced Islam in the past remain untouchables even today. So, what
benefit are you going to derive by embracing Islam?”

(SSV3 p 489)

• Savarkar met Maulana Shaukat AH publicly in November 1924. Whiie

discussing many topics, Maulana said, “We Muslims are one. We do not
practise untouchability” Savarkar replied
The feud between Shias and Sunnis leads to bloody riots, which are
thousand times worse than the dispute between Shaivas and Vaishanavas.

Not long ago, an Ahmedia was stoned to death by Sunnis in Kabul. The
Bahavis consider that all other Muslims as worthy only of being put to
death by hanging, on this earth and in hell in the life after Seath. As for
untouchability, I know many Muslims who will not allow Bhangis to touch
their water and who will not pray with them. Maulana, I do know
something about
Muslims. You are no different than
Hindus, is that not so? Maulana
ducked Savarkar’s question.
(SSV3 p761)

Savarkar wrote an article in three sections entitled ‘Open discussion with

our Mahar brothers on the question of change of religion’ published in
Nirbhid in 1935. In his second section he warned

• If they (Mahars) embrace Islam, would it help them? Nay, even among
Muslims they will have to remain as outcast or untouchables or as Kamina
(low caste) Muslims; just as we have Sarej Muslims in Punjab, who are
treated as untouchables by Muslims.

(SSV3 p585)

“The British Administrators carried out census in India 1931. And its report
revealed that the Hussaini Brahmins who are more or less converted to
Islam retain Brahminical practises and claim to eat only with Sayyids
among Muslims.”

(Witness to an era by Frank Moraes, Weidenfield and Nicolson, 1973, p

157)

Dr Ambedkar, leader of untouchables had been threatening that he would

not die a Hindu. He would embrace some other religion. Savarkar
commented on this theme in his article published on 3 November 1935 in
Nirbhid.
Dr Ambedkar’s sons will return to
the fold of Hindu Dharma
• It is totally false to suggest that by converting to Islam or Christianity, one
becomes free from untouchability. At present there is a bitter dispute in
Bengal between untouchable Muslims (Halal) and High caste Muslims
(Ashraf). The Halals are complaining that although there are reserved seats
for Muslims in the Bengal Legislative Assembly, they (Halals) do not
benefit from it at all. The Ashrafs conspire to ensure that Halals do not get a
single seat. Therefore they are demanding that seats should be reserved for
them (Halals).

(Thoughts on Pakistan, 1946, p 228)

Savarkar continues, ‘Devarukhakar should now realise that Islam has

nothing to offer to him in terms of equality and tolerance.' (SSV3 pp 220/1)

Caste and untouchability among Muslims

Ten years after the above articie of Savarkar, Dr Ambedkar himseifhad to

confess that untouchabiiity exists among Musiims. This is what he said

1901 census provides some interesting information. The Superintendent for

the Province of Bengal records - The Mahomedans themselves recognise
two main social divisions.

(1) Ashraf or Sharaf and (2) Ajiaf

Ashraf means ‘noble’ and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners

and converts from high caste Hindus.

All other Mahomedans including the occupational groups and all converts
of lower ranks are known by the contemptuous terms ‘Ajiaf ‘wretches’ or
‘mean people’: they are also called Kamina or Itar, ‘base’ or ‘Rasil’ a
corruption of Rizal ‘worthless’.
In some places a third class called Arzal or ‘lowest of all’ is added. With
them no other Mahomedan would associate and they are

forbidden to enter the mosque or to use the public burial around.

Within these groups there are castes with social precedence of

exactly the same nature as one finds among the Hindus.

I Ashraf or better class Mahomedans

(1) Saiads

(2) Sheikhs

(3) Pathans

(4) Moghul

(5) Mallik

(6) Mirza

II Ajlaf or lower class Mahomedans

(1) Cultivating Shiekhs, and others who were originally Hindus but who do
not belong to any functional group, and have not gained admittance to the
Ashraf Community e.g. Pirali and Thakrai.

(2) Darzi, Jolaha, Fakir and Rangrez

(3) Barhi, Bhathiara, Chik, Churihar, Dai, Dhawa, Dhunia, Gaddi, Kalal,
Kasai, Kula Kunjara, Laheri, Mahifarosh, Mallah, Naliya, Nikari.

(4) Abdal, Bako, Bediya, Bhat, Chamba, Dafali, Dhobi, Hajjam, Mucho,
Nagarchi, Nat, Panwaria, Madaria, Tuntia.

III Arzal or degraded class

Bhanar, Halakhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi, Maugta, Mehtar

The Census Superintendent mentions another feature of the Muslim social

system, namely, the prevalence of the ‘panchayat system’ He states

The authority of the panchayat extends to social as well as trade matters and
... marriage with people of other communities is one of the offences of
which the governing body takes cognisance. The result is that these groups
are often as strictly endogamous as Hindu caste. The prohibition on inter-
marriage extends to higher as well as to lower castes, and a Dhuma, for
example, may marry no one but a Dhuma. If this rule is transgressed, the
offender is at once hauled up before the panchayat and ejected
ignominiously from his community. A member of one such group cannot
ordinarily gain admission to another, and he retains the designation of the
community in which he was born even if he abandons its distinctive
occupation and takes to another

means of livelihood_thousands of Jolahas are butchers,

yet they are still known as Jolahas.”

[Note - The census was in1901. Ambedkar’s book came out

in 1946. Yet, he could not say that during 1901 to 1946 Muslims have
abolished untouchability among themselves. How could he? There was no
change in the Indian Muslim society. Moreover, Ambedkar hated Hindu
Dharma so much that he had declared in October 1935, “I was born a Hindu
as I had no choice, but I will not die a Hindu.” So, why did he refer to
census of 1901? He could have easily used the census of 1911,1921, 1931
or 1941, but he could not find any changes in the caste system or
observation of untouchability among Indian Muslims. However, by
referring to the census of 1901 he creates doubts in the minds of readers
that Muslims must have changed with times.]

Ambedkar says further, ‘Similar facts from other Provinces of India could
be gathered from their respective Census Reports.’ In other words, in all
provinces of India hierarchy of castes and the practise of untouchability
exists among the Muslims.
Finally, Ambedkar admits. The facts for Bengal are enough to show that the
Mahomedans observe not only caste but also untouchability.... Indeed, the
Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That
something more is the compulsory system of purdah (veil) for Muslim
women. ....These burka (veil) women walking in the streets is one of the
most hideous sights one can witness in India.’

(Thoughts on Pakistan, 1946 pp 229/230)

Savarkar was interned in a remote place like Ratnagiri, which had no

railway and no telephones. Yet he managed to change peoples’ mental
outlook and abolish untouchability in that remote place. His idea of ‘dining
together’ by ALL castes (including untouchables) spread all over India. In
the Patit Pavan Mandir initiated by Savarkar Hindus of ALL caste had right
of entry and performing worship according to Vedic rites.

While writing his book mentioned above. Dr Ambedkar conveniently forgot

Savarkar’s work. He therefore had the

audacity to say that both Hindus and Muslims have the social evils, and yet
he admits that there were no social reformers in Islam.

Caste and untouchability among Muslims today More than three decades
have passed since the death of Dr Ambedkar. And yet things have not
changed in the Muslim society. Let us see how.

• Maharashtra Times of Mumbai carried an article by famous Marathi writer

P L Deshpande on 21 March 1982. He says, ‘At least from now on, Hindus
should not say Hindusthan belongs to them. That will lead to the
disintegration of India.’ He further says, ‘If Dalits can get a piece of land in
burial ground as a right, what does it matter if they embrace Islam?’

• After reading this article. Prof Gangal of Mumbai asked one of his Bohra

(one of the sections of Muslims) friends, ‘suppose I become a Muslim, will

you allow me to be buried in your graveyard?’
‘Oh No.’ came the reply. ‘You see we were originally Brahmins. Only those
who are bom in our community can be buried in our burial ground.’

Gangal then asked the same question to a Khoja (yet another section of
Muslims). ‘Impossible’ came the reply from Khoja as well. ‘We were
originally Lohanas i.e. Vaishyas. Only Khojas can be buried in our burial
grounds.’

(Sobat weekly of Pune 11 April 1982)

•At this time a Muslim Corporator of Mumbai made a public complaint to

the Mayor of Mumbai. He said that there are different burial grounds
belonging to various castes of Muslims. This creates problems for many
poor Muslims. Therefore the Mumbai Municipal Corporation should take
over all such burial grounds and make them available to ALL Muslims.

In other words, Muslims are not equal even after death and

therefore have to be buried separately according to their caste..

• In March 1981 at Minakshipuram, 60 miles (100 Km) from Trivendram

some Harijans (former untouchables) embraced Islam. At this time riots
erupted among Shias and Sunnis in Lucknow. While reporting the riots in
various newspapers, a lot was revealed about the caste system existing
among the Muslims.

• Tarun Bharat of Pune reported on 22 September 1981

In Maharashtra, some of the castes among Muslims are as follows

Momin, Khatik, Tamboli, Shikalgar, Madari, Garudi, Kasab, Mehatar,

Bhangi, Jankar, Pendhari, Sarwan, Patharwat, Darwashi, Pakhali,
Mullamujawar, Pinjari, Nadaf, Fakir,

Parabegar, Kalal. They do not intermarry. Their mosques

are separate. Their burial grounds are also separate. Khojas, Bohras,
Agakhanis and Kadiyanis are considered as superior castes. They regard all
the castes mentioned above as extremely inferior. Sikandar Bakt a Member
of Indian Parliament belonging to B.J.P, says,’ we consider Khatik, Bhangi,
Nabhik and Charmakar as very low castes indeed.’

• Maharashtra Times of Mumbai reported on 14 August

1981.Mahabaleshwar has a large community of Muslims. Their castes are

Sheikh, Sayyad, Tamboli, Pinjari, Bagvan, Menon, Khoja, Khatik, Kasai

and Dhavad. They do not intermarry. Mosques of Dhavads are separate
from mosques of others.

• Kadiyanis regard themselves as Muslims. They simply believe that

Prophet Mohammed was not the last Prophet. In future, another Prophet
may be born. And yet for this flimsy reason, they were massacred in
Pakistan in 1950 and 1974. The Government of Pakistan declared them as
nonMuslims in 1974. And for a similar reason, Ahmadias were

also massacred in Pakistan in 1982 and were declared nonMuslims by the

Government of Pakistan.

•What is the situation in Afghanistan? Afghans are separate from Pathans.

There are Pushtus, Hunzaras, Uzbecks, Tajiks and other ethnic groups. And
again each has hierarchy of castes. Same appiies to Arabs. The Kureshi
caste in which Prophet Mohammed was born is considered superior. The
peopie born in that caste consider themseives superior to ail other Arabs.

• In 1967, Ayub Khan, the President of Pakistan declared, “Though Islam

has 72 sects, all Muslims, whatever their race or social position, are equal in
the sight of God : the essence of Islam is brotherhood.”

(Friends not Masters by Mohammad Ayub Khan, Oxford University Press,

1967)

One must not believe in such misieading speeches. During Ayub’s regime it
was discovered that slavery existed in Pakistan.

• In December 1986,1 had to go to Pune, my hometown in hurry. I could get

a ticket only by Pakistan International Airlines. When we changed the plane
at Karachi airport I collected some local English language newspapers.
They contained the details of serious riots in Karachi among Muslims.
Unfortunately, my papers got lost in Mumbai in the house of my friend.
However, ten years later, riots were still flaring up among the Muslims in
Karachi. Daily Telegraph of 5 July 1995 reported —

“1,000 people have been killed as a result of Muhagir Quami Movement

and the atmosphere in Karachi was tense. These people are Urdu speaking
Sindi Muslims who migrated into Pakistan during partition of 1947. They
are demanding a partition of Sind and a part for Muhajirs.”

• On 14 April 1998, the Guardian reported on riots in the North West

Frontier Province.‘‘\r\ a village named Shahukhel and in the district of
Hangu there were serious riots between Shias and

Sunnis. 30 people were dead, all Shias. The riots went on for more than 30
hours. Thousands of soldiers and armed police are trying to quell the
disturbances."

• Discrimination in isiam had existed for hundreds of years. In his famous

book ‘Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History’ Savarkar has described the
situation that existed in the days of Chengiz Khan (1162-1267).

“A mixed race of Mughals came into being as a result of inter marriages

between Mongols and Turks. They tried to invade northern India on many
occasions. Many of them came as far as Delhi. Some of them embraced
Islam. But other Muslims (in India) regarded them as inferior, low caste
Muslims. They settled in Mughalpura area of Delhi. And many sought
refuge with Rajput kings. The King of Ratanbhor had employed some two
thousand Mughal soldiers.”

(SSV4 p811)

Only Savarkar had the courage to say that discrimination among Muslims
existed even in the days of Chengizkhan. Other (so called) Rationalists
cleverly avoided the issue.
Divisions among Christians
•What applies to Muslims also applies to Christians. Even today, In
America, Irish Catholics do not attend churches belonging to Polish
Catholics. The feud between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland
is well known. True they signed a peace agreement in 1998. But there are
signs that -sectarian violence will erupt at any time. In Yugoslavia, Croats
and Serbs are both Christians. But that has not prevented them from
massacring each other even in the 1990s.

•On 1 September 1927 Savarkar pointed out that In Travancore, there are
fights between High caste Christians and untouchable Christians.

(SSV3 p489)

• in 1935 Savarkar again said, “In the state of Travancore and other places
in south India, there is division between High caste Christians and
untouchable Christians. The former do not allow the latter in their churches.
The untouchable Christians in Travancore have asked for separate
representation in^ the legislative assembly. Has not Dr Ambedkar heard
about it? fSSl/S p 573)

• On 1 August 1956, Savarkar wrote an article ‘You will be worse off by

embracing Buddhism.’ He pointed out —

In places like Travancore, High caste Christians do not allow their children
to mix with the children of untouchable Christians. Even in churches, the
untouchable have to sit separately.

It is well known that Christian Mahars do not give their daughters to

Christian Chamars or Christian Dhors, nor do they take girls from these
communities.

(SSV3 p 683)
• Vijayalaxmi Pandit (sister of Nehru) was once the Governor of
Maharashtra province. She describes her experiences of 1962. There was a
Christian girl in her office who was worried about her marriage prospects.
Mrs Pandit asked, ‘Why are you worried? You are good looking and
intelligent.’ The girl told Mrs Pandit that her marriage prospects were not
bright as there were not enough suitable boys in her caste, nor would she be
allowed to marry outside her caste. For example a Christian Brahmin boy
will not marry a Christian Mahar girl. Mrs Pandit describes this experience
in her autobiography. The Scope of Happiness, published in 1979.

• What about today ? Well, things have not changed one little bit. On 3
April 1996 BBC2, in their series ‘East’ exemplified how the caste system is
being rigidly followed among the Christians in India. Some four or five
months later, Mark Tully, the well-known BBC correspondent in India,
produced a television programme entitled ‘last among equals.’ Again he
showed how the caste division is very

strong among the Christians in India. So, what did the untouchables achieve
by embracing Christianity ?
Buddhism and untouchability
In 1952, Dr Ambedkar declared that as there was no untouchability in
Buddhism he would convert to that religion. Savarkar replied to this
statement in his lectures on ‘Six glorious epochs of Indian History’

Kings like Ashoka imposed Buddhism on the masses. They not only
stopped the killing of animals but also made it a capital offence !! That
deprived hundreds of thousands of many castes of their livelihood.

After much agitation, King Dharmapal of Gujrat agreed to provide financial

help for three years to those who were affected by his order not to kill
animals, but emphasised that they must stop killing animals.

Thus, though the calamity was delayed for three years by this action, what
were the people of these castes going to do afterwards? Meat was their main
source of diet and they got it free from nature. Now they were starving.
They became extremely angry and abandoned Buddhism and became
followers of Vedic traditions, which tolerated animal killing to a reasonable
degree. They went back to the Sanatan Dharma.
• Buddhism enforced
untouchability not abandoned it
Even today many people, historians and propagandists, are under the
illusion that Indian Buddhists did not observe untouchability and that under
the rule of Buddhist Kings, there were no untouchables. But this is a fallacy.
We are not concerned what is written in any books. The question is what
happened in practice? As I described earlier, killing of animals became a
capital offence. And these castes had no choice but to kill and so their life
became intolerable. We cannot go into details here.

Suffice it to quote from the descriptions of the contemporary Chinese

travellers.

“Those castes (like Chandals) which did not stop killing animals no matter
what punishments were meted out to them, were driven out of their villages.
They were treated like lepers and had to live outside the village boundaries.
If for any reason, like the market day, they needed to come into the villages
they had to walk with a stick with a bell or beat drums to announce their
arrival so that the villagers could keep away and be not polluted by them.”

Those untouchables who are preaching that there is no untouchability in

Buddhism and want to give unwarranted importance to Buddhism should
realise that it was Buddhism that enforced untouchability more rigorously
than ever before. That is a historical fact.

The untouchables must have felt that the old Vedic rulers were far more
tolerant and humane than the Buddhist rulers who even banned fishing and
punished any one who ate meat. Though many of them had become
Buddhists, they repented and went back to the Vedic Dharma, so did the
people of high castes. Therefore many places associated with Buddhism lost
their importance. The Chinese travellers {Hu-entsung and Fa Hein) had to
state that the places once venerated for being associated with Buddha, like
Buddhagaya, Mrugadav, Shravastinagar, Kushinagar, Kapilvastu (birthplace
of Buddha) remained deserted and lay in ruins.

(SSV4 pp 694/5/6)
This historical truth was too much
for Dr Ambedkar and his followers
to bear. They kept very quiet about
it.
On 1 August 1956, Savarkar wrote an article ‘You will be worse off by
embracing Buddhism.’

• In Buddhist countries like Ceylon, untouchables are not allowed to draw

water from public wells and their children are also not allowed in public
schools. Anyone can verify these facts.

What is more important is this - can the Mahars honestly say that when they
become Buddhists, their feeling towards Chamars, Mangs and Dhors whom
they always regarded as untouchables will change overnight? Will their
caste arrogance vanish? No way.

For Mahars, the untouchabilty will not vanish by merely embracing

Buddhism, nor will they consider other low castes as their equals just
because they became Buddhists.

(SSV3 p683)

34 years had passed since Savarkar wrote the above article. Let us turn to
Japan where Buddhism was followed for centuries.

* On 24 May 1990, Daily Telegraph reported ‘Courage of Korean girl who

peeled off Japanese disguise.’

* On 19 October 1990, Daily Mail wrote ‘Why Japan is so ruthlessly

prejudiced : Land of the rising racisf.
This is the gist of what they said

Japan has not solved the problem of its untouchables. They are called
‘Burakumin’ and number 3 million (30 lakhs).

Japan also has the problem of aborigines. They are called Ainu. Japan ruled
over Korea in the 1930s and as a result, many Koreans were brought to
Japan as workers. Now they number 700,000. They live in pitiable
conditions. They have no right to vote. They have to carry identity cards
with their fingerprints. Racially, Japanese and Koreans are one (Mongols).
Both are Buddhists. And yet Japanese parents are vigilant to ensure that
their children do not marry Koreans.

/ gave all such examples to show how accurate Savarkar’s views were. He
was saying, “instead of trying to embrace a foreign religion, stay Hindu and
make that society strong. Be determined that you will remove the stigma of
untouchability and remain a Hindu. That is in your interest.”

269/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

We notice bloodbaths between many factions among Musiims, but have you
come across any group who say that they are NOT Musiims? After
centuries of persecution by Sunnis, has any Shia ever said, ‘I am Shia not a
Musiim.’ Kurds face persecution in iran, iraq, Syria and Turkey. But has
any Kurd ever said, ‘I am a Kurd, not a Musiim.’ Untouchabies must adopt
the same attitude.

If Savarkar had merely tried to change the mental outlook of people by his
speeches and writings we would have been grateful to him and said that he
had done enough. But Savarkar was a doer. He deeply respected the 1 T*
century Maratha saint Ramdas who used to say - “things happen when you
start doing things.' That was the motto of Savarkar. He put theory into
practice. Let us now turn to that aspect of his character.

Savarkar was a ‘doer’ in aii waiks of iife, but as we have just now deait
with his activities as a Sociai Reformer iet us first iook at the Sociai Work
he carried out during his internment in Ratnagiri (1924-1937). Some readers
wouid find it convenient to refer to Appendix C for certain unknown words
/ phrases before moving to the next chapter.

5t8/ Rdi5'^4iu5m*'f Vc«r >1

oft

I ,1 3 x^

,niro m noUiib^i^ o .... ,_m I* ,W«* ^v* biu^l

For Wi»tw •..

Jrt\SS^ «M SQnAtw^^

.(\Quooa onob bart ecA t«a

_. dgy wasil i iw^
gir'who pee4ed off Ja^ne?« * ■

w »- ---—.

»b s|iMirwiwv68 Id fMivIlBab won I jIooI MnR

J$paii niJod ovor Korea m tf>ft tS3C<a am as a re5uft |[-y> * ‘

Koraar«wa/abro«tf»to*l«»n»>^' ^-■

700,000. They ftve in pWSaWi oorvdi’5Kn|JiThoy nq k> vota. Tbay hav« »

carr)- Wari^ty c vd|.wnh their fengarpr nte. , nac^. Japanaso anti Koreehs ^
«» ^ >*-,

0 utictV 3 Cs. And yet Ja^cKwa psr#= • itaife vtgtent to ar«iro ‘^'*8'^ fhdr
(riiWlwn do not f»ty •. ^ l ■

K.A''

■ ’ f*' . ’■ y-'_

jgar)Mi^8udiajfart^ilfKi09lkm t^^*>oaytif^5s¥Ulsr'svi&^

HO was snw 'ihsteed to wep^ a fcrtK^ V '

du^i you v4 wn&ve ttwall^^.^d^^Intouch^f5ly and ^

•* J
-?f'

Hkliu, TheU tolr»y«>K irtenaa^ ^

I \ '■■■■ ■

•■'^d- ;jL ■ '<

■^ * > *

•Ji.

Chapter Six

SAVARKAR THE DOER

xiS i9jqa4.>

ft3O0 3HTflA>mAVAe

r4M,

SAVARKAR THE DOER

SOCIAL REFORMS
• During his internment in Ratnagiri Savarkar stated that there was no
longer any relation between one’s caste and the work he did. That was a fact
no one could deny. Savarkar wanted Hindus to take one step forward. He
raised the question, “what has one s caste to do with whom one dines?’ That
may sound childish today, but in his days it was a very serious matter. His
opponents answered, “What you say may be tme. But we have been brought
up in traditions of thousands of years, social etiquettes, customs and
manners. They are in our blood. How are they going to vanish by mere
talk?” He replied, “True, they will not disappear by mere talk, but if we are
determined to change, these barriers can be removed. We have achieved this
in less than ten years (in Ratnagiri). Now it is not a taboo with whom we
dine. That has now become just as irrelevant as the work people of different
castes may do i.e. one may belong to a Tailor caste but run a newspaper
stall. A Kshatriya (warrior class) may be manager of a printing press. No
one objects to that. In a similar manner no one now would object if a
Kshatriya eats with a person of Tailor caste. We have achieved that change
through our efforts.” (SSV3 p605)

What we need is actions, not plans

That is what Savarkar wanted to emphasise all his life. One must indeed
read the whole of his article: ‘AVow we banished untouchability and the
barriers to inter caste dining?’ published in November 1935.

“Today everyone is just making plans for the uplift of the Hindu nation. It is
true, planning is required. But mere planning is not real work. We must put
the plan into practice or at least make a start in that direction. Enough of
preaching to others what should be done. That is easy. Our people are
wasting time in mere discussions, making notes and fooling themselves that
they are doing great national service. Practical action is needed and

unfortunately that is the most difficult part. One group tells another one
what should be done. All our energy and valuable time is being wasted.
Look at the newspapers, magazines, conferences and seminars. Time and
again we are told what needs to be done. It is rare to find a report saying
‘this is what we have done.’ If we want to uplift our nation we must stop
futile discussions among ourselves.”

The generation of Justice Ranade had told us what needed to be done.

Tilak’s generation told us the same. And now our generation is doing the
same. But it is rare to find a person even one in a million who says, ‘this is
what I (or we) did, or we managed to do such and such from what we set
out to achieve.’ What is needed today is the energy and drive to carry out
the reforms that are needed. Many things can be achieved if every
individual does his share. But most people seem to think that once they
advised the others what to do, their duty is over.”

The same applies to removal of untouchability. Many are wasting time in

discussions and trying to find references in religious texts, or trying to
interpret them. That may as well be necessary. But what is needed most is
that everyone should stop observing untouchability in his or her own daily
life. We all agree in principle that untouchability is unjustified. However,
when it comes to putting it into practice, with a few exceptions, we take a
back seat. If this is the state of affairs, how can we find even five or ten
towns in India where untouchability is abandoned? The same appiies to the
barrier to inter caste dining.”

“In the towns of Ratnagiri and Malvan, we have managed to disband the
practice of untouchability and broken the barrier to inter caste dining also.
We have thus shown that it was within our capacity to carry out this work of
national importance. We therefore feel that our report on how we
progressed step by step and achieved our aim will be a useful reading for
those interested in carrying out similar work elsewhere.”

“In the Kirloskar magazine, our articles on ‘what needs to be

done’ were published. Many thousands of readers liked them. That was
gratifying. However, it is important to actually carry out works, small or
big, instead of consigning them to the books only. By the example of our
stage by stage work in eradicating the untouchability, the people will be
encouraged to do the same within their own towns and cities or at least in
their own personal life. That will be a true service to our nation and give us
immense satisfaction.”

Now let us turn to the situation in those days. Savarkar tells us

“In Ratnagiri, people felt that it was unclean to be even in the shadow of a
Mahar. If by chance they touched a Mahar, they took bath with their clothes
on, as the clothes also needed purification. And there were thousands of
such people. Some orthodox Brahmins did not even utter the word Mahar
and would only say ‘an outsider.’ One can but imagine that it was
impossible to have classes in schools where children of high caste and
untouchables mixed.

In the villages the untouchability was even stricter. It was just as strict
between Chamars, Mahars, Bhangis even though these were in turn treated
as untouchables by the High castes. Among the High castes, the caste
names of untouchables were used as curses. One Mahar would curse
another Mahar as ‘a Bhangi’.

Savarkar’s work for the uplift of the untouchables

We have to see how Savarkar worked under such circumstances. The first
problem was of creating mass awareness. Savarkar says —

“We started our work during the days Ganeshotsava of 1925. There were
lectures, public discussions, and articles published on how the practice of
untouchability was unjust and harmful to our society. I argued.‘you cannot
do substantial national work, but removal of untouchability is in your
hands, you can do it. So, why not do at least that much?’ Slowly people
were convinced by our arguments, but only in principle. On the practical
front

not many would come forward. Undaunted by this, I went to Maharwada

(locality where Mahars lived) to sing devotional songs to break the
barriers.”

(1) “It was impossible for Mahars to come into town and sing devotional
songs. Therefore we decided to go to their locality. At first they too were
reluctant to welcome us. Such meetings and intermingling of people of
High Caste and untouchables was never heard of. They felt uncomfortable
and uneasy at our presence. So strong was the influence of hundreds of
years of tradition. Many would not even come out of their houses. Their
wives or children would say, ‘the master is not in the house’. With great
difficulty we would sit in the forecourts on our own mats and sing.”
“Most of our colleagues who accompanied us would do so grudgingly and
not wholeheartedly. After our visits they went home and took bath. When
traditionalist high caste people saw us visiting the localities of
untouchables, attending programmes during Hindu festivals like Dasara,
Makar Sankrant, and distributing sweets, there was organised resistance to
us. We were threatened with social boycott. Even the well-known social
reformer Appa Patwardhan had to face such a boycott. Yet we carried on
with our work. We the members of Hindu Maha Sabha continued our visits,
cleaned the premises in the locality of untouchables, planted Tulsi trees,
disinfected the water courses and wells, distributed soaps and washed
clothes. Gradually people got used to our activities and came to accept what
we were doing. But if we had stopped there our movement would have not
have progressed further. The next step now was to bring the untouchables
into town for public functions and let them sing religious songs.”

(2) “Once again, we faced the same problems. The people of high castes
despised the company of Chamars and Mahars in public functions. The
Chamars and Mahars too were not enthusiastic about the idea. Those who
liked the idea were afraid. With great difficulty and sometimes even by
paying money, we

would invite some of them to sit with like-minded reformers end sing. They
need not face the wrath of the high castes as they were in our company.
While walking along the streets I would deliberately touch one of the
untouchables on the shoulder and take from their hands or give into their
hands some article. Slowly people got used to this kind of activity. Time
came when untouchables were given place during religious festivals and
activities.

Some staunch Hindu merchants allowed untouchables to come to their

shops and began to give goods in their hands rather than throw in their bags
as had been the practice.”

Integration in schools
“In 1925, Hindu Maha Sabha undertook the work of admitting children of
the untouchables to schools along with other children. This was necessary
not only for the uplift of the untouchable children, but alsdor striking at the
very root of the concept of untouchability. It had far reaching effect but it
was also the most difficult move. Throughout the district the children of the
untouchable used to sit aside, out of rooms, beyond walls or in the open.
The teachers did not touch their notebooks or slates. If they wanted to
punish they would throw sticks at them. Barring a few exceptions no one
could dare to suggest that all children should be taught together. There was
not even one school in the towns of Ratnagiri and Malvan where children
were taught together. There was a half-hearted government circular of 1923
asking schools to mix all children. It was very difficult to find that circular.”

“Therefore in 1925 we decided to tackle this problem. In Dapoli, Khed,

Chiplun, Devarukh, Sangameshwar, Kharepatan, we conducted a series of
lectures and public debates, tours and convinced the people of our
arguments. Eventually many schools adopted the policy of allowing all
children to be taught together. In the town of Ratnagiri we had to fight for
our cause school after school individually. The strange thing was that the
nonBrahmins (Maratha, Kulavadi, Bhandari etc) were more resistant

to change than Brahmins.”

“Throughout the district we faced opposition. There were strikes,

skirmishes, riots, even sabotage in Kotavade, Fonda, Kanakavali, Shiposhi,
Kandalgav, Adivare and other villages. The School Board became afraid. In
1929 the District Board passed a resolution that mixing of children should
not be compulsory. But we did not give up. On the one hand we tried to
change the public opinion and on the other we took our struggle to the
higher authorities and even took up the matter in Legislative Assembly.”

“And what about the untouchables? We were fighting for the rights of their
children. But the parents themselves were lethargic. Some were even afraid
of the consequences even where there was no reason to fear, they were not
prepared to send their children to school. They just did not realise the
importance of education. We paid for the parents to send their children to
school, provide books, notebooks, pencils, and slates for them. During the
rainy season they would say, ‘First give us umbrellas, then we will send
children to school.’ Hindu Maha Sabha workers provided umbrellas. But
then the children would take them away and disappear. Eventually their
children developed taste for education.”

“After our incessant activity of seven years and spending over thousands of
rupees, we succeeded. Not only in Ratnagiri town but also throughout the
district, children were being taught together. Government too issued strict
instructions against segregation. The School Board also took a firm stand.
Hindu Maha Sabha workers carried out surveys of schools and exposed
those who had been sending false reports. Some teachers were fined. Three
or four schools were closed. In the end the untouchability was banished in
schools.”

“High caste children come in contact with children from untouchable

families at a very young age. This contact was most important. On the one
hand, the education helps in the uplift of untouchable children. On the other
high caste children soon realise that the children from untouchable families
can be just

as clever as themselves. This removes the arrogance of superiority by birth.

The practice of untouchability becomes abolished from the minds of
children at a very early age and this has good effect throughout their life.
We therefore recommend every reformer to study our work of these seven
years.”

Entry into homes

“While the above movement was in full swing in the district of Ratnagiri
we also started another move. From 1927 we made attempts that during the
days of Dasara and Sankrant people of the high castes (Brahmin, Kshatriya
and Vaishya) should include two or three representatives of untouchable
castes like Mahar, Chamar or Bhangi and this group would say to the
residents, ‘We greet you on behalf of Hindu Maha Sabha. We offer you
sona (leaves of the famous tree named Apta). Please allow us to come at
least as far as you normally allow non-Hindus. Is it not an insult to regard
the untouchables, who stick to our religious traditions, as inferior to non-
Hindus?”
“This humble request had the desired effect. Many would welcome us and
take us inside their houses, exchange leaves and sweets and we all shouted
‘Long live Hindu Dharma.’ As I recall, for the first two years, many greeted
us on the doorsteps only. Some shouted abuse and asked us to get out. But
we continued with our movement and in the end resistance melted. What
we were doing became a norm. In 1930, despite the fact that names of
people who exchanged sona leaves with people of all castes were published
in newspapers, 90% of househplds welcomed us. No one asked us to get
out. In the shops (except cafes) untouchables ceased to be discriminated.
The movement, having achieved its objective, was abandoned.”

Women’s get-together
“It is generally assumed that women are strongly against social reforms. If
they were in favour of any reforms, many a time they did not have the
freedom to express their opinions. Even then we argued with them logically
and after having obtained their consent we decided to try a women’s get
together. We made a

first try in 1925. In the beginning, even the untouchable women were
unwilling to participate. In'the whole of Ratnagiri town, we found only 5
women of high caste families (including Savarkar’s wife) who were
prepared to mix with untouchable women. On the one hand we had to
induce the untouchable women to attend by offering them sugar canes or
sweets, and keep pleading with high caste women. On the other we tried to
make them agree to our move. Eventually we succeeded on both fronts.
Hundreds of women of both high caste and untouchables participated. After
some years the high caste women did not feel that they were different to the
untouchable women or higher than them. Inter mixing of ALL women
during public social functions became a norm.”

Theatres and Cinemas

“It was a common practice for the untouchable men and women to sit
separately from the rest of the society. When we tried to break the tradition
there were public uproars and brawls. I (Savarkar) had written a drama
entitled ‘Usshyap.’ For the shows, I gave free passes to prominent seats for
untouchable men and women. There was so much unease that the local
Magistrate had to intervene to keep law and order. But I assured him that
there would not be any riot. I argued with the rest of the audience and
convinced them of my point of view. Eventually the masses agreed that the
untouchables need not sit separately.”

Transport
“Owners of public carriages normally refused to carry untouchable
passengers. We argued, ‘but you accept Muslims. These untouchables are
our people and are Hindus. How can you deny them the right to sit in a
carriage?’ Some changed their minds, some refused. We used the drivers
who came to our side and paid for the journeys of untouchables. For some
time we would take them to sea shore, so that people would notice what we
were doing and get used to untouchables travelling in public. After some
years we succeeded on this front also.”

Hindu Band
“We provided capital to form a band of untouchables to improve their
financial position and taught them music. Previously the bandsmen used to
be Muslims. During Hindu religious processions Muslims bandsmen would
stop music while passing in front of mosques and set a bad precedent, even
if Hindus wished for music to continue. We therefore suggested and many
staunch Hindus agreed that they should use untouchable bandsmen. They
also started the practice of playing music at marriage ceremonies. On one
hand they had a source of income, on the other it helped to do away with
untouchability as the musicians could not be kept away from the crowds.

Entry into temples

“We have been agitating since 1926 for allowing entry into temples for
untouchables. For the Ganeshotsava we formed a group of singers from
Mahars, Chamars and Bhangis. However even these untouchables would
not mix among themselves. We therefore started to give out nuts and sweets
as inducement. But a Mahar would not eat nuts from the hands of a Chamar
and he in turn would not eat from the hands of a Bhangi. With great
difficulty we convinced them of their folly, then we could not get any place
to practise singing. After overcoming that difficulty, we brought the singing
group to the Vitthal Mandir where Ganeshotsava was taking place. We were
asked to keep our distance from the main crowd. It caused great sensation.
Hundreds of people gathered to witness this programme, but watched from
a distance.”

“By the second year people were sufficiently convinced of our moves and
they themselves requested that the singing group should come forward into
the main ground. By 1929 this singing group have been performing during
the ceremonies like Gokul Ashtami (birthday of Lord Krishna) and in
Kirtans. Many citizens who attended these events started encouraging the
singing by this group. There were of course some who objected to such
singing by this group.”

“Few years later, on the occasion of Ekadashi (11“’ day of the lunar
calendar) a group of three hundred youth of all castes (including
untouchables) performed Bhajan in the temple for one hour and some took
photographs as proof. However even at this stage there were still some
conservatives who did not approve of this event. We therefore decided to
bypass their objection by the establishment of a new temple.”

Patit Pavan Mandir (22 February 1931)

“We realised that there were bound to be many difficulties in opening up
long standing temples to untouchables. The diehards could raise legal
objections. Some priests could argue that the temples were private property
and they had the right to refuse entry to untouchables. We therefore decided
to build a new temple where Hindus of all castes including untouchables
would be permitted. And once Hindus get used to the idea of worshipping
and praying together they would not feel it necessary to go to the old
temples where untouchables were not allowed.”

“We therefore persuaded Sheth Bhagoji Keer, a generous businessman, to

contribute for the building of a new temple on which he spent about two
and a half lakhs of Rupees (about 400,000 pounds at 2001 prices).”

This unique temple is so well known throughout India that it may be

unnecessary to give its details. Whatever resistance was remaining to the
entry of untouchables into Hindu temples vanished by the creation of this
temple. Thousands of men and women of all castes, including the
untouchables have come together in this temple, taking part in many
functions, praying together, celebrating together, singing together without
slightest notion of their castes. The well, the gardens, the premises are open
to ALL Hindus.”

“Later on, temple on the castle in town, known as Bhageshwari temple,

belonging to Seth Keer, was also declared open to .ALL Hindus."

A Cafe for ALL Hindus (Akhil Hindu Upahargruha)

“When I (Savarkar) first came to Ratnagiri in 1924, the restaurant owners

would serve tea to untouchables only by pouring into their own cups or
coconut shells from a distance. However, Muslims were welcomed and
allowed to sit inside and were served tea normally. We therefore established
a restaurant that would be open to ALL Hindus. In this place, it was the
usual practice to publish names of those who take food, tea and snacks.
Despite this publicity, Hindus of ALL castes openly used this restaurant for
their regular meals (eating). No one was made outcast for eating in this
place!”

This happened on 1 May 1933. It must be emphasised that tea and food was
served by [former] untouchables. Once again, we have to remember that
such a cafe was unique in the whole of India at that time. It was not possible
to run such a cafe even in urbanised Mumbai. (Ratnagiri Era pp 287/8)

Death knell to untouchablity: Burning of the

effigy
“We carried out propaganda throughout Ratnagiri District. There were
lectures, tours, seminars, sessions of ‘dining together’. Persons like Appa
Patwardhan helped us in our work and the untouchability was banished
from the Malvan town also. Four major temples there were declared open to
ALL Hindus.”

"The untouchables have thus become ex-untouchables. And we achieved

this success merely by logical reasoning and incessant efforts towards the
result. This had been a revolution of minds. To celebrate our achievement
we openly burnt the effigy of untouchability with the consent of ALL
Hindus in Ratnagiri on 22 February 1933. It was observed as a day of death
for untouchability.”

“We destroyed the barrier to inter-caste dining.

On 11
September 1935 a Bhangi (scavenger) woman took a bath after having
carried out her daily work, she came to Patit Pavan Mandir in clean clothes,
sat in the company of high caste women and was served food. The news
was published in the papers with

the names of the participants. Thus we destroyed the demon of barrier to

inter- caste dining.”

“In Ratnagiri, almost every Hindu had taken part in intercaste dining or had
taken food with those who did. In other words inter caste dining is no
longer considered an objectionabie deed. Within a period of ten years (1924
to 1934) we removed not only the shackles of untouchability but also of
inter-caste dining. This social revolution is indeed praiseworthy. However,
we must remember that it was like the saying ‘it is better to make progress
at the speed of a tortoise than no progress at all.’ Look at what other people
have achieved in the last ten years. Russia progressed at the speed of an
aeroplane, and we congratulate ourselves that we can walk without the
support of a baby-walker. Still when we were almost dead, at least we have
now started to walk, that is progress. We need to make progress thousand
fold.”

(SSV3 pp 592-603)
In the above article Savarkar said, “We achieved so much in Ratnagiri. Why
can’t others do as much?”

We can get some idea of the enormous social work carried out by Savarkar
even though he was in internment for 13 years. Here is some more
information not covered by above article

Schooling Of Untouchable Children

• In March 1930, Savarkar went to Malvan. There was a school for
untouchable children, but only 17 or 18 children attended. So some
suggested that the school should be closed. Higher authorities did not want
that because then the untouchable children would have to be taught along
with high caste children. Savarkar said NO, untouchable children must be
taught along with high caste children.

(R Era p 206)

• One of the works of Savarkar was related to the efforts to integrate

untouchable children within the schools. He wrote many

letters to those in power and authority. He exposed the schools that

practised discrimination. He helped the untouchable children with clothes
and books. He made efforts to gain government employment for the
untouchables. On behalf of Ratnagiri Hindu Mahasabha, he made a
presentation to Mr Lamington, I.C.S officer with the special responsibility
for the low castes. He said, “Once the children are educated together they
will not accept the caste hierarchy in later life. They will not feel the need
to observe caste division. Therefore the government regulation of 1923
should be strictly followed. In addition, the government should abandon the
title ‘ special schools for low caste children. ’ This very title creates a
feeling of inferiority among children attending the school. Such an appeal
was sent in 1932.

(R Era pp 255/6)
• Famous humorous writer Mr Chintaman Kolhatkar remembers an
important event in the life of Savarkar in 1932. The Organisers were
rehearsing for Savarkar’s drama ‘Uttarkriya’. Suddenly a visitor arrived. As
Savarkar was expecting the visitor he stopped his work and talked to the
visitor who requested that Savarkar should visit their village. Savarkar
enquired, “Is there a school in the village? Do the untouchable children
attend? If so, do all the children sit together?”

The visitor told that the untouchable children sat separately. Savarkar said,
“Give my regards to the villagers. I have a request for them. Tell them that
at least in the house of Saraswati, (the Goddess of learning) i.e. school, they
should not observe untouchability. Once they accept this little request I will
set aside all my work and come to your village.”

(R Era p 273)

Please Let Untouchables Join In

• In 1925 Savarkar was in Shirgav. He was invited by Gurav (custodian)

Mahadev Laxman to inaugurate new Hanuman Mandir after consecration.
Savarkar pleaded

that untouchables like Mahars and Mangs should be allowed to take part in
perambulating. He agreed.

(R Era pp 78/79/80)

• Famous Bengali leader Chittaranjan Das died on 16 June 1925. A

memorial service was to be held in the Vitthal temple of Ratnagiri. Savarkar
insisted that untouchables should also be allowed to participate. This was
agreed by the organisers. The people from Mahar, Chamar and other
untouchable castes attended the public meeting.

(R Era p 98)

• It has been a tradition of Hindus to invite 1,000 Brahmins for dinner on

special occasions. In March 1927, such a function was arranged by Mr H K
Gokhale, a silver merchant of Dapoli. Savarkar addressed the Brahmins
after the dinner. At first, many conservative Brahmins showed their
disapproval of Savarkar by turning their backs to him. But Savarkar’s
arguments were so powerful that many soon changed their minds. On the
second and third days untouchables sat in the company of Brahmins and
other high caste people. There was great rejoicing all around. (R Era pp
131/2)

• On 29 May 1927, a Satyanarayan Pooja was organised in Ratnagiri by

people of Kunabi and Bhandari castes. Savarkar attended the ceremony and
made a passionate appeal against untouchability. The organisers then
invited the untouchables who sat outside the house to come in and sit with
them.

(R Era p 142)

• In August 1928, Gokulashtami (birthday of Lord Krishna) was celebrated

in Ratnagiri. Main function is called ‘gopalkala’. Savarkar attended the
festivities and asked the organisers, “I have some untouchable children with
me. Can they join in?” YES said the organisers.

(R Era p 173)

• In 1928 a circus visited Ratnagiri. They invited Savarkar to attend one of

their shows. He agreed and the circus manager gave proceedings of one
show for the uplift of untouchables. (R Era p 179)

• One of the bones of contention of untouchables was they had no right to

rites according to Vedic ceremonies. In May 1929, in Ratnagiri, Savarkar
arranged a function to declare that any one who calls himself a Hindu has
the right to religious ceremonies according to Vedas, including wearing the
holy thread. He said to members of Mahar and Chamar pastes, ‘take these
holy threads and stop bickering.’

So overwhelmed were the untouchables that one Sergeant Ghatage said,

“Now, who says that Mahars should become Muslims? We Mahars and
Chamars will never abandon Hindu Dharma.”
(R Era p 192)

In 1930, Bhangis (scavenger) had arranged a marriage ceremony in their

community. Since they were considered extremely low in the society they
knew that no Brahmin priest would officiate, but even the priest of Mahar
community refused to officiate. Savarkar therefore taught two of his
Brahmin disciples how to perform Vedic marriage ceremony. They
accordingly officiated at the marriage.

{R Era pp 204/5)

Let us just look at some instances of notions and attitudes of people of those
days to appreciate how difficult his task was.

SAVARKAR’S DIFFICULTIES
• In May 1927, Savarkar visited Malvan. Shivotsava was being celebrated
there in honour of great Maratha King Shivaji. He spoke brilliantly on ‘The
true story of killing of Afzulkhan by Shivaji.’ Many untouchables were
allowed in but they sat on one side while the High caste people sat on the
other side.

(R Era p 139)

* In 1928 in Mumbai, despite the introduction of public transport like

railway, trams and buses, untouchability had not disappeared. Untouchables
had to celebrate their Ganeshotsava separately. (R Era pp 175/6)

Balarao Savarkar, Private Secretary of Savarkar wrote,

“In those days (i.e. in 1929) high caste people considered it a sin even to
touch an untouchable. Not only that, people belonging to different castes
also did not mix. They sat in the group of their own caste. When people
gathered for religious or social functions such as marriages they ate food in
the group of their particular caste. There was no mixing of castes. Even
people belonging to different sub-castes also did not mix. For example,
among Brahmins it was unthinkable that Chitpavan and Deshatha Brahmins
would mix.”

“It was considered a sin to eat with people of a lower caste than one’s own.
If such a transgression took place, the person would have to answer to the
assembly of elders of his own caste. If found guilty, he would be asked to
perform penances. If he refused, he would become an outcast, something
that shattered the courage of even the most determined. Once you are
declared an outcast even your friends and relatives would abandon you,
othenwise they too would face the prospect of becoming outcasts. People
would not come to your house. You could not get drinking water or fire
(matches were not available then) for your cooking. No one would marry
your son or daughter."

(R Era pp 199/200)

* In 1932, no group of untouchable singers were admitted at Ganeshotsava

in Pune or Mumbai

(REra p268).

* In March 1934, Savarkar went to Khed to deliver a lecture on the need to

break the caste barrier, which prevented people from ‘dining together.’
There was a public reception afterwards. Many people refused to drink
water with Savarkar.

Some said they would drink water with Savarkar but not with the
untouchables who accompanied him. Even this had to be considered as
progress.

(R Era p306)

A Cafe for all Hindus (in Ratnagiri)

* Mr Narasinha Chintaman Kelkar one of Tilak’s lieutenants took tea in this

place on 15 May 1933. For this action he was severely criticised by
conservative Hindus.
* Even Mr Dhananjay Keer, biographer of Savarkar faced social boycott for
drinking tea in this caf6.

* The caf6 always made loss. But Savarkar made up the deficit from his
own pocket. He was living on the paltry allowance of Rupees 60 (£4) per
month granted by the British Administration from August 1929.

(REra p 288).

DINING TOGETHER OF ALL HINDUS

Why ‘dining together’?

In any society people dine only with their equals. Therefore by arranging
such functions Savarkar wanted to emphasise that ALL Hindus are equal.
This was indeed a revolutionary concept in 1920s, especially in such a
remote place like Ratnagiri. Savarkar persuaded people to tai<e this step at
every possible opportunity. Here are some examples

1931

• On 8 March, in Ratnagiri some 35 participants of Gandhi’s Salt

Satyagraha were released from prison by the British Administration. They
were publicly honoured and ‘dining together’ was arranged in the famous
Patit Pavan Mandir. (REra p231)

1932

• On 12 June, there was a marriage ceremony at Mr Savant’s home in

Ratnagiri. Savant gladly consented to arranging ‘dining

together’ to celebrate the marriage.

(REra p 262)

• On 24 July, Mr Sakharam Parkar of Varavade had a remembrance day of

his father. He agreed to hold ‘dining together’ functions at his home.
(R Era p 262)

• In those days Brahmins denied the right to learn Vedas to nonBrahmins.

Therefore non-Brahmins decided to have their own religious
leader‘KshatriyaJagadguru’. On 11 September, a ‘dining together’ of men
took place in Patit Pavan Mandir under the chairmanship of Kshatriya
Jagadguru. He was glad to take part in ‘dining together.’

(REra pp 266/7/8)

• On 2 October, Savarkar spoke on desirability of ‘dining together’ at

Chiplun. Those who opposed Savarkar’s views but attended his lecture,
were convinced by his arguments and took part in ‘dining together’ in
Dharmashala [A public place where one may stay free of charge overnight.]

(R Era p 270)

• In 1932, Savarkar did not go out of Ratnagiri town for the most part of the
year. He emphasised that he would not attend any function merely for
delivering lectures, but if there was a specific programme of action, he
would attend. A rich man of Chiplun Mr Kashiram Redis invited Savarkar
for a lecture at a Satyanarayan Pooja in his house, with the arrangement that
afterwards there will be a ‘dining together’ of Hindus of ALL castes,
including the untouchables. Accordingly, Savarkar and his friends including
some untouchables reached Chiplun on 1 October. They stayed with Mr
Vinayak Barve, a lawyer. On Sunday, the Satyanarayan Pooja was
preformed in the shop of Mr Redis. People gathered and sat together and
Prasad was also distributed to everyone irrespective of caste.

(R Era pp 269/270)

1934

• In January. Savarkar visited Malvan to attend the launching ceremony of

newspaper Kokan Samachar. Two days after launching of the paper
Savarkar arranged a ‘dining together of all Hindus’ in Cinema house called
‘Manohar’. Muslims and Christians also attended the ‘dining together’.
(R Era p300)

• In April, Savarkar again visited Malvan to attend various functions. On

22"'^ a local social worker Mr Aba Desai was honoured and a ‘dining
together’ took place.

(R Era p 308)

1935

• On 4 May, Bharatbhushan Sangeet Mandali, a dramatic society made a

performance of Savarkar’s drama ‘Uttarkriya.’ At the end, Savarkar was
felicitated and a purse was presented to him. Savarkar appreciated the
actors and actresses. Afterwards the drama company organised a session of
a ‘dining together’ of Hindus of ALL castes including the untouchables.

(R Era p 333)

1936

• In March, the drama company of Mr Bapurao Rajhans popularly called

‘Balgandharva’ came to Ratnagiri on a tour. Balgandharva was a great
admirer of Savarkar. He insisted that Savarkar should attend a show by his
company. Savarkar said, “I will come only if you promise to arrange an
inter-caste dining after the drama.” He agreed and accordingly on 6 March
1936 such a dining together session was organised by the drama company.

(R Era pp 351/2)

• 26/27 August - Ganeshotsava was celebrated in Patit Pawan Mandir.

Savarkar arranged two functions of ‘dining together’ one for men and
another for women. Prabhodhankar, father of present Shivasena leader Bal
Thakare attended.

(REra p 361/2)

1937
• In March, Savarkar was invited to Shirode by some members of the
‘Break the caste system’ movement. On the 20“* they arranged a ‘dining
together.’ This function was attended by famous writer Mr V S Khandekar
and Gandhi’s follower Appa Patwardhan. Large number of people took part
even though participants in such functions still faced social boycotts.

(R Era p 372)

• On 19 April, Savarkar was invited by a group of students in Ratnagri on

the occasion of Ramanavami [birthday of Lord Rama]. Aftenwards they
arranged a ‘dining together.’

(R Era p 373)

OBSTACLES

It must however be remembered that Savarkar faced considerable

difficulties in arranging ‘dining together’ functions. Here are some
examples

* In 1930 it was not possible to hold such function even in homes of

reformers like Dr Shinde due to the opposition from his relations. There
were many iri Hindu Sabha who also opposed ‘dining together’ saying that
it would un-necessarily complicate matters. These people were for removal
of the untouchability but NOT for ‘dining together.’ Savarkar therefore did
not take any money form Hindu Sabha for such functions.

(R Era p 220)

* In 1931 it was very difficult to hire hall for these functions. It was also
difficult to get a cook.

(R Era p224).

Soon the conservative Hindus decided that the participants should face
religious courts of their respective caste or face becoming outcasts. Those
who resisted and justified ‘dining together’ sessions soon realised that their
families were treated as outcasts. Once there was a plague outbreak in
Ratnagiri, so

Savarkar stayed at the house of one Vishnupant Damie in Shirgav and wrote
his books Hindu Pads Padshahi and Usshyap in his house. Even Damie was
upset because his sons participated in ‘dining together’. Today one cannot
imagine how severe the social boycott was. Some people found that unless
they accepted the penances imposed by their respective caste organisations
they could not get their daughters married.

(R Era pp 235/6/7)

* In October 1932, Savarkar went to Chiplun as Mr Reddis had arranged a

‘dining together’ there. Savarkar and his friends including some
untouchables stayed at the house Mr Vinayak Barve, a la\wyer. Balarao, the
private secretary of Savarkar remembers, “I saw Savarkar for the first time
at my uncle’s place (Mr Barve). Savarkar was accompanied by some
(former) untouchables. Our neighbours refused to allow them to draw water
from wells in their house.”

(R Era pp 269/270)

Gandhi’s opposition

In September 1932, Gandhi went on his famous fast denouncing the British
proposal of special representation for the untouchables in various
Legislative Assemblies. He put out a statement in November, “I do not
consider even in my dreams that ‘dining together’ and ‘mixed (inter-caste)
marriages’ are essential parts in the movement for abolishing
untouchability. Such activities would indeed create obstacles and therefore
should not be entertained.”

(R Era p 272)

When Gandhi put out this statement, he had acquired considerable stature.
Many prominent Hindu leaders who later joined Hindu Maha Sabha, and
also leaders of RSS took part in Gandhi’s Satyagraha movement of 1931.
Whatever he said carried enormous weight. Conservative Hindus were
obviously delighted by Gandhi’s opposition to Savarkar’s ‘dining together.’
Savarkar therefore had to emphasise that just because Gandhi

opposes, ‘dining together by Hindus of ALL castes’ is not wrong. {SSV3,

pp 263-276)

* In 1933, there was a great debate in Chiplun. The town had three temples.
Shree Ram Mandir of Shetye, Murlidhar Mandir of Kamerkar and
Laxminarayan Mandir of Brahmins. The question was — should the temple
authorities allow in the temples those who took part in ‘dining together’
functions. After great deliberations, it was decided that those who took part
in them should be first purified by drinking holy water from the temples.

(R Era p278)

* In 1935, some people who participated in ‘dining together’ found it

impossible to get a priest to perform their son’s thread ceremony. Mr V L
Barve of Chiplun and Mr Vaze of Malvan faced such difficulties. Savarkar
arranged to send suitable priests

(R Era p 332)

* In February 1935, Savarkar was busy arranging to start of a school in

Devarukh. As usual, a ‘dining together’ took place at that time.
Satyashodhak, the local newspaper published a story that the local priest
Shastri B R Sane ate bread in the company ’ of non-Brahmins. So incensed
was the Shastri by the news that he filed a court case for libel. In the end
both parties reached a compromise in November.

(R Era pp 323/4)

THE MOVEMENT SPREADS

In course of time, the inter caste dining that Savarkar had propagated,
spread throughout Maharashtra and also all over India. There were inter-
caste dining of men and women in Pune, Mumbai, Vasai, Sangli, Kolhapur,
Karhad, Savantvadi, Amaravati, Shahabad, Kalyan and other towns and
cities.
Outside Maharashtra also there were functions in Indore, Karachi (now in
Pakistan) and Rajasthan.

P&ople of all castes, including untouchables participated. Many prominent

persons too took part. These included Keshavrao Jedhe, Mr Nariman (well
known Parsee leader of Mumbai). Prof Gajendragadkar, Maharaja of Oundh
state, N.C Kelkar (one of Tilak’s lieutenants) Gadgil (one of the early
Indian pilots), Maharshi Annasaheb Karve, famous for his work for
women’s education and progress; actor Balgandhan/a, speaker Acharya
Atre, novelist V S Khandekar, Appa Patwardhan well known Social worker
and disciple of Gandhi, Congress leader of Pune Kakasaheb Gadgil.

One must remember that the social revolution that was brought about by
Savarkar was purely due to his rationalism, logical arguments and incessant
efforts towards achieving the goal.

GANESHOTSAVA FOR ALL HINDUS

• In 1930, conservative Hindus resolved that untouchables should not be

allowed to mix with others and should sit in an area set aside for them.
Savarkar said, “During the last five years we have abolished observation of
division by caste. It would be retrograde step to propose that during
Ganeshotsava untouchables should not mix with others.” The organising
committee was split. Savarkar’s resolution was rejected by 9 votes to 6. He
and his five colleagues resigned from the committee.

Savarkar called for a meeting of people who agreed with him. He said, “We
are abandoning the traditional Ganeshotsava which was held annually in the
Vitthal Mandir for last 20 years. We are making a new start with a new
Ganeshotsava, with the intention to remove untouchability and other
harmful barriers like prohibition of inter-caste dining. We must assume that
at first the society will not support us. People are reluctant to break the
traditions. The reformists are always in the minority. Any one who proposes
new reforms is always lonely at first. If you are true reformist.
you must raise the flag irrespective of any followers you mayor may not
get. You must carry on even if there are only five of you. You must be
determined to treat ALL Hindus equally. At our festivals any Hindu must
have the right of entry and participation for worshipping and performing
rites according to Vedic tradition. If you are short of money, carry the idol
on your head and instead of burning of large number of lamps, light one
candle. Remember the masses will flock to the traditional Ganeshotsava.
Yours will only attract five of you. Bear this in mind and carry on
regardless.”

With this advise Savarkar sent his disciples in the town. They had a placard
with a statement saying ‘I am in full agreement with the aim of this new
Ganeshotsava. Every Hindu must be entitled to participate in all the
functions and festivities.’ Savarkar had kept in his archives the list of
pledges bearing signatures of some 70 citizens.

On Wednesday 27*', the Ganesh idol was consecrated. Puja was performed
by the priest Mr Purushottam Vasudev Marathe. He gave his consent in
writing stating that he was aware of the fact that ALL Hindus will be
allowed to participate in the festivities,

I also agree to that principle. Savarkar had preserved that paper.

There were many programmes. Povadas (Ballads) were sung by Shahir

Nanivadekar and there were demonstrations of use of armed instruments,
lectures by Masurakar Maharaj, folk songs by groups of young men and
women. Mr Vishal, a lawyer declared that he would give a prize of 5 rupees
to any one who could recite clearly the Gayatri Mantra. Son of a Bhangi
won that prize. He took his bath by the well in the compound, put on clean
clothes, offered flowers to Lord Ganesh and recited the Gayatri Mantra.
That was a sensational news. No one thought it was possible. It made
f.ewspaper headlines right up to London.

There was a combined reciting of ‘Deve’. Those who took part were Mr
Phatak (Brahmin), MrTukaram Savant (Maratha), Kesu (Mahar), Shivu
(Bhangi), Hari Chamar (Chamar) and others.

[ Note - Deve is a collection of 30 Mantras from Rigveda. These

296/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

\re not normally recited during normal worships, but only on fecial
occasions such as Ganeshotsava]

Savarkar delivered his lecture on caste division. In his concluding speeish

he said, This was a unique Ganeshotsva in Maharashtra ever s^ce
Lokamnya Tilak revived it 25 years ago. We assumed that only five people
would come. In fact five thousand came. They broke at least the shackles of
untouchability, prohibition of learning of Vedas by non-Brahmins and
prohibition of reconversion to Hindu Dharma. I am therefore proposing to
carry a movement to break the barrier of caste system oh a wider scale.’

As a result of this resolution, Savarkar wrote articles on why the caste

barrier must be broken. These were published in the newspaper Kesari
during 29 November 1930 to 5 May 1931. (REra pp 212/215)
Support for just demands of
untouchables
Critics of Savarkar conveniently forget that he could not even travel outside
the district of Ratnagiri. Therefore, he could not do more than giving his
blessings to the movements of untouchables elsewhere or expressing his
sympathies with their objectives.

Untouchables started their Satyagraha movement for being allowed to take

water from the public lake In Mahad and also for being, allowed inside the
temple of Lord Rama in Nasik. Let us glimpse into his thoughts on those
events.
Untouchables drawing water from
public tanks
In September 1927, Savarkar wrote an article entitled‘fK warning to our
untouchable brothers’ He says, “If, on account of the high caste Hindus
obstructing the legitimate rights of our untouchable brothers, the latter then
resort to Satyagraha, how can we blame them in any way? Of course, we
would prefer that such disputes are settled peacefully with negotiations
rather than confrontations. I can say from my own experience that it is
possible to convince the high caste people that the untouchability

in public places and facilities (such as for drinking water) is wrong and that
i can be removed by appealing to them in the name of brotherly love.
However, we are also aware of the fact that if in some cases, the problem is
not solved, the untouchables will have to resort to civil disobedience. That
is not and should not be a norm but may regrettably become inevitable.”

“We have been preaching that, in public places such as schools, public
tanks, water taps, municipalities, district councils and gatherings, we must
allow the untouchables access, not any less or perhaps more than what
Muslims have. It is their legitimate right. Therefore, we do not blame Dr
Ambedkar in any way for

his movement for the right of untouchables to take water from public tanks.

Muslirns are allowed to take waterfrom the same tank and wash heir
utensils and yet our untouchable brothers are forbidden to take water from it
even in days of scarcity of water. Not only hat. when they tried to exercise
their legal rights to take water they were beaten up. We cannot believe that
this beating took

place because of the rumours that they were about to enter Hindu temples.”

fSS p485)
Savarkar had been emphasising that, most probably the problems of
untouchables will be solved by brotherly love, but should this not be the
case and if it became absolutely necessary untouchables would be justified
in resorting to the Satyagraha. His thoughts are therefore quite
unambiguous and revealing.

Entry of untouchables into Rama temple, Nasik

•On 13 March 1931, Savarkar put out a statement asking the high caste
Hindus to ailow untouchables into the famous temple of Lord Rama in
Nasik. He argued, “I was brought up in Nasik Citizens of Nasik had given
me great deal of affection as a child.

I wish to influence them with the same affection. I have been struggling for
the benefit of our Hindu society for the last thirty years and have learned
from experience what is good for our

'society. I am therefore appealing to people of Nasik to allow uVjtouchables

into the temple of Lord Rama. I can guarantee th^ this will strengthen our
society enormously and there is not

the slightest harm in it.”

The demand of the untouchables is perfectly just. They have now come to a
decision to carry out a Satyagraha for that demand. But this is an inevitable
result of arising from our obstinacy. They have waited for sixty to seventy
generations for their rights. How long should they wait? It is really up to us
to make way for their entry into the temple.”

“I therefore appeal to you (the high caste people) that you welcome them
with folded hands and ask for their forgiveness for the past deeds and
experience the tremendous sensation that will create. Let us all say, “Hindu
Dharma Kee Jai (Glory to the Hindu Dharma).” That will crush the designs
of foreigners who have been looking fonrt/ard to converting the
untouchables to their faith namely Muslims and Christians.”
“Our Lord Rama opened his own palace to the Bibhishan and others though
they were bom in the family of Ravana, but had repented and surrendered to
Rama. I sincerely pray that the same Rama will give you the sense to open
the doors of his temple to the untouchables.”

Brotherly yours.

Ratnagiri

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. 13 March 1931

(SSV3 pp 514/5)

Savarkar sent the letter with Bhaurao Gayakwad who came to see him in
Ratnagiri.

In 1924 Savarkar was in Nasik due to outbreak of plague in Ratnagiri. As a

result of his appeal Hindus of Nasik had placed an idol of Ganesh from the
untouchables in the forefront during the procession on the last day of
Ganeshotsava {Ganseh idols

made from clay are immersed in river at the end of ceremonies on the last
da^). And yet the same Hindus rejected Savarkar’s appeal mentioned above.
Savarkar’s letter reached Nasik on 16 March. The untouchables organised a
huge procession on the 1 S*’ for the entry into the temple of Lord Rama.
They were beaten by high caste Hindus. Men who became staunch
followers of Savarkar in 1938, had fiercely opposed the untouchables and
ridiculed Savarkar in 1931! So strong was the influence of traditions on
them. The newspaper ‘Kohinoor’ used a motto from one of Savarkar’s
poems. Yet the editor of this paper ridiculed Savarkar’s letter under the
heading “Mess created by Savarkar.”

The Times (of London) however, printed his letter on 20 March 1931 and
remarked “A Touching letter to Hindus,”

(R Era p 234)

Invitation to Dr Ambedkar
• In November 1935, Savarkar invited Dr Ambedkar, a well known leader
of untouchables. In his letter Savarkar said, “You say that you do not need
mere sympathy but show me something concrete that you can achieve. Your
demand is perfectly justifiable and understandable.”

“For the last five to six years, I have been asking my followers for specific
programmes of action. We have managed to break the shackles of the caste
system in Ratnagiri and also in Malvan. What succeeds in one place can
also succeed elsewhere because human beings and the pattern of their
behaviour are same all over. Come and see for yourselves what we have
achieved.”

“One of the major obstacles to breaking the barriers of the caste system is
the barrier to inter-caste dining. One who breaks the taboo of inter caste
barrier also breaks the shackles of untouchability. What remains is the
barrier of inter-caste marriages. But that is up to individual brides and
bridegrooms.

As long as inter-caste marriages are acceptable and not regarded as anti-

religion or such couples are not treated as outcaste, then it would be the end
of that matter. I propose the following :

(1) Please come to Ratnagiri after a fortnight, and give me, if you can, one
week’s notice.

(2) We propose to arrange a huge inter-caste dining ceremony of about one

thousand people that includes Brahmins, Marathas, Vaishyas, Shimpis,
Kulavadis, as well as Mahars, Chamars and Bhangis. People will include all
layers of society from wellrespected citizens to workers and cleaners. Such
ceremonies are not new. In the past, untouchable leaders such as Shree
Rajbhoj and Shree Patitpavandas have witnessed such intercaste dinings.

(3) If you like, we can also arrange an inter caste dining of ladies. They
would include old and young and ladies from well to do families to working
women. They would also be from ALL castes. Brahmins, Khatris, Vaishyas
as well as Mahars, Chamars and Bhangis.
(4) It is a condition that names of everyone who takes food in such
functions would be published in newspapers. Only those who accept this
condition will take part.

(5) It is the usual practice that religious discourse is delivered by a preacher

from one of the castes regarded as very low. You will observe that at the
end of the session, the attendees irrespective of their castes would bow to
that preacher. Recently Mr Kajrolkar was honoured in this manner.

(6) If you agree, we would like to arrange a lecture by you.

(7) Our functions will take place in the Patit Pavan Mandir, which is owned
by Seth Bhagoji Keer. There is therefore no legal obstruction whatsoever.
Only those who are prepared to participate in inter-caste dining will attend.

(8) One important point. So far we have organised about 150 inter-caste
dinings. The names of the participants have been regularly made public.
And yet, no one has been treated as outcast by his or her people. It has
become a matter of personal choice. You will notice the evidence of this
change in peoples’ attitude.

We are not saying that, by what we have done, we have solved the national
problem. But it is a good indication of what can be achieved. We have
shown that even the traditions of six thousand years can be broken, as we
have done, within six years. And our success in Ratnagiri and Malvan can
be repeated elsewhere. You can be sure of that. And it is for this reason that
we are inviting you to Ratnagiri.

(SSV3 pp 575/6/7)
Some other works
• While in Ratnagiri, Savarkar used to attend funeral services in
crematoriums. Here too he proposed changes. He attended cremations of
Mrs Shetye of Shirgav and Mr Kadam, councillor of Ratnagiri Municipality.
Savarkar was disturbed by the fact that each caste had its own rites. He
suggested that at the end of ceremony all the attendees should at least say
‘We are ALL Hindus.’ In 1937/38 Seth Bhagoji Keer created a crematorium
in Dadar, Mumbai. This was declared open to ALL Hindus at the insistence
of Savarkar.

(R Era p 159)

* In Ratnagiri, Vaishya samaj (society) was divided and they had two
temples, Radhakrushna Mandir and Vitthal Mandir. In 1926 Savarkar
brought the two factions together on the occasion of Gokulashtami and led
a huge procession through town.

{R Era p 115)
SUPPORT SWADESHI
(INDEGINUS INDUSTRIES)
• In 1932, February, Savarkar decided to propagate Swadeshi (support to
indigenous industries). He allocated to his followers

various areas of Ratnagiri town for their activities. They asked people to use
Swadeshi (made in India) goods of at least sugar, soap, cloth, glassware,
pencils, ink and paper.

In those days people of various communities used to celebrate the death

anniversaries of their respective leaders. For example, the death anniversary
of Jagannath Seth (well knovyn for the Jaggannath Shankar Seth Sanskrit
scholarship) used to be observed by Sonar caste, death anniversary of Sant
(Saint) Namdev was celebrated by the Shimpi (tailor) caste and the death
anniversary of Sant Sena Nhavi by the Nhavi (Barber) caste. Savarkar used
to attend their functions. But he now decided to insist that the people of the
respective castes undertook to support Swadeshi. Accordingly the people
took vows to do so. People had respect for their forefathers. Savarkar said.
Don’t just remember them. Do something useful, however small it may be,
but mere remembrance is not enough.’

• On 13 August 1932, Savarkar attended the death anniversary of Nana

Shankar Sheth, but he asked every one of the Sonar caste (goldsmith) to
sign an undertaking. ‘In the memory of our great leader late Jagannath
Shankar Sheth I wish to do some service to my motherland. I therefore
resolve that at least for one year I will use goods made in India only such as
cloth, soap, sugar, sweets for men and bangles, shampoo, and hair-oil for
women. This is the least service, I would do.’

(REra p 262)
ENOUGH OF TALKING
• In May 1927, 300'^ birthday anniversary of Shivaji was celebrated in
India. Savarkar did not entertain the argument

whether Shivaji was born in 1627 or 1630. He said that it did not matter,
you may celebrate the 300"^ birthday anniversary of that great man twice if
you wish, but do some work that will give

satisfaction to that great king.

(REra p142)

In Mumbai, the City Corporation, in 1927, set aside an area in Dadar (west)
and named it Shivaji Park.

• Lala Lajpat Rai, the lion of Punjab died in November 1928. After paying
tributes to him at a public function, Savarkar said, ‘We should not just
mourn the death of Lalaji. People should come fonward to carry on with his
work.’

(R Era p 182)

• In April 1928. a youth organisation was started in Ratnagiri. They

arranged weekly meetings. Under the influence of Savarkar they had vowed
not to observe untouchability.

(R Era p 158)

• Moderate leader Justice Ranade started the famous Vasant Vyakhyanmala ,

a series of lectures (Vyakhyanmala) In the beginning of each spring

(Vasant) by eminent scholars in various fields, in Pune in around 1890. This
example was followed in many towns and cities. In Ratnagiri, such a series
of lectures was arranged in May 1932. While speaking at the concluding
ceremony Savarkar said, “Vasant Vyakhyanmalas were necessary for the
public awakening in the days of Ranade and Chiplunkar. But now we also
need Vasant Kriyalamas, because the awakening needs to be transformed
into actions for tangible results.” In other words, we should propose some
specific programme of action to bring about results. Enough of talking.

(R Era pp 261/2)
Active Reformers
Savarkar was tired of philosophers and speakers who were without action.
He wrote an article in 1935 entitled ‘what are we supposed to do to break
the caste barrier?’ He says, “Stop preaching. You carry out the reforms that
you preach, irrespective of what others do or don’t. That is the sign of a true
reformer.”

After his release from the internment, Savarkar delivered his first public
speech at Kolhapur on 20 June 1937. He said, “I just want to say to you that
we no longer need just discussions or preachings. Everyone should stop
talking and start acting and try to achieve what they wish to see happen in
practice. We are not short of policies or philosophies but ACTION. My
message to all Indians is - enough of all talks and discussions, become
active. Get on with, the work.”

(S.U.IEra p 7)

After release from internment (1937 to 1966)

Savarkar was released from internment in 1937. Political movement

became of paramount importance. But wherever Savarkar went afterwards,
he always visited the localities of untouchables with great affection and
enquired about their wellbeing.

• During the Ganeshotsava of 1941, Savarkar was ill in Mumbai. He was

getting invitations for lectures from various organisations. He therefore put
out a statement on 16 August.

“It is not possible for me to accept all the invitations. Moreover, I am tired
of giving lectures when people do not do any practical work. They merely
want to listen to me but not act on my advice. Therefore, in Mumbai I will
attend Ganeshotsavas only if the organisers donate at least 100 rupees for
the Hindu Sanghatan or Hindu national fund and allow untouchables to
attend without reservations as my lectures are going to be in public.”
With these conditions, Savarkar delivered lectures in five places and
collected 1,200 Rupees for the Hindu national fund. (S.U.IEra pp 146/7)

Now let us see how his work was viewed by others.

Evaluation of Savarkar’s work by others

• Mr Apparao Patwardhan, a follower of Gandhi, in Ratnagiri wrote on 30

May 1925, “I have been anxious to do some work

for the uplift and welfare of untouchables and have been discussing my
plans with my friends. However, Savarkar openly put forward the proposal
and discussed what can be done during public celebrations of Shivajayanti
(birthday of great Maratha King Shivaji). Until that day, the movement for
uplift of untouchables had not gone beyond the level of thoughts. We were
inspired by Savarkar. He openly asked me to take a lead. It was Savarkar
who gave our thoughts a tangible form, created an organised structure and
gave direction in practical terms.” (R Era p 87)

In other words, until Savarkar came on the scene, people were merely
discussing how to remove untouchability. Practical work started only after
Savarkar was released from prison and interned in Ratnagiri.

• On 9 December 1930, Times of India wrote, “Gandhi and many of his

followers in Congress maintain Chaturvama and the system of caste based
on birth. However some reformers of Ratnagiri are claiming that caste
division is harmful to Hindus and have started ‘dining together of Hindus of
ALL castes’ And the surprising thing is that Savarkar is their source of
inspiration.”

• As we noted earlier, an effigy of untouchability was burned in Ratnagiri in

February 1933. A well-known social worker Karmaveer Shinde was present
at the ceremony He obtained information about Savarkar’s movement from
people and then at the concluding ceremony he said, “I have observed
closely the change in the mental outlook of people in Ratnagiri and I can
say without any doubt that this social revolution is unparalleled. I have been
a social reformer all my life. I know how difficult, tedious, this work is. At
times I myself have felt utterly frustrated. And yet, within a short period of
seven years, by Savarkar’s movement, thousands in Ratnagiri abandoned
untouchability, thus striking at the very heart of caste barrier. You are all
mixing freely with even the Bhangis (scavengers), eating with them,
worshipping with them. I have noticed all these changes. This is even more
incredible as Ratnagiri was said to

be a hot bed of traditional conservatives. Besides, this town has no railway

station, no telephones. It is so isolated. I am glad to say that I am alive to
witness this day.”

“I do not want to be a bard of anyone but I am lost for words for the
incredible social reform carried out by Veer Savarkar. I know that thousands
of the youth trust him without a second thought. But I say that fearless Veer
Savarkar is the youngest of you all. In a way we thank the British that he
was interned in Ratnagiri because that gave him an opportunity to carry out
his social work.”

After showering praise on Savarkar, Mr Shinde said, “I am so pleased with

what Savarkar has achieved that 1 pray to the Lord that he should give the
remainder of my life to Savarkar so that he will fulfil my ambitions and
aspirations. Mr Rajbhoj and I have decided to ask the British government
that Savarkar should be given freedom to move in the country at least for
doing social work. I am sure you will all agree with us on this proposal.”

Karmaveer Shinde was a Brahmosamaji. He had been trying to remove

untouchability since 1908. It was heart touching that such a man should
pray to god, ‘please give remainder of my life to Savarkar.’

These words of Shinde were remembered by Veer Savarkar all his life. He
regarded Shinde’s praise as a certificate and repeated the words while
stating his success.

While in Ratnagiri, Shinde talked to a reporter of the local paper Balwant.

He said, “I visited Ratnagiri in 1912-13.1 stayed there with a well-known
lawyer and saw his friends spending time in just playing cards. But look at
what social revolution has happened here in 1933.1 never thought this
possible even in my dreams. All the credit goes to Savarkar.”
Shinde also said that though Savarkar has done such huge work, he does not
get the due recognition by the newspapers.

(R Era pp 276/7)

* On 8 September 1933, Mr Madhavrao Bagal of Satyashodhak Samaj gave

a lecture in Ratnagiri on ‘untouchability and the division due to caste
system.’

He said, “Since I came here, I have seen so much progress that I am lost for
words. Even in Pune and Mumbai, we find it difficult to find even ten
women who would be prepared for inter-caste dining. In Kolhapur we have
not managed to organise even one inter-caste dining. And yet, here, in
Ratnagiri I am seeing hundreds of women who take part in such functions.
The credit for this change undoubtedly goes to Savarkar. Had we been
fortunate to be blessed with the presence of such a person in our area (on
the plains), we would have paraded him on our shoulders.”

(R Era pp 265/6)
Inability to understand and face
the truth
It is however astonishing that some well known persons did not appreciate
Savarkar’s social work even in the 1980s. Here is an example —

Mr Shantanurao Kirloskar, a well-known industrialist wrote in 1977

“Savarkar’s thoughts : Some questions”

Though Savarkar wrote articles in our magazine ‘Kirloskar’, I

never met him.I do not think he had to make special efforts

to abolish untouchability. India had started to industrialise, which itself

would have removed the excesses of the caste system and untouchability, I
cannot understand why he so vigorously worked against these two
practices. In a railway carriage, we do not mind who sits next to us. Water
was being supplied by tap, so there was no reason to dispute whether one
can take water from a public place or not.

Let us set aside Ratnagiri, may be in 1935/36 caste system there was rigid.
But in cities like Pune and Mumbai it was already relaxed. People who
came to such cities had been working

together without considering their castes. They had been eating together.
The castes were limited to individual’s residence. Once they left their
homes they all learned to work together. Any one not doing so could not
survive. Today (i.e . in 1977). when we meet people, we do not consider
what caste they belong to. It has become out of date. It puzzles me why
Savarkar could not understand this and wasted his energy.

(This article was published by Savarkar Darshan Pratisthan, a trust for

making film on Savarkar, in August 1988. This means that Kirloskar had
not changed his mind in 1988.)
Nothing can be more distorted. We have given examples of the social
conditions in 1930s and 1940s, under the heading Savarkar’s Difficulties.

Moreover in 2003, India is still at least 85% rural and not urban.

I have been visiting India every 3 to 4 years since 1969 and had noticed
posters demanding that every one should have the right to draw water from
public wells and reservoirs. Yes, there have been agitations for this basic
right until recently. So, that problem had not been solved or disappeared as
Mr Kirloskar claims. He had obviously not even read remarks made by
Savarkar’s contemporaries.

Savarkar himself said in 1937 that social reforms do not take place
naturally. We see changes today, but that is so because some one had
worked for them in the past. Therefore, we have to work hard to achieve
changes we desire.

(R Era p 372)

Untouchability was banned by Indian constitution in 1950. Kirloskar did

not question the need for it.

Enormous changes have taken place in social conditions of Negroes in

America, especially over the last 60 years. But did they just happen in
course of time? Why did Abraham Lincoln abolish slavery? Why did he not
leave it to good sense of American whites ? Why did Martin Luther King
launch his Civil Rights movement in 1963? Why did the American
Presidents

Kennedy and Johnson pass so many anti-discrimination laws? Why did they
not leave it saying that in course of time Negroes were bound to be treated
as equal of whites.

Repentance after a long time.

As happens in lives of many Saints, Mr P L Deshpande, wellknown Marathi

writer repented years later. He was a staunch follower of Gandhi and
ridiculed Savarkar’s work all his life. On 26 February 1983, on the
anniversary of Sakarkar’s self immolation, he went to Andaman Islands,
stood in front of the cell where Savarkar was held and paid respects to him
unreservedly. He also paid glowing tribute to Savarkar’s social work and
especially his work for the uplift of the untouchables.

If Savarkar had not fought so vehemently for the rights of Hindus, his social
work would have been appreciated by his opponents, because unlike the
true rationalists they had no inborn sense of justice and fair play. They
therefore only mention the name of Gandhi when referring to the uplift of
untouchables. What the followers of Gandhi disliked most was Savarkar’s
work of Shuddhi.

SHUDDHI (Re-conversion)

Re-conversion of Hindus who had embraced Islam or Christianity was

essential for the siirvival of the Hindu Nation. Savarkar not only preached
the necessity for this but also practised it all his life.

In jail on the Andaman Islands (1911-1921)

Savarkar’s work while in prison bn Andaman islands is given in chapter

Three ‘Fraternity’. In 1913, he first pointed out the Muslim aggression to
the prison authorities and carried out Shuddhi ever since.

During internment in Ratnagiri (1924-37)

* Savarkar carried out Shuddhi whenever an opportunity arose. In 1925

May, he converted Mr Jadhav, a Mahar Christian to

Hinduism. Jadhav was welcomed into Hindu fold openly. Before this
Savarkar had converted six Christians to Hinduism.

1926

* On 25 May, he got one Dhakras family in Ratnagiri converted back to

Hinduism. This family of eight had becorne Christians some 15 years
before.
* Savarkar prevented many fallen women becoming Muslims or Christians
by arranging help for them. And for this he had to face insults from other
Hindus. Many times he had to keep such activities secret.

(R Era p 113)

* In October, Savarkar converted Prof Pinto of Lucknow University to

Hinduism. Pinto had a M.A. degree from Cambridge.

(R Era p 121)

1927

* In March, in Ratnagiri, younger daughter of Dhakras married Mr Gochade

a friend of Savarkar’s younger brother. Savarkar gave away the bride. One
day before the marriage, a Muslim was converted back to Hinduism.

(R Era pp 132/3)

* In May however, Hindus of Kharepatan made Dhakras an outcast.

Savarkar went to his house, organised a public meeting and said “You may
not be able to carry out deeds like Shivaji, but at least follow his example in
the field of Shuddhi. Remember how Shivaji reconverted Netaji Palkar who
was forced to become Muslim by Aurangzeb, back to Hindu Dharma?
About 50 Brahmins agreed. They took tea with Dhakras and he was
readmitted into Hindu society.

{R Era pp 138/139)

* On 10 May, the elder daughter of Dhakras was married to Puntambekar

who had returned from Africa.

(R Era p 140)

[Note -In Leicester (England) there is a group of about 50 Punatambekars.

If Shuddhi had not been practised by Savarkar they would have all become
Muslims. Hindus were treating their own relations who went overseas as
outcast. Dhakras had embraced Christianity and Punatambekar had gone to
Africa and worked there. Without Savarkar’s shuddhi, both would have not
become Hindus.]

1928

* On 1 January, Savarkar proceeded to Kharepatan. Now relatives of

Dhakras also became Hindus and some Christians expressed desire to come
back into the Hindu fold.

(R Era p 154)

* In the same month, Tukoji Holkar, Maharaja of Indore, wanted to marry

an American woman despite having his first wife. Savarkar got the
American woman converted to Hindu Dharma. He bluntly said, “The
question of polygamy is quite different. It is essential that Maharaja does
not embrace Islam for the sake of his second marriage.”

In gratitude, Holkar sent Rs. 200,000 to Shankaracharya Dr Kurtakoti for

Shuddhi.

(R Era pp 156/7)

We must note that the Hindus who objected to this marriage were NOT
protesting against polygamy among Muslims!!

* On 1 March, Savarkar arranged thread ceremony for two sons of Dhakras.

Local Brahmins ate dinner at the ceremony. This was essential for Dhakras
to feel that Hindus have indeed accepted him as one of them.

{R. Era pp 161/2))

In the same month, Savarkar prevented illegitimate children of two women

being given away to Christian Missionaries. He also converted to Hinduism
a 25-year-oId Maratha who had become a Muslim.

(R Era p 166)

* In October, members of Goa Hindu Sabha met Savarkar in Ratnagiri.

Under his guidance they converted 32 members of Gavade caste to
Hinduism.

(R Era p 178)

1930 - . .

* In March, Savarkar spoke to Christians of Malvan and explained the

brutality of the Portuguese who had converted their forefathers to
Christianity under the threat of death. Most of the people accepted
Savarkar’s thoughts and said “we will convert to Hindu Dharma if the
whole community does so’.

(R Era pp 206/7)

1935

* In April, Hindu Sabha of Ratnagiri converted to Hinduism one Mahar

family who had embraced Christianity. At the same time, in Chiplun,
Savarkar carried out shuddhi of a Brahmin named Soman who had become
a Muslim.

{R Era pp 330/1)

SUPPORT TO SHUDDHI BY OTHERS

Savarkar’s article “Birthday of Bajirao I” was published in ‘Lokamanya’

paper, on 7 June 1925. He says

* “Those who spend time simply praising their ancestors but do no

constructive work are good for nothing. We had enough of these birthdays
and death anniversaries of our ancestors. You want to celebrate birthday of
Bajirao-I ? Then do something concrete, even if it is on a small scale. Go to
Vasai and liberate our kith and kin who were forcibly converted to
Christianity by the Portuguese. That is something worthwhile."

“Bajirao defeated the Portuguese on battleground in 1739 but could not

recover the Hindus lost to our civilisation. If we can achieve the re-
conversion of Christians, it would give great satisfaction to the soul of that
great warrior. If any one can fulfil his other dreams, that would be good.
But, if you are unable to achieve those goals, do at least what is within your
capacity. If

not, would he not wish that we should not bother remembering him on his
birthday.”

“In Vasai, Thane, Mahim and other localities there are thousands of our
people who are Christians in name only. They are eager to come back to our
fold. It is our fault that we do not welcome them back. Had the Portuguese
succeeded in their design, no Hindu would have been left in the territory
they controlled. Bajirao’s brave soldiers put a stop to that monstrous design.
It is now our great duty to complete his work and bring the converted
Hindus back to our fold.”

“All the Hindu Sabhas should concentrate on this work this year. Every
Sabha should send their preachers/ workers. No one should offer any
excuses. Arya Samaj reconverted 60,000 Malkana Rajputs back to the fold
of Hindu Dharma. Are we saying that we cannot achieve what Arya Samaj
could do?”

“And how are you going to decide whether a particular work is practicable
or not? Only after making some attempts, is that not the case? Why are you
sitting in armchairs after a nice dinner and deliberating what obstructions
may come in your way? One can say that it is impracticable to bring back
thousands of Hindus converted to Christianity or that, now is not the right
time only after rigorous efforts are made for at least one year. As yet, no
preacher or worker has gone to those areas. No one has done any practical
work. How dare you say, ‘this is impossible, that is not feasible, time for
this has not arrived.’ What right have we got to give such excuses? We can
say that the time for this work has not arrived only after we make efforts
with the fervour of Bajirao’s brother Chimaji Appa who defeated the
Portuguese in 1739. One must remember that even animals do not just enter
the mouth of a sleeping lion. He has to hunt for his meal.” (SSV4 pp 22/23)

After the publication of this article, Masurkar Maharaj carried out Shuddhi
in Goa. He re-converted 10,000 Christians to Hindu Dharma.
Ensure that Shuddhi works in practice, in the memory of Swami
Shraddhanand

• Unlike the Sadhus and Sanyasis, Swami Shraddhanand converted

thousands of Muslims to Hindu Dharma. Angered by such activities, a
Muslim fanatic named Abdul Rashid killed Swami by stabbing him in
1927. At that time Savarkar wrote

“Don’t just remember the Swami. Seek revenge of Swami’s death by

ensuring that his work of Shuddhi (re-conversion) succeeds. Say hello to
those who had been converted to Hindu Dharma. Exchange greetings at the
time of the festivities of Divali and Dasara. If any one ridicules them take
their side and say ‘It was not their fault that they stayed in the other religion
for so long. Any one who enters the Patit Pavan Mandir is purified for
eternity.’ My brothers and sisters, if you do just that, it would suffice. This
does not need money, bombs, machine guns, armies or workers. No more
efforts are needed. Just say that those who are converted are welcome in the
Hindu society. That is all.”

“A few days ago I received a letter from a person who had recently been
converted to Hindu Dharma. He says, ‘Though I have become a Hindu, the
missionaries still send me sweets at the time of Makar Sankrant (10
January). They send presents to my children. They enquire of my well
being. I know their game. They wish that I was back in their fold. But when
these foreigners are so kind and generous, how well behaved should our
Hindu brothers be. Alas that does not happen. When my children and I pass
along the road, Hindus ridicule and laugh at us and depart.

I have still not been made welcome in anybody’s house. No one sends us
greetings on any festivals. My only satisfaction is philosophical. I am
satisfied ttiat I am a Hindu. I have come home.”

“Don’t you feel anguished at such feelings expressed by converts? It is

entirely in your hands to remove the frustration and the neglect they feel.
Does it cost you anything to be nice to them? All that you have to say is that
they are welcome in the Hindu fold. You do not face Imprisonment for that.
Remember,
millions are waiting for just such a welcome. All you need is will power.
The English are not obstructing your path, there is no fear of death, and you
do not need a single penny. Just say openly ‘I will welcome any convert to
Hindu Dharma. I shall shake hands with him, hug him, offer him sweets.”

“Such important national work had never been so easy and simple. It is
entirely in your hands. Please do at least this much. Do not just remember
the Swami. Ensure that his Shuddhi movement is successful. Do this in his
memory.”

^SS V3 pp 25/29)

Savarkar never preached for the sake of it. He always proposed some
action. Take for example, his article, ‘March on to Vasai’ published in June
1925. He started by thanking organisers of both the Calcutta session of All
India Hindu Mahasabha and Hindu Dharma Sabha session at Hyderabad.
He was invited to these sessions but could not go because of the restrictions
of his internment. After thanking them for their invitations he said, “Time
has come for various movements to progress from seminars and resolutions
to doing something practical. People make resolutions to the effect that we
need to raise volunteer force for the protection and preservation of our
dignity or that we need to start orphanages. But what is the point in merely
passing resolutions? Aften^/ards the question arises, ‘where is the money
for putting into practice these resolutions?’ But then, why do these
delegates waste money in travelling and organising seminars? Stop that
waste and use the money thus saved to raise the volunteer force and open
orphanages.”

(R Era pp 97/98)

• In March 1926 Savarkar pointed out that the butchers of Dharwad (a place
in south India) were being forced into accepting Islam. Accordingly
Ratnagiri Hindu Mahasabha passed a resolution that people of Kamatak,
while celebrating the birthdays of Shrimad Vidyaranya and Shree Harihar
Raya, should ensure that the butchers of Dharwad remain in the Hindu fold.

(R Era p 114)
After release from internment (1937 to 1966)

After his release from internment Savarkar had to play a great role in Indian
politics. But he always encouraged Shuddhi by others. He breathed his last
on 26 February 1966. In his will he left Rs 5,000 (at 1966 prices) for
Shuddhi work.

We have seen how constantly active Savarkar was in his social work. He
v/as just as active in politics too.

PERPETUAL ACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD OF POLITICS • On way to

England (1906)

In his book ‘Shatruchya Shibiraf (inside the enemy camp) we find how
Savarkar made others active. He travelled on board the ship s.s Persia. He
met some young men of his age and they held discussions with them on
many subjects. Savarkar describes

“At that time I had with me an English biography of Mazzini. I do not

remember the author, but probably he was Bolton King. I gave it to some to
read. I had deliberately underlined the passages relating to the underground
organisation (Young Italy) of Mazzini and his programme of action. Four or
five of them read it. But even today (i.e. 1966) they feel that their names
should not be disclosed. So, let us call them Keshavanand and Shistachari. 1
knew that they had been deeply impressed. During our discussion, I openly
asked, “Is it not our duty to start an underground society on the lines of
Young /fa/y for the liberation of our country?”

“Of course! That is the first thing to do.” They said. “But what is the use of
a fe ^ ordinary youngsters like us starting such an organisation? Persons
like Lokamanya Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai or Maharaja Sayajirao of Baroda
should take a lead. When they do we should join them. Until that happens
we should wait.”

“Few handful of youths?” I said, “When Young Italy was started.

who started it? A few unknown youths!!. Mazzini had used the same words.
He said ‘when we started ‘Young itaiy*, we were oniy a handfu! of
unknown youngsters. But time came when our very name struck terror in
the hearts of poiiticians.’

Savarkar further said, “and how do you know that our wel! known ieaders
had not started any secret societies? You see, if a society is secret, wii! it
broadcast its existence by advertising in newspapers? Moreover, suppose
for the sake of argument that so far no Indian ieader or Maharaja has come
fonivard to start a movement for Absolute Political Independence for India,
is it not up to us to make a start? We need to do this precisely because no
one is doing it.”

“Suppose your mother is seriously ill and your brothers are reluctant to get
help because of laziness or ignorance or fear. You know what medicine is
needed. What would you do? Would you blame the brothers? or would you
do your duty? If you wish to know what a handfu! but determined young
men can do we have the example of Chaphekar brothers.”

“I then narrated the story of Chaphekars. During the outbreak of Bubonic

Plague of 1897 in Pune, The British Administration in Bombay Province
resorted to harsh, oppressive measures. People were insulted and
humiliated. Women were molested. When Chaphekar brothers saw that no
one would punish the arrogant British officers, they shot and killed
Collector Mr Rand. They went to the gallows for that but taught a lesson to
the British who realised that their barbarity would not go unpunished.
Chaphekar’s deed inspired me. We can harm the British at least to the
extent of our numbers, whether or not others follow us. But, in most cases,
one spark ignites another spark and eventually a fire ensues.”

‘Are you then prepared to take an oath of such a secret organisation?’

Keshavanand asked me.”

(Shatruchya Shibirat pp 18/19)

• During the stay in London (1906-10)

Savarkar came to London on 24 June 1906. From this day to his arrest on
13 March 1910 he was a doer in London. This has already been covered in
the Prologue. Here is just one example in detail.
• On 10 May 1908, Savarkar organised a day of remembrance for the
martyrs of the Indian War of Independence 1857. It was celebrated in the
famous students’ hostel India House. The participants paid tribute to the
heroes of that war. But mere remembrance was not enough. Savarkar
insisted that everyone must do something in the name of those very patriots.
In his newsletter he says,

“After the national songs Savarkar explained the history of that war and
praised Emperor Bahadur Shah and Shreemant Nanaseheb. The assembly
stood to attention and chanted Vande Mataram. Mr Khan then praised Raja
Kuvarsingh, Mr Das described the valour of on Rani Laxmibai (of Jhansi).
Mr Master and Mr Yerulak paid tributes to other heroes of that war. Finally,
Sardar Singh Rana delivered his speech.”

“The audience then made vows of sacrifices one after other for the national
cause. Some said that they would not go to theatre, some decided to forgo
lunch every day for one month, some gave up smoking. The money thus
saved would be given to the national fund. They included young and old,
men and women, people of all walks of life - doctors, lawyers, barristers,
businessmen and diamond merchants.”

(SSV4 p90)

Thus Savarkar used the occasion for some practical use. Mere remembrance
of our forefathers was not enough. We must say what we are going to do
today in the memory of our forefathers.

• In Jail on the Andaman Islands (1911-1921)

Despite considerable obstacles and restrictions Savarkar was a doer even in

jail on remote Andaman Islands. Details are given

in other chapters. He organised the prisoners and fought for improvement in

the inhuman conditions of prisoners. He taught them to read and write and
organised a library for them. He considerably increased their political
awareness. His organisation was so superb that when Lokamnya Tilak died
on 1 August 1920 the news spread like wild fire throughout Andaman
Islands and ALL prisoners refused to take food. The prison authorities were
surprised by this awakening.
• During Internment In Ratnagiri
(1924-37)
On 23 March 1931 British authorities sent a revolutionary named Bhagat
Singh to the gallows in Lahore. Savarkar was very sad but said to the young
men he met. ‘Don’t just cry. Seek revenge.’ (R Era p 237)
WARNING HINDUS ABOUT
DANGERS FROM MUSLIMS
Even though Savarkar was in internment he tried to warn Hindus of the
dangers from Muslims who were getting more aggressive and vicious.
Muslims were encouraged on one hand by the British Administration and
on the other hand by the attitude of Gandhi and his followers.

Savarkar's articles were mostly published in magazine Shraddhanand and

are as follows
1924
15 February - Mr Shoukat Ali and Hindu Sanghatan (Mahratta) 30 March -
The dangers facing Hindus and its remedy. 16,19 and 23 March — Dangers
facing Hindus in Sind.
1926
12 January —Tilgul to Brother Shoukat Ali (Mahratta)

7 February - Muslim Gundashahi in Sind (Mahratta)

18 April — Hindu Sanghatan and Motilal Nehru.

22 November - Muslim fanaticism (Shraddhanand)

1927

10 January 27 January 10 February

17 February

18 April

14 May 7 July 21 July 25 August

1 September

15 September 6 October

3 November

- Murder of Swami Shraddhanand and Mahatma Gandhi’s partiality.

- So, which religion is prone to peace? Hinduism or Islam?

- Don’t think that Hindus do not have the courage to seek revenge.

- Yes, numerical strength is also a strength. -The agitation of Hindus in

Patvakhali in Bengal.

- Long live Shashimohan Dey.

- Converted untouchables return to Hindu fold.

- Dangers of separation of Sind from Bombay.

- Place of religion is in your heart not in your stomach.

A warning to untouchables (don’t be deceived by Muslim designs on you)

- Hindus of Nagpur awaken at last.

- Muslims of Shahabad threaten to become Hindus.

Hindus must proceed with music in front of mosques.

1928
16 February - Hindu Muslim unity.

24 May - Muslims support Nizam.

30 September - Welcome to Masurkar Maharaj.

1929
23 February - Muslims pay heavily for starting riots in Bombay. 30
September - Martyr Rajpal and Mahatma Gandhi.
1931
12 April - Monstrous demands of Muslims (Satyashofhak)

OBSTACLES

* Above work was extremely hazardous. Therefore Savarkar never sent his
articles directly to the editors. Some one else

would copy, then the article would be sent to newspapers.

(R Era p38)

* On 1 March 1925, Savarkar’s sarcastic article The Sufferings of Moslems

of Kohat’ was published in Marhatta paper of Pune. The Home Secretary of
Bombay Province asked Savarkar for an explanation. He replied, “By
writing this article I have not broken my promise not to take part in politics.
The word Swaraj is used in the context of what Gandhi thinks of Swaraj
and Khilaphat. I have not expressed my opinion. My article is purely on
social and religious issues. As for the views of Muslims, these are based on
quotations from Koran. I would refer to the fourth chapter of Koran in
support of my arguments. I have thus not breached any conditions of my
internment.”

The Home Secretary replied, “It is very difficult to be satisfied with your
reply. Your article is going to create feud between Hindus and Muslims and
must therefore be considered a breach of your conditions of internment. If
you do not stop writing such articles, the Government must re-consider
your release on internment.” Savarkar wrote back, “In view of your letter, I
too will have to reconsider my articles and the conditions of my
internment.”

* On 29 July 1925, Savarkar spoke at Ratnagiri on the occasion of birthday

of Jagannath Shankar Seth. He made a powerful plea to put a stop to
conversion activities of Muslims and Christians. Police authorities
expressed opinion that if Savarkar did not curb such speeches the
consequences would be very serious.

{R .Era p 99)

Thus, ever since 1925, British Administrators were saying to Savarkar

“Stop writing - you create Hindu Muslim conflict.” (R Era p 84) They
found a wonderful excuse of preventing that conflict. Gandhi and his
followers too wanted the same thing as they were obsessed with Hindu-
Muslim unity.

* Though Maratha paper (started by Tilak) used to publish articles of

Savarkar in the beginning, the editor did not publish articles later on.

{R Era p 85)

* In 1926 some one hundred Muslims of Ratnagiri complained to the

District Officer that Savarkar was a troublemaker and should be firmly dealt
with. The Collector of Ratnagiri was also a Muslim. He forwarded the
complaint to the Home Secretary adding some comments of his own. The
followers of Savarkar countered the accusations against him and sent a
petition with 1,400 signatures to the Governor Sir Wilson, when he visited
Ratnagiri. In the end the Muslim collector was transferred from Ratnagiri.

{RErapp 118/9)

* Ini 927, Savarkar wrote a drama entitled Usshyap. Within four months of
its publication, it was proscribed by the British under the pretext that it
would hurt the feelings of Muslims. But public performances of the drama
were allowed. However, some times. Government officials demanded
drastic reductions in the content of the drama.

{R Era pi33)

* Savarkar received many letters from Muslims threatening to kill him. He

was never afraid of such threats but was always on the alert.

(R Era p 143)
* Ratnagiri Municipality had started a gymnasium in 1925. Muslims
objected to even this facility. The followers of Gandhi supported Muslims.
But Hindus of Ratnagiri rejected the Muslim demand.

{RErap 151)

* In December 1929, both Muslim Mullahs and Christian Missionaries

complained to the Collector about Savarkar’s Shuddhi movement. Savarkar
sent a firm reply to it to the

Collector who could not say much against Savarkar. (R Era pp 201/2)

• After release from Internment (1937-66)

In his speech of 27 November 1937 at Akola, Savarkar preached the people

to remain ever active.

We must overcome our feeble mindedness. We muct believe in ourselves

that we Hindus can win the freedom struggle on our own. Muslims do not
want to see this country become independent. In case the British are
engaged in a world war and it seemed likely that they would lose their hold
on India, Indian Muslims have decided to conspire to seek help from
neighbouring Muslim countries. Muslims will invite Afghanistan to invade
India and replace the British Raj by a Muslim Raj. Are we going to say that
the freedom thus won would be a Swaraj? No way. The honour and dignity
of Hindus are paramount and we want Swaraj that will preserve them. That
has not been the a,m of the Congress Party. Therefore the Hindu Mahasabha
has to undertake that task.”

Never doubt and ask — will we succeed? Be determined to succeed.

Success or failure is immaterial. If you do not succeed, you will at least
have the satisfaction of having laid down your life for a noble cause. Today
no one knows the names of those Rajputs who capitulated and gave their
daughters and sisters to Muslim rulers, but we all know Rana Pratap who
refused to bow to Akbar. He has become immortal. He still inspires us even
after 400 years. We should always keep the example of Rana Pratap before
us.”
(SSV4 pp 330/1)

• After the start of an unarmed struggle in Bhagyanagar (Hyderabad) for the

rights of Hindus in that state, on 11 October 1938, Savarkar said in Pune,

324/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

“Please do not trouble the leaders any more. Whenever such occasions arise
in future, you must be prepared to face them and be prepared for your
action. Everyone of you must do the needful. Young men should stop
coming to the elders every now and then for advice. By all means the
youngsters should benefit from the experience of the elders. But please
remember that although the elders may still possess young minds,
physically they are tired. After all they had spent thirty to forty years of
their lives for our freedom struggle.”

“You decide what you want to do and then you may seek their advice. You
should not say ‘I am only a follower. What can I do? You take the lead and I
will follow.’ That must stop.”

Be united for the struggle in Bhagyanagar (Hyderabad)

“Senapati Bapat had gone to Hyderabad without waiting for any one.
Others must do the same. As I said earlier, we should all feel insulted by the
plight of Hindus in Hyderabad. Thousands should take part in this struggle
as if it is their own.”

“You should not say.’Let us wait until an organised movement is formed,

only then we can decide whether to take part.’ Revolutionaries did not wait
for others. They did their duty. They did not wait for an organised
resistance. Had they waited, nothing would have been accomplished.”

“Arya Samaj, Hindu Mahasabha, Lokashahi Party are one in this task.
Others should join them. Even if each party prepares its own action plan,
that should be alright. We Hindus are treated terribly in Hyderabad.
Therefore everyone should join in the struggle.”

(SSV4 pp 379/380)
Support for Militarisation of Hindus

As soon as the Bhagyanagar (Hyderabad) movement was successful. World

War II broke out on 3 September 1939. The British Authorities were
looking for a huge number of soldier, sailors and airmen. Savarkar decided
to utilise this opportunity

fully for imparting military training to Hindu youth. This aspect has been
dealt with in other chapters.
CONSTANT ACTIVITIES IN
THE LITERARY FIELD
Even in the field of literature, Savarkar has been saying ‘enough of talks
and discussions. There is so much to be done purification of language,
creating new verbs and using them in daily life, improvement of script,
dictionary of scientific terms, founding of a new university, spread of
elementary education, there are innumerable activities that need our efforts.
Why are we wasting our energy in mere discussions?
Purification of language
In an article of 1931 Savarkar suggested, “However, the key to achieving
success in making changes to the traditions is to put such changes into
practice and not waste time in needless discussions. The problems are never
solved by futile and philosophical arguments.”

(Bhasha Shuddhi p 84)

• ‘Abandon these foreign words’ that was Savarkar’s article in 1937. Again
he argued, “There are plenty of people who make suggestions, very few put
them into practice. Reforms become successful only because of those who
put them into practice.”

“I have given below a list of foreign words and its equivalent Marathi
words. Be determined that from today you will not use those foreign words.
That is your programme for this year. Once we start using them, the foreign
words will become extinct and the words we suggested become familiar.
There is a large population who are in favour of purification of the
language. But time has come for them to carry out what they have in mind.
I am not suggesting that you must use only the words I have suggested. You
can propose other suitable words. The only condition is that they should be
derived from Sanskrit or any Indian language.”

(SSV3 pp 252/3/4)

• In April 1938, Savarkar was elected the President of the Maharashtra

Literary Conference. In his presidential address, he once again emphasised
to the audience to abandon lethargy and become active.

Be practical not philosophical

“I accept that there is a need for philosophical and intellectual debate. I love
such debates. But we have been wasting so much of our time in such
debates that we have become feeble in practice, we have lost our kingdoms
time after time. We have succumbed to foreign aggressors. I feel more
strongly about that loss.”

Our feebleness j u i

“At a time when Pandit Jagganath was writing such wonderful poems, we
were being enslaved by Akbars and Aurangzebs. When we composed
Dharma Sindhu and Nimay Sindhu and wasted time on how long the
spoons for our daily prayers should be or discussed and made commentaries
on Geeta to the extent of 500 words for one word in the text, Allauddin
Khiiji and Malik Ambar defeated us with mere few thousand soldiers.
Muslim invaders captured our kingdoms from Kashmir to Rameshwar,
Why? Because we were spending time on philosophical discussions and not
on problems confronting us.

“Even today we are just as lethargic as we were in the 1S** century.

I worked in the fields of politics, social work and literature. But everywhere
I experience lethargy of our people. I am one of you. The only difference is
that I feel so strongly about this inaction than others. (Savarkar is humble as
usualf

“Many reforms have been discussed since the days of Justice Ranade. Many
we can put into practice, but we still waste time in mere discussions. Take
for example ‘the verbs’. I feel very embarrassed by the inability of Marathi
language to create new verbs. Other Indian languages like Bengali, Gujarati
and Hindi also suffer from the same defect. Let us take a few examples We
have to say, to give promise (to promise) to give

encouragement (to encourage), to give blessings (to bless), to make a

protest (to protest), to give consent (to consent) to give curse (to curse). The
list is endless. I have therefore proposed some alternative verb forms for
use. Time has come to put them into practice. We should try as many as we
can easily use and then make progress. I am not saying that we can change
overnight. BUT A START HAS TO BE MADE.”

Savarkar had suggested many changes to Devanagari script. He showed

how it would make printing cheaper and then said, “I have not made these
suggestions just on impulse. For the last 50 years. Late Gajananrao Vaidya,
Mr Devadhar of Kolhapur, Mr Shitut and others have been making efforts
in this direction. There were about 30 to 40 suggestions. I had mentioned
them all in my article. I accepted the ones that give rise to minimum of
changes. Late Dr Bhandarkar and Lokamanya Tilak had also wanted to
make changes. Tilak said to Devadhar, ‘Suggestions are fine, but who is
going to put them into practise?’ That is what I have done. I have put the
reforms into practice. My persistent efforts have resulted into a movement
and many had to take notice of it. Even this literary conference, under the
presidency of N C Kelkar, had appointed a committee, which had made
recommendations.”

Use the new script

For some time I also wrote articles for Hindi newspapers. Hindi Literary
Conference under the chairmanship of Mr (Kaka) Kalelkar also considered
and accepted my suggestions. Now, Balwant and Satyashodhak both
newspapers of Ratnagiri, Sahydhri, Kesari, Sahityapatrika, Sakai, Swaraj,
Gorakshan, Nirbheed, Kirloskar - all these have implemented my
suggestions. Moreover, institutions like Ratnagiri Hindu Sabha, Kiran
Mandal, Dadar Hindu Sabha and writers like Prof Madhavarao Patwardhan
have been using my modified script.

If some people are still not convinced of the advantages of my

modifications this is not a place to satisfy them. I will take up the issue with
them separately. However, I appeal to all those who

are convinced of my arguments should not waste time but start using the
modified script immediately, in their personal and public

life.

Maharashtra committee for reform of Devanagri script

I can now say that whatever success we have achieved was through action.
We could have easily wasted another 50 years in discussions and debates. If
we have said, ‘let us wait Wl everyone agrees with us’ nothing could have
been achieved. Therefore we decided that whatever the number of people
that accepted the modifications to Devanagari script, those people should
START USING the modified script. As the reforms are seen by other
people they get used to them, like them and adopt them. I suggest that those
delegates who are in agreement with me should join me in starting a
Maharashtra Committee for the Reform of Devanagri script. They should
open branches in every town and village. They should keep record of
people who vow to use the modified Devanagri script all their life. Every
one should propagate the message through schools, newspapers and various
institutions, even through their own children. Every one should decide to
use the modified Devanagri script in their personal correspondence. If we
can do this, within a matter of five years we can absorb the new script and
move forward.

Adoption of the Roman Script (a folly)

I express regret at the inaction of our people. Unfortunately it also applies

to the field of the reform of the Devanagri script. In Turkey the Arabic
script was forced upon the population along with Islam. When Kamal Pasha
found it absurd and inconvenient ^ for printing, he abandoned it and
adopted the Roman script. But we have no reason to do the same. Many of
our people are convinced that with a very few changes Devanagri script can
become very effective and cheap to print. But 75% of them are reluctant to
put that into practice. Lethargic in modifications our people may be, but one
can see hew quick they are in planning. On the one hand we take more than
40 years just to change a few words and the way they are written, on the
other Subhash Chandra Bose, as President of the Indian National Congress

has declared to make the Roman script as the National script of India!!
What a slavish mentality.

Society for the purification of language

“I now appeal to my friends who accept the proposal to purify the Marathi
language that, instead of propagating individually, they should start a
Maharashtra Bhashashuddhi Mandal and work on an organised basis. Mr
Bhide of Ratnagiri has published a small dictionary of many Urdu words,
which are in constant use and the equivalent words that ought to be used.
Many more words are being suggested to replace English words. Therefore
such a society should publish extensive dictionary of words and go around
peoples’ houses asking them take vows of not using foreign words but use
the equivalent new ones. If this is strictly followed, it would not be long
before the new words become routine and widespread in use, acquire
definite meanings.”

Please remember that such work is being carried out, especially by

Aryasamaj, in Hindi language. We should co-operate with them or even
organise an All India Bhasba Shuddhi Conference. If we carry on
vigorously we can eliminate many inappropriate or absurd words, which
appear on nameplates on buildings or shops such as ‘Hengade Mansion’ or
‘Cloth Merchant’ and plant new words derived from Sanskrit and other
Indian languages. You know very well that in Marathi the word Bolpat has
been used for Talkies since day one. We can do the same for other words.

Once again I appeal to you to stop futile discussions and start action along
the lines I have suggested.

Boycott the word Kayada

Out of all the Urdu words we feel extremely ashamed of the word Kayada
(Law) which was imposed on us by foreign rulers. The acceptance and use
of the word suggests that throughout India, before the Muslim rule, Hindus
had no notion of a disciplined society, no concept of Law. The appropriate
substitute for this word would be the Sanskrit word ‘Nirbandh’

Once Maharashtra takes the lead in using the word ‘Nirbandha’ then the
rest of the Indian languages too will follow and eventually this word will
become common throughout India, in the same way as Vidhimandar
(Legislative Assembly) has become familiar throughout India.

Committee for compiling a Dictionary of common scientific words.

“I said earlier that there are still some doubters who are not convinced of
the need to purify our language. However, there is almost universal
agreement on the need for a dictionary of common scientific words
(terminology) in Physics, Chemistry, Biology and similar subjects. Time
has come for such subjects to be taught in Indian languages. It is quite
urgent that we have a dictionary of scientific terms, which can be adopted
by all the Indian languages, who have this active need. No doubt there have
been some attempts before to fulfil this need, many difficulties have
surfaced. If we had political power this work could have been finished
within one year. But we need not give excuses. Instead of making
resolutions and making plans at every session, let us now concentrate on
specific actions as outlined above.”

“Let us gather all the known words which are currently in use. We need not
waste time on subjects such as Logic, Poetry and Astrology at the moment.
For them, the present compilations are sufficient. We need to concentrate on
modem sciences. Let all literary conferences come together and set in
motion some seminars and establish a committee for compiling the
dictionary. Let us resolve that the work will be carried out within three
years. Princely states, at least those in Maharashtra, will help. Instead of
cursing the Rajas and Maharajas for what they do not do, let us use them for
what they can and will do. That would be a sensible step.”

“We expect co-operation from literary conferences of other states, but even
otherwise Maharashtra Literary conference should play its part and produce
some useful volumes. If we

can achieve this, it will be a great service than mere resolutions after
resolutions which are passed year after year.”

Mr Inactive and Mr Onlooker

“It must be remembered that unless we all co-operate, the conference

cannot do anything. Our people have developed a very bad habit. Many
would not do any work but find faults with those who do some work. They
will say, ‘why has not this been done? This is far short of expectations’ We
must ask such armchair critics, ‘What help have you given?’ If you had
helped, then only the shortfalls can be made good.”

An University

“So far I have indicated that there are many reforms that can be put into
practice without any difficulty by the people. There are others for which
this conference needs to set up committees. Some more will need co-
operation by similar bodies from other provinces. However the work of
translating excellent works from Marathi into English is so huge that it is
beyond the capacity of this conference. We need an University for that.
Such an idea has been floating since the days of Justice Ranade. If we do
not abandon our normal inaction, it will still remain merely ‘an idea’ for
another ten years.”

What kind of University?

‘The university we need is a modern (up to date) one on the lines of those in
America or Europe. But it must be for practical subjects. This is not the
time for Philosophy, Logic, Social Sciences, but for subjects such as
Chemistry, Radiology, Ballistics and Military Engineering.”

“This conference should set up a committee and carry on a movement

throughout Maharashtra. Let there be public meetings in every city. Send
petitions with hundreds of thousands of signatures to the Chief Minister.
Ask series of questions in the Legislative Assembly and demand its
Members to make resolutions in that body itself. Send delegations to the
Chief

332 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

Minister. Through handbills, wall posters, newspapers, raise constantly one

demand:

‘We want a Maharashtra University in Pune.’ Then see that the university
becomes established within two years. It is within the capacity of this
conference to achieve. We must abandon our lethargy and have courage to
follow it through.”

“Let us stop passing five hundred resolutions, making five hundred futile
discussions, five hundred wishful thinking each year. Let us be practical and
concentrate on a limited objectives and direct all our energy on them. Times
have changed and are some how in our favour (we have gained Provincial
Autonomy). Let us therefore be determined to complete the tasks, which are
at our heart. For example make primary education compulsory, impart
moral education, ... all this will be easy with the founding of the University
I mentioned.” (SSV4 pp 449-468)

Savarkar was thus a doer all his life. His work never stopped whether he
was in London, in jail on the Andaman Islands, in internment in a remote
place like Ratnagiri or even after his release. He faced extremely
unfavourable circumstances. He was short of resources. In addition, Hindus
were (and are even today) so simple minded and lacked foresight on various
issues confronting our society. We have seen what Savarkar had achieved
despite these formidable hurdles.

However, even when we act diligently, many times we do not succeed or

succeed only little, often far less than we expect. Sometimes we may fail
miserably despite our efforts. When we fail, we realise that something is
lacking in us. There is always something unknown to us that guide our
destiny. This is when we normally feel vulnerable or helpless and then turn
to God and pray for success.

Let us see what Savarkar’s thoughts were on this subject.

eofsr

>tef ■, • ><'rn: u ' :brirf?niro ^ yttaetenpo

Wti yUCTSvinU aurfefiiBrisM b msw ©W*

^rrtl#Blw48 b^ftSde^ ^rno5©tf yij#9vjrt&

lt»‘tK^L)m!S}6 id9m ©W'ilfVdWaa otH^drto^^oD '<Wf \q v ^.7 tuKJ ^ji

DnO^TOfMei

OIOSQ V^IO iJ ' '-^T/^ 'A': r'. T:wv .v;’i ..ay, -’ ' <^iric ■

MtT^ufiu^ barilmtnf shffV^n^sesqqot^ id^

Futd«1Wl}9ibh)tfA ‘i#ttg«rt6feeMr>3ib JbNi^ATtr it ti}fi>«A^n 6 g bf^

ls;^fb«rK) M tu fni .wey > 1^0 evert eemil .mert; no ycwie wo He fotmib
bn» oovitootrio loovel luo ni wort ornc^ ^6 bne begnerto
©>{flrt<'bkinT(ij *6 > 10 ?? j#i«f '*0 hTenJI^rtolHw ejefqfnbd

fli'.o irtOBi^Jbd' (©rtxn rt^tW' ^db'fiJctmbo

to enlBrtObfiiirV’iWW^'^' itfwW&iSrtr Huwovorthe wonv c; uaf-. .-/•

Mu.’'aH>: M.'oFfi^ieh ^^o 't^'^•■<7ihAltiH oeyo’.'. ."a 3 »t •*

ihffi ccrt-vcifio^ V/e new an 'Jrwvenii*^ for t*a<.' -^^v/.n ffwaosi b«}
€jb»'ieiW»'Jh<^^g^ IJs idbb'l^iuitf sBw t©)h^e£r

rtt rtf'i(fAbrt«£rhr?mv’^ iWlfbHw

ehtf iaWd>evdf'»tf-f»H?BnJRfl «?hl eostq sfornei 6 ni Jnemmotni aH

.©eonfifsmuoiio oidaujoveinu yiem»ilxs beost eH .eseeten
rWy©^'^ifi^a4#w .notttbOe nl .aaoiuoaw fo troria eaw

86lbfti'4ikirtBv^iwtrtQte^f=fe3)teBf

le/^'rt^teife^oyort W ^ yfefe&fe^ n»'^'otJfr^nfe &ji:^B€ttr. Inis

CoditiUfrt'dW^iMT^I ^jSrtt oRqaol^beyef^ '-■cioncoi.. 0 -- »or ■•■“■' ■■
■ ^: ■ ^';:>

Jb^blTdW^iknV'yn^';^^llrt^ 5 Wb ew nertw neve .leswroH .foeqxe ew nerd

seel lei nerto yino beeooua 10 beoaoos
evfW^rWl4^d!i©'iuo‘»JHJas*>^dei^iTrt‘lt^ ^WrtTdftJib^

gy«Wfc 4^ a«teMf?VaO^‘i^3jSf ef SHHw' dWf^ffef ^

ri«lW‘i*»irO^'yn»tedh tlJd eWt^’l4frtl iy’Wnvw>rt>lnif^lrtWim3«‘ bbO cl

rtftJt nartMiif«'feekk{iairt^^e>kte ayi^

L©pii.ia;tve As';einWv c a..u-.J

- sviddidW© aif^ntt en^i ajrtgboif/ fedW -bes

Chapter Seven THOUGHTS ON GOD

■ * i.' i
^•-. -. j- 'ii^'.-^- . -...

#»<.• 'ji(- ■: •-. ^'■*

■*

-i,. V-*_

1" . cJ\

i-iT

aoo MO ZTHoaroHT . »
. ?v‘:5*j

ryjmv'r.iVi

Fa'-^'^ >< .'^ .- u: ^4 . t -1^^. _ .%

=*i
‘.iJ' *'■■^'1 ,'W'-'’'.‘fS^ ,j4
. .r^
i-y. •.^'?:«!C

• - * • Y'' •. «

J* ^

*i^ ♦»il’

>. 1

335 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar THOUGHTS ON GOD

Blessings of God

We find the following information in his book ‘My Transportation for life’.

• Before being sent to the Andaman Islands, Savarkar’s wife met him at the
jail in Thane. During their conversation he said. “We will meet again, God
willing. I understand that after a few years the government allows the
families of convicts to join them on the islands.” (pp 15/16)

• In the Thane jail, British authorities had also held Savarkar’s younger
brother Narayanrao. They did riot allow the brothers to meet. However, a
warder developed deep respect for Savarkar, acted as a go between the
brothers and facilitated the exchange of their messages.

In his message Savarkar wrote, “. Even if I am not allowed to set foot on

mainland India, the epic that I am composing will be spread by the will of
God just as Ramayan of Valmiki was spread through Lava and Kusha.” (p
26)

• On 4 August 1918, Savarkar wrote from jail on the Andaman Islands to

his younger brother. He said, “.. last March I weighed 119 pounds. This
year I weigh only 98 pounds. I am mere skeleton now. You cannot imagine
my sufferings here. However God gave me strength to stand firm in such
adversities. Therefore I managed to survive and fight the calamities.”

In 1920, after years of public outcry, the British Administrators released

some prisoners from jail on Andaman Islands. At that time Savarkar wrote
—

•“.... But with the clemency we (i.e Savarkar and his elder brother) were not
released. Many patriots who were sent after us to Andaman Islands were
also not released. Quite a few of them are still held in various jails in India.
God knows when they will be released.” (p 469)

• In 1923, Savarkar was kept in Yeravada Jail in Pune. There he met some
of his old cellmates from Andaman jail. He describes the meeting; ‘We
were delighted as if we met relations after a long time.... In Andaman we
had suffered together. If I or they had exposed our secret plans of
revolutionary activities, we could have easily escaped the rigours of prison
life. Thank God that no one thought on those lines.” (p 555)

• On 6 January 1924, Savarkar was finally released from jail. On that

occasion, many inmates said, “Like Lord Rama, you too suffered 14 years
in wilderness. The whole country will be delighted by your release.”

Savarkar replied, “Thank you friends for the comparison. But there is just
one exception. Lord Rama killed demon Ravana and liberated his wife
Seeta. True, I too spent 14 years in wilderness. However, we have not
managed to remove the foreign (British) rule over us. I can only say that the
wilderness will be over when the British have gone. God willing, that aim
too will one day be accomplished.” (p 568/9)

After arriving home by car Savarkar wrote, “On the very first day I could
behave like a normal householder. My deep wounds were healed as soon I
was patted on my back by friends and relatives. What remains now are just
the memories.”

When I first heard of my sentence of transportation for life (twice) I prayed

to Goddess Jagadamba to give me strength to survive the ordeals of jail life
on Andaman. I now gratefully immerse the goddess in water, as a prayer of
thanks.” (pp 569/570)

Savarkar’s book ‘My Transportation for Life’ was published in Marathi in

1927.

• Just six months after his internment in Ratnagiri, Savarkar was allowed to
go temporarily to Nasik because of the outbreak of plague in Ratnagiri. He
was publicly honoured in Nasik in July 1924. At the ceremony he said.
While in prison I always felt that

I lost you for ever, but by the will of God I am seeing you again. {Ratnagiri
Era p 47)

Was Savarkar an atheist?

After reading the atx)ve passages, one may ask the question, “Why, in the
opinion of some writers Savarkar was an atheist?" Let us see:

During 1911 to 1924, we find expressions like, ‘such and such an event
happened because God willed if or ‘this will happen, God willing’, in
Savarkar’s writings. However, he never ever said, ‘If it is God’s will, India
will become Independent from the British rule.’

As we have seen earlier, Savarkar was aware of the fact that the Indian
freedom struggle would be a fiery ordeal. He constantly made others aware
of this truth. He made enormous efforts towards it while in London and also
while in jail on the Andaman Islands. He was aware of the fact that no
matter how vigorous and extensive human efforts were; ultimate success
would depend on something unknown, which was notin human hands.
Some call it destiny. He was a realist

He wrote a wonderful article entitled ‘God of the mankind and God of the
universe’ in 1929. He says:

“For the God of the universe human beings are not at all significant. Just as
there are ants, flies and other creatures there are humans too. We are
immaterial to the creator and are nothing but a temporary and minor
product of his game. Crops grow in field and fmits are borne by trees, not
so that we may eat them. We can feed ourselves because these exist. Rivers
do not flow just for us to get drinking water. Rivers fiow and the water is
there. That is all. One must remember that once upon a time there were only
huge crocodiles on earth. Then, rivers still flowed, trees blossomed, and
plants produced flowers and fruits. Forget about the humans, even when
there was no earth, this Sun was shining in the sky. Let me say further that
if tomorrow the whole

solar system were to vanish, the God of the universe would not be
concerned in the slightest, just as the death of a glow worm would not affect
the mother earth.”

[This is indeed tme. Here is a news item. The final death of the Sun, some
5,000 million years hence was predicted in detail in the twenties by Prof S
Chandrasekhar, aged 73, the Grand Old man of theoretical astronomy, who
belatedly received a Nobel Prize for Physics last year. - Daily Telegraph,
October 24 1982]. Tomorrow if hundreds of such solar systems were to be
destroyed, the God of the universe would not feel disturbed.”

“So, for whatever reason, or for no specific reason, this universe functions
and as the result of which human beings can enjoy the pleasures of life -
that and only that much would be the blessing of the God of the universe. If
he had refused to grant even this much pleasure in our lives, who would
have dared to question him? The fragrances, the beautiful music, the
wonderful touch, all such pleasure we enjoy through our five senses are
indeed remarkable. One can be thankful for that coincidence. We can show
our gratitude by offering a flower to God.”

“But we must stop ourselves from going beyond that offering. Because if
we did, it would be like a beggar trying to make friends with an Emperor.
People often say ‘God will shower happiness on me and therefore I will
perform the Satyanarayan Puja as thanksgiving.’ This must stop because it
is absurd. We say God saved us from a calamity. But who put us in the
calamity in the first place? The very God himself!! If we are to praise him
for saving us from a disaster, should we also not scold him for creating the
same disaster? Both the praise and the curse are unnecessary and
unjustified.”
“This universe exists and continues to function by certain rules. All that we
can do is to find out what they are and use them for the benefit of mankind.
We must say that what is beneficial for mankind is good and what makes us
suffer is bad. It is absurd to say that what God likes is beneficial for man or
vice versa, because they are false notions. We live in the universe but the

universe does not belong to us. To a great extent, it is unfavourable and to a

very small extent favourable to us. We must appreciate this and face the
heavenly occurrences. That is true nature. That is the real worship of the
God of universe.” (SSV3 pp 296/7)

GODS OF THE FEEBLE ARE FEEBLE TOO

Savarkar was a great admirer of the 17^ century Maratha Saint Samartha
Ramdas. That saint said, “Effort is God” Savarkar agrees that one must
have explicit faith in oneself and one’s cause. However, Savarkar does also
accept that many a time we do not succeed in our efforts. There is
something unknown, which is not in our hands. What he did not want in us
was the fatalistic tendency. Similariyhe warned that we must not be under
the illusion that we will succeed because our path is righteous. He wanted
to emphasise that only the strong and powerful succeed.

Saint Ramdas said —

Samarthya ahe chalavaliche Jo jo karil tayache Parantu tethe bhagavantache

Adhisthana pahije

There is the strength in the movements of those who are active. But there
must always be a ‘divine blessing.’

In December 1934 Savarkar wrote an article entitled, ‘what is meant by the

term ‘Divine Blessing’ ?’

“Man’s efforts together with earthly wherewithal do not necessarily assure

us success, which depends upon the unknown and unimaginable forces
beyond our control or comprehension. In that sense, it is true to say that no
movement will succeed without a divine blessing.”
“From the movement of an insignificant grass blade to eruptions of
volcanoes and dangerous collisions of stars and heavenly bodies, there* are
some unknown forces at work. And our socalled activities are also part and
parcel of the same process. Therefore their success depends on the giant
forces of nature. When we say that the human efforts succeeded in a
particular endeavour, it was so because they were in harmony with the
gigantic forces of nature.”

“Unfortunately people do not attach this meaning to the term ‘divine

blessing.’ They believe in two divisions - just and unjust, godly and
demonic, truth and false. Human activity based on the first parables
becomes successful. And how to seek the ‘divine blessing’ ? By performing
penances such as standing in water and chanting the name of god, fasting,
sitting in front of fire on hot days and under the blazing sun, offering food
to thousands of Brahmins. There are innumerable such methods described
in religious texts. One must start human activities only after performing
such penances, without which no success is possible.”

Savarkar continues, “In this article I am going to show that success does
NOT depend on performing such penances or purifications. It largely
depends on acquiring metaphysical strength.”

Savarkar then reviews the events that occurred during 1300 A.D -1600 A.D
mainly in Maharashtra.

“We had saints and saintly figures such as Nivrutti, Dnyanadev, Sopan,
Muktabai (the four saints from one family), then Namdev and his maid
Janabai, Gora Kumbhar, Damajipant, Savata Mali, Rohidas Chamar,
Chokha Mahar, Tukaram. They created huge sacred literature. And yet our
God did not save the honour of a single Hindu Maratha woman, or smash
any invader/aggressor like Allauddin Khiiji (1294 A.D) or Malik Ambar
300 years later. Hindu temples were converted into mosques on a mass
scale. The haters of Lord Hari wiped out his devotees.”

“What applied to Muslim invaders also applied to the Portuguese

(Christians). Those handful barbarians caused havoc in India. They resorted
to massacres, beatings, lootings, and destruction of temples on a massive
scale, forcible conversions to Christianity, enslaving men and women and
selling them overseas. But Hindu Gods watched their atrocities without a
murmur.”

Boasts of Muslims and Christians proved wrong

Muslims and Christians of course liked such writings about defeats suffered
by Hindus. They boastfully said. True, very true. Gods of Hindus are the
false gods. Muslims said, we worship true god, we read Koran, recite
Nimaz, and keep Rozas, therefore we the idol breakers succeed. Christians
said, we read Bible, bear the Cross, and celebrate Christmas - these and
other observations of Christianity lead to victory over the followers of
Hindu Puranas. Yes, Christians have boasted in this way many thousands of
times. But they were also proved wrong. Savarkar explains

“It is true that after the death of Prophet Mohammed, Islam was spread like
wild fire by the Arabs. They conquered vast territories of North Africa,
captured Spain, Portugal and south Italy. But their success was due mainly
to their weapons, fighting abilities and organisation NOT due to their
religion - Islam. Compared to them the countries of Africa and Spain and
Portugal were materially backward and disorganised. However, Arabs got
into their heads that their victories were won because of their idol breaking
Islam. They thought that Allah sends them in secret the armies of angels
and therefore Kafirs or Christians (the infidels) would never withstand an
attack by Muslims. But when the Christians got better organised and
disciplined, used superior military tactics, they too won over the Muslims.
They thus disproved the notion that the non-believers in Koran would never
defeat Muslims. So, blessings by Allah to Muslims were proved worthless.”

{In the year 711 Arabs called Moors defeated the Spanish and the
Portuguese. In 1212 the Spaniards defeated Arabs and drove all the
Muslims out of their country.)

“Despite their regular reciting of Namaz, Muslims were massacred by

Christians who despised Koran. When Christians lacked weapons of calibre
Muslims won over them. But when Muslims became feeble and were
divided the superior Christians defeated them easily. Worshippers of the
Bible proved that the worshippers of Koran could be easily defeated. In a
similar manner, Marathas too defeated Muslims and Christians (Portuguese)
and disproved the axiom that idol worshippers will never defeat the
followers of Koran (or the Bible).”

“From 1600 onwards the Marathas were well-prepared, experienced in

battle tactics, disciplined and had acquired superb intelligence gathering
skills. Therefore for the next 200 years, they became undefeatable and
crushed the armies of Christians (Portuguese) and Muslims. And the
surprising thing was that the more the Marathas set away from the saintly
behaviour and prayers and paid more attention to earthly matters the more
successful they became on the battlefront. In other words, the less they
relied on ‘divine blessings’ the more daring and ambitious they became.
The less they relied on religious means and adopted the strategy needed to
win wars, the more successful they became.”

Only the powerful win

“The verse of Saint Ramdas was constructed during the days of Maratha
King Shivaji. The contemporary events clearly show that the first part of it
is correct namely, ‘movement is strength, whoever carries on with a
movement has strength.’ Once you adopt correct means and resources to
win an earthly objective, you will succeed. Whether or not it has the
backing of religion, piety or prayers. THAT IS THE TRUTH.”

“The same applies to promises made in texts of all faiths Parsees,

Christians, Muslims, Jews. Men may be obsessed with fervour that as they
follow instructions of their God, they are bound to succeed. But that does
not happen in real life.”

“Even those who succeed once may fail in course of time if they

were to lose their material strength, in which case they and their Gods too
will lose. Human beings may have their own ideas of what is good or bad,
just or unjust, divine or satanic. But God is not partial to such ideas. He
would give success only to those who improve their material strength.”

{In November2001 the Talibans of Afghanistan, who once looked

invincible, were defeated by superior firepower of the Americans with the
help of the Northern Alliance. But the record on human rights of the
Northern Alliance has been just as dismal as that of Talibans. Allah did no
favours to Talibans.)

“We therefore say that people should not remain under any illusion that
because their cause is just they are bound to win. Nothing can be more
deceptive. If you want success in the world you must gain and improve
your material strength. That is the only sure way to achieving success and
to defeating of your enemy.”

“I am not advocating that a powerful society should be tyrant. However,

one must appreciate that your cause may be just but if you are weak you
will be defeated by the unjust but materially superior society. The
performance of 108 or even 1,108 Satyanarayan Pujas will not help you to
defeat your enemies, because success depends on acquiring power. Even
those who do not believe in God will succeed if they have material strength.
Has not atheist Soviet Russia become a World Power?”

“Some may argue that the glory of the atheists may be short lived and
would not last long. But then what happened to the glories of worshippers
of God? Dwaraka of Lord Krishna vanished under water, the main mosque
in Madina became a stable in later years, Jesus was crucified, golden temple
of Jehovah was destroyed.”

“The utterance of traditionalists to the effect that the recent earthquake in

Bihar was caused by our agitation to remove untouchability, as well as the
belief of the reformers that the

earthquake happened because traditionalist wanted to retain the

untouchability - are both childish and foolish. Just as foolish is the attempt
to remove a calamity on the nation by chanting the name of Lord Rama
millions of times or by doing Namaz.”

“In conclusion, I say that if you want success in this world, there is no
substitute to gaining power. If your movement has material strength you
will succeed whether or not you have divine blessing for it. On the other
hand if you are materially weak, mere chanting the names of gods millions
of times would be futile.”
(S S 1/3 pp 298-306)

This is precisely what happened in the Indian War of Independence 1857.

The English behaved barbarously, they committed terrible atrocities on us.
But they eventually won. Their armies moved faster, they captured places of
strategic importance and held on to them, their battle tactics were superb,
they misled Indian rebels, destroyed our materials and equipment, they
prevented our coming together and met us separately in battles. It was
because of such actions that they succeeded even though they burnt alive,
men, women and children, and justice was not on their side. What a pity
that after all these years, we do not study the strategies used by the English
in1857l Our school textbooks give out childish reasons for the defeat of the
Indian rebels.

• On 6 September 1932, Savarkar delivered a speech at the famous Patit

Pavan Mandir of Ratnagiri. His subject was the story of Bhakta Pralhad. He
said, “We should remember Hiranyakashipu was killed not by the
preachings of Pralhad. Only when God took the form of Narasinha that
Hiranyakashipu was finally killed and the world was saved.”

(R Era p 265)

Fire worship does not guarantee success in battles

• In his article ‘Yadnyachi Kulkatha’ Savarkar said, “In ancient times, the
Yajnas (worship of fire) had impressed the Aryans in India and the
reasoning behind this was indeed powerful. The

Fire had given a major force for organisation, culture and expansion. They
sincerely believed that like the Sun, Wind, Waves, the Fire is also a
powerful God. Their kings, priests, warriors used to gather around Fire, say
their prayers and fight with their enemies. This led to success after success.
As the Fire (in the form of flame of a torch) would move fon/vard, so would
the Aryans. This happened not a few times but hundreds of times. Aryans
were worshippers of Fire and the enemies whom they defeated were not
worshippers of Fire. It was therefore logical to believe that there was an
inexplicable relation between success and fire worship.”
However, the truth of the matter was that Aryans won over their enemies
because they were better organised and more materially advanced than their
enemies. But that was not easily understood. When Alexander the Greek
King invaded North India in 330 B.C how could he defeat King Pauras?
Alexander did not worship Fire, but Pauras did. So successful was
Alexander (also called Sikandar) in his military campaigns that it gave rise
to a proverb in Indian languages ‘his fate was Sikandar’ when success could
not be attributed to anything else. The reason for defeat of Pauras was his
disorganisation as well as the superior arms of Alexander. However, when
Chandragupta acquired the necessary skills, military discipline and superior
arms and adopted the right military strategy he easily overthrew the rule of
the Greeks and wiped out the memory of any defeat by Alexander.
Chandragupta was not a fire worshipper, on the contrary he followed
Jainasim, which abjured Yajnas.

Several centuries later, how was it that the Muslims won a series of
successive victories over fire worshipper Hindu kings. What lay behind
their success? The answer is that once again because Muslims had acquired
superior military strength.

In the year 1294 Allauddin Khiiji defeated the Maratha King Ramdevrai
Yadav. at Devagiri, 230 miles from Mumbai. The Maratha king had
worshipped the fire and prayed for success in battle. He prayed to God,
Cows and Brahmins many times before

setting out for battle. And yet he was defeated. Why? Was it because
Allauddin worshipped Fire? NO. He hated fire worship, killed cows,
destroyed temples and idols. If it is proposed that success on the battlefield
depends upon ‘divine blessing’ then we must conclude that ‘such blessing’
was obtained by killing cows and destroying idols. If not, we must accept
the fact that the success depends on material strength alone. It does not
depend on ‘divine blessing’ or the chanting of mantras in Puranas, nor is it
affected by rules in the Puranas (or in the Koran).

The worshipping of the fire may be superstitious, but destruction of places

of fire worship is vicious and wicked. God is pleased neither by the fire
worship nor by the destruction of places of fire worship. An example would
be found in Maratha History of the 18*’ century. Muslims who followed the
Koran and tried to destroy fire worship were killed by Maratha Peshwa
Bajirao I like the cutting of grass. He was able to do this, not because he
was a fire worshipper because his sword was powerful. On the other hand
his grandson Bajirao II was an authority on religious scriptures and
procedures, but he lost the kingdom to the English in 1818 because he was
weak on the battlefield, his sword was not powerful enough.

What can we say of today? There are only two communities in the world
who practise fire worship - Parsees {who migrated from Iran to India) and
Hindus, both are slaves. On the other hand, Europeans who never lighted
the fire except to smoke a cigarette are masters of the world.

(S S V3 pp 325/6/7)

Nature Is mightier than humans

• Time and again Savarkar had emphasised how Europe and America had
made considerable material advances after abandoning the bible. He
maintained that Indians too would have to follow their example. But no one
should ever arrogantly say "We won over the nature.' America had sent man
on the Moon, but is still faced with severe drought, floods, hurricanes,
volcanoes and earthquakes. Savarkar had accepted limits of

human achievements. In his book ‘My Transportation for Life'he describes

how he was transported by a ship.

“The sea is calm and quiet. This tiny boat is moving smoothly through the
sea just as children walk over snow in countries of cold climate. It seems
that man has won over the nature. How .vast is the sea (Bay of Bengal) and
how tiny is our ship by comparison! Just as a man keeps mighty elephant
under control by a goad, we have kept the sea at bay. But, for how long?”

“A Giant allows a small creature to play on his body, but when he wants, he
destroys the creature within seconds. Similarly the mighty nature is
allowing this ship to travel on the High Seas as a fun, therefore it travels.
Should the nature wish otherwise, not only this ship and the passengers in
it, but even the entire continent of Asia will vanish just as easily as we
swallow a sweet. And then we will say, ‘How insignificant man is!!”
(My Transportation for Life pp 60/61)

Savarkar had put fonvard above thoughts in 1911. They are true in 2003just
as they were in 1911. Let us take the examples of Britain and America.

After World War II, England decided to build sea defences to protect its
land on the east coast. They built sheet piled walls, put large concrete
blocks (tetrapods) on the sea front. 50 years later they realised that all this
was futile. Once you build sea defences and protect one area of land, the sea
increases its activities elsewhere with much greater ferocity and causes
more damage. Therefore it has been decided that it is sensible to let sea do
its damage and any development must take place beyond the reaches of the
sea.

BBC4 TV broadcast a programme on 5 May 2003 (Bank holiday - Monday)

during 10:30 to 11:20 p.m. entitled ‘Flooded Britain.’ It was prr^uced by Dr
Joe Smith of the Open University. It clearly showed how the Britain is now
experimenting with breaching sea defence walls on the East Coast to allow
the sea to spread its water as much as it wants. The conclusion is that there
will be

many more breaches made in the sea defence walls. It is called ‘Managed
Retreat’

Americans learnt the same lesson. Rivers never flow along straight paths;
they always have bends (meanders). American Engineers thought that if
they made the rivers to flow in straight lines huge areas of land would
become available for agricultural and residential purposes. They executed
their plans. Some years went by happily. Then water started to rise. Heights
of river embankments were increased year after year to cope with rising
water level. Finally time came when the river rose so much that it destroyed
all the built up land. No sign of human activities remained.

Mankind should never boast that they have conquered the nature.

Lessons from 7^ century Islamic History

• Islamic world has been in constant turmoil since the days of its founder
prophet Mohammed. Most Hindus are unaware of this fact. Savarkar had
given us a glimpse of these upheavals. Mohammed Paigambar’s followers
themselves stabbed to death his adopted son and son-in-law AH. They also
tortured to death Mohammed’s grandsons Hasan and Hussein. Once again
Savarkar emphasises that the one who has the military power wins,
irrespective of whether he is a gentleman or a brute. No amount of praying
to Allah had helped even to save lives of AH and his sons.

Savarkar had given details of the factions and rivalry among Muslims after
the death of Mohammed in his articles ‘Rise and Fall of the Caliphs’ and
‘The story of Tabut.’ Both were written in 1934.

Mohammed had a loyal young man called All who stayed with him through
thick and thin. All soon became an adopted son, as Mohammed had no son
of his own. Later Mohammed also gave his daughter Fatima in marriage to
AN.

In course of time Arabs accepted Mohammed as their leader. As

Mohammed increased his power, authority and prosperity, AN also became
respected in the eyes of Muslims as he did not leave Mohammed during all
the calamities that befell on him. Mohammed died in the year 632. Ali’s
followers proposed that he should succeed Mohammed. But, his opponents
declared Abu Bakr as the first Caliph while AN was engaged in making the
funeral arrangements of Mohammed.

AN thought that it was neither practical nor desirable to oppose the

succession of Abu Bakr. He acquiesced with the decision of his opponents.
However, after Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman of the Ummayad family
became Caliphs. AN the officers were also appointed from the same family.
Therefore AN (belonging to Qurayshi tribe) revolted and in the ensuing
fight Caliph Usman was killed. However, Muawiyah the leader of Omayid
tribe employed a crafty ploy. His soldiers attached Koran to their spears. As
soon as AN’s soldiers saw that, they refused to fight and therefore AN had
to make peace with Muawiyah.

Shortly afterwards, AN was stabbed to death in 661 A.D. When and at what
hour? While he was doing Namaz. Thus the most confidant of Prophet
Mohammed and also his son in law fell victim to a stab wound. It is not
evident that though AN had ‘divine blessing’ that did not save his life. It
was the knife that was victorious. AN the reciting of Suras of Koran did not
save AN.

Hasan and Hussain

After the death of AN, his followers had no choice but to accept Muawiyah
as Caliph. However, they were not satisfied and wanted AN’s son Hasan to
become the Caliph. This eventually led to a fight in which Hasan was
defeated by Muawiyah. Even though Hasan was a grandson of Prophet
Mohammed that did not give him success on the battle field due to lack of a
strong army on his side. He made a treaty and agreed that Muawiyah should
remain as Caliph now but after his death Mohammed’s second grandson
Hussain should become the Caliph.

Thus Muawiyah became unchallenged and undisputed King and a religious

authority of the Islamic world (i.e. whatever extent it was then. In 638 they
had captured Jerusalem, Iran in 641, Alexandria in Egypt in 643). Did he
succeed because he was very religious, pious, just, honourable or abided by
the commandments of the Koran? Of course not. Justice Amir Ali says:

‘His friendship was difficult to maintain. He killed his opponents who

became powerful. Whether they were killed by poisoning or treachery or
stabbing - it did not matter. If his authority was challenged he had no
qualms to abandon the injunctions of the Koran. But when it suited him, he
craftily pretended to abide by the Koran. The irony was that the person who
denied the succession of the progeny of Prophet Mohammed should
become the supreme authority in the Islamic world.’ {of the 7^ century)

(History of the Saracens pp 71 to 82)

But it is crystal clear why Muawiyah succeeded. He was a daring person,

knew politics well, he was brave, he plotted successfully against his
opponents. He possessed whatever qualities and skills were necessary to
succeed in this world. He had a strong army with good and effective
weapons. Therefore the title of Caliph remained in his family for a hundred
years and the same was denied to the direct descendents of Mohammed
who was Prophet, a messenger of God.

Muawiyah did not stay silent even after the defeat of Hasan. Very soon he
poisoned Hasan. And yet Allah (God) did nothing to save this grandson of
Prophet Mohammed. Previously the same God allowed the assassin to put
Ali to death when he was reciting Namaz and again God did not warn
Hasan of impending danger that he would be poisoned.

There still remained Hussain the second grandson of Mohammed.

Muawiyah had made a treaty with Hasan that after Muawiyah’s death
Hussain should become Caliph. But after

poisoning Hasan, Muawiyah flouted this agreement. He declared that his

son Yazeed should be the next Caliph. Prayers were made in all mosques to
that effect. His army and officers swore their allegiance to the new Caliph
accordingly. Muawiyah died in the year 679 and in Damascus (capital of
Syria) his son Yazeed was declared the next Caliph. It was Yazeed who
previously poisoned Hasan.

Caliph Yazeed

Hussain and his followers were furious at Yazeed’s flouting of the treaty
between Muawiyah and Hasan that after the death of Muawiyah, Hussein
should become Caliph. People of Iraq urged and prompted him to come to
Iraq. They said, ‘as soon as you set foot here we will all rise against Yazeed.
Just come here.’ After receiving a series of such messages Hussain travelled
from Mecca and marched on to Iraq (a distance of at least 800 miles or
1280 Km). He was determined to fight to gain his rightful inheritance. He
had with him a few followers, his relations and women and children.

But that is exactly what Yazeed wanted. He was brave as well as deceitful.
He ruled with an iron fist. So much so that even though he flouted the
teachings of Koran, all Muslims bowed to him on bended knees and
accepted him as their religious leader. Thousands of Muslims sympathised
with Hussein but no one dared oppose Yazeed.
Yazeed, through his agents, had induced Hussain to come to Iraq. As
Hussain moved fonward no one opposed him. He was surprised. His
followers started to say, ‘May Allah be praised. He supports Hussain and
has blinded the sight of Hussein’s enemies. He mesmerised them.
Otherwise Yazeed would not have tolerated Hussain’s advance even for one
day. Allah is great.’ It was magic indeed but not of God but of Yazeed. His
agents tempted Hussain to come to a place where he could easily be
trapped. After marching into Iraq, Hussain was anxious to hear the sound of
people to welcome him. He expected especially to hear slogans like ‘glory
to Hussein’ but nothing was

heard. It was quiet everywhere. And all of sudden, he heard the noises of
swords. They were the soldiers of Yazeed.

“We have been betrayed,” said Hussein. He put up his tents and tried to
defend himself.

MASSACRE OF KARBALA (IN IRAQ)

The place was named Karbala (25 miles northwest of Kufa). Yazeed’s
general had no interest to fight. He knew that Hussain would soon run out
of food and that he did not have enough followers to stage a fight. Yazeed’s
army cut off water supply to Hussain. In the end, Hussain sent a message to
Yazeed’s general. ‘Please allow me to go. I will not fight.’ But Yazeed’s
army had no reason to be afraid of a fight. The grandson of the Prophet
Mohammed was helpless. Again he pleaded, ‘Take me as prisoner to Yezid,
but not as a criminal, treat me with respect.’ This request too was rejected.
Yazeed had ordered his general to bring Hussain as a common criminal,
better still not bring him at all, but finish him off.

Finally Hussain said, “You want to kill me. Fine. I come to you but let the
women, children and ordinary folk go safely.” Having sensed his last
moments, Hussain said to his followers, “Do not die for nothing. I will be
happy if you desert me now.” But no one deserted him. On the contrary
some men from Yazeed’s camp joined Hussein’s side.

Eventually a fight ensued (10 October 680 A.D.). Hussain’s men

succumbed to spears thrown at them. He himself was mortally wounded. He
was dying of thirst. His sons had been killed except one child. As Hussain
tried to give him a kiss, the child too was killed by an enemy spear. With
great difficulty, one woman managed to bring a glass of water for Hussain.
But as soon as he opened his mouth an arrow hit him and he died on the
spot. Yazeed’s soldiers kicked Hussain’s dead body and cut his head, put it
on a spear and paraded it through streets. AND yet Allah (God) did nothing
to save the grandson of his Prophet Mohammed!! (Amir AH p 86)

The soldiers brought the head of Hussein to Yazeed’s general Obaiudulla.

He was furious and beat that head with a stick. An old Muslim murmured,
‘Oh what a tragedy! I had seen Prophet Mohamed himself kiss this
grandson Hussein.’

Yazeed’s soldiers paraded the women in Hussein’s camp through the streets
and sent them to Yazeed in Damascus. The women cried loudly. Many
people too felt sorry. Yazeed then decided to let the women go to Mecca,
Medina, or wherever they wanted to go.

Thus ended the massacre of Karbala. The grandsons of Prophet Mohammed

died horrible deaths and thus ended his family tree. Many Muslims (Shias)
remember this event annually and cry for Hasan and Hussain on the second
day of the month of Muharram. That is their day of mourning. That is the
tragic story of Tabut as it is called in India.

When the news of the defeat and death of Hussain and how his body was
mutilated spread to Madina, Muslims there got furious. They declared that
Yazeed was not their Caliph and drove out his representative in Madina.
When this news reached Yazeed he became furious and, like a wounded
lion, he pounced on Madina with his army. He was the head of the religion
of Islam and yet he reized to ground all the religious places in Madina. The
followers of Prophet Mohammed, big or small in status were all hunted
down and executed. Those who were spared were branded on the neck and
made slaves. All the places of public welfare, such as hospitals were pulled
down. And what was astonishing, the most sacred mosque in Madina was
converted into a stable. Other revered religious places were also mutilated.

After ransacking Madina, Yazeed attacked Mecca and all the famous
religious places there including KABA were destroyed, laid to ruins and
converted into stables.

(History of the Saracens p 88)

Thus, Yazeed became undisputed Caliph. He became the

supreme master of all the wealth and glory of the Islamic world of the 7^
century.

What was the secret of his success? Why were even the grandsons of
Prophet Mohammed killed in such gruesome manner? Was it because
Yazeed followed the commands of Koran more rigorously than Hasan and
Hussain? Was he more just, lawful and honourable than them? Nay. Let us
see what the Muslim historians themselves say:

“Caliph Yazeed was a brute and did not hesitate to resort to treachery. He
practised the vices like drinking which were utterly condemned in the
Koran. He had no qualms in defacing and destroying mosques. He resorted
to murders and poisoning to eliminate his opponents. He would dress a
monkey as a Mullah and parade him in streets on a donkey, ahead of
himself in a procession.” (History of the Saracens p 16)

Savarkar continues

After Mohammed Paigambar became victorious in battles, he destroyed the

idols in temples in Mecca. He openly smashed all the idols. His zealot
followers then said triumphantly, ‘Look how feeble were your Gods! They
were crushed under the hammer of our Prophet Mohammed.’

Mohammed Paigambar called the Gods of idol worshippers in Arabia as

feeble and converted their temples into mosques. But, within decades.
Caliph Yazeed destroyed the same mosques and converted them into
stables. He laid to ruins the most revered holy cities of Mecca and Madina
and wiped out all the descendants and followers of Prophet Mohammed. By
Mohammed’s own logic, his Allah too proved to be just as feeble as the
Gods of the idol worshippers. The truth is that GOD neither helps nor
hinders Mohammed, Yazeed or any one else. Might is right. That is the law
of nature. The one who is powerful’and has material strength will win
kingdoms, authority and wealth. It does not matter whether he believes in
the Puranas or the Koran. We

are only concerned with what happens on earth. We not discussing ‘life
after death.’

The saying in the Puranas ‘Fire worshippers will always win’ has proved to
be wrong. Similarly the preaching of Koran that followers of Allah, the idol
smashers, will always win - that too has been proved to be false. In the
Bible God of Israel said, “Only my followers (the Jews) will have kingdoms
all over the earth.” Today (i.e in 1934) if there is any community in the
world who have not a square inch of its own land, it is the Jews.”

If the teachings of Vedas, Koran, Bible, Talmud, Injil and other religious
texts were the words of true God, he would not have tolerated violations of
his teachings. He would not have kept silent when all the family and
descendants of his Prophets were being vanquished and the family itself
become extinct as in case of Prophet Mohammed. We must realise that at
times, the followers of Puranas were defeated, at times the followers of
Koran were routed, at times the followers of the Bible fared the same fate.
God should not have given contradictory commands to different people. He
should not have asked one group of people to worship the Cow and ask
another group of people to sacrifice the Cow for religious functions.

No one should be under any illusion that they will triumph because justice
or God is on their side or that they are literally following a particular
relfgious text. If you want success on earth, you must acquire earthly power
and strength.

(SSV2 pp 400-408, 588-596)

Weak Muslims crushed by powerful enemies

Savarkar had openly stated with examples that simple-minded Muslims and
Christians were routed by their enemies just as Hindus were. Other so
called Rationalists become tongue-tied when it comes to the history of
defeats of Muslims and Christians. Let us take an example from Savarkar’s
famous book Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History.
356 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

Invasion by the Mongols - Chengizkhan (1162 to 1227)

While Delhi was ruled by the Gulam dynasty, Mongols from Mongolia
were creating havoc in the world. They spread like locusts from Pacific
Ocean to the Black sea.

Mongols were NOT Muslims. Their leader Chengizkhan despised, insulted

and humiliated Islam all his life. He attached Baghdad (Iraq) and killed the
Caliph whom all Muslims respected. He utterly destroyed the capital city
Baghdad. And yet Allah did nothing to stop Chengizkhan.

(SS V3 p811)

l/Vie can now conclude that Savarkar was a realist. In an article of 1933 he
said,

“When faced with calamities and frustrations, we turn to God and ask for
his forgiveness and pray for better days. It is true that prayers do give us
peace of mind. One should pray for that. But we should not be under any
illusion that God will listen to our prayers.”

(Ratnagiri Era p 304)

Savarkar was a realist, not just on the thoughts on God but on all aspects of
life. Let us turn to that topic.

Chapter Eight REALISM

^6 /• Ri'jioftirftiiiy • Vrf>r fint^nr

lrjv^»ori by tft* Vkwo<><»^C4t^:2rfr Wnte Dft«V iiwu. ifule0 oy lf,e ^

>Jitt^<%|IMMly, r MrKi^;c>Sai ¥/ef» .u^R^tin^ hf^voo i<v th»^ awjrt*
lonjjjs <ron» Pdc^fic Oeten p Mnngo^’i 'vnr* PiOT.^iiefj-T.s^j Tlisff iwdpr
tSesfi^Ki. cwJted tncJ n«irH{{u:^JlRW»i 9f ^ Oagr^ati ^iraq) sfxi Wted
the- C aiipft^ihofT) fHi Hfc i4teffy dasboyK) tt>« caplw d«y >v

nothing to ^op Chengizkhani (SSV 3^811) v.j =

VW» eon now ^dt/cfe ihat Sav^-^ Af ¥m^ a • lof 1933 he sekL -- > <

^Whan teced wilh ciiamitSes and

JBd jfctk frr his. awd pray <tv hMt

8vi‘ prayera dogtvo US poaoe ri» rrvnd. One But 'w a^cukl not be *

prayers;

SeMrt^ ml iusf ’vi tne ihougi^ on Go<I.bi41

' ^****“**^*^»^*T*^:-■ . '- I u i f j

•v t"'-*#

.i

.’4

.* ^

-•j». -1^
■- ■ ’trt-s?aaKQir-rv >• 4i.j
’Si’fy

La.

:“i!?

■' -V-!

[1* iij

. 'jf.

' ^ ■ ;:r

ipui-L. «/ >

RgAUSM
Savsrkar was well aware of the fact that carrying out reforms is no easy
task. Reforms, whether social, economic, political, or whatever do not
happen at the spur of a moment. Our people are not often ready nor do they
have the daring necessary for reforms. While the enemies are strong,
powerful, clever and better organised, our resources are insufficient, some
persons oppose, out of their own self-interest. Success is therefore not easy.
That is the reality of life. Savarkar was not impatient for results. He did not
exploit the expectation of the masses for quick results without making
necessary sacrifices. He did not court easy popularity by giving slogans
like,

‘Charkha chala chalake.

Lenge Swarajya lenge’

(we will spin the wheel and get independence)

Like Gandhi he never made promises such as, ‘Follow me and I will give
you the independence within one year.’He was acutely aware of the strength
of the English.

POLITICS

Military Strength Of The Engiish

In his book Shatruchya Shibirat (inside the enemy camp) Savarkar says:

Only the revoiutionaries were aware of the strength of the British.

In the Indian politics of those days (i.e. 1906) there were two factions, the
Moderates and the Militants. The first one wanted to appeal to the better
nature of the British while the second felt that Passive Resistance would
achieve their aim. Neither party therefore was much concerned about the
military strength of the British. Large volumes of lectures and articles by
leaders from Dadabhai Naoroji to Bipin Chandra Pal are available. But,
even for a curiosity there is no mention of any doubt, ‘what if, the British
use their military might?’ They were determined that there should be no
secrecy in their movement. Military strength of the

British was never considered a factor in their programme.

Revolutionaries, on the other hand, had to start with an armed struggle.

Their leaders, if not each follower, had to consider the military strength of
the British. They had no choice. They were not only aware of that strength,
they were also concerned about it. Because it was they who were going to
fall victim to the bullets and bayonets of the British. They were going to the
gallows. It was their households, which were going to be utterly destroyed
by the British. There was no way they could ignore or underestimate the
military strength of the British.

The Moderates tried armchair politics and considered it to be appropriate

and honourable. Militants went as far as Passive Resistance. Moderates and
even some militants attacked the Revolutionaries in scathing terms. Their
attacks were more acrimonious than attacks in the British Newspapers. In
their public utterances and private conversations they said, ‘How are these
handful of youngsters going to achieve independence? They are fools. Do
they have the faintest idea of how powerful the British are? Do they really
think that the British will be scared with few sticks and revolvers and run
away? If the British wish, they can blast off the whole country with guns.’

Referring to the revolutionaries openly they would say, “You will totally
ruin your life, and you may even go to the gallows!! You consider us
Moderates as mild. Just you wait. Once you are flogged, you will lick the
boots of the English. If you really want to serve the country, follow our
path.” The Moderates therefore said that we (the revolutionaries) should
follow their suit.

Militants said that we (Indians) should practise non-violent noncooperation.

The British, the Moderates and even the Militant newspapers always cursed
us and called us ‘of perverted minds, murderers, terrorists, fanatics.’

But, these remarks merely proved that our critics were ignorant of the ^act
that the revolutionaries were NOT unaware of the

might of the British. And who told them that the revolutionaries believed
that the British could be driven out of India with a handful of revolvers?
The funny thing was that if the English were capable of blasting off the
whole country with guns, would they pay any attention to the prayers and
petitions of the Moderates? Would they pack their guns and leave India by
the mere declaration of non co-operation? One must therefore conclude that
only the Revolutionaries were aware of the British character and formidable
strength.

Savarkar continued, “Speaking for myself, I can vouch that I never

dismissed strength of the British. Right from the start, whenever I
administered the oath of Abhinav Bharat I used to make the newcomers
aware of what sacrifices they would have to make.”

“I made it clear to them that they would have to forego their houses,
property, pleasures of life, reputation, affections of the beloved and even
face death. Since the days of Mitra Mela in Nasik (in India) to our weekly
meetings in London, while discussing the histories of revolutionaries of
many countries I used to emphasise this point.”

Even before leaving for London I preached to my friends, ‘Any nation who
set out to establish a world empire needs certain qualities. And the British
do have the necessary attributes. Of course, they are brave. They are also
cruel and deceptive. It is not for nothing that they have established an
empire over us. I say to you time and again that their Military power is their
Bible. And also no one can match their craftiness today. Therefore they are
administering their rule over this huge country systematically like
clockwork.’

‘The trained officers who come from Britain (members of the elite Indian
Civil Service) know every minute detail about us, our geography, our
languages, castes, history and other characters. From the office of the
Governor General’s Council to the office of the village chief they are
functioning like a clock with eternal vigilance. First they defeated us on the
battlefronts and the name

of ‘Sahib’ has created fear in our hearts. And now they are ruling over us by
their intellectuai power through their specially trained staff (the Indian Civil
Service) and Indian assistants as if it the whoie thing is a perfectly working
machine.’

(Shatruchya Shibirat pp 137 to 147)

At no time did Savarkar have any illusions about the British Military might.
On 11 October 1938, i.e nearly one year before the start of World War II he
spoke in Pune.

“At the time of World War I, England was not much concerned about the
Indian Empire. But, now things have changed. England has access to India
through the Mediterranean Sea. They are afraid that Itaiy who was weak in
the last world war is now strong and may obstruct their military
manoeuvres in the Mediterranean Sea. If that happens the British will have
great difficulty in maintaining their supply lines and keep their hold on the
Indian Empire. This is the situation on the western front, what about the
East? Japan has become very powerful. If she wants, her aeroplanes can
reach Calcutta within two hours.”

“One cannot say that if the Second World War were to start tomorrow,
England would be defeated. But their Indian Empire is at stake. That much
is sure.”

{H MS Era pp 146/7)

Why we chose the revolutionary path?

Savarkar was well aware of the fact that the path he had chosen

and advocated was a fiery ordeal. In his biography, he quotes

one of his verses and explains:

Kee ghethale Vrata na he amhi Anthatene

Labdha prakash Itihas Nisarg Mane

Je Divya Dahak Mhanoni asavayache

Buddhyachi Van dharile kari he satiche.

‘We did not choose our path blindly. From the laws of nature and history we
knew that our path was full of danger. It can only be compared to the
situation where Hindu ladies sit on the funeral
pyres of their husbands (Satee). We selected the warpath, not because we
wanted to, but we simply had no choice. Even the name of our path was
going to put our lives in danger, what to talk of the situation that follows! In
my childhood I knew how the Chaphekar brothers and Ranade went to the
gallows (in 1897). I knew how the whole of MaharavShtra was terrorised
by the British just for the use of mere two or three pistols by Chaphekars
and Ranade. I knew how people were terrified then. If we were going ^ to
attempt to overthrow the British by force of arms, we would need to face far
more tyranny than that. Hundreds of thousands of mothers would lose their
sons, similar number of children would become orphans, thousands of
houses would be ruined, and cities after cities would be destroyed. I knew
very well that, first of all, it was my family and relations that would face the
ruin.

Time and again I explained to the revolutionaries what kind of calamities

they and their families would face. I used to quote from the histories of
Ireland, Netherlands and Italy. In my lectures and writings I deliberately
used to quote from the histories of these countries to illustrate how the
freedom fighters in these countries faced oppressions, tyrannies, tortures,
and death. I said.'You would face not just imprisonment like Tilak but also
face torture and starvation. Your parents, wives and children would be
insulted and humiliated in front of you. Even when you are strong enough
to face physical hardships, would you stand aloof when your kith and kin
are being harassed? They will try that device to force you to confess and
supply full details of your plans.’

Remember Banda Bairagi of the 18"’ century? His son was killed by
Muslims in Punjab and the heart of that child was put in his mouth. You
will face such tortures that you would feel that death was thousands times
more comfortable. Time has come for us to face the horrors in the same
way as those brave Hindus in the past who refused to embrace Islam or like
the Protestants who did not budge under the Catholic inquisitions. Can you
do muster courage to do that? Can you be the new heroes of our country? If
you can, then only follow the path of the revolutionary.

I always portrayed such pictures to my followers. I wanted them to be under

no illusion of what lay ahead of us.
{Autobiography - Nasik pp 88/89)

Those were the thoughts of Savarkar in the year 1900. In 1906 he went to
London for further studies. While speaking at the famous Caxton Hall he
said on 20 December 1908:“You are demanding Swaraj. It means complete
independence.

I am pleased that you are consenting to making that demand. But remember
what it entails. You would have to face prison walls, dark chambers of
isolation. You will have to walk on fire. Your country needs your sacrifice.
If you are prepared for that ordeal, then only show your consent.”

(SSV4 pp 111/2)

Above passage clearly shows that Savarkar was not afraid to explain what
the Indian struggle for freedom entailed. It was not like reading a romantic
novel. Winning the struggle for freedom would be glorious, no doubt about
that. But it also involves fierce fighting. During World War II Churchill said
to his countrymen, 7 have nothing to give you but blood, sweat, toil and
tears.” Savarkar had spoken in the same terms 40 years earlier.

The question many critics ask is this, ‘how would have Savarkar achieved
Indian independence with handful of men and a few pistols?’ He explains

• ‘We were never under an illusion that if we killed a few English Officers,
rest of them will run away. We knew that the whole of the population of 300
million would not rise simultaneously against the British. However, we
sincerely believed that out of that population if we could prepare even 0.1
% (i.e. 300,000 men) for a guerrilla war, by their incessant, constant,
continuous efforts, we could achieve our independence. If there was any
chance of success for achieving independence, it was in such a scheme. The
methods of our opponents, who regarded us as foolhardy and thought that
the British would depart by mere petitions, social reforms or non-violent
struggle, had absolutely no chance of

success whatsoever.’

{Autobiography - Nasik pp 91/92)

On way to the Andaman Islands

Timid editors

After being sentenced to transportation for life twice, Savarkar was kept in
a jail in Mumbai. There he heard a sensational news. • ‘There was a great
commotion in the jail. I was told that some high-ranking British officer lost
his pension because of me. I was baffled and curious. After a few days, by
sheer chance, I managed to get hold of the cutting from the Marathi paper
‘Kesari’. Apparently there was a gathering of Indians in London celebrating
the beginning of the year 1911. In the hall they had displayed my portrait on
the wall. Sir Henry Cotton, the chief guest saw that. He praised my courage,
patriotism and other virtues and expressed his regret that such a promising
young man should have to face rigours of Transportation. He expressed his
hope that the International Court of Justice at The Hague would decide that
Savarkar should be sent to France as he was on the French soil at Marseilles
at the time of his capture.

These remarks infuriated the English society. Sympathy for Savarkar? Even
if it was sarcastic, still a word of sympathy? Some said that Cotton’s
knighthood should be withdrawn. Some others said that his pension from
the Indian Civil Service should be stopped. It seemed as if the Indian
National Congress was also about to be affected by this affair. However,
while returning from the annual session. Sir William Wederberg, the
President of the Congress and Surendranath Banerjee the famous moderate
Bengali leader dismissed the whole affair. They said that the Congress had
no relation with Savarkar and his followers; they also had no sympathy with
him.

Kesari, the Marathi paper whose cutting I had managed to obtain, also made
some comments. The editor tried to defend Sir Cotton, mentioned my name
in singular and said that Sir Cotton did not even know if Savarkar was black
or of fair complexion.

What a pity that in England an English officer praised my patriotism and

some virtues, yet at the same time even the firebrand paper like Kesari had
to mention my name in singular. Of course, the denouncing of hie made
other Indian leaders feel safe from the wrath of the British Administration.
That is why they did so.

I do not blame the editor of Kesari or any other Indian leader for
denouncing me at that time. It just goes to show how a foreign rule
demoralises and makes it impossible for the subjects even to express
sympathy for the plight of persons like me.

{My Transportation for Life pp 11/12)

Had it been any one else, he would have denounced the lack of courage in
the editor of Kesari and Indian leaders. But Savarkar does not do that. He
says,‘see how the tyranny of foreign rule makes even human sympathy
scarce in enslaved people.’ That is his realism.

For those who are working under very difficult conditions and facing an
uphill struggle for their aim, there is a great Mantra given by Savarkar.

• Adverse will most probably happen

‘In my life, full of hardships and calamities I always remembered a golden

rule - Adverse will most probably happen. True it is bitter but ultimately
very effective. That prepared me to face the consequences of my actions.

I advocate this Mantra to all those who are in a hopeless situation and yet
are determined to overturn the wheel and see a better tomorrow. They must
recite - adverse will most probably happen but I am prepared to face the
results. Why? Under our circumstances, failure would be the norm and
when one does not expect success, failure is not demoralising. However, if
we have high hopes of success and fail (which is most likely) we become
shattered, lose faith and courage. On the other hand if we do not expect
success we have no surprises, no delusions.

no shock. If, by chance or luck, we succeed we are of course delighted with

the outcome of our activities. Our generation must drink the chalice of
‘adverse will most probably happen’.

{My Transportation for Life pp 6/7)

ON THE ANDAMAN ISLANDS (1911-1921)

On reaching Andaman Islands Savarkar and other political prisoners started

to obtain infonnation from outside by whatever means possible. They tried
to seek paper cuttings. Savarkar says:

• “Sometimes the paper cuttings were thrown over the walls by fellow
prisoners. Sometimes they were hidden under dinner plates, at times hidden
in pipes too. We used to take these out when no one was looking and read
them with caution. Yet another source of information was by way of any
inadvertent remark made by the prison officers and even Barrie used to give
us information in this way. But his blessing was always full of curses.
Barrie would tell us with enthusiasm any news that was adverse to Indian
fxjlitics, one that will demoralise us, be painful and make us aware of our
weakness and make us feel helpless - and that too in the sense of doing us a
favour! He would also make notes of our reactions and record them in his
diary. I always thanked him for any news that he gave us. It is but natural
that one should want to hear good news about one’s beloved, but it is a sign
of a hero who is prepared to know about any bad news as well. Good news
no doubt pleases us. Unfavourable news makes us resolute to continue with
our struggle so that one day we may hear favourable news.”

Here is a sign of a great person. Savarkar thanked Barrie who deliberately

gave him the discouraging news. If we study the life of the great Maratha
King Shivaji, we find that in the year 1665 he faced successive defeats. But
he neither became downhearted by his failures nor bloated with his success.
Savarkar followed that example.

Savarkar’s elder brother Babarao had been sent to Andaman a year earlier
to serve a sentence of transportation for life. When he unexpectedly saw
Savarkar in the jail he was extremely sorry. He managed to send a note in
secret to Savarkar asking how he

was captured when he had gone to Paris . now what will

happen to the work that they undertook? etc. Savarkar in his reply, sent
secretly, wrote:
• ‘My dear brother, now the aim of our life is to endure such hardships,
suffer without the outside world knowing about them, to be cursed even by
those for whose cause we have decided to suffer - that is our fate. And this
too is just as important as working out in full public knowledge or view
with their praise and blowing trumpets. For the ultimate victory the
unknown sacrifices like ours are just as important as the open fights on
issues.’

(My Transportation for Life pp 139/140)

Now, that is realism.

While Savarkar was serving his sentence on the Andaman Islands there
were many rumours that the prisoners would be pardoned and released.
Especially so at the time of accession to throne by George the V th (1911).
Savarkar narrates the events of those days:

• “Every year or at least every two or three years there were some rumours
of amnesty on the occasion of some great event or other. Prisoners believed
them, raised their hopes and lived in consolation for some time until the
news was proved to be false. The funny thing was that though time and
again, such rumours had proved baseless, whenever new rumours started to
circulate, prisoners still believed in them. If anybody told them of the falsity
of such rumours citing past experience, they used to get very angry. My
(Savarkar’s) personal experience was no different.”

“If in any calamity, it was clear that an escape was impossible and someone
pointed this out openly, similarly if it was clear that the rumours of amnesty
or clemency were pure speculation and

someone expressed the same opinion openly, one naturally gets angry at
such a person. That is the human nature. Yes, I can vouch from my own
experience. After being sent to transportation for life, I had to face a second
trial for other alleged offences; I thought to myself that the British rulers
would probably send me to the gallows. I was getting prepared for that. And
yet, when a sympathetic officer met me in the jail at Dongari (in Mumbai)
and said that I most probably faced the death penalty, I was very angry with
that officer. I had to control my temper with great difficulty. I still
remember the occasion after almost 17 years.”

“With my past experience I was not much affected by the rumours at the
time of accession to throne by George the V th. But the enthusiasm of other
prisoners knew no bounds. They all started to make plans for what they
would do, which train would they catch, which diversion from main route
they would follow. It was just recently that they had been sentenced to
transportation for 7,10 or 14 years. The Government had spent hundreds of
thousands of rupees on their capture and trial. It was childish to imagine
that the government would let them off so easily. It is true that the
unexpected can happen and does happen. I had told them so and gave
examples from the struggles in Ireland, Russia and Italy. True, one must
never give up hope. At the same time one should not harbour false hopes. It
is better not to keep any hopes of early releases at all. I used to say to
others, ‘Do not believe that we will be released early. We have to face
hardships in this place for some time - how long we cannot say. But be
prepared to face the reality of life.”

(My transportation for life pp 187/8)

Those who make rules can also change them.

In the jail, one political prisoner named Nani Gopal refused to obey any
prison regulations. He said, ‘Our main demand is that we should be
recognised as ‘Political Prisoners’. The issue of the quality of food is
secondary one. The main issue is of status. The British Administration must
recognise that we are ‘Political Prisoners' and not ordinary criminals like
thieves and dacoits.'

On that occasion Savarkar wrote

• “Barrie always used to say that if two or three political prisoners were
flogged the rest will come to their senses and make no demands. But
inmates who were formerly newspaper editors informed us that they had
read in newspapers that Morley, the Secretary of State for India had given
orders that political prisoners should not be caned.”
“We therefore assumed that Barrie was making empty threats. However, at
the time of our first strike I told other prisoners‘even if Morley has issued
instructions that political prisoners should not be flogged it is also in their
hands to change the instructions. We therefore must consider that we may
even have to face flogging. Let us be prepared for such an eventuality, if it
occurs. Ordinary criminals from Burma of just 20 years of age face flogging
without murmur because they are used to such punishments from
childhood. We too should be determined to get used to even the flogging.”

(My Transportation for Life p 240)

That is realism. When the conventions, protocols, treaties or human

decency are inconvenient to the British, they set them aside. They do that
even today. Savarkar was well aware of this. He studied in London for
becoming a Barrister but was not called to the Bar in 1909 even after
passing his examinations. The Benchers of Grays Inn made a show of trial
and, at the end, shamelessly declared ‘even though none of the charges
against Savarkar was proven, he would still not be called to the Bar, as there
is suspicion hanging over him.’

In 1906, Savarkar came to London with a passport issued by the British

Administrators in Mumbai and yet he was arrested under the ‘Fugitive
Offenders Act.’ How did he become a Fugitive in 1910? British Judges
never answered that question. They simply accepted the fact that he was a
de facto prisoner.

After Savarkar arrived on the Andaman Islands, to serve his sentence, in

1912, the University of Bombay withdrew his degree of Bachelor of Arts.

He therefore said to the fellow prisoners, ‘even if Morley has issued

instructions not to flog political prisoners, you never know when the
instructions will be altered. Those who make regulations can aiso alter
them. So, do not be under any illusion.’

World War I - what’s in it for us?

During World War I (1914-18) the prisoners in Andaman naturally liked the
Germans, as they were the enemies of the English. Savarkar had to
enlighten them.

• At first, the prisoners were delighted with the Germans, because the
English were not going to release them from prison. They naturally
assumed that if the Germans won they would be freed. They did not
entertain any criticism of the Germans. I therefore had to explain to them
the consequences of the war on India and what tactics we must adopt for
advancing our cause. I said to them that if Germans were to win the war she
too would exploit India, and what good would that do to us? What is the
point of changing one master for another? I then said what India must do
for its benefit during the turmoil of this world war. I had a hard time
explaining to them that it was childish to say ‘Germany’s victory was
India’s victory.’

(My Transportation for Life pp 348/9)

In those days German submarine Emden was attempting to attack the

Andaman Islands and free Savarkar. He remembersr.“Some prisoners would
come rushing to me and say, the German submarine had arrived. Look the
Sahibs are looking through binoculars. And it is indeed true that the English
officers, as they were handful, were scared. They feared that the prisoners
would riot and rise against them. Their anxiety was not unjustified. They
had few arms and ammunitions. Numerically too they were very few and
were civilians. They had no military training. How would they face a
powerful German submarine or destroyer? But, they (the British) were
empire builders with a strong tradition of ruling over others. Therefore
those few Englishmen were determined

for the battle. It was no surprise that their women and children were
trembling at the thought of the German submarine attacking Andaman. The
surprise was that despite the thousands of hostile prisoners those few
Englishmen were able to keep their rule over us for four years of the war.
They did not give us any concessions in our quota of daily work. No one
was allowed to cut down a single coconut tree. They enforced the prison
discipline, rules and regulations. They carried on with their administration
as usual.”

Tenacity of the English and our simple mindedness

I was astonished to note that just as the Marathas in the last days of their
Peshwas (1818) did not recognise the tenacity of the ‘Sahibs’, we still do
not recognise that tenacity even today (/.e. ini914). Prisoners would spread
rumours during the war. They said today London fell, or German
submarines would attack Andaman tonight - oh yes, that is definite. ‘But on
what basis? Who told you ?’

‘Who? The butler of the Commissioner, he saw the Commissioner open a

sealed envelope.’

‘But how do you know that it contained this news? ‘

‘Well, after opening it the Commissioner sank in his chair and banged his
hat on table.’ Or that Mrs Barrie cried on hearing some news or Mrs Missie
put her head down on her knees.

When the prisoners brought such news or when they gave reasons for
believing in the rumours, they reminded me of the last days of Maratha
Peshwa, Bajirao II. He had his spies in the office of the Resident of the
(English) East India Company. The spy reported, ‘ the English are definitely
defeated by Yeshvantrao Holkar.’

‘But is the basis of this report?’

‘Well, as soon as the Resident read the contents of the sealed envelope he
banged his hat on table.’

Exactly the same reasoning is quoted for actions of the English officers
even after 150 years. We are committing the same folly. And yet the
English have kept their hat firmly on their head.

Indeed there has not been the slightest bit of change in the tenacity to rule
or in the courage of the English in the last 150 years. Nor has there been
any change in our simple mindedness. We still do not appreciate the
strengths of our enemies and be prepared for a fight. In the last 150 years
the English have not lost any of their strength nor have we become any
wiser.
After listening to the remarks by the prisoners that Commissioner banged
his hat on the table I had to say to them, “You fools, is the Commissioner an
Indian to bang his hat on the table after reading a message in an envelope ?
He is an Englishman. Hardly one in thousand of them is a coward. The rest
will fight to the last man. Look, just as only ten lions live and wander
fearlessly among a flock of sheep, these few English officers are living
among hundreds of us. You say that the ‘Sahib’ banged his hat - it could be
because it was too hot. Mrs Missie sank her head on her knee ? She may
have been tired after playing. What makes you think that she did so out of
fear of the German submarine?”
Know thy enemy well
“If we have to fight an enemy, we should know his failings as well as his
virtues. I say we need to pay more attention to his virtues than his failings.
Therefore before reaching Andaman I tried to emphasise to my friends that
they should be aware of the true strengths of the British. I did the same in
Andaman. It is absurd to demoralise our people by exaggerating the
strengths of the enemy. It is equally ludicrous and dangerous to demean the
strengths of the enemies and create false hopes for our victories. I was very
sad to note that large number of Indians were just as day-dreamers today as
they were a hundred years ago.”

{My Transportation for Life pp 359-361)

Savarkar says further,
• “We could clearly see the intentions of the Germans in sending their
submarine. I had explained their aim to other political prisoners and other
prisoners whom I could trust. Should the Germans succeed we had a
detailed plan to execute, which was explained to a selected few. We tried to
get many other prisoners

on our side. I told them not to be under any illusion that the British power
will be overthrown, but should the opportunity arise we could snatch power
from the English at least in Andaman, create a base and spread revolution to
nearby areas. There was a chance that we could achieve that much. I
reminded everyone of their duties in such an event.”

(My Transportation for Life p 362)

In the meanwhile there was a fourth strike in prison..Savarkar wrote:

• “By now the war picture was changing. Germany’s dash for victory had
been subdued. Naturally the prisoners, who were very excited at first and
had held high hopes, were getting disillusioned. Even among the political
prisoners who came to Andaman after me, there were some who dreamed
that in a few days time they would be free. When they were given sentences
of handcuffs for six months for taking part in the strike, they would say to
the Superintendent, ‘But, is your rule going to last that long?’ I earnestly
pleaded with them not to be so impatient.

I said ‘please do not hold such high hopes otherwise you will not be able to
stand disappointment. If God wills, we may be released. But let us assume
that we would certainly be kept here and be prepared to face the situation.”

(My Transportation for Life pp 412/3)

Savarkar describes the situation in prison towards the end of World War I
(i.e in 1918)
• “At heart, I was delighted that Turkey was defeated. But this did not
please the Muslim prisoners and indeed many political prisoners who had
not thought of the consequences were also angry, though they realised their
immaturity later. I explained in detail the significance of the defeat of
Germany. Most prisoners did not like to listen to such unfavourable news.
But they were always anxious to know what was happening. I said, ‘I will
not give you any news. I consider it derogatory to tell lies just to please
you.’ Then they would urge me to give them some news.”

“I explained the consequences of the defeats of Germany and

Turkey. And at the meeting I said,‘It is a fool who wants to listen to only
the favourable news. The brave and courageous men want to know the
adverse news first so that they could face the dangers. Napoleon Bonaparte
gave orders that he should be woken up whenever an unfavourable news
came. He would listen to the favourable news after he had his sleep.”

“Moreover, India had not yet made enough efforts and suffered tremendous
penances to justify hearing of any favourable news. We have to listen to
many more unfavourable items of news. Truth, however unpalatable, has to
be faced. Some kings used to present gold rings to those who brought news
of birth of their sons. But how would they know of their ensuing defeats?
They would only know the news of their enemy when they receive the
enemy entering the palace itself. Explaining this to the prisoners would
bring down their excitement. Then they would discuss the war calmly and
with equanimity. I explained the disastrous consequences India would have
faced if Turkey had been victorious. It would have inflated the monstrous
ambitions of Indian Musiims who wanted to estabiish an Isiamic rule in
India. With Turkey’s defeat, that danger has receded.” {My Transportation
for Life pp 415/6)

Once again Savarkar had been preaching that one must be prepared to hear
unfavourable news calmly and with courage.

No easy way to Indian Independence

Idian independence would have never been achieved at first attempt.
Several attempts were going to be required even though each resulted in
failure (and that indeed was the case). In 1930 there were celebrations for
SOCT' birth anniversary of Maratha King Shivaji. In an article, Shivaji of
Savarkar’s image says,

• The daring attempt by Vasudev Balwant Phadake to overthrow the British

Raj in 1879 failed. But if success is the only criterion for praising any one,
what of me? When I had to face Afzulkhan in 1658 it was a matter of luck
that I escaped. There was every risk that I would have been killed. And had
that happened, the

same people (who are now celebrating my birthday) would have denounced
me as a fool and said, ‘how stupid of him to go to the camp of Afzulkhanl’

And my attack on Shaisthakhan in 1660? If an insect had troubled the

Muslim cooks to make them awake, I might have been caught alive. And
my escape from Agra in 1666? If any Muslim officer had become even
slightly suspicious and looked at the box in which I hid, I would have been
caught red handed. It was all a matter of luck.

But if luck had not favoured me then, my today’s admirers would have
denounced me as a person who had no brain, irresponsible or even a fool. I
am therefore disgusted with these admirers. They do not appreciate bravery
and courage. They are just crazy after success. They do not appreciate
intentions, sacrifices and noble thoughts. Within their own generations they
have heroes who had shown more daring than even myself. And yet
because of their failures, these people have no respect for them. They
regard such heroes (like V B Phadake) as beneath others who became
successful lawyers or High Court Judges. They have no patience. As soon
as one soldier is shot, they expect the battle to be won. As soon as a seed is
planted they expect mangoes to grow. If not, the seed is considered useless;
they would think that the dead soldier died in vain.

(SSV4 pp 251/2)

Now that is realism. It is very difficult to accept as we always want quick

results without any efforts, but ultimately that proves beneficial.
On 1 May 1938 he said,' Shivaji became successful. So, we praise him.
Tatya Tope failed in the 1857 war against the East India Company. But we
should remember him also.’

Unarmed resistance in Bhagyanagar (Hyderabad)

• In July 1939 Savarkar suspended his agitation in the State of Bhagyanagar

(Hyderabad) for the legitimate rights of Hindus. On that occasion he said in
Mumbai

“If any one has really felt bad about the success of Hindu Maha Sabha, it
was the members of the Congress Party. After we made an agreement with
Nizam (ruler of the state) the Congress Party papers have started to
complain that when Hindus are 85% of population, they have only been
given 50% of jobs in the government service. This is totally inadequate.

I agree the reforms are not adequate, but whereas Hindus had hardly any
placements in government service before, now their percentage is 50%.
That is a great victory. We have humbled Nizam. He and his Chief Minister
Sir Akbar Haideri were not even prepared to meet us. Now they have made
concessions.” (HMS Era p241)

Savarkar was aware that the World War II was fast approaching and the
British were bound to side with Nizam on the outbreak of the war. Savarkar
therefore decided that it was wise to make a deal before the outbreak of war
by accepting at least half the onginal demands. One can always fight
another day. That is realism.
INDIA AND INTERNATIONAL
POLITICS
Until 10 May 1937 Savarkar was interned in Ratnagiri, a small town. As a
condition of his internment he could not take part in politics. But his
thoughts on various political issues afterwards became available. He said
bluntly,

There are only two principles of International Politics - protect the interests
of one’s own country and its people and the other is Might is right. ’ He
emphasised this truth all his life. Unfortunately the followers of Gandhi, the
Socialists and Communists and others in India were not prepared to walk on
earth as it were, as they lived in a cuckoo land. Let us see what Savarkar
said.
On 1 August 1937 he said In Pune •
Limits of Russia’s ideals
The Russian Soviet Union who had been advocating ‘all men

are equal’ has kept the ‘Soviet Union’ limited to Russia. So long as there is
France for the French, Germany for the Germans, England for the English
or Italy for Italians Russians had to maintain the ‘Soviet Union’ for Russia
only. They claim that it is their ideal to seek equal status for all human
beings; still they have made a treaty of friendship with England. Why? To
maintain their stability and protect their interests, what else?

Russian Communists announce ‘Workers of the world. Unite.’ Send a

thousand unemployed workers from Mumbai by ship and see if they will be
welcome in Moscow. As long as there is no liberalism but only narrow
mindedness in the world, we too have to look after interests of the majority
of our people and decide our national policy accordingly. That would be
wiser than getting carried away by emotions.

(SSV4 p366)

In his speech on 1 January 1938, he said

• ‘YJe need to have a powerful and effective foreign policy to deal with
international affairs. Let me outline some principles.

I say that if England is engaged in a World War, that will be our

opportunity. That does not mean that we will join forces with enemies of
England. Jawaharlal Nehru’s statements are going to create
misunderstanding. He believes in Justice and Morality. Think. Would any
other country accept our demand for complete independence? We are
behaving as if we are offering independence to all others. Nehru felt sorry
for the loss of independence of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and China. But what
about our own independence?
Today every one is concerned with the question ‘How will my nation
survive?’

A day may come when all the nations will come together and form a world
parliament. But at present every one is paying attention to their own
national interests.”

My nation for myself

Look at Russia. Their first aim was to unite all workers of the world. But
what is the situation in reality? How can Russia make a trade pact with
England who is exploiting India and still claim to be interested in the
welfare of workers of the world?

The nations who at first sympathised with Abyssinia are now accepting
Italy’s annexation of that country. Their principle is ‘My nation for me and I
for my nation.’ We too need to declare that our policy is the same. When I
was in jail on the Andaman Islands, the prisoners used to respect me as
some great person. They brought their complaints and grievances to me.
One of them was convicted of theft twelve times. He realised that his needle
had been stolen. He was furious with the suspect prisoner, pointed out to
him and said to me, ‘Look Sir, he is a thief. He stole my needle.’ His sense
of justice had been awakened by the theft, because he was affected. Current
international situation is somewhat similar.
Age of Nationalism
Some complain about Italy and Japan. But did not China invade and annexe
other states? The title ‘Emperor of Abyssinia’ itself suggests they too had
conquered other nations. Today China and Abyssinia are militarily weak
therefore we think that they are saintly nations. But which country is
following the path of righteousness? In the world there are only two classes
- the exploiter and the exploited. Today Japan is powerful and is exploiting
China. But tomorrow perhaps Russia and England may rule China.
Mussolini wants to revive the Second Roman Empire, and that ambition has
revived Italy. This is the age of nationalism. Declare that you only look
after India’s interests and take help from Italy and Germany if they would
offer. What right have we got to blame them for whatever they do?

Some politicians say, ‘No one would dare attack an unarmed nation with
arms.’ But truly is there a moral force in the world? Can France complain
against England in the League of Nations? Can Russia say to England,‘How
dare you exploit India?’ The principle is ‘you do not exploit me and I do not
exploit you but let

us exploit some one else.’

(S SV 4 pp 418-421)

Sixty years have passed since this speech. Has the world changed? Not one
little bit. In 1995, France carried out atom bomb tests in Murarao Ottal in
the Pacific Ocean. The nations affected by the tests protested. But Britain’s
Prime Minister John Major said, ‘The French are carrying out these tests in
their territory (i.e. the islands which they had occupied) so there is nothing
wrong in it’

How can the island thousands of miles away from France be a French
territory? But the British philosophy was that as long as Britain was not
affected, she need not object. Had she been affected however, those very
tests would have been an abominable offence.
On 11 October 1938 Savarkar spoke at Pune. The subject was ‘India and
Czechoslovakia’

• “In the present conflict between China and Japan, Indians blame Japan.
But just think for a while. Hundred years ago when China was powerful,
she expanded her empire. In 1856 she even conquered Nepal. It is true that
the Nepalese won their independence at a later date. Today Japan is
powerful and is expanding her territory. Under these circumstances we
should not discuss who was moral, China or Japan. We should only
consider which country of these two would help us gain our independence.
That should be the criterion. If in the present struggle Japan would become
enemy of England and help us, we should be friendly with Japan.”

“Today Germany has annexed Czechoslovakia and still England has kept
quiet (Munich agreement between Chamberlain and Hitler of 29 September
1938). Our enemy is England. Others are neither friends nor enemies. It is
not in our interest to be hostile to Germany on account of Czechoslovakia.
We should look at international affairs from the point of view of our
interests.” (HMS Era pp 146/7)

On 11 December 1938, Savarkar spoke at Nagpur on the subject of

International Politics
Japan and India
Observe foreign affairs from our perspective • “We should observe
international affairs from our perspective. Our aim is to seek our
independence. Japan has attacked China and annexed parts of it. China is
our neighbour. Therefore we need to keep close watch on recent events. We
want undivided and united India. But there is a danger that, like British
India, French India, there may now be a Japanese India.”

“The Japanese are not going to stop at defeating England. They have an eye
on India. In the west, Italy has blockaded the Mediterranean Sea and in the
east Japan has aggressive designs on India. The Central Government {The
Viceroy’s Council) must bear in mind this posftibility. In ancient times,
Rome ruled England for 500 years. But faced with attack by Germany, Italy
was in danger. England became free as the result. Today’s situation is
similar. Indians and Indian leaders must be aware of this.”

[How accurate was Savarkar’s thinking! Viceroy Lord Wavell has put
forward the same thoughts while discussing Indian politics with Emery, The
Secretary of State for India on 1 August 1943. Refer to Viceroy’s Journal,
1973, p 14\
Thugs and super-thugs
“For the last 10 to 15 years, there has been a widespread feeling in India
that there is such thing as morality in politics. Indians sincerely believe that
countries like England will never raise arms against unarmed people. But
which country in the world has such morality or would oppose such use of
force by others against unarmed people? It is therefore absurd and
daydreaming to believe that various nations of the world would support
India’s claim for independence. We should not waste time in such thoughts.
If you say that Italy, Germany and Japan are thugs then England, France
and America are super-thugs. In short, the countries that founded League of
Nations have no morality.”

Where was the morality in case of Abyssinia?

“The League of Nations encouraged Abyssinia (today’s Ethiopia) to fight

Italy. But what are these nations doing today? Has not Abyssinia been
enslaved by Italy? And when England was taking the side of Abyssinia, she
was suppressing at the same time, the Egyptian students’ movement.”

“Even in the dispute between China and Japan, we must examine whether
or not China is also at fault.150 years ago, countries like China and Japan
were internally disunited. But Japan woke up and became united, but China
remained wedded to its past and did not take notice of the changing world.
So what is the point of blaming Japan alone? There is no morality in
international politics as yet. Everyone is interested in preserving one’s own
interests. So, instead of wasting time in idle discussions we should see how
the current situation could be turned to our advantage (i.e how we can gain
our independence).”

“It is true that Japanese attack on China is deplorable. But hew could the
western nations blame Japan for that? They are all thieves. If Japan had not
attacked China, western European nations themselves would have
conquered parts of China. [ Britain condemned Germany for occupying
Norway, but she wanted to do exactly the same herself]. So, why should
India unnecessarily get involved in condemning Japan? That does not help
China, but we become enemies of Japan for nothing. Instead, we should
realise that after China, Japan would naturally want to invade India. We
should consider how we could take advantage of England’s difficulties and
of Japan’s designs and become independent. Would that not be a wiser
course to follow?” (SSV4 pp 422/4)

• In his public speech in Calcutta, Savarkar said on 20 February 1939 —

“Many people, especially Hindus think that our foreign policy should be
based on democracy. But, we must remember that there is no such thing as
international morality in the world. Relations between nations had never
been based on the morality

of relations between individuals. Nations have only one aim, the protection
and propagation of self-interest. The words like Truth and Non-violence
may sound nice to the ear, but they are utterly useless in deciding the
foreign policy of any nation. There is no example where they were useful to
any nation in deciding its foreign policy.”
Look at the basics
“Indians {mainly Congress party leaders) take side of China in the present
conflict and condemn Japan on moral grounds. They have also sent a team
of medical personnel to China. But what is the end result? We have made
ourselves enemies of Japan. China has long been an imperialist country.
Even after adopting democracy {in 1912) she did not abandon her
imperialist designs. Under the leadership of Chiang Kai Sheik, imperialist
China had attacked Mongolia and Tibet. Now she is defeated by Japan. But
if that had not been the case, England and Russia would have captured parts
of China and divided among them. I am not justifying what Japan did. I
simply want to show what lies behind current international affairs.”

‘Today, England is blaming Japan. English papers are describing the horrors
of Japanese rule. But is this because of the concern for democracy or the
fear that Japan is coming too close to India for comfort?”
Chamberlain and Gandhiji
“As I said earlier, India had unnecessarily created enmity with Germany
over Czechoslovakia, which was created by the treaty of Versailles with a
view to establish a buffer state between Germany and Austria. Germany
was disintegrated. Therefore Hitler is perfectly within his right to re-unite
Germany. England used strong language against Hitler. But when she saw
that Hitler would not budge, the British Prime Minister did something,
which no one did before. Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister dared to
go outside Britain and meet Hitler. Chamberlain completely forgot what
assurances he had given to Czechoslovakia just a

few days before and agreed to Hitler’s annexation of Czechoslovakia. We

must remember that Hitler is not a Gandhi who constantly pleads for
Hindu-Muslim unity. So, what lay behind British policy? Self-
preservation!!”
Why should we have a feud with
Germany, Japan and Italy?
“The same principle applied in the case of Abyssinia. Under the leadership
of Mussolini, Italy became strong and conquered Abyssinia. Indian
newspapers launched bitter attacks on Italy. Unfortunately, Mussolini does
not read Indian newspapers. England too condemned Italy’s action. But
when they saw its futility, they agreed to Italy’s rule over Abyssinia. Italy
wanted to expand her territories and she achieved her objective.”

“You may call it brutal, but self-preservation is the law of nature.

Morality is found only in textbooks. It does not exist in international

relations.”
Where is the moral force?
“Some Indians are under the illusion that if we appeal to the moral values of
other nations, they would put pressure on England and then England would
grant us our independence. The words like ‘Moral force,’ ‘moral
persuasion’ however pleasant to hear they may be, are utterly useless in
practice. And who is going to put moral pressure on England? Is it going to
be France? Italy? Germany? or America? But these nations themselves are
up to their neck in their evil deeds of theft, deception, and dacoitary.
Therefore nothing can be more foolish than believing that they would have
moral authority to bear upon the British to help achieve our Indian
independence. I say categorically that morality concerns relations between
people, but when it comes to relations between nations, morality has no
place. Each country looks through the binoculars of self-interest. We should
befriend any nation that would turn out to be beneficial to us. ‘Preserve
ourselves’ that must be our motto of international relations. Any country
that will help us gain our independence is our friend, be it a Nazi or Fascist
or Bolshevik state. On the other hand, any

country that stands in the way of gaining our independence is our enemy.”

(S S V 4 pp 426/8)

On 20 February 1939 Savarkar delivered a speech in Calcutta.

Become strong

• ‘Might is right’ that is still the law. We need to become strong not to
oppress others, but to ensure that others do not oppress us. In the present
conflict between Italy and Abyssinia or Japan and China, what caused the
defeats of Abyssinia and China? Abyssinians were braver than Italians, and
were favoured by their country. Besides, their population was more than
that of Italy. Also, morally and religiously Abyssinians were superior to
Italians. But the rifles and machineguns of Italians proved far more
powerful and therefore within a short time Italy won the war!
What did China lack?
What China lacked compared to Japan? They had huge population and
territory. Both Chinese and Japanese are Buddhists, non-violent people.
China is far more deeply religious and more conservative than Japan. But in
the armed conflict Chinese faith, traditions, and beliefs were no match for
the military might of the Japanese. To speak of justice or injustice, China
had made no aggressive designs on Japan, and yet they lost the battle in no
time.
Sword Is more important than
poetry.
Tiny state of Italy is determined to re-establish Roman Empire and
Germany is sending shivers down spines all over the world, on what basis?
They are fervent nationalists and had taken to arms. Even a five-year-old
Italian boy does his drill with a toy gun. We must remember that in the
world today, the sword commands more respect than poetry. And as long as
this situation exists, we must be able to use the sword. Otherwise there
would be no end in sight to our plight. Why did the English win over us?
Was it because we had no libraries? Or we had no poets or writers? NO.
Because the Maratha Peshwas had no guns to

match the English ones. And how are they ruling over us? It is clear that it
is because of their military superiority. If we lack in anything when
compared to the English, it is in craftiness nothing else. Once our rifle
matches the English rifle and we learn to become as crafty as them, they
will have to no alternative but leave India. There is no doubt about it.
Tiger and the cow
As long as the tiger has powerful toenails, a cow must die. She can be very
brave or perform a Satyagraha and say, ‘It is not in my blood to fight. That
is violence!’ But a cow has to succumb to a tiger. That is the law of God. I
say it again, might is right.
First, Rifie clubs
It is pointless cursing that the Muslims are naturally hawkish and the
English are crafty. We have got to overcome those deficiencies in ourselves.
At times we have to surpass our enemies in these areas. To a brute we have
to be super-brute, to a cheat we have to be super-cheat. Only then will we
be able to survive. And it is for this reason that I have been emphasising the
importance of military training to the youth. That is crucial for our survival.
It would not matter if we were unable to produce any writers or poets. It
would matter very little if there are fewer lectures on literature or ideals, but
our martial spirit must be awakened once more. Today, there is not so much
need of cinemas or theatres, as for rifle clubs everywhere. I am not saying
that we do not need arts and dramas, but military training must come first,
arts and drama later.

(SSV4 pp 429/431)

On 1 August 1939 Savarkar explained current events in China. • “Japan

became uneasy at the three nations who conquered parts of China. She
thought that further conquests by them would harm her interests and
therefore captured Korea, Mongolia and Manchuria (part of China). She is
expanding her territories in China. Now India also faces danger from Japan.
The Japanese have made plans for next 200 years. They do want to expand

towards India, and have therefore started an Asiatic Brotherhood Society.

They have requested me to become its rnember. I do

understand that their slogan ‘Asia for the Asians’ means Asia for Japan.”

“So, we need to study what we must do under the present circumstances. As

I said earlier, God answers readily to guns more than to merely mouthing of
prayers. If India has the power to defend herself God will definitely accede
to our demands.”

(H MS Era p255)
WORLD WAR li AND INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

There are no permanent friends or foes in International Politics

On 2 August 1940 Savarkar said in Pune

• We are concerned with World War II only so far as it affects the defence of
India, and for that purpose we can make a treaty with Britain. One cannot
solve practical problems by reading textbooks. If some one was our enemy
yesterday that does not mean he will remain an enemy today, or that
yesterday’s friend will remain a friend today. As long as we are careful,
cautious and vigilant, there is no objection to making friends with any one
Italy was an ally of France in previous world war, but today they are
enemies, are they not? In 1935, Hitler regarded Russia as a rogue state, but
today, on the question of Poland, did he not become a friend of Russia
overnight on 23 August 1939?

Hindu Maha Sabha has demanded that we must be granted Dominion Status
immediately after the war. Some may say that ‘is it not disgraceful for you
who had been clamouring for complete independence?’ I say that that there
is a difference between ideal and reality. And if our demand is disgraceful,
it is far less dishonourable than taking oath of allegiance to the British
Crown and accepting their ministerships.

(SSV4 p 492)

• In December 1940, Hindu Maha Sabha held its annual session in Madura.
In his presidential speech Savarkar said.Congress leaders and the British
and American leaders have been saying that, in this war, India should
morally support England. I say to you that we need not support any other
nation, be it England, Russia, China or Japan. Hindu Maha Sabha has made
her stand quite clear.”

Persons like Pandit Nehru have been demandin*g that Britain should
declare its war aims. I see no point in it as long as Britain has no intention
of implementing those aims and honouring their pledges. The war aims of
the two parties are crystal clear. Hitler and Mussolini want to create new
empires, whereas Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt want to keep their
empires. You can call the empires by any other names — Commonwealth of
Nations or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or Spheres of influence.
France is a democratic country. Is she not? But after the British Empire, the
second large empire is French. France also continues to occupy Pondicheri
and Chandranagar, which are parts of India and Russia is a Communist
country, but has not she too, annexed Poland and other countries?”

“It is therefore pointless to take sides because one country has a democratic
set up and the other has a dictatorial government. Russia and Germany are
politically diagrammatically opposite of each other. But, overnight they
joined forces to conquer Poland in their self-interest. When Bismarck
attacked France, England did not support France, as they were enemies of
each other. When Americans threw out the yoke of British rule did not
Britain condemn the Americans as traitors? But today they are seeking
American help. Not only that, England who cursed Communist Russia ever
since 1917 is now considering Russia as her great allyl!”

[During World War II, Churchill called Joseph Stalin as ‘Unde Jo’ but as
soon as the war was over, he became ‘Satan Jo. ’ During the war, France
was helpless. So, when De Gaulle went to America to plead for their help,
he spoke in fluent English

while addressing both houses of the U S Congress. Once war was over and
the European Common Market took shape, De Gaulle again went to
America. This time he did not utter a word of English. That is the way the
world is. It is we, the Indians, who should open eyes to the reality.]

In uncertain times Hindus will triumph

Savarkar went on, “England is warning that Germany will conquer India,
{hence the need for Indians to support Britain) But this threat is empty. It is
impossible to envisage that England would be so badly defeated. When
Columbus reached America, the native Indians opposed his landing. He
said to them, ‘if you resist I will shut out the Sun’, because he already knew
that a solar eclipse was due shortly. And when the eclipse occurred,
American Indians were terrified. They welcomed Columbus. English threat
is similar. On one hand they say that they will completely destroy Hitler. On
the other they say that if you do not support us Germany will conquer you.”
“Moreover, if England is defeated, it would not be true to say that Germans
would establish their rule over us. In such a transition, many nations had in
the past become independent. Similarly India too will become independent.
Some say that if the British had to depart in hurry there would be civil war
and Muslims would become the rulers. That is also not true. In a civil war
Hindus would definitely win.”

“It is therefore not necessary to help Britain without conditions. On the

contrary we should think how we could exploit the current situation to the
maximum for our benefit and for our defence.”

“We should not worry too much about our weakness, nor should we boast
of our strength. We should be realist, study the situation and see what we
can achieve.”

“I say quite bluntly, Britain is allowing the growth of industries and

imparting military training to our youth in their interest. We {Savarkar and
his followers) are doing the same to protect our

interests. I have to say this explicitly because there are many

misconceptions about co-operating with the British. Some say that there can
be no common interest between Britain and India. And it is the Congress
leaders, who took the oath of allegiance to the British Crown not long ago,
that are now opposing us (Hindu Maha Sabha) in co-operating with the
British because it allows us the militarisation of our youth. But we should
not deflect from our path. Russia and Germany are both powerful nations.
And yet they decided to co-operate for their mutual interest. Why can’t we
do the same? Any one who always fears that others might deceive him is
indeed worth being deceived. Have confidence that we will match the
British in diplomacy too and co-operate with them where essential and
inevitable, but for our self-interest.”

(HMS Era pp 398/402)

You cannot foretell who would be
your enemy In a speech of 1940,
Savarkar said,
• ‘... Once we achieve independence and as we do not hate anyone, where
would be the question of violence and killing?’ That is the question raised
by some simple-minded persons, which is mere cowardice. What makes
them think that if we do not hate others, they too will not hate us? It is
absurd to say that hatred is created by hatred alone...’

(SSV4 p504)

That is the reality. Iraq and Kuwait are neighbours. During the Iran-lraq war
of 1982 to 1989 Kuwait offered substantial monetary help to Iraq. There is
no historical reason for any animosity between the two. And yet, did not
Iraq invade Kuwait in 1990? One can understand their greed but why did
they commit barbaric atrocities on Kuwaiti civilians Jncluding women?
• Effects of some events are evident
only after a century
On 29 May 1940, Savarkar delivered a lecture during the famous Vasant
Vyakhyanmala (series of lectures in spring). His subject was ‘Why did the
great Maratha King Shivaji go to Agra in 1666?’

He explained that Shivaji's real intention was to kill Aurangzeb in a coup

d’etat. He said afterwards.

“Some activities bear fruits only after a few generations. Do not despair by
today’s circumstances. It may look dark everywhere, but who knows what
the future holds? Just think what happened 100 years after Shivaji.
Marathas rose to power and smashed the mighty Mughal Empire. Today we
are in the year 1940, our movements of today will show fruits in 2040.

(H MS Era pp 339/340)

Open up your eyes to Russian attitude.

On 30 July 1941, Savarkar delivered a lecture at Mira}.

• ‘In practice, Russia too could not abandon nationalism. She made a trade
agreement with England, which exploits Indian workers. How could they
do this? The answer is simple. Russia for Russians - that is their motto.
Hitler and Stalin are bitter enemies of each other and yet who came together
to divide Poland between them. When Germany attacked Russia, Stalin
asked Russians to defend their Fatherland.’

(S UI Era p 140)

This is indeed tnie. There are many documentaries on the wars between
Russia and Germany that took place during 1941-1945. After Germany’s
attack Stalin in his speeches did refer to his country as Russia (Russia) and
NOT the Soviet Russia!! He open!y took btessings from Christian Bishops
Sereji and Susiav, in November 1942.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941. As a precaution, British

administrators ordered a blackout in Assam. In his statement at that time
Savarkar said —

• ‘We need not change our policy by this action of the Japanese. Everyone,
whether Britain, Germany, Italy, America or Russia, is fighting for its own
national interests. Japan has started doing the same. We too need to take
part in this war for our self interest.’ fS UlEra p 166)

• Might is Right

Savarkar emphasised this principle all his life. On 5 October 1941, he said
at Mumbai,

• “Oh Hindus, if you appreciate and follow the policy of Hindu Maha Sabha
you will soon find out that not just Jinnah but even the Viceroy will knock
on our doors. Gandhi offered blank cheques to Jinnah and therefore he was
refused entry by Jinnah’s butler, whereas both Jinnah and Sir Sikandar
Hiyat Khan were fighting each other to see me. Be strong and powerful and
the world will be at your feet.”

(S UI Era pp 150/151)

• On 28 May 1943, Savarkar was felicitated on his 61^ birthday. He said

“Russia has disbanded The Third International’. Communists of other

countries should look after their own affairs. We have nothing to do with
them.” That is their message. They have now embraced nationalism.

‘Workers of the world unite’ that is a wishful thinking. We Hindus go even

further and our sages say that ALL mankind should come together and form
one nation. But we have got to be practicable. German worker is behind
Hitler, Japanese worker is behind Tojo. When Russia attacked Germany, she
attacked ALL Germans and not German capitalists alone. That is the reality
of life today, which we must appreciate. We cannot say what may happen in
future, but nationalism is going to stay for five hundred years.’

[Note - Third International was the name given to the annual gathering of
Communists all over the world.]

(S UlEra p 201)

• Only a few are honoured.

In a statement put out on 28 June 1943 Savarkar said,

“No one should join in the freedom struggle hoping that the path is paved
with gold and laid with flowers. Hardly one in hundred thousand might
receive public acclamation. That may be an exception to the rule. One must
be prepared for suffering the

hardship without public recognition and to die namelessly.”

(S UI Era p 214)
• Partition of india
In 1945/46 the Congress Party won the elections in India by faisely assuring
that they would never accept partition of India. They did not hesitate to use
the foulest means to get elected. Savarkar’s Hindu Maha Sabha lost heavily.
And yet the same Congress leaders (Patel and Nehru) shamelessly accepted
the partition publicly on 3 June 1947. Savarkar had suspected that this
would happen. He put out a statement on 29 May 1947.

“In the elections, Hindus have voted for Congress because their leaders had
given categorical assurance that they will not consent to partition of India.
Therefore, the members of Provincial or Central Legislative Councils have
no moral right even to consider partition.”

“If the Viceroy was to ask the Constitution Assembly to consider the
formation of an independent Muslim state, the members,of the assembly
should state that it is beyond their remit. They should either do that or
resign and go back to the voters and seek a mandate from them."

This logical demand was not going to be acceptable to Congress who

wanted power no matter what price Hindus had to pay as a result. Savarkar
said further,

“No one should misunderstand my demand. I am under no illusion that if

the members of various legislative assemblies were to resign and go back to
the voters and seek a mandate for partition, they will not get it. I am aware
more than anyone else that the Hindu voters would vote for the very leaders
who had refused to protect and fight for the Hindu rights. Those who had
fought all their lives for the protection of Hindu rights have lost elections. I
am acutely aware of this reality. But it is my duty to make efforts to avoid
disaster for Hindus. That is all.”

(S UI Era p 388)

That is the realism! That is a sense of duty!!

In 1946 Muslims committed monstrous atrocities on Hindus of Noakhali
and Chittagong (now in Bangladesh) in Bengal. More than 150,000 Hindu
men, women and children were massacred by Muslims. Congress leaders
kept quiet. One Mr Vishnupant Karkare, a Hindu Maha Sabha worker of
Nagar, Maharashtra went to the riot affected area to help the victims.
Thousands of Hindus had fled to Calcutta. Dr Shyamaprasad Mukharjee
said to Karkare,

‘These Hindu refugees are expecting Hindu Maha Sabha to help them. They
are very well aware that not a single Congress leader has protested against
Muslim barbarity or raised his voice, no Congress worker has come here to
help the riot affected Hindus. But, if elections were to be held tomorrow,
these very refugee Hindus would vote for the Congress Party, again. ’

(Screams from Noakhali by Mr V Karkare, 1946)

Savarkar was thus fully aware of this suicidal tendency of Hindus.

• Politics and Administration

Independence does not guarantee welfare the next day

India won independence in 1947 but was partitioned. Savarkar therefore

wanted to disband his revolutionary organisation The Abhinav Bharat as
soon as possible. He did so in 1952 when the circumstances made this
feasibb. At the ceremony in Pune he said

“We must understand that independence does not bring about a welfare
state the next day. Jhe foreign rule has encouraged in us a slavish mentality.
There is wide spread poverty, hunger ail over the country. That however
remains so, the next day.”

“Whichever party comes to power does not have a magic wand to transform
the condition of the people overnight. Therefore, it is our duty to bear the
hardships meanwhile, and offer our new

administration every possible help in establishing a new system of

government. It is possible that the new rulers will make mistakes, they may
bear grudge against certain individuals, and occasionally some individuals
may face persecution but we must not allow these to result in public
outbursts and create disorder.” (The End of an Era, pp 125/6)

That is a tremendous sense of understanding! That is the reaiismi!

Savarkar was indeed persecuted by the Congress Party even after

independence.

* Savarkar spoke for the last time in public in January 1961. Once again he
said, “If you elect me as President I will make this country stronger and
more powerful than Russia of Nikita Khrushchev. Remember how he
banged his boot on the table while negotiating with America. My friends,
such a bold approach is what is respected in the world. Might is Right. That
is the law of nature. Even a democracy must be backed by military might,
without that it is useless. The country, which has no military strength, has
no existence.

(End of an Era p 233)

• We never expected to see India become independent

In the speech of January 1961, mentioned earlier, Savarkar declared,

“I live in contentment today. When we swore to fight for freedom we knew

that we would not be alive to see India become independent. We knew that
our generation was meant to suffer and die. We regarded our work to be like
that of Sappers and Miners in the army. It is this unit that makes the roads
safe for the soldiers to march on and win the battle. True, we would not
have seen India become independent, but that did not matter. I was going to
do my job and pass away. Yet another generation would have completed the
task of gaining our independence.”

Lord Krishna said in Geeta, “You just do your duty without expecting any
reward or result.” That rule applies in all the fields of our activities. We
plant mango trees, not to benefit ourselves by it. We know that our
grandchildren would enjoy the mangoes.
SOCIAL REFORMS

In the field of Social Reforms too, Savarkar was a realist. As he and his
fellow reformers faced social boycott he wrote an article in 1936 ‘the wave
of social boycott and its remedy.’

• On the face of it, it sounds so simple, almost laughable. Today, self-

sacrifice means just to eat nice meals and sweets during our programmes of
‘dining together’ of ALL castes. That’s all. That is national service. That is
patriotism. Really, patriotism has never been so easy.

But, the duty that looks so easy and laughable is so hard to put into practice.
When we proposed ‘dining together’ of people of ALL castes, it created
turmoil in the society. There were threats of social boycotts (and in the days
of 1930s these threats were very serious indeed especially in villages),
relations were broken, even the well known persons lost their courage.
When the names of people who dared to take part in such dinners were
published there were many penances ordered for such men by the
conservatives. Considerable difficulties were created during the thread
ceremonies of boys, marriages, and death anniversaries and days of
remembrances of forefathers.

Everyone from the seat of Shankaracharya (like a Hindu Pope) to hut of

village security guards (who happened to be Mahars, one of the
untouchable castes) was disturbed. It is widely known that not even 10
people out of 1,000 had the courage to take part in such ceremonies, be they
Brahmins or Mahars. Social work is not for the feeble or the faint hearted. It
is very frustrating and involves hard work.
A word of warning
I have been emphasising all along that as soon as the barrier to inter-caste
dining is broken, the excesses of the caste division too will break. But I
must give a word of warning. In the epics we learn of stories of demons.
Even when they lose their heads their rest of the body still fights for some
time. Similarly, even though the caste system will remain for names sake
that too can cause trouble.

If a fire is not fed with new fuei, it still continues to bum and yet if we step
on it, the foot would get burnt. Similarly, the caste division, which had been
part and parcel of our life for centuries, is not going to vanish overnight and
be forgotten after washing hands at the end of ‘dining together’ ceremonies
of Hindus of ALL castes. Nothing can be more misleading, [during fire
safety training the supervisors show how a fire can be put out by putting a
cover of wet towei or fire blanket over a container. But if the cover is
removed prematurely, the fire ignites again.]

Moreover, just as we are trying to remove inequality, social and religious

barriers to make our society more homogenous, our political enemies are
trying to encourage the very divisions. They are offering special
protections, special representations, special privileges, and government
employment based on caste. What is all this? This is adding fuel to the fire.
We must therefore be more vigilant and continue our efforts to destroy the
divisions on caste basis.
We should not be impatient to
expect instant results but must
strive to make a success of this
social reform.
We should never forget that our enemies are injecting the poison of special
political privileges for various sections of the Hindu community so that the
division, hatred and inequality between castes remain. Of course their
efforts will succeed as long as we have social inequality. That makes it easy
for our enemies to implant such ideas. Is this not the proof that social
revolution

is an integral part of politics? We must therefore remove social inequality

for the uplift, benefit and progress of the Hindu nation.

Once we destroy the tree trunk of social inequality, the artificial implants of
special privileges will also vanish. Sometimes a poison itself proves to be a
boon. Let us resolve that we turn wheel and counter the designs of our
enemies by using the poison of special privileges to destroy caste division.

(SSV3 pp 639/641)
Would embracing other religions
benefit the untouchables?
On 13 October 1935, Dr Ambedkar, a leader of untouchables declared that
he would not die a Hindu. The possibility of untouchables embracing Islam
or Christianity was discussed in public. Ambedkar belonged to the Mahar
caste. Savarkar wrote three articles on the subject in December 1935 in the
weekly Nirbheed.

‘Open discussion with our Mahar brothers on the question of conversion to

other reiigions’

Article No.1

Judging from the remarks made by some leaders, it is quite clear that they
want to change their religion for specific tangible benefits. They want
instant liberation from untouchability. They are not concerned with
philosophy, life after death, should one worship idols or not, is God human
in form or without form? should one eat meat or be a vegetarian? All such
questions are irrelevant to them. They want to become a part of a strong
society where they would shed untouchability. These are their aims. We
wish to prove that both these aims can be achieved by remaining in the
Hindu fold while they would be far worse off by embracing other religions.

If untouchability of the whole caste of Mahars was to go that is a different

matter, it is no good if a few men and women escape the curse of
untouchability. Individually, by embracing other

religions a handful may get a better job. But in reality that never suffices
because they become no better that a cook, while losing all contacts with
their kith and kin. They are not easily accepted in the other religious
societies. When Shuddhi was not an option, many such persons felt helpless
in not being able to come back to the fold and led very miserable lives.
Now that Shuddhi is available, many Mahars who formerly had embraced
non-Hindu religions are coming back to the Hindu fold so that they can be
united with people of their caste. As we progress in our outlook, more and
more persons will become acceptable to Hindu fold after their re-
conversion to Hindu Dharma.

So, it is clear that embracing alien religions by a select few does not solve
the problem of untouchability. That does not help their caste at all. Had any
one before not tried this path, some may have been tempted to try at least
out of curiosity and see what happens. But there are a number of people
who had tried this path. In some cases small groups have embraced alien
religions. But their situation has not improved. On the contrary, this has
created new divisions and they have become more isolated even within their
own small castes. For example it creates ‘Mahar Christians’ with whom
Mahar Hindus would not inter-dine or intermarry. The same applies to
Mang Christians. I therefore say once again that it is of no use if fifty or
sixty followers of Ambedkar were to embrace another religion, or even if
they number a thousand or two. If the whole of Mahar community or at
least 90% of them were to embrace another religion, that would be a
different matter.

Article No. 2

We can say with certainty that not more than 10 % of Mahars would be
willing to embrace another religion and there are those who wish, but would
not dare. There are some reasons behind this reality.

Mahars are staunch followers of their traditions. They are extremely proud
of their caste. Their religious feelings are deep rooted. I have experienced
this at first hand while travelling

throughout villages in Ratnagiri district. I had been to Dapoli, Gimvane,

Chiplun, Khed, Sangameshwar, Devarukh, Ratnagiri, Rajapur, Kharepatan,
Devagad, Kankavali, Malvan, Vengurla. Every place has its Mahar locality
called Maharwada. Missionaries have been trying to convert them for the
last hundred years. They offer all kinds of inducements like free medicine,
sweets, pencils and slates. At times they even succeed promoting a
Christian convert to the post of a peon in a Government office and make a
propaganda out of it. And yet despite such temptations, and discriminations
and persecutions practised by other Hindus, not many Mahars have
embraced Christianity.
They do not want to abandon their
traditions
They follow their religious traditions, worship their gods and they regard
that as their own religion, which has not been imposed on them by any
body. Therefore, their men and women, young and old make annual
pilgrimages to Pandharpur (220 miles from Mumbai) with all the sincerity
and devotion and sing the chorus of ‘Gyanba Tukaram’ like any
Maharashtrians of whatever caste. They are fiercely proud of their way of
life, their caste, and their traditions.

And the same applies to all the other castes that are treated as untouchables.
Therefore, it is clear that very large percentage of them do not wish to
embrace other religions. And even if they did wish, they would be reluctant
to do so. There is a very good reason for that. Mahars are not concentrated
in any area. They are scattered all over Maharashtra. They have at most 10
or 20 houses in any village. They are living in minority. Their life is rooted
in the villages. We should not forget that they have been granted certain
privileges by the traditions for centuries.

We are not concerned with what is right and what is wrong. We need to
look at the reality of life. If the few who think they would benefit by
embracing other religions, do so, what would be their position? What would
the majority of the villagers do? They would be furious and try to make life
miserable for the few

who abandoned Hindu Dharma. They would lose their traditional

privileges, the landlords would ask them to leave, the moneylenders would
deny them credit, and merchants would refuse to serve. What could the law
do, when the whole village would feel insulted and want to seek revenge by
making these people outcasts? They could also lose ties with their own kith

and kin forever.

It would make no difference whether they embrace Christianity or Islam.
Just look at the pitiable condition of those who had embraced these
religions in the past. Let us suppose Mahars embrace Islam. We have
already stated how this will make their situation pitiable. What help would
they get from other Muslirns?

In villages there are usually twenty to thirty Muslim households. To this,

conversion could add another twenty Mahar households. What good would
that do? In our society the status of Muslims is already very low. They
somehow survive. How could they support financially the new converts?

How many jobs will Muslims provide? How many Muslim girls will marry
the new converts? Nay, even among Muslims they will have to live as
inferior (Kamina) Muslims, just like the Sarej (untouchable) Muslims in
Punjab.

Article No. 3

I have discussed the case of Mahars in detail because some of them have
been considering embracing other religions. (Dr Ambedkar was a Mahar).
On the contrary, leaders like Mr Rajbhoj, Mr Balu, Dr Salunki and Mr
Sakat who belong to other untouchable castes such as Chamar, Dhor or
Mang have denounced the move to embrace other religions as disgraceful.

We say once again that Mahars could progress by remaining as Hindu

Mahars. Our.experience of last ten years has proved this point. Dr
Ambedkar is not the first man to flirt with the idea to embrace other
religions. That experiment had already taken place. Those Mahars who had
embraced other religions are regarded as ‘spoiled’ by Mahars who remained
Hindus and who

would not even take water from the converted Mahars, not to talk of eating
with them.

One must not forget that majority of the Mahars are strongly proud of
belonging to the Somavamsha (name of the origin for their ancestry). They
staunchly preserve their traditions, customs, ways of worship, just as
Brahmins preserve theirs. This is a matter of fact. I have drawn this
conclusion by visiting their localities in the district of Ratnagiri.
Look at the historical example of
brave King Khushuru
For the last thousand years, various Muslim rulers have humiliated,
harassed, tortured, killed many Brahmins and Kshatriyas. They did the
same to the untouchables. And yet the untouchables steadfastly remained
Hindus.

The example of King Khushru is incredible. This untouchable was forcibly

converted to Islam. By his bravery, he became King and sat on the throne of
Delhi in 1319. He married a woman Devaldevi from Yadav clan who too
was forcibly converted to Islam. On succession to the throne, they both
renounced Islam and declared themselves as Hindus. They re-converted
thousands of Muslims back to Hindu Dharma. Khurushj-u died on the
battlefield as a HINDU. That is the inheritance of our untouchables.

Marathas smashed the Mughal Empire and destroyed the designs of Muslim
rulers to convert Hindus to Islam. But then came the British and their
missionaries who tried their best for nearly a century to convert
untouchables by offering them money, jobs, medicine, education. They
failed miserably.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument that Mahars embrace Islam on a
large scale. How are Maulana Shaukat AN (one of Gandhi’s lieutenants) or
Mr Gauba {who had been propagating that everyone in Islam is equal. So,
untouchables should embrace Islam) going to send money to them all?
When the Muslim rulers of Delhi failed, how are these Muslim leaders
going to succeed

in supporting new converts financially?

So, what is the alternative?

Hindus are awakening to the injustices done to the untouchables. There is a
large movement to abolish untouchability. We therefore appeal to
untouchables to co-operate and help root out the untouchability within the
next ten years. Let us resolve to make the Hindu society strong. That would
benefit ALL.

(SSV3 pp 580/592)

Due to Herculean efforts of Savarkar, Hindus of Ratnagiri abandoned the

practice of untouchability and an effigy of untouchability was burned there
in 1933. Unfortunately due to inducement from Dr Ambedkar, some
untouchables started to say, We will renounce Hindu Dharma.’ On 13
October 1935 Dr Ambedkar declared, '/ could not help being born a Hindu,
but I will not die a Hindu.’ In an article written at that time, Savarkar said,

“Even if two thousand or two hundred thousand Mahars embrace other

religions, I am sure that, like the ‘prodigal sons’ in the bible, they would
come back to their ancestral faith. The sons of today’s converts will ask to
be taken back in ‘Hindu fold.’

(REra p 343)
If you feel you would benefit by
embracing other religions, do so.
* On 4 July 1937, Savarkar was honoured in Pune by the untouchables. Mr
Shivaram Janba gave a public reception to Savarkar and said, “Hindus are
suffering from the leprosy of caste hierarchy. That will never be eradicated.
Therefore we have no alternative but to embrace other religions.”

In his reply Savarkar said, “Please do not think that you are doing a favour
by remaining in the Hindu fold. If you feel that it is in your interest to
convert to other religions, by all means do so. But it is my sincere
conviction that it is in your interest to stay in the Hindu fold.”

(H MS Era pp 31/32)
What a tremendous self-
confidence! What a realism I!
In May 1952, Savarkar visited his birthplace, Bhagur. He had some
discussions with Mahars and Chamars. He told them:- “I say to you that if
any of you feel that they would benefit by converting to other religions, by
all means do so. I do not wish to come in your way of bettering yourselves.
We Hindus are not feeble that we wish to live on your mercy. Once again,
as it happens in many cases, having lived outside your father’s house, if you
feel that you want to come back, the door is always open. Shuddhi is always
available to you.”

(End of an Era p 149)

Thus, even after the passage of time of 27years, Savarkar was firm in his
convictions.
Embracing Buddhism will make
your life miserable
* In 1956, Dr Ambedkar started to promote an idea that if the untouchables
were to convert to Buddhism, that would benefit them. Once again,
Savarkar, in his article published in October 1956 in the magazine Hindu
warned of the consequences ‘You will make your life more miserable.’

For a long time Dr Ambedkar had been propagating the view that all
Hindus believe in untouchability and the hierarchy of caste system, and
therefore, the untouchability will never go unless they convert themselves
to other religions. That is false and mischievous. And therefore Dr
Ambedkar has got no support from other (untouchable) castes such as
Chamar, Mang and Dhor. Even his support among Mahars would diminish
when they knew the truth. Our Mahar brothers should be assured that there
is every hope for their redemption from untouchability if they remained
Hindus. They are part and parcel of the Hindu nation, the stronger the
whole is, the stronger the parts too become.

If the Mahars succumb to Ambedkar’s propaganda and convert to

Buddhism, what would happen? At the most, 100,000 Mahars would
secede. But that would further reduce their numerical strength as even these
100,000 will be scattered over hundreds

of villages. A centipede may lose some of its legs, but it survives. What
happens to the legs it loses? They die.

I ask our Mahar brothers not to be carried away by emotions but think
carefully. It is true that in some villages untouchability has not been
eradicated. Suppose, some Maharc in those villages convert to Buddhism
and proudly declare that they are no longer Hindus, will the villagers allow
their children to mix with Mahar (Buddhist) children? If the new converts
say,
‘See, now we are Buddhist, we do not believe in God’, will the villagers
allow them to draw water from common well? No way. What happened to
those Mahars, who in the past became Christians or Muslims? They were
rejected even by Mahars who remained Hindus.

We sincerely appeal to our Mahar brothers not to be carried away by Dr

Ambedkar and embrace other religions. Please do not lose your heritage of
several generations. Those who embrace Buddhism will soon realise that
once the pompous ceremonies are over nothing would change when they
return to their villages. Their half a loaf will not become full bread.
Buddhism has nothing more to offer in terms of philosophy than the
teachings of Maratha saints. They would not become touchables’ by just
embracing Buddhism.

Hindus are changing their attitude. With various movements (including my

own) they are realising that the untouchables need to be treated at least a bit
better than Muslims and Christians. They do appreciate that not only
untouchability but caste division too must go. Let us all be united under the
umbrella of Hindu nation.

(SSV3 pp 682/3/4)

* Shortly afterwards, Dr ArDbedkarpublicly embraced Buddhism. On that

occasion, on 30 October 1956 Savarkar wrote an article in the paper Kesari.

‘Ambedkar crossed the boundary, but stayed within the boundary of Hindu
Dharma.’ Savarkar reiterated his thoughts expressed a few weeks earlier.

Today, untouchability is declared illegal by our constitution. In many towns

and cities, the excesses of caste system are getting reduced. There is the
reduction of observance of Untouchability too. We are aware that in remote
and isolated villages, untouchability does exist. We believe that in course of
time that too will be abandoned. But it beggars belief that those who
embraced Buddhism in Nagpur will find a dramatic change in their
treatment by the Hindu society.

Until now, the Mahars were regarded as untouchables, but there was some
soft corner, some affinity for them among high caste Hindus because the
Mahars were still Hindus. And because of this, there were many who took
the side of Mahars. But by declaring that they are not Hindus having
embraced Buddhism they have unnecessarily created animosity. Financially
too, becoming Buddhist has not made the slightest bit of difference to them.

(SSV3 p 809)

• On 8 March 1938, Savarkar put out a statement congratulating Maharaja

of Indore for abolishing the untouchablity in his state. He also requested
that Maharaja should pay attention to whether or not the law is abided.

(H M S Era p 86)

Once again that is realism. At times; it is easy to make laws. Then the rulers
forget to implement them and the laws simply remain on the statute books.

Just as Savarkar was a realist in the fields of politics and social reforms, he
was a realist in other fields also. Let us take some examples.
MISCELLANEOUS
• A Hindu temple in London
In October 1940, one Mr Agarwal was planning to build a Hindu temple in
London. Savarkar was asked for his opinion on the type of temple that
should be built. He remarked, “It is very good that you are planning to build
a temple. But would it not be better to build a Vishnu temple instead of a
Shiva temple? In a Shiva temple we place Shivalinga to represent Lord
Shiva. Unfortunately Europeans misread it as phallus. Instead of wasting
time and energy in explaining the difference between the two to stupid
people it would be better to erect a small statue of Lord Vishnu. Our temple
should not become a laughing stock with British people.”

(H MS Era p371)
• Importance of the English
language
Savarkar was determined to seek independence from the English, but knew
the importance of the English language very well. As the President of the
Maharashtra Literary Conference in 1938 he said

Translate our literary works into English

There are many wonderful works in Marathi. But even in India they are not
known outside Maharashtra. The fault lies not just with this conference, but
with all Marathas. There are also wonderful works in other languages, but
look what happened as soon as they were translated into English. They got
world wide publicity and recognition {Classic example was Geetanjali by
Bengali poet Ravindranath Tagore. As soon as it was translated into
English, Tagore won Nobel prize for literature in 1913). Even freedom
struggles of tiny nations like the Netherlands are studied all over the world
because the historians such as Motles wrote them in English. On the other
hand, people hardly know the formidable struggle the Marathas put up for
establishing a Hindu nation in India. Why? Because no one wrote the
history of that struggle in English. Apart from History, there are books in
Marathi on other subjects. If only they are translated into English, their

fame will spread all over Europe. At least they will be known all over India.

Our scholars of today.

We do have many scholars who can add to the world literature and
knowledge. Setting aside Science, the knowledge of Europeans is one sided,
because they hardly know the world outside Europe. Our scholars, on the
other hand, are able to compile Encyclopaedias, as they are conversant with
thinking in Europe as well as being Sanskrit scholars and have deep
knowledge of Indian traditions.
Establish translation societies

Once upon a time, Sanskrit and later Pali were world languages. Literature
created in those became known throughout the world (Buddhists spread the
thoughts in the East, Arabs spread them in the West). Today their place has
been taken by English language. It is therefore vital that all our scholarly
works are translated into English. To some extent, this work can only be
done by the original authors. This literary conference should undertake to
translate one or two works every year. But the whole of Maharashtra should
establish a permanent society for such a work. During the last 50 years,
many books were translated from English into Marathi and made available
to Maratha people. For example, Sayajirao Gaikawad, Maharaja of Baroda
state, and also Mr Dabholakar had sponsored such works. Today we need to
do the opposite. There is an urgent need for works to be translated from
Marathi into English.

(SSV4 pp 466/7)

• What a pity that even this much was NOT done. In the 1960s The
Government of Maharashtra appointed a committee under the
Chairmanship of the learned person, Tarkathirtha Laxmanshastri Joshi.
Their brief was to translate works from foreign languages Into Marathi I!
And thus, they translated ‘Rise of Maratha Power’by Justice Ranade from
English into Marathi. And why did they do that? So that Marathi will
achieve the status

of a world language. How childish can one become? No wonder that

Savarkar was not understood, even by Marathas.

•DrNB Khare was a staunch Hindu. In 1937 he was the Chief Minister of
the Central Province. Due to differences with Gandhi and Patel he resigned.
During World War II, he served as a Minister in the Viceroy’s Council of
Lord Wavell. After Indian independence in 1947 he wrote his memoirs in
Marathi. When some one suggested to him that he should translate them
into English, Dr Khare said, “Why in English? It is already available in
Marathi.” It was eventually translated into English in 1959.
• Let us take Savarkar’s literary works. Apart from ‘My Transportation for
Life’and ‘Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History’ what else is available to
the English reader? Nothing. While studying in London (1906-09),
Savarkar sent 43 Newsletters to Marathi newspapers. That was more than
90 years ago. Not one of them has been translated into English II

• Savarkar started to write his autobiography in 1931/32 while he was still

in internment in Ratnagiri. First two parts appeared in the Marathi magazine
Shraddhanand of Mumbai. But the British Administrators objected even to
that. Police searched his house. But they could not find remainder of his
autobiography. The Collector of Ratnagiri warned that by writing his
Autobiography Savarkar was violating the terms of his internment that he
will not take part in politics.

So, leaving aside the publishing of his autobiography, the British

Authorities would not even permit Savarkar to write it They knew that it
was highly explosive. Unfortunately Savarkar never managed to complete
his autobiography. The part relating to his early years till he sailed for
England was published in 1957. How about publishing the same in English?
No one has even thought of it for the last 44 years. That has been the
tragedy of Savarkar. His adversaries, be they Gandhi, Nehru, Bose or
Ambedkar, all wrote in English and hence got publicity all over the world.

410/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar —

Savarkar’s thoughts and deeds remained unknown outside Maharashtra.

Any realist is aware of the fact that one needs to change one’s style of living
according to the geographical location, time and circumstances. When I
lived in Pune, I used to take bath twice a day. How can I insist on doing the
same on the South Pole? (I did indeed work on the Falkland Islands in the
South Atlantic Ocean). As the children grow, they need new clothing and
footwear. No one would Insist on a ten- year- old child wearing the clothes
of a two year old. We use scarves, sweaters and woollen coats in winter, but
not during the summer.

Let us see how Savarkar emphasised throughout his life the need to follow
this philosophy. Some readers would find it convenient to refer to Appendix
C for certain unknown words / phrases before moving to the next chapter.

Chapter Nine

CHANGE WITH COUNTRY, TIMES AND PEOPLE

V,;^

■'> ‘ A

All)’ >V u’,' l\jst'y~ki '.'

hVrrHj aco‘nyrr; n

c^<;/rvstsOfcs. W' f w Jt'irf.'-cr>.s ;j.. • • ■«

ds^‘. Hdvt dJJi' -'s^ !>f ’^’e si-

•.A3 ivorx cn i'w i ii.Ktund igm-h' ^ ■

XcHsn} As /f(*; ;7ro«r. ^o '^■■

A?v»(v.-■ •<’.. >'' fl}:^<o : aPgr </•' akSdt^. wc^ir..';;

>' «4 C-vIi'*® S '^' '' *'* .S/id

m>aWi!i/.’i‘y*te«-•' ■; . .r ..

Loft^i 5<if> <iC.i- 6Vv.^;;v-jt; iKnphMigdd J'.

COfJVWiWWf ft-* '‘.‘^te^ /IP j( ',-> vt^5*i'‘' UfUdt. Wr^ V-.

.« fea/cv© Ic.,

enlM TfttqertO
3J'«33<?()MA83Mn^;/mrMUOOH7TW30MAHO

-■'• v4

1^4
.1
^ »-'> ..

CHANGE WITH COUNTRY, TIMES AND PEOPLE

Introduction

No thought, tradition, method, mechanism, institution or organisation can

effectively serve the people of all countries, at ali times and in ail
circumstances. Savarkar was deeply aware of this reaiity of life. He was
never iured away by any particular thought. It is not known that Lenin was
a friend of Savarkar while in London (1906-1910). When Savarkar was free
to write, he said in the 1930s,

“The Russian Revolution” is indeed a revolution - a great experiment. But

that does not mean that it will succeed. And even if it did, we do not have to
follow it blindly. We must examine if it will suit our society, our conditions
and lead to our progress and prosperity.”

The experiment of the freedom of divorce in Russia Kirloskar magazine of

February 1936 published above article by Savarkar.

“Every revolution is an experiment. Of all the revolutions in the history of

mankind, this revolution is far reaching, trying to make tremendous
changes. It was an important, incredible, most daring experiment on a mass
scale.

After the last fifteen to twenty years of the Soviet System in existence, it
must be said that it proved to be tremendously successful and yet has
disastrously gone wrong. On both counts this experiment added greatly to
our knowledge and experience of human behaviour.”

(S.S.V3p206)
I (the author) am a Civii Engineer. I had worked on designs for many
foundations. I had studied the problems and proposed a variety of soiutions.
For these works i had to consider properties and characteristics of the soil,
water level and its fluctuations

and many other factors. In soft soil we use Piled Foundations, but it would
be silly to insist similar foundation on hard rock. That will be like ‘going by
the book’and which is precisely what Savarkar had been objecting against,
as we will see later.

Different circumstances require different human qualities. In the ancient

Indian history, Arya Chanakya masterminded a coup to depose the king of
Nanda dynasty and install Chandragupta in displace. During the ensuing
turmoil, Rakshas, the Chief Minister of the former king fled. But Arya
Chankya located him and requested him to resume the office of Chief
Minister under the new King Chandragupta. He said to Rakshas, “We have
no quarrel with you. It was the King who had to be removed. Please resume
the duties of your office.” Why? It is one thing to organise a coup d’etat and
quite another thing to run administration of a kingdom. The two events need
persons of appropriate qualities.

During our travel we change vehicles according to geography. If we have to

cross a river we need a boat, a car would not do. In hilly areas we may have
to go on foot because it may be impossible to run a scooter or even a
bicycle.

While driving a car we have to change speed constantly. We slow down if a

road is narrow, or if we have to negotiate a bend, or if it is dark or foggy. If
we do not slow down we would certainly cause accidents.

Let us take another example. Tilak (Father of the Indian unrest) suffered
from diabetes. No remedies against diabetes were available when he died in
1920. But today we have many tablets and injections to keep Diabetes
under control. Those suffering form Diabetes do not say, “In days of Tilak
there were no remedies. So even today there are none.”

Now let us see how Savarkar preached that we must change according to
countries, times and people.
WAYS OF GAINING INDIAN INDEPENDENCE

WHILE IN LONDON (1906-1910)

Passive Resistance

Savarkar did not regard any particular means for gaining independence
from British as unacceptable. He did not say that there was no other way
than an armed struggle. But he said that ultimately the use offeree is
essential. In 1907, when he was in London, the workers in the French
vineyards tried Passive Resistance (Satyagraha) for their demands. In his
newsletter, he commented,

“Just as the Passive Resistance in France proved what can be achieved, it

also illustrated clearly what it cannot achieve. In the present state of human
development, it is very difficult to see that Passive Resistance will succeed.
At present, those who are in power are more acquiescent to the use of force
than truth, justice or fair play.”

“The leaders of the Passive Resistance movement who felt that they would
succeed were arrested by police brought in from other provinces of France.
Whole of south was occupied by soldiers. Martial Law was declared. All
public meetings were banned. People who thought that the government
would collapse by the passive resistance were stunned. They too decided to
resort to Active Resistance and took up arms. Whose victory will it be in
the end, depends on who succeeds militarily. Passive Resistance does not
succeed unless it is backed by the force of arms. It is a plain fact.”

“Leaders of Passive Resistance usually assume that the oppressors are all
noble and would behave gentlemanly. French Labour leaders assumed that
everyone would leave Government employment. But in a poverty-stricken
country, however much people desire to leave the government employment,
they would have no energy to sustain their lives without it. The labour
leaders

also assumed that the other party (oppressor) would also be noble and have
some scruples, some principles and that he would not sink low in morality.
It was felt that the oppressor would not break his own laws or make new
laws. But that does not happen in practice. Any oppressive ruler who
promulgates laws without popular consent, is also be capable of enacting
new laws and therefore of brutal suppression of any movements to oppose
its rule. In England some women declared that they would not pay
government taxes and were promptly arrested and put in jail, even though it
was a family affair concerning their own English men. It is difficult enough
for the workers to fight with the mill owners and make them agree to their
demands for better conditions. The government which has money, military
and arms at its disposal would never change merely by Passive Resistance.”

“There is a wonderful mythological story in our ancient scriptures. The

Brahmin sage Vashistha had a cow named Kamadhenu (one who will fulfil
any wish of her worshipper). King Vishvamitra desired to have that cow,
but Vashishta refused to part with her. The king ordered his troops to
forcibly remove the cow. Vashishta said to her, ‘I am not asking you to go.
Yet as a Brahmin I am unable to fight. However, 1 will not help the king in
any way.’He stood fast. No amount of cries of the cow helped. But as she
was Kamadhenu, she could and did indeed create an army of soldiers to
fight the king’s soldiers. The king was defeated and then and only then the
cow returned to Vashishta. It has a lesson for us.”

{SSV4pp 81/82)

Savarkar emphasised this theme again a year later. He organised the

birthday celebration of Guru Govindsingh, the tenth and last Guru of Sikhs,
in the famous Caxton Hall in Westminster, London. The banners on the
stage read ‘Deg, Teg, Fateh’Savarkar explained their meaning to the
audience.

“Deg means Principles, Teg is sword or force of arms. The

Principles, however noble, need to have the power of force of arms behind
them. It is only then that they will succeed. Therefore Guru Govind Singh
raised sword to protect Hindu Dharma.” {SSV4p 114)

Savarkar gives another example.

• Dadabhai Naoroji unknowingly pays tribute to the heroes of 1857 War

Savarkar in his book Shatruchya Shibirat (Inside the enemy camp)
published in 1965 has given information about the work of Dadabhai
Naoroji (known as Grand Old Man of Indian politics). Naoroji suffered
several setbacks in seeking reforms from British Administrators and
Politicians. Savarkar explains

“Naoroji got more and more frustrated. At times he even threatened the
British authorities saying, ‘Do not invite a catastrophe by being too
obdurate. The Government should recollect how such obdurate conduct on
the part of the British Government led to 1857’[See Dadabhai’s speeches by
Natesan]” In other words, disastrous calamities like the 1857 War would
fell if the British did not listen to reasonable demands of moderates like
Naoroji.

“But did he realise the importance of the 1 857 war? Suppose that war had
not taken place, with what would Naoroji have threatened the British
rulers? Naoroji’s parliamentary lobby was trying to enlighten the Members
of the British Parliament and seek reforms through them. Even that lobby
had to have the backing of the example like the1857 war I!”

{Shatruchya Shibirat, pp 59/60)

Surprisingly enough, other moderates had done the same. They said

If you do not listen to Moderates, India’s youth would turn revolutionaries.

• Madanlal Dhingra shot and killed Sir Curzon Wyllie on 1 July

1909. On the 5^, a meeting of Indians in London was held at Caxton Hall to
condemn Dhingra’s action. That meeting is well known. There was also
another meeting on the 4 *^ at New Reform Club. At that meeting Bipin
Chandra Pal said, “The English authorities are suggesting that we
Moderates should influence Indian youth and persuade them away from the
revolutionary path. But how can this happen? The English rulers are not .
listening to the moderates. We have been constantly demanding that the
partition of Bengal should be annulled. Why that demand is not being
acceded to? What is the difficulty? Then how can we influence and
persuade the Indian youth to follow our path?” (Daily News of London, 5
July 1909 p 9)

In other words, the British rulers should listen to the moderates and accede
to their demands and institute reforms. If not, the firebrand youth would not
hesitate to kill the British officers.

Savarakar knew this iine of thought. In June 1937, he said, “It has been my
experience that Moderates of the previous generations were far more
sensible and practicable than followers of Gandhi today.” Elsewhere, he
said, “These moderates, whom you regard as timid, had insisted ever since
1888 that the Arms Act of 1858 by which Indians were disarmed, should be
repealed. They were never fanatical supporters of non-violence.”

IMPORTANCE OF INDIAN REVOLUTIONARIES

Let us now look at the significance of the contribution of the revolutionaries

to the Indian freedom struggle.

*Phadake

Vasudev Balvant Phadake tried to overthrow the British rule in the 1870s.
He was sentenced to transportation for life to Aden. The distance between
Mumbai and Aden by sea is 2,000 miles (3,200 Km). Compared to this, the
distance between Paris to Moscow is only 1,540 miles (2,460 Km). But,
Phadake’s

compatriots were sentenced to transportation for life on the Andaman

Islands, thus even in deportation Phadake and his companions were kept
apart over a distance of 4,000 miles!! That is how dangerous the British
regarded Phadake and his revolutionary ideas. Phadake was a great
revolutionary, not an ordinary insignificant robber, as many anti-Brahmin
writers would have us believe.

* Dhingra

Madanial Dhingra’s assassination of Sir Curzon Wyllie in 1909 was just as

significant. It was summer at the time of assassination. Viceroy and his
ministers used to go to Simla to escape the heat in Calcutta. On 3 August
1909, Viceroy sent a telegram to the Secretary of State for India, “It is
understood that Madanial Dhingra is to be executed on the 17^ August. If
body cremated, undesirable that ashes should be sent to India.

This telegram is kept in India Office Library (nowpart of the British

Library) in London. Moreover, if this incident was insignificant why did the
political leaders of the day like MrGK Gokhale and Mr N C Kelkar (one of
Tilak’s lieutenants) had to take notice of it, in far away Pune? Keikar’s
speech was published in Tilak’s English newspaper Maratha. He said, “..
.The London police have declared that the outrage (by Dhingra) was the
result of a private and imaginary grievance. The crime has no political
significance. [If this was the case why did Kelkar call for a public meeting?
Moreover, the Police in London made no such statement. The issues of
Times (of London) were availabie in India at that time.] Ref;- Savarkar
Charitra byMrSL Karandikar, 1947, p 263

What was the status of Sir Curzon Wvilie?

* Two days after his assassination, i.e. on 3 July 1909 Daily News of
London reported, “Lt-Col Sir Arthur Davidson one of the King’s equerries
yesterday went to Lady Curzon Wyllie’s residence in Onslow Square by
command of the King and Queen to convey an expression of their Majesties
deep sympathy with her in her

bereavement.”

“Sir Curzon Wyllie was well known at St Stephens, as he often came down
with Indian Chiefs and notables who were visiting England and took them
to seats in the Distinguished strangers gallery (of House of Commons) .

Sir Wyllie would arrange such visitors to meet the King Emperor and
facilitate their travel in Europe.”

* On 6 July 1909 Daily News reported

“Sir Curzon Wyllie is to be buried at 1 o’clock today. The King will be

represented by Sir Dighton Probyn.”
* Memorial to Wyllie

There was a move to some kind of memorial to Wyllie. Times (of London)
published lists of subscribers, the first one being on 9 August 1909.

On 18 November, Times reported, “the following have joined the General

Committee:Viceroy of India, Lord Minto

Commander in Chief of the Indian Army, Lord Kitchner Governors of

Indian provinces.”

Eventually £2,300 were collected (£87,680 at 1998 prices). On 15

September 1909, Lord Curzon, former Viceroy of India, proposed that upto
£300 should be spent on erecting a tablet in the crypt of St Paul’s cathedral
in London and the rest of the money should be deposited in a bank and the
interest should be used towards the upkeep of Asiatic Strangers Home in
Lime House, East London.

The tablet was unveiled on 15 October 1909. At that time, it was indeed a
very high honour to ha ve a tablet in one’s memory fixed in the crypt of St
Paul’s.

This just goes to show how significant his assassination by Dhingra was.

Udhamsingh

In 1919, Jalianwala bagh massacre took place in Amritsar. In 1940

Udhamsingh shot and kilied Sir Michael O’Dwyer, the Governor of Punjab
at the time of the massacre, to avenge the terrible deeds of the British. That
much is known. But he also shot and wounded Lord Zetland, the then
Secretary of State for India, Lord Lamington, former governor of Bombay
province, and Sir Louis Dane, governor of Punjab before Sir O’Dwyer.
Lord Lamington died six months later.

If this was an ordinary affair why are the papers reiating to this case kept
secret? They wili not be released till the year 2016.

Secret files on Indian Revolutionaries are secretly destroyed.

When my friend late Mr Sonapatki did his research for his book ‘Daryapar’,
reiating to Savarkar’s life in London (1906-10) he came across a number of
secret fiies on Indian revoiutionaries. Two of them were humbered as
below.

(1) Z/L7PS/7/35/1909 Dept 17852

Subject:- Information on Madam Cama, Rana, Savarkar, Hardayal, Govind

Amin, V V S Iyer, MPT Acharya Transferred to P and J (S) on 24 February
1924

(2) Z/LyPS/7/34/1908 Dept No. 1155a Subject:- Indians in U.S.A

Movements of Hemchandra Das, Subhash Chandra Bose should be

watched.

Ram Jivan Abbas, Varma

Transferred to P & J (S) on 12 November 1924

When Sonapatki asked to see these files in 1973, he was told, “They come
under the 75 year rule. They will not be accessible till then.” After I came to
know Sonapatki I asked him to try again. He did and was told, “We never
said that the files could be seen after 75 years.” He put his case in writing
and got the following reply.

The British Library

India Office Library and Research

25 February 1983

Dear Mr Sonpatki,

I am little puzzled by your reference. Since the P&J (S) files only cover the
period 1916-47 there is a possibility that the papers you are seeking may
have been destroyed some years ago.

Martin Moir Deputy Archivist

There is no need to comment on above letter from India Office Library.

Many secret British Government documents are now available. In 1948,

Arabs and Isarelis were prepared for a compromise. The accord was
destroyed by Britain; yes it was Attlee’s labour Qovernment that was
responsible. Full details were made public in 1984.

Winston Churchill was a racist. He gave orders that black people should not
be appointed even to the lowest ranks in the British Civil Service. Full
details were made public a few years ago.

So, why are the files on Indian revolutionaries still kept secret? Moreover
the British would not even publish the list of secret files, which they had
destroyed. That alone shows the significance of the work of the
revolutionaries. The British have always showered immense praise on
Gandhi and Nehru (because they brought on such caiamities on Hindus) and
demeaned the revolutionaries. If the contribution of the revolutionaries was
so insignificant, the British would have loved to open up those files to show
that, such ivas the case. But they know at heart what the truth is.

Keep an eye on Savarkar

In June 1906 Savarkar left India for London. Immediately

afterwards followed a confidential letter by Special Branch in Pune to India

Office in London. On the one hand they asked them to keep an eye on him
and on the other, they say, “He is not, of course, of any personal
importance” (so, why keep an eye on him 7)

Having seen the significance of the work of Indian revolutionaries let us

now return to life of Savarkar.

SAVARKAR ON THE ANDAMAN ISLANDS (1911-1921)

In his book My Transportation for Life, Savarkar had stressed that if the
British would allow political progress by peaceful means, he would reject
armed struggle.
• He met Barrie the prison officer as soon as he entered the jail on the
Andaman Islands in July 1911. During their first meeting Barrie said, “But
murders are murders they will never win independence.”

Savarkar replied, “Of course. But why don’t you teach that to your Sinn
Fein members? And who told you I propagate violence?”

Irish revolutionaries were called Sinn Fein and Mr Barrie was an Irishman.

{My Transportation for Life p 85)

Five months after the above meeting came a sensational news. In December
1911 The Partition of Bengal was annulled. Savarkar narrates the feelings
of political prisoners.

• “We were extremely pleased with the news. We forgot our hardships and
frustrations. Many said, ‘if our nation progresses in this manner it would
not matter if we are not released.’Annulment of the partition was a small
victory. However it showed that the Indians had the guts to get their
demands granted. They had found a way of getting their demands granted.

Some one said, ‘But would not our people become complacent and lax after
this victory?’! replied, ‘There is no danger of that. Once it is known that
Malaria can be cured by taking Quinine tablets, if Malaria spreads again
people will take quinine tablets.’ (My Transportation for Life pp 194/5)

Viceroy Lord Curzon proposed that Bengal was too large a province to
govern as one entity. Therefore he declared his intention to partition it in
1903. His real intention was to create a Muslim majority province. Though
he resigned later on a different issue, he put the partition into effect in
October 1905. Curzon said that the partition was a line on a stone. It can
never be altered. His arrogance led to the spreading of anger all over India.
There was countrywide resentment and agitation, people boycotted British
goods on a massive scale. Revolutionaries put pressure and eventually King
George V himself had to declare at Delhi Darbar in 1911 that the partition
of Bengal was annulled. This episode once again showed that it was the
revolutionaries who, in the end, forced the annulment on the British. If we
study carefully, we conclude that it was the pressure by the revolutionaries
that forced various political reforms. The British were of course very
shrewd and made a pretence that Gandhi’s methods worked.

Give us a chance of making peacefui poiitical progress

• In November 1913, Home Minister Sir Reginald Craddock visited

Andaman Islands. He met Savarkar and had discussion with him.

Sir Craddock: Oh Mr Savarkar. What have you done? How have you fallen?
I read all your papers. If you had used your knowledge and energy properly
you could have had any Government employment you desired. But you
preferred this (revolutionary) path !!

Savarkar: I am grateful for your sympathy. But things are in your hand. Mr
G K Gokhale has put forward a bill in the Central Legislative Assembly,
which would make Education up to

Secondary School level compulsory. If that bill is passed and we aire given
a chance to progress towards our advancement in a peaceful manner my
colleagues and I would abandon the revolutionary path. I am sure of that.

Sir Craddock: How do you know what your colleagues are thinking? Do
you know where they are?

Savarkar: How is that possible? Am I not in your prison day and night? But
we know each other’s minds. Therefore I say that if we were given a chance
to progress in a peaceful manner, we would abhor the revolutionary path.
My colleagues were and most probably are also of that opinion.

{My Transportation for Life pp 248/9, 250)

• Worid War I erupted in 1914. At that time Savarkar wrote a letter to The
Government of India.

“We resorted to revolutionary tactics because we had no alternative. I am

sure, The Government of India would be desirous to know the attitude of
revolutionaries towards the present situation, in the interest of the political
stability in India. As I had been deeply involved in this movement, I think
that it is right and proper to make our views known. Our aim was and still is
to bring India to the state of a free nation. However, we never said that this
must be achieved by violent methods only. Not only that, if there was any
other way, we would not have chosen the revolutionary path.”

“Under the present circumstances if India is granted Colonial Self

Government and majority of the members of the Viceroy’s council are
Indians, we would completely suspend our revolutionary activities and
support the British Government in the current war wholeheartedly.”

(My Transportation for Life pp 339, 340, 341)

• World War I ended in November 1918. With the help of

Americans, Britain won the war. Savarkar describes the then situation on
Andaman Islands as well as in India.

Would the Indian revolutionaries be satisfied with the Political Reforms on

offer? That question haunted the British authorities right from Mr
Montague, The Secretary of State for India down to the Senior Civil
Servants. We knew this from the discussions I had with various officers
who visited Andaman Islands and also from various articles in the
newspapers. At the time of Morley Minto reforms of 1909 I was in
England. Even then I knew from various discussions with British Officers I
had and also from other Indian leaders that the British were anxious to turn
away the Revolutionaries form their fiery path.

Lokamanya Tilak was trying to put up a unified demand for Political

reforms on behalf of the whole of India. It was therefore necessary that
some one from the side of Revolutionaries should support him. I therefore
wrote a letter to Mr Montague, The Secretary of State for India. It was sent
via the Prison Governor and Viceroy of India Lord Chelmsford. Once again,
I emphasised that if the reforms were genuine we would abandon the
revolutionary path.

It was essential that Indians should also know what I had written. Therefore
in my letter to my brother 1 mentioned the main points covered in my letter
to Mr Montague. I said (on 4 August 1918), “Dear Bal,
.I also stated in it (i.e. letter to Montague) that my motive and

aim in sending the petition being the Grant of General Amnesty, I should be
the last to be dissatisfied if that could be done by omitting my own name, if
that alone be a thorn in the way of its fulfilment. If such view be ever taken
by the Government and I see that the recently published draft of Mr
Montague’s Scheme has in a striking paragraph expressed the hope almost
in it - a way of answer to a corresponding question - that the revolutionaries
would now find something to be constitutionally done to the realising of
their hopes and would change their minds

and return to useful paths of activity. ... It is rare to find true patriot and
humanitarian who would indulge in reckless and bloody and necessarily
outrageous Revolution - if but and even when, a safer, nobler, more
certainly moral because entirely effective and employing least resistance, if
but such a path, the path of Constitutional Progress be open and accessible
to him?” (My Transportation for Life pp 397-399)

In other words, Savarkar says “The British Administration should declare a

General Amnesty, excluding the name of Savarkar, if it feels so strongly
about it. Montague has also expressed a view that the proposed political
reforms would satisfy the revolutionaries. If a peaceful means of political
advancement was available I and my friends and followers would abandon
the revolutionary path.”

• In a letter of 6 July 1920, Savarkar wrote to his brother “For it was this
very principle that humanity was a higher patriotism that made us so
restless when we saw that a part of it should aggrandise and swell like a
virulent cancer in such wise as to threaten the life of the human whole; and
forced us for the want of any other effective remedy; to take to the
Surgeon’s Knife and feel that severity for the moment would certainly be
mercy in the long run. But even while combating force with force we
heartily abhorred and do yet abhor all violence.”

“Thus we were revolutionaries under necessity and not by choice. We felt

that the best interests of India as well as of England demanded that her
ideals be progressively and peacefully realised by mutual'help and co-
operation. And if that be possible even now I shall take the first opportunity
to resort to peaceful means and rush in the first constitutional breach
effected by revolution or otherwise, however narrow it be and try to widen
it so as to enable the forces of evolution to flow in an uninterrupted
procession.”

{Echoes from Andamans p 50)

In other words Savarkar says, “We became revolutionaries because there

was no other way of political advancement. If an alternative involving
peaceful means is available for that aim the revolutionaries would follow
that path.”

From both above letters it is cleared that Savarkar stressed that he detested
violence. He pleaded with the British, ‘Give us an opportunity to make
political advancement in a peaceful manner.’

One fact that is deliberately ignored by English historians is that it was the
Indian Revolutionaries who forced the British Government to grant the
Montague / Chelmsford Reforms then commonly known as Mont-Ford
reforms of 1919 and successive reforms. Montague was then the Secretary
of State for India and Lord Chelmsford was the Viceroy of India. Savarkar
explains the situation.

Here are some details of activities of revolutionaries The fire spreads

• The German submarine Emden was trying to attack Andaman Islands and
release the political prisoners. One day a newspaper cutting was smuggled
out to me. It read, ‘Mutiny at Meerat’i'fh/s was the attempt by Vishnu
Ganesh Pingale and Kartar Singh). In May 1918, the conspiracy of an
armed revolt by the section of the Indian Army stationed at Meerat was
discovered. Many were arrested, many were sent to the gallows. I was
thrilled by the news. In 1857, it was the platoon of the Indian Army at
Meerat that revolted against the English Rule. And that was the beginning
of the countrywide war. Is the current revolt in the same place the beginning
of another countrywide revolt against the British? It must be. Otherwise
why would the British attach so much importance and give publicity to it?
And even if it was not, what tremendous changes have taken place in the
last 10 years! Unrests, appeals, petitions, protests, conspiracies, riots and
commotions, attacks and counter attacks, skirmishes with pistols.

arms and ammunitions and now rumours of a military uprising. Where were
we ten years ago and where are we today!

• Just as I read about the mutiny at Meerat I heard about the Lahore
conspiracy and other similar incidences in Punjab. Soldiers who refused to
go to the war front were sent to Andaman Islands. Very soon the first batch
of revolutionaries from the Lahore conspiracy trial came to Andaman
Islands. Most of them were Sikhs in the Gadr (revolt) movement. Soon they
were followed by groups of other revolutionaries in Punjab. Indian soldiers,
who had refused to fight in Rangoon, Singapore, Basra (Iraq) and other
places, or had revolted against British Officers soon arrived in Andaman.
Others had risen against the British in Singapore then moved on to Siam
(Thailand) and then to Burma and encouraged Indian soldiers stationed in
Rangoon to revolt. There were revolutionary attacks on British in Kashi
(Benares) and Bengal. The British Authorities sent a large number of such
political prisoners to Andaman.

When they arrived in Andaman I heard incredible stories from them. I

learnt about their determination, aims, sacrifices, experiences on the
battlefronts in France and other countries. Their arrival had tremendous
impact on the lives of prisoners in Andaman. Most of them knew me and
had studied my books and articles. They told me how some of them read
extracts of my book Indian War of Independence 1857, translated in Hindi,
Urdu and Punjabi and published in the Gadr paper in America.

• Those who came from America told me an incredible story. They told me
how they learnt that I was fixed to the yoke of an oil mill. Someone
published a picture to that effect. This had a huge impact. Many felt
ashamed and said,

‘Oh what a pity! Such learned, educated person like Savarkar should suffer
terrible hardships like this and we live a life of luxury . and drink
winelThey therefore abandoned their luxurious life and
decided to join in the armed revolts against the British in various parts of
the world.

I learned of many such cases from these revolutionaries. I have mentioned

just a few here. Some of them told me that my book Indian War of
Independence 7857was in great demand among the Indians overseas. At
times it changed hands and was being sold for Rs 150 (about 400 pounds at
2002 prices). One sent a copy to his friend in Brazil.

And thus from the leaders and followers I learnt about the various uprisings
against the British in Canada, Singapore, Burma, America, Europe, Bengal,
Punjab and the rest of India. From the incidence of Komagotamaru ship,
which was turned away from Vancouver (Canada) to the stories of various
conspiracies in Punjab, I gathered extensive information. I did want to write
a detailed, systematic history of all such skirmishes. But that task was
impossible when I was in jail. It was equally unbelievable that I would ever
be released and have the necessary freedom to write. So, when my
contemporary prisoners used to insist that I must write such history I said to
them jokingly. Comrades, it is our job to make history, writing history is
secondary. Perhaps it will be done by the next generation.’

{My Transportation for Life pp 366 to 373)

Give us a chance of making peaceful political progress

• In 1920, Government of India appointed a Jail Commission. When its

members visited Andaman, Savarkar told them, “I have expressed my
opinions in my correspondence with various authorities up to the Governor
General. Present political reforms (Mont-Ford reforms) do provide some
opportunity for achieving political progress. I wish to try that path and see
what can be achieved. If the reforms can be put into practice that would
lead to our welfare and make further political progress possible, we the
revolutionaries would indeed seek our salvation by legal and peaceful
means. We followed the revolutionary path, not because we wanted to, but
because there was no other way.

No one would be prepared to sacrifice ones life and resort to bloodbath for
a cause if there is a peaceful alternative.”
{My Transportation for Life p 458)

• In 1921, Savarkar was sent back to mainland India and eventually sent to
Ratnagiri jail. He was transferred to Yeravada jail in Pune and released to
live in internment in 1924. He describes the events of those days.

'... As I said before, the person who was our jail superintendent in Andaman
was transferred to Yeravada jail as well. He used to ask me, ‘Well, Mr
Savarkar what will you do on release from jail?’

I used to reply, ‘That will depend on the circumstances.’

When discussions went further I used to say, ‘If I am released

unconditionally I would fully take part in politics.

‘But what kind of politics?’

‘Again that will depend on the circumstances. Indians have been granted
some constitutional reforms. If they could be used for betterment of our
people and this in turn would lead to further constitutional progress 1 would
naturally practise Responsive Cooperation and conduct my political
movement in a peaceful manner.’

Savarkar continues

Once I was off sick with stomach pain and was hospitalised. I was told in
confidence by a prison officer that the Governor of Bombay Province along
with two or three high-ranking officers would see me in prison.

While in Andaman, I had met the Indian Home Secretary and other high-
ranking officers. They discussed my possible release. But the issue was
never resolved in a satisfactory manner. So, I assumed that the visit by the
Governor would also end in the same way. However, instead of expressing
dissatisfaction with my answers the Governor was in agreement with them.
I repeated what I had told the other officers on many occasions, “We
resorted
to Revolution only when we saw no other means of our political progress.
However, if the current reforms can work in practice, prove to be effective
and would lead to the possibility for further progress in a peaceful manner,
of course we would act within the law and adopt Responsive Co-operation.”

{My Transportation for Life p 559-562)

[Note - Responsive Co-operation was a phrase coined by Tilak. It simply

implied that the British rulers would get co-operation from Indians in
proportion to the political reforms instituted. More reforms, more co-
operation, less reforms would be met with mass agitation, unrest and
insecurity of life of British officers.]
SAVARKAR IN INTERNMENT
(1924-1937)
Praise for the revolutionaries
Savarkar was in internment in Ratnagiri during January 1924 to May 1937.
But during this period of 13 years, he never once said that the Indian youth
should not follow the revolutionary path and carry out their movements
peacefully or within the law only. On the contrary, despite restridtions, he
praised the revolutionaries and justified their methods.

* The Marathi magazine Shraddhanand was started due to the efforts of

Savarkar’s elder brother Babarao. It published Savarkar’s articles. (10
January 1927 to 10 May 1930). Here are headlines of some of the articles.

1927

17 March 26 June 1 September

1928

26 January 3 May

- Revolutionary Patriot Prof Khankhoje

- Senapati (General) Avari

- Patriot Shachindranath Sanyal

- Patriot Ramprasad Bismil

- Heroine Mother Ksheerodavasini

16 May - Balmukund and his wife Lajavati

28 May - Hero of Andhrapradesh Shreeram Raju

28 December - Patriot Vishnu Ganesh Pingale

* On 18 April 1927, Savarkar’s article ‘Rusted firearms’ was published. In
it he says sarcastically, “Grave crisis will follow as the Government has
severely punished those who allowed their firearms to become rusted. Next
time the Indian youth would not wait for the arms to be rusted. They will
use them as soon as they fall into their hands -(i.e. they will shoot British
officers). Is that what the Government wants?”

* Krantichya Thinagya (Sparks of Revolution) - This article by Savarkar

was published in Shraddhanand on 22 September 1927. In it he had
explained the growing unrest among the Indian soldiers stationed in the Far
East.

* On 9 December 1927, Savarkar’s article ‘The War of Revolution

1857’was published.

* On 19 January 1928, Savarkar’s article, “The eclipse has now vanished"

was published. He expressed his delight because the members of the
Congress Party, despite strong objection from Gandhi, showed their
gratitude to Indian revolutionaries of Kakori, they called Mr Avari as
Senapati (General) and expressed their sympathy with the sufferings of
Avari. They passed several resolutions indicating that the Congress no
longer regards revolutionaries as fools but as patriots.

At the same time The Republican Conference too congratulated Shreeman

Raju, the fighter from Andhra and declared that the days of obsession with
non-violence are over. People do recognise the revolutionaries as patriots.

(S S V3 pp 123/4)

* While Savarkar was in Ratnagiri, Bhagatsingh and Rajguru,

two well-known revolutionaries secretly met Savarkar. They later published

one more edition of Savarkar’s book “Indian War of Independence 1857” in
secret.

* Under the influence of Gandhi, Marathas had been losing their fighting
spirit. Savarkar criticised this situation on 5 April 1930 in his article ‘You
are a disgrace to me’on the occasion of Shivajayanti (birthday of King
Shivaji). His creation of Shivaji says, “Like you, I too listened to Ramayan,
but not like the old grannies who removed stones from rice while listening
stories from the epic, nor did I kill a dummy Ravan as is done in many
dramas or in ballads. I attacked Ravans of my days. I sent to death
Afzulkhan, I cut off fingers of General Shaistakhan, I crushed the five
Muslim kingdoms. When I heard Ramayan, I did act accordingly. I did not
waste time in discussing how many hairs grew on Ravan’s moustache or
how many particles of dust sprang up in the air as Hanuman jumped up in
the air. But, as Hanuman trampled Jambumali under his feet I too killed my
enemies.”

“You do something similar. Then only I belong to you and you are mine. I
prefer Bengalis and Punjabis to today’s Marathas. They do not celebrate my
birthdays. They could not care less about the exact date of my birth. But,
they are carrying out the daring feats against the British, which make me
proud of them. Do something like that.”

“I ask you - where is my kingdom? where is my crown? who rules over this
land of ours? our skies? our seas? and why? It makes me furious. It makes
my blood boil. Change according to times. Plan new tactics. I too did not
fight with bows and arrows like Lord Rama, but I killed Ravana of my day.
Do what needs to be done and win your freedom. Only then can you say
‘Shivaji was our forefather.’As long as you cannot do that do not take my
name in vain.”

“Only a brave should sing the songs of bravery of another hero.” {SSV4pp
251/2)

' In 1930, tercentenary of birth ofShivaji was being celebrated in India. In

an article Savarkar’s Shivaji says,

People can’t praise enough of what I, Baji, Tanaji and others were trying to
achieve. They say that they were doing daring feats indeed. But should a
brave Indian try to do the same today and show the same courage as I did,
these very people would condemn him as a fanatic, perverted fool. In my
days we were few, but we still set out to achieve great goals. But if someone
tries to do the same today, these very people would call them ‘a handful of
idiots’. What was ‘daring’in the novels^of my times becomes today ‘a
terrorist or un-thoughtful act’....”

“I say this because recently I came across a biography of Vasudev Balvant

Phadake. Throughout the book he was referred to in the singular. His
sacrifices became insignificant for today’s Indians!! He showed just as
much courage and daring as I did.”

* In 1930s Civil Disobedience campaign called by Gandhi was in full swing

in India. When the British Administrators resorted to the suppression of the
peaceful movement, the Revolutionaries too showed their mettle. They led
many uprisings. On 3 May 1930, Savarkar wrote —
Revolutionaries of Chittagong
reply to the oppression of Sir
Tegart.
The uprising of Chittagong is far more dangerous and meaningful than the
riots of Chaurichaura some ten years ago, which caused so much sensation
then. The English rulers should yield before there are more repetitions of
the Chittagong uprising.

Gandhiji has cursed the revolutionaries and said. Those who do not agree
with my principle of non-violence should not take part jn my movement .
They should keep away.’lt is astonishing that Gandhi has not opened his
eyes to the reality since Chaurichaura.

He should realise that once the huge national storm erupts, no one can
control it under ' mv rules^ s Gandhi has said.

Gandhiji, This movement is an echo of national volcanic eruption eager to

overthrow the foreign rule. Who are you? Who am I to say to the
revolutionaries, ‘you keep out?’We all want to achieve independence in our
own way. One must accept that such eruptions WILL take place and face
the consequences. One must not keep unreasonable expectations.

Very recently, the British rulers were delighted by the declaration by one
Col Beed that the revolutionaries would lie low for at least three years. We
warned them against such wishful thinking. And behold. Not even three
weeks passed, there were armed insurrections in Calcutta and Karachi. The
uprising in Chittagong has once again declared to the whole world that the
Revolutionaries are alive and kicking. They are increasing in strength and
there is no way they will rest until the Indian independence is achieved.
Even now a peaceful solution is possible. But should the British stretch too
far, God knows what would happen.
Whatever the British do now, even if they grant independence today, no one
can say that the independence was won without an armed struggle or
without bloodbath. The armed struggle has been going on for the last
twenty years. The latest uprising of Chittagong is a witness to that.

{S S V 4 pp 238/3)
Revolutionaries are not terrorists
On 10 May 1930, Savarkar's article; “Call us the armed freedom fighters if
you must, but not terrorists” was published in Shraddhanand. In it, he
explained how all the political parties were at last accepting the thoughts of
the revolutionaries.

In essence, the aim of the revolutionaries and other freedom fighters is the
same. The only difference is tactics and means. The revolutionaries seek to
achieve it by an armed struggle out

of necessity, whereas others want to achieve it by peaceful means. And yet

the others still denounce revolutionaries as terrorists. We must condemn this
tendency once again. We must stress the stand of the revolutionaries.

Gandhites do not like the methods of revolutionaries, who, on the other

hand, feel repugnant of the emphasis on self-purity by Gandhi. They say,”
what purity? We have committed no sin. So, the question of our purification
does not arise.”

Gandhites say, ‘We are committed to the non-violence and are going to win
the independence through non-violence only and no other
means.’Revolutionaries say, Tou do not understand the meaning of non-
violence. We are non-violent. We have taken up arms for a just cause. That
is not terrorism. Those who deprived us of our freedom and are ruling over
us by force, are the real terrorists. If need be, call us as the armed freedom
fighters but never terrorists.”

You may not agree with the methods of the revolutionaries and you may
feel that armed resistance is not necessary. But don’t derogate to the extent
of calling them terrorists. We have to say that the language of curse is.used
by the Gandhites out of sheer jealousy because it exposes how hollow their
claims of sacrifices look when people compare them with those of
revolutionaries. These Gandhites do not call Havana the aggressor, but
Rama. They call Krishna the terrorist not Kamsa who deposed and
imprisoned his own father. Even the Indian Penal Code accepts the right of
self-defence (except in the field of political movement). It is therefore sheer
hypocrisy to denounce the revolutionaries.

Finally, I have to urge the Gandhites, “You may disapprove of the methods
of revolutionaries and you can say that people should not follow them, call
them misguided if you like and follow your own path. But for God’s sake
understand that they are making supreme sacrifices and are even prepared
to die for their

cause. Never call them terrorists. That is sheer humbug.” (SSV3 pp

467/471)

[Note - It must be emphasised that unlike revolutionaries of other countries,

Indian revolutionaries never knowingly killed any innocent white men, let
alone women and children. Let us take three examples.

* In 1897, Chaphekar brothers wanted to kill only the Collector of Pune, Mr

Rand for the British atrocities during plague outbreak. But he changed his
carriage and therefore LtAyherst was also killed. Had he not changed the
carriages, Ayherst would not have been killed.

* Khudiram Bose exploded the first bomb in India in 1908. He wanted to

kill the Calcutta Presidency Magistrate Mr Kingsford. Once again he
changed his carriage and two ladies from a Kennedy family died.

* Madanlal Dhingra shot and killed Sir Curzon Wyllie in 1909. When he
was being caught one Parsee doctor named Lalkaka died by accident.
Dhingra refused to testify at the inquest of Wyllie, but at the inquest of
Lalkaka he expressed his deep regret and said that it was an accident.

One must record that at the height of their activities Indian revolutionaries
never threatened any Englishman for the sake of it. They stand very high
above the revolutionaries of other countries in this respect]

* In 1930/31 the British Government finally called for a Round Table

Conference in London. They were forced to grant, even this much. Their
reforms ultimately led to The Government of India Act 1935. Savarkar
wrote in the paper Satyashodhak, “Received words, when will you send the
meaning?”

When Gandhiji went to meet the Viceroy, what did he ask? ‘Just say that
you would consider granting Dominion Status.That is all. Just those words!
But when the Government refused even to utter those words it caused
disaster. Gandhi opposed the resolution for Complete Independence at the
Madras session of

the Congress Party. Revolutionaries were furious at Gandhi’s attitude.

Government’s refusal to even consider Gandhi’s demand added fuel to the
fire. There were attacks on the life of the Viceroy and Mr Simon. And
Gandhi had no option but to support the resolution calling for Complete
Independence.

In the end the Viceroy put out a statement. He said, ‘As long as the
movement was peaceful, I ignored it. But events in Chittagong, Peshavar
and other places have shown that the movement is moving towards the
revolutionary path. 1 must therefore act to suppress it....’

After arresting the members of AlCC (All India Congress Committee) the
Viceroy declared. The movement is moving away from Gandhi’s path
towards a revolutionary path. Attempts are being made to undermine the
loyalty of Indian Army and Police. But even then if the words ‘Dominion
Status’were uttered, things would not have reached such fervour. Before
proceeding to the Round Table Conference, Sir Teg Bahadur Sapru and
Mukundrao Jayakar appealed to the Viceroy, at least to give a promise that
Complete Independence would be considered. The British rejected outright
even Dr Munje’s demand. And therefore this led to a situation, which no
one wanted. At Dacca there were attempts on lives of the Inspector General
of Police and Inspector General of Prisons, there were skirmishes in
Lamington Road in Mumbai and other places. During the Christmas days
Harakisan fired shots at the Governor of Punjab in front of thousands of
spectators. England suddenly woke up. Viceroy sent a telegram to the
Round Table Conference asking them either to declare Martial Law over the
whole of India or to accede to the demands of Indians.
So, finally Mr Ramsey MacDonald, the British Prime Minister has declared
that India will be granted full Swaraj. But when is he going to put the
assurance into effect?

Manchester Guardian wrote, “The way to destroy the

revolutionaries is not more oppression. That will simply make matters

worse. People will then lose faith in Gandhi’s methods and the
revoiutionaries will take over the freedom movement. That is undesirable to
both England and India.”

{in other words, make a show that the political advancements were granted
on account of Gandhi and not the revolutionaries) {Ratnagiri Era pp 224/6)
AFTER RELEASE FROM
iNTERNMENT (1937-1947)
Until the Indian independence in 1947, Savarkar defended the actions of the
revolutionaries and asked the youth to take lessons in Military training.

In 1938 he spoke as President of Maharashtra Literary Conference.

Relative importance of literature
.. .And finally I have to stress that under the present circumstances (while
we are under British rule) not only poems, dramas or novels but also the
whole literature is of secondary or even tertiary importance. You are all
learned, educated, respected participants.

I ask you, “Do we live for literature or is the literature for us?” I will respect
any one who is wholly devoted to literature. But suppose such person is
watching a drama in a theatre and the theatre catches fire, will he (or she)
run for his life or continue to watch the drama for the sake of serving the
art? Similarly when we are facing severe crisis and our national life is in
danger, how important is literature to us? Just think.
Look at other countries
Today, every country is concerned about military training, not about
literature. In Japan even primary school children are imparted military
training. They learn language and grammar, later. In Ireland, every daily
newspaper has the mention in the front page ‘Wanted recruits’(Not literary
writers) In Italy, only the toddlers are exempt from military training. Did
you hear the cry

from Austria recently? Their President in his last speech said, ‘We yield
under German swords - not under German sonnets.’What are we doing?
There are signs that at any moment Mumbai may be subjected to bombing
by Japanese or face insurrection by Muslims. And yet our youngsters are
busy reading novels. The theatres are busy with musical shows and dramas.
In street after street people talk about old literature, new literature, fonvard
literature, progressive literature. Youth are busy reading various novels. In
the whole of Mumbai there is not one Rifle club. In the whole district of
Mumbai there is not a single military college. Recently a Congressman was
found to have kept a sword secretly. The Congress government sent him to
a long prison sentence. On the one hand the Congress party say that they are
non-violent, but there are baton charges and firings on crowds by police
every day. Congress Ministers say that without these measures they could
not govern.
First the firepower then ethics and
philosophy
China was defeated by Japan not because she had no literature but had no
powerful army. No one takes a slightest bit of notice of our vast country, not
because our literature is inferior but because we are not a military power.
Out of all the people you (the audience) are the wiser ones and therefore
you should proclaim that today’s need is military training not literature.
And whatever little literature is needed this will be provided by persons like
me who are over the age of 40. Even today's address is meant for those who
are over 40. For the rest of the population, including the all young men and
women, I strongly suggest ‘don’t waste time in writing sonnets or novels,
learn how to use rifles like the youth of Japan, Germany or England. At
present literature is of secondary importance to us.’
As with nation as with literature
Even for the sake of glory of the literature you have to put books on shelves
and march to the military camps. Weak country’s literature is also bound to
be weak. If you want examples, look at Taxila (near Rawalpindi, now in
Pakistan) and Nalanda (between

Patna and Gaya in Bihar). Invaders burnt huge volumes of knowledge in

those two ancient universities. Muslim chronicles proudly tell us that when
Nalanda was burned the fire lasted for three months - thousands of volumes
of literature were destroyed. But look at Shivaji. According to some
historians he could hardly write. However, he realised the need of his times.
He turned his back on Saraswati (goddess of learning) not out of disrespect
but to protect her. He threw away his pen and lifted the famous Bhavani
sword and worshipped the Goddess who killed the demons Shumbha and
Nishumbha and thus the Marathi writers were saved. Had this not been the
case, we Marathas too would have had to write the famous Gayatri Mantra
in Persian as happened in Punjab and Sind.
Throw away the pens and bear
arms
In our own country why are Lord Ganesh and Goddess Saraswati
dishonoured even in our universities? Because the goddess Durga does not
stand guard at the doors of the universities. As a disciple of Saraswati I
appeal to you to abandon your pens and bear arms. Become soldiers first.
Whenever I preside over public functions I see skinny boys and girls
reading new novels. Hundreds of them are engrossed day and night in
stories and poetry. I am really shocked by this. I feel ashamed. I feel that I
am too partly responsible for this situation. I therefore urge the young
generation to take military training at the first opportunity. We do not want
to be rude or arrogant to others, but we need to ensure that no other society
would bully us any longer. That much power we must acquire.
I cannot see it any longer
In the next ten years it would not matter at all, if not one youngster comes
forward to compose a sonnet, neither would it matter if the literary
conferences are not held but I would like to see thousands of youth on a
route march with rifles on shoulders. Just as there are libraries, let there be
military colleges in every city. And then only let some one write a novel or
two. Napoleon used to whistle from time to time just for entertainment.

I say to you my lords, it is not just me who is saying this, Even Bhagavan
Vyas {who composed the epic Mahabharat) had said the same

Amaryadpravrute cha Shatrubhirsangare krute Sarve vamashcha

drushyehuhu Shastravanto Udhishthir

Because as far as literature is concerned Shastrena rakshite Rashtre

Shaastrachinta Pravartate First bear arms; you can worry about literature
later.

(S S V4 pp 485/488)

• In his speech at Nagpur on 11 December 1938, Savarkar defended the

revolutionaries.
Why do you call us aggressors?
The revolutionaries carry out armed attacks at the sources of British power.
It is unfortunate that newspapers call the revolutionaries as aggressors. That
is wrong. At least they ought to be called ‘armed freedom fighters’. Those
who capture other nations by the use of military might or those who bully
them are the true aggressors. But our revolutionaries have taken up arms for
a nobler cause. They sacrificed their lives for you how dare you call them
terrorists? We have lost out head and that is why we^hear such perverse
language.
Justifiable violence
If you say that our path (/.e. that of revolutionaries) is bloody, but your path
(/.e. of followers ofGaridhI) is not bloodless either. The British rulers do not
hesitate to shed the blood of the Satyagrahis. So, are you saying that
shedding blood of the English alone is violence, but shedding blood of our
own people is non-violence? Violence practised in good cause is always
defensible, justifiable. That is true non-violence because in the long run it
would reduce the unjust violence as such. I am not asking you to use
violence, but do not demean the revolutionaries. They have high moral
values.

During World War II (1939-45)

• World War II began on 3 September 1939. British, in their selfinterest, had

to start military build up in India. Savarkar decided to take the full
advantage of this situation. On 5 November 1939, he said at Pandharpur

“Hindu youth should accept military training under any pretext and from
whatever source available. First of all learn to use firearms. You can decide
how and when to use that training according to circumstances.”

{H MS Era p282)

Can one be more explicit? Unfortunately followers of Gandhi, encouraged

by the British, deliberately misinterpreted Savarkar's intentions. With
changed circumstances it was necessary to cooperate with the British. But
once Hindu youth were militarised on a large scale that would lead to an
armed fight with the British and ultimately to Indian independence. That
was the strategy of Savarkar.

• On 22 June 1940, Subhashchandra Bose met Savarkar in Mumbai. He

frankly told Bose, ‘You should get out of India and lead an army for
liberation of India, instead of getting involved in minor matters like the
removal of Blackhole monument in Calcutta. Bose did what Savarkar asked
him to do, but at a later date. Despite their meeting, he went back to
Calcutta, got involved in the agitation to remove the Blackhole monument
and was caught red-handed by the British. He managed to escape, but six
vital months were lost.

Bose formed the Indian National Army out of the Indian Prisoners of Wars
(PoWs) held by the Japanese. His daring attempt did not succeed, but it
ultimately forced the British to leave India. We will look at this subject in
more detail in later pages.

• On 30 July 1941, Savarkar addressed a gathering of RSS workers in

Sangli.

“In my days if a person made a bomb or kept a pistol, he was sentenced to

25 years imprisonment, but today the same rulers are paying you to learn
how to make bombs. You must therefore enlist yourself in armed forces to
take the full advantage of this situation and learn to use firearms and
weapons. Whenever possible, visit a battlefield at least once. When I was in
England I asked my friends including one Mr Acharya to go to the
battlefront in Spain-Morocco war. Spain declined to enlist them, so they
joined the Moroccan side and went to the battlefront. {Dr Munje of Nagpur
went to South Africa in 1899 for the same reason.)

Some of my critics argue,’Wars cannot be won by arms alone. Hitler

conquered France, Norway, Holland and Belgium. Did they not have arms?
Were they not defeated despite having arms?’The answer is simple. It is
true that wars cannot be won by having arms alone, but it is equally true
that wars cannot be won by spinning the Charkha (Gandhi’s spinning
wheel) either. The countries of Europe were defeated by Hitler because
their arms were not as powerful as his. Moreover, nobody gives a hoot to a
country that has no arms. We should learn at least that much from the recent
events in Europe. It is therefore necessary for us to become more powerful
than our enemies.

(S UI Era p 139)

• In May 1943, at the time of his 60^ birthday Savarkar said, “In the past, I
resorted to the armed struggle against the British. I do not in the least repent
that action. And I say to you that, should circumstances dictate, I will resort
to the armed struggle again.” (S UI Era p 204)
Struggle in Bhagyanagar
(Hyderabad)
In 1938/39 Savarkar started a movement for upholding the legitimate rights
of Hindus in the state of Hyderabad of Nizam. It is true, that movement was
non-violent. On 11 October 1938, in his speech before the famous
Sahnivarvada in Pune, Savarkar explained his choice

TWo ways of resistance

I have explained the misfortune and persecution of Hindus in Hyderabad

state. We have to see what forms of resistance are available to us and how
we can help our brothers in Hyderabad.

I discussed the matter shortly before this meeting with Senapati Bapat (one
of Savarkar’s contemporaries in London 1906-10}. We can take to arms or
fight non-violently. At present, the armed resistance is not practicable. I am
not at all saying that it is wrong or unethical to resort to armed struggle. But
it is not practicable at the moment. We have therefore resolved to fight non-
violently.

For the next six months we must ensure that people go to Hyderabad in
succession in groups of say 25. If we do that success can be guaranteed. I
therefore appeal to everyone to take part and help this struggle in any way
they can.

{SSV4 pp 378-381)

On the same subject, on 23 April 1939, he said in Mumbai — “The struggle

in Hyderabad is just a spark. As with lighting a fire, this spark will lead to
flames and when the fire grows, it will engulf the whole of India setting fire
to our slavery. We have to resort to unarmed resistance simply because we
do not have arms and also we are not trained to use them.”
{SSV4 pp 381/3)

In July 1939, Nizam finally agreed to a compromise. He conceded to give

50% of government jobs to Hindus (who formed 85% of his population) as
against the 2% they had until then. Savarkar therefore called off his
agitation.

After looking at all these details the question arises, “Why did Savarkar
always propagate armed uprising against the British?” The answer is
simple. The British did not grant political reforms in India willingly. They
were forced to do so by the revolutionaries. Television documentaries on
the events of 1946, produced 50 years later, clearly show that the British
had no intention of granting independence to India in 1947. Moreover, they
wanted

to disintegrate India into hundred pieces. It was the revolutionaries who

stopped them in their tracks. They did not give British enough time to carry
out their evil design. Had the British been sincere, Savarkar would have
indeed chosen the path of peaceful constitutional progress.

INDIAN NATIONAL ARMY (I.N.A)

On 15 February 1942, The troops under the British command in Singapore

surrendered to the Japanese. As a result, some 60,000 Indian soldiers were
held as Prisoners of War by the Japanese. Out of these 20,000 joined the
Indian National Army formed by Subhash Chandra Bose. After the
surrender of Japan in 1945, Bose died in a plane accident and INA soldiers
were captured by the British on the Indo -Burmese border near Assam.
They were classified by the British as follows:Whites - those who joined
out of coercion and had no choice. They numbered 3,880. They were taken
back in the Indian Army. Grays - Those whose loyalty was doubtful. They
were dismissed from service. But they were granted pension as per their
number of years of service.

Blacks - Those fought against the British. They were dismissed from
service. They numbered 6,177. British wanted to courtmartial them.

( Viceroy’s Journal pp 161/2)

British writers always describe the INA soldiers as cowards, not patriots.
They say these were men who tried to escape the rigours of life as PoWs
and therefore joined Bose’s army. Let us say for the sake of argument that
there is some truth in this biased view. But by the same token, it cannot also
be said that there were no patriots among them either. Moreover, even
among the British soldiers there were some cowards and deserters! We
should not forget that at the height of war, son of Mr Amery, the then
Secretary of State for India was hanged as a traitor.

Suppose we assume that out of 20,000 IN A soldiers only half were patriots
(i.e. 10,000 soldiers). What would have happened if Bose had accepted
Savarkar’s advice immediately and escaped to Germany and Japan? He
would have had the advantage of favourable weather for his battles. A few
victories by his forces would have seriously affected the loyalty of Indian
troops under British command in India and the scales would have turned his
way. In English it is said, ‘nothing succeeds like success.' Let us take an
example.

After World War I, the Allies demilitarised the Rhineland. When Hitler
came to power and started his manoeuvres, he sent German soldiers in
Rhineland on 7 March 1936. They had rifles but no bullets. They had strict
orders to turn back if challenged by the French soldiers. French generals
took no action. Hitler succeeded in his bluff. His Generals were astonished.
Had Bose’s campaign started with such success, the Congress Party
members would have deserted Gandhi and Nehru and joined Bose.

In 1946, Lt Col Shahid Hamid was A.D.C to Field Marshal Auchinleck. He

kept a diary of the events of those days. He informs us

Colonel K S Himmatsinghji, a very senior and respected officer, kept

Auchinleck informed of the effect of the trials on army personnel as well as
on the public. In February he reported to Auchinleck that ‘Never before had
the entire country been in such a hostile mood against the British
Government as today. This is due to political frustration. It is the only issue
upon which there is agreement between the Congress and the League. The
INA has aroused the imagination of all, including that of the Army. If any
punishment is awarded to the INA personnel it would be denounced by all
political parties. The future National Government will release all.’Colonel
Himmatsingh finally suggested that all INA prisoners should be released.

A British officer by the name of Major C W Cockin, who was Himmat’s

friend, had suggested that INA trials should be put in cold storage until an
Indian Government was formed as it was wrong for a British officer to
judge their conduct. He maintained that INA stood for freedom for India
and they were justified in breaking their oath for patriotic reasons. He
maintained that the trials were vindictive.

{Dissstrous Twilight by Major General Shahid Hamid, 1986, p19)

While the INA trials were in progress, Indian Officers were asked for their
opinions by the British Generals. Shadid Hamid himself submitted —

The Indian public has no sympathy with those who did not join the INA. On
the contrary, they are looked down upon. Those who joined INA are
considered ‘National Heroes’(a misused term, according to Hamid) and are
regarded as the leaders of the future army. Those so-called ‘National
Heroes’will receive all the sympathies and support of any National
Government formed in India. The ICOs {Indian Commissioned Officers)
will be considered aliens and traitors to their cause. Efforts will be made to
replace them by the ‘Heroes’.

Hamid then answers the question ‘what could have happened in future?’

POSSIBLE FUTURE ORGANISATION It is thought that the political

organisations, while their hands are tied, will raise some kind of unarmed
militia like the German SS Organisation in 1936, who, though unarmed,
were fully trained to use arms. It is feared the nucleus of officers for this
army will be provided by the released INA officers and men. Later, when
the National Government is strong enough, they will be armed and
equipped and ultimately when their strength is such that they will be able to
defend India the Indian Army will be dissolved or merged into the National
Army. The ICOs will be excluded from such an Army for being loyal to the
British.

(Disastrous Twilight, p 22)

Need I say more ? In those days Field Marshal Auchinleck himself put out
the following statement.
MEMORANDUM BY THE
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IN
INDIA TO ALL COMMANDERS
ON THE FIRST INA TRIAL.
1.1 have now been able to study a large number of reports from higher and
unit commanders and other sources on the effect of the action taken in
respect of the first ‘INA’trial on the Indian Army as a whole.

I feel that we should do all we can to remove the feelings of doubt,

resentment and even disgust which appear to exist in the minds of quite a
number of British officers, who have not the knowledge or the imagination
to be able to view the situation as a whole, or to understand the present state
of feeling in India.

2. As I see it, the commutation of the sentences of transportation on

Shahnawaz, Dhillon and Seghal has had the following effects in India.

(a) On the general public, moderate as well as extremist, Muslim as well as

Hindu:

Pleasure and intense relief bom of the conviction that confirmation of the
sentences would have resulted in violent internal conflict. This feeling does
not, in my opinion, spring universally from the idea that the convicted
officers were trying to rid India of the British and, therefore, to be
applauded, whatever crimes they might commit, but from a generally
genuine feeling that they were patriots and nationalists and that, therefore,
even if they were misled they should be treated with clemency, as true sons
of India. In this connexion, it should be remembered, I think, that every
Indian worthy of the name is today a ‘Nationalist’, though this does not
mean that he is necessarily ‘antiBritish’. All the same, where India and her
independence are concerned, there are no ‘pro-British’Indians. Every Indian
451 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

Commissioned Officer is a Nationalist and rightly so, provided he hopes to

attain independence for India by constitutional means.

(b) On the Indian Officers of the Indian Army Except for a few recovered
prisoners of war who have suffered much at the hands of their fellow
countrymen who joined the socalled ‘INA’, the vast majority almost without
exception, however much they may like and respect the British, are glad
and relieved because of the result of the trial. Most of them admit the
gravity of the offence and do not condone it, but practically all are sure that
any attempt to enforce the sentence would have led to chaos in the country
at large and probably to mutiny and dissensions in the Army culminating in
its dissolution, probably on communal lines.

The more senior and intelligent undoubtedly realise the implications of our
having established in principle the seriousness of the crime of forsaking
one’s allegiance and the wisdom of meeting it with a heavy punishment
such as ‘Cashiering’which carries with it the stigma of disgrace.

They realise that if their future is to be at all secure, discipline and loyalty
must be maintained, but they too, are Nationalists, and their feelings are
much the same as those of the public at large.

(c) On the British officers of the Indian Army As I have already said, the
effect on many British officers has been bad, and has led to public criticism,
which has not been in accordance with the traditional loyalty I am entitled
to expect. To those officers, perhaps not always very perceptive or
imaginative, an officer is an officer, whether he is Indian or British, and
they make no allowance for birth or political aspirations or upbringing, nor
do they begin to realise the great political stresses and strains now affecting
this country. They are unable to differentiate between the British and Indian
points of view.

Moreover, they forget, if they ever knew, the great bitterness bred in the
minds of many Indian officers in the early days of ‘Indianisation’by the
discrimination, often very real, exercised against them, and discourteous,
contemptuous treatment meted out to them by many British officers who
should have known better. These facts constitute the background against
which the decisions should be judged, always keeping before one the
object, which is to preserve by all possible means in our power the
solidarity of the Indian Army, and of the Royal Indian Navy (RIN) and
Royal Indian Air Force (RIAF) as well.

3 .... It is quite wrong to adopt the attitude that because these men had taken
service in a British-controlled Indian Army, therefore their loyalties must be
the same as those of British soldiers. As I have tried to explain, they had no
real loyalty or patriotism towards Britain as Britain, nor as we understand
loyalty.

4. So much for the rank and file. The (Indian) officers who went over
present a much more difficult problem. Owing to their presumably superior
education, knowledge of the world and experience generally, it is not
possible to apply the same reasoning to them, except possibly to the very
junior, and to those who had been promoted from the ranks, whose
background was more limited and whose knowledge was less.

There is no excuse for the regular (Indian) officers who went over, beyond
the fact that the early stages of ‘Indianisation’from its inception to the
beginning of the late war were badly managed by the British Government
of India, and this prepared the ground for disloyalty when the opportunity
came.

There is little doubt that’Indianisation’was at its inception looked on as a

political expedient, which was bound to fail militarily. There is no doubt
also that many senior British officers believed and even hoped that it would
fail.

453/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

It Is no use shunning one’s eyes to the fact that any Indian officer worth his
salt is a Nationalist, though this does not mean, as I have said before, that
he is necessarily anti-British. If he is anti-British this is as often as not due
to his faulty handling and treatment by all British officers.
5. This aspect of the business, though it cannot excuse the action of these
(Indian) officers in going over to the enemy, must be considered, as it does
provide the background against which we must view the present and the
future ...

6. There remains the matter of the decision to commute the sentences of the
first three officers from Transportation’to ‘Cashiering’. If, as we have
admitted, they were guilty of the worst crime a soldier can commit, then it
may be asked -‘Why be lenient with them?’

In taking the decision to show clemency, the whole circumstances, past,

present and future, had to be considered, and were so considered most
carefully and over a long period.

It is necessary also to remember that some 20,000 officers and men joined
the so-called ‘INA’and that, even if it were desirable, it would have been a
physical impossibility to bring all these men to trial within anything
approaching a reasonable period of time. {Disastrous Twilight pp 302-305)

We must remember the Field Marshal’s words, ‘every Indian officer worth
his name is a Nationalist’

Now suppose, for the sake of seeking cheap popularity, Savarkar had sided
with Congress and had not endorsed wholeheartediy Militarisation and had
not advised Bose to form the INA - what would have happened?

One shudders to think of the consequences. Ail the turmoil described above
would not have taken place. British ruiers would

have been quite happy with huge percentage of Muslims in the armed
forces. The whole country would have become Pakistan. After all Gandhi
had already said that it was quite alright for the British to transfer all power
of the central government to Muslim League.
IMPORTANCE OF MARTYRS
Savarkar propagated the revolutionary path for nearly half a century. People
of any enslaved country need martyrs who face enormous difficulties, suffer
terrible punishments but refuse to bow to foreign rulers and even accept
death with courage and dignity. But Martyrdoms has its limitations. It must
be used wisely. It is interesting to see Savarkar’s views on this subject.

In May 1929, Jitendranath Das, a revolutionary, demanded ‘political

status’for the revolutionary prisoners. He stated that the cause behind their
offences was noble; they were not fighting for their personal selfish
interests but for a national cause. As such British Government must
recognise that the revolutionaries were patriots and be granted Special
Status in prisons. His demand was refused. He went on hunger strike and
eventually died in Lahore prison. Savarkar wrote an article on the subject in
5 May 1929 issue of weekly, Shraddhanand.

The sacrifice of Jitendranath was praiseworthy, honourable, respectable ....

but it is not to be followed.

During the last twenty years we have seen sacrifices made by Indian
revolutionaries. Jitendranath’s sacrifice is definitely just as incredible,
praise worthy ... After such a beginning Savarkar writes about the hunger
strikes in jails on the Andaman Islands. Later he says —

Many have refused to take food and are saying, “Our death will be on
England’s conscience. It will be on their head.” Many have become
disabled as a result; some are on the point of dying. They are all
praiseworthy. But ... What is praiseworthy in one instance is not worth
being followed in other instances.

Any behaviour or virtue, which is praiseworthy or honourable under one set

of circumstances, is not necessarily worth following in other circumstances.
On the contrary such action may need to be discouraged. One must consider
the tactics carefully. We must give due consideration to the relative
strengths an weaknesses, circumstances, possible movements of the
enemies. Our agitation or our fight should not only be praiseworthy but also
must be effective and achieve the desired aim.

How do we decide what is a sacrifice and what is a killing? The first is

made for the benefit of others (to one’s nation for instance); it is made for a
far nobler a cause than for self-interest. Whereas the second is made for
demoniac (devilish) or selfish intentiorjs.

A good General only sends in just enough troops to win a battle. His
interest is not in sacrificing lives of his solders but in winning with the least
number of casualties. Dying for the sake of dying is madness. Martyrdom,
the spirit to defend a post to the last man is sometimes necessary but only as
part of a greater strategy of a struggle. Guru Tegbahadur (9“’ Guru of
Sikhs) and Maratha King Sambhaji became martyrs in the 17®’ century for
defence Hindu Dharma because there was no other choice. Main aim of a
struggle Is VICTORY. Our tactics must ensure maximum damage to the
enemy with least damage to ourselves.

[One may recall the days of Napoleon. In 1812 he had to retreat from
Moscow. Far more soldiers were dying because of severe cold winter than
in fighting Russian soldiers. The Tzar expected the Russian General
Kutusov to pursue Napoleon, but Kutuslov bluntly replied, “I will not
sacrifice the life of a single Russian soldier un-necessarily. Nature has
defeated Napoleon. If I send my troops after the French army, there will
inevitably be fights and some of my soldiers will die. That kind of French
defeat is not worth the life of a single Russian soldier.” Tzar relinquished
Kutuslov of his command but Kutuslov stuck to his guns.]

Martyrdom can be a part of battle strategy: it may be essential but must be

used in exceptional circumstances. We must remember that it does not
guarantee success.

Guru Tegbahadur and Maratha King Sambhaji refused to renounce Hindu

Dharma and embrace Islam. They became martyrs in 17''’ century for our
cause. That martyrdptn is commendable and worth following. Similarly, if
any revolutionaries face torture and are asked to reveal any information that
would damage our freedom struggle, and so decide to be martyrs it would
be commendable. But sacrificing one s life for the sake of it, is madness and
we must condemn that tendency.

At present there are many political prisoners who are going on hunger strike
unto death. It is like sheep following a sheep. I agree wholeheartedly that
the Political Prisoners should be recognised as such. It is a matter of our
pride and dignity. It has its value but not in terms of lives of such fine
young men.

What has happened has happened. The example of Jitendra must be

regarded as an exception. It must not become a general rule. We must call a
halt to this spread of hunger strikes.

To make a wrong commitment is foolhardy enough but it is even more

foolhardy to continue one’s action when it is clear that such commitment is
severely damaging to the national cause. Under such circumstances it is
more prudent to retreat. That is a sign of true patriotism and bravery. We
must distinguish between determination and stubbornness. The weapon,
which inflicts wounds on the user, is not a weapon. Any one using such a
weapon is not a clever leader.

While in Andaman, Bhai Paramanand, Nani Gopal, Bhai Pruthwisingh,

Bhai Mohansingh and others resorted to hunger strike for their grievances.
But I (Savarkar) persuaded them to abandon their method. And as a result,
after release from jail, they are doing wonderful service to our nation. I
have explained such cases in my book ‘My Transportation for Life.’But
suppose they had not listened to me and died of hunger strikes, no one back
home (on mainland India) would have even heard of them.

Prisoners in jail should fight for their rights and concessions, be itfor a glass
of milk, or for getting newspapers, for provision of a taple and chair. Make
life difficult for the authorities. But hunger strike? and that too for such
ordinary demands? and without making any dent in the arrogance of the
authorities ? And that too by warriors like Bhagatsingh, Datta, Satinbabu
and fifty others like them? I must vehemently oppose such action. My
friends, for god’s sake abandon such suicidal hunger strikes immediately.
Eat twice the normal amount but cause damage to our enemy.
I say once again that the example of Jatindra is honourable, praiseworthy,
but it is an exception. Others must NOT follow his example. Shivaji was
imprisoned by Aurangzeb. He did not go on hunger strike. He escaped and
challenged the might of Aurangzeb again. Change with times by all means,
but follow his strategy.

{SSV2pp 491-500)

• In May 1938, Savarkar was publicly honoured in Lucknow. He said,

“Hindus do not need martyrs any more. We need warriors and fighters also.
It is true that a nation, which does not produce martyrs, is dead, but tha
nation, which remains satisfied with martyrs alone and does not produce
warriors, also remains dead. Our generation provided India with martyrs.
Your generation should now provide warriors and achieve victory - that
would be the true tribute to the martyrs. We must produce warriors who
make it un-necessary to produce martyrs. They should liquidate the
aggressors.”

{HMSErap91)
VARIETY OF MEANS
Four months after his release from internment i.e. in August 1937 Savarkar
spoke in Pune on the occasion of the birth anniversary of Lokamanya Tilak.

• Adopt various means

Tilak’s aim was complete independence. But he was realist about the means
to be adopted. He had many options in mind. Tilak and his contemporary
Vishnushastri Chiplunkar resorted to petitions to the British Government,
but they were also proud of the revolutionaries. Once Chipalunkar had
arranged a tea party, but as soon as he read news in the Times of India that
Shreemant Nanasaheb Peshwa was arrested, he cancelled it.
What good is just one means?
The followers of Tilak would adopt any means to secure our independence.
They would not make un-necessary fuss about morality or immorality of
any means, be it civil disobedience (Satyagraha), boycott, swadeshi
(supporting of indigenous industries) or any other. They would not be
wedded to any one particular method. If, in a civil disobedience movement,
my followers suffer a lot without making a dent in the strength of my
enemy, why should I insist on using the same method at all times? Tilak did
not do that. He resorted to demonstrations, boycott, protests, disobedience,
and petitions and even co-operated with the British if necessary.

{S S V 4 pp 366/7)

•Two years later Savarkar again spoke on the occasion of Tilak’s birthday,
in Pune.

We should keep the same aim as Tilak, but change in our tactics according
to the changing times. Sometimes we may have to do a summersault and
reverse our policies. There is nothing wrong in that. That is my definition of
a hero-worship. Following a leader blindly without realising his intentions
or talking like a parrot can be considered neither an act of gratitude nor an
act of heroworship. Very briefly, as per the teaching of Tilak I set out our
aims

(1) To seek our independence.

(2) To adopt means which we have and which would be effective in certain
circumstances.

(3) To work for the progress of the Hindu nation.

K is just not possible to follow Tilak’s preachings literally, nor is it

desirable. Manusmriti should be respected as an ancient code of conduct.
But we must make changes according to times. The same applies to politics.
Tilak died in 1920. Times have changed since. In days of Tilak, it was an
offence even to demand ‘Home Rule.Therefore Tilak had to say, ‘We have
no quarrel with the English, they are benevolent people, but it is their
administration that is bad and needs changing.‘If we keep on saying the
same thing today because we are proud of Tilak, he would not be pleased. It
would mean that we did not understand his teachings. We must seek new
methods to suit new circumstances.

{HMS Era p256/SSV4p 525)

On 27 November 1937, Savarkar gave a public speech atAkola

• In the days of previous generations, the agitation was for Swaraj /

Independence. It was only a struggle for the words. The intention was to
awaken the people and encourage them to demand Swaraj. But today we
see that Swaraj on the horizon. (The Government of India Act 1935 had
granted Provincial Self Government) Today the masses are sufficiently
awakened and we have been offered a share of political power. Therefore
the days of mere theoretical discussions are over. It is true the words that we
used were very important in those days, but no longer. It took nearly two to
three generations to change the mental attitude of our people. Many of our
leaders and even some of my compatriots regarded Edward VII as re-
incarnation of Lord Vishnu!!

But, we have now made tremendous progress. Therefore we must give new
meaning to the word ‘Independence’and adopt new tactics to suit.

{SSV4 p326)

• Going to jail is not the only test of patriotism

*On 23 March 1940, Savarkar spoke at the Tamilnadu Hindu

Parishad (Conference). He honoured Dr Varadarajalu Naidu, A non-

Brahmin and said - /

Going to jail is not the only test of patriotism. But, even that route as well
he has gone through. Although he has not yet gone to Legislative Council,
we intend to send him there on the ticket of Hindu Mahasabha.

{SSV4p538^

* During his speech at Mumbai, on 4 October 1941 Savarkar again said —

As far as the sacrifices are concerned, I say to you once again that going to
jail is not the only test of patriotism. Shivaji was imprisoned by Aurangzeb,
but he escaped. Bajirao-l never went to jail. Same thing applies to Saint
Ramdas, but they were all patriots.

{SSV4p 540)

* British Administrators were going to carry out census in India in 1941. In

November 1940 Savarkar put out a statement pointing out to Hindus the
importance of that census.

We must be prepared to do all kinds of work for the benefit of our nation.
Going to jail sounds patriotic and gives good publicity. But at times we
must also be prepared to work alone and unnoticed. It is therefore important
that volunteers should come forward to impress upon our people the
importance of impending census. They should stress that all the people
living in hills and forests are Hindus, be they Bhils, Santhals, Gaunds or
Uravs. The volunteers must ensure that these are counted as Hindus.
(Christian Missionaries were busy in propagating that these people were
non-Hindus)

Similarly, we have to do a lot more constructive work for our Hindu society.
It is immaterial whether you are noticed but your work is of immense
importance.

(H MS Era p 377)

WHAT, AFTER THE ENGLISH HAVE GONE?

Savarkar was fully aware of that fact that the English rule would not end
easily. But he was equally aware of the fact that once their rule is ended,
India would need Administrators, Economists, Scientists, Technicians and
persons of similar attributes. In 1912, as soon as he settled in jail on
Andaman Islands he started educating the Political prisoners imprisoned
there. He shows his foresight and explains his difficulties.

What good is learning?

There were obstructions in our way, put by prison administrators, but the
main stumbling block was the unwillingness of political prisoners
themselves. Most of them were revolutionaries. Naturally they were
interested in doing .something tangible, something that could be seen and
appreciated by fellow Indians. I had to say to them, ‘Some of you are term-
convicts . God willing, after your term, you would be released. You would
carry out work in your respective fields. Do not read just books for the sake
of it, but as long as you cannot do anything concrete (because you are
imprisoned), why not increase your knowledge, which is necessary to
achieve your aims? Why waste time in idleness?’

It is difficult to gain independence, it is equally difficult to maintain it once

achieved and that cannot be done without expertise in various fields.
Without political, historical, economical, and administrative knowledge,
you cannot do even a destructive work towards our enemy nor can you
certainly do any constructive work without that knowledge.

Mere blind fury against the foreign rulers is suicidal. We must learn this
from the French Revolution of 1790 and exercise control over our
destructive tendencies after the independence.

Take the case of Iran for example. They had a political revolution
(1907/08). But they had no experts in the field of administration

or running the government machinery. Therefore they called for experts

from America who had no interest in the progress of Iran as a nation. This
led to wide spread chaos.

China had her revolution and established a Republic in 1912. They too
faced the same problems as the Iranians few years earlier. The Chinese had
no administrators, who had to be imported from abroad, but these foreigners
did not have China’s interests at heart and therefore would not do anything
to harm their own national self-interests. Again there was wide spread
chaos. Therefore do not dismiss the knowledge of Administration as
worthless. In this respect, we must regard the Moderates as our Gurus and
follow their example. Moderates have persons like Gokhale, Dutta and Sir
T Madhavrao who are economists, administrators and experts in running of
government. Do you have any to match them?

At present you are unable to carry out your favourite work (i.e
revolutionary activities) because you are imprisoned. So, instead of passing
time in idle gossip or worrying about the future, every one of us must
increase his knowledge to the maximum extent possible. Every day we
must learn something new about Politics, Economics, Administration and
Political History. You have shown that you are capable of sustaining
physical hardships of imprisonment, if you also increase your knowledge
that will be doubly beneficial to our cause.

{My Transportation for Life pp 164-166)

We are now free. Say No to
revolutionary activities
In May 1952, in Pune, Savarkar disbanded his revoiutionary society
Abhinav Bharat. On that occasion he advised that Anarchy is the greatest
enemy of our independence.

“After the aims of our revolution are achieved, it is our first and
fundamental duty to disband the destructive tendencies which we had
spread for causing the fall of a foreign government. Conspiracies, armed
insurrections, terrorism, defying the rule of law, sedition - all such activities
are justified when overthrowing

an alien rule was to be accomplished. But once the independence Is won,

we must regard such activities as sinful and abandon them immediately. If
not, they would boomerang and destroy our freedom. I had explained this to
all my colleagues of Mitramela (1900) and Abhinav Bharat (1905) and
propagated the same in the discussions I had in London through ‘Free India
Society’.” He further said, “Now our duty is to protect our independence.
We must make this country strong and powerful. Today our motto is to
abide by the Law, not breaking or defying the law. Our national duty is to
establish rule of law so that we all prosper.” (End of an Era p 125)

The question then arises - what form of Government should India have?

POLITICS AND ADMINISTRATION

Forms of Government tried in France

Savarkar, while studying in London (1906-1910), sent 43 newsletters to

newspapers in India. In his newsletter dated 19 July 1907 he wrote about
the experiment of Passive Resistance then being carried out by workers in
French vineyards. He says:
“France had tried so many types of government from 1789 to 1848 that one
wonders if God has created a laboratory in France to study them and
explain their strengths and weaknesses. They had Uncontrolled Monarchy,
Controlled Monarchy, Anarchy, Monarchy appointed by the people.
Democracy, Joint democracy and after all these experiments they have now
chosen the present Democratic Form of Government. There have been so
many changes in the last 200 years that it amounted to a Revolution every
ten years. The present form of democracy has now lasted for fifty years. It
is difficult to find any other country that has undergone such experiments.”
[surprisingly enough the French adopted a new Constitution in 1958 and
declared the Fifth republic with Charles De Gaulle as their first President.
This was just 50

years after Savarkar’s article]

(SSV4 p 79)

Democracy is just one form of government, not the only one.

* Savarkar never said that we should experiment on the French lines. It is

true that way back in 1907 he had proposed that independent India should
adopt Democratic form of Government. He openly said so on 26 October
1937. But he never ever wanted ‘Democracy for the sake of Democracy
The National Good was of paramount importance. If that cannot be
achieved by democracy, he exhorted us to abandon that mode and adopt
another system of government. First of all make India strong and powerful -
that was his motto. He said so in 1961, in the last public speech of his life.

* In his speech of 8 May 1943, he said at Shimoga, “Today everybody is

praising democracy. That type of government is suitable where the voters
are well educated and know how the democratic government machinery
works. But in India where the voters are ignorant and do not know whom to
vote and the elected representatives are also selfish it would bring about the
ruin of Hindus. Therefore I would NOT recommend democracy. I WOULD
SUPPORT ANY OTHER FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT WOULD
SUIT THE INTERESTS OF THE HINDU NATION.”

(S.UIEra pp 268/9)
People need to be awakened to make democracy successful, like what
Savarkar did, in jail on Andaman Islands but on a vast scale.

* After the general election in 1945/46, Congress Party came to power in

seven major provinces in India. Following an outcry by the public, they
removed the bans on Savarkar’s books, imposed by the British
Administration. On 30 August 1946 his biography of Mazzini was
published in Pune with a public declaration. Mr

S.M Mate ivas in the chair. MrSL Karandikar, one of the disciples
ofLokamanya Tilak said, “Savarkar expresses his opinions openly and
without any reservations. Today he would say to God, ‘If you want to bless
us, give us our freedom. Democracy? We will take care of it aften/vards. I
do not need your blessing specifically for it.’He had said this as far back as
1905.”

* Make India a power to be reckoned with, democracy can wait.

In 1910, Savarkar was sentenced to Transportation for Life TWICE, to be

served in succession. Had it been his misfortune to serve the full sentence
he would have been released in December 1960. But circumstances
changed. First, he was sent back to mainland India in 1921 and kept in
various jails. Then he was released to live in internment from 1924 to 1937.
And finally released unconditionally in May 1937.

There were therefore public celebrations in December 1960 / January 1961.

Millions of people were delighted that Savarkar was still alive. His health
was very poor. So, he decided to attend only one function, in Pune on 14
January 1961. In response to the public enthusiasm and the congratulations
he received he said,

“It is not good saying, this democracy or that democracy. What is more
important is the public good. Instead of today’s weak democracy (of Nehru)
1 would prefer thousand times one-man

rule of Shivaji or Chandragupta.We have won independence.

You do not know how easily you could lose it, if you keep on voting the
men of straw time after time. Rajaji once said, the first duty of a
Government is to govern. I would not mind if we have a one-man
government, so long as he makes India strong and powerful. That is
thousand times preferable than the present government, which capitulates to
every aggressor (i.e. China and Pakistan). It does not matter how we
achieve it but we need a strong government. Once this is achieved, history
will tell you that the processes and organisations that would give us national

strength would lead to the change in the form of government at a later date.
We do not need worry about that.”

(End of an Era p 235)

Just consider what our status is as Indian. We are despised and treated like
dirt everywhere. Go to the British Deputy High Commission in Mumbai
fora visa and see how the immigration officers treat you. Even if you are a
millionaire they will look down on you as if you are a loafer. While they sit
on chairs, you have to stand up, no matter how long your interview is or
going to be or how old or disabled you may be. They insist that an Indian
must stand in front of them. What is the point of having democracy when
we are treated this way? A dictatorship, that would at least enable us to
raise our head in a pride, is thousand times better than mere democracy. But
that is precisely what the white man does not want. Therefore they
constantly praise Gandhi and Nehru who under the guise of non-violence
made us a laughing stock. The whole world knows that no matter how
much an Indian was insulted Gandhi or Nehru never raised a finger in
protest. Westemeis want that tradition to continue.

Let people choose the type of government they need

* In his public speech on 1 January 1938, Savarkar said in Pune“For us,

Fascism and Bolshevism are just as difficult to understand as unitarism and
dualism. These European ‘isms’will be disastrous for us. It is impossible to
say if a principle is good or bad. That would depend on the circumstances in
any country.
Mussolini built up his country within a matter of four years after coming to
power. So, how can you blame Fascism? Bolshevism proved effective in
Russia. Germany does not accept Bolshevism. But Herr Hitler transformed
Germany on the strength of Nazism.” (SSV4 p419)

* On 20 April 1938 a Hindu Youth Conference was held in Pune.

Addressing them Savarkar said

“If Germans feel that National Socialism (Nazism) is good for

them, if Italians feel that Dictatorship (Fascism) suits their country, let them
adopt whatever form of government suits them. Similarly if Communism
suits Russia, and democracy suits England, so be it. Not any one principle
would suit every country at all times.

It is only in the books we find it propagated that any one principle we may
like should be useful to all countries at all times.”

(HMS Era p 107)

* In a speech in Pune on 11 October 1938, Savarkar again stressed that one

should adopt administration that suits one’s circumstances.

“When we look at suitability of various political philosophies, we must ask

Did the philosophy in question benefit the particular country?’ if it did, that
philosophy should be considered good for that country at that time. Hitler
has propagated National Socialism or Nazisrn. At first he had only 3
followers. Now the whole German Nation is behind him. He unified
Germany under one banner. Therefore, as far as Germany is concerned we
have to say that Nazism was good for them. How can we say otherwise?
What may be a poison to one nation may be nectar to another. It is therefore
unwise to say that a particular philosophy is good or bad under all the
circumstances.”

(SSV4 pp 411/412)
* In December 1940 Hindu Mahasabha held its annual session at Madura.
In his presidential speech Savarkar touched on the same topic.

“History tells us that no one form of government would be beneficial to all

the countries all the time. The British are well known for their love of
freedom of the individual and democracy, at least as far as their country is
concerned. But during this current war have they not abolished all that and
accepted virtual dictatorship of Mr Churchill? His word has the same status
in

England as the word of Hitler in Germany. Recently a British newspaper

had commented, ‘it is well known what has happened to the freedom of the
individual. But can we defend ourselves without abandoning the Magna
Carta?” [War time laws and regulations severely restricted personal
freedom]

(H MS Era pp 398/399)

Indians must run their own affairs

• While in London, Savarkar sent 43 newsletters to newspapers in

Maharashtra. In his newsletter of 20 December 1906, he mentions a speech
by Socialist leader Mr Hyndman and comments

“Dear children of India, read this speech carefully. You wasted a number of
years running after the Conservatives and the Liberals and hoping for
progress. Now you will be tempted to run after the Socialists and hope for
progress. Please don’t. Hyndman may have spoken with sincerity and mean
well, but time has now come for you to throw away the crutches and walk
on your feet without support from others. And when you do that, not only
Mr Hyndman but also the entire world would praise you."

“If Mr Hyndman shows sympathy to your cause, accept it with thanks. But
never seek sympathy. If you are invited for a dinner, accept it with dignity
but don’t beg for it. You find your food. The Lord has given you this huge
piece of land and has blessed with rivers like Ganga, Yamuna, Godavari,
Kaveri, Sindhu and Brahamaputra. In the past, your forefathers have grown
not only crops but also gold in this land. But he has put a condition that
YOU must till this land. If YOU yourself plough, the land will grow crops
and even gold. However, should the plough belong to others, be he Balfour
(British Prime Minister 1902-05) or Morley (the then Secretary of State for
India) it will lead to disaster. Plague, Famine and Slavery. So, if you
remember the condition the Lord has set, in the next season India will
generate Kohinoor diamonds. Peacock Thrones, Poets like Kalidas, whether
or not

it rains. In Sanskrit it is said, ‘You are your own brother, you are your own
enemy.”

(SSV4 pp 52/53)

Even as early as 1906 Savarkar had emphasised that India’s problems must
be solved by Indians themselves.

For centuries India was known as land of Gold. Though there were no
goldmines, the country was so rich that it had huge resen/es of gold. Hence
Savarkar’s remarks - you forefathers have grown not only crops but also
gold in this land.

• Foreign rule means National Death.

In his speech of 1952 he said,

“I accept that, to a free country, there is no enemy worse than anarchy. But
1 would rather prefer anarchy or civil war than foreign rule be it of the
British, Russians or even the Angels. Anarchy, terrible it may be, is not
insurmountable, un-winnable. Foreign rule however, is national death. We
must stress that point deeply in the minds of our people.”

(Krantighosh p 125)

Any religion must change according to the country, circumstances and the
nature of people. If it does not, its followers pay a heavy price. Let us see
how. But first we must distinguish between the terms Dharma and Religion.
Though these words are used to note the same thing their meanings are
quite different.

Dharma means a Way of Life and Hindus accept that one is and should be
free to choose one’s path of salvation. Hence in many families in Punjab
some members are Sikhs and some Sanatanis. One may follow Buddha or
Mahavir Jain. Hindu Kings did not discriminate against any one sect. Just
look are various caves in Maharashtra. Sanatanis, Buddhists and Jains
intermingle.

It is because of this that, Hindus never had bloodbaths for the

470/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar -^-

differences of religious practices, because there is no question of imposing

one’s way of life on another.

Christian missionaries who came to India in the 17^ and Iff'’ century have
expressed their utter frustration in their efforts to spread Christianity in
India They said, “How can we spread Christainty in this country? If we tell
Hindus that Jesus was a Messiah they reply - ‘That is perfectly
understandable. Lord Krishna in his Geeta has said that he is bom on this
earth from time to time. So, we have no objection in accepting that Jesus
was a Messiah for you.”

Christians and Muslims however never practised this tolerance. Their

history is full of many acts of barbarism. In the name of religion Christians
have massacred Christians, Muslims have massacred Muslims. One can
imagine both treated others who did not believe in their religions (i.e.
Christianity or Islam). They follow their religion. I remember Billy Graham
the American Evangelist who came to England in the 1960s. His words
were ‘Unless you come to the feet of Chris you will NOT get peace.’ That
is Religion. That is bigotry. If he was to say, ‘come to Chris and you will
find peace. ’ That would quite different. That would be Dharma. But that is
NOT what he said or meant.

The fact remains that any religion or dharma must change with country,
times and people. If it does not, its followers pay a heavy price. Let us see,
HOW.

.■

■i

Vv^T,' K-.

DHARMA (RELIGION) AND RELIGIOUS TEXTS

DHARMA (RELIGION)
Religion is a tremendous force
In his speech on 13 December 1953, Savarkar explained how change of
religion leads to change of nationality. He said, “Religion is a tremendous
force. Even an atheist like Comrade Stalin will have to admit that.”

(End of an Era p 207)

* This is indeed true. After the shadows of World War II fell on Russia,
Stalin opened up the churches for public prayers. In November 1942, Stalin
sought blessings of Christian Bishops Sereji and Sulev and the photographs
of them giving blessings to Staiin appeared in the Russian newspaper
Pravada.

* In 1999, we saw a series named The Cold War' screened on television in

England. In 1946/47, after the end of World War II elections were held in
Italy. CIA, the American secret sen/ice agency, used Pope and the Catholic
Church to the full extent and defeated the Communists who wouid have
othenvise won the elections. American poiiticians now state this quite
openly.

* Same applied in Poland in 1990s. Pope John Paul II is Polish. He was

largely responsible for destabilising the Soviet Empire in 1989/90 - and that
is no secret. In September 1996, British newspapers gave extensive details
of the conspiracy hatched between Pope and the American Government.
Though Poland was communist, the Catholic Church still had large
influence on the Polish people. Americans used Pope to overthrow the
authority of the Soviet Union in Poland.
Well, the question then arises, what
is religion?
In the Indian Epic Mahabharat, Bhishma is asked, ‘What is dharma
(religion)? where does it come from?’ He replies, ‘Learned men in a
society, after a great deal of thought, create religion. They prepare its rules
as per their knowledge.’ Hindu

civilisation has given a definition. Religion is that set of rules and

regulations, which make a society governable and make it prosper.

(Ref:- Bharatiya Sanskriti by Saane Guruji pages 19 and 104)

As human settlements grew, they had their rules and regulations to control
their affairs. Their codes of conduct became their religious texts. But these
codes have to be modified to take into account the changing circumstances.
Many times this does not happen and that particular society degenerates.

In 1935-36, Savarkar wrote articles on The Koran, Bible and Manusmriti.

In these, he has put forward the same argument.
RELIGIOUS TEXTS
On 10 May 1931,Savarkar delivered a speech entitled, ‘God sent books and
how men should read them.’ at Ratnagiri during the Vasant Vyakhyanmala.
He said, “Recently I read somewhere that more people were killed under
the name of God and Gospel than under Devil and the Dollar. When I
thought about it deeply various old texts came to my mind, such Vedas,
Zendavesta (of Parsees), Tripitik (of Buddhists), Bible, Koran as well as
some texts in the recent past like that of Mormons of America. I came to the
conclusion that there were four common factors

(1) Every one says that only their text is God sent and others are not so.
Therefore there is no consistency in them.

(2) People say that, as the orders in their particular book are not contained
in others, those texts are not God sent.

(3) Men need to decide by logic, experience and other tests who was true
prophet and who was not.

(4) Religious followers insist that once some one accepts their

religion that person can only follow the orders of that religion.

I therefore recommend that we need to examine all religious texts to see if

they are relevant today. It is therefore prudent to rely on man made texts
than God given ones. That is the only way of avoiding feuds and
bloodbaths.

(Ratnagiri Era p 241)

How should we read religious
texts?
An introduction to factions among the Muslims - that was the title of
Savarkar's article published in the 1935 July / August issue of Kirloskar
magazine. At the outset he clarifies his outlook for studying religious texts.

“If we have to study religions, we must set aside our prejudices and search
for the truth. I say that ALL religious texts, from the conventions of tribal
people as seen on the Andaman Islands, to Vedas and others, are our
common heritage. They contain principles for welfare of the respective
people. As such we respect them.”

“In every religion, whatever is the eternal truth, that much should be
accepted and the mankind will benefit by such acceptance. But, what
appeared to be the truth at the time of the propagation of a religion may be
found to be false or lacking in later day life or due to advances in science.
We should also be honest to accept that. There is no shame or guilt if some
principles are later found to be not adequate and it is our duty to
acknowledge that. After all the definition of religion is ‘Dharanatdharmah
itiyahu’ Dharma is for the good of the people.”

“It is therefore wrong to say that because such and such statement is found
in a particular text, it must always be true. That would be bigotry and such a
person cannot truly make a relative study of all religions.”

“On the other hand, an open minded person accepts that various religious
texts, be they Vedas, Puranas or Koran, have done immense good to the
groups of people whom they belonged in the related times and have led to
their progress. However, he is also free to see if the principles in those texts
are valid today. The thoughts of Aristotle, Plato, Chanakya, Hume, Huxley
or Marx are studied even today without however becoming too attached or
getting carried away by them. We regard their treatises as common property
of the mankind and respect them as such. In a similar manner, we should
carry out a historical study of various religious texts. And this should not
lead to any acrimony or bloodshed as religious fanaticism had done in the
past. There are no fights when reading and studying Scientific Works. No
one says, “This is my Electricity and Radium and your Electricity and
Radium are different.”

“We have poems by Milton, Homer, Valmiki and Omar, treatises on

philosophy by Kant, Spencer, Kapil, Spinosa, histories by various scholars,
scientific works on electricity, heat and other powers of nature, books on
mechanics, art, novels. All such works are regarded as common property of
all mankind. And their study does not lead to duels or fist fights. So, why
can’t we read the few religious texts that there are, in a similar manner?”
* Objections to the rationalist
approach
“Those who ‘want to go by the book’ literally, object to this approach of
ours. They say that human beings are unsteady, their interpretations will
vary with individuals and change in time. On the other hand. Divine
Revelations are fixed, unbending, free from any faults and eternal.
Therefore, human beings have no alternative but to accept the religious
texts as revealed or gifted to the prophets by God.”

“If that was indeed the case, it would have been simply wonderful. But...??
Even if we accept the Vedas, Koran or the Bible as Divine Revelations that
does not solve the problem. There are

about seventy such religious texts in existence but they have contrary
injunctions to each other and yet each religious te)d claims that, its
particular text is TRUE, others are blasphemous.

“So, if we accept any one of the texts as true Divine Revelations, that does
not solve the problem at all. After all who is going to decide which
particular text is divine and which is not? It has to be human beings, with
all their failings and disabilities!! Therefore, in the end we cannot decide
which particular text is true."

“If the dispute is settled by a brute force and a particular text is imposed on
mankind, that does not help either. The text may be one, but its words and
sentences are subjected to different interpretations. If GOD had sent one
interpretation, and made it impossible for human beings to interpret
differently, that would have solved the problem. Unfortunately that is NOT
the case. So, ultimately human beings as they are impart instability,
variations, and many interpretations to any religious text.” (SSV3 pp 542 to
545)

Savarkar has displayed a remarkable attitude of a true scholar.

I (the author) came across a book on how to translate from Marathi (a major
language in India) into English published in 1939, when my eldest brother
was studying for the Matriculation examination. Today, we find it difficult
to understand both the English and Marathi extracts in the book. What
would happen in another 50 years?

New words come into use all the time. For example, Guzumping, Graffiti-
no one heard of such words thirty years ago. Moreover,^ words acquire new
meanings. Some hundred years ago ‘Late’ meant ‘former’ e.g. Late
Principal of Engineering College. Today ‘late’ means ‘dead’. The word ‘Ga/
meant a ‘happy go lucky person. ’ Today it means a homosexual man.

Let us return to Savarkar’s article ‘An introduction to factions among the

Muslims.’ He tells us how Koran came into being.
KORAN
Let us look at history of ‘Holy Koran’ or ‘Koran-e-sharif. Many Hindus
know how Vedas led to various sects due to different interpretations of the
texts. Christians regard the Holy Bible as word of God. But, even if the
literal text is one, it led to hundreds of Bibles - many educated Indians who
are conversant with European History, know this, at least vaguely.
However, 99 percent of Hindus and hundreds of thousands of Muslims in
India are blissfully unaware of the fact that the Koran also went the same
way.

The text of Koran is one, but as it happens in the case of any religious texts,
different scholars interpret the words and sentences differently, at times
even contrary to each other. And thus arose hundreds of versions of Koran.
It is not the purpose of this article to show which version is true or correct. I
simply wish to point out how the same text was interpreted differently by
different scholars / clergy.

For writing this article I have referred to the translation of Koran by George
Sale, Marathi translation of Koran, English version by Dr Mahammadsaheb
of England, translation by staunch Muslim and scholar Justice Amir Ali. I
have studied these and such other scholarly works over a number of years.
Any one may verify facts in this article. Mostly I have quoted from the
works of above scholars. If need be, I will give my comments separately.
Background information on Koran
Koran literally means a text that has to be learned by heart and recited.
Prophet Mohammed received messages from God. The collection of such
messages is Koran. Paigambar means one who carries message from God, a
prophet.

were at least seven different versions of Koran. Two were with the
followers of Mohammed in Madina, third one with followers in Mecca,
fourth one was in vogue in Kufa, fifth was prevalent in

Basra (Iraq), sixth in Syria and the seventh one was in general use at that
time. Number of verses differs, it is 6,000 in one and 6,236 in another.

Like the Old Testament of the Jews, Muslims have also counted number of
words in Koran - they are 77,639, while the consonants are 323,015; not
only that, they have also counted how many times each consonant is used.
Of course there are differences of opinions on all these accounts by various
scholars.
Same words, different meanings
At the beginning of each chapter we find two or four letters that are now not
in common use. There are of course differences of opinion about these also.
Some say, ‘Only God knows their meaning or may be prophet Mohammed.’
But others interpret in their own way and each emphasises that his
interpretation is the true one. For example, at the beginning of some
chapters we find the letters A, L and M. Some scholars say that these
should not be interpreted by human beings. Others say, ‘No. No. These
must be interpreted and they stand for A(llah), L(atif), and M(asjid). They
mean that the God is merciful and honourable. Yet another group says that
A, L, M stand for Analimini in other words, something derived from me
(God). There are those who say that they stand for Ana Allah, Alam -
meaning God is everywhere. There are those who say that the letters stand
for A(llah), Jebria(L) and Maham(M)ad. Allah created the word, Jabrial
was his messenger and he imparted wisdom to Prophet Mohammed. Some
argue that if you look at how the words are pronounced, the words A, L, M
indicate that Allah was there at the beginning, middle and end of the world,
therefore his name should be taken at all times. Thus many give meanings
according to their understanding.

{Savarkar’s note - This illustrates how, even if the divine text is one, it is
subject to different interpretations. Thirty letters of alphabet - thirty
different meanings!!)
Koran - Divine or man-made?
The names of chapters, according to some Mullahs, are divine, on the
contrary some Mullas say that they are the creation of man.

Some regard Koran as god-given (and not composed) and eternal. Prophet
Mohammed himself had declared that those who say otherwise are
blasphemers. So, the feuds were bound to erupt on this score. Motazalites
and the followers of Mozadar regard it a cardinal sin to treat Koran as
divine, or god-given. They said that Koran was composed. This led to bitter
rivalery. In the days of Caliph Alamamun, a government edict was issued
which stated that Koran is eternal but was composed and anyone who
believes and propagates othenvise would be subject to flogging,
imprisonment and even death. It was only in the days of Caliph
Alamotavakkel that both parties were given freedom to follow their beliefs.

The style of Arabic used in Koran is regarded as marvellous. So, some

argue that therefore it must be the work of God. Even Koran contains
sentences to the effect that those who regard Mohammed Paigambar as
pretentious, should compose verses similar to his. Then only they will
realise that Koran is indeed divine.

(Savarkar’s comments:- But this simply shows that Mohammed was a good
composer in Arabic. That is all. Among Muslims, Meetazalatits and
Mozadaris ridicule above argument and say that many men can compose
verses even superior to those in Koran. Moreover, if we apply the same
criteria, should we not regard similar works in languages such as Bengali,
Tamil, German or Marathi as divine creations?^
How was Koran revealed?
When Mohammed Paigambar was about 40, Jabrial, God’s messenger
appeared in front of Mohammed in human form and said, ‘These are the
divine revelations sent to you by your master.

Read them.” He replied, ‘But I cannot read or write.’ Mohammed then

started getting messages from God. As he received them he uttered them to
his disciples who learned them by heart, some wrote them down. This went
on for nearly 20 years. Muhammad died aged 65. In those days, the divine
messages that he received were written on date tree leaves, as paper was not
in use in Arabia. Abu Bakr who succeeded Muhammad put together such
messages and added those from people’s memories. That was Koran.
However, many of disciples of Muhammad died in battles and when Koran
was compiled many sentences went missing, chronological sequence was
also lost. Many who still remembered those sentences regarded the
compiled Koran as incomplete. Muslim scholars agree on this point.

(Savarkar's note - So, Koran went the same way as Vedas. Many Shrutis
became lost. The compilation of Shrutis was done by Vyas, but that is not
the original sequence, there is no consistency in chapters on Sages, Gods
and various topics. Even if people regard Koran as divine, it is incomplete.
How can we say that there were no messages from God, which were
different to those contained in the present Koran?j
Which is the true Koran?
/^u Bakr handed over his compilation (Koran) to Hapsa, daughter of Caliph
Umar and one of many widows of Mohammed. But as we explained above,
within thirty years of the death of Mohammed, in many parts of the Muslim
kingdom there appeared many versions of Koran, which differed from each
other. Everyone insisted that his version of Koran was the correct one and
other versions should be discarded because they were blasphemous. Many
opponents of Abu Bakr regarded his attempt to compile Koran as an
activity of a human being and hence not divine and therefore they rejected
his version of Koran. Eventually Caliph (Usman) Athman decided that the
Koran in the possession of Hapsa was the authentic one and declared all
other versions illegal and destroyed them. He ordered that copies be made
of Koran that was in the possession of Hapsa, and distributed those

481 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

throughout the Muslim kingdom for Muslims to follow. That is the history
behind the present Koran.
Contradictory orders
Alas, that was not to be thO'end of the matter. Even in the copies of the
version of Koran imposed by force, differences arose due to human errors,
while copying, misreading, misspelling, inadvertent changing of words etc.
The astonishing thing was that it contained messages contrary to each other
(not just different). On one day Mohammed would say one message as
divine, but give exactly opposite message the next day - both were
supposed to be divine. This surprised both his opponents and disciples. His
opponents said that the Koran was not the creation of God almighty but was
man-made.

(Savarkar’s note:- The explanation is very simple. Under certain

circumstances God sent a message that would benefit Mohammed. But
when circumstances changed the same message would have been harmful
to Mohammed. So, God sent a contrary messagel! Nothing can be more
simpler.)

“If the messages were indeed from God almighty he would have said that
after certain period, under different conditions I will give a different order.
Until then you follow the first order. That would suit the qualities of God.
But that did not happen. He gave one commandment today to be followed
at all times, but later, gave a contrary commandment - that too, to be
followed at all times. This clearly shows that the Koran is man-made," Such
were the arguments of Mohammed’s opponents and he found it very hard to
refute them. He simply pleaded, ‘My fellows, what can I do? God is
almighty. He decided to give contrary orders to you through me. It is all up
to him. How can I say why he did this?’

(Savarkar’s note:- Even the staunchest of Muslim scholars could not give
any more satisfactory explanation for contradictions than above.)

Mohammed Paigambar himself accepted the contradictions in his divine

orders, what could one say of Islamic scholars. And such contradictions are
not just a few but at least 230 according to them. For example, in his early
days Muhammad asked his followers to face Jerusalem (holy to the Jews)
while praying. But he did not say that it was only a short time measure.
That order was given as eternal, inescapable. However, several years later
he gave a contrary order asking the followers to face Mecca while saying
prayers.

(Savarkar’s note:- If we regard Koran as God given we see the

contradiction. However, if we accept that Koran was compiled by man,
there is no contradiction. When Mohammed’s opponents were strong and
powerful they had a hold on Mecca. They drove Mohammed out of Mecca.
Therefore he did not like his followers to face Mecca while praying. In later
years Mohammed became strong and won the battle for Mecca, it became
HIS capital, the major city of his domain. He naturally wanted all his
followers to bow to Mecca. So, he gave a divine order to face Mecca while
praying.;

Thus, the Koran has such severe shortfalls that it is very hard for even a
sincere follower to accept it as unchanging, eternal, the only divine
revelation. They therefore had to resort to various explanations. But once it
falls in the realm of ordinary human beings differences, different meanings
were bound to crop up. As they say ‘Smritis are different to each other,
Shrutis are also different to each other (Shrutir vibhinna, Smritayascha
bhinnah)’. It is difficult to say which Koran was the original, which
passages were original, which version was correct and which incorrect. This
has led to many Korans.

What applied to the Koran also applied to the interpretation of each

sentence.

In short,

(1) Those messages, which Mohammed felt came from God,

were not all noted down, some went missing. Therefore the Koran,
compiled by Abu Bakr, is incomplete.

(2) Even this incomplete Koran contains more than 200 orders that are
contrary to each other. It is possible that the parts that went missing or were
lost would have contained many more orders, which are contrary to those in
the existing Koran. Therefore, according to some Muslim scholars, the
existing Koran is not trustworthy.

(3) It is well known that there existed seven or eight versions of Koran in
the days of Abu Bakr.

(4) It was really incredible that God did not say to any one, which of the
different versions of Koran was TRUE revelation of God. Khaiif Usman
decided that the Abu Bakr’s version of Koran was the correct one and, by
using brute force, destroyed and burnt ali other versions. The Sunnis
accepted this decision.

(5) But non-Sunni sects did not accept the decision of Khaiif Usman. They
regard Abu Bakr version as adulteration and hence unreiiable. As for the
Sunnis, they regard the Koran of Shias as unreiiabie. Thus, there is no one
Koran that is acceptabie to aii Muslims.

(6) According to Muslim scholars, even the Koran, which is acceptable to

Sunnis, has had many different changes in different chapters.
Factions arise among Musiims
Thus, literally there is no one Koran. As for the interpretation, the problem
is increased thousand fold. This led to sects and sub-sects among Muslims
as listed below.

(i) Hanifai (Sunni)

They are the followers of Hanifa.

(ii) Shafai (Sunni)

They are the followers of Shafi. He would never swear by God.

(ill) Maleki (Sunni)

They are the followers of Malek.

(iv) Hanbali (Sunni)

They are the followers of Hanbal.

Thesr four at least have some common ground. Other nonSunnis are —

(v) Motazali

They are the followers of Vasel. Among Motazalis there are sub-sects, the
major ones are —

(a) Hashemian

They are the followers of Hashem. They say that God cannot be the creator
of any bad things. All non-Muslims are Kafirs and were not created by God.

(b) Nodhemian
These believe that God is all powerful. He can create good as well as bad,
but he chose not to create bad.

(c) Hesitian

They believe in two Gods. One is eternal, with no beginning and end; while
the other one has limitations. They believe in re-birth. Whatever one’s body
is at the time of the end of the world, that will decide where one would go -
heaven or hell.

(d) Mozadari

They are the followers of Mozadar. They say openly that God can be
untruthful and unjust. They distaste the fist sentence in Koran - La Allah
Ilia lllah, there is no God but Allah. Why? Because it implies that there are
other Gods.

(e) Basheri

They openly say that God can do bad things. It was up to him to give sense
to all humankind that everyone should be

a Muslim. But he did not do that and he created hell for nonMuslims. It is
therefore wrong to say that he cannot create bad things.

(f) Thamami

They say that it is wrong to say that after spending a long time in hell, the
sinners (non -Muslims) may be released. Non-Muslims will rot in hell for
ever.

(g) Kaderian

They believe that God only creates the good. Then who creates the bad?
Satan. Thus, there are two creators.

(vi) Sephesian

These have many sub-sects. Let us just take a few

(a) Asharian

(b) Mushavehi

(c) Keramian

(vii) Kharajai

This sect arose out of politics. They believe that the head of Muslims does
not have to be a Caliph or Imam. Nor do they believe that only a man bom
in the Koreshi sect (of Prophet Mohammed) should become a Caliph or
Imam. Also such a man can be deposed if he turned out to be a sinner.

(viii) SHIAS

Now let us see how the Shia sect came into being. Shias are very proud of
Ali, the son-in-law of Mohammed. They say that people have no right to
choose their Caliphs or Imams because such selection can lead to powerful
but vicious Sinners and drunks becoming Caliphs. They point to the number
of Caliphs who could be described in that manner. They despise all Caliphs
who came after Ali {who was stabbed to death while praying). Though
Ali’s sons Hasan and Hussein were killed by Ali’s opponents, Shias believe
that the last descendant of Hussein - Amar is still alive and may appear at
any time. Some Shias believe that God appeared in the form of Ali and his
sons and grandsons.

Sabais even believe that AN himself was God. After all, God can take the
form of a human.

Ishakis say that AN existed before God created heaven and earth. He was a
Paigambar (messenger of God) like Mohammed.

Sufis believe that many humans are Godly. Many of their saints had said
that they talked to God, they saw God, and they were God. One can only
imagine how irritating such utterings would have been to the Sunnis who
killed many Sufi saints such as Hussein Al Hilaz.
Shias believe that the Koran of Sunnis is not the true teachings of
Mohammed. It is adulterated. But Sunnis say the same about the Koran of
Shias. They are thus perpetual enemies of each other.

OTHER PAIGAMBARS (PROPHETS)

Mohammed propagated that God had sent Prophets like Abraham, Moses
and Jesus. But their true teachings were not passed on to mankind properly.
Therefore, he was sent by God and that there would be no prophets after
him. But in his own lifetime Mohammed had faced competition. Others also
made the same claim as him. Here are some of them

Mosilema

He was the head of an Arab tribe. He met Mohammed and became Muslim.
But later he changed and declared that he too was a Prophet and got
messages from God. Naturally he too got many followers. Mohammed
could not defeat Mosilema. Who

was then the true Prophet? Mohammed or Mosilema ? That question was
finally decided, not by arguments or an order by God, but on the
battlefield!! Abu Qakr, the first Caliph defeated and killed Mosilema.
Al Aswad
Yet another contemporary of Mohammed. He also became Muslim, but
declared that he too got divine messages. He performed some miracles and
got many followers. He killed one of Mohammed’s generals and the son of
general and forcibly married the widow. She wanted to seek revenge and
during one night secretly smuggled hired assassins in their house. During
the attack on his life Al Aswad screamed. His bodyguards rushed in to help.
But his wife told them, ‘Shut up. My husband is talking to God and is
getting divine messages. So keep quiet.’

When Al Aswad finally died, the assassins came out and declared that he
was a false prophet and was therefore dead. So, once again it was the sword
that decided who was the true prophet!!

Toliha - He too called himself a prophet.

Sejaj - a woman. She married Mosilema whom we described above. But she
later declared that she herself was a Prophet. Her sect eventually died out.
Paigambars (Prophets) after
Mohammed
* Hakim bin Hasham or man in veil

He too called himself a prophet like Mohammed. He always used to wear a

silk veil and hide all his body. His disciples used to say that he wears veil,
as ordinary people will not be able to bear the sight of him because of
lustre. Of course, his opponents said that he used veil to hide his war scars
and lost eye. He became so popular that people started to worship him as
reincarnation of God. He fought pitched battles with Sunni Caliphs. He
disappeared while besieged by Sunni army. His followers say that he
disappeared in air, while his opponents say that he committed suicide.

* There have been many others such as Babeki Karamitaya, Ishamelia and
Bab. Generally once such person appears every 50 years. He too gets
thousands of followers. The above three bitterly hated other Muslims and
massacred them as impure

488/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

Muslims. Under the leadership of Hasan Sabah, Ishamelians, who regarded

their Imam as re-incarnation of God, massacred thousands of other
Muslims. The word assassin was derived from Hasan. Bab gave the slogan
There is no God but Allah and Bab is his true messenger.’
Recent (Paigambar) Prophet
In the last fifty years (i.e. before 1935) we saw yet another Prophet- Hazarat
Abdul Mirza Kadiyani. He had a divine revelation that he was a Prophet.
He accepted many previous prophets like Jesus, Mohammed but also Rama
and Krishna. He regarded Vedas as divine revelations as Koran. Once again,
he said that he would be really the last Prophet. Muslims in Afghanistan
massacred the followers of Kadiyani.

Thus, we have described the various factions among Muslims without going
into details or judging their merits. One has to

accept that Koran Is not one, even literally. In practice, Muslim scholars
accept that there are seven hundred different Interpretations, and each
regards his interpretation as correct and regard all others as blasphemous.
EXTREMES OF
INTERPRETATIONS
Let us take the cases of Abdul Khatav. He said that Koran should not be
taken at face value; it should not be read literally. One needs to find the true
meaning behind, and it is that mankind •should enjoy and be merry. So, eat,
drink and enjoy sex and all the pleasures of life - that is the true message of
Koran. Life after death, hell and deluge are all false. Fasting and other
penances are to be discarded.

On the other hand, Karamatis say that Muslims must say their prayers
(Namaz) fifty times a day, what good is it to say only five times a day ?

[In recent years, in Iate1990s we witnessed Talibans in Afghanistan

inteipreting Koran in their own way. They forbade

any kind of music, banned radio and TV, forced aii men to grow beards,
forced women to wear veil from head to toe and forbade them from leaving
their houses. They too sincerely believed that they were the true followers
of Mohammed.]

VEDAS

In above article on factions among Muslims Savarkar had said, “Millions of

Hindus believe that Vedas are God-given (i.e. not man-made). They say -
Pramanam Paramam Shrutihi, we regard the Shrutis as standard. But every
word, every Mantra is subject to many interpretations. This leads to
different sects. And that is inevitable. Some argue that animal sacrifice is
sanctioned in Vedas, whereas some one else preaches that Vedas say the
exact opposite. Some believe that eating meat, untouchability based on
birth, idol worship are all mentioned in Vedas. But others quote Vedas to
prove that such practices are condemned. One party states that God is one,
whereas others state that there is no God beyond certain persons and idols.
Some say that renunciation of earthly life and seeking personal salvation are
sanctified in Vedas, some say that they are rejected in Vedas. And this
variety of meanings and interpretations are imparted not by ordinary
mortals but by sages like Yask, Kapil, Jaimini, Shankaracharya, Ramanuj
and Swami Dayanand Saraswati. They were all great men. How is one
going to decide who is right and who is wrong? Neither can we avoid
choosing one interpretation.”

Finally, Savarkar argues, “It does not help at all to consider any one
religious text as the guiding book. That has not helped Koran going the
same way as Vedas. Moreover, even if one version is imposed on people by
force of arms, the disintegration does not stop. One Koran transpires into
seven hundred versions. That is bound to happen. Therefore, it is far more
sensible to regard ALL such religious texts as common property of all
mankind, study them and accept what is appropriate today. That course is

far more reasonable, desirable, and beneficial. Is that not so?” (SSV3 pp
542-565)

[Note - While reading above thoughts one must remember that though
Vedas have been interpreted in various ways, that never led to bloodbath as
happened in case of Islam or Christianity. William Tyndale translated Bible
from original Hebrew and Greek texts into English in 1536. He met with
bitter opposition. He was accused of wilfully perverting the meaning of the
Scriptures, and his New Testament was ordered to be burned. In October
1536 he was publicly executed and burned at stake. Hindus never practised
such intolerance. Each person was free to make his own judgement.

Here we are dealing with how different interpretations will invariably occur
and lead to factions among followers of any religious text.]

BIBLE

‘Ancient Jewish Women’ - that was the title of article in three parts, which
Savarkar wrote for the Stree (Woman) magazine in March, April and May
1936. The Bible consists of two parts Old Testament and New Testament.
Bible is also the religious text of the Jews. But they do not believe that
Jesus was the Messiah that God promised, therefore they do not recognise
the New Testament. Their religious text is Tbe Hebrew Bible (Old
Testament). What was the status of women and how were they treated in the
days of Old Testament? That was the subject matter of Savarkar’s article.
He says

This religious text of the Jews is an important document in the history of

mankind. It illustrates human history of its days.

However, the faith of Jews for all these years believing that their religion is
eternal, it contains all knowledge and it is the work of

God has been proved false when we study it logically. For example, the
Earth’s creation as described in the chapter of Genesis has been proved
wrong by modern knowledge. What are described, as God’s acts turned out
to be false and not worthy of being called godly acts.

The orders given by God as described in the Bible are contrary to those
found in other religious texts. For example, God (of Israelites) asks for
sacrifices of cows and bulls. But Hindu religious texts declare that such acts
are heinous crime and those who commit them are utterly despicable. How
can GOD give such contrary orders and create rifts and feuds between
various communities?

Let us take another example. In the book of Genesis, in section 11 we are

told

Once upon a time all the world spoke a single language and used the same
words. As men journeyed in the east, they came upon a plain in the land of
Shinar and settled there. They said to one another, ‘Come, let us make
bricks and bake them hard.’ They used bricks for stone and bitumen for
mortar. ‘Come, they said,’let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its
top in the heavens, and make a name for ourselves; or we shall be dispersed
all over the earth.’ Then the LORD came down to see the city and tower
which mortal men had built, and he said,’Here they are, one people with a
single language, and now they have started to do this; henceforward nothing
they have mind to do will be beyond their reach. Come let us go down there
and confuse their speech, so that they will not understand what they say to
one another.’ So the LORD dispersed them from there all over the earth,
and they left off building the city. That is why it is called Babel, because the
LORD there made a babble of language of all the world; from that place the
LORD scattered men all over the face of the earth.”

[Note -There are many versions of bible. I have taken words

from The New English Bible published by The Bible Societies, Oxford
University Press, 1977\

Savarkar comments, “Now, what kind of God is this? How come he did not
realise the consequences of all men speaking the same language? Bible says
that he realised this only when he came to see the tower. Moreover, should
not God be pleased to see men working together? On the contrary he
despises the fact and tries to create divisions among them? Was ‘divide and
rule’, his policy too?”

“It is clear that above story is nothing but a gossip among illiterate
shepherds of Israel. How various languages came into being? that may have
been the question put to a group by an individual. And above story would
have been invented as the answer to that question. Once we look at the
books of the Bible from this perspective, it is great fun. But if we read it as
unquestionable, religious text it sounds foolhardy. Instead of creating
respect it makes God look like a Satan.”

“Moreover, in the above story we are told that God created several
languages to create confusion among men. But at that time, in India and
China several languages had already been developed. One can accept that
the shepherds of Israel did not know of other countries of the world, but is it
not incredible that even God did not have this knowledge? That makes a
mockery of the concept of God who is supposed to know all.”

“In the first book of Genesis, chapter I, we find the story of creation. As an
example of imagination of early men in Israel to solve the mystery of how
life began, it is a fascinating story, it makes interesting reading. But to say
that it was told by God makes a mockery of God himself. Let us read from
the chapter.” Savarkar then quotes the story of creation from Bible.

493 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

God creates the world
In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth, the earth
was without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a
mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters. God said, ‘Let there
be light’ and there was light; and God saw that the light was good, and he
separated light from darkness. He called the light day, and the darkness
night. So evening came, and morning came, the first day.

God said, ‘Let there be a vault between the waters, to separate water from
water,’ So God made the vault, and separated the water under the vault from
the water above it, and so it was; and God called the vault heaven. Evening
came, and morning came, a second day.

God said, ‘Let the waters under heaven be gathered into one place, so that
dry land may appear’ and so it was. God called the dry land earth, and the
gathering of the waters he called seas; and God saw that it was good. Then
God said, ‘Let the earth produce fresh growth, let there be on the earth
plants bearing seed, fruit trees bearing fruit each with seed according its
kind. So it was; the earth yielded fresh growth, plants bearing seed
according to their kind and trees bearing fruit each with seed according to
its kind; and God saw that it was good. Evening came, and morning came, a
third day.

God said, ‘Let there be lights in the vault of heaven'to separate day from
night, and let them sen/e as signs both for festivals and for seasons and
years. Let them also shine in the vault of heaven to give light on earth,’ So
it was; God made the two lights, the greater to govern day and the lesser to
govern the night; and with them he made stars. God put these lights in the
vault of heaven to give light on earth, to govern day and night, and to
separate light from darkness; and God saw that it was good. Evening came,
and morning came, a fourth day.

God said, ‘Let the waters teem with countless living creatures, and let birds
fly above the earth across the vault of heaven.’ God then created the great
sea-monsters and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters,
according to their kind, and every kind of bird; and God saw that it was
good. So he blessed them and said. Be fruitful and increase, fill the waters
of the seas; and let birds increase on land.’ Evening came, and morning
came, a fifth day.

Similarly on the sixth day, God created living creatures on earth, cattle,
reptiles and wild animals. He also made the man.

Thus having created heaven and earth, God rested on the seventh day. He
blessed the seventh day and made it holy.

Let us examine the story of creation of the world

Savarkar commented, The Sun was created, not just to provide light for the
mankind on earth. If the time comes God will literally reduce all the life on
earth including all editions of Bible and Churches to ashes.” [ In 2001/02
Scientists became aware of very dangerous cosmic rays emitting from the
Sun. They can indeed cause havoc ] “Bible says that man was created to
enjoy earth. But God had also created Lions and Tigers who had been
killing men and women. And how was the woman created? The Bible says
‘The Lord God put the man into a trance, and while he slept, he took one of
his ribs and closed the flesh over the place. The Lord then built up on the
rib, which he had taken out of the man, into a woman.’ It is most probable
that those who wrote this explanation had in front of them potter who made
various articles from clay or sculptors who made idols. We should read this
merely as an explanation of ordinary men hundreds of years

Savarkar further stated, “Scientists have now accepted that after the creation
of the Earth, mankind did not appear for millions of years. There has been a
gradual appearance of various forms

of life over millions of years.”

“Before thunderstorms, the clouds make tremendous noise. Children ask

their grandmother, ‘who is making this noise?’ She replies, ‘well my
children, there is an old woman in the sky. She is grinding giant wheels to
make flour.’ Her explanation is funny but cannot be treated as Science.
Similarly the explanations given in all religious texts of Muslims, Christians
Jews or any one else make interesting reading but must not be taken at face
value. Unfortunately that did not happen, causing enormous harm to
humankind and hindering its progress.”

“By taking Bible as word of God, Europe lived in the dark ages. If any one
argued that the Earth was round, he would be killed. If one were to say that
the Earth rotates, he would meet the same fate. Whenever any intelligent
person said Sun existed before Earth, or the creation in six days was fantasy
or that plant and animal life appeared on earth through successive stages
spread over millions of years, the Pope would brand them blasphemous. It
is only when the human intellect was freed from such restrictions that
Europe progressed. For last three hundred years, the Europeans have been
using the tremendous energies in nature as we use bulls for bullock-carts.
They regard the Bible as nothing more than idle gossip of shepherds.”

“I say once again that the study of Bible reveals that the religious texts are
not God given but man made. We value them as historical documents, but
that is all. What does not stand the scrutiny of science must be disregarded.
What is ancient is not necessarily true or holy."
MANUSMRITI
Like other aspects of his life, there are many misconceptions about
Savarkar’s thoughts on Manusmriti also. A well-known Doctor from
Baroda once wrote,

“Savarkar mercilessly attacked the Manusmriti through his articles in the

Magazine Kirloskar and those attacks demoralised Hindus.” In fact
Savarkar did nothing of the kind. He wanted to build a strong Hindu nation.
Why would he demoralise Hindus?

First of all let us list his thoughts on Manusmriti, which he expressed during
1933 to 1935 and then in 1956.

• In 1933, during the festivities of Ganeshotsava and Navaratri, Savarkar

delivered his lectures on Manusmruti for 9 days

(R. Era p291).

• ‘ Women in Manusmriti’ that was the title of four articles Savarkar wrote
in the 1933, published in the monthly Kirloskar

(SSV4 pp 254 to 295)

• Savarkar’s article entitled ‘Excess of religious simple mindedness’ was

published in February 1937issue of Kirloskar. (SSV3 pp 273-6)

• There is also an article by Savarkar entitled “Which is the true eternal

religion?’

(SSV3 p308)
In short, Savarkar says —
(1) It is impossible to live according to Manusmriti today, because times
have changed and the rules in the book are not applicable for all times.

(2) Manusmriti, just like any other religious text, contains many
contradictions. If we regard Manusmriti as divine we cannot explain the
contradictions. However, if we regard it as an historical document we can
easily explain the contradictions.
Who drafted Manusmriti?
At the end of each chapter we find the sentence Thus ends the chapter as
dictated by Manu and taken down by Bhrugu.’ The code of conduct was
therefore made by King Manu and written by Sage Bhrugu. This text is
very old indeed. We find references to it even in Mahabharat.

Why ManusmritI should be followed and not other Smritis

Next to the Vedas, Hindus revere Manusmriti. It has been the basis of our
civilisation, customs and practises. For centuries Hindus have been guided
by this text. Hindu Law has bseri derived from the same. We believe that
the Manusmriti is fundamental, other smritis are extensions of the basic
book. Bruhaspati says, Vedarthopanibadhhatvatpradhanyam he Mano
smruteh. Manvarthaviparita tu ya smrutih sa na shasyate.

Manu says quite clearly that he says nothing beyond Vedas.

Yah Kashchid kasyachid dharmo manuna parikirtitah Sa Sarvopi hito vedo

sarvadnyanmayo he sah Ya vedbhyah smrutayo yash kash kudrushtyah
Sarvasta Nishphalah pretya tamonishtha he tah smrutah Chapter 2/95

Here Manu has stated the essence of our traditional thinking. Vedas are
divine and therefore un-violable. Manu says that his text is venferable.
Why? Because it is derived from Vedas. His rules and regulations may not
be suitable or may indeed be harmful today. Even such discussion is not
allowed. He says —

Shrutistu vedo vidnyanyo dharmashastram tu vai smrutih Te

sarvartheshvameemamsaye tabhyam dharmo he nirbhabho Yo vanmanyed
te mule hetushastrashradhhayad dvijah Sa sadhubhirbahihskaryo nastiko
vedanindakah (Chapter 1/10 ar)d 11)

What would happen if we regard this text as applicable at all times?

Can we abide by Manusmriti? _

Let us take three examples

* What should we wear and eat?

In the Ganeshotsva of 1933 Savarkar said, “In the preface Manu says that
the people living between the rivers of Saraswati and Dvishaddhati are to be
regarded as ideal. All others should follow

their example. Thus we would be required to wear Persian coat like Punjabi
Brahmins for worshipping and also eat meat” [Manusmriti chapter 2,17/18]
* Names of girls
Manu has stated how girls should be named. He says that their names
should be short, sweet and indicate pleasure, happiness and prosperity.
Their names should not reflect harshness, brutality or ugliness.

(Manu chapter 3/9 and 10)

Savarkar comments, “One must admire Manu for his appreciation of

beauty. However Manu also says that one should not marry girls who are
named after constellations, trees, rivers, mountains, serpents, servants or
monsters. So, those girls named Ganga, Yamuna, Saraswati, Champa, Jai
etc become ineligible for marriage. Why? Did they commit any crime? No.
Their parents named them incorrectly. Our conservative friends would now
realise how impossible it is to abide rules of Manu and regard his
commands as fixed for ail times. What applies to above verses also applies
to the whole text. It is absurd to impose greatness on such texts. That
attempt is laughable and prohibits progress.”
* Arguments with learned
Brahmins
In Ratnagiri I (Savarkar) met Shastri Gandale and Shastri Dharurkar, two
disciples of Shankaracharya. I suggested to them that those who cross the
seas should not be made outcast by the relevant castes. I explained to them
how we lost heavily by regarding crossing the seas as irreligious. We lost
huge colonies overseas, we lost sea trade, we lost the sense of adventure,
we fell behind modern science and technology and were defeated on the
battlefields by foreigners. But the learned Shastris would not budge. They
kept on saying, “If a Shudra crosses the seas, that is sinful but punishable
by atonement. But if Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas violate this
prohibition they are beyond punishment. For all their lives, they must live
outside their villages.

Should they come in contact with their children, they too shall face social
boycott. This is what the religious texts say. Do not tell us of any
consequences.”

What the Shastrls (learned men) said was true. Only trouble is that they do
not want to apply the rules of the same texts to themselves. According to
Manusmriti, Brahmins are forbidden to live beyond Aryavarta which is
bounded by Himalayas and the Vindhyas. Phandarpur, where they live is a
land of the foreigners (MIenchhadesha). By living there they are behaving
mischievously. Manu says in chapter 2

Asamudrattu vai purvadasamudratu paschimat Tayorevanantaram

girorrayavarta vidurbudhah (22) Krushnasastu charati mruggo yatra
svabhavatah Sa dnyayo yadniyo desho mienchhadeshastavatah par (23)
Etan dwijayato
deshansanshryeranprayatbhih
Shudrastu yasminkasminsch nivasedavruttikashint (24)
But these orders are conveniently
ignored by the Shastris. They have
been living in the forbidden land!!
WOMEN
Savarkar wrote

It is very interesting to see the position of women as described in our old

and well-known code of conduct. People are curious to know how they
(women) spent their time, what they were taught, what they ate, how they
were treated, what rights they had, what were their duties and obligations,
how the society looked at them as virgins, mothers and married women. I
am sure today’s women too would find the information fascinating.
I have written these articles only to
illustrate how our society treated
women in the days of Manu. I am
not at all discussing
whether it was good or bad or whether we should have the same system
today.

* Intermarriages.

Hindu society has four classes (Vamas )

Brahmins - Priest class whose main function is to learn and

teach.

Kshatriyas - Warrior class. They are the rulers and maintain law and order.

Vaishyas - The businessmen who create wealth.

Shudras — The servant class (people in the service sector).

Respect for wife of Guru

Manu says - Guruvatpratipujya syuh savamah guruyosiitah Asavarnastu

sampujyah pratyut sthanabhi vadanaih (chapter 2/ 210)

Wife of Guru should be shown the same respect as you would to your Guru,
if she belongs to the same Varna (class). Should she belong to different
Varna you should get up and bow to her. This is a clear indication here that
a Brahmin may have wife from Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra
Vamas. They used to live in the same house and their children were all
regarded as Brahmins. Same applied to other inter - varna marriages.
Svamagre dwijatinam prashastah darakarmani Kamastatsu
pravrutanamimanh syuh kramasho varah (12)

Shudrerva bharya shudrasya sa cha swa cha vishanh smrute Te cha swa
chaiva radnyahchah tashya swa chagrajanmanah (13)

Panigrahara sanskarah savama supavishyate Asavamaswayam dnyeyeho

vidirudrahkarmani (43)

Sharah kshatriyaya grayah pratodo vaishyakanya Vasanasya dasha grahya

shudrayotkrushta vedane (44) (chapter 3)

[ Note - At some later day, two types of marriages arose, Anuloma and
Pratiloma. In a mixed marriage, if the wife is of lower Varna the marriage is
Anuloma. If however the man is of lower Varna the marriage is Pratiloma.]

Here comes the problem

Menu says - It is desirable that men and women should marry within their
own varna. However, if desired, following rule should be observed —

A Shudra man should only marry a Shudra woman A Vaishya man may
marry a Vaishya or Shudra woman A Kshatriya man may marry Kshatriya,
Vaishya or Shudra woman. A Brahmin man may marry Brahmin, Kshatriya,
Vaishya or Shudra woman.

(Chapter 3/12,13, 43 and 44)

Savarkar comments - It is thus clear that in the house of a Brahmin, women

of all varnas had equal status. Their children were treated equally and were
recognised as Brahmins. Thus a Brahmin may have Shudra grandparents.
Same applied to other varnas. It is true that above verses indicate one-sided
society {Anuloma marriages ). One must accept that even then, a Shudra
could be a father-in-law to a Brahmin or brother-in-law to a Kshatriya.

Above situation is unthinkable today. But this is what Manu himself laid
down. It is absurd to suggest that under such circumstances a Brahmin
would have ceased to be a Brahmin by eating food ‘prepared by a Shudra
woman. If our conservative friends believe that every word In ManusmrItI
Is true, they cannot deny above situation. Manu Is on the side of us,
reformers. (S S V 4 pp 265-269 )

* Marrying low class women

On one hand, Manu had condemned inter class (Varna ) marriages and on
the other we find - If a virtuous woman is

found, one should marry her even if she is born in a low class family.

(Chapter 2 verses 238 to 240)

Chandal is considered lowest of the low class. However there are examples
of Brahmins marrying Chandal women and they had become respectable to
all Hindus. Famous example being that of sage Vashishtha who married
Arundhati (she is one of the group of seven stars - Saptarshi). Another
example being the marriage of sage Mandpal and Sharangi. And such
beneficial marriages had happened many times, (chapter 9/ 22,23,24 )

(S S V4, p 280 )

Inheritance

In case of mixed marriages, how should the sons inherit their father’s
wealth? Manu lays down

If a Brahmin has wives from each varna, their sons shall inherit according
to their mother’s Varna

Son of Brahmin wife would get 3 parts Son of Kshatriya wife would get 2
parts Son of a Vaishya wife would get 1 part Son of a Shudra wife would
get 1 part.

The estate shall be divided in this proportion, (chapter 9/ 149. 150)

Thus, even after it was decided that a son’s Varna should be that of his
mother and not of father there still used to be inter-Varna marriages.
As it had happened before, Manu immediately says that son of a Shudra
wife gets nothing (chapter 9 /155)

How can we reconcile the contradictions?

On one hand Manu accepts that a Brahmin may marry wives of all classes

(Vamas) on the other hand he also declares that inter-class

marriages are prohibited. If a Brahmin marries a Shudra woman he loses his

status as a Brahmin. If he comes even within a breathing distance of a
Shudra woman, he loses his status. How can we reconcile such
contradictions? Savarkar explains

In archaeological excavation, one sees successive layers of earth to indicate

how culture changed with times. In a similar manner, we find various
verses, which contradict each other, but they simply reflect changing
circumstances and traditions.

(1) In ancient times the first three Varnas married any suitable women. That
was not considered against religion. They were of course free to marry
Shudra women. Varna of the progeny was that of the father (it is known as
called Pitrusavarnya). Thus, many Brahmins of today must have some
Shudra women as their ancestor several generations in the past.

(2) In course of time there grew an opinion against marrying Shudra

women. Progeny of marriages to Shudra women became Shudra. Same rule
started to apply to others, i.e. if the father was a Kshatriya and mother a
Vaishya, their children would be classified as Vaishyas. (womb decided the
Varna of the child. It was called Matrusavamya)

(3) Later on people became more conservative. They declared that

Brahmins should not marry Shudra women at all. Even if they go near her,
they would lose their status as Brahmins. This was gradually extended to all
Varnas. First it became undesirable to marry across Varnas and then it
became a norm to marry within one’s own Varna only.
During these developments, successive lawmakers added new verses to
Manusmriti without removing original verses, which were contrary to what
they wanted to preach because that was the easy course. For example, once
Brahmins could marry women of any Varna, now they had to forgo that
right, even If a woman of other Varna was extremely beautiful and

desirable, they could not marry her. They had to deny that pleasure to
themselves. The intention of the lawmakers was honourable, and they
solved the problem of their time in their own way.

What they did was not wrong. It is our insistence on regarding Manusmriti
(and other texts ) as eternal, infallible which is at fault. Therefore many
lawmakers inserted verses, which are contrary to the original text.
Traditionalists who believe that Manu composed all the text do not realise
how ridiculous Manu appears to be if we examine the whole book. But If
we regard the book as historical, the problem Is solved. The book Is a
compilation of verses of different lawmakers. If we then read the book the
history of ‘Varna and marriage’ beholds In front of us like a properly
written text.

{S S V4, pp 271/2)

STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE SOCIETY

Savarkar carries on —

* Manu says women need to be looked after constantly to protect them from
fall. They are unstable. God had made them so that they always seek
company of men, irrespective of age or beauty. Father has to protect them in
childhood, husband in youth, and son in old age. Therefore a woman does
not deserve freedom. Women are (ritually) unclean by nature (chapter 9/ 2,
3,12,14, 16 and 18)

{SSV4,p279)

On the other hand, Manu also emphasises that women must be respected by
her relatives, be It father, brother, husband or brother-in-law. Where women
are respected, goddesses of wealth and learning reside In that household,
but where they are not honoured all attempts to create happiness become
futile.

(chapter 3/ 55, 56,60 and 61 )

{SSy4,pp 274-5)
IDEAL MARRIAGE
Manu says that in an ideal marriage man and woman remain loyal to each
without ever thinking of any one else, (chapter 9 / 101/102)

(SSV4 p 286)

Ideal marriages are fine in theory but nature creates many problems. Here is
an example —

* Children

Children are not just a by-product of sexual activities of humans. A society

must have balance of people of all ages, what is called Poisson Distribution
in Statistics. They are also needed to satisfy natural psychological and
physical needs of women. Children not only give enormous pleasure to
parents during their childhood but also provide a purpose for life. However,
there are cases where, within marriage, a man is unable to produce children.
We find that Manu is generous and broadminded enough to give women
(married and widowed) a right to have sons. Let us see what Manu says

* Widows and Children

Manu says, “In order to avoid the family becoming extinct a woman should,
with the consent of her husband, produce sons by having sex with her
husband’s brother or suitable close relations. But such sexual activities
should never extend beyond the birth of one son.” (chapter 9/ 59). The same
rule applies to widows (chapter 9/ 60).

However, immediately afterwards he says, “What is good having only one

son? If he dies in infancy, the family would again become extinct, so the
woman should keep relation with this person until second son is bom.”

(chapter 9/ 61)
[Manu is not encouraging licentious behaviour. He is giving women a sense
of satisfaction of bearing children from some

one who is not their husband, because such relationships are limited to
giving birth to one or two sons only.]

Once again Manu changes his mind and says, “Widows must not bear any
children. Such practices are detestable. Marriages of widows and widows
having children from a person who is not her husband - amounts to living
like animals. King Vena in the heat of temptation started this tradition. This
led to mixing of blood. But it is utterly hated by all the decent people.”

(chapter 9/ 64 to 67)

Hundred verses later a different picture emerges. Manu states that there are
ten types of sons, half of them being born outside wedlock,
(chapter9/145,159,165,167-172)

Today, these would be regarded as incomprehensible. And such children

born out of wedlock were not an exception. There were such a large number
of them that Manu had to state their rights of inheritance.

(SSV4pp 281-5)
Savarkar continues
Verses that appear eccentric are not necessarily bad

I have quoted main verses relating to the position of women. Let us now
examine impartially, the reasons and the rationale behind contradictory
verses, which appear throughout Manusmriti.

As the circumstances changed, the lawmakers w anted to change rules and

regulations. They therefore inser ted new verses in

Manusmriti. We must not forget that in doing so. thev had no

selfish motive. They simply wanted rules to reflect changing

circumstances.

Take the case of children born out of wedlock. When times were bad and
increasing population was a matter of life or death, the rulers tolerated the
children born to virgins and also those born to married women from persons
who were not their husbands.

Same applies to the threat of families facing extinction. It has to be pointed

out that even in modern times when countries like Germany, France, Italy
or Russia suffered sharp drop in population, they too relaxed the rules of
marriages and accepted children born out of wedlock as legitimate and
legal.

However, once the danger was over and the population was stable and
sustainable, lawmakers felt concerned about the morality of allowing
illegitimate children. They therefore felt need to tighten the bond between
men and women in marriage and declared bearing children out of wedlock
as beastly. While doing so people accepted the new restrictions for better
moral standards. The eccentric verses are indicative of their sacrifices. In a
similar manner they gave up eating meat and drinking wine.
Where does the fault lie?
The fault lies with lawmakers who had to change with times. But instead of
publishing new laws they inserted new verses in Manusmriti, which makes
it impossible to know what the original text was. The fault lies not with
them but with our basic mental outlook. Since the days of Manu it had
always been fashionable to accept a rule only if it was stated in Shrutis and
Smritis not otherwise. Even Manu resorted to the same tactics. He swore
many times that he says nothing beyond Vedas. In chapter 12 he says —

Tanyavark kalikataya nishphalayanrutani cha Other Smrutis are not to be

followed. Why? because their rules are harmful to the society? No. For only
one reason that they are modem codes. So, Manu himself dictated that any
code, which is latest, new, modern or up to date, has got to be useless.
Therefore, latter day lawgivers had no choice but to insert the new verses in
Manusmriti. So, the fault was not theirs. It is the engrained mentality ‘to do
as the good book says’ which lies at the root for this mix up.

Historically there is no problem

If we read Manusmriti as an historical document we have no problem.

Because then we are not concerned with which verses are eccentric or
irrational; which were original, which were added later; which ones tally
with the Vedas and which ones do not. All such discussions relate to what
happened in the past. We have to see what is applicable and relevant today,
not what was said by Manu or any one else. We utterly reject his test that
very old texts are the only ones to follow. In some cases old may be gold,
but old can also be stale.

Traditionalists, who believe that every word in Manusmriti is true, the

whole book is consistently composed, find it very hard to explain the
contradictory rules and orders. They justify by offering different
explanations. Some sections of Brahmins eat meat by pointing out that it is
acceptable to Manu, some say that meat eating is forbidden but eating fish
is acceptable and therefore eat only fish. Some give away their daughters to
Vaishyas because they believe that Manu sanctions such marriages. Thus,
though Manusmriti is literally one we have made five hundred versions of
the same.

But if we look at it as a historical document we do not face such dilemma.

We accept that Manusmriti is a mixture of rules made by various lawmakers
over a large number of years. One can clearly see that some traditions,
which were once recommended, were later rejected or forbidden. We would
accept what is useful to our nation today. When we look at Smritis as
historical documents, it makes much sense.

Finally we salute Manu and Bhrugu for having given such code of conduct.
It had been the basis of codes in many countries from Japan to Greece.

{SSV4pp 254-295)
EATING: WHAT IS
PERMISSIBLE AND WHAT IS
NOT
Manu says in chapter 5

Chhatrakam vidvaranh cha Isahunam gramkukkutum Palandu grujananm

chaiva matya jagadhva gated dwija (19)

By eating knowingly, food made of mushrooms, onions, garlic, and carrots

Brahmin loses his status immediately. If he ate unknowingly he has to
undergo penances for purification.

Savarkar comments:- Just see how far our Brahmins have wandered away
from Manusmruti. Manu recommends eating of meat, which these
gentlemen consider abominable. And what Manu condemns (see above )
they eat regularly. After arguing against our reforms for the removal of
untouchability and the reconversion of Muslims and Christians to
Hinduism, these Brahmins shamelessly eat variety of substances made of
onion and eat raw carrots. And still they declare that our religious practices
cannot be changed or modified.

{S S V4 pp 276-8)

Meat eating

Hindus need not deny that the people of warrior class hunted animals and
ate meat. But it is also clear from many verses in Manusmriti that Brahmins
also ate meat. Indeed not to eat meat on certain occasions was considered a
sin by Manu.

(chapter 3/ 227 & 266 to 272)

There are many references in chapter 5.

There is no objection to eating meat after chanting mantras, during the
death anniversary functions or when life is in danger and no other food is
available or whenever Brahmin feels like it. (5/27)

After purchasing meat from butcher or preparing the meat after receiving
from others, one should make offerings to God and

forefathers and then eat meat. (5/32)

No blame is attached even if you eat meat daily. Just as God has created
human beings, he has also created animals for being eaten. (5/30)

God created animals to be killed for fire sacrifices, which is essential for
preservation of life on earth. Therefore, the killing of animals for such
functions is justified. That is non-violence. (5/39)

Animals killed for fire sacrifice go to heaven. (5/40)

Any one who deliberately refuses to eat meat at the time of death
anniversary function would be born as an animal for 21 births after his
death. (5/35)

Having justified animal sacrifices, here comes change of heart

Animals should be killed for fire sacrifices and death anniversaries of

forefathers, but not at any other times . Brahmin who kills animals for such
functions goes to heaven, so do the animals killed. (5/41)

Now Manu opposes meat eating completely.

It is not possible to obtain meat without killing animals. This does not lead
to heaven. Therefore anyone aspiring to go to heaven should never eat meat
and avoid inflicting agonies on animals and by products of animal killing
(skin, blood, etc) (5/48)

Under no circumstances should one eat meat. Even to agree to the killing of
animals is sinful. (5/49, 5/51)
How can we reconcile the contradictions? Savarkar explains — Thus, we
find contradictory statements in the same chapter. Only explanation is that
as society progressed many felt repulsed at animal sacrifices and later
declared that Brahmins should not eat meat at all. Verses to that effect are
therefore found in the

same Manusmriti. One has to accept that the text has been modified over
centuries.

(SSV3pp 307-316)
Manusmriti could not have been
written at the time of earth’s
creation
Some believe that all the verses of Manusmriti were God given at the time
of earth’s creation. But it contains many references to the effect that ‘many
learned men say such and such’ and then goes on to prove them wrong. Are
we to say that those learned men were born before the creation of earth? It
does not even say ‘in future learned men may say such and such.’ Let us
look at such statements carefully.

When Sage Bhrugu composed this code of conduct, opinions of many

leaned men were prevalent. Bhrugu wanted to emphasise that his code was
the true one. There were many other codes {Smritis) in practice at that time.
These are referred to as Codes which do not conform to the Vedas {Ya
Vedabhyah smrutayah). Life on earth did not appear in one day. Man
himself did not appear on earth until after a few million years, Manu must
have been bom several thousand years after the appearance of man. There is
no point in denying this fact of life.
SUMMARY OF THOUGHTS ON
RELIGIOUS TEXTS
We saw what Savarkar wrote about Koran, Bible and Manusmriti. The
common factors among the religious texts are:

(1) All religious texts are man made. People had to be told that they were
divine revelation, otherwise they would not have been accepted. When we
feed a child we say, “This portion for grandma, this one for grandpa.” And
then child accepts the meal.

(2) All religious texts have contradictory orders. It is demeaning to say that
God gave such orders.

(3) No religious text is eternal, i.e. contains rules and regulations applicable
for all times.

(4) All religious texts should be regarded as common ancestral property of

the whole mankind.

(5) It is quite possible that we may find some passages quite useful today.
They should be recognised as useful, beneficial not because they were
found in old texts.

In support of the above, let us take a few passages from Savarkar’s writings.

Two Worlds: Two Cultures. In this famous article of June 1934 Savarkar
says

“Religious texts which were regarded as God given caused the creation of
cultures that were fixed and people who followed them become slaves of
those texts. Those people cannot venture one step forward.”

“When they were composed, some one must have had the intention of
uplifting their people. In order to attract followers they had to propagate
that they were created by divine inspiration and their rules were forever.
That made their respective followers believe in such religious texts. But,
that very fact made them bitter enemies of future reforms. They may try to
contain the world within the confines of their texts. However, nature is far
more powerful. It cannot be contained within such texts.”

“Even though the texts have an aura of God around it, he does not respect
such aura. Volcanoes, earthquakes, lightening and floods cause havoc. Holy
rivers disappear within a second. Many lands disappear and new ones are
created. Nature constantly changes topography of earth. In a similar fashion
it is futile to contain human behaviour within a few rules and regulations.
God simply does not respect them.”

Women in Manusmriti - in this article of 1933 Savarkar says — “The worth

of Vedas, Smritis is far more than people realise. But those texts do not
need childish artificial limbs like them being called God given, eternal or
perfect and complete for all times. Such attempts are childish and absurd. It
is like trying to support the Himalayas by bamboo sticks and make it stable.
These texts will be respected only if we accept them as great attempts in the
past to control human behaviour, they reflect our history, and how we
changed with times.”

“When we study Vedas, Manusmriti, Koran, Bible, Azvesta as man made,

we are surprised at how they progressed their relevant societies. And we
become prepared to pay due respect to the texts. We can accept
shortcomings in them, which is not only excusable but also human. That
does not reduce their value in any way.”

“But as soon as we regard these texts as the word of God and its rules are to
be followed for ever, it makes a mockery of God himself. The texts become
subject of ridicule.”

(SSV4 pp 257/8)

Which is the true eternal (Sanatana) religion? In this article of April 1934
Savarkar explained hovif the Manusmriti contains conflicting rules.
“But it is not just our religious texts which contain such mixture of
conflicting rules. That has happened to all God given texts, ancient as well
as modern. From Moses to Mormon (America) they all had given out mles
encompassing human behaviour, be it getting up in the morning, keeping
beards and moustaches, inheritance, adoption, marriage ceremonies and the
form God takes. And stated that they are all orders of God, for all mankind
and unchangeable.”

(SSV3 p308)

514/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

Again, in his article ‘Women in Manusmriti’ Savarkar says—

“We may find many passages in Manusmriti which can provide valuable
guidance to today’s problems. But we should accept them because they are
beneficial today, not because they were found in an ancient text and
definitely not because Menu’s orders are not to be transgressed. Whatever
we find in Manusmriti to be harmful or ridiculous today should not be
followed, but that does not make Manusmriti harmful or ridiculous. On the
contrary when one compares Manusmruti with codes of other societies such
as Babylon, Egypt, Hebrews, Greece and Roman, Manusmriti stands high
above the rest. It deserves our respect for that.”

(S S V4 pp 262/3)

Savarkar had given details of the factions and rivalry among Muslims after
the death of Mohamed in his articles ‘Rise and Fall of the Caliphs' and ‘The
story of Tabut. ’ Both were written in 1934. Towards the end he says —

It is really we who are at fault. Vedas, Bible, Koran and ALL other religious
texts are creations of MAN. They contain many teachings that have been
proved false in the course of time. If we ignore those teachings and take
only those that are useful today we will all benefit. If we accept that the
religious texts, though claimed to be of divine origin, have failings like that
of any human creation, they become the inheritance of ALL mankind and
the feuds in the name of religion would stop. The Babylonians worshipped
their holy book Ishtika. We should treat all religious texts in the similar
manner.

(SSV2 p 596)

TENDENCY OF ‘GOING BY THE BOOK’ AMONG HINDUS

TENDENCY OF ‘GOING BY THE BOOK’ AMONG HINDUS

In his articles in the 1930s Savarkar had meticulously explained how

Hindus had suffered terribly because of the tendency of ‘going by the
book’. In the article Two Worlds, Two Cultures” (1934) he says:

• From birth to death, from inception to cremation we Hindus follow the

rules and procedures as prescribed by Manu without asking - why? i.e. is it
relevant today? Is it beneficial? And thus we have lost the ability to think
and make right decisions. Whenever we raise the above questions, we are
just told - So says Manu. (or it has been dictated in Shrutis, Smrutis or
Puranas) And that is the eternal religion.

Why garlic should not be eaten? We never ask the question - is it medically
harmful? We simply follow the tradition, as the good book says. And the
same goes for all activities of our daily lives. From the days of Manu to the
days of last Maratha Peshwa, Bajirao II (1818) whenever a new or burning
question arose, the judgements invariably were ‘Nothing new should be
started, no old traditions should be discarded.’ Any student of history can
testify that this has been the case from Shivaji (1630-1678) to his grandson
Shahu, from Bajirao-I (1700 to 1740) to his grandson Bajirao II.

But the problems arose precisely because circumstances changed and the
old texts had not dealt with them simply because those problems did not
exist when the texts were written. This led to conflicts, insurrections, and
civil wars. Unfortunately the great thinkers kept on saying - old rules should
not be broken, new rules should not be created. And that has been carried
on until today. This has led to the seven shackles, which have paralysed the
Hindu society, such as untouchability, prohibition of inter caste dining and
marriages, prohibition of crossing the seas. Whenever we pointed to the
enormous harm these prohibitions have done and proposed their lifting, not
only the conservatives but also even the reformers have been asking.

‘But is there a reference in the texts (Shrutis and Smrutis) for your
reforms?’

{In our school days we used to have a lesson about one great Bengali
scholar Ishvarchandra Vidyasagar (1820-1891). Widow marriages were
socially unacceptable in those days even if the widows were no more than
teenagers. The mother of this scholar took pity on one such unfortunate
widow, took her to him and said, “My son, you are such a great scholar.
Can’t you find a suitable reference in the scriptures, which will enable this
poor child, get married again? “)

The three disenabling remarks, “So says the good book”, “No new rules
should be made and no old ones be discarded”, “Is there a reference to your
reforms?” All begin with ‘as prescribed in the texts’ (shrutismmti
puranokta) tendency. Europeans act exactly opposite. They are ‘up to date’.
They worship today, we cling to yesterday. I must stress that this fault does
not belong to Hindus alone. All societies, at one time or another, had been
Imprisoned by the same concept.
Modernist tendency
We are not at all saying that whatever is mentioned in the old texts should
be discarded just because it was mentioned in them, even when it stands the
test of science and experiments of today. However, when some information
is found to be based on ignorance or cannot be proved scientifically, it
should be discarded. We should only adopt what is scientifically proved to
be sound and beneficial today. It may be that with increased knowledge,
what we adopt today may prove to be wrong or even harmful at a later day.
But then, we are free to change again. We (the reformers) are not wedded to
dogma. That is what we term ‘Modernist tendency.’
Orthodox tendency
On the other hand, orthodoxy insists on strictly following, the instructions
given in the religious texts, be it Vedas, Koran or Bible. Orthodox people
insist on following these rules irrespective

of whether or not the traditions are useful today. They insist that Vedas
contain ALL knowledge. And what is in the Vedas is in Smritis. But the
question arises when current social practices are not mentioned in Smritis.
When asked ‘why follow them?’ The answer invariably given is - it must be
in the Smritis that have been lost!! There can never be an argument against
that. We want to liberate the Hindu people from this disastrous attitude.

Orthodoxy and Modernism are two human tendencies. Even in today’s

Europe and America we encounter orthodoxy. And when we do, we find
that the white man is more stubborn than Hindus. During the author’s stay
in England since 1966 he raised many questions on why a particular system
is being followed. He was told, “Godbole, that has been our tradition. We
always done things in this manner.” Let us take two examples from
America:

* Charles Danvin put fonward his theory of evolution in his book ‘The
origin of species’ in 1869. Church leaders vehemently opposed it as it went
against the teachings of Bible. In the state of Tennessee, schoolteachers
were forbidden to teach Darwin’s theory. It had to be taught in secrecy.
Things came to head and in March 1925 John T Scopes, a schoolteacher
from Dayton was charged. The judge bluntly stated. The question is not
whether Darwin’s theory is correct but whether Scopes taught it. ’ The
defendant, of course, had to say that he did teach Darwin’s theory. He was
found guilty and fined 100 dollars. The case went to Supreme Court. Even
the judges of that court could not find him ‘not guilty’. They let him off the
hook by pointing out that the 100-dollar fine was very heavy and
disproportionate to the offence. This happened when Savarkar had just
started his internment in Ratnagiri. The law forbidding teaching of Darwin’s
Theory was eventually withdrawn in 1967.
* Take the news item on 1 March 1999 in the British newspaper The
Independent. It contains a review of a book entitled ‘Note

from a big country by Bill Bryson’. On America the reviewer says:p States
decide what may or may not be taught in their schools, and in many places,
particularly the Deep South, curricula must accord with narrow religious
views. In Alabama, for instance, it is illegal to teach evolution as anything
other than an ‘unproven be//e/.'All biology textbooks must carry a
disclaimer stating This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory
some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living
things.” By law, teachers must give equal weight to the notion that Earth
was created in seven days and that everything on it fossils, coal deposits,
dinosaur bones - is no more than 7,500 years old.”

* That is not the end of the controversy. On 17 March 2002, The Observer
paper of London carried an article on page 18 entitled,

, “Creation theory is creeping into UK schools. Should we be

worried? Yes, says science.”

! Savarkar continues with his descriptions of the two tendencies

(‘up to date’ or modernist and orthodox)

Thousands of years ago, our forefathers faced some problems. They solved
them in the best way they could. The fault with the orthodox tendency is
that it assumes every solution adopted by our ancestors as infallible.

Our scriptures forbid the killing of cows. Taking advantage of this, Muslims
attacked Hindu kings, placing large herds of cows in the front. To avoid
committing sin of killing of cows, Hindus ^ refused to fight and Muslims
won towns after towns without

' shedding any blood. (On victory, Muslims killed the very cows

Hindus would not kill and ate their flesh. So, Hindus lost on both ' counts).
It is the same orthodoxy that saw helplessly, forcible conversion J of Hindus
to Islam and Christianity. That tendency told us that if

a bread was thrown in a well the entire village became Christian.

And when we strongly argued the case for their re-conversion, the same
tendency is wasting time in deciding whether it would satisfy our scriptures
if we re-convert those who were forced to embrace foreign religion five or
seven years ago. Centuries have been wasted on such useless arguments.

By the same tendency, we lost huge colonies overseas. The same tendency
has made us waste hundreds of years in arguing whether sea crossing is
permissible in our religious books, while we helplessly see other countries
become powerful by overseas trade.

It is astonishing that people with the same tendency have given verdict that
the Muslims who despise our gods and want to smash our idols at the first
opportunity are honourable. But our Mahar brothers who worship and
revere the same gods as us, are and remain untouchables!! How shameless
can one become?

It is this tendency that made it ten times easier for foreigners to defeat us
and is making the freedom struggle just as difficult. We had enough of this
tendency, which has led to our utter ruin. (S S V3 pp 376/7/8)

(What Savarkar had described is not even orthodoxy, it is purely suicidal

tendency of Hindus. English and the Muslims DID NOT EXIST in the days
ofShrutis and Smrutis. So, how did Brahmins find any references or
guidance to say that these foreigners who killed cows, ate beef and never
lost an opportunity to violate our women and insult us, should be treated
with respect and honour?)

It is high time we became ‘up to date’

In his article “Two Words: Two Cultures” written in 1934, Savarkar
continues

• Our scriptures, which we regard as God given and eternal, are at least five
thousand years old. In other words, the world has moved on five thousand
years. And yet, instead of learning from

the scientific progress that has been made, we have decided to cling to the
ancient traditions and refuse to be wiser than our ancestors. Let me quote a
few examples.

These are some of the observations made by Savarkar —

* Fire is an extremely useful natural force. But today it has been contained
within a matchbox. It is absurd to consider that only the fire produced by
grinding two logs of wood is holy. Despite so many fire sacrifices each year
we are faced with many droughts, while in Europe where they do not
practise fire worship at all, there are hardly any famines.

* Today we have motors, railways, and aeroplanes for transport. It is absurd

for our Shankaracharya (Hindu Pope) to travel in palanquins and to be
carried on shoulders of his followers. Same goes for the torch. Why carry a
torch in front of the procession of Shankaracharya in broad daylight?

* In the olden days we used oil lamps. But today we have electric bulbs of
various capacities. Why not use them?

* Today we have printing presses. Still priests regard hand written religious
books as holy.

* Considerable progress has been made in Gynaecology and yet we still

cling to old traditions. Compare our children with those of Europeans. Their
boys want to reach the North and South Poles, their girls swim the English
Channel and our boys and girls?

* Dead body is inauspicious and should be burned as quickly as possible -

there is no dispute on that score. But why do we have to carry dead body
over shoulders of carriers on a special stretcher instead of using the coffin?
Moreover we should use electrical furnaces instead of burning dead bodies
with timber.

Finally he says, “Really, by regarding our scriptures as unalterable we have

made a laughing stock of ourselves. We have become forever fools.”

If we wish to save our Hindu nation in this age, we have to break the
shackles of “We will do only what has been prescribed in our

Shrutis and Smrutis.” Luckily it is easy to break them because they are in
our minds and not forced on us. Just four hundred years ago, Europe too
was in a similar helpless position and had reached our present level. But
once it rejected the Bible, decided to abide by the rules of experimental
science, decided to become up to date, they moved fonward dramatically. In
four hundred years, they moved four thousand years. They conquered and
dominated the world.

In future, whenever we have to decide whether a reform is good or bad,

changes are desirable or not, there should be only one test. Is it useful or
harmful for today? We must never ask the question - is it sanctioned by the
scriptures? We must never again waste time on that futile discussion. If a
change is desirable, implement it TODAY. And in this manner what we
failed to resolve in four thousand years will be done in four days. We will
break the shackles once for all.

It is easy to prove whether a reform is useful or not. But it is impossible

even for the Lord Creator to decide whether the same is sanctioned in the
scriptures or not. We therefore do not regard ANY religious text as eternal
and to be followed at all times.

(S S V3 pp 363/4)

What applies to old texts also applies to the words of great leaders.

In his article - “The sacred cow - harmful religious inhibition”, Savarkar

says
In Pune, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya told the audience. “Cow’s milk is
very nourishing. Therefore cow is more honourable than the mother. Cow is
a matter of honour for the Hindus.”

“We have been reminded of this, by our opponent, the editor of the
magazine Go-Rakshan (Cow protection).”

“We only comment that we should drink milk when given as a blessing by a
priest out of reverence, but if it is spoiled it should be respectfully
discarded. In a similar manner we should listen to persons like Pandit
Malaviya with the greatest respect, but if

we find some of his preaching harmful, we should also discard it with due
respect.”

(S S V3 pp 236/7)

Let us examine our religious texts In the same article Savarkar states —

There would have been some beneficial purpose behind our religious
concepts, faiths, traditions and customs and for some time they must have
been useful to the society. However, tremendous upheavals have taken
place in the history of thousands of years, many changes were forced upon
us. In Europe and America, Scientists have increased our knowledge of
nature tremendously. Unfortunately our customs and traditions were never
examined in the light of these discoveries for at least last 1,500 years.

Moreover, it is sheer cowardice to believe that such examinations must not

take place. Our hundreds of years old customs and traditions have been
stamped “This is eternal religion (Esha Dhaimah Sanatanah)” We feel that
no matter how harmful they prove to be, they must not be changed. So,
what is the result?

Lakes and ponds collect silt every year. It is the duty of local people to
remove that silt periodically. It this is not done, the lakes and ponds become
unhygienic and become source of diseases. In a similar way our traditions
and customs have never been examined periodically and hence our society
has become feeble, unable to face new challenges, face new enemies. Our
religious life has become stagnant, extremely polluted and we have lost
vigour.

[Many small streams join together to form a river. We regard river as sacred
because her water always flows and is not stagnant. We regard a conflux as
more sacred than a single river. And bathing in sea is considered as far more
purifying than bathing at a conflux because many rivers run into a sea. In a
similar manner a society always benefits by new thoughts and

ideas. Only the society that does not become stagnant, sun/ives and
prospers.]

Savarkar explains how Europe liberated itself from the tendency of ‘going
by the book’ and then he suggests • If we want to survive in today’s world,
we too must abandon the tendency of branding every tradition as ‘eternal
{Esha Dharmah Sanatanah): They should all be examined in the light of the
current knowledge. There is no other way.

(S S V3 pp 227-229)

Fire worship examined

• In his article ‘Yagnyachi koolkatha’ (story of fire worship) Savarkar says

—

Fire is essential for our daily life. It was its usefulness that led to Fire
worship. However, it no longer has the significance it once had in Vedic
times. In cold climate and regions fire provides comfort to humans. But the
same makes life intolerable in countries like India.

We cannot even find the fire started for essential activities like cooking
comfortable. Our normal activities make us sweat. People die of sunstroke.
It is abominable to carry on with fire worship in our country.

We are looking at fire from the point of view of utility. It is absurd to light
Fire in our country simply because it made us comfortable in cold climate.
It is like riding a wooden horse in youth simply because it gave pleasure in
childhood.
(SSV3 pp 324/5)

As time goes by, our knowledge of Nature increases. M/e should not
therefore laugh at our forefathers - argues Savarkar in his article ‘Basis of
our social revolution.’

• Fire worship leads to rainfall, diseases are cured by burning buttermilk,

these kinds of concepts may appear childish to us today. But people in
Vedic times sincerely believed in them. With

the knowledge they had, they believed that fire sacrifices, celebrations of
death anniversaries of forefathers lead to salvation, various gods and
goddesses listen to prayers made for them. That is no wonder.

Fire worship once helped to build societies, and led to unification of various
people. That much we have to accept. We sincerely request our
conservative, traditionalist friends that it is absurd to follow their traditions
today.

Today it is more appropriate to feed rice and buttermilk to hungry people

than burning them in fire worship.

(SSV3 p374)

How to decide if a tradition is useful or not

Earlier, in the article he replies to his critics, main one being Pandit
Satavalekar.

• At the start Satavalekar has said ‘we (Hindus) should do what is useful
today - I would not protest against that.’ Well then, what is the
disagreement about? We both are saying exactly the same thing. So really
he should have been arguing with my opponents and not with me. It is they
who had been saying ‘It is irrelevant what is useful today, the important
thing is, does it conform to the scriptures?’

The reason for his opposition is clear from the next sentence. He says, ‘Our
scriptures do say that we should do what is beneficial to us. Shrutismruti ...
swasyacha priyamatmanah.’ Unfortunately the sentence does not mean
what Satavalekar has said.

We have many learned scholars who say, “Our customs have been
sanctioned in our scriptures. Even if they are proved to be harmful, God
himself cannot change them.” Pandit Satavalekar, you interpret the
sentences in your way, but others interpret in quite a different way. So, I say
that we should stop arguing and do only what is beneficial today. In the
days when scriptures were composed science was not advanced as it is
today. Why is Satavalekar refusing to answer the simple question - why
should

we not decide what is harmful and what is beneficial by using scientific

methods?

He says, our scriptures do want us to find out what is beneficial today, but
he also says that we should find out if the new custom is sanctioned in
scriptures. We object to the second part. That is the shackle we need to
break because it has made us handicapped when facing Europeans who
quickly change with times.
Baseless accusations against
Savarkar
Satavalekar, in his article asks, “Why should we not consult old religious
texts before adopting new customs? What harm is in that? But patriot and
scholar Barrister Savarkar says, loday there is no need to consult old texts."
And then he goes wild and states, “Bum the religious texts, burn history
books, bum encyclopaedias. Then should we also bum Barrister Savarkar’s
books?” He raises such questions.

Our answer is that apart from such baseless accusations, there is no need to
burn anything.
Savarkar carries on —
We are least concerned whether or not the present method of carrying dead
bodies laid on temporary stretchers and carried on shoulders of four people
and in public is in compliance with the rules of Shrutis, Smrutis or Puranas.
We simply say that it is inconvenient today, therefore it should be changed.
In the days of Shrutis there was no other way of burning of bodies than on a
funeral pyre. But today we have the facility of large electric furnaces. They
should therefore be used.

When it was just suggested that electrical furnaces would be made available
in large cities like Mumbai, we know how it led to huge public outcry by
the traditionalists. This is an attack on our religion’ they said. [The author
of this book remembers that the same sentiments were expressed by his
class teacher in 1952], As for the masses, we have given plenty of examples
to illustrate

what they understand by ‘religion according to texts.’ People always ask ‘is
the custom according to our texts? It does not matter whether it is harmful
or useless.’ That is what I have been fighting against.

(SSV3 pp 369/372)

Savarkar never ever suggested that old textbooks should be burnt He has
always said that they should be studied and if there is something in them
that is useful in today’s circumstances then that should be accepted.
Beneficial cross-examination
In one of his articles in Kirloskar magazine, Savarkar had given information
about an essay entitled Vajrasuchi by Buddhist priest Ashvaghosh.

Savarkar explains how the arguments between Buddhists and the followers
of the Vedas benefited the society.

• Upanishadas were written as answers to the questions raised by pupils.

For the first time, since then every opinion, tradition, custom and belief was
subjected to close scrutiny. People started asking the question - WHY?

The followers of Vedas examined thoroughly the discourses of Buddha and

they criticised every Mantra of that sect. The Buddhists did the same about
Vedic concepts, they could not care less for the traditional reply - ‘This is
what Shrutis say’. Followers of Vedas on the other hand had no qualms
about questioning the validity of Buddha’s teachings. Therefore all the
arguments had to be based on reason and logic and not what has been said
in religious texts. Such an experiment had never happened before.

Even today, we find their discussion quite amusing and illuminating. No

one had ever argued, ‘This tradition is true because it is contained in so and
so religious text.’

(S S V3 pp 532/533)

Do study Nature’s forces

In his article, “which is the eternal (Sanatani) religion?published in April

1934 Savarkar states —

• Sun, Moon, Water, Wind, Fire, Land, Sea’and all such sources of
enormous energy are not Gods which will be pleased by prayers or praises,
but they are bound by certain un-changeable rules. If we investigate and
find out what those rules are, we can harness their energies to our benefit.
Let us take an example. If a ship has holes in it, no amount of praying fo the
Sea or making offerings or chanting of Vedic mantras will prevent it from
sinking. However, if the ship has been built according to the principles of
Naval Architecture it becomes unsinkable. Even if it carries vicious
gangsters who burn the Vedas, consume alcohol and eat beef, the ship will
travel around the world. The sea will carry such battleships and allow it to
bombard any town of pious people. (Some Hindus would find these words
harsh indeed. But Savarkar only spoke the truth. This is indeed what
happened since the 15^ century. The Spaniards, Portuguese, Dutch and
English caused havoc throughout the world with their battleships.)

What applies to the Sea also applies to other giant forces in nature. If we
want to use them, the fhformation is to be found not in Vedas, Azvesta or
Koran but in relevant treaties of science. And the rules of that science are so
firm that no human being would ever power to challenge or alter them.

We are very well aware that today we do not fully understand how forces in
nature work - may be humans would never know all the nature’s secrets.
What is regarded as knowledge today, may be found to be inadequate or
lacking proof at a later date. When it happens we would modify our modern
Smrutis without feeling ashamed or guilty. There will be no hypocrisy. We
can honestly say that we were wrong, our knowledge was incomplete, and
we had not considered certain factors. And we would be proud of such
alterations.

(S S V3 pp 311/2)

In his article, “Once again- Cow worship, a harmful concept (1936)” he

says

• We should not think that the tragedy had befallen on Hindus alone.
Christians, Parsees, Jews, Musiims - they had ail faced the same situation.
As soon as any tradition or custom is branded “religious and according to
the religious texts” that society is doomed. Because, they lose the ability to
change with circumstances and therefore face disastrous consequences.

This simple mindedness is termed “going by the book “tendency. Whereas,

the effort to impose “the rules of the book” is religious fanaticism (as is
practised by Muslims today). Both are harmful. People of either society are
surpassed by those people who are prepared to change with the time.
New Goddess: The Goddess of
Reason
This is precisely the reason for the success of the Europeans over Muslims
and Hindus. Just like us, the Europeans were too under the shackles of
traditions. But one day there was a big bang — not of the French
Revolution but of the French Rationalism. French Political Revolution was
a result of their Revolution for Rationalism. The French abandoned the old
goddesses and paraded The Goddess of Reason through the streets of Paris.
And that liberated the whole of Europe. All the customs and traditions were
subject to the tests of Science, Reason and Validity to today’s
circumstances. Europe conquered the world. The entire Muslim population
is ruled by Europeans. Turkey modernised and that saved at least the Turks.

(S S V3 pp 227/9)

* Unfortunately, what applies to religious textbooks also applies to

philosophies. In the 1930s Hindus offered unquestioned loyalty to Gandhi
and Nehru. Their philosophy, methods, teachings, tactics were not to be
questioned. If some one did he would be treated as a traitor or a heretic. We
saw a glimpse of this in chapter One. This was new ‘going by the book. ’
Even when these

two leaders led to disasters after disasters there was no change in attitude of
Hindus.

The only exception being that of Savarkar. He challenged the views of

Gandhi and Nehru on many occasions. While speaking in Pune on 1 August
1940, Savarkar criticised Gandhi’s obsession with Ahinsa (Non-violence),
It is wrong to suggest even if Gandhi’s thoughts are harmful to the society,
impracticable, absurd, laughable or whimsical, there must be something in
them because they have been uttered by Mahatma. We must say that such a
person IS NOT a Mahatma but mentally defective. It is time we showed
guts to expose stupidity in teachings of Gandhi. One of Lokamanya Tilak’s
letters to Gandhi has recently been published. In it Tilak has clearly warned
that to preach limitless non-violence to a nation is sinful.”

(SSV4 pp 494-501)
Some important examples form
Indian History
Dnyaneshwar was a great Maratha saint who is revered by ALL
Maharashtrians even after 700 years. His childhood was extremely
miserable. His father Vitthalpant wanted to renounce married life and
become a Sanyasi, for which he needed wife’s permission. She
(Rukminibai) said “yes’on the spur of a moment. He went to Benares and
became a Sanyasi. By chance his Guru went on a pilgrimage of religious
places of southern India and met Rukminibai by chance. He realised what
has happened and ordered Vitthalpant to go back and live married life.
Vitthalpant did that and had four children. Nivrutti (1271), Dnyandeva
(1274), Sopan (1277) and Muktabai (1280). But that was never heard of.
The villagers therefore treated the family as outcast. As the children grew,
Vitthalpant realised that if their thread ceremony were not performed the
children would have no place in the society. He went to the assembly of
Brahmins and asked them what he should do. They told him,

‘ There is no reference in our religious texts for your situation.

We do not know what to do.” Someone suggested that he

(Vittahpant) should abandon life. He and his wife Rukminibai therefore

jumped in the river Triveni and ended their lives.

Nivrutti and Dnyaneshwar again went to the assembly of Brahmins and

asked them what they should do now. The answer was the same, “ There is
no reference in reli qiou? tgxts fpr yppr case . But if you can get a
certificate of acceptance from Brahmins of Paithan, we will accept you.”
So, the children went there. Once again they were given the same answer “
Nq reference in our texts .” Dnyaneshwar then performed some miracles
and the children were accepted. That was in the year 1286. Dnyaneshawar
composed his famous works Dnyaneshwar! in the year 1293 and explained
the teachings of Geeta to the common man. He abandoned earthly life like a
Yogi in 1296.

In the year 1215, English Barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta.
But Brahmins in Maharashtra were worried about what to do with the
children of a SanyasiU For at least200 years before the birth of
Dnyaneshwar, Hindus of North India were fighting ferocious battles with
Muslim invaders, but Brahmins of Maharashtra were totally unconcerned
with such events.

And surprisingly enough things did not change after another 600 years.

In 1920Moplas, Muslims of Malabar committed terrible atrocities on

Hindus there. The question of re-conversion of those who were forcibly
converted to Islam during the riots arose. Dr Munje of Nagpur remembers,
“I had an argument with a learned Brahmin. He said, ‘Doctor, like you I am
also extremely angry that barbaric atrocities were committed on Hindus and
so many Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam. But there Is no provision
in our texts for their re-conversion to Hinduism. That is the end of the
matter.”

(Biography of Dr Munje, part II pp 50/51)

Do not waste time in finding references

Shivaji the great Maratha King on the other hand did not waste

time in finding references. One Babaji Nimbalkar was forced to

accept Islam. Shivaji got him reconverted to Hindu Dharma in 1651/52.

Netaji Paikar was also forcibly converted to Islam by Aurangzeb {27 March
1667). But when Aurangzeb sent Netaji on a military campaign in Deccan
under Dilerkhan, he escaped went to Shivaji and was re-converted to
Hinduism (19 June 1676).

Shivaji did not worry about any references in religious texts. He simply
practised Shuddhi.
Unfortunately Hindus did NOT follow these examples, with disastrous
consequences. When Marathas were powerful they did not convert people
back to Hindu Dharma, who were forced to accept Islam by Tipu and
Nizam.

Bajirao I was an excellent Maratha General in the 1EP century. He had an

exceptionally beautiful mistress named Mastani. He wanted his son from
her to be brought up as a Hindu. But Brahmins refused to perform Thread
Ceremony on the son. He became a Muslim and was named Sansher
Bahaddar. He died on the battlefield of Panipat on the side of Marathas in
1761. What an irony that Bajirao’s Hindu family has become extinct but his
family from Mastani is still alive and his descendants are Muslims!!

Even a strongly anti-Savarkar writer like Saane Guruji wrote,“Maratha

Peshwa Bajirao I tried to have thread ceremony performed on his son from
Mastani. But he was ridiculed and laughed at. Alas he knew the heart of
civilisation of Bharat.” (Bharatiya Sanskiriti - Sages who carried out
experiments p 32)
What about today?
* In the last ten to fifteen years Hindus are obsessed by a new craze. They
are blindly following the westerners, especially Americans. We are going
from one extremity to the other.

In 1979 we witnessed the horror of ‘Virginity Tests’ carried on brides from

India entering Britain. At Heathrow (London) airport they were physically
examined by Male doctors to see if they

533/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

were virgins. When the women requested that they should be examined by
Female doctors, their requests were denied. British Medical Association
found nothing wrong or degrading in that practice. So disgraceful was the
episode that even an arrogant British Prime Minister like Margaret Thatcher
had to apologise unreservedly to the European court of Human rights.

At the same time Prince Charles visited India and one girl named Padmini
Kolhapure kissed him on cheek!! That is our sign of progressiveness.

In February20031 visited India. World cup cricket matches were being

televised at that time. A woman- presenter appeared with a dress showing
that she wore no bra. I found the debacle revolting.

Hindu women have stopped wearing Kunku or the red mark on their
forehead. During engagement ceremony intended man and wife exchange
rings. Men and women call each other in singular. Disco dancing and
drinking are a must during Hindu social functions. The list is endless.

That is no good at all.

Dr Radhakrishnan, the second President of the Indian Republic once wrote,

“A monkey taught to smoke and drink wine is still a monkey.”

That is what we Hindus are
becoming today!!
Gandhi once said, “I do not want my house to be walled on all sides nor my
windows to be shut. I want the culture of all lands to blow about my house
as freely as possible, but I refuse to be blown off my feet by any one of
them.”

These words are engraved in a plaque at the entrance to Mahatma Gandhi

Hall of the Indian YMCA, Fitzroy Square, London, W1

We have accepted a lot of fads and harmful practices in Gandhi’s

philosophy but forgotten the above words.

TENDENCY OF ‘GOING BY THE BOOK’ AMONG NON-HINDUS

TENDENCY OF ‘GOING BY THE BOOK’ AMONG NONHINDUS

The tendency of ‘going by the book’ has harmed ALL the societies. But the
so-called Rationalists in India only laugh at Hindus. It is only Savarkar who
illustrates how other societies also suffered the same fate.

• In his article Two Worlds: Two Cultures, published in 1934 he says —

What applies to the followers of Shrutis, Smrutis and Puranas equally

applies to Christians, Jews, Parsees and Muslims or to any society, which
regards their religious texts as infallible. As long as the Europe regarded the
Bible as infallible and word of God, they too were living like frogs in a
pond. Their thinking was severely restricted. When some scholars realised
that the Earth was round, Europeans, instead of applying the rules of reason,
went to the book. They asked, “^what does the Bible say?” If it says (and
indeed it does say) that Earth is flat she must remain so. Even after
Columbus had discovered America and returned from his voyages to that
continent in 1498, Christian clerics condemned his discovery as non-
existent.

However simpleton Pope may be, he is infallible - that was the trust of
millions of Christians in Europe. Whatever sins the Pope may have
committed, once we have a certificate of innocence by him we would go to
heaven - that had been the blind faith of Europeans. If we were to open old
coffins we would find such certificates in the hands of the dead. (It did not
matter if they had to pay the Pope for those certificates). And the same
applied to latter day Muslims. Like Hindus, Muslims too have become
helpless when faced with Europeans.

(S S V3 pp 354-364)

• In his article ‘Machines’, Savarkar explained in 1931.

Today, we do not use machines on a large scale because we are still wedded
to the old thinking. But the same applied to Europe

barely 200 years ago. In 1755, there was a large-scale earthquake in Lisbon
the capital of Portugal. Roman Catholic priests explained, This happened
because of the sins of Protestants. They are blasphemous, they allow their
priests to marry and not remain celibate, they allowed nuns to marry, they
do not consider the Pope as infallible, and they do not accept his orders.
That is why the nature caused this calamity to fall upon us.’ So, what was
the solution? Exterminate the Protestants!! they said.

Under such conditions, it was impossible that the Roman Catholics would
study the earth’s geography and nature’s laws and try to invent machines,
which would give advanced warning of impending earthquakes in future. It
is only when Europe came out of the shell that they invented various types
of machines for the benefit of mankind.

(SSV3 p381)

• In his article ‘the tendency of going by the book among Hindus and
Muslims’, Savarkar vividly showed how that tendency led to disaster for
the Muslims.
My Muslim friends, look at what happened when Europe abandoned the
‘tendency to go by the book.’ They drove you out of Spain totally (no
Muslims were left in Spain when Christians defeated Muslims in 1212).
You faced the same fate in Austria, Hungary, Serbia and Bulgaria. The
British displaced the Mughal Emperor in Delhi. Today, they are ruling over
Muslims in Arabia, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Syria. Just as our fire
sacrifices, the chanting of Vedic mantras and curses could not defeat
Europeans, your Koran, Namaz, wearing of sacred threads or rosaries too
had no adverse effect on them. Some Mullahs proposed that if the name of
Allah was printed on the arms, Muslims would become invincible, but the
weapons of Europeans proved far superior and Muslims were defeated. It is
time you too opened your eyes.

(S S V3 pp 160/161)

Muslims were routed by superior armies of non-Muslims

• Due to the policy of Gandhi and Nehnj of constantly capitulating to every

unreasonable Muslim demands, Hindus started to feel that Muslims win
because of their sticking to their religion. In his article in Kirloskar
Magazine of June 1937 (Science can smash religious fanaticism) Savarkar
illustrated how the thinking of Hindus was wrong.

• What happened in the past is also happening at present. True, after the
death of Prophet Mohammed, Arabs spread like wild fire and conquered
huge territories. But that was not because of Islam or abiding by the
commands of the Koran, but because the defeated people were far less
advanced in material sciences and were backward than the better organised
and well armed Arabs. However, once the Muslims faced societies better
organised and armed than they were, they too faced defeats. As an
illustration, let us look at the history of Maharashtra. Just read how the
Marathas played games and brought tears and despair to the Mughal
Emperor Aurangzeb.

From 1600 to 1800, in the five hundred major battles when Hindus and
Muslims faced each other, Hindus always won and Muslims always faced
defeat. From Rohilkhand to Dwarka, (East to West) from Attock to
Rameshwar, (North to South) Hindus regained their territories in battles. Do
our opponents say that this happened because Muslims did not say Namaz
five times a day, or did not fast on the days of Roza or did not grow beards
or that they did not have Koran as their single religious book?
Look at Europe
Our proposition is proved in Europe also. When Europeans were restricted
in their thinking by the teachings of the Bible, Muslims (Arabs) won
spectacular victories over Europeans. They conquered Portugal and Spain
and reached the border of France (Tours) in 732, on the other side they
attacked Hungary. But

when Europe started to worship Science, decided to use huge forces in

nature to their advantage, they smashed the Muslims in no time. Do we
need to go into the details? The Moors who once ruled over Spain, are now
being ruled by France and Spain. Recently, Italy has easily defeated the
strictly religious Abyssinia (Ethiopia). Atheist Russians are ruling over
huge populations of strictly religious, almost fanatical Muslims. The
remains of the kings of Iraq, Egypt and Delhi and various Caliphs are
displayed in various museums in England.

(S S V3 pp 646/7)

In the above article Savarkar continues, “In India, Muslims always insist
that whenever it is their praying time, proceedings of the Congress Party
should be suspended (and the ever so considerate Gandhi and Nehru always
used to capitulate to this). But Muslims will pay dearly for this foolhardy
policy. Supposing they have a war with Russia and insist on saying Namaz
five times a day, would the Russians wait till the Muslims finish their
Namaz? They will wage battle fiercely at such times and make sure that
those who sit down to say their Namaz never get up. Muslims in the Soviet
Parliament tried the same tactics as in India. During the proceedings of the
Legislative Assembly in Moscow, Muslims withdrew from the proceedings
to say Namaz. Soviet delegates took the opportunity to pass various laws,
which were extremely disadvantageous to Muslims.

(SSV3p 650)
In the same article Savarkar says,“I agree that reformers some times do hurt
people, however unintentionally. And for that, they have to suffer the anger
of the people. But the arguments put forward by our opponents are harmful
to our nation.”

“Our opponents say, ‘See how Hindu reformers lack self respect! The
tradition of veil is so cumbersome, ridiculous, unhygienic and inconvenient,
but Muslims will observe it. Islam forbids eating pork, so Muslims will not
eat pork come what may. On the other hand these reformist Hindus argue
that during the war or while

staying in England there is nothing wrong in eating meat if our survival is at

stake. We are not staunch in our beliefs as Muslims. That is the reason for
our pitiable condition today.”

“This line of argument is faulty and perverted. Religious fanaticism will

harm Muslims too. Take the case of Harising Nalua, general of Maharaja
Ranjit Singh. He defeated Pathans and conquered territories right up to
Kabul {capital of Afghanistan). Pathans locked the grain stores and
sprinkled the bags with cow’s blood. Sikh soldiers refused to eat such
defiled grain. Nalua then killed some pigs and sprinkled their blood on the
same bags. Then Pathans could not touch the grain bags and faced
starvation. But Allah did nothing to save his followers. Pathans were
resoundingly defeated on the battlefield.”

“Suppose the Muslims fight with the Russians. Suddenly they face food
shortage. There are only pigs in the surrounding area. Muslims will starve
while Russians will eat the pigs and win the battle. Therefore, religious
fanaticism will prove to be disastrous to the Muslims.”

(S S V3 pp 651/2)

Savarkar gives a third example.

“After the death of Prophet Mohammed there arose feuds among his
followers. Abu Bakr became Caliph and succeeded Mohammed, setting
aside the claim of Ali, the son-in-law of Mohammed. Thereafter Umar and
Osman from the Omayid tribe became Caliphs. They appointed officers
from their tribe. Therefore Ali and his supporters in Kureshi tribe rebelled.
Osman was killed in a battle. But his successor Moaviya fought against Ali.
He employed a clever ploy. His soldiers fixed Koran to their spears. Ali’s
soldiers refused to fight, as they would not defile Koran. Ali was obliged to
agree to a compromise unwillingly.” (SSV2 pp 402/3)

• In the article ‘How Kemal Pasha liberated Turkey from Arab dominatiori
(April 1934) Savarkar once again refers to the conflict

between the Europeans and Muslims.

“It was astonishing that within hundred or hundred and fifty years from the
death of Prophet Mohammed, Arabs conquered vast areas up to Spain in the
West to Sindhu River in the East. No river or mountain could stop their
advance. It has to be said that they did posses certain dynamism.”

Limitations of civilisations

However, the nature requires constant change. No religious texts can be

useful forever. New thinking or revised editions of the religious texts
become an impossibility because the texts are regarded as everlasting. It
was therefore inevitable that when Arabs faced the Europeans who were
prepared to change with times, adopt new methods, use science and became
dynamic and ‘up to date’, easily defeated Arabs who were still wedded to
their beliefs of six hundred years old. So, Arabs too became helpless just as
the Africans and Spaniards had been in the 8“' century.

After this discussion, Savarkar explains how Kemal Pasha of Turkey

carried out his reforms in the period 1923 to 1938.

“Kemal did not stop at merely sanctioning the reforms and new laws. He
implemented them with equal vigour. And what was the Mantra that led to
his success? Just one sentence. No tradition or custom is valid today simply
because it has been found in the religious texts. The acid test is whether it is
useful today. Religious texts tell us what happened yesterday. The test of a
medicine is not in whether it was prescribed by grandma or found in
Materia Medica. The test is whether it is effective. That is how Turks solved
all their problems.”
“But suppose the work was left to the clerics? Each word would have led to
a different interpretation. Years would have been wasted in discussions,
arguments, looking at and searching for precedents. Enlightened clerics
would have argued {dishonestly

that the new reforms were sanctioned in the religious texts whereas the
diehards would have said exactly the opposite. No decision would have
ever been reached.”
Religious freedom
“Therefore, the Young Turks decided to close the religious texts and see
what happens. Surprisel Surprise !! The problem was solved. In daily life,
religion became limited to one’s beliefs. Turkey declared religious freedom.

Our readers will be surprised to know that Turks study Vedas with
reverence. True, they study them as historical documents. To some extent
their study is considered essential. Our Muslims would consider such an act
as sure way of going to hell.”
In another article Savarkar wrote
—
• Obsession of ‘going by the book’
Mullahs ask: Is the telephone divine or satanic?

This question caused a great sensation in the Middle East recently (i.e. in
1930s). it revealed that Muslims are just as obsessed with ‘going by the
book’ tendency as Hindus. They have no reason to laugh at Hindus.

After the end of World War I, the kingdom of Ibn Saud was established in
Saudi Arabia by the intrigues of European powers, especially the British
{Remember Lawrence of Arabia?!. With the help of Europeans, the King
introduced modern technology. He wanted to install the telephone. But the
sight of it caused a furore among Mullahs and Maulavis. They declared, 'As
this instrument is not described in the Koran, it must be a creation of Satan.
How does it repeat the voice from one town to the other? Surely, that is the
sign of satanic design.’ They declared that no Muslim must touch it or use
it. It is against Islam!!

The king called for an assembly of the clerics. Heated debate followed.
Someone suggested, ‘At one end of the telephone.

one cleric should recite verses from Koran. If the telephone is an invention
of the Satan it will not allow the Koranic verses to pass through. But if it
allows the verses to pass through and they can be heard at the other end, it
must be pure Islamic.’ That cleric was greatly admired for a wonderful
suggestion. Eventually, a Mullah, with his feet trembling, uttered some
verses at one end of telephone line. And what a surprise, the telephone
repeated the words of the Mullah. There was great jubilation and the clerics
declared that it is not objectionable to use the telephone. The question
therefore was foolish, the solution ten times more foolish.

It was a good job that the cleric who proposed the solution was just so much
cleverer than others and no more. Othenwise some wise guy would have
suggested that they should also test the machine to see if it also would allow
the criticism of Koran as contained in Dayanand Saraswati’s Satyartha
Prakash to be repeated at the other end of telephone. And then the whole
game would have collapsed.

Look at the fun in Europe.

Parts of Europe (Spain, Portugal, the Balkans) at that time were no

different. When telephone was introduced in the Pyrenees Mountains in a
Spanish village named Villa, the local inhabitants were very worried.
Christian clerics asked the same question as the Mullahs. They said, “This
instrument is not described in the Bible, it must therefore be an act of
Satan.” But they were a bit more advanced than the Muslims of Arabia.
They decided to Christianise the machine. There was a great procession
through the village headed by a Padre. He baptised the telephone, sprinkled
holy water on it and recited some verses in Latin through one end. And
surprise! surprise!! The same Latin words were heard at the other end.
Everyone was then satisfied.

Poor telephone! In Saudi Arabia it was declared Muslim, in Spain it became

Christian while in Russia it was godless! It assumes the religion of whoever
will speak through it.

(S S V3 pp 172/3/4)

• ‘Going by the book’ tendency among Muslims and Christians - a typical

example

Old Banyan trees provide shade and create comfortable climate on hot days.
Hundreds of people can rest under them. Hindus therefore feel that these
trees should not be felled. Savarkar says that such arguments are perfectly
understandable. However, when the trees die and become a danger to
houses and human beings, it is unreasonable to object to their removal. He
wrote an article entitled“Accident, or suicide?” In it, he describes the ‘going
by the book tendency’ of Muslims and Christians also. In a village there
was an old decaying Banyan tree. The villagers were discussing whether to
fell that tree. There were Hindus, Muslims and a Christian Missionary
among them.
Dr Mohite (Hindu) says to the woman missionary, 'YJeW Misisaheb, if you
ask me as a true rationalist, I feel both of you are equally orthodox. Do you
remember the prayer you just sang? This lady here, Bhimabai believes that
she bore a child as a blessing of this Banyan tree. If you want to laugh at
her conception should you also not say the same about virgin birth of Jesus.
How can a son be born without a father?”

The missionary nun replied, “But that is our religious belief.”

Dr Mohite, “Sure. But so is the belief of this lady, Bhimabai. If you laugh at
her belief I too must have the same freedom to examine your beliefs and
laugh at them. You see madam, those who propagated that the earth is round
were killed by Christians! Those who suggested that the earth moves
around were also fined. When Columbus returned from discovering
America in 1498 was he not cursed by Christian clerics as his discovery
went against the teachings of the Bible? Your assumption that only Hindus
are orthodox is arrogant and part of your orthodoxy. Every society has some
ancient beliefs? which have now become obsolete or unexplainable. A true
rationalist tries to persuade ALL people to abandon such beliefs,
irrespective of their religion.”

Muslim said, “Well then, why not ask your Hindus to allow felling of this
tree. You see we Muslims are rationalists. We would not object to felling
hundreds of such trees to make the road safe. How silly to worship a tree!”

Dr Mohite, ‘The Hindus are merely arguing orally that the tree should not
be felled as it hurts their religious beliefs. But Muslims immediately resort
to violence. Just a few months ago, some Muslims in the village noticed an
old mound in the house of a Hindu. Immediately they declared it a holy site
for them (where some Muslim was presumed buried). They ran riots,
demolished the house, started to say Namaz and argued that Hindus must
not play musical instruments in the vicinity. Supposing that some one was
buried on that site. Why could the Muslims not exhume and rebury? Why
resort to violence? Every year Muslims create riots, insisting that Hindus
must not play music in front of their mosques on the High Streets. We all
need to behave sensibly.

.Mr Bhingarde opposed me but did not realise that he in fact

supports me. He said ‘It was not wrong to have a feeling towards such trees
as they are very useful to mankind.’ Sure, we feel affection about animals
like the cow and bull or such trees and therefore we protect them. But when
they become a nuisance or danger to the society, they should not be
protected. Sometimes it is their destruction that would be beneficial to
human beings. It is therefore silly to argue that even if people were to die by
a collapsing tree it must not be felled by us. Arguments of our opponents
backfire like this.”

A Brahmin argued, “But we regard this tree as God and believe that if we
cut it, God would have his wrath on us.”

Dr Mohite, “Tell me, how is it that if the tree is felled by Christians or

Muslims and cut to pieces and burned, that does not affect them?”

The Brahmin, “The answer is simple. Christians and Muslims do not regard
the trees as Gods and therefore they are not cursed

even when they fell, cut and burn the trees.”

Dr Mohite, “Well, you answered the question yourselves. Regard the trees
as trees, cows and bulls as animals and not as Gods and you too will not be
affected. Why regard a rope as a serpent and fear from it?”

(S S V2 pp 674-679)

• ‘Going by the book’ tendency in Tibet

In his article “Some interesting aspects of life in Tibet” Savarkar explained

the difficulties faced by Buddhist priests from India for the spread of
Buddhism in Tibet. Afterwards he wrote:

Eventually the whole of Tibet embraced Buddhism. But it went the way all
religions go. Whenever any society does not keep pace with the times it
degenerates. The same thing happened to Buddhists. Buddha opposed many
Vedic rituals but his followers adopted many more childish rituals. Buddha
denied the infallibility of Vedas and said that they were not god given. But
then his own teachings themselves became divine and were regarded as
infallible. Buddha denied the existence of God, but his followers made him
a God!!. Vedic Hindus believed that the chanting of Vedic mantras leads to
heaven or that it creates rain or acquires wealth. Buddha laughed at such
beliefs. But his followers attached similar meanings to his mantras.
Buddhist orthodoxy became even more self denying and meaningless.

As we pointed out earlier, as soon as a society regards a text as infallible

and applicable for all times, its progress is halted. It cannot grow beyond
the limits of that text. It does not matter what the text is, be it god given /
god created Vedas, Avesta (of Parsees), Bible, Koran or later day
Gurugranth (of Sikhs). It does not matter whether the people are Buddhists,
Jains or even atheists.

[This is where Savarkar differs from other rationaiists. He cieariy says that
even if you do not beiieve in God but regard

a particular text as infallible, say Das Kapital, your progress Is restricted.]

Tibet is a classic example of our proposition.

Savarkar then tells us that, in Tibet, if a widow marries, her daughters too
become wives of her new husband. He comments, “What we regard as
disgusting, adulterous tradition is accepted by the Tibetans as divine order.
It just goes to show that one should not accept any tradition or custom as
valid for all times and in all countries. That obstinacy ultimately leads to
disastrous consequences. We should constantly consider what custom and
practice is appropriate today and behave accordingly. However, we must
not insist that the same is applicable at all times. That would be fanaticism.”

(S S V3 pp 277/8, 283)
What about today?
Even in the 2T' century we find many examples of the tendency of ‘ gninn
bv the book ’ Let us take two examples

* The Times (of London) reported on 15 March 2002 on page 17

Religious rules ‘killed 14 girls’

Riyadh: Saudi Arabia’s religious police were accused of preventing the

rescue of 14 girls who died in a stampede to escape a fire because an effort
to save them would have meant men entering a girls’ school or girls leaving
without a veil. The Al-lqtissadiya newspaper quoted witnesses as saying
that the mutawa, who enforce a strict Islamic moral code in the kingdom,
prevented the girls, aged from 13 to 17, from getting out of the school,
while civil defence guards were blocked from entering. Police announced
that 14 girls were trampled to death and 50 hurt after fire in Mecca on
Monday. (AFP)
* Marriages of divorced
men/women in church
Prince Charles of British Royal family was divorced from his wife Princess
of Wales before she died in a car accident in 1997. It was well known that
Charles was in love with Mrs Camilla Parker

547 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar -

Bowles a divorcee. The question arose - should divorced men and women
be allowed to be married in Church of England? It is interesting to note that
some clerics stated, “Yes. There is reference in New Testament which
allows such marriages.”- See Times of 10 July 2002 / also Metro paper of
the same date (Charles / Camilla marriage)

Why waste time in finding references in old texts instead of saying that
such marriages can take place because they are in line with modem living?

SOCIAL ISSUES
SOCIAL ISSUES
The logic and principles that are applied to religion and religious texts also
apply to social issues.

Savarkar did not waste any time in discussing how the practice of
untouchability began, what lay behind it, what had been its history, who is
to blame or similar questions. He simply said. “We are not interested in post
mortem. Just ask - Is that tradition inhuman? If so drop it.”

Historically our social structure was beneficial, but not today.

Of course, Savarkar never said that if there was something good or

beneficial in the old traditions, that too should be abandoned. In his article
on the caste system entitled, “So, what is the solution to this problem?” he
explains

• Whatever benefits were reaped by our society because of the caste system
today or in the past, the credit goes to all of us. And let us not forget that we
all have sustained the caste system. If today it is proving to be far more
harmful than beneficial, the responsibility for abandoning the system lies on
the shoulders of all of us. Let us not waste time in apportioning blame and
cursing each other. Let us unite to destroy this demon. And at the same time
we should remember that the four Varna system and the caste system, which
succeeded it, began for the good of the society and the same led to its
domination. It was precisely for this reason that it had the vitality to survive
for so long.

We should remember that once the four Varna system and the Caste division
were so beneficial that they spread outside India, to countries from Egypt to
South America. But just because it was once useful, it does not mean we
should stick to it even though it is harmful to us today. At the same time,
just because the system is harmful today, we should not jump to the
conclusion and go to the other extreme and say that it was always harmful.
That would be foolhardy and an utterly one sided and unfair view.
It is not the purpose of this article to show how the system was useful in the
past under certain conditions. The main purpose is to see how we can save
ourselves from this cancer today. But, as in any surgical operation, we have
to be careful to ensure that we only remove malignant growth and not kill
the patient.

(S S V3 pp 452/3)

• In November 1936 Savarkar wrote an article entitled, “The desirability or

otherwise of the present caste system.” Once again he emphasises —

It is true that the present caste system is not the only reason for the downfall
of our Hindu nation, but it is a cause, which cannot be ignored. We will
fight the external causes for our downfall. But if we are able to attain our
independence, a caste-ridden society cannot sustain it for long. On the one
hand the caste division is making it difficult for us to achieve our aim and
on the other, there is every possibility that we would lose what we gained.

However, we need to be careful to ensure that whatever good is there in the

caste system is not destroyed while we are trying to remove the ugly face of
the caste system. It has been ingrained in our national life for five thousand
years. Out of frustration, we should not go to the extreme length and
propagate that it has no merit and it never had. And therefore I propose to
discuss the good and bad points both so that we can abandon the bad parts
without abandoning the good parts.

(SSV3 p418)

• In his article in August 1936 entitled, “What would have happened, had
the Maratha Peshwas remained in power today?” Savarkar narrates the
details of the social boycott suffered by Lokamanya Tilak in the 1890s. At
the time of the marriage of his daughter, Tilak could not go to the Ganesh
Temple in Kasba in Pune and seek blessing of Lord Ganesh (The God of
Wisdom), as has been the tradition for hundreds of years. For many years
ho could not get Brahmins to officiate at the functions of death

anniversaries of his forefathers.” Towards the end, Savarkar wrote —

“We are not at all reviewing the social and religious reforms initiated by
Tilak, what to talk of criticism. Whatever that great leader thought
necessary at that time, he did it. We too are free to propose and enact
whatever is necessary for the good of our nation to the best of our ability
and resources.”

(SSV3 p418)
• Reforms do not mean blind
following of Europeans.
In June 1906, Savarkar set sail for England. He describes how the educated
youth of India were obsessed with following the customs of the English to
the minute detail. He writes about a young man from Punjab.

This gentleman proposed that we must abandon our traditions, which are
silly and childish and follow the customs and traditions of the English, be
they dress, eating habits, or manners. We must become modern by taking to
the bottle and smoking the pipe. It is because we do not do that, that we
Indians are despised in Europe and the Europeans do not consider us
worthy of deserving self-rule.

In those days, especially among the ‘England returned’ and also many
sincere politicians who worked for our advancement, the above thinking
was prevalent. I must say that they were misguided and misinformed.

Savarkar then gives his own thoughts on how one should behave in a
foreign land, ‘When we have to live in a foreign land, like England, for a
number of years, we should adopt the customs and manners of that country
so far as they are not demeaning to our nation. We go to foreign lands to
achieve certain objective and this adoption helps us to live comfortably and
with ease and enable us to succeed. Moreover, by observing their rules, we

can judge how far the same would be beneficial to our society in India and
propagate appropriate reforms. In a way it is our duty to do so.”

So Savarkar started to use collars, trousers, suits, ties and also learned to
use forks and spoons. He says, “I called my friend who introduced me to all
this as Mr Etiquette.” Savarkar describes his experiences on the ship.

“In those days, very few Sikhs went to England. Therefore, to the
Europeans, especially to their women and children, a man with a turban was
a sight of fun. It used to make them laugh.”

“At times our group of Indian youth used to go on deck to enjoy fresh air.
Harnamsingh, who shared a cabin with me also used to join us. Europeans
pointed at his turban and laughed. At first we ignored them. But one day
their children pointed to the turban and said, ‘what a funny hat’ and came
very close to him. Their parents, instead of controlling the children, also
began to laugh. Harnamsingh moved on, Mr Etiquette pushed a white boy
aside. As a result, the rest of the children went away and their parents too
did not make a fuss. But after we returned to our cabin, Mr Etiquette said to
me, ‘Savarkar, tell Harnamsingh not to wear the turban. Why should we
dress that makes the Europeans laugh at us and ridicule our behaviour?
Though they laughed at Harnamsingh, I felt that it was an insult to all of us.
In future, if he insists on wearing the turban, I will not go on the deck.’

Savarkar reacted, “My friend, I will never tell Harnamsingh to abandon the
turban. Some of our customs are out of date and harmful. I am ahead of all
of you in proposing their abandonment.

I am far more reformist when it comes to that. However, it is sheer

cowardice to abandon certain customs merely because the Europeans laugh
at them. Apart from convenience, if we look at it aesthetically, our turbans
are far more appealing and colourful than the European hats, which look
like dustbins. We should use hats when they are suitable for the occasion.

Moreover, wearing a turban is essential to the Sikh way of life. To stop

wearing it, simply because Europeans laugh at it, is a national insult to us. I
say, ‘Why don’t WE ALL wear turbans and go on the deck for a walk.
When Europeans see that we are all united, their ridicule will subside.”

Mr Etiquette sprung up and said, “You said the right thing. From tomorrow,
I too will wear a turban and accompany Hamamsingh.” Thus I had been
successful in kindling his self-respect.

I used to argue in many ways with Indian youth, who were suffering from
inferiority complex to try to teach them self-respect.
I led this course of action to change the outlook of our youth, to make them
aware of current politics and to induce them to join the Indian freedom
struggle. In short, I used to say.

Today the English are ruling over us. We therefore have to learn their habits
in detail. And while doing, that if we make mistakes, we feel so shy and
guilty. I also used to feel the same way. But that is wrong. When we were
masters in our land and Europeans came to our land for trade, they too had
to learn our customs and manners, they too made silly mistakes and our
forefathers too laughed at them in those days.”

Today, in the streets of London, Indians are teased as blackies. But we must
remember that when the English came to Pune in the days of Maratha
Peshwas, they too were called, ‘Red faced’ (topiwale ingraj). The English
could not walk without shoes. But in our courts they had to remove shoes
and walk barefoot. They must have felt very awkward indeed. They were
also not used to sit on the floor, as it was not done in England due to cold
climate there. But they had to sit cross-legged in our courts and must have
felt very uncomfortable in sitting that way. No doubt, our forefathers must
have laughed at them too. That is natural human reaction.”

There are interesting stories of experiences of the English in

the 18"’ century. A Maratha knight invited an officer of the East India
Company for dinner. But the seating arrangement was in Indian style, i.e.
no tables or chairs, no knifes and forks. With great difficulty the English
officer sat down. He was not sure which item of food he should start with.
So, he picked up a cake like piece. It was some kind of pastry with
desiccated coconut inside. He was surprised and said, “How come this
coconut pieces went inside?” There was a great laughter among the
participants.”

“Such events happen all the time when people of two different cultures
meet. However, there is nothing to be ashamed about them. It is all to be
taken as fun.”

“But these Englishmen and women do not laugh at us merely as a matter of

fun. They laugh out of arrogance and to despise us. They thereby imply that
they are ruling over us, and therefore all their customs and traditions are
superior to ours. That lies behind their laughter.”

“Our own people who believe that if we learn the manners and customs of
the English, they will respect and consider us worthy of political reforms
should think a little. Look at the thousands of Indian Christians. They have
adopted the customs and manners of the English, including their religion.
Of course they cannot change their colour. But have they been given any
political rights? None whatsoever!!”

“Consider the Irish. They do not even have problem of colour (they are
white like English). Why are they not granted the Home Rule in their
affairs? Why are the English ruling over them with fixed bayonets? So, my
friends, adoption of customs and manners of the English is not the criterion
for the political advancement.”

“Now look at the Japanese. They inflicted a smashing defeat on the Russian
Navy in 1904/05. And immediately these flat nosed, short fellows became
worthy of friendship of the English. Customs and manners are of secondary
or even

tertiary importance!!”

(Shatruchya Shibiratpp 5 to 14)

Savarkar has laid out an important principle. Reforms do not mean slavish
mentality and loss of self-respect. He never preached blind following of
western traditions.

Let us take his article ‘obsession with purity.’ He describes a scene in a

family in Pune who get a telegram of death of a distant relative in Kanpur,
some 1,000 miles away. But the woman of the house observed all the
traditions as if he died in the house. This leads to great discomfort. A friend
of the family suggests that the Europeans got the idea of Quarantine or
segregation to prevent the spread of diseases like the Plague from Hindu
custom of observing cleanliness and purity after a death in the family. He
quotes one Miss Mayo for praising Hindus for such a custom. Savarkar
comments
“Are you saying that there are no fools among the Europeans? Miss Mayo
is a European. Just as their condemnation of our customs are wicked, so are
their praises. She does not want us to improve and that is why she praises
our clumsy and harmful customs. We should be careful in accepting their
praise and not be carried away.” (SSV4 p 315)

* Savarkar's thoughts on the Cow are still regarded as controversial, mainly

because no one reads what he has said. His opponents quoted events in
America. In reply, Savarkar, in his article, ‘Once again the Cow, an harmful
religious concept’ said, “But it is absurd to say that something is right
because Americans are doing It. Our arguments have nothing to do with
America or Americans. I have not propagated that we should eat beef
because Americans do so. Equally I am not going to advise the contrary
also. We have got to use our brains.” After arguing his case, Savarkar
concludes, “So, even if

Americans treat the Cow as divine as my opponents are suggesting, that

would still be not right. I never said that whatever the westerners do is
right.”

(SSV3 pp233/5)
Follow the example of the English
language
* On 15 April 1938, Savarkar spoke as the President of the Maharashtra
Literary Conference. In his speech he advocated the removal of poverty of
verbs in Marathi language. He pointed out that in Marathi one has to say To
offer resistance instead of to resist To make acceptance instead of to accept
To make a rejection, instead of to reject.

He suggested alternative verbs and said.

Look at the English language

They have verbs like, to consent, to encourage, to denounce, and to publish.

As soon as the word Motor was in use, they had a verb ‘to motor They had
wire (telegram) immediately came their verb to wire. Why can’t we do the
same? As long as the attempt does not produce cumbersome verbs we
should invent new ones. Whatever is good in a foreign language is worth
emulating.

Our opponents ask, “But how do you follow the example of English
language? On the one hand you advocate the boycott of English words now
prevalent in our languages, on the other you are asking us to follow the
trend in English language.”

I only say that I want to boycott English words because they are un-
necessary, there are existing equivalent words in our language or we can
form new words ourselves, we don’t need to borrow from English.
However, if there is something we do not have, be it words, customs,
traditions or knowledge, we should borrow from wherever we can find and
assimilate them. I am always for such an action.

(SSl^3 pp 450/451)
Manu, the ancient Hindu Law-giver said, “antyajad api param dharma.
Stree ratnam dushkuladapi” (Chapter ^238)

One should learn principles of Dharma even from a Chandal (lowest of all
classes) and one should marry a virtuous woman even from low family.

Savarkar had been saying the same. He is prepared to follow the example of
English language because it is beneficial.

Poet Kalidas in his drama Malavika Agnimitra has said Puranmityeva na

sadhu sarvam Na chapikavyam nava nitya vadyam Santah parikshyantarat
bhajante Mudhah parapratyanev buddhih

“Nothing is beneficial just because it is old. No poetry is bad just because it

is new. Wise men examine any thing new, consider pros and cons and then
decide if it is good or bad (say a new custom). The fools do not think, and
follow others blindly because they get carried away by superficial
appearance.”

That is exactly what Savarkar had been preaching. Let us take some
examples:
How Hindus blindly follow the
westerners today
* Subhashchandra Bose, the Bengali leader had to resign as the President of
the Congress Party in 1939 due to the intrigues of Gandhi. He immediately
founded his own party - The Forward Block. He could not fh id a suitable
word for it in his mother tongue, Bengali.

* In 1959, The University of Poona awarded the honorary degree of Doctor

of Literature to Savarkar. Due to poor health, he could not attend the award
ceremony in Pune. So, the Vice Chancellor Dr Karve and some members of
the University Council went to

Savarkar’s house and honoured him by conferring the degree on him. At

that occasion Savarkar thanked the members of the Council and said, “it is
time we abandoned the traditions imposed by the British and followed our
own. In ancient times, the recipients of such honours were given Shawls.”

Wrangler Paranjape, the former Principal of Fergusson College, Pune

ridiculed the idea and said. “Today how many men have the Shikha (tuft of
hair at the back of the shaved head) and wear the holy thread? We must
move forward. We do not want to go back to the middle-ages by offoring
Shawls to graduates.

This just shows how the Wrangler was devoid of self-respect. Poona
University was founded after the Indian independence, in my (author’s)
living memoiy. Is it not absurd that Graduates should wear gowns and hats
like clowns? Can you walk on the High Street in that dress? Moreover, how
come men and women have the same dress? We should follow our
traditions. If we do not have one we should start one that would suit our
culture.

Wrangler Paranjape was the President of the Indian Rationalist Association

for a number of years!!
Neckties
* In countries of cold climate, like Europe, it is customary to put on a
necktie to protect from cold wind. B A what relevance has it in India?
Nothing, but slavish mentality. In Places like Mumbai, the heat is such that
even normal shirts can be worn with difficulty. So why people wear ties?
What logical reason is there? I (author) stayed in Shree Krishna Lodging
and Boarding in Mumbai in 1963. One day a resident of the boarding house,
an officer in State Bank of India, was sent home. Why? Because he forgot
to wear the tie!!

Even today, the same madness continues. There is now a fad of English
medium schools. If it is run by a church, that is preferable. This means that
the boys and girls would wear ties all day. No

one has the courage to ask, “What is the necessity of this loose piece of
cloth around neck?”

In May 2001, I (author) went to Pune to attend a marriage ceremony.

Temperature was 42 degrees Centigrade. But the bridegroom had to put on
a coat and a tie for the reception!! The new toaster on Tetevision wore tie
too.

Does anyone in the Indian Government have the courage to say that
candidates for the IAS (Indian Administrative Service) need not wear ties?
Why can’t we wear clothes, which suit our climate?
Limit of our inteliectuals
* ‘Pradnyalok’ is magazine in Marathi published from Nagpur. Only a
handful of the intellectuals read it. In its issue of 25 August 1988,1 (author)
read an article on Privatisation. Its author wants us to believe that the word
‘privatisation’ is a magic wand. As soon as you utter it, all your problems
are solved. He said that enormous wealth was created in Britain due to
privatisation etc, etc.

I was surprised to read the article, because I live in Britain and have seen
the horrors created by the privatisation, be it Gas, Electricity, Water or
Transport. But the author described no bad effects of privatisation. And
what is the proof that it has worked in Britain? Well, the former Prime
Minister Mrs Thatcher, an advocate of privatisation says sol!

I was therefore curious to know who the author was. He was Randle
Fitzgerald. But that was not a Marathi name. So, what was the mystery? At
the bottom of the article I found a note This is a translation of an article
which appeared in the Reader’s Digest of July 1988.

So, translating articles in some English language magazines is still the goal
of our intellect after all these years. In India, which

industries should be privatised and which should be kept in Government

hands has got to be decided by Indians themselves. The blind following of
any other country will ultimately lead to disaster!!
CODE FOR REFORMERS
• If reforms are to be carried out, some one has to become the reformer. The
questions then arise - What should he do? How should he behave? How
should he keep his balance? Savarkar has provided some excellent
principles for guidance.
In November 1927, he was at a
village named Devarukh, He said
—
* Some of my well wishers advise me that I should not lose my popularity
by expressing forceful views on issues such as the removal of
untouchability or the organisation of Hindus for the protection of their
rights. However, I feel that it is my duty to sponsor issues popular as well as
unpopular. Anyone who really wants to serve his nation must do the same.
On the other hand anyone who pays more attention praise from public and
keeps quiet about unpopular issues though of substance and for ultimate
public good, is not a dedicated public servant at all.”

There is no need to be more explicit. Savarkar’s principle was better good

of the people, not just praise from public.

In June 1937 Savarkar wrote an article entitled, ‘Scientific progress can

smash religious fanaticism.’

“I am aware of the fact that some conservative Hindus have been deeply
hurt by my opinions on meat eating and, in the heat of the moment, they
made some nasty remarks about me. I can understand that. It was a natural
reaction. At times reformers have to hurt feelings of the people. They
should therefore be prepared to face the wrath of the masses for sometime.”
(SSV3 p 651)

This just goes to show how understanding Savarkar was. Unfortunately that
side of his character never came to the forefront.

COWARDICE OF OTHER REFORMERS

* On 25 December 1927, Dr. Ambedkar a leader of Mahars publicly burned

a copy of Manusmriti at a village named Mahad in Maharashtra. He wanted
to show his anger at Manusmriti. But he had no courage to do the same to
Koran, nay he did not even have guts to say that the Koran is man made and
NOT divine. He wrote filthy books like ‘Riddles of Ramayan and
MahabharaV but had no courage to write ‘Riddles of Bible and Koran ’. He
believed in the axiom ‘discretion is the better part of valour ’. He was well
aware of the controversy caused by the book ‘Rangeela Rasool’ by one
Aryasamaji Rajpal exposing the sex life of Prophet Mohammed. That was
in retaliation to the poem ‘Kishan Teri Geeta Jalani Padegi ’, by a Muslim.
Rajpal was eventually murdered by a Muslim fanatic in 1929.

* What applied to Ambedkar also applied to Brahmosamajis of 1860 to

1884. In his autobiography, Savarkar explains,

“But the attacks of Brahmosamajis on Hindu Dharma were far more vicious
than those by the Christian Missionaries. And that too, not with the
intention of revitalising the Hindu nation, but to despise Hindus and
threaten to break away from Hindu Dharma. Hindus awoke and reacted
strongly against Brahmo Samaj.”

“Christian Missionaries supported the Brahmosamajis from the start. They

were determined to see Hindus being humiliated and disintegrated. The
British rulers knew that all Brahmosamajis were loyal to them. And
therefore they publicly recognised leaders of Brahmo Samaj and regarded
them as representatives of the native people.”

“Of course, Brahmo Samajis had no courage to expose the

serious faults and defects among the Muslims or Christians. Hindus became
more and more demoralised by the attacks of Barhmo Samajis.”

(Autobiography pp 25/26)

* Let us see how the British saw the Brahmo Samaj in their own words.

Major Archer, an A.D.C to the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army

wrote in 1833, “Raja Ram Mohan Roy it is said, an Unitarian

.but a Hindu such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy of birth, talents

and his extensive information though a Unitarian is certainly halfv/ay to
Christianity.... He is the man who is able to do more good than all the
missionaries.”

(Tours in Upper India by Major Archer)

[In plain words. Raja Ram Mohan Roy will cause more damage to his
people than all the missionaries put together.]

* Now let us turn to the famous Sanskrit scholar. Professor Max Muller. His
wife wrote in 1867, “As Max Muller was intimately acquainted later with
Keshub Chunder Sen and Mozoomdar, leaders of the Brahmo Samaj and
always took the deepest interest in the whole movement, as being he felt,
the real steppingstone to Christianity in India.”

(Life and Letters of F. Max Muller, edited by his wife, London 1902)

These two examples should suffice to understand why the British loved the
Brahmo Samaj so much.

Savarkar’s criticism of Hindu traditions was made with an intention to

improve the sociai iife of Hindus and make them strong. Whereas others
criticised to ridicuie, insuit and humiiiate Hindus. That was the difference
between the two.

BUDDHISM

Reformers, other than Savarkar, felt that by criticising Hindu customs,

manners and history, they were doing something great. Savarkar had been
emphasising that they should work for improvements in the social
behaviour, rather than mere criticism. Normally he did not criticise others
but when Dr Ambedkar crossed the limit of civilised behaviour, deliberately
uttered words, which are not in the initiation rites to Buddhism, out of his
utter hatred of Hindu Dharma, Savarkar took him to task. Savarkar did not
tolerate un-necessary insults from any quarters. His answers were
straightforward and given with proof. He did not shout loudly for no reason,
he never issued any threats. He always argued rationally. In his articles on 8
and 15 October 1956 in the Magazine Hindu, he says:
Today, Buddhism is also full of superstitious nonsense, meaningless
customs and corrupt practices

Dr. Ambedkar has been propagating that Buddhism is the greatest religion
and that Buddhists do not believe in rebirth or previous births, in God or
soul. It is purely based on rationalism. He is making such claims through
the publication Prabuddha Bharat and asking his disciples to carry on with
his propaganda. If what he had been saying was true, I would have been
happy. Because wherever I find blind faith, irrationalism, inequality, simple
mindedness and other defects, I have always condemned them even if they
were found in Hindu Dharma.

However, Dr. Ambedkar is obsessed with anti-Hindu phobia. The fact

remains that today there are millions of Hindus, Christians, Muslims or
Buddhists who are following their religions and some smaller sections of
mankind (such as Parsees, Bahais etc) also follow their own religions. They
all have something good and something bad. They have noble principlco
Cnd practices, which are benevolent to mankind. Ho.vever, they also have
many superstitions and irrational beliefs. Many of their clergy are

wedded to the baseless axioms. In Islam we find not only blind faith, but
also the tendency of forcing their beliefs on others, which amounts to
fanaticism. If Ambedkar wanted to criticise the faiiings in Hindu Oharma,
he should equally have criticised and condemned the same in other religions
too.

But his curses are limited to Hindu Dharma. He has not shown any
inclination to criticise other reiigions. The reason for this behaviour is
obvious and it is simply - COWARDICE. He knows that if he dare criticise
Islamic practices, ‘he wouid be taught a lesson’.

Hindus normally do not pay much attention to criticism by others. They say,

“Let the dogs bark. The caravan moves on.” but now things have reached
the limit. Ambedkar has resorted to slanderous mudslinging on the great
deities, Rama and Krishna. And yet no Hindu has condemned Ambedkar.
They believe that keeping quiet when faced with such garbage amounts to a
civilised behaviour. But I consider it cowardice. I am a disciple of Lord
Krishna who has inspired us to pay our critics in their own coin. Therefore I
have decided to reply to Ambedkar’s mischievous writings and expose the
hypocrisy in Buddhist traditions.

(S S V3 pp 684 - 686)

Dr. Ambedkar threatened to leave the Hindu religion

• On 22 February 1933, people of the city of Ratnagiri publicly burnt the

effigy of untouchability. Savarkar had been interned in Ratnagiri since
1924. He could not go out of the district of Ratnagiri. And yet with his
skills, he persuaded the deeply traditionalist people to abandon
untouchability. Instead of being surprised at such a transformation. Dr
Ambedkar declared on 13 October 1935 at Yevale, during a conference of
untouchables, that he was born a Hindu, he had no choice in that matter, but
he would not die as a Hindu. Savarkar’s biographer Balarao Savarkar wrote

“After this declaration, many leaders of Hindu Mahasabha like Kelkar,

Bhopatkar, Chitrav and Prof Mate had requested Ambedkar not to make the
declaration. But due to the failure of Satyagraha by the untouchables for
entry into the Kalaram Mandir of Nasik, and their experiences of elsewhere,
Ambedkar was bitter. So he made his declaration. Muslims, Christians,
Buddhists and Sikhs requested Ambedkar to join their religion. But he did
not say which religion he would embrace.”

“Savarkar felt sad at the declaration. He had been fighting for the uplift of
untouchables for 11 years. And yet a prominent leader of them openly said
that he would leave the Hindu fold.”

Savarkar commented

“Dr. Ambedkar has decided to leave the fold of Hindu Dharma. I was not
much surprised by that decision. The surprise was his declaration that he is
trying to find a Dharma better than the Hindu one. The reasons he has put
forward for abandoning Hindu Dharma are vague. So one cannot say what
lies behind his decision. If he wants to abandon Hindu Dharma because it is
not based on rationalism, that is not much of a surprise. But if he applies the
taste of rationality, he will not be able to accept any other religion at
present.”

Balarao Savarkar continued, “Islam and Christianity are not based on

rationalism. Both have foolish notions and customs, inequality and
ignorance. Savarkar had shown this amply in his articles published in
Kirloskar magazine ‘Introduction to factions among Muslims’ and,
‘Ancient Jewish women ’. They show clearly how deeply he had studied
Koran and the Bible. Savarkar’s handwritten notes on Koran while he was
still in Ratnagiri jail are kept in his archives. He studied Buddhism when he
wrote his drama ‘Sanyasta - khadga’ (the abandoned sword). He had
studied Sikhism in depth.”

Savarkar therefore concluded, “Even from the point of rationalism there can
be no better religion than Hindu Dharma.”

Buddhism is not based on rationalism I

• Dr. Ambedkar had claimed that Buddhism was based on i

rationalism. In 1956, Savarkar, in his articles published in 8 and 15 October

issues of magazine Hindu disproved this claim.

“Buddhism is entirely based on rationalism - that is the claim of ‘

Dr Ambedkar. It can be said that those of his followers who easily get
carried by this statement, know very little about Buddhism. A lame cow is
highly regarded in a flock of sheep. In a similar manner, most illiterate and
educationally backward people would regard Buddhism as depicted by
Ambedkar as true. We therefore ask them to read the following information
so that they can learn the other side of the coin. We ask Ambedkar, ‘After
reading the following information, tell us how dare you say that Buddhism
is based on rationalism? ’

(1) There is a story in the Epic Mahabharat that Kama was born out of the
ear of Kunti. Therefore Ambedkar ridicules Hindusim.

But why does he hide similar story about the birth of Buddha?
Millions of Buddhists believe that Buddha was born un-naturally.

Their mythology says that Buddha was born to his mother queen Mayadevi
at the age of 45 without any contact with any man.

She heard a divine proclamation that she has conceived by a heavenly

lustre. During the birth of her child, she suffered no

pain. While giving birth, many unbelievable events happened, ’

some blind people started to see again, some lame started to walk. A great
sage came to the palace and prophesied that the son would be a divine
person.

Are Ambedkar and his followers going to believe in such stories,

which are regarded, as religious by Buddhists. Are Ambedkarites therefore,

going to say that Buddhism is nothing but full of bunch of irrational stories?

(2) Ambedkar has proclaimed that Buddhism does not believe in gods and
goddesses, soul or re-incarnation etc. But he conveniently forgets that
millions of Buddhists in countries from

Manchuria to Indochina, do believe in God, nay they regard Buddha

himself as supreme God. Moreover they also accept and worship Hindu
deities like Indra, Varun (Lord of the seas), Laxmi (Goddess of wealth) and
Saraswati (Goddess of learning). Why are Ambedkarites hiding this fact?

(3) Buddha himself believed in previous births. He himself had said, in

previous births, he was not only human but also animal and bird. He also
narrated his experiences in those births. These are noted in Jatak-kathas. Is
this not the case?

(4) Even before Buddha, in India, there were fifty to sixty sects who
preached that animals should not be sacrificed in religious rituals, and in
fact opposed the killing of animals and eating meat. Yes, Buddhists
literature accepts this fact.

It does not matter how far they were successful but they did exist. Jains had
been preaching non-violence long time before Buddha. At least they were
and still are honest in their behaviour. Even today they do not eat meat. But
Buddhists? They were and are the worst hypocrites!!

(5) Buddha preached that none of his followers should kill animals. But if
meat was offered by a host, there was no objection to Buddhists families
and also Buddhist priests eating such meat. Thousands of men and women
renounced family responsibilities and became Buddhist monks and nuns.
They routinely and regularly ate meat. Buddha commanded ‘thou shall not
kill animals for your food.’ But if meat is offered or served, do not ask, who
killed the animals? There was nothing irreligious in that.

In other words, do not steal, but when it is clear that stolen goods are
offered to you, there is nothing wrong in consuming them. Now, what kind
of religion is that?

And how did Buddha himself die? Because of constipation. How

did that happen? Well, in his old age, Buddha accompanied by many
Buddhist monks went to one of his disciples. There he ate pig’s meat, which
was prepared at his request. He ate so much that it caused indigestion and
that ultimately led to his death!!

(6) So, it is fantasy for Ambedkar to say that Buddha stopped animal killing
by preventing their sacrifices for fire worship (Yajnas). In fact far more
animals were killed for satisfying the hunger of Buddhist monks and nuns.

(7) Ambedkar also forgets the reality of today. Millions of Buddhists in

China, Japan, and countries from Manchuria to Indochina eat all kinds of
meat including crabs and even rodent. Is Ambedkar going to ask his
followers to follow the example of these people who had practised
Buddhism for more than thousand years? On the other hand, many people
of his own caste (Mahar) are so strict vegetarians that they do not even eat
onions and garlic. They are far more honest than Buddhists who preach
against animal killing but eat all kinds of meat.

(8) Ambedkar criticises Brahmins for having been a burden on the society.
For example by asking for fees for performing religious functions and
officiating at various worships. So, he says that people should abandon
Hindu Dharma and adopt Buddhism. Even if we accept his accusation for
the sake of argument, why is he hiding the fact that Buddhism unleashed the
burden of untold Buddhist monks and nuns on the society and working
class? Those monks and nuns had to be fed, provided with places of
residence and other necessities such as clothes. They performed no useful
function whatsoever for the society.

it was a well-known slogan that those who did not want to do any work and
wanted to be looked after, should become Buddhist monks and nuns. Their
burden was much heavier than that of Brahmins. Why does Ambedkar hide
this historical fact? Why is he not ashamed of this deception?

(9) You laugh at Hindus for practising tree worship. But what about the
myths that you have created about the Bodhivruksha? When Buddha sat
under this tree he received divine revelation. So, how come many animals
who had been regurgitating food under the shadow of this tree or the
hundreds of birds and bats who rested on the tree did not receive any divine
revelation? That tree is just like any other tree. It has no specific properties.
It was a banyan tree like any other. And yet Buddhists have been taking
branches of the same and planting it in various countries of the world for
worship. Can anything be more nonsensical as well as hypocritical?

(10) Same logic applies to other concepts like re-birth. You say that
Buddhism has no place for such irrational concepts, it is aloof from them.
Once again you are deceiving thousands of illiterate untouchables. Let us
take one example.

Tibetans are Buddhists. Their religious head is Dalai Lama. He is also the
head of the state. How is he selected? Tibetans believe that on the death of a
Dalai Lama, he is born somewhere in Tibet as a new baby. So, either
Ambedkar is ignorant or is lying when he says that Buddhists do not believe
in re-birth.
On the death of a Dalai Lama, Buddhist monks travel all over Tibet. All the
boys born at the time of death of Dalai Lama are examined by a board of
monks. And the boy so chosen becomes Dalai Lama. This leads to many
disputes, because until the boy comes of age the monks are in charge of the
country. So each group insists that the boy from their area should be chosen.
What can be more foolhardy tradition than that? And what more proof do
you need to confirm Buddhists’ belief in re-birth?

We therefore say that today Buddhism is full of superstitious nonsense,

senseless traditions and mindless customs.

(S S V3 pp 686-693)

Neither Ambedkar nor any of his foilowers answered to the chaiienges

posed by Savarkar.

It has been a long-standing dream of Muslims and Christian Missionaries to

wipe out Hindus from the face of the earth. If we want to avoid that
catastrophe every Hindu must make a detailed study of Koran and the
Bible. Savarkar did that. Let us see his articles on this subject.

ISLAM - does It preach tolerance and equality?

Savarkar exposed the hypocrisies, ignorance and defects in other religions.

But his style is that of a researcher. His writings are not based on hatred of
other religions. He never propagated the burning of religious texts of others.
He simply asked them to be studied. That is rationalism.

In November 1935, Savarkar wrote an article entitled. The false claim of

equality in Islam’ published in the magazine Nirbheed. At that time Dr
Ambedkar, a leader of untouchables had declared that he would not die as a
Hindu. One Mr Gauba declared that Islam was a wonderful religion,
whereas Hinduism was despicable. Savarkar replied to Gauba’s
propaganda, in the above article. Savarkar says

Mr Gauba raised the question of comparison of religions. We listened to his

accusations with patience. Now it is his turn to listen to our replies with
equal calmness.” {That is rationalism)
Savarkar then exposed the horrible inequality practised by Muslims and
then in the last paragraph he says

“Some untouchables have declared through newspapers and public lectures

that they are abandoning Hindu Dharma and are in search of another
religion which is true and wherein they would be treated as equals and
therefore they have been studying Koran. Now, that is good. Of course they
should make a

comparative study of the two religions. We are not afraid of that. We will
survive that studied comparison. We simply warn them not to be carried
away by Mullahs and Maulavis. They should not also get carried away by
the propaganda of Mr Gauba who is partial to his religion Islam. That is
all.”

“Our untouchable friends should study Marathi translation of the Koran in

full. They should then read the English translation by Sale {that is indeed
the name of the authoi), especially his extensive preface. They should then
study ‘History of the Saracens’* by a staunch Muslim, namely Justice Amir
Ali. Then they should read my articles on the various sects in Islam as
published in July and August issues of the magazine Kirloskar, which will
tell them how Islam should be studied. And after all this, they should read
criticism of Islam in Swami Dayanand Saraswati’s treaties ‘Satyartha
Prakash ’. They then will realise how Islam is in practice, especially how
Indian Muslims are infinitely intolerant, and practise inequality and
untouchability.” (S S V3 pp 566 - 570)

Ores again we have to understand that Savarkar is asking his critics to study
Koran. He is saying, “if you do not believe in what I am telling you, make
the study yourselves and then make up your mind.”

That is rationalism.

When we compare our society with others the question arises,” What was
the status of women in the Bible?”

Status of women in Bible

Savarkar wrote three articles entitled ‘Ancient Jewish Women’ and they
were published in March, April and May 1936 issues of the magazine Stree
(Woman). He described how the world was created according to the Bible
and then tells us some stories from the Book of Genesis.

[Note - There are many versions of Bible. I have taken words

from The New English Bible published by The Bible Society, Oxford
University Press, 1977]

Adam and woman were the first couple on earth. Both were naked but felt
nothing of it. God told them to eat any fruits except those of the Knowledge
tree. But snake was very clever. He said to woman, “The Lord has allowed
you to eat fruits. Why don’t you eat the fruits of the Knowledge Tree?”

She said, “God has forbidden that. I will die if I eat that fruit.” Snake said
“God has deceived you. He knows that once you eat the fruit of Knowledge
tree you will know what is good and what is bad. Then you will be as good
as God.”

The woman was tempted to eat that fruit. She also gave part of the fruit to
Adam. Suddenly they became aware of their nakedness. They hid their
genitals with leaves.

Later God called Adam and said “Where are you?”

He said “I was hiding because I was naked.”

God said, “How do you know? Did you eat the fruit on Knowledge tree?”

Adam said, “The companion you created for me, the woman offered me the
fruit.”

God asked the woman what she had done. She said “The serpent tempted
me to eat the fruit.”

God cursed the woman, serpent and Adam. He drove Adam and woman out
of Garden of Eden.
Adam then called the woman Eve. They had two sons. Ken and Abel. There
was a feud between the two and Ken killed Abel. Ken then married a
woman who gave birth to a son named Enoch, (genesis 2 to 4)

(Savarkar comments How did Ken find his wife? it must be his sister. There
was no other couple on earth at that time.j

Adam and Eve had many more children and Adam died aged 930.

Man’s wickedness

When mankind began to increase and to spread all over the earth and
daughters were born to them, the sons of the gods saw that the daughters of
men were beautiful; so they took for themselves such women as they chose.
But the Lord said, ‘My life-giving spirit shall not remain in man for ever; he
for his part is mortal flesh; he shall live for a 120 years.’

In those days, when the sons of the gods had intercourse with the daughters
of men and got children by them, the Nephilim were on earth. They were
the heroes of old men of renown.

When the Lord saw that man had done much evil on earth and that his
thoughts and inclinations were always evil, he was sorry that he had made
man on earth, and he was grieved at heart. He said,‘This race of men whom
I have created, I will wipe them off the face of the earth - man and beast,
reptiles and birds, I am sorry that I ever made them.’ But Noah had won the
Lord’s favour.

Noah built the Ark (Ship) as the Lord had ordered and his sons, his wife
and his sons’ wives and animals and birds that sheltered on his Ark
survived the great flood that lasted for 150 days.

Noah then became a farmer. He planted vineyards. He drank some of the

wine, became drunk and lay naked inside his tent. When Ham, father of
Canaan, saw his father naked, he told his two brothers outside. So Shem
and Japheth took a cloak, put it on their shoulders and walked backwards,
and so covered their father’s naked body; their faces were turned the other
way, so that they did not see their father naked. When Noah woke from his
drunken sleep, he learnt what his youngest son had done to him, and said;

‘Cursed be the Canaan, slave of slaves shall be to his brothers.’

After the flood Noah lived for 150 years, and he was 950 years old when he
died. (Genesis 6 to 9)

Then we find details of Noah’s descendents.

Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Then we find details of Shem’s descendents. Terah was his son.

Then we find details of Terah’s descendents. His sons were Abram, Nahor
and Haran. Haran was the father of Lot. Terah died aged 205.

Abram in Egypt

Then came a famine in the land, so severe that Abram went down to Egypt
to live there for a while. When he was approaching Egypt, he said to his
wife Sarai, ‘I know very well that you are a beautiful woman, and that when
Egyptians see you, they will say, “She is his wife”; then they will kill me
but let you live. Tell them that you are my sister, so that all may go well
with me because of you and my life may be spared on your account.’

When Abram arrived in Egypt, the Egyptians saw that she was indeed very
beautiful. Pharaoh’s courtiers saw her and praised her to Pharaoh’s
household. He treated Abram well because of her, and Abram came to
possess sheep and cattle and asses, male and female slaves, she-asses, and
camels. But the LORD struck Pharaoh and his household with grave
diseases on account of Abram’s wife Sarai. Pharaoh summoned Abram and
said to him, ‘Why have you treated me like this? Why did you not tell me
she is your wife ? Why did you say that she was your sister, so that I took
her as a wife? Here she is, take her and be gone.’ The Pharaoh gave his men
orders and they sent away Abram with his wife and all that he had.

(genesis 12/10 to 20)

Hagar and Ishmael

Abram’s wife Sarai had borne him no children. Now she had an Egyptian
slave-girl; whose name was Hagar, and she said to Abram, ‘You see that the
LORD has not allowed me to bear a child. Take my slave-girl; perhaps I
shall found a family through her.’ Abram agreed to what his wife said; so
Sarai, Abram’s wife, brought her slave-girl, Hagar the Egyptian, and gave
her to her husband Abram as a wife. When this happened Abram had been
in Canaan for ten years. He lay with Hagar and she conceived; and when
she knew that she was with child, she despised her mistress. Sarai said to
Abram, ‘I have been wronged and you must answer for it. It was I who gave
my slave-girl into your arms, but since she has known that she is with child,
she has despised me. May the LORD see justice done between you and me.’
Abram replied to Sarai, ‘Your slave-girl is in your hands; deal with her as
you will.’ So Sarai ill-treated her and she ran away.

The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness on
the way to Shur, and he said, ‘Hagar, Sarai’s slavegirl, where have you
come from and where are you going?’ She answered, ‘I am running away
from Sarai my mistress.’ The angel of the LORD said to her, ‘Go back to
your mistress and submit to her ill-treatment.’

Hagar bore a son to Abram and he named him - Ishmael (genesis 16)

When Abram was 99 years old, the LORD made a covenant with him and
said,’ Your name shall no longer be Abram, your name shall be Abraham.
As for Sarai your wife; you shall call her not Sarai but Sarah. I will bless
her and give you a son by her.

The LORD destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham saved
his nephew Lot from being killed in this disaster.

Origin of Moab and Ammon

Lot went up from Zoar and settled in the hill-country with his two
daughters, because he was afraid to stay in Zoar; he lived with his daughters
in a cave. The elder daughter said to the younger, ‘Our father is old and
there is not a man in the country to come to us in the usual way. Come now,
let us make our father drink wine and then lie with him and in this way keep
the family alive through our father.’ So that night they gave him wine to
drink, and the elder daughter came and lay with him, and he did not know
when she lay down and when she got up.

Next day the elder said to the younger, ‘Last night I lay with my father. Let
us give him wine to drink again tonight; then you go in and lie with him. So
we shall keep the family alive through our father.’ So they gave their father
wine to drink again that night, and the younger daughter went and lay with
him, and he did not know when she lay with him, and he did not know
when she lay down and when she got up.

In this way both Lot’s daughters came to be with child by their father. The
elder daughter bore a son and called him Moab; he was the ancestor of the
present Moabites. The younger also bore a son, whom she called Benammi,
he is the ancestor of the present Ammonites, (genesis 20/ 30 to 38)

Hagar and Ishmael sent away

When Abraham was 100 Sarah gave birth to a son Isaac. On the day of his
weaning Abraham gave a feast, Sarah saw the son whom Hagar the
Egyptian had borne to Abraham laughing at him, and she said to Abraham,
‘Drive out this slave-girl and her; I will not have this slave-girl’s son
sharing the inheritance with my son Isaac.’ Abraham was vexed at this on
Ishmael’s account, but God said to him, ‘Do not be vexed on account of the
boy and the slave girl. Do what Sarah says, because you shall have
descendants through Isaac. I will make a great nation of the slave-girl’s son
too, because he is your own child.’

Abraham rose early in the morning, took some food and a waterskin full of
water and gave it to Hagar; he set the child on her shoulder and sent her
away.

(genesis 21/1 to 19)

Sarah died aged 127. She was step-sister of Abraham, (genesis 23)

Isaac marries Rebecca she was grand-daughter of Abraham’s brother Nehar.

(genesis 24)

After the death of Sarah, Abraham married Kedus. He produced another

son. Abraham also had sons from concubines. He died aged 175.

Rebecca gave birth to twins, Esau and Jacob.

In the days of famine Isaac went to Abimelech the Philistine King at Gerrar.

When the men of the place asked him about his wife, he told them that she
was his sister; in case they killed him because of her; for she was very
beautiful. When they had been there for considerable time, Abimelech the
Philistine King looked down from his window and saw Isaac and his wife
Rebecca laughing together. He summoned Isaac and said, ‘So, she is your
wife. Is she? What made you say she was your sister?’ Isaac answered, ‘I
thought I should be killed because of her.’ Abimelech said, ‘Why have you
treated us like this? One of the people might easily have gone to bed with
your wife and then you would have made us liable for retribution.’

Isaac sowed seed in that land, and that year he reaped a hundredfold. He
became more and more powerful... in the end Abimelech said to him, ‘Go
away from here.’

(genesis 26)

Jacob obtains Isaac’s blessings

When Isaac grew old and his eyes became so dim that he could not see, he
called his elder son Esau and said to him, ‘My son, listen now; I am old and
I do not know when I may die. Take your hunting gear, your quiver and
your bow, and go out into the country and get me some venison. Then
maKe me a savoury dish of the kind I like, and bring it to me to eat so that I
may give you blessing before I die.’

Now Rebecca was listening as Isaac talked to his son Esau. When Esau
went off into the country to find some venison and bring it home, she said
to her son Jacob, ‘I heard your father talking to your brother Esau, and he
said,
‘Bring me some venison and make it into a savoury dish so that I may eat it
and bless you in the presence of the LORD before I die.’ Listen to me my
son, and do what I tell you. Go to the flock and pick me out two fine young
kids, and I will make them into a savoury dish for your father, of the kind
he likes. Then take them in to your father, and he will eat them so that he
may bless you before he dies.’

Jacob said to his mother Rebecca, ‘But my brother Esau is a hairy man, and
my skin is smooth. Suppose my father feels me, he will know I am tricking
him and I shall bring a curse upon myself instead of a blessing.’

His mother answered him, ‘Let the curse fall on me, my son, but do as I
say: go and bring me the kids.’ So Jacob fetched them and brought them to
his mother, who made them into a savoury dish of the kind that his father
liked. Then Rebecca took her elder son’s clothes, Esau’s best clothes, which
she kept by her in the house, and put them on her younger son Jacob. She
put the goatskins on his hands and on the smooth nape of his neck; and she
handed her son Jacob the savoury dish and the bread she had made. He
came to his father and said, ‘Father.’

He answered, ‘Yes my son; who are you?’

Jacob answered, ‘1 am Esau, your elder son. I have some of my venison, so

that you may give me your blessing.’

Isaac said to his son, ‘What is this that you found so quickly?’ and Jacob
answered, ‘It is what the LORD your God put in my way.’

Isaac then said to Jacob, ‘Come close and let me feel you, my son, to see
whether you are really my son Esau.’

When Jacob came close to his father, Isaac felt him and said, ‘The voice is
Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.’ He did not recognise
him because his hands were hairy like Esau’s, and that is why he blessed
him. He said, ‘Are you really my son Esau?’ and he answered, ‘Yes ’. Then
Isaac said, ‘Bring me some of your venison to eat, my son, so that I may
give you my blessing.’ The Jacob brought it to him, and he ate it; he
brought wine also, and he drank it. Then his father Isaac said to him, ‘Come
near, my son, and kiss me.’ So he came near and kissed him, and when
Isaac smelt the smell of his clothes, he blessed him.

When Esau came back he realised that Jacob had tricked and obtained their
father’s blessing, he was crossed. Realising that Esau was going to kill
Jacob, Rebecca advised him to flee.

Jacob eventually reached the house of Laban who was grandson of Nahor
(Laban was Jacob’s mother’s brother). When he saw Rachel daughter of
Laban he immediately fell in love with her. He agreed to serve for 7 years
for her hand in marriage. At the wedding night Laban sent the elder
daughter Leah to go to bed with Jacob. In the morning Jacob said to Laban,
‘what have you done?’ He replied, ‘In our country it is not right to give the
younger daughter before the elder.’

But Jacob loved Rachel so much that he served another 7 years and then got
married to her.

(genesis 29)

Leah had four sons. Rachel had none. She said to Jacob, ‘Here is my slave-
girl Bilhah. Lie with her, so that she may bear sons to be laid upon my
knees, and through her I too may build up my family.’ So she gave him her
slave-girl Bilhah as a wife, and Jacob lay with her. Bilhah conceived and
bore Jacob two sons Dan and Nathalie.

(genesis 30)

When Leah found she was bearing no more children, she took her slave-girl
Zilpah and gave Jacob as a wife, and Zilpah bore Jacob sons - Gad and
Asher

In the time of wheat-hanrest Reuben went out and found some mandrakes
in the open country and brought them to his mother Leah. Then Rachel
asked Leah for some of her son’s mandrakes, but Leah said, ‘Is it so small a
thing to have taken away my husband, that you should take away my son’s
mandrakes as well?’ But Rachel said, ‘Very well, let him sleep with you
tonight in exchange for your son’s mandrakes.’ So when Jacob came in
from the country in the evening, Leah went out to meet him and said, ‘You
are to sleep with me tonight; I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes.’
That night he slept with her, and God heard Leah’s prayer, and she
conceived and bore a fifth son. Leah said, ‘God has rewarded me, because I
gave my slave-girl to my husband.’

Later Leah gave birth to Zebulum and a daughter Dinah.

Then God thought of Rachel; he heard her prayer and gave her a child, a
son named Joseph. (Genesis 30/1 to 24)

Jacob was still serving Laban - then got worried, fled with wives and
children. He was pursued by Laban, - finally a treaty was made, (genesis 31
& 32)

Jacob was worried about Esau who might still kill him, sent presents - made
friends, (genesis 32/33)

Dinah’s dishonour avenged

Dinah, the daughter from Leah went out to visit the women of the country,
and Shechem, son of Hamor the Hivite the local prince, saw her, he took
her, lay with her and dishonoured her. But he remained true to Dinah; he
loved the girl and comforted

her.Shechem’s father Hamor came out to Jacob and said,

‘My son is in love with this girl, I beg you to let him have her as his wife.
Let us ally ourselves in marriage: you shall give us your daughters, and you
shall take ours in exchange. You must settle among us.’

Jacob’s sons gave a dishonest answer. They said ‘We do not give daughters
to those who are uncircumcised. There is one condition on which we will
consent; if you follow our example and have every male among you
circumcised, we will give you our daughters and take yours for ourselves.
Then we can live among you.’
All the able-bodied men agreed with Hamor and got circumcised. When
they lay in pain Dina’s brother killed them all and took way Dinah. They
seized their flocks, cattle, asses, whatever was in the city and outside in the
open country; they also carried off all their possessions, their dependants,
and their women, and plundered everything in the houses.

Jacob got scared. He said to his sons, ‘now how can we live here?’ God said
to Jacob, Go up to Bethel and settle there. He also said that Jacob will now
be called Israel.

(Genesis 34 & 35/1 to 11)

The death of Rachel

They set out from Bethel. Rachel was in labour. She gave birth to a son
Ben-oni (Benjamin) and died of childbirth. Jacob set a sacred pillar over her
grave. Then Israel journeyed on and pitched his tent on the other side of
Migdal-eder. While Israel was living in that district, Reuben (son of Jacob
from Leah) went and lay

with his father’s concubine Bilhah, and Israel came to hear pf it. (Genesis
35/16 to 22)

Jacob had 12 sons in all.

(Genesis 35/23 to 26)

Isaac, Jacob’s father died, aged 180. Esau and Jacob were present at the
deathbed of Isaac. They buried Isaac ceremoniously. (Genesis 35/ 27 to 30).

Jacob (Israel) loved Joseph most. Joseph was hated by all his brothers. They
sold him as slave and soaked his robe with goat’s blood and pretended that
he was killed by a beast. Jacob believed in it. In the meanwhile, story of
Tamar.

Story of widow Tamar (Genesis 38)

It happened at that time that Judah went down from his brothers; and turned
in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. There Judah saw the
daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shu’ai; he married her and
went in to her, and she conceived and bore a son, and he called his name Er.
Again she conceived and bore a son, and she called him Onan. Yet again,
she bore a son, and she called him Shelah. and Judah took a wife for Er his
first-born, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked
in the sight of the LORD; and he slew him. The Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in
to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and
raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring
would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the
semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what
he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also. The
Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, “Remain a widow in your father’s
house, till Shelah my son grows up.” - for he feared that he would die, like
his brothers. So, Tamar went and dwelt in her father’s house.

In course of time the wife of Judah died; and when Judah was comforted, he
went up to Timnah to his sheepshearers. And when

tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is going up to Tlmnah to shear his

sheep.” She put off her widow’s garments, and put on a \^1, wrapping
herself up, and sat on the road to Enaim, which is on the road to Tlmnah;
for she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she had not been given to him in
marriage. When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot, for she had
covered her face. He. went over to her at the road side and said. Come, let
me come in to you,” for he did not know that she was his daughter in-law.
She said, “What will you give me?” He answered, “1 will send you a kid
from the flock.” And she said, “Will you give me a pledge till you send it?”
He said, “What pledge shall 1 give you?” And she replied, “Your signet and
your cord, and your staff that is in your hand.” So he gave them to her, and
went in to her, and she conceived by him. Then she arose and went away,
and taking off her veil she put on the garments of her widowhood.

When Judah sent his kid by his friend the Adullamite, to receive the pledge
from the woman’s hand, he could not find her. And he asked the men of the
place, “Where is the harlot who was at Enain by the wayside?” And they
said, “No harlof has been here. So he returned to Judah, and said, “No
harlot has been here” and Judah replied, “Let her keep the things as her
own, lest we be laughed at.”

About three months later Judah was told, “Tamar your daughterin-law has
played the harlot, and moreover she is with child by harlotry.” And Judah
said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned.” As she was being brought out,
she sent word to her father-inlaw, “by the man to whom these belong, 1 am
with child.” And she said, “Mark, 1 pray you, whose these are, the signet
and the cord and the staff.” The Judah acknowledged them and said, “She is
more righteous than 1, in as much as 1 did not give her to my son Shelah.”
And he did not lie with her again.

She gave birth to twins, Perez, and Zerah.

[Savarkar comments:- Thus the God (of Israel) who killed Er and Onan for
the slightest faults did not condemn the adulterous

affair between Judah and Tamar (incest between Father-in-Law and

Daughter-in-law). How was it that the twins born out of such a relationship
were regarded as Jacob’s grandsons?

We are told that Jacob saw God and had discussions with him. Then why
did he not warn Jacob that his son Ruben was having sex with Jacob’s wife
and Ruben’s stepmother Bilhah?

There are no explanations for such behaviours.]

After the articles Savarkar wrote

I have written my articles based on the ‘Book of Genesis’ in the Jewish

Bible or what Christians call the Old Testament. It depicts the picture of
women in the society of shepherds who wandered from Palestine to Egypt,
some three thousand years ago. It also exposes the falsity that life was
wonderful in those days, or that it was paradise, people were god fearing
and abided by the rules of a civilised society. Let us take a few examples —

• In chapter 3, God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruits of tree of
knowledge, because he was worried that by doing so they would become
his equals. But the serpent tempted them to eat the fruit. So, the fist man
and woman did not abide by the orders of God. They were the first sinners.

• Adam and Eve used to wander around naked. But after eating the fruit of
knowledge tree, they became ashamed of their nakedness and were shy to
see God when they were naked. So, nudism is nothing new.

• And how did God punish Eve for her transgression? He said, “You will
suffer pain in childbearing.” One can understand that but why did God pass
on the same punishment to ALL women and ALL females of animals and
birds?

There is no logical explanation for that.

Relations between men and women in the Golden Age.

In our Puranas we find relations between men and women, which surpass
even the sexually free society under Bolshevik Russia But we also find
similar stories in the Jewish Bible (Old Testament). Hence the proverb - one
should not enquire about the ancestry of the sages or try to find the sources
of rivers. However, persons like Miss Mayo (author of the notorious book
Mother India) Only pick on the stories in our Puranas and ignore what has
been said in the Bible. We have therefore to tell the readers the following
illustrations just for taste.

* Marriages between brothers and sisters (chapters 4 and 5)

* God decided to blot out man from the face of earth, because he felt sorry
for creating them as they turned out to be sinners. But he decided to save
Noah who built the famous Ark that survived the great flood. One day Noah
became drunk and lay naked in his tent, (chapter 9)

* In days of famine Abraham and his wife Sarah travel to Egypt. But
Abraham said to her - If they know you are my wife they will kill me. So
you say you are my sister. Pharaoh then admitted her to his harem (genesis
10 to 18) and Abraham lived comfortably with this arrangement.

* Marriages of men with stepsisters.

* Polygamy (King Solomon, the wisest of all kings, had 700 wives and 300
concubines, 1 Kings/11).

* Using slave girls for production of children.

* Sisters marry same man.

* Marriages with cousins.

* Jealousy between women - we find this on page after page.

586/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

•Abraham’s nephew Lot - his daughters had sex with Lot and both gave
birth to boys. Moab and Ben-ammi. (genesis 20/ 3(0 to 38)

* Jacob deceives his father Isaac (genesis 27) . '

* Laban agrees to give his younger daughter Rachel to Jacob after he served
for seven years but sent his elder daughter Leah to go to bed with Jacob,
(genesis 29)

* Sexual relations between men with their brother’s widows.

* Sexual relation between father-in-law and daughter-in-law and

legitimising sons of such relations.

* Bitter feuds between brothers, they do not hesitate to kill each other (Cain
killed Abel - genesis 4)

* Women had no freedom in choosing their husbands.

One shudders to think these as ideal men or women. We have to accept they
were just human beings. The surprise is that when Bolshevik literature is
banned in churches this is what we find in the Bible itself!!

We have seen Savarkar’s views on this extremely important subject

‘Change with country. Times and People’ expressed during 1906 to 1956.
Let us take examples from current affairs.
IN CONCLUSION

IN CONCLUSION

Mother nature, which created us, does not remain static. Earth rotates
around itself and around the Sun. Its vertical axis is tilted by 23 degrees. All
this creates Days and Nights, seasons and environment, which constantly
change. Some 50 million years ago the Himalayas did not exist. May be in
another 50 million years it may disappear. It is not in our hands to stop the
continual change. We can only adopt to these changes, make life
comfortable, create social stability and increase wealth. Only that much is
in our hands.

• Changes made by nature

* British women
In Britain, women had to sew their own clothes at home or go to the tailors.
The idea of ready-made garments came in 1954. Some big companies
measured the British women’s figures to produce a database. This led to the
production of ready-made clothes in 1957/58. However, during the last 45
years women’s bodies have changed. But the clothes manufacturers have
not taken this into account. As a result, the clothes are either loose and look
clumsy or are too short or tight. Moreover, unexpectedly 10% of population
has become taller than normal. They too are un-happy because they cannot
get suitable clothes. How can we not change with the changing bodies of
British women? No one can say, These were the measurements of average
British woman in 1954. They are still valid today.” One has to recognise
that the British woman of2002 is different to the one in 1954.
* Weights of men and women
Weight of passengers is a major factor while designing modem aeroplanes.
In 1948 average European men weighed 75 kilos and women 65 kilos. But
things have changed in 50 years time. In 1998 it has been decided in an
international agreement that , average weight of passengers (male or
female) should be taken as 84 kilos for the purpose of new aeroplane
design. But, Japan

does not accept this figure. They say that the Japanese, Chinese, Philippine
and others of Mongolian race are smaller in physique than the Europeans.
Therefore for the travel in the East and Far East average weight of
passengers (male and female) should be taken as 73 kilos, not 84 kilos.

(Ref:- Times of London, 15 May 1995, page 7)

Thus, what was standard in 1948 cannot remain standard in 1998 and what
is standard for European countries is not a suitable standard for China,
Japan, Philippines and Malaysia. That is changing with the countries, times
and people.

• Curiosity about nature

Mankind has been curious about the forces in nature ever since the
beginning. Men feared the powers of the Sun, Sky, Wind and the Sea and
regarded them as Gods, worshipped them and made offerings to them. Their
fear and curiosity moulded their thoughts.

Bhishma says towards the end of the great Indian epic Mahabharat, once
upon a time there were no kings, no institution of marriage. But as times
passed, these were considered essential for growth, control and prosperity
of the society. This led to religions (Dharma). The codes of conducts
(written or oral) of various groups became their Religious texts. The rules
and regulations which were suitable atone time could not be suitable at all
times and in all countries. Societies paid a heavy price for not accepting this
principle.

Copernicus (1473-1543) proposed that the planets like Earth and Mars
rotate around the Sun. Galileo (1564-1642) increased human knowledge
about the stars and planets by the introduction of telescope. Both were
mercilessly persecuted as heretics, blasphemous by Christian Clerics who
maintained that‘\1 it does not say so in the Bible, it cannot be true.’

What the Christians did in Europe, Muslims did in North Africa

and India. Intoxicated by their victories on the battlefield, they burned huge
number of libraries. Their chroniclers proudly say that the library at
Alexandria (Egypt) burned for six months. Savarkar always condemned
such intolerance. We may feel that with changing of times religious
intolerance or the tendency to go by the book’ has vanished. Alas, that is
not the case. Let us look at some examples

• Today’s ‘Going by the book’ tendency

* Immanuel Velikovsky published his book‘\Nor\ds in collision’ in America

in 1949. He states that the Earth has undergone tremendous changes twice,
in 1500 B.C and in 800 B.C. As a result the speed of Earth’s rotation
slowed down and its vertical axis turned to the right by 23 degrees. In his
support he quoted extensively from ancient books all over the world. In his
preface he says

The reader is not asked to accept a theory without question.

In a few cases it is impossible to say with certainty whether a record or a

tradition refers to one or another catastrophe that took place through the
ages; it is also probable that in some traditions various elements from
different ages are fused together. In the final analysis, however, it is not so
essential to segregate definitely the records of single world catastrophes.
More important, it seems, is to establish

(1) that there were physical upheavals of a global character in historical

times;
(2) that these catastrophes were caused by extraterrestrial agents: and

(3) that these agents can be identified.

There are many implications that follow from these conclusions.”

And yet, such a scientist was sent to Coventry (made outcast) by fellow
scientists in a country like America in the 20P’ centuryll

Many advances were made in Astronomy since the publication

of the above book in 1949. From the launch of Russian Sputnik in 1957 to
lunar landing by Neil Armstrong in 1969 many of nature’s secrets have
been revealed. Velikovasky’s theories were largely validated. But did he get
any credit? NO. His opponents found some flimsy excuses. In the preface
of the 1972 edition of his book he wrote —

It is about such tactics that the students’ paper, The Daily Princetonian,
wrote editorially (February, 1964); “While it could have been assumed that
anyone challenging the basic premises of Newton and Darwin might be
laying himself open to a certain amount of argument, the personal
vituperation, deliberate misrepresentation of facts, offhand misquotations,
efforts at suppression of the books containing the theories, and the denial of
the right to rebut opponents in professional journals that Dr Velikovaky
encountered indicate that far more was going on than ‘mere’ challenge to
established ideas. What the Velikovsky affair made crystal clear... is that the
theories of science may be held not only for the truth they embody, but
because of the vested interests they represent for those who hold them.”

The author carries on

The deplorable tactics of certain groups in the academia alienated the

younger generation, and the historical and physical evidence accumulating
with each passing year did not escape their sight, and conclusions were
drawn. What was unbelievable and heretical in 1950 is making great
inroads into the science that claimed dogmatic completeness and
infallibility as recently as then.
On the eve of the publication of Worlds in Collision, the philosopher H
Butterfield wrote (The Origin of Modern Science, 1949):

“But the supreme paradox of the scientific revolution is in the fact that
things which we find it easy to instil into the boys at school .... things which
would strike us as the ordinary natural

way of looking at the universe ... defeated the greatest intellectuals for
centuries.”

IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY

* Prof Abdus Salam, shared Nobel Prize for Physics with other two
professors, in 1979. But, his daughter failed General Certificate of
Education (Matriculation) examination in London. Her examiners stated
quite bluntly,

“Your father may have been awarded the Noble Prize, but is that what the
current textbooks say? No. Therefore you fail.”

(Ref-Daily Telegraph of London, 16 October 1979)

* Since the advent of Word Processors (around 1985/86), typists have been
under severe pressure as, much output came to be expected out from them
than in the days of ordinary type-writers. This resulted in what is called
Repetitive Stress Injury (RSI). Naturally this led to disputes between
workers and managers about compensation. But, in a court case, an English
Judge declared, “Is this injury mentioned in the medical textbooks? NO.
Then it cannot exist.” You do not think this is true? Here is the proof.

December 1993 issue of WRAP (work, rest and play) magazine of the
Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents carried an interesting news. It is
well known that modern life creates so many physical stresses. With the
advent of the word processors, typists harm their fingers as they are under
pressure to type constantly. The condition is known as Repetitive Stress
Injury (RSI).
Rafiq Mughal, a former desk editor with Reuters, recently brought a claim
against his employers for damages for pain and loss of earnings when he
developed RSI as a result of his job and was unable to work.

Judge Prosser who tried the case said that he had no doubt that

Mr Mughal suffered pain and loss of function but these were subjective and
caused by feelings of being watched and ‘persecuted’ while at work.

The judge refuted the diagnosis of consultant Richard Pearson and said he
agreed with the view expressed by medical experts on behalf of Reuters that
RSI was meaningless, had no pathology and no place in the medical
textbooks....

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) described the judgement as

‘outrageous’.

Peter Wells of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy said : “It is true that
you won’t find it in the medical textbooks because it has not been around
long enough. When AIDS began it wasn’t in the textbooks, but we all know
that it exists.”

* VJe now live in the age of Quality Assurance. One of its basic principles
is - Management shall undertake a regular and systematic review and
evaluation of the entire quality system.

• Old is Gold

If our forefather’s concepts prove to be scientifically true today, we should

be prepared to accept that too. Towards the end of the Indian epic
Mahabaharat Bhishma says, “Many times, a sinner feels that he did not
have to suffer the consequences of his sins. But, Dharma (Yudhishtira), you
should remember that his sons and grandsons have to suffer the
consequences.” Today’s research has proved this to be true. Let us take
some examples

* In America some women took a medicine called Stilbestron during the

pregnancy. They were not affected, nor were their daughters. But their
grand-daughters died of cervical cancer. Nature is very deceptive indeed.
The effects of this drug did not show any effects until after 50 years. One
gets carried away by short-term effects, as they are easy to see.

* BBC Radio 4 has a programme called Today’ in the mornings. On 2

February 1994, at 06:30 it reported, “Smoking mothers can harm their
children. Scientists have now discovered that the grand-children of women
who smoke, suffer its consequences.”

* My parents never allowed the use of DALDA, which was regarded as

artificial buttermilk. Why? For the fear that the seventh generation may be
bom blind. Who can say that this will not be scientifically proved in few
years time?

* Why should women wear golden bangles? My mother used to reply,

“Because, its constant wear makes the hand bones strong by impregnation
of minute particles of gold and it helps fight old age problems (physical
discomforts) too.” Today, scientists say that this is indeed true.

* As knowledge increases so will ignorance

* Thalidomide was used by pregnant women to overcome sufferings of

mc/ning sickness. German scientists became suspicious of its side effects
and therefore their government banned its use on 2 December 1961. But the
disastrous consequences of its use could not be stopped. One only has to see
the deformed boys and girls to understand the damage it caused. In 1983 I
(the author) knew an assistant in my office, who had no forearms.

It is a great surprise that 40 years on (i.e. in 2001) Thalidomide has proved

to be an effective remedy for old age disorders like Parkinson’s disease. But
having burnt their fingers in the past, no doctor has the courage to prescribe
it.

* Consumption of tobacco leads to cancer - that is a well-known fact. But

recently it has been discovered that some very useful extracts can be made
from tobacco. ZEST, a magazine of London published an article by Thomas
Meder in its December 1998/ January 1999 issue. He says
Tobacco can be good for you

Yes. Tobacco has turned over a new/ leaf - Scientists have discovered that
the tobacco plant provides the perfect conditions for the production of new
antibiotics, enzymes and even cancer drugs.

He then gives an extensive list of by-products of tobacco on pages 48 and

49.

* Of course there is also another side to this argument. D.D.T was used
extensively as weed-killer in the 1950s. But today, its use has been banned
in all countries because of its harmful side effects. Quinine was used as
remedy against Malaria in the 1920s. But today we know that it also leads
to blindness and is therefore banned in all countries.

One should remember that this cycle will go on indefinitely.

* Politics and Administration

Savarkar always propagated armed struggle to win freedom from the British
Rule. We will study this aspect in more detail in the next chapter. However,
after the independence things change. The independent India was going to
need people of quite different calibre. Savarkar was fully aware of this.

* Shivaji the great Maratha King rested for four years after his dramatic
escape from the internment in Agra in 1666. In 1670 he started to recapture
his lost forts and territories. But who was going to run the administration?
He asked Nilopant Sonadev, one of his generals to lay down arms and take
the charge of administration. The general was reluctant. Shivaji said to him,
“To liberate our territory and win new ones is no doubt important, but it is
equally important to look after its administration. I consider both of equal
value.” The general accepted the responsibilities.

* One example of how people’s expectations change on

independence can be seen in Shivaji’s own letter. On 9 May 1674, he wrote

to captain of his troops who were camped at Dalvatane.
“It is likely that you would be complacent in your duties and neglect
sufficiency of provisions for troops. When the rains start, you will not be
able to get supplies in market. The horses will starve. It will be your fault.
Then your men will start giving trouble to villagers, some will pinch grass,
some firewood, some vegetables. Then the villagers will curse you. Many
will abandon their villages, some may die of starvation. They will therefore
feel that you are worse than Mughals who were suppressors in the past. I
must therefore warn you not to trouble the villagers at all. You go in the
market and buy what you need. There is no need to treat any one unjustly.”

This letter is astonishing. Shivaji feared that during his rule, people would
think that the Mughals were better than Shivaji’s soldiers? Unfortunately
that is true. Therefore one must move with the times.

* Some staunch Hindus argue that Shivaji appointed only eight ministers.
So, why does today’s government need so many ministers? The question
assumes that nothing has changed in last three hundred years. We are not
living in the conditions of 1670. There was no electricity in days of Shivaji,
no factories, no radio, telephones, television, atomic energy or wide range
of facilities we take for granted. One could not travel from Mumbai to
London in 12 hours. Life was not as complicated as today. So, how would
Shivaji have carried out the administration of Maharashtra today, let alone
the whole of India, with just eight ministers?

• Different circumstance require leaders and officers of different calibre.

During the Second World War, British people accepted Mr Churchill as
their war time leader. But once the war with Germany was over they
realised that they needed a different

leader for the re-construction of post war Britain. They therefore voted for
the Labour Government of Clement Attiee. Unfortunately in India we never
showed this maturity.

* Subhashchandra Bose tells us, “I am reminded of what the Deshbandhu

Das used to say frequently about the virtues and failings of Mahatma
Gandhi’s leadership. According to him, the Mahatma opens a campaign in a
brilliant fashion; he works it up with unerring skill; he moves from success
to success till he reaches the zenith of his campaign - but after that he loses
his nerve and begins to falter.”

(The Indian Struggle 1920-1942 by S.C Bose, p77)

Gandhi did not have the qualities required for negotiations. BoseVitthalbhai
Patel manifesto issued in Vienna made this clear. Unfortunately Gandhi
always insisted that he alone would go to the negotiations. Hindus paid
terribly for his failures.

‘ But why blame Gandhi, did not this happen 120 years earlier? In his book
‘Marathas and the English’N C Kelkar, one of Tilak’s lieutenants
concluded,

‘Marathas won the wars and lost the treaties.” They could never recognise
that a General does not have the skills needed for concluding a treaty.
Congressites committed the same blunder 120 years later. Why can’t
Hindus learn from history?

* If we do recognise the qualities in different peoples this does benefit the

society. Shivaji the great Maratha king had eight ministers. Seven of these
were Brahmins. But they did not become ministers just because they were
Brahmins. They were all warriors and sided with Shivaji in all his
adventures - from the daring assassination ofAfzulkhan to the skirmishes
with Siddi ofJanjira. It is not well known that Brahmins of Maharashtra had
been warriors for centuries before Shivaji. His orders (Adnyapatre) clearly
state, “Ministers should look after affairs of

their own department and go on to the battlefield to lead armies as

required.”

* During the rein of Maratha Peshwa Bajirao-I, two families came to

prominence. Shinde and Holkar. One was a peon, other was a shepherd.
They did not become generals because they belonged to their particular
caste, but because they were warriors and proved to be good generals.
Dattaji Shinde is always remembered for his famous words, “If I survive, I
will fight again.” before he was killed.
* On the contrary, what has been the position in Maharashtra during last 50
years? Yashvantrao Chavan, Vasantrao Naik, Shankarrao Chavan,
Vasantdada Patil - they all became Chief Ministers, not because they were
capable, but simply because they were NOT Brahmins and belonged the
Maratha caste. The Brahmin-non Brahmin dispute ultimately did no good to
anyone. We were all losers.

* Economics
* Exchange rates
Politics and administration can never be carried out with the same
guidelines. Bhishma said the same towards the end of Mahabharata
(Shantiparva). Until about 1970, exchange rates between the currencies of
various countries used to be fixed. That gave stability to international trade.
Value of one's currency was considered a matter of prestige for that country.
It was considered disgraceful to devalue one’s currency. But when the
effects of this policy were found to be harmful, almost all countries adopted
Floating Exchange Rates.

This situation too changed after 15 years. European Exchange Rate

Mechanism (ERM) was launched in Western Europe. It was agreed that the
exchange rates of the French Franc and Deutsch Mark would vary only
within a narrow band. Britain decided to join this mechanism. But
speculators decided that

the rate of exchange between the Pound and the Mark was too high to be
sustained. They therefore sold pounds on a gigantic scale to purchase
Marks. Britain nearly became bankrupt. In 1992 she was forced to withdraw
from ERM. The speculators proved to be far more powerful than Britain.

* Gold Reserves

Once again, gold reserves of a country were considered its greatest asset, a
matter of national pride. But in 1999 economists have been thinking
differently. They started to consider it as a liability. Gold reserves do not
pay any dividends. Four tons of Gold remain four tons. It does not increase
by an ounce. However, if the gold is sold and money invested, it will give
annual dividends. Countries like Britain have therefore decided to reduce
their stock of gold. Britain has sold part of its gold reserves and invested the
proceeds in American stock market. Only a few years ago, this was
unthinkable.
But as usual this policy has its dangers too. There have been scandals in
America such as Enron and World.com, which led to the collapse of
confidence in American Economy (June/July2002). Dollar lost its value in
terms of other currencies. Price of gold rose by 10%. Was selling of gold a
folly?

Change or perish

Thus, it is essential that we too need to change constantly, but we don’t.

H M Queen Elizabeth II quite rightly said, “Change is a constant. The way

we embrace it defines our future.” [Daily Telegraph 1 May 2002]

A classical example is that of the Americans. Whatever one may say about
them, one thing that has made them strong and powerful is their ability to
change with times. I do remember the words of

600/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

the Negro leader Martin Luther King, “I have a dream. In future, my

children would be judged by their abilities and not by the colour of their
skin” (23 August 1963). Negro athletes showed their anger and frustration
at international events by raising fists during award ceremonies even though
by that action they ruined their careers. I used to listen to Alistair Cook’s
‘Letter from America’ broadcast on the BBC. He frankly said in late 1960s,
Things may change but not by much.” And yet things have changed. Black
persons like General Colin Powell (Secretary of State) and Ms Condoleeza
Rice (National Security Adviser) who faced discrimination in the 1950s
because they were Negroes are now in positions of power in the White
House. American Armed Forces have been fully integrated.

We may despise the Americans for many aspects of their policy but we
have much to learn from them.

This topic ‘Change with country, times and people’encompasses large part
of human activities. I gave some examples as an illustration. Savarkar had
given similar examples in his days.
After all this discussion we can now appreciate that Savarkar preached
rationalism for the betterment and maximum benefit for the people of India.
Let us now move over to this aspect utility of all human activities. Some
readers would find it convenient to refer to Appendix C for certain
unknown words / phrases before moving to the next chapter.

Chapter Ten

UTILITY OF ALL HUMAN ACTIVITIES

vOC / RationAibm o/ S«v'iu1u*^ - ' . - .■ —

tfuj Ncgtx> U/tfier rp

m)‘ chiktrcn »*Oiitd be fifctood l/y alJdiBkc end drt l^ihf cokHir of their
skin“ {23 Auguss i a(SC?4 er^^:o*

thoirangor yinifrvstrstion at kdfvr t^is^^nrn . *

duringap'anScetamontesayeri ^ zighji^ihu'adr^ H^dstn^ tfmr camera. / used

to fisimy it. Aif^r Co"* < '

A/twrea’ hiriaekxtsl on the Sf^C He fmnhiy e>*:J im i^<y*, ^Tfidnga may

chango hut nci by tmeh ' A' rd th^>' w changed. Bkxkperacn* /*» General
Cohn o/

State) andtiAs Condotectw Rice (t^fkma' Sftc-.jfiyj^aj/ber; Mho faced

d/scmrh'netfon in fha 19S0a because Ihse enpe-^lecn?e: am fx>w In
posvftoa? of power in tee Wham HCjmei.‘Jtenerk:ar Annod Farces haw
btH)ri hjfy •ntogmfed.^" ^ • ‘'

ntey de^be tee Ame^dent ^y/narty aaoerm but yye nave much to team tivm
toetn. : .:

^JP $ togk ‘Change witeoountry. tkrtesandpeofde'vWAfM^m^ 'SM^ |tef

part Of ^tbiian stv vyrtgL>j'i^<f> sorm touryife# 3i ^ratten sSvamar had
giver sknggtrexafhp^ y ifr ztefm

t aamVlTOA MAMUH JJAJIO VTUrfU ail tNs rSscufdon tm can new itw
for tee peeph of fndfa. Let us obmr^Wc^r ifri^ty of aH human activfhes.
Sema fsaaerv '»

• cQOk^an/idnf to refer to Appenefu C 'ter oartain i m ifrte teh ^

phraaes hahra rnovkig.to the nextly^eptff. '

UTILITY OF ALL HUMAN ACTIVITIES

All the discussion on Rationalism ultimately leads us to ‘utility of all

human activities.’ i.e. our time, money, intelligence and resources must be
utilised for the maximum benefit of maximum number of people. We see
this reflected in Savarkar’s behaviour, thoughts, writings and speeches.

While in London, Savarkar sent Senapati Bapat to Paris for learning from
Russian revolutionaries how to make bombs. Thereafter, Bapat wanted to
throw a bomb on the British Parliament. But Savarkar told him that it was
vital that this knowledge be widely spread in India and sent him there. In
Calcutta Bapat met Khudiram Bose who later threw a bomb on the carriage
of Chief Presidency Magistrate Kingsford. Unfortunately, unknown to
Khudiram, Kingsford had changed his carriage and two women from a
Kennedy family died instead (April 1908).

That was the beginning of the era of revolutionaries.

Let us use our life for something noble

In June 1909, Savarkar’s elder brother Babarao was sentenced to

Transportation for life to Andaman Islands. British suppression was in full
swing. All ofBabarao’s earthly possessions including even broomstick were
confiscated. His wife Mrs Yesutai was left penniless and homeless. So
fearful were the people that even her relations would not give her shelter.
She had to take refuge in crematorium till she found a friend who would
shield her. She wrote a letter to Savarkar in London explaining the British
oppression. He wrote a beautiful letter in the form of a short poem. He said

“Every day, thousands of flowers spring up, blossom and then fade and fall
off. Who keeps an account of them? But Gajendra, the elephant in the
Hindu mythology, who was caught by a crocodile by the side of a lake,
plucked a lotus flower and offered it to Lord Vishnu who saved him. That
flower became eternal.”

“Let us pluck all such flowers and offer to Lord Rama on a altar in
satisfaction of having done one’s duty. Let us make good use of the life that
the Lord has given to us.”

“The family that becomes extinct for a noble cause becomes immortal.
Fragrance of its sacrifices spreads all over the world.”

Indeed, it looked as if Savarkar's family would become extinct. Savarkar’s

own son Prabhakar had died. Savarkar himself may have to face the gallows
in all his adventures. Babarao’s children died in infancy. Savarkar’s younger
brother had not completed his studies. It was quite possible that he too
would face imprisonment, transportation for life or even be sent to the
gallows during the revolutionary activities. Savarkar looks at such calamity
with pride, because their sacrifices would have been made for a noble
cause, namely the Indian independence.

Sanskrit poet Bhartruhari had composed a collection of 100

verses called Neetishatak. He says about great men

Shrotam shrutenaivana kundalena

Daanen panir natu kankanena

Vibhati kayah karuranaparanam

Paropakaarena natu chandanen

(verse 71)

Their ears are adorned through knowledge and not with expensive earrings,
their hands through generous donations and not with golden bracelets and
their bodies through kindness and not with sandalwood paste and other
perfumes.

There is also another verse in the same composition.

Manih shanollidah samarvijai hetinihath Madakshino nagah sharida saritrah

shyana pulinah Kalasheshah chandra suramrudina balalalana Stanimna
shobhante galitavibhavah charthirushu janah (verse 44)

Savarkar quoted this second verse in his newsletter of 13 August 1909. He

had not been called to the bar because of his involvement in freedom
struggle. He explains the meaning of the verse.

A jewel reduced in size when cut for facets, a soldier exhausted through
battle wounds, an elephant weakened through the loss of energy in the
rutting season, a narrowed river with exposed sandy banks, a narrow
crescent of the moon, a young wife tired after sexual intercourse, a king
who has given all his cash to charity: to all these, their reduced
circumstances are like an ornament.

In a similar manner, patriots look admirable by the calamities they face.

They die so that their nation may survive, they grind in poverty so that their
nation becomes prosperous, and they fast so that their people may be fed. In
a similar way Savarkar will face starvation for the benefit of India. Today
we need his begging bowl more than his Barrister’s gown.

(SSV4 p134)

• After being sentenced to Transportation for life twice, Savarkar met his
wife Mrs Mai. He told her
“God willing, we will meet again. But in the meantime, if you were tempted
to compare your life with those of your friends and start feeling sorry for
our married life, look at it this way. If leading a family life means that we
collect bricks and pieces of timber and build a house and produce children;
even birds and bees live that kind of life. But if life means something
nobler, we too have been successful. True, we abandoned our routine life,
broken our pans and pots. However, out of this sacrifice will come
prosperity to millions.”

“Moreover, what happened during the plague outbreaks, just a few years
ago? While wishing to lead a normal family life, did not’Mother Nature
take away lives of many and left many widows?

We are now suffering the separation for a noble cause. I understand that
prison authorities allow families of convicts to join them and settle on
Andaman Islands after a few years. It is good if that happens. But be
prepared to bear the difficulties even if it does not happen.”

(My Transportation for Life pp14-16)

WHILE IN JAIL ON THE
ANDAMAN ISLANDS (1911 TO
1921)
If I decide to die, that is how I will
die
When Savarkar was tied to the yoke of an oi! mill, he had to go round and
round in circle like a bull to produce oil from coconuts. The pain and
suffering became unbearable. He felt that, like many prisoners before him,
he too should end his life and seek permanent relief from his sufferings.
There arose a duel between his reason and mind in August 1911. He
remembers
My mind rebels
I could not speak to any one nor discuss my suffering. I kept on looking at
my naked body so shabby, dust-covered and sweated by the work on the oil
mill. The body used to be full of perspiration, the dust thrown up by the
turning wheel of the mill, as it crushed and ground down the pieces of dry
coconuts for oil, with other dust mixed up in it which had clung to me all
over, - this was the experience from which my mind revolted with disgust.

I began to hate myself.” Why do you bear it all?” my mind asked me, “It is
true that your body and intellect should be used for the uplift of our entire
nation, but that is all now useless for that purpose. So why do you bear
these hardships? Back home no one would have heard a word about your
sufferings, what to talk of any moral effect on our people. So, you are of no
use to your work. You are no good to yourself, not only that you are a
burden - so why live un-necessarily? Whatever use you were going to be for
your cause, that has happened. Why not end it all by a cord, a noose, a pull,
and then finish. End this life”

The mind again reminded me of Hindu mythology. Gods and Demons

wanted to find nectar. So they co-operated and started to churn the ocean.
The mountain Meru was the shaft and serpent Vasuki, the cord.

My mind said,” O.K. you were going to be as great as the Meru mountain.
But today you are so insignificant that you just being used to churn
buttermilk in a small pot. So, why do you devalue yourself? Under these
circumstances suicide in honourable."

I knew of many philosophers like Novalis and examples from history of

mankind indicating that under certain circumstances it is one’s duty to
commit suicide.

One day while working on the mill it was extremely hot and I became
unconscious. I lost all the sense of time and space. When I regained
consciousness, I looked around. For a few minutes I could not recognise
where I was or what I was doing. It was a state of total bliss. After a few
minutes I realised where I was and recognised my surroundings. I resumed
work. But my mind was ever goading me “Why don’t you make it your last
work? Death is no torture. You have experienced it now complete self-
forgetfulness and peace. Hundreds of prisoners have used the means to
attain that nin/ana. Why do you hold back? Don’t, take a piece of string and
strangle yourself. End all this trouble thus. Why not? “

My reason argues

That night as I lay on my bed, my eyes were riveted on the barred high
window, where I had known that prisoners before me in the room had
hanged themselves. I was almost tempted to commit suicide. However, my
reason argued, “Fool, how proud, how vain you are! Let us believe that you
were meant to do great deeds of heroism and national uplift. But what of it
now? You say ‘the human machine is now useless to me.’ May be, granted
that it is true. Have not thousands of such machines been completely
shattered prior to this? Why not use the machine that God gave you for
humbler ends? Why break it with your own hands? To

bear and endure unknown tortures - is also a part of its work. In a national
work, on a stupendous scale, one has to fight and conquer from point to
point, from stage to stage. This may be a stage in your onward march to
success. The hardest part in this national struggle is the suffering in jail.
You have been chosen for that part. Is that not glory enough? Your real test
is here in the prison. One who suffers like you is a patriot. National uplift is
not possible without paying the price of suffering in jail. To pay this price is
not waste of your life. It is true your suffering would go unrecognised and
un-rewarded. But that is precisely the reason for bearing it all. Will you turn
away from this part of duty? And if you must die why die by committing
suicide?”

“Of course your sufferings would indeed have its effect on fellow
countrymen. Your tribulations must influence the country, however small
that influence may be. If you do not believe that it would and decide to die
then why die like dog? The British Administrators did not send you to the
gallows. Why? Did they want to show mercy on you? were they smitten
with compassion? No. Destiny has some different purpose behind that
decision. So, why do you help in what the British did not accomplish?
Suicide will only harm your cause, which you so dearly love. If you hang
yourself, you will be only playing into their hands. You will add to the
failures and ruin your party. Remember you are a soldier in this fight for
freedom from British Rule. Do something worthwhile for your cause. Die
fighting. Kill one enemy of the country and then expire. Why quit the world
without that fight?”

When Reason argued with desire in this fashion, it convinced and won me
over to her side. I had become desperate. That mood of desperation was
conquered and 1 recovered my poise again.

Not only did I make up my mind to die bravely, but also persuaded all my
friends and disciples in that Jail that it was their duty, in virtue of the pledge
they had taken, to die like heroes. I thus saved many a lonely and forlorn
prisoners being in that place

from the verge of suicide.

(My Transportation for Life pp 145/148)

It is precisely for this reason that 16 years later Savarkar denounced the
fasting unto to death by Jitendranath Das. He always maintained, ‘If you
must die, cause maximum damage to your enemy.’

During Gandhi’s Satyagraha of the 1931, there were demonstrations against

merchants importing foreign (English) clothes. There were protest sittings
in front of such shops. One Babu Genu laid down himself across the path of
lorries carrying English cloth. During the skirmishes that ensued, an
English driver threatened to drive his lorry over anyone lying in his path,
but Babu Genu did not budge. The English driver did drive over Babu who
died as the result. Referring to this incident, Savarkar said in July 1931,
‘Instead of the suicidal death of Babu, I prefer the aggressive death of
Bhagatsingh. Marathas should never forget the words of Saint Ramdas who
said ‘Don’t die in vain. Die after killing or at least trying to kill your
enemy.’

(Ratnagiri Era p245)

Educating the illiterate prisoners

After settling in the routine of jail life on the Andaman Islands, Savarkar
carried out a movement for educating the majority of prisoners who were
illiterate. He describes his experience

How can I describe how difficult this job was? It was teaching A, B, C to
those unintelligent ignorant prisoners who had no desire to learn. Hence I
had to chase them, that too in secret. When I arranged a free supply of
slates, chalks and books they would not even keep them. Some stopped
talking to me for the fear that I would make a request to them. I had to offer
them scholarships to change their minds, of course scholarships in terms of
Andaman Island currency, i.e. tobacco. When I offered them a pinch of
tobacco, they would oblige me by learning for ten to fifteen minutes.

Many of the political prisoners got fed up with the attitude of the illiterates
and refused to teach them. They said that it was misuse of their time, ‘we
are educated to B.A or some even to M.A. standard. Why should we beg
these uneducated culprits, thieves and dacoits to learn? That is irritating.’
Even I felt the same at times. However I used to say to them, ‘I agree with
you. It is waste of your energies. But tell me, what other work can you do
for the good of our country under the present circumstances? If any one of
you can answer that question, let him do that other work. I say to you that
instead of wasting time in idleness or meaningless discussions, IT IS
WORTH spending our time in educating these illiterate prisoners. That is
much more useful and beneficial to our cause.’

I continued, ‘We complain that the British Administrators are ignoring the
education and resolve that when we become independent we would spread
education to masses. But, who is going to do that? Is it not up to us to make
a start? Would it be fair that we should aspire only to teach in colleges and
expect that some one else should look after the primary education? It is vital
that we educate these fallen criminals for the nations good. Many Christian
missionaries devote their lives for the betterment of similar prisoners in
their countries. Many Communists are infiltrating in villages to impart
primary education to the masses. We need to do the same.’
‘Are we just teaching them to read and write? No. They do learn much
more from us. In our company, they learn to be proud of our past. We can
see sparks on their faces when we talk of our nation, religion, customs and
heritage. When we teach them our history, they too become proud of our
forefathers. You say they are fallen people. Then who are we? We only had
the benefit of being born in certain class of society. Otherwise there is no
difference. If we make efforts, these fallen men too shall improve. As long
as we cannot do anything better, it is our duty to impart teaching to these
men in literary, intellectual and national aspects.’

‘My arguments bore fruits. Among the illiterates emerged many who
surpassed the political prisoners in selfless work, sacrifices and patriotism.’

(My Transportation for Life pp 262-264)

Savarkar asked, “Under the circumstances, can you do any other useful
work? If not, at least do the work of teaching the illiterates to read and
write. Use your time wisely and for the benefit of others.”

Savarkar carried out the work of teaching the illiterate prisoners throughout
his stay in prison. He recollects one particular incident. “In the prison, there
was a Gujarati farmer named Jeeva. I wrote the Gujarati alphabet for him
on 40 occasions. Many prisoners laughed at this number of attempts. The
really funny thing was that on the 41®' attempt Jeeva was able to identify
all the letters.” That was the tenacity of Savarkar.

(My Transportation for Life p442)

World War I (1914-1918) - use of
curiosity about the war
Eruption of World War I created curiosity among the prisoners. They
wanted Savarkar to explain to them the major events. He tells us how he
used that curiosity to educate them.

The war had created great sensation among the prisoners and they used to
come to me for more details or wanted to know the meanings of various
events. I always used to tell them the truth. Even the Muslim prisoners, who
were angry with me at first, came to me for the correct information, because
unlike the prison officers, I did not hesitate to tell the truth. I decided to take
advantage of this situation. I used to say to them, ‘Listen, you learn to read
and write, and then only will I tell you what is happening.’ Many, who
would have never bothered to learn to read or write, were thus induced to
learn.

Before the War, the knowledge of most people of India about the world
affairs was limited. If he were a Hindu he would know

England or at the most the Amir of Afghanistan. The people’s knowledge of

geography or politics never went beyond that. The prisoners were surprised
when I said that there were many countries in the world apart from England
or Afghanistan. Of course they did not know the names of those countries.
Muslims would quote a third country - Turkey. They knew its Sultan.

I therefore took advantage of their curiosity about the War and drew a map
of the world showing various countries of Europe and Asia. I made them
recite the names of those countries and their capitals. At times, I would ask
them to pinpoint various states on the outlines of continents. Thus many,
who would have never bothered to learn Geography, learned it so that they
could appreciate the events of World War I.
I marked Germany, France, Austria, Russia, Belgium, Serbia and other
countries on the map of Europe, and got the prisoners to learn them by
heart. I then explained to them the various battles. Some prisoners were
more intelligent than the rest. I taught them the constitutions of those
countries. They had only heard of kings. So they would make references
such as King of America, King of France etc. When I told them that these
countries did not have kings, they asked, ‘but then who carries on the war?’
Their concept of war was based on what they had heard of Mahabaharat
War. They could only visualise duels, a war between two parties.

They had an impression that the King of Russia was small and not well
built, and the King of Germany was strong and stout, so he would crush the
Russian king. They would ask how well were the kings as horse-riders.
Their concepts about Germany’s Kaiser were unbelievable. They said that
he was strong like Bheema (of Mahabharat) therefore he smashed the doors
of forts with his fists and lifted the King of France by his neck. They once
asked me,

‘Who is the taller of the two kings of Russia and Germany?’ I

replied that the King of Russia as well as the people of Russia as a whole
are more well built than the Germans. They were then engrossed in
thoughts on what would happen to Germany’s King in his war with Russian
King. 1 can still remember their facial expressions today.

Slowly but surely 1 removed their ignorance. I explained the concept of a

nation, the difference between a monarchy and a republic, a king and a
president, various constitutions, administrations etc. I made them learn
these by heart. Thus, within the first year of the War, there was widespread
knowledge of world geography and international affairs among the
prisoners.

As the War progressed, the prisoners became deeply interested in the news
from the battlefront. They also realised how interesting the news became
with the increased knowledge. They therefore asked me to teach them in
more detail. Many became addicted to reading newspapers.

Just as I helped to increase their knowledge of world Geography,

I also taught them the geography of India and its affairs and politics.

(My Transportation for Life pp 346-348)

After World War I, again many political prisoners were sent to Andaman.
Savarkar explains how he undertook their education in the prison.

Educating the Political Prisoners

Among the new influx of prisoners, most were from the rural areas. Many
were uneducated but patriotic. I considered this a great opportunity. I said to
them ‘it is good that you are a patriot but you also need education. This is
your opportunity. You have come to a University.’

I was allowed some free time in the mornings and afternoons when I could
mix with them. I started to teach Gujarati to Gujaratis,

Gurumukhi to Punjabis and Hindi to those from U.P. My colleagues in other

wings of the prison did the same. Among the new arrivals, many had heard
about me. That helped me to meet and convince them that they needed to
learn to read and write.

We taught them not only to read and write but also the Geography, History,
and Arithmetic. After our evening meals, we used to be free for about half
an hour to one hour. In that time I taught to groups of some twenty
prisoners the current politics in India, meaning of the 1909 reforms,
histories of other countries and elements of economics. We had discussions
on what I had taught earlier.

(My Transportation for Life pp 440/441)

There was an outcry in India about the prison conditions of political

prisoners on Andaman Islands. The British Administration, in the end, sent
a Jail Commission of inquiry in 1920, and as a result, the British had
decided to release some political prisoners on certain conditions. Savarkar
narrates the events of those days.

Agree to the compromise and get out of the jail

These political prisoners were asked to sign an undertaking that, in future,
they will not take part in politics, or at least will not do so for a specified
period. They had to agree that if it was proved that they broke their
promise, they would have to serve the remainder of the sentence.

After the clemency was declared, there was a great debate among the
political prisoners about whether or not to accept the conditions attached to
it. I told them, as long as they do not tell their secret past or betray their
cause, they should accept any conditions and seek release from prison. That
was in the interest of the nation. I quoted them examples from our history,
told them how Shivaji dealt with Jaisingh and Afzulkhan, how Shree Guru
Govindsingh (The last Guru of the Sikhs) escaped from the battle of
Chamkor, ' also gave examples of Lord Shree Krishna and others. The
surprise was that, despite having suffered hardships

on Andaman Islands, many were not prepared to budge from their

principles. They made me feel proud and it raised my hopes for future of
India. However, 1 explained to them why an escape from prison was
beneficial to our cause under the circumstances. They all signed the paper
and sought release.

(My Transportation for Life pp 471)

Savarkar was saying, ‘You can do much more patriotic work in India than
in the prison on a far off island. If it involves making a truce with the
enemy, that is a matter of tactic. There is nothing to be ashamed of, as long
as you do not tell the British, the secrets of your past activities. Moreover,
we must learn from history. Who told you that you must keep the word
given to an enemy? That foolishness has been one of the major causes of
our downfall. It is time we became wiser from our past mistakes’.

DURING INTERNMENT IN RATNAGIRI (1924-37) Vratavaikalye

Vratas (religious vows) are certain penances performed by Hindus. They

follow a code, or a routine for their beliefs. For example, some observe fast
on Mondays, Tuesdays or Fridays. In the days of spring, some women do
not take any food unless they listen to a cuckoo. Some do not take meals till
the moon is seen on the fourth day of lunar month.
God has given mankind three paths, Satva, Rajas and Tamas. We all wish
that Satva (pious) should win over. But that needs some degree of self-
control. One has to prove that he/she can overcome physical pains. The
ultimate aim being to achieve something nobler in life.

During the Briish Raj, we witnessed some such examples of similar

commitment. Sugar had to be imported and as a result, money was going
out of India. So, in order to save this drain, the father of the author and
many thousands of his generations gave

up drinking tea. Some vowed not to get married until India became free.
Well-known examples are historians Datto Vaman Potdar and Tatya Khare
both of Pune. They remained bachelors.

The reason behind observing such penances is to acquire the required

discipline, courage, determination, and steadfastness in our day to day to
day to day dealings. In the mythological stories, the Guru who specifies the
penances asks the follower, ‘will you abide by the rules, and promise not to
abandon the penances?’ Because if they don’t, their efforts become futile.

The intentions behind them were noble. But as it usually happens, the
rituals become meaningless and senseless with the passage of time. An
open fire in a field cannot be seen as it gathers dust around it. It is necessary
to blow away the dust to rekindle the fire. That is what Savarkar tried to do
with old Vratas. He wanted to stop the wastage of food, money and time.

He always emphasised that the national good is more important than the
salvation of an individual. In Hindu scriptures, it is said that one should
abandon a son in the interest of the family. The family should be sacrificed
in the interest of the village and the village should be abandoned in the
interest of the nation. These are the steps that one needs to bear in mind.

Savarkar preached Swadeshi or support to the indigenous industries. He

emphasised that goods made in India may not be attractive or refined at the
moment, but people should use them so that our industries can be sustained
and that money be saved from going out of our country.
* He emphasised that the Vratas should be chosen according to the country,
times and the attributes of people. In his article, “What should we do now?”
he says —

“We have examined the existing Vratas and shown how out of date and
wasteful they are today and they are of no value or

benefit to us. However, the intention behind them, of doing nobler deeds in
the name of God, must not be lost. Today there is a dire need for social
work. We therefore suggest a few new Vratas.”

“Our women usually go to fields in search of special blades of grass called

‘Durva’ and offer 100,000 of them to God. They could instead go to fields
to cut grass and provide fodder for cows. Or they could cut beautiful
flowers and give them away to working class girls. They could also plant
flower shrubs either in their own garden or in the houses of their friends. Of
course use some flowers for worship of God, decorate the house and give
away the rest to poor girls, so that the beauty and fragrance of flowers will
spread. This worship of health and happiness is also a Vrata.

When I say enough of tree worship, a friend who was sincerely proud of old
customs said to me,’ Savarkar, why do you reject such traditions outright.
Can’t they be used for the benefit of society today in some way?’ Well, they
can be. I suggest that the women who perambulate around the banyan trees
could start a small oil mill and get attached to a belt so that their
perambulations would produce some cooking oil which can be given to the
poor.’

Ladies, I say to you that instead of perambulating around trees, take the
Vrata of Swadeshi (support to indigenous industries). In the name of God
you walk around your town in groups of say five and convince people of
the need to support our industries. You overcome their prejudices and bear
any insults that you may suffer, but persevere. Try to turn the women to
your side and see that they buy sugar, bangles, glassware, cutlery and cloth
made in India. Visit them regularly to confirm that they have indeed
become supporters of Swadeshi. I can assure from my own experience that
if you persist, you can convert the whole village or town to our side. The
effect of an article or a lecture lasts for a short period. Then people become
complacent and go back to their old habits. But the movement of Swadeshi
once properly established and ingrained in the minds of people lasts
lifetime. It

is like the lighting of an eternal flame.

Moreover, if we keep this flame burning, it develops a practical

psychological attitude towards our nation. We, as a nation, would prosper,
our workers would earn wages and prevent the money going abroad. At
present, you make sacrifices like perambulating around banyan trees or
burning man-made cotton lamps or offerings of hundred thousand ‘Durvas’.
Surely the God who is pleased with all such sacrifices would be far more
pleased by the national service I had proposed.

Missionary women preach Christianity to our villagers. Similarly, why

don’t you regularly visit the places of new converts to Christianity? Preach
re-conversion to Hindu Dharma to them.

I am not suggesting that you do a particular social service, but do what you
can. There is nothing more worthwhile than serving our own people. Even
the Maratha Sant (Saint) Tukaram says
Je ka ranjale ganjale
Tyansi mhane jo apule To chi sadhu olakhava Deva tethechi janava

Any person who looks after the down trodden, or the helpless is a sage.
That is where God can be found.
What can the women do?
I have indicated the Vratas that our women could do. There are many
Vratas, which are carried out during the four lunar months - Shravan,
Bhadrapat, Ashwin and Kartik. Why not be up to date? The women could
grow vegetables in the back garden and give them away to institutions like
the Anatha Vidhyarti Graha of Pune (an orphanage). Or they could make
clothes and give them to the children of former untouchables who are now
trying to go to school.

They could offer money to persons like Masurkar Maharaj who has been
trying to convert Christians and Muslims back to Hindu Dharma.

Try campaigning for the use of home made sugar. In each District, place a
group of ten women who could visit families on a regular basis and
persuade them to buy only homemade sugar. If they do that I can guarantee
from my personal experience that thousands of rupees, which now go
abroad, would be saved. Or try to sell one hundred rupee worth of bangles
made in India in a year. Some can pay for immediate needs of two recent
converts to Hindu Dharma or offer similar amount of money to Hindu
Mahasabha or Aryasamaj for their work.

Institutions like Ratnagiri Hindusabha are trying to re-convert people to

Hindu Dharma. But when they liberate our women from the clutches of
Muslim Mullahs or Christian missionaries, they are faced with the problem
of supporting these women and their children. Umaravati Hindu Sabha has
shown that if they get 100 rupees, they can re-convert 100 people to Hindu
Dharma. But they are short of funds. I beg you to support these converted
people, helpless men, women and children than making offerings to God in
temples.

Look at Shraddhanand Anatha Mahilasharam of Mumbai. They saved

thousands of women from embracing Islam or Christianity, but they have
no money to run an orphanage. I appeal to our women to support such
people and organisations instead of wasting money on making offerings of
golden cuckoos to Brahmins. You spend money in the memory of your
forefathers; why not supply saris to helpless women instead? In place of
offering cow, clothes, utensils and money to Brahmins on the 12“’ day
ritual of a deceased relative, why not give them to an orphanage? Or
support a Hindu student who wishes, say, to become an airline pilot.

Ladies, if the Hindu nation survives, Hindu Dharma will survive. If Hindu
nation dies so would our Dharma, our culture, our way of life. It is in your
hands to support the Hindu nation. Consider supporting orphans, helpless
people, and the re-converts to Hindu Dharma. That is your duty today. That
is your Vrata.

(S S V4 PP299-307)

* In his article on ‘Absurd practices of Hindus and Muslims’, Savarkar

wrote —

“So much for the stupidity of crawling on stomach in the name of religion.
Here is yet another example - In Nasik, a Sadhu named Laharimaharaj is
observing silence for some days at present. He has vowed to wrap sweet
mix in paper and write the name of Rama on it and make an offering of 1.1
million such tablets in the river. He believes that such an act would benefit
the human race and save it from catastrophes such as earthquakes.”

“It is clear from the declaration of the Sadhu that he means well. He wants
to save humans from catastrophes. From this Vrata he does want the
mankind to benefit. But how would that be achieved? These 1.1 million
tablets would end up as food for fish and frogs. Even though he would write
the name of Rama on them, as yet we are unaware that the aquatic life is
able to read. So, how are the tablets going to reach God? The fish and frogs
do not have an access to God.”

“Would it not be more appropriate if that flour was used to make bread,
which then is distributed to the destitute? If their hunger is satisfied, surely
God would be pleased. Let us suppose that the Sadhu wants to create tablets
for the benefit of mankind, then there is another way..He could make 1.1
million quinine tablets and distribute them to those affected by Malaria;
again he would get blessings from those who are suffering from the disease
but who have no money to pay for the medicine. Surely God would be
pleased by that social service. Even Lord Krishna

has said the same thing in Bhagvad Geeta.

Datavyamiti yatdanam diyate
anupakarine
Deshe kale cha patre cha tad danam satvikam smrutam (chapter

17 verse 20)

The gift which is given only with the thought of ‘giving’, to a worthy
person who has done no previous favour, at the proper place and time, that
gift is held pure (satvika)

“Let us adopt the same test to our Vratas and ensure that they benefit the
poor, helpless and down-trodden in the Hindu nation. Your physical
sufferings and financial contributions should ultimately lead to the
betterment of Hindu nation.”

(S S V3 pp 156-8).

* In 1934, the people ofRatnagih started their Ganeshotsava on

18 September. Savarkar spoke on the very first day. He said, “if you believe
that God is pleased by worshipping the Banyan tree or by worshipping the
cow or the bull or offering milk to a snake, then would not the same God
bless you if you look after an orphan? At present our Vratas are meant to
effect the cleansing of heart, achieve earthly desire and blessing for the life
after death. Surely the same can be achieved by helping the needy and
working for the uplift of the poor. Choose a Vrata that will achieve these."

(R Era PP317/8)

* In his article ‘Yadyanchi Kulkatha’ or how the fire worship originated,

Savarkar wrote,

Our scriptures say that the fire worship leads to various benefits in this life
and life after. But they also say that the same can be achieved by means
other than the fire worship. Our historical legends tell us of a large number
of people who went to heaven because of their devotion, sacrifices, and
service to other people, acts of forgiveness, acquiring and imparting
knowledge to others.

One must remember that human beings are the creations of God. Service to
them is undoubtedly service to God. Today, running an orphanage is as
beneficial as performing an Ashvamedh Yajna which used to be performed
by mighty kings.

At present the groups of people who perform Satyanarayan Pujas and Fire
worship, in India are also proud of belonging to the Hindu Nation. We
sincerely request such people to open their eyes to the reality of today. Our
very existence is at stake by the activities of Muslims and Christians.
Shuddhi is the need of today. Not only in Maharashtra, but also in the whole
of India, there is not one orphanage for Hindu children. So, even if we save
mothers from the designs of foreigners, we do not know how to look after
the orphans and as the result, they end in the Muslim camp. Then we have
to watch them helplessly being raised as our enemies.

Recently many Hindus have together performed thousands of Satyanarayan

pujas and Yajnas. I appeal to them to show the same vigour and enthusiasm
in establishing orphanages, which will prevent the orphans being adopted
by Muslims and Christians. Just consider the enormous amount of food
wasted recently in Satyanarayans and Yajnas in places such as Indore,
Kurundwad, Kedgav and Morshi. With that money, the organisers could
have easily established orphanages in each town. The Hindu Nation would
then bless them.

Towards the end, Savarkar wrote. “Look at what Masurkar Maharaj recently
achieved. In Goa, he re-converted 10,000 Christians to Hindu Dharma. He
brought those unfortunate people back to our fold. Is that not a Yajna? Our
Gods (Narayan) is now being worshipped in 10,000 homes.”

“Recently, Masurkar Maharaj carried out shuddhi of Christians in Goa. He

needed money for that. Unfortunately, similar amount of money was wasted
in Kurundwad for offering a goat to a local
god. Did those people have sense of what they did? Is that going to protect
the Hindu nation? I ask you to ponder.”

“Under the present circumstances, only the deed that would benefit our
nation should be done by all of us. That is our duty. That is humanism.”

(S S V3 pp 338 -340)
BEAUTY OF WOMEN
During his internment in Ratnagiri (1924-1937) Savarkar came across an
article entitled‘Deb\ts and Credits of Beauty’ by Ursala Blook.’ He
commented

“Natural beauty is highly desirable but difficult to gain. Therefore those

men and women who have been fortunate enough to be born beautiful
consider themselves lucky and that is quite natural and understandable. Any
nation must preserve such beauty and be grateful to the nature for the same.
In our ancient literature there are descriptions of beautiful men. King Dilip
is described as ‘Vyudhoraskorasko vrushaskandhah,
shalpranshurmahabhujah.’

(Raghuvansha 1/13)

He was with broad chest, with shoulders like those of a bull, tall like a
Shula tree and long arms. (King Dilip looked like the warriors’ duty
incarnate with body fit for its work.)

And beautiful women? Even those who have retired from normal life
describe them as ‘Tvamasya cha vishvasya cha netra kaumudi.’ You are the
lotus flower of life.”
Beauty of women is the cream of
nature’s creation.
There is a wonderful love story in the Epic Mahabharat. Usha, the daughter
of Banasur, saw Pradyumna, the grandson of Lord Krishna, in her dream.
But she did not know who he was. So her assistant Chitralekha drew
sketches of beautiful men. In the end

she was struck by Pradyumna’s sketch. She asked Chitralekha to stop and
said, This is the man in my dream.’ Banasur opposed their marriage. In the
end Krishna defeated Banasur in a battle and the lovers were married.

Similarly Mother-Nature tried to sketch out her ideas of a beautiful woman.

She made many sketches but rejected them as unsatisfactory. In the end she
was struck by the last picture and said, ‘oh, what a beauty. That is my
creation.’
Asyah sargavidho
prajapatirabhuchhandro nu
kantipradah
Shrungarekasah swayam nu madano maso nu pushpakarah
Vedabhyasajadah katham nu vishayavyavtuttkautuhulo Nirmatum
prabhaven Manoharam idam rupam purano munih (Drama -Vikram
Urvashiyam by Kalidas 1/8)

May be it was the lovely bright moon that became the progenitor in creating
her? Or was it the God of love himself with the erotic sentiment as his main
element, which made her? Or was it the month rich with flowers? How
indeed could an old sage grown dull by the study of the Vedas and his thirst
for pleasure lost, have produced such a fascinating form as this?

We can understand that. But Mahadev? The lord of destruction? He too was
mesmerised by the beauty of Parvati whom he later married.
Harastu kinchit pariluptachairyah
Chandradayarambha
Evamburashih
Umamukhe bimba phaladharoshte Vyaparmas vilochanani.

(Kumarsambhavam by Kalidas 3/67)

Shiva, his composure slightly disturbed, like the ocean at the start of
moonrise, cast his vision on the face of Uma (Parvati), with its lower lip
resembling the Bimba fruit.

Mother nature has not created anything more attractive than the beautiful
woman. It provides us with a basic instinct to live. If women were to lose
their beauty, life will be dull and drab and without joy.

It is the woman’s beauty that attracts man to her. In our mythology, there
was a fight between Devas and Danavas. Even King Indra s arms were
ineffective against the Danavas. The only solution was this - If Mahadev,
the lord of destruction was to marry Parvati, their son would defeat the
Danavas. But how was this to be achieved? Mahadev did not want any
luxuries of life. Madan (Eros) the God of love promised to do his work and
get Mahadev attracted to Parvati. He said to God Indra—
Prasid vishramyatu veer vajram
Sharermadiayeyrkatam surarih Bibhetu modhikruta bahuviryah Striyobhih
koprasphuratah dharabhyah (Kumarsambhavam by Kalidas 3/9)

Be pleased, oh warrior, let your thunderbolt rest. What enemy of gods with
the power of his arms rendered fickle, should be afraid of even women
whose lower lips are throbbing in passion?

(And this is what happened. Mahadev was attracted to Parvati, they got
married and their son Skandha defeated the Donavan.)

Mother-Nature first gave beauty to woman to attract man to her and then
gave breast milk to feed babies. The intention of nature is nor merely the
production of children, but Eugenics. That is what is really the expectation.

I therefore say to those ladles who are born beautiful to preserve their
beauty. Every woman should try to protect and preserve her beauty; she
should try to look her best all the time. And for that, she should get the
necessary training and appliances.

In ancient times, our forefathers used to honour beautiful ladies. Beauty was
considered a matter of pride of society. There are plenty of references in
Sanskrit literature. Just listen to the adjectives for beautiful women as found
in the Epics Ramayan and Mahabharat - Sukeshi (one with beautiful hair),
Sulochana (one with beautiful eyes), Sumukhi (one with a beautiful face),
and Rambhoru (one with beautiful thighs). Ascetics, who had given up
earthly ties, renounced all pleasures of life and are unattached, use such
adjectives. In Sanskrit, a woman may be described as Ramani, Lalana,
Sundari, Varoru, Sumadhyama, Pruthujaghana, Kamini or Kanta. And this
attitude to beauty led to more and more beautiful progeny. Daughter more
beautiful than her mother, son stronger than father; that is the law of nature.
Thus every generation surpassed the previous one. The culture of such
people is of course beautiful.
If, on the other hand, a woman’s beauty is ignored, the progeny too tend to
become more and more ugly at every generation leading to a demonic
bearing.

But, beautiful ladies, be warned. You must not forget why MotherNature
has bestowed beauty on you. She has given it you on trust, namely that you
must produce children. A woman who prevents the production of children
is useless. Life is a Yajna (fire sacrifice). There is one test to determine
whether a behaviour is good or bad. Did it do good to the society or not -
that is the test. Therefore use your beautiful body to produce beautiful
children. Your satisfaction would be achieved by the result.

If a mango tree blossoms but does not bear fruit, what good is it? Similarly
a woman who tries to look beautiful but prevents the production of children
and succumbs to the temptation for preserving her figure only, misses the
happiness of motherhood. Family planning does not mean no progeny at all.
That is the extreme of selfishness. That is a monstrous act.
A sad fact of life
Ursula Block has expressed the sorrow felt by many women that the beauty
is short-lived. That is the law of nature. I say to the beautiful women -
Remember that your beauty is short lived; it is bound to fade away. You
cannot stop it. Once that happens you would have to live un-noticed by the
society. A miser weeps when he loses his hoarded wealth. But nature has
also provided the solution. It may not preserve your beauty, but would
preserve the beauty of the society. Don’t be afraid of bearing children. That
is not a curse but a blessing.

Have you observed what a gardener does? When roses blossom, he does not
wait for them to fade away. He cuts some of them and plants them to
produce new roses. That leads to beautiful garden. Similarly, a beautiful
woman surrounded by her children preserves her beauty. Because as soon
as her physical beauty fades away she enjoys the beauty of her own
children. What can be more beautiful than your own miniature reflections?
Moreover, she has the satisfaction of seeing them grow. So loss of her*
physical beauty is compensated by her happiness from seeing her children
grow beautifully. And thus her life is always full of enjoyment.

Beauty Is wonderful but character Is more attractive

I say that therefore do protect your beauty but use it wisely. Woman who is
not blessed with beauty can achieve fulfilment by becoming a mother.
Woman who is born beautiful can avoid the pitfall of being miserable and
neglected by the society in later years by accepting motherhood.

There are some wonderful stories in our mythology. On the day of the full
moon, Gods drink all the nectar in Moon, but they leave a tiny bit. That is
why we see a very thin Moon on the first day. And the Moon on the fist day
of lunar month {pratipada) is considered auspicious than on the full moon.

In our ancient history there are examples of great kings giving

away all their wealth and become paupers. But in their poverty they became
more respectable because they gave away their wealth. As is said in
Raghuvamsha ‘In the case of the noble, as in the case of clouds, whatever
they receive is for giving away. (Raghuvamsha 4/86)

We salute a mother who had given birth to beautiful children and as a result
has lost her former beauty, but has given her affection to her children. By
that sacrifice she looks more beautiful than ever.

Poet Kalidas says Paryaypitasya surerh himanshoh

Kalakshyah shlyaghataro hee vruddhe

(Raghuvamsha 5/16)

The waning of the moon who is drunken up in turns by the gods is more
praiseworthy than the waxing (increasing in size)

(S S V2 PP686-700)

We see Savarkar’s sense of beauty in this articie but we aiso feel his appeal
for women to utilise their beauty for the society. In short, he says, “Ladies,
nature has bestowed beauty on you. So much so that even a great sage
Vishvamitra, who made penances all his life was tempted by Menaka and
lost all the power he gained by his penances. BUT Mother-Nature has put a
condition. You must produce beautiful children. Society appreciates your
beauty and the same will perpetuate through your progeny. Your beauty is
preserved by recreation in your children.”
Excess of Rationalism is Fanaticism
Excess of Rationalism means fanaticism. If that happens, rationalism,
instead of being useful to the people does harm. Savarkar had therefore set
out limits of Rationalism, time after time. Let us just take one example

What a reformer should remember

* Any rationalist must use human resources for the maximum benefit of a
society. He must remember that when one deals with a group of people a
single banner does not help. He must find a common ground, which will be
acceptable, to all. Therefore, even if a tradition or a custom is based on
blind religious faith, but public good can be achieved because that blind
faith brings people together, it should be accepted. Only when the traditions
and customs are definitely harmful to the nation, should a reformer
propagate for their abandonment. While he would want to be aloof from
blind faith, try to carry people on that route, but he would not cause a rift
and set aside from the masses.

For example, in a temple of Lord Rama, some may worship the idol of
Rama as God, some may regard him as an incarnation of the divine, and
some may look at it as a giver of salvation. A Rationalist may not accept
any of these reasons, but will still regard Lord Rama as a great national hero
and a source of national pride and inspiration. But no rationalist would say
that he would not enter the temple of Rama or not take part in his birthday
celebration. That kind of obsession is not rationalism but fanaticism. At
times, a useful religious activity though born of blind faith is not to be
discarded.

(1935 September issue of magazine Maharashtra Sharada)

* Savarkar wrote an article entitled ‘Now start a Ganeshotsava for ALL

Hindus’ in the 1935 September issue of magazine Kirloskar. He discusses
idol worship and then says, “Some ask me, ‘How do you take part in
Ganeshotsava? Are you not regarding a clay idol as God?’ I reply, ‘Just as
we worship great national heroes, we also worship Gods, even though they
are in the form of idols. Just as the Muslim’s desire to break idols is
fanaticism, so is the tendency to curse the idols themselves. We erect statues
of Shivaji and salute him and offer flowers. That is a noble thought. It
should not be denounced, on the contrary it is worth encouraging.’

(REra p341)

The Caste system : Put it to better use.

Savarkar tried his best to reduce the excesses of the caste system and
constantiy argued that it was not justifiabie today. However, he was aware
that the caste system was not going to vanish overnight. He therefore used it
for sociai weifare. White in internment in Ratnagiri he did attend functions
ofpeopte of various castes, but every time he insisted that they shouid do
some nationat work.

* On 29 July 1925, Savarkar spoke at the death anniversary celebrations of

Jagannath (Nana) Shankar Sheth. He asked the Sonar caste people, who
were remembering this great man, to resist the activities of Muslims and
Christian Missionaries. Afterwards sweets were distributed to lepers, setting
an example of looking after society’s unfortunate people.

* Just as Sonars (goldsmith) remembered Jagannath Shankar Sheth as their

ancestor, people of Shimpi (tailor) caste celebrated death anniversary of
Saint Namdev, and those of Nhavi (Barber) caste celebrated the death
anniversary of Saint Sena. They all requested Savarkar to attend their
functions. In 1932, Savarkar put a condition. If the leaders of the respective
groups sign a pledge to support indigenous industries (Swadeshi) then only
would he attend the functions. Accordingly the leaders of those
communities signed such pledges.

* On 13 August 1932, while celebrating the death anniversary of Nana

Shankar Sheth, the leaders of the Sonar (goldsmith) caste put out a
statement “We have resolved that, in the memory of late Nana, we have
decided to do some work of a practical nature. Therefore we undertake to
use the following products made in India - cloth, soap, sugar, bangles, hair
oil and sweets.”
(R Era pp256 & 262)

* Again white cetebrating the death anniversary of the same person on 25

August 1934 Savarkar said

“... It is not enough for you to just listen about Nana. You have to

decide to do something yourself in his memory.... You do not do big things

because they are beyond your capacity, and you also do not do small things
because you say ‘What can be achieved by small things?’ This inaction on
both counts must be abandoned. In 1924/251 proposed to our people that
they should support Swadeshi. Many said, ‘What good would that do?’ But
today, in Ratnagiri, considerable quantity of indigenous sugar is consumed.
Why don’t you decide to purchase only our (Indian) goods, say, at least
soap, cloth and glassware?”

Try to prevent our low caste brothers and sisters from embracing foreign
religions and to give them the protection of your caste. Every day some 310
helpless Hindu women are embracing foreign religions. Put a stop to this
loss at least, as much as you can.”

(REra p316)

In an article in 1934, we see clearly Savarkar’s attitude towards caste-

organisa tions.

What should be the attitude of those who want to abolish the caste system,
towards the caste based organisations?

• It is now crystal clear to our readers that without the abolition of the
division based on caste in which one is born, our unity or the realisation of
our full potential or general progress is more or less impossible. Those who
have come to this conclusion have started their efforts at abolishing the
caste system. However, they are always faced with the problem of what to
do with castebased organisations. Should we have contact with such
organisations? If so, to what extent ? Do such organisations have any
advantages? If so, how can we use them without suffering from its harmful
effects?
One thing is clear that we have to cross the barrier of the division based on
caste. But the castes are not going to go away or vanish overnight. While
constructing a highway, we have to bypass some

obstacles, at certain places we have to build bridges, at other places perhaps

bore tunnels. We have to do likewise in dealing with the barrier of caste.

Savarkar belonged to the Chitpavan Brahmin community (so does the

author of this book). Because of his influence, their community association
agreed to insert the following clause in their constitution:

“We do not regard any one high or low, simply because of the caste in
which one is born. Moreover, we shall not associate ourselves with any
movement that propagates a hierarchy based on caste at birth. Everyone
should be respected for what he /she has achieved by his/her virtues or hard
work. Similarly we expect Chitpavan Brahmins to be regarded in the same
way. Everyone should get what he/she deserves on merit.”
This was a tremendous step
forward. Savarkar commented—
‘Today, in the Hindu society, we have thousands of caste-based
organisations. If they all adopt the attitude of the Chitpavan Brahmin
association, they would not remain harmful to the Hindu Nation as they are
today. I will illustrate a few examples.’

Savarkar then states how the work of a caste-based organisation can be

beneficial to the nation. He says, ‘Today, the caste-division causes damage
to our society and creates animosity, mainly because they assume a
hierarchy of castes by birth and that they automatically acquire their special
characteristics by being born in a particular caste. Once we stop accepting
any hierarchy of caste based on birth and also stop being prejudiced about a
particular characteristic or attribute acquired by virtue of being born in a
particular caste, then it does not matter, to what caste or association one
may belong. Some one may call themselves Brahmins, some as Mahars and
they may even join or belong to an association of their respective caste.
That would become just as harmless as one’s surname, be it Savarkar or
Kirloskar. Once

we accept this premise, it becomes easy to place our attitudes towards caste-
based associations.’

In the period of transition, the existence of caste organisations, though

undesirable is inevitable. Those who want to abolish the caste system
should remember that even after another hundred years, these caste-based
organisations are not going to vanish. It is indeed true that the caste system
is a huge obstacle in the progress of our nation. But it is impossible to
demolish that mountain. It is however possible to bore tunnels through it.
So 1 say that the caste-organisations are a necessary evil. Let us take some
reasons why.
* Sometimes it is possible to use poison as a medicine. In a somewhat
similar manner we can use the caste-based organisations. At least it is
possible to organise our people on the basis of their caste. There is no other
banner under which this is possible. Instead of saying that we belong to the
Hindu society / religion or are a part and parcel of a Hindu nation, people
are far more inclined to come together as a caste. That feeling is deep
rooted and hence we should use it for organising our people.

* From birth to death, during daily routines, at the time of all religious
functions, people think themselves as Brahmins or Vani or Mahar or
whatever caste they belong to. That is still the case today. Therefore once a
Vani Sangh is mentioned, even an illiterate Vani in a village feels affinity to
it and this happens without making any efforts. Unfortunately people do not
feel such passion about belonging to a Hindu Sangh or Hindu Nation. It is
no use denying this reality of life.

* Whenever Mr Ambedkar (leader of the untouchables) visits a village,

Mahars there flock to see him. Not because he is a Barrister but because he
is a Mahar Barrister, ‘As he is some one belonging to our caste’. Everyone
frpm the Brahmins to scavengers display the similar attitude. I recently
attended a Vaishya conference at Sangameshwar. I was surprised to see

there even the illiterate old Vaishyas who attended having paid for their
own transport. But had we organised a Hindu conference, even 75% of
those Vaishyas would not have attended even if we paid for their transport.
TTiat reality cannot be denied.

• Once broader caste organisations are formed the sub-caste differences

among people would eventually diminish.

* A Brahmin Mahasabha or All Brahmin Association is bound to cause the

harmonisation of relations with ALL Brahmins. In a way that is good.

* A Bhavasar Kshatriya Sangh brings together various sub-castes such as

Namdev, Kokanastha, Deshastha, Shakta, Vaishnava, Shimpi, Rangari.

* A Vaishya Sangha tries to integrate Sangameshwari, Patane, Narvekari,

Vani and others.
We should therefore encourage such associations, as they are a step fonward
in our final goal to form an association namely that of Hindu Nation.

• There are social tasks which are much more easily carried out by these
caste associations, for example, the educational advancement of students of
a particular caste. If we establish a Society for helping ALL Hindu students,
very few people would contribute, but if such a movement is started by
Mahar Students association or Kunbi Students Association, even the old
illiterate women of those respective castes would contribute. This is the
reality of life. The reason being that they understand their caste and not
anything greater beyond that. The sense of belonging to a caste is deep
rooted as if it is fed with one’s own mother’s milk. Therefore they
contribute in terms of manpower and money to the activities of their caste,
be it for the spread of education, medical help, improvement of health or
prohibition. But they will not contribute if a Hindu Mahasabha or another
national body were to initiate such works.

• Wider-caste associations can be used for the promotion of

breaking down barriers to inter-caste dining and inter-caste marriages.

When Bhavsar Mahasabha proposed that there should be inter-caste
marriages within their group, such marriages have started to take place. No
amount of propaganda or resolutions by Hindu Mahasabha would have that
effect. Because most Shimpis do not understand what a Hindu Mahasabha
is but they immediately recognise a Shimpi Association and feel a natural
affinity to it.

• From the examples given above we can see that these castebased
organisations can spread education, help break barriers to inter-caste
marriages and inter-caste dining and can help abandon harmful customs and
traditions. So, at least, to a limited extent, they are a help to uplift the Hindu
Nation. As long as we have no other means for progress, we should at least
make use of the caste-based organisations. We can indeed achieve a lot by
using them instead of staying aloof from them merely on matter of
principle.

{SSV3 pp 614-624)
Savarkar believed that Caste based organisations were leading steps to
higher goal of national unity.

MIXING OF UNTOUCHABLE CHILDREN WITH THE CHILDREN OF

HIGH CASTES IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THEIR TEMPLE
ENTRY.

We already saw the Herculean efforts Savarkar made for the uplift of the
untouchables. He, of course, supported their movement for the right of
entry into Hindu temples. But he considered the mixing of untouchable
children with those from high caste as far more important. No doubt
education is important for their uplift, but when both sets of children are
taught together, the children from high caste realise that untouchable
children could be as smart and clever as they are. Then the sense of
superiority of one class over the other greatly vanishes. This effect lasts for
the rest of their lives.

That is the utility and benefit of mixed education.

GANESHOTSAVA

Marathas have been worshipping Lord Ganesh, the God of wisdom for
centuries. Lokamanya Tilak started celebrations of Ganeshotsava in public
ini896 to enlighten the people. The festival lasts for ten days, usually in
August/September. Savarkar used these festivities for similar purpose. Let
us see how he used them during 1924 to 1936.

In 1924 Savarkar was in Nasik. On 4*' September, there was a get-together

of the scavenger community in front of Ganesh during the celebrations.
Savarkar was present along with wellknown people like doctors and
lawyers of Nasik. The honour of the opening ceremony was given to the
Mahar community, followed by worships by Mehetars of Kathiawad and
the Dhanagar (shepherds) community. This was arranged by Savarkar.

From 1925 to 1936 Savarkar was present in Ratnagiri during all the
Ganeshotsava celebrations.

1925
On the first day of celebrations the singing group of Mahars came up to the
door of the hall. Many high caste people watched in amazement. On the
second day there was a get-together of women of ALL castes (including the
untouchables) Savarkar’s wife took part in the gathering.

1926

A well-known Brahmin, Siddheshwarshastri Chitrav arrived in Ratnagiri for

taking part in the festivities. He was surprised that Hindus of ALL castes
(including the untouchables) mixed together without any hesitation in the
gathering. On the last day, ALL Hindus together immersed the idol of Lord
Ganesh in water.

1927

Again there was a get-together of women of ALL castes and

ALL Hindus took part in the final ceremony of immersion of the idol of
Lord Ganesh.

1928

Savarkar explained the significance of the Krupan (sword) and Kundalini (a

term used in Hatha Yoga) the two symbols, which appear, on the flag of
Hindu Mahasabha. Ganeshotsava was celebrated in the temple of Vitthal.
Shivu, a scavenger sang devotional songs at that event.

1929

There was a debate on whether the former untouchables should be allowed

to enter Hindu temples. Devotional songs were sung by a high caste and a
former untouchable youth. There was a get-together of women of ALL
castes. At the end, the participants sang Savarkar’s famous song “You and I
are all Hindus and therefore brothers.”

1930

Savarkar’s opponents rebelled. Ganeshotsava was going to be celebrated in

the temple of Vitthal. Savarkar’s opponents proposed that the untouchables
should sit in an area reserved for them outside the temple. Savarkar argued,
‘The Ganeshotsava belongs to ALL Hindus. During the last five years, we
have ignored the caste differences and mixed freely together. The resolution
would be a retrograde step.’ But the opponents did not budge. The motion
was passed. Savarkar left the meeting in protest. Even then, he said, “This
will now be a Ganeshotsava of high caste Hindus only VVe wish it well, as
it will still be a function from a section of the Hindu society.”

Just see how wise Savarkar was. He saw that his opponents were at least
bringing high caste Hindus together. So, he wished them well. Of course he
had to start another Ganeshotsava where ALL Hindus could participate and
at such Ganeshotasava the following functions took place

* There were get together of boys, girls and women of ALL castes.

* A son of a scavenger won prize for singing the famous Gayatri Mantra.
Shivu, a scavenger offered flowers to Lord Ganesh and uttered the Gayatri
Mantra in a clear voice.

At the beginning, Savarkar told his followers to assume that perhaps only
five people would attend, but they had to make a stand. In fact five
thousand people participated, (details are given elsewhere)

1931

There was an elocution competition for boys. The subjects were - Lenin,
and the desirability or otherwise of ‘dining together of people of ALL
castes.’ Devotional songs were sung by a scavenger, Mahars recited Geeta
and the first ‘dining together’ of women of ALL castes (including
untouchables) took place.

1932

Savarkar said, ‘mere getting enlightened is not enough. After the

awakening, we must start to do work. I can understand that there are
limitations to what you can do. But during this festivity at least get
signatures of five hundred people for a pledge to use indigenous goods.’
On the third day, a scavenger sang devotional songs and the participants
touched his feet without worrying about his caste. Th'^re were ‘dinings
together of men of ALL castes’ and a similar one of women of ALL castes.
There was also a Yajna by ALL Hindus irrespective of caste and Savarkar
acted as the host. [some readers may find an apparent conflict in the
behaviour of Savarkar. But all the reforms could never be carried out at the
same time. One has to decide the priorities. In those days, it was highly
significant that ALL Hindus came together, therefore Savarkar became the
host]

1933

Savarkar started delivering his lectures on Manusmruti. We read

about this work elsewhere in the book. There was a ‘dining together of men
of ALL castes’. Dr Chavan, the Civil Surgeon of Ratnagiri was the host. His
wife Mrs Chavan hosted similar function for women.

1934

Savarkar spoke on ‘Vrate andi Vaikalye’ meaning various penances

performed by people on religious grounds. He said, “Your choice of
penances henceforth should be such that in the end they will benefit the
downtrodden. Do something for their uplift..." On the second day
Patitpavandas, a leader of Mahar community explained the pitiable
condition of the lower classes.

1935

Savarkar spoke on Tilak. Even after 15 years since his death, there was no
worthwhile monument to this great leader. Savarkar gave many examples of
orphans and emphasised the need to establish an Orphanage. That would be
an appropriate monument to Tilak, he said,

* Masurkar Maharaj, who has been carrying out Shuddhi or reconversion of

Muslims and Christians to Hindu Dharma attended the festivities. Savarkar
explained the work of Masurkar Maharaj to the audience.
* Men of ALL castes recited Mantras from Vedas.

* Dr Munje, a famous Hindu leader from Nagpur attended. He was publicly

honoured. In the presence of Dr Munje, Mr Sakat, a leader of Matang caste
performed worship according to Vedas in the temple of Patitpavan. At the
end, ALL Hindus sang Savarkar’s famous song ‘You and I are Hindus and
therefore brothers.’ Their were ‘dining together’ of men of ALL castes and
a similar function of women, in honour of Dr Munje.

* On the last day, the effigy of ‘Prohibition to eating together’ was burned.
At the time of the immersion of the idol of Lord Ganesh, ALL the
participants ate Bhajias made by a cobbler.

1936

Following functions were organised

* ‘Dining together’ of women of ALL castes. Mrs Mundkar, wife of Deputy

Collector was the hostess. Mrs Savarkar and Mrs Jagtap, wife of then Civil
Surgeon Dr Jagtap participated.

* ‘Dining together of men of ALL castes’, the host was Mr

Mahadevashastri Divekar.

* Discussion on ‘desirability or otherwise of the caste system.’

* Lecture on Hindutva by Prabhodhankar Thakare (Father of the famous

Shivasena leader Bal Thakare).

‘ Public felicitation of Mr Rajbhoj, a leader of Chamar (cobbler)

community and Mr Sakat, a leader of Matang community. Both
communities were from the untouchable class.

* Lecture by Savarkar on The History of Sikhs.

On the last day. at the time of the immersion of the idol of Lord Ganesh,
participants ate snacks served by an untouchable. A man from Bhandari
caste who had become Muslim was reconverted to Hindu Dharma.
(Above information is contained in Ratnagiri Era by Balarao Savarkar)

In Kirloskar magazine of September 1935 Savarkar wrote “Now start a

Ganeshotsava of ALL Hindus." He said

From the very beginning Ganeshotsava has been meant for some practical
benefit of the society. It is a public celebration. The idol of Lord Ganesh is
not just an idol of God. but also a symbol of Hindu nation. Lokamanya
Tilak had turned the festivities into a channel for public awareness. In a
Hindu Ganeshotsava, people of all castes should be on the executive
committee. The carriage of Ganesh should be lifted by Hindus of ALL
castes. The worship, according to Vedas, should be done by a former
untouchable; everyone should participate in mass devotional songs. Until
recently, it was a tradition that at least one Brahmin should be invited for
lunch. In a similar way, until the time when the castes would be forgotten,
at least one former untouchable should be

invited for lunch. There should be ‘dining together’ of ALL Hindus.

Participants should try to break the old harmful traditions while celebrating
this 10-day festival.

(Ratnagiri Era pp341/2)

Savarkar has clearly indicated how the Ganeshotsava can be used for social
work and reforms.
On 23 July 1928, Savarkar wrote in
the local newspaper Balawant. He
said
“During the months of Shravan and Bhadrapad ( August / September )
Hindus celebrate many religious functions. Just consider how much sugar
has to be imported for that. Therefore, at least during these two months,
people should use only indigenous sugar. It may cost a bit more, but we
should not commit the sin of using foreign sugar for our religious
functions.” (R Era p 171)

Savarkar was using the existing religious feelings to gear them for the
national work in support of Indian industries.
USE THE BRITISH
ADMINISTRATION
In June 1932, Savarkar, on behalf of the Hindu Sabha of Ratnagiri, made an
application to Mr Simington, ICS, with special responsibility for the
depressed classes. In it, he emphasised, “Once the children of all castes
(including untouchables) are educated together, they will not in later life
observe caste division and thereby will not regard any one high or low.
Teaching the children together will also reduce the rift that exists between
the various castes at present. It will also reduce the rift further in their later
lives. We therefore plead that the Government should insist on the strict
following of its own circular of 1923 and ensure that the mixing of all
castes takes place in schools.

“Moreover, some schools are termed ‘Schools for the lower

classes.’ This creates a feeling of inferiority among its students. The very
name suggests that they ARE somehow low. Such names should not
therefore be used.”

(Ratnagiri Era p256)

Savarkar always wanted to oust the British from India, but when some
public good could be achieved by the Rules and Regulations made by the
British, he did not hesitate to use them - that is how he practised the
principle of‘utilisation of all human activities’.

AFTER RELEASE FROM INTERNMENT (1937 TO 1966)

USE THE RAJAS AND MAHARAJAS

* After his release from internment, Savarkar gave a public speech in

Kolhapur on 20 June 1937. He described how we could utilise the Princely
states to our advantage as long as they exist.
Some of our leaders say that our Princely states are a disgrace and should
be abolished. I say that such states are the remnants of our past history. The
Rajas may not have the authority any longer, but it is not right to ridicule
them. When we see a statue of Lord Rama we remember Ramayan. These
Princely states remind us of our forefathers, their bravery, and their
triumphs. The soil of Panipat reminds us of the hundred thousand Marathas
who laid down their lives in the battle of Panipat in 1761. In this state
(Jodhpur) we proudly carry out our processions in front of Mosques (which
you could not do in British India, because of partiality of the British
officers, and cannot do now on account of the cowardice of Congress
Ministers).

Those who are miserable, always cry for paucity of means instead of using
those ready at hand. It is possible to get more work done through the
Princely states with whatever limited powers they have. You know how I
struggled for the uplift of the untouchables in Ratnagiri. I could only open
up a few schools for

them. But here in Kolhapur, with the progressive Chhatrapati Shahu

Maharaj, much more was done for the benefit of untouchables. The Princely
states are source of such reforms. If they are not being utilised it is not the
fault of the Princes but of their administrators. If we convince one Maharaja
to accede to our cause, it is equal in importance to bringing as many as
50,000 people to our side.

For the sake of comparison, we can say that the people in the areas under
the British rule are lame, whereas those in Princely states travel by bicycles
or cars. Just look at the progress made by the Maharaja of Baroda. Under
the British rule, there have been many movements for making Hindi the
language of administration (without success). But in Baroda, the Maharaja
introduced that reform at the stroke of his pen. Therefore his subjects
started to learn Hindi. We should therefore wish our Hindu Princely states
well. They should be retained for their assistance in the removal of
untouchability, co-operative movement, industrial progress and such other
reforms. Their kingdoms should not be amalgamated with British India.

* On 24 January 1938, Savarkar said at Baroda

We erect statues of great men. But these Princely states and their miers are
themselves living monuments of those great men. It is true, some states are
backward, but others are progressive and are carrying out good reforms.
Here, in Baroda, the Maharaja has made the primary school education
compulsory. British administration does not make that provision. The
Governors and the Governor General get 10,000 Rs per month in salary.
But that money is not used for education. We form ministries in the
provinces so that we can use the powers available under the political
reforms. But then, surely, the Princely states have more power, which can
and must be used for our benefit.

Shivaji Bhonsle and Damajirao Gayakwad became Kings even though they
were bom commoners. I have no doubt that their descendents would
undoubtedly relinquish their power and

authority and become citizens of free India, (in other words Hindu Princely
states would amalgamate with free India)

(H MS Era p 74)

* Within a few days of the above speech, Maharaja of Indore outlawed the
untouchability in his state. In a statement on 8 March 1938, Savarkar
congratulated the Maharaja.

(HMS Era p 86)

* Now here is a news item in June 1939.

The unarmed struggle for the legitimate rights of Hindus in the state of
Bhagyanagar (Hyderabad) was in full swing. Nizam, the ruler of that state
tried to crush the movement by barbaric punishments. And yet, at the same
time, Jivajirao Shinde, the Maharaja of Gwalior declared that there would
be increased public participation in his administration. The old institutions
of Majalise-am and Majalis-e-khas will be abolished. In its place a
Prajasabha (people’s assembly) will be established. It will have 75
members. 40 will be elected by the people, 15 will be Government officers
and 20 will be appointed by the Maharaja. The Legislative Assembly will
be called Samantsabha. It will have 20 members. As soon as the Maharaja
announced these changes, Savarkar put out a statement congratulating the
Maharaja. He also said, “We have been propagating that our Hindu Princely
states are progressive and are interested in public welfare. This latest
declaration by the Maharaja of Gwalior is a testimony to that. I sincerely
hope that the Maharaja and his councils will make good progress towards
the welfare of the people of Gwalior.”

(HMS Era p235)

* In his speech at Madura on 1 May 1940 again Savarkar pointed out the
reforms being carried by Hindu Maharajas.

In the state of Travancore, the Maharaja has done quite a lot for the uplift of
Eravas who are regarded as untouchables. He has declared the temples in
his state open to untouchables. He has

abolished the untouchability. And who did all this? A Hindu Maharaja,
whom the Congressites regard as useless. We have not been able to see such
reforms in Karnavati (Ahmedbad) or in Nasik. Therefore our Hindu states
are a source of enormous energy. If we use them, considerable progress can
be achieved. (SSV4 pp 522/3)

Other Indian leaders including Dr Ambedkar, without referring to above

examples of reforms by Hindu Rajas, used to denounce Savarkar as a
reactionary.

Aim of literature . u

In 1938, Savarkar was elected the President of Maharashtra

Literary’Conference. In his presidential speech, he bluntly said,

“I say to our youth, throw away your pens and bear arms.

After explaining the constructive work that the literary conference could do
Savarkar answered the question, ‘What is the aim of literature’ ? He said,

“When we talk about an aim, it should naturally supersede any personal

likes and dislikes, moods, interests and should relate more to our duty as a
group. The aim of our life should be to achieve maximum benefit to the
maximum number of people under whatever circumstances.”

“The ultimate or the paramount aim of literature must also be the same. It
must provide maximum happiness and entertainment, which are relevant to
the times for the human race. But mere entertainment for the sake of
entertainment is not the aim of producers of literature. If some one is
enjoying a musical concert while his mother is on death-bed, he cannot be
regarded as a dutiful son. Because the enjoyment of music at such a time is
inappropriate.”

(S S V4 p481)

Savarkar then expands on this theme and appeals to the youth

646 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

to throw away their pens and bear arms.

What did the agitation in
Bhagyanagar (Hyderabad)
achieve?
In May 1939, Savarkar started the unarmed resistance in the State of
Hyderabad for the legitimate rights of Hindus there. Afterwards in a speech,
he said, “It remains to be seen what practical benefits are obtained from this
struggle, but there has certainly been one very important benefit. Until now,
the Hindu society was disorganised and disunited. That situation has
changed. As soon as we made an appeal for the participants, Hindus all over
India responded enthusiastically and have become united. Hindus all parts
of India are affected by the hardships of Hindus of Bhagyanagar
(Hyderabad) otherwise Hindu volunteers from Calcutta to Dwaraka (East to
West) from Lahore to Madras (North to South) would not have taken part in
this struggle.

We made resolutions for this struggle in Solapur and Nagpur. At that time,
we felt that in the last 80 years we never raised our voice against the
injustice, so how could we make a resistance now. But today Hindus have
been enlightened. We have volunteers from all provinces, Punjab, NWFP,
U.P, C.P and Bengal. They include people of all sects. There are for
instance Aryasamajis, Sanatanis, Jains and Sikhs. This has proved that,
though we have differences, we also have the ability to forget them in times
of crisis. This struggle is a testimony to that.

(S S V4 PP383-388)

Savarkar stated that this agitation had proved that Hindus could unite as a
force against the aggression. That tremendous force has been brought about
in this struggle irrespective what the ultimate result might be- This is truly
the best utilisation of human resource.
WORLD WAR II - UTILISE IT
FOR OUR BENEFIT
During the World War II Savarkar had emphasised all the time that Indians
should see how the war could be exploited to their

647/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar advantage. Let us take some examples

On 5 November 1939 (i.e. within 2 months of the outbreak of war) Savarkar

inaugurated Hindu Youth Conference in Kolhapur.

He said

“We must see how we can use this war for the benefit of our nation. We pay
taxes and therefore are entitled to seek military training from the rulers.
Hindus should now take lessons in military tactics and warfare from any
possible source. First of all, learn to use firearms. You can decide later
when and how that knowledge could be utilised. Circumstances will dictate
that

decision.”

(HMS Era pp281/2)

On 28 December 1940, Savarkar spoke as the President of Hindu

Mahasabha, at its annual session in Madura.

“Under the present circumstances there is no reason for helping England

unconditionally. On the contrary, we ought to think how we can turn the
war situation to our advantage and for our defence.”

“While doing that, we should not be concerned un-necessarily about our

weaknesses nor should we boast of our strength. We

should consider what can be realistically achieved.”

“When two powerful countries go to war, it is quite possible for a country
enslaved by one of them to resort to armed uprising and seek its
independence. But at present we are disunited, divided and unarmed. Hence
that course is not possible. Moreover it is not right for Hindu Mahasabha or
any other political party to discuss such a possibility openly. This is not out
of any moral values that armed uprising should not be discussed, but
present circumstances preclude that discussion. On the other hand, it is
absurd to think that only non-violent methods are moral. 1 just say this
much that only relative non-violence is a virtue. The

non-violence of Jain and Buddhist kings was quite different from Gandhi’s
non-violence. Jain and Buddhist scriptures state that those who murder
sages (monks) should be killed.”

“But the British are crafty. They do not want the military spirit to be kindled
among Hindus. That is why they praise Gandhi. I would not be surprised if
Gandhi is allowed to preach his nonviolence so long as the war effort of the
British is not hindered. I go further and say that there has been a secret deal
between the British rulers and Gandhi in which it was agreed that the
British would propagate that Gandhi’s non-violence became successful. We
must condemn such killing of our martial spirit. That is the need of today.”

[What Savarkar said has been proved to be true now even after 60 years.
Why did Britain and America praise Boris Yeltsin so much, after the year
1990? Because he made Russia a nonentity. Now America can do what she
likes unchallenged.]
Turning to Savarkar’s days, let us
take three examples
* In May 1921, after Savarkar was returned to mainland India from the
Andaman Islands he met an Indian Police Constable at Alipore jail. He told
Savarkar,

“Now we are going to get Independence within two or three months. There
is a Yogi called Mahatma Gandhi, who is not affected by bullets. The
British are unable to keep him in jail. As soon as he feels like coming out,
he does so.”
Savarkar explained
“The fact was that Gandhi was given some short and long term prison
sentences and as soon as he felt like coming out, it was also the end of his
prison term. But the interpretation of these incidents and their impressions
on the minds of the ordinary people was astonishing.”

(My Transportation for Life p 496)

* Principal Pralhad Keshav Atre (commonly known as Acharya Atre) was

one of the opponents of Savarkar. In his election speeches in 1945/46 Atre
said,

“Now Gandhi has given us Ahimsa (non-violence) as an invincible weapon.

As soon as we say ‘Ahimsa’, our enemies are terrified."

* Purushottam Laxman Deshpande, the famous humorist of Maharashtra

wrote a drama in the 1950s entitled ‘Sundar Mee Honar’. In the drama, one
of the characters says to other, “Mahatma Gandhi said, ‘Quit India’ and a
mighty empire collapsed.”

Savarkar continued (28 December 1940), “So, as I was saying, we should

use the opportunities presented by the present situation for the militarisation
of our youth and for industrialisation. We should not throw away such a rare
opportunity simply because Gandhi cannot visualise it. I must remind you
that even the moderates of Tilak’s generations had demanded time and
again that the Aims Act of 1858 by which Indians were disarmed should be
repealed. They were far more wiser than the followers of Gandhi today. The
Congress Party came to power in seven major provinces in 1937 and
remained in office for 27 months. But they paid no attention to impart
military training to our youth. On the contrary, Muslims never bothered
about non-violence and their percentage in the Armed Forces is quite high.
Dr Munje (of Nagpur) and Bhai Paramanand (of Punjab) had realised the
Muslim game and have been trying to counter it. Gandhi’s obsession with
non-violence killed the martial spirit in Hindus.”
“Over the last three years I travelled from Punjab to Madras and made
people aware of the need to impart military training to our youth. The
question that constantly haunted me was HOW this could be achieved. This
war has now provided the solution. Britain, in her self-interest, has decided
to impart military training to our youth. Hindu Mahasabha has decided to
take the full advantage of this opportunity and .support the British

Administration in this respect. I say to you that after one year, our efforts
have been largely successful.”

“I say once again that Britain has decided to militarise our youth and
support the growth of new industries in their own self-interest. We have
also decided to co-operate with them but in our interest.

I have to say this explicitly because many of our people have some wrong
ideas in their head about co-operating with the British. Their misgivings
and fears need to be repelled. Some feel that there can be no areas of
common interest between Britain and India. The irony is that the very men,
who co-operated with the British, took oath of allegiance to the British
crown in order to become ministers, are now blaming us for co-operation
with the British when we are offering that co-operation for the sake of
achieving the militarisation of our youth. We must realise what is important
to us, and not pay any attention to the remarks of Congress leaders.”

“Russia and Germany are powerful nations. But overnight they came
together for their common interest by signing a pact on 23 August 1939. So
why should we be afraid of co-operating with Britain on specific issues?
Any one who always fears that his enemy will deceive him deserves to be
deceived and get killed. Let us assure ourselves that we will match British
craftiness. Let us be confident of ourselves and we will win.”

“In the last year, due to the encouragement from Hindu Mahasabha,
thousands of Hindu youth have enlisted in the armed forces and as a result,
the percentage of Muslims in armed forces has been reduced from 75% to
33%. Moreover Hindu youth are proving their fighting capability.”

“In the Navy, the number of Indians was small but more than 75% were
Muslims. With encouragement from Hindu Mahasabha many Hindus have
now joined the Navy. In the days of Shivaji, in the 17^ century the coastal
town communities once fought with the navy of the East India Company.
Today, in 1940, those

communities considered it a sin to join the Navy. But now the Agaris,
Bhandaris, Kolis and other communities in Konkan are joining Navy. They
are rapidly learning the modern technology.”

No Hindu leader of Congress party was concerned about or had realised the
danger of this huge proportion of Muslims in the armed forces. They were
blind to the reality. There is no mention of this problem in the writings of
Gandhi, Nehru or Bose. The only exception is that of Dr Ambedkar. Let us
see what he said.

“In the Central Legislative Assembly, question was raised since 1930 about
the percentage of various communities in the Indian Army. Viceroy’s
Councillors had always declined to answer the question. Finally the
Secretary of State for India gave statistics on 8 July 1943 to the House of
Commons (London).

Communal Composition of the Indian Army

Muslims 43%

Hindus & Gurkhas 50%

Sikhs 10%

Christians and the rest 6%

The information given by the Secretary of State is indeed very welcome.

But this is the wartime composition of the Indian Army.

The peacetime composition must be very different.What we

want to know is the peacetime composition of the Indian Army That

remains an unknown fact and a subject of speculation.”
“Some say that the normal pre-war proportion of Muslims was between 60
and 70 per cent. Others say that it is

somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent.Even

if the proportion be 50% it is high enough to cause alarm to the Hindus. If

this is true, it is a flagrant violation of weilestabiished principles of British
Army policy in India, adopted after the Mutiny (of 1857).”

Ambedkar then refers to the various reports, which conclude that it would
be highly dangerous to have any community represented in the Army out of
proportion and similarly it is dangerous to rely on any one community for
soldiers also. And yet, the British relied heavily on Muslims from North
West Frontier Province and Punjab to provide for soldiers. Ambedkar
expresses surprise at this. We pity him. He did not know the British
mentality. The British would be prepared to face annihilation but would
always support Muslims and despise Hindus.

Ambedkar continues, “ The realist must take note of the fact that the
Musalmans look upon the Hindus as Kaffirs, who deserve more to be
exterminated than protected. The realist must take note of the fact that while
the Musulman accepts the European as his superior; he looks upon the
Hindu as his inferior. It is doubtful how far a regiment of Musulmans will
accept the authority of their Hindu officers if they are placed under them.”

Ambedkar was astonished at the childish belief of Congress leaders that the
Indian Army with such huge proportion of Muslims (75%) would remain
under their control. He says so openly. However, he does not praise
Savarkar for noticing this danger and trying to address the issue.

(Thoughts on Pakistan pp 71 to 101)

We referred to Shahid Hamid before. He was A.D.C. to Field Marshall

Auchinleck, and in that capacity he had access to all the secret documents.
In his diary published in 1986 he says

September 1946
P 104. It is seldom realised that his (Auchinleck’s) Command has rapidly
expanded and administrated and trained some two million (20 lakhs) who
fought in the war. Of these, 63 per cent were Muslims.

This figure relates to soldiers. What about officers? Shahid Hamid says

July 1946

P 83. More than 1,000 ex-students of Aligarh (Muslim University) are now
serving as officers in the Indian Defence Forces, (Disastrous Twilight by
Major General Shahid Hamid, 1986)

Now suppose Savarkar had not supported the drive to recruit Hindu youth
in the Armed Forces, what disaster would have fallen on India! Imagine
Indian Armed forces with Muslims accounting for 75% of soldiers and
officers. Would such an armed force have remained under the control of
Nehru and Patel? No Way. The whole of India would have become
Pakistani!

Let us look at the question - why military training?

Apart from helping to gain Indian independence from the British there is
also another reason why Savarkar emphasised the need to impart Military
training to Hindu youth.

Military training gives a sense of discipline and imparts many qualities such
as - team-work, building up of comradeship, planning, dealing with
unexpected problems, daring acts, management of men and resources,
problem solving, making best use of resources, making decisions, ready
wittedness and resourcefulness.

If we look at the Western powers we realise that their political leadership

came from military ranks. No leader had shied away from military training.

For example —

Duke of Wellington - British P.M after defeating Napoleon. (1828-30)

Churchill - Fought in one of the Afghan Wars and the

Boer War (S Africa). Wartime Prime Minister of Britain.

Clement A Wee - Major in British Army during World War I,

Prime Minister (1945-51)

Harold Macmillan Ted HeathPaddy Ashdown — Tony Benn Lord

Linlithgow FD Roosevelt

Fought in World War 1. British Prime Minister for 14 years Major in the
Tank Regiment during World War II,British Prime Minister (1970-74)
Leader of Liberal party, was an officer in the Royal Marines.

His father was Col Wedgwood Benn, his brother was killed in action in
World Warll his son was captured by Germans during World War II,
Viceroy of India 1939-43. his four sons served in the armed forces during
World War II. U S President for 14

Eisenhower J F Kennedy

De Gaulle

years.

Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Western Europe U S President

1953-61. His elder brother Joseph died as an officer in U S. Air Force
during World War II. U S President 1961.

General in the French Army. Became President in 1958.

Now let us return to Savarkar’s speech of 28 December 1940. He continued

—

“Now the British Government plans to raise an army of 500,000 men in

India. This large number of soldiers needs officers. It is impossible for
Britain to supply them. Therefore in sections of armed forces where Hindus
were not recruited, the British are forced to admit hundreds of Hindus to
join the officer cadre.”
“Even then, the British Authorities are not ready for the compulsory
military training for our youth, although some Universities are making such
a demand. Only a year ago, the Government of India has been propagating
that it will take 50 years to train Indians as soldiers as they have no martial
tradition. And now, as the necessity arose, the same administration is
producing soldiers within six months. England would soon realise

that not only one million (ten lakhs) but 10 million Hindus are able to
complete military training and fight shoulder to shoulder with the British
soldiers.”

“New army needs rifles, guns, ammunition, explosives, tanks and vehicles.
Our youth are getting the knowledge to produce them. Seth Valchand
Hirachand has been given the Government grant to start a shipbuilding
yard. He has also been given licence to build aeroplanes in Bangalore.
Moreover there are moves to manufacture heavy machinery and the British
are also encouraging chemical industry. Until now they were obstructing
such industrial establishments, now they are encouraging them because they
have realised the importance of the need for India’s self-sufficiency in this
matter.”

[An excellent parallel was seen in 1950/51 when the Korean War led to the
industrial revival of Japan. America was forced to do this.]

“I bluntly ask you - would the Hindu Mahasabha or the Congress Party ever
be able to make such progress in a year or two? Even if we wished, the
British rulers would not have given their consent. We could not even
conduct classes on how to use batons on such a scale. We have an
opportunity to obtain an up-to-date knowledge in the military training for
Army, Navy and Air Force for thousands of our youth. Are we to turn down
this opportunity simply because some fools say that this amounts to
collaborating with the British or that it encourages violence? We will be
fools to miss this opportunity.”

“This military build up will provide jobs for millions and provide food,
cloth and shelter to their families.”
“We have to realise that until now English were not prepared to impart
military training to our youth. They were used to the politics of ‘Balance of
Power’ in Europe, and supported one nation against the other to protect
British interests. But now things are different. There is a grave danger from
Japan on the Eastern front. The

Japanese have declared their intention to liberate Asia. Therefore, Britain

knows that it must raise a huge army in India to fight the Japanese. In
Europe, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin are very powerful, 't will be impossible
for England to send arms, ammunitions and army personnel from there to
India. Britain needs our help As Japan moves forward to India, Britain
would have to raise an army of 2 million Indian soldiers under Indian
''itirers. So. what we badly needed, England is willingly giving to us. Let us
not be misguided by some critics and instead rekindle the fighting spirit
among our youth.”

“I must warn that it Hindus do not take advantage of this opportunity,

Muslims would gladly co-operate with the British. They will gain the
training and knowledge of modern warfare. Thus we would make the folly
of helping our other enemy with untold disastrous consequences for our
future.”

(HMS Era pp 400/404)

In his speech at Nagpur on 13 April 1941 Savarkar said This World War has
presentee a golden opportunity to us. In 1857, our soldiers tried an armed
uprising against the army of the East India Company. There was another
attempt during the First World War. Now the Second World War has broken
out. We should take the advantage of it. Until now, the revolutionaries had
to smuggle pistols and bombs. But now the British Authorities are giving
them in the hands of our youth. I have never made a secret of the need to
undergo military training with the ultimate aim to achieve our
independence. I have even told the Viceroy that I am encouraging our youth
to join the armed forces for gaining knowledge and then for defending our
freedom. At present we have to obey the orders of the British. I have not
guaranteed what would happen in the future.
One has to be a crook in politics. We can make a treaty with the British for
our own interest. Therefore I urge you to join the Army, Navy and Air
Force. The British are facing danger on all the fronts. Take advantage of
that situation. We are not ashamed of

going to England to bocome Barristers. So, why should we be ashamed of

approaching the British for military training? They know why I am asking
you to enlist, but they are accepting you because they need you. Today’s
army needs educated men. Such men should therefore join in and learn
military training for seeking the knowledge and then defending our
independence.

(S UI Era p31)

What a pity that even such explicit wordings have been easily forgotten by
the followers of Gandhi who branded Savarkar as a stooge of the British.

On 9 April 1942, Savarkar put out a statement explaining why he rejected

the Cripps Proposal. In it, he said

Now the war is fast approaching our shores. Therefore it is imperative that
Hindu youth join in the armed forces and Civil defence forces and be well
trained in the use of arms and armaments. This will be useful in repelling
any aggressors and also defending ourselves from the thuggery of Muslims
in the future Moreover this training, the fighting spirit, discipline and
efficiency would be useful for our nation after the independence. (S U I Era
p 79)

In March 1944, Sir Alfred Watson addressed a meeting of the C ast India
Association of London. He said, “Savarkar is enc''uraging the Hindu youth
to join in the armed forces, not for he'ping the British. He has the foresight
to visualise that such military training would enable Hindus to face dangers
in the fi iture.”

S U / Era p271)

Many of Hindu Mahasabha workers were of the opinion that like the
Congress Party they should join in a Satyagraha so that they would get
elected in the future elections. Savarkar touched on this feeling among
many of his supporters in his speech of 28 December 1940. He advised

I appreciate that many of our party workers are eager to court

imprisonment, so that, come eiections, they could say that they too have
faced the imprisonment like the Congressmen. However, what is the
purpose of winning the elections? Is it not primarily to protect Hindu
interests? I am equally anxious to win seats in the next elections. However
if, to win elections, we have to sacrifice the ‘protection of Hindu interests’
then, is it not better that we should not worry about winning elections in the
future.

Today, it is our duty to support the militarisation and industrialisation of our

country that would naturally follow with our present demand. That is of
vital importance to our future. There is a possibility that by following this
path, Hindu voters, unable to understand our policy, would not vote for us.
But then, is it not better not to appeal to the foolhardy Hindu voters than
abandon our work of national importance? If the voters realise the sacrifices
we have made during our struggle for the legitimate rights of Hindus in
Hyderabad, they would know that our workers had suffered far more
hardships in Nizam’s prisons than what Congressmen had suffered at the
hands of the British. If we had been after ministerships alone we could have
easily changed overnight and joined the Congress Party. But we are not
crazy after power or for public applause but only for their good. Therefore
we pay more importance to the militarisation and industrialisation. If by
protecting interests of the Hindus we lose forthcoming elections, so be it.
That is the true patriotism.
Now let us recapitulate some of
Indian history.
In July 1937, the Congress Party came to power in seven major provinces,
namely U.P, C.P, Bihar, Orissa, Bombay and Madras andNWFP.

Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939 and thus began the
World War II. Instead of taking advantage of the war. Congress ministers
resigned. They lost what power they had. It was an act of utter folly. Jinnah
and his Muslim League thanked Allah for the resignations of Congress
ministries. At this juncture.

even Subhashchandra Bose who had been already expelled from the
Congress insisted that Congress ministers must resign. Later he realised the
folly of that action. When he met Dr N B Khare in 1941, Bose said to
Khare, ‘If there is an opportunity to form the ministry in the C.P please do
so or if you are invited by the Viceroy to join his Council, do accept it. My
friend, at a time like this, persons like you should be in power.’

Jawahariai Nehru wrote shortly afterwards, “We thought that after the
resignations of Congress Ministries, the democracy loving British would
call for new elections. But nothing of the kind happened.”

The governors, however, were anxious to avoid new elections. ....They did
not dissolve the legislatures but merely suspended them, and assumed all
the powers of the provincial governments and legislatures. They became
autocratic heads of provinces, making laws, issuing decrees, and doing
everything else they wanted to without the slightest reference to any elected
body or to public opinions.”

(Discovery of India p450)

How stupid can one bel But simple-minded Hindu voters thought that the
Congress leaders made supreme sacrifices, relinquished power to abide by
their principles and they were great patriots.

On 9 August 1942, Congress Party started the Quit India movement. After
the initial furore, it subsided in five months. On 10 February 1943, Gandhi
started his famous fast. The British had unlimited powers for the war
situation under the Defence of India Act and power to censor news. If they
wanted to, they would not have allowed the news of Gandhi’s fast going
beyond the gates of Agakhan Palace where Gandhi was detained. But with
their blessings, the news spread all over India. It made headline news in
Indian newspapers. They reported - Gandhi’s fast unto death. Even in
remote villages, where people had to walk miles to collect their post, the
news spread. Why? Because the British

wanted the public attention to be diverted away from Savarkar’s activities

of encouraging militarisation of Hindu youth. Now, everyone started to
shout Bapu! Bapui! There were daily bulletins about his health. The whole
country was discussing his temperature; blood pressure and what have you.

Were the British gullible that they did not know the grave consequences if
Gandhi had indeed died of fast? No. They were very shrewd. They knew
very well that the fast was a farce but it would help Congress win elections
whenever they were held. The fast was intended to put pressure on Hindu
ministers in Viceroy’s Council. Bapusaheb Ane, Sir Modi and Sarkar
resigned so that they would not be blamed if Gandhi died. NO MUSLIM
minister resigned from the Viceroy’s Council. Ane, after his resignation,
met Gandhi and remarked, “My God, this old man is quite well. I thought
he was on death bed.” But, by that time, Gandhi’s prestige had reached its
zenith. He suspended his fast because of some divine revelation, but that
fast provided a trump card for the Congress Party. Elections were held in
1945/46. Congress Party workers said, “When Bapu (Gandhi) went on fast
unto death, what was Savarkar doing? He was helping the British with their
recruitment drive (recruiting soldiers that is). Long live Gandhiji.” One can
verify this from contemporary newspapers. No one asked the question - if
Gandhi’s fast was really unto death, how come he is alive today? Congress
Party fully utilised the gullibility of the Hindu voters - for betraying them
again!!
And what were the Muslims doing
during this turmoil? Shahid Hamid
telis us,
“The Muslim League kept out of the agitation and took no action, which
would embarrass the Government. In fact they deplored the action of
Congress in no uncertain terms and thus gained the sympathy of His
Majesty’s Government (in London) and that of the Government of India.
They improved their strength and influence.”

At the time of Gandhi’s fast in 1943, no one was allowed to see him. There
was only one exception, of Rajaji. Why? Because, he advocated the
acceptance of the partition of India. On 10 July 1944, he published a Rajaji
formula according to which the whole of Punjab and the whole of Bengal
was to go to Pakistan.

1945

On 7 August, America dropped atom bombs on the Japanese cities of

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese surrendered. Then came the news
that Subhashchandra Bose died in a plane accident on The next day Gandhi
called on the mother of Bose to offer his condolences and thus provided one
more trump card for the Congress propaganda. Within a few days I.N.A
soldiers surrendered to the British.

If the I.N.A soldiers were to be tried for treason, why were they not charged
in Imphal (in Assam) itself where they surrendered? Why did the British
Authorities transport them 1,000 miles (1,600 Kms) to Delhi? Once again
that move was meant to help the Congress Party. Let us see, how.

Nehru had utterly condemned the I.N.A. He had said, “If Bose were to cross
the border into India, I would attack him with a sword.” But same Nehru
put on the gown of a Barrister and defended the I.N.A soldiers and
officers!!
Shahid Hamid tells us
“In fact Nehru originally condemned the activities of the INA and had
written accordingly to the C-in-C. But after Bose’s death and the Japanese
surrender he decided to take up their cause. It was a God-sent opportunity
for him as it could be exploited for political purposes. He decided to make
them into ‘Heroes’ and ‘Patriots’. In September 1945, the Congress asked
for the release of the prisoners and set up a Defence Committee to handle
their cases. The Committee included Bhulabhai Desai, Sir Teg Bahadur
Sapru, Kailashnath Katju, Asaf AN and Nehru himself.”

“Bhulabhai Desai was openly saying that the INA trials had given the
Congress the best possibie weapon for propaganda and if the accused were
executed, as was likely, it may iead to an armed revolution, which might be
supported by the Congress.”

(Disastrous Twilight pi9)

Savarkar had decided to support the defence of INA soldiers right from the
start. But he always lacked the manpower and money.

It is absurd to assume that the British did not know what the consequences
of the INA trials would be. They knew that their days were numbered. The
question in their mind was who would cause maximum damage to Hindu
interests? Who better than the Congress Party, came the answer. And their
assumption proved remarkably correct. The British therefore allowed for
the news of Gandhi’s fast in 1943, at the height of World War II. to spread
all over India including the remotest villages and in 1945 they transported
INA soldiers 1,000 miles to Delhi for facing trials to help boost the chances
of Congress winning the forthcoming elections.

In December 1945, the British decided not to proceed with INA trials any
more, as we saw earlier. The ensuing elections were won by the Congress
but only in the Hindu constituencies. They did not win a single seat from
Muslim constituencies. Lord Wavell, Viceroy noted in his diary at that time.
December 1945

“Congress has the support of nearly the whole of the Press,.... They
command almost unlimited financial support; ... they do not hesitate to use
the worst and most violent elements in the population for their purpose....”

(Viceroy’s Journal pp 196/7)

In other words, Congress would not hesitate to use any means, vicious or
foul to win elections. Here is a confession by an admirer of Gandhi, Dr PG
Sahasrabuddhe of Pune. He wrote

“Gandhi once said about Tilak, my beliefs are different from those of Tilak.
Tilak had said that for seeking our independence, he would sacrifice the
truth and ethics. I do not accept that. I would not dilute my faith in Truth
and non-violence even for the sake of our independence. But later, Gandhiji
became a realist. Many times he set aside the morality of means. For his
work, he took money from the Capitalists, which of course had been
obtained by exploiting the Indian workers. He consented to the twisting of
truth when contesting elections.”

RefLokasattela Dandasatteche Avhan, 1962 p 212. In English the title

means Chinese dictatorship challenges Indian democracy.

What more explicit confession do we need?

During the elections of 1945/46, Congress became stauncher Hindu than

Hindu Mahasabha. At that time, Savarkar said, ‘we have forced the
Congressites to wear the holy thread, not only on their bodies but also over
their coats. But I warn you that this a mere show. Once elected they would
betray Hindus.’ That is exactly what happened, as we saw earlier.

It needs to be mentioned here that for the elections In 1945/ 46, only 10%
of population had the vote. There was no universal adult franchise then.
Thus, Hindus who put Congress Into power again In 1945/46 were middle
class, educated, wealthy and well Informed of current affairs. But they were
blind to the reality and their future.
Conspiracy to destroy Hindu Mahasabha

In December 1942, Hindu Mahasabha held its annual session in Kanpur. In

his presidential address, Savarkar mentioned the plot of Congress leaders to
destroy Hindu Mahasabha.

“Just then, the Congress movement of ‘Quit India’ was launched and later
on, it came to my notice that some of the leading Congressites who were
outside the jail had actually conspired to capture the Hindu Mahasabha
itself because it refused to serve the Congress as a handmaid. They wanted
to make the Mahasabha accept the Pakistan at least in principle. What I then
foresaw has been proved to be right by later events. In order to ward off this
danger in time and to expose and frustrate this conspiracy, I resolved not
only not to resign but contest the election. This was the only time when I
actually contested it. Backed up by the wisdom and the overwhelming
confidence of the Hindu Mahasabha electorate, I was again almost
unanimously elected for the sixth time in a continuous succession to the
Presidentship.”

“The session at Kanpur passed uncompromising and emphatic resolutions

not only against the Pakistan scheme but also against the vicious principle
of Provincial self-determination giving them the right to secede from the
central Indian State. The Hindu Militariasation movement received a fillip,
but all attempts to Congressify the Hindu Mahasabha were brought to
naught to the great chagrin of the Congress stalwarts as Mr Rajagopalachari
who publicly bewailed -‘Even those few leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha
who had more or less sympathised with my formula, regarding Hindu-
Muslim Unity fell a prey to the

crowd psychology at Kanpur’.”

(Hindu Rashtra Darshan pp 230/231)

Of course no Congress leader ever thought of splitting the Muslim league.

They could have easily done that, but were only obsessed with defeating
Hindu Maha Sabha. They could have played on fears of Bengalis of the
domination by Punjabis, Shias versus Sunnis, Sindhis versus Punjabis.
There was no love lost between Jinnah and Surhavardi (Bengal chief
minister). But Congress could not take advantage of it and as result Hindus
were massacred by both Jinnah and Surhavardi!!

Even after the partition of India, Congress leaders regarded Hindu

Mahasabha as thorn in their flesh. It has been said by some scholars that
Sardar Patel encouraged Dr Shyamaprasad Mukharjee to secede from
Hindu Mahasabha and form a new Party - Bharatiya Jansangh.

Savarkar touched on the mental anguish and dilemma of many workers of

Hindu Mahasabha. Congress leaders were playing a mischievous and
dangerous game. They knew at heart that the Militarisation of Hindus was
necessary. But Savarkar was doing that any way and would continue to do
so. However this would eventually lead to election victory for Hindu
Mahasabha. So, what could the Congress do?

Congress could launch satyagraha movement, go to jail and make a show

that they were fighting the British for the freedom of India and get Hindu
votes again. So, they were seeking to further their interests on both fronts.
For this they were quite prepared to play a dirty game and depict Savarkar
as the stooge of the British. Why should they not play the duplicity game?
Of course the Satyagraha was to be launched on such terms that made it
impossible for Savarkar and his followers to participate. This is what the
Congress leaders did.

Therefore Savarkar warned his workers, ‘Instead of appealing to the

foolhardy Hindu voters, we need to see what is ultimately in the interest of
our nation.’ If he had not followed that course, we can imagine what
disasters would have fallen on Hindus.

This episode reminds the author of a story from the Bible. Two women
were fighting over a child. Both claimed to be its natural mothers. The
dispute went to the King Solomon. He gave his verdict, ‘cut the boy into
two and let each woman have a half.’ The real mother wept and said, ‘Sir,
please don’t kill the baby. Let it live. Give it to the other woman.’ Solomon
declared that she was the real mother. Savarkar was in a similar situation.

Finally, in his speech on 28 December 1940 Savarkar said,

“I now declare that the British Administration has consented to the demands
of Hindu Mahasabha. As we have asked, both the Viceroy and the Secretary
of State for India have declared that within one year from the end of war,
India will be granted Dominion Status. We asked for a promise, they have
given it. At present they call it British Commonwealth. We should call it
Indo-British Commonwealth. Our second demand was that there should be
no partition of India. The Secretary of State for India has granted that also.”

“Our demands on military build up are also largely accepted, for example
allowing Hindus to the Officer Cadre, production of arms and ammunitions
in India. The British Government has also accepted Hindu Mahasabha as
the main representative organisation of Hindus. There is only one sticking
point; the British are saying that they would not accept a constitution
without the consent of all. We know that this is a mischief, but we would
resolve it in the future.”

“Under the present circumstances, I must emphasise that it is not wise for
our workers to be held in prison as the result of any satyagraha (civil
disobedience movement).”

(H MS Era pp 404/405)

I need to give some explanation here. Savarkar did not say that the British
have given their word, so trust them. Because when their need is satisfied
the British shamelessly say, “Well, we did not say that. We did not give that
assurance. Or even if we did, that is not what we meant. You misunderstood
because your mother tongue is not English.” At times they said, “Well, the
circumstances have now changed (so we cannot keep our promise).” They
do this even today.

At the outset of World War II, the British Parliament annulled, at a stroke,
the political reforms granted by the Government of India Act 1935.

Savarkar wanted to emphasise that if a huge number of Hindu men were

trained as soldiers, the British would not dare change their word.

After World War II French and the Dutch once again established their rule
over their empires in South East Asia. The French suffered a smashing
defeat by Vietnamese at Dien- Bien Phew in 1954. It is only then that they
left Vietnam. The British were much wiser. They avoided such disaster.

In 1966, the question of Rhodesia arose because of UDI by Ian Smith. It

was hotly debated during the meeting of leaders of the British
Commonwealth. During the heated exchanges, Harold Wilson, the then
British Prime Minister told other leaders, ‘Remember, had our Labour Party
not been in power, many of you would not have become independent.’
(Cabinet papers of those days are now available to public). This arrogance
is not supported by history as far as India was concerned. Readers should
refer to two books Viceroy’s Journal by Lord Wavell, 1973 Disastrous
Twilight by Major General Shahid Hamid, 1986

SELF IMMOLATION

No one has been able to avoid death. Savarkar preached that having spent
all our lives for the benefit of others one should calmly welcome death,
when it comes. The letter, which he wrote in March 1945 to his elder
brother Babarao, who was on deathbed, is an excellent example of a
beautiful literature. In life, we find that some people only have sufferings all
their life. Babarao was such a person. Still, like a true Yogi, he lived his life
and did his duty.

In June 1909, Babarao was sentenced to Transportation for Life. But before
he was transported, Mr Jackson, the Collector of Nasik was shot dead by
Kanhere. Police began to search for the source

of supply of pistols. Inspector Gwyder administrated electric shocks on

Babarao, but he did not divulge any information.

When Savarkar arrived in Andaman a year later, there was great curiosity
about this “Barrister” who had tried to escape at Marseilles and caused a
sensation in Europe, who was always escorted by white policemen,
transported individually in police cars and who bore a badge of 50 years
transportation and with a letter D for dangerous on him. Among the
common criminals, a prisoner wearing such a badge was a great hero
indeed.
But Babarao had none of this. He was just another prisoner. He was
extremely badly treated by the prison authorities. He received no medical
help. Savarkar narrates his experiences

Poor Baba

“My health was so badly deteriorating that in 1919 I had to be hospitalised.

But just as I recovered, the health of my brother Babarao collapsed. The sad
thing was that the prison authorities did not pay much attention to it. I still
remember the scene Babarao is unable to control headache due to
hyperacidity and goes to Medical Centre for help. There is a rude and
arrogant Medical Assistant from Madras. He examines Babarao, raises his
eyebrows and stamps his boot on the floor and says, It hurts here. All
humbug. You are deceiving me. Go away.’ Feeling utterly dejected,
Babarao walks away, determined not to go to the Medical Centre, no matter
what. Many of us suspected that he had T.B. He can’t stop coughing. That
was the scene.”

“This Madrasi Assistant was later scolded for his rudeness. Eventually the
Jail Superintendent became suspicious and got the coughing of Babarao
examined. Luckily at that time a Doctor had been sent from India to report
on the conditions in jail. He certified that Babarao had T.B. And yet he was
not given proper medical treatment. His coughing was so bad that other
prisoners w^o heard him coughing got frightened. It felt as if Babarao was
choking. His body temperature was 100 to 102 degrees

Fareinheight. His stomach pained so awfully that he could not stand. He

also suffered from dysentery."

“By 1920, between some hundred and hundred and fifty political prisoners
and some four to five hundred thieves and dacoits were released, on the
occasions of various public celebrations, such as victory of the British in
World War I; many of them had not served even a year. And yet, this great
patriot Babarao was not released even after serving ten years although he
was suffering from T.B. Why? What had he done to deserve this heartless
punishment? All that the British authorities had accused him was that he
had published four poems. In addition he was my brother, so no remission
even when he had T.B.I!”
“But Babarao did not lose his confidence, he did not abandon his principles.
He did not falter from the path of a revolutionary.”

“And yet this was Andaman. Luck had it that he should suffer even worse
hardships at a later day.”

(My Transportation for Life pp 436-438)

In May 1921, Savarkar brothers were sent back to mainland India. That
made life worse for both of them, especially Babarao. They were separated
from each other. All the concessions, which they had won as a result of 11
years struggle in prison, were withdrawn. Babarao was kept in total
isolation in jail in Bijapur (South India) for eight months. Any one else
would have gone insane. Their youngest brother Narayanrao exposed, the
terrible condition in which Babarao was kept in newspapers. After a
considerable public outcry. The British Administration sent Babarao to jail
in Sabarmati (Gujarat). His health continued to deteriorate. Finally when
Prison Doctors certified that he would not live for more than a few days, he
was released. His younger brother Dr Narayanrao and his wife Mrs Laxmi
nursed him day and night and Babarao survived. But as soon as he was able
to walk, he started his activities to awaken the Hindus to the dangers that
faced them. Unfortunately, by that time, circumstances had

dramatically changed. Savarkar v\ras in jail in Yerawada near Pune. He

writes about the events of 1923

“The followers of Gandhi had developed perverse ideas about the

revolutionaries. They regarded us as sinners, who were good for nothing.
Most of the followers of Gandhi were only sentenced for 2 to 21^ years of
simple imprisonment. But they regarded the revolutionaries who had served
more than 10 years in Andaman (at least 1000 miles away from Madras) as
inferior to them.”

“I utterly condemned their attitude and explained to them the great

sacrifices the revolutionaries had made. I also illustrated how, by the
sufferings and struggles put up in prison by the revolutionaries, the jail life
of the followers of Gandhi was made much more easier. The followers of
Gandhi also despised ‘Hindu-Sanghatan’ our movement for the gathering
and organising of Hindus I had to explain to them why the movement
‘Hindu - Sanghatan’ was also necessary under the circumstances.”

(My Transportation for Life pp 555/6)

Under these conditions, one can imagine how badly the Hindu society
would have treated Babarao. Like some followers of Lokamanya Tilak, he
did not do an about turn and become an unguestioning follower of Gandhi.
He did not abandon his principles for seeking cheap publicity. He utterly
condemned Gandhi’s plot to invite the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India.
With huge pieces of evidence provided by Babarao, Mr A J Karandikar of
Pune wrote a series of articles in Marathi on Gandhi’s treachery. In 1939 the
articles were combined in the book ‘Gandhi Muslim Conspiracy’ (in
English)

Briefly Babarao’s work during 1923 to 1943 was as follows —

* Helping Dr Hedgewar with the establishment of RSS (Rashtriya

Swayamsevak Sangh). The two went on various tours together. Babarao
attended some training camps of RSS workers. He

dearly loved M S Golwalkar, the second chief of RSS.

* The magazine Shraddhanand ran from 10 January 1927 to 10 May 1930.

Many articles of Savarkar were published in this magazine. Babarao
collected funds for the magazine.

* Babarao was still in touch with the Revolutionaries. For the mere
suspicion of this, he was interned for three years (1933 to 1936) at Nasik.
At the time of Gandhi-Irwin pact, he went to see Gandhi and requested that
he should plead to Irwin to spare the life of Bhagatsingh. Gandhi,
unfortunately, had no sympathy for Bhagatsingh.

* He condemned Gandhi’s propagation of Urdu mixed Hindi and fought

against Gandhi’s leadership. In the end, Gandhi was forced to resign from
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Hindi Literary conference). Gandhi later founded
another association Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti, Vardha.
* He proposed that the problem of Muslim in India should be solved
according to the League of Nations Formula for the minorities.

Babarao’s thought-provoking literary works in Marathi are

* Rashtra-mimansa (What constitutes a Nation?) 1935

M S Golwalkar translated this into English as ‘We - our nationhood

defined.’

* Hindurashtra - Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (1942). The British

banned this book within 3 month’s of its publication.

* Christ-parichaya (Jesus was a Hindu)

* Why do we need Dharma (Religion)?

* Maratha King Shivaji’s historical visit to Agra (with a completely n»w

perspective)

* Veera - Ratna- Manjusha (a series of books relating to Great Hindu men

and women)

* Biography of Banda Bairagi.

12 years of prison life had left Babarao with severe disabilities. Because of
the pain in his knees, he could not stand up properly. His legs were fully
covered by leggings. He suffered from Migraine. He used to spend nearly
half an hour to discharge

urine. And yet he did so much for the Hindu Nation. Mind boggles to think
how he found energy for that.

Babarao was deprived of all natural happiness. His children died in infancy.
His wife Mrs Yesutai died in 1918 when he was on the Andaman Islands.
After being sentenced to transportation for life in 1909, he never saw his
wife. Still he carried on with his work of awakening the Hindu society to
the dangers of ‘Himalaya n blunders’ of Gandhi’s policies. His writings are
valid even today. The vicious attacks that occurred on Hindus in Gujarat
and Kashmir in 2002 could have been forecast if we had bothered to read
Babarao’s books.

During the period 1943 to 1945, Babarao was bedridden. He knew that his
time was up. Savarkar wrote a wonderful letter to his elder brother in
February 1945. It is an excellent example of literature. He said —

“My dear brother. The aim of our three brothers was one liberation of our
motherland. We have paid our debt to our forefathers who would be proud
of what we have done. Our enemies have coined the phrase ‘Era of
Savarkar’ which would be regarded as Golden Age in the history of our
freedom struggle.”

“Lord Krishna, in Geeta says ‘You should do your duty without expecting
fruits.’ But, to be honest, on two occasions you have turned the tide. You
gave us two slogans ‘Swatantryalaxmi ki jai - Glory to our freedom’ and
‘Hindusthan Hinduoanka nahi kisi ke bapka’-This land (Hindusthan or
India) undoubtedly belongs to the Hindus. On both occasions you have
changed our outlook.”

“In this freedom struggle, many have died. Some will be remembered for a
few days, some will remain unknown. But credit should go to both equally.
And if we have to erect a statue, it would undoubtedly be of persons like
yourself.”

“Now you are seeing death in front of you. Our life has been fully utilised.
Our aim was independence for India. And once you decided that it was your
aim, you never wavered from it. On one hand you faced the horrors of jail
on the Andaman Islands, on the other hand your aim has now been accepted
by millions across the width and breadth of India. But in misery as well as
in happiness, you never faltered from your aim. You did whatever was
humanly possible. Even when faced with death in your thirties, you carried
on with your struggle - what a great satisfaction you must have felt. You
followed Lord Krishna’s teaching.”

“The freedom struggle which you first started has now spread all over India.
And what a great sense of satisfaction that you are now at a stage of making
your final salute at the age of sixty, after fighting for so many years.”
“I say to you that now you welcome death. You met him before many times
in your twenties, thirties and forties. You welcomed him then too, but that
was with a sense of challenge. Your welcome to death implied ‘You want to
come? Come. Who’s afraid of you?’ Today too, you will welcome him but
with a sense of satisfaction of having done your duty. You suffered terribly
in Andaman. But with the changed times, you saw our motherland again.
You met our relations and friends whom you thought you would never see.
Your desire to enlighten the public was hindered by your imprisonment, but
in the end that too was fulfilled. Now you have a right to a deep sleep.
Today, instead of waiting for death, assume that your time is up and
welcome death. Hold his hand as you would hold hand of a friend. You
have nothing left to do. You can say goodbye to all of us in complete
satisfaction. You can now become a part of the almighty.”

Om Shanti! Shantil! Shanti!!! - Let there be peace in the world. (S UI Era

pp 313/4)

Suicide and Self Immolation

In December 1963 Savarkar wrote an article entitled, “Suicide and Self-

Immolation.” He explains the difference between the two.

On the face of it, the purposes of Suicide and Self-Immolation are same,
namely to take life. But the first one is regarded as sinful in most societies,
while Self — Immolation is considered praiseworthy. Let us see why this
difference arose.

Savarkar then gives several historical examples of Hindu men who had
followed Self - Immolation e.g. Kumaril Bhatt who defeated the
propagators of Buddhism, First Shankaracharya, Chaitanyaprabhu, Maratha
Saints Dnyaneshwar, Ram.das, Eknath and Tukaram. He then says, ‘I have
given a few examples to illustrate my point. When a person commits
suicide, it is not that he does not want to live, but he cannot do so
satisfactorily. He cannot live happily and therefore decides to end his life
out of frustration - that is suicide.

In this ever changing and evolving world, there cannot be absolutely

perfection. Great persons, after fulfilling all their obligations and achieving
their life’s purpose, lead lives with contentment.

[ Savarkar, in his last public speech in December 1960, said, “I am

completely satisfied with my life. We never thought we would see the day
when British leave India. What more did I want than see the last British
soldier leave our shore? It is true that three quarter of our country is free,
remainder has gone to Pakistan. But some future generation will liberate
that portion also. Many of my admirers demand that I should be given
honours like Padmabhushan etc, but what is the use of such honours to me?
I live a life of total contentment. My contemporaries like Senapati Bapat
also have that satisfaction. I have no desire left.”]
Savarkar continues
There is a beautiful simile in our scriptures - Yogavashishta Antarikto
bahirikto
Riktah Kumbharivambare
Antah pumo bahir purno Puma kumbharivambare

Their lives are like an empty earthen pot in air - Empty within and empty
without. Or in another sense they are like an earthen pot placed in water -
filled inside and filled outside.

However, when the sages and great men decide that their life’s mission has
been accomplished but the human body is just going to be a burden on
others due to the old age or becoming disease ridden, they decide to end life
by entering fire, or by fasting, or by submerging in sea or by other similar
means. Such a deed is always admired by the society. The attitude of such
great men is well described in the following verse

Dhanyoham Dhanyoham Kartavyam me na vidyate kinchit Dhanyoham

Dhanyoham Praptavyam sarvamadya sampannam

Blessed am 1; Blessed am I.

No obligation remains for me to fulfil.

Blessed am 1; Blessed am I.

Whatever is to be achieved is all achieved here and now.

(End of an Era pp 327/8)

This is precisely how Savarkar behaved. In 1966 he came to the conclusion

that his body was becoming old, the intestines had become weak, he was
not going to be young again. Moreover, he had done whatever he humanly
could do and achieve in his life. So instead of being a burden on anyone, he
decided to

676 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar —

embrace self-immolation. He fasted for 20 days and breathed his last on 26
February.

That is the culmination of his Rationalism.

\Ne saw how Savarkar preached Rationalism all his life to make the Hindu
nation strong, powerful and effective. It is up to us to follow his path and
make his dream come true. It will help to establish world peace.

Good Bye ! God Bless You !!

APPENDICES

*^
ft
h fUiic^allsin of Vifcr SaTtrVja;'

:%"tfrtjt,'ac€' se#-»nirr3C'fc>f^. h^isLstga fq^JiblOby hjsUiSftcn^f fHumff.

(*

■C'. •'J • *■!* - -^

- (rte WBie^ rtnftof! adxvtA poweitA ,.*

(toWcH ^ ii-Tc-. ;TigC hfi^p t&

/Tc'TVe

t/s ft?.

V' * • .

• Jl-‘ ‘iV'i
■«r.

|ftV ■-^'^.t -.- ^

/tv'^l'C-^l

^** ^i3!^•“

-E'

'*^-. , ■ I ,jr^ ca^--*- ViKw ■ ■• ^,fcV *■■ •■; „ ^ ’IM

^ T ^'.' : <'j T :« -'f ■ ■■

• a'^ - i.

♦ r.* ^ .

'M V ' $
:^ • • V; ,

’ ■^'- ' •vifr'-'* ^ *, V-- ’ j,-'

.rr>

._ _ -- - -,•.•! i».- • - - • _ ^- w ■ . . .

V-^ - ; .; •

rT'

-*r # . ^ ^ »■■

Ki-'-' .'i^:.' ' It ,*'.' i'iafr.i’it .t,V m;

i-.-.^1i '-S

f.->

679/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

APPENDIX-A

Punishments meted out to Savarkar by the British during his imprisonment

on the Andaman Isiands

No other Indian leader had to endure such hardships

This was the jail ticket hung around Savarkar’s neck at the Cellular jail in
Andaman Isiands. His duration was 50 years and date of release 23
December 1960.

The letter D stands for Dangerous

680 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar Savarkar working the oil mill

The daily task was to extract 30 pounds of oil out of dried pieces of
coconuts or mustered seeds. An almost impossible task

681 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar

^varkar in back handcuffs

The barfetters are worse than chains. The bars being stiff the prisoner
cannot bend his legs throughout the period, which may extend for months
through which the unbending bars are riveted to his feet and hung up to his
waist.

)S83 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar S^arkar in cross bar fetters

The cross bars are worse than bar fetters. The prisoner under this sentence
cannot bring his feet or legs close to each other. He has to walk, sit, work,
sleep with stretched out feet and legs for weeks.

684 / Rationalism of Veer Savarkar Savarkar in standing handcuffs

A prisoner under this sentence is handcuffed and his hands are locked up to
hook in the wall measuring his height. Hence he has to keep standing hung
up to the wall from 7 A.M to 11 A.M and from 12 to 5 P.M. for a week at a
stretch.

APPENDIX - B

BANDE MATARAM The Oath of The Abhinav Bharat

In the name of God,

In the name of Bharat Mata,

In the name of all the Martyrs that have shed their blood for Bharat Mata,

By the Love, innate in all men and women, that I bear to the land of my
birth.
Wherein the sacred ashes of my forefathers, and which is the cradle of. my
children.

By the tears of Hindi Mothers for their children whom the Foreigner has
enslaved, imprisoned, tortured, and killed,

» I, ...

Convinced that without Absolute Political Independence or Swarajya my

country can never rise to the exalted position among the nations of the earth
which is Her due,

And Convinced also that that Swarajya can never be attained except by the
waging of a bloody and relentless war against the Foreigner,

Solemnly and sincerely Swear that I shall from this moment do everything
in

my power to fight for Independence and place the Lotus Crown of Swaraj

on the head of my Mother;

And with this object, I join the Abhinav Bharat, the revolutionary Society
of all Hindusthan, and swear that I shall ever be true and ** faithful to this
my solemn Oath, and that I shall obey the orders of this

body; If I betray the whole or any part of this solemn Oath, or if I betray
this body or any other body working with a similar object.

May I be doomed to the fate of a perjurer!

APPENDIX —C GLOSSARY

Chapter one - Freedom of Thought and Expression

* British Raj

The British rule in India was called the British Raj

* ICS - Indian Civil Service, a career civil service in India for young
Britons. The recruits came predominantly from 0)dord and Cambridge.
Indians were allowed to join in later years

* Secretary of State for India and India Office

After the unsuccessful Indian War of Independence in 1857/59, the British

Crown took over administration of India from the hands of the East India
Company. It was headed by the Viceroy and Governor General, the former
representing the British crown and maintaining its relations with the
Princely states while the latter was in charge of all the Governors.

At the same time a new post was created in the British cabinet, that of
Secretary of State for India. His office was called the India Office and
occupied the building now housing the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

* India House

This was a students’ hostel in Highgate, London N6, started by Shyamji

Krishnavarma in 1905.

* Ganeshotsva

This is a ten-day festival in honour of Lord Ganesh, the God of wisdom. It

used to be celebrated privately. In 1890s Lokamanya Tilak changed it into a
public function for enlightenment and awareness. Though it is widely
spread in Maharashtra, it is also practised in other provinces. (This term is
used widely in chapter six)

* Vande Mataram

This song is contained in the novel Anand Math by Buckimchandra

Chatterjee. In 1905 the song was banned and became India’s national
anthem.
Chapter four - Why was Savarkar’s image tarnished by his
opponents?

* Indian Provinces

C.P stands for Central Province now it is Madhya Pradesh U.P stands for
United Province of Oudh (Ayodhya) and Agra. After independence it was
called Uttar Pradesh. Therefore the short form U.P continued to be used.

N.W F.P stands for North West Frontier Province

* Ali Brothers.

Maulana Mohammed Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali were commonly known
as the Ali brothers. Though they accepted leadership of Gandhi for some
time, their extreme selfishness was exposed by Savarkar.

* Khilafat Movement

After Prophet Mohammed Abu Bakr succeeded him as Caliph or Religious

and Political ruler of the Muslim world. One has to read Savarkar’s article
Rise and Fall of Caliphs. When Ottoman Turks established their rule over a
vast empire, its Sultan assumed the title of Caliph. Turkey was defeated by
Allied forces in World War I and its empire disintegrated. The British
encouraged the Saudis to become free of the Ottoman rule. That is the story
of the film Lawrence of Arabia.

Indian Muslims devoid of any self-respect were concerned about preserving

the power of Caliph, hence the Khilafat Movement.

Gandhi was so obsessed by the need to seek help from Muslims in Indian
freedom struggle that he decided to support the Khilafat movement when
many educated Muslims like Jinnah were against it. The movement simply
helped to spread Pan Islamic feeling among Indian Muslims. The AN
brothers supported the movement.

When Kemal Pasha came to power in Turkey he abolished the post of

Caliph. But the dangerous Muslim overtones remained in India.
* Jinnah (Mohammed Ali)

A Barrister and leader of the Muslim league. He was very shrewd and took
full advantage of nature of Gandhi and Nehru and forced them to secede
Pakistan where Muslims were in majority. It has to be said that he a great
admirer of Tilak.

* R.S.S (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh)

This was founded by Dr Hedgewar of Nagpur in 1925 to protect Hindus

from onslaught of Muslims. It now has branches all over the world.
English / British
Among Britons the English had been the dominant people.

When East India Company was started in London in 1600, there was no
Great Briton, which came into being only in 1707. India was conquered by
the army of the (English) East India Company. Hence the use of the word
English to indicate any person from Britain.

The word British does not include the Irish. Great Britain came into being
by the amalgamation of Scotland and England in 1707 (Act of Union) One
has to use the word United Kingdom to include Ireland.

In 2002, the BBC broadcast a series entitled Great Britons. On Sunday, 10

November during the programme ‘Points of View’ the Producers had to
explain, “ We decided to include those who were bom in Ireland otherwise
it would have excluded Duke of Wellington and Bob Gildof. Some one
asked, ’ Why were Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II described as Queen of
England.’ Producer said ‘Sorry’. (Points of view presented by Terry Vogan)

In July 2003,1 visited New York. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has created some
parks in the southern part of the city. One of them is dedicated to Churchill.
The memorial plaque reads, “ Churchill was Prime Minister of England
during World War 11."

* Shivaji - the Grejit Maratha King (1630-1680)

He was the Maratha King who overthrew the rule of Muslims in

Maharashtra. After his death the Mughal Emperor invaded Maharashtra
with all the might of his empire, but in the end was defeated after 25 years
and died in 1707 Maharashtra.

Shivajayanti - is the birthday celebration of Shivaji.

Chapter five - Savarkar the Social
reformer
* Marathas

This term has two meanings. Maratha - is a term used to describe all the
people of Maharashtra, one of the major provinces of India.

There is also a caste called Marathas among Maharashtrians.

* Caste system

Caste system was derived from various professions carried by people. The
skills were passed from father to son. It also gave a protection to various
trades. However, in course the system degenerated. Each caste became a
watertight compartment with no inter mixing with others.

There arose broad sections of the society

High class - including Brahmins, Kshatriyas (warriors and

administrators) Vaishyas (business community)

Low class - or the untouchables

This included many who were carrying out essential but dirty jobs for the
society for example - Chamars (cobblers). Unfortunately there was NO
ONE group of people called the untouchables. They were divided into
watertight castes and even sub-castes and had their own hierarchy

* Dr Ambedkar (1891 -1956)

He belonged to the Mahar caste of untouchables in Maharashtra.

Numerically Mahars are not insignificant and therefore are listened to more
than the rest. It may come as a surprise to many but Mahars are also
fighters. There is a Mahar Regiment in the Indian Army. Traditionally
Mahars have also been given certain privileges.

Like Martin Luther King of America, Dr Ambedkar too led movement for
better treatment for untouchables. However, he wanted quick results and got
fmstrated.

In 1946 he proposed that India should be partitioned into Hindusthan for

Hindus and Muslim Pakistan. But he avoided the question where would the
untouchables in Pakistan go?

Despite his rhetoric he could not make Mahars into a homogenous group.
They are still divided into sub-castes.

Ambedkar was the chairman of the Constitution Assembly, which drafted

the Indian Constitution

* Krishna

The two main deities of Hindus are - Rama and Krishna Rama was son of a
King, while Krishna was son of a shepherd.

* Geeta (or Bhagvad Geeta)

In the Epic Maharabharat, Krishna had told life’s philosophy to his disciple
Arjuna on the battlefield at Kurukshetra near Delhi. That is known as
Geeta.

It is interesting to note that Warren Hastings, the first Governor General of

the East India Company was impressed with the philosophy of Geeta. He
got it translated into English.

* Shias and Sunnis

These are two major factions among Muslims. They do not go into each
other’s mosques or share burial grounds. Like the Protestants and Catholics
of Ireland they still fight with each other, resulting in bloodbath.
Majority of Muslims in the world are Sunnis. Shias are about 10 % of
Muslim population.
Chapter six - Savarkar the doer
* Hindu festivals - Dasara, Diwali and Makar Sankrant Diwali is the well-
known festival of lights. It lasts for four days.

Dasara is three weeks before beginning of Diwali. On this day Lord Rama
killed Ravana of Shree Lanka. It is therefore also called Vijayadashami.

It is customary to offer leaves of Sona tree to your friends and relatives as a

token of wealth.

Makar Sankrant - This falls on 10 January and marks Sun’s move north. It
is customary to offer Tilgul (sweets made up of sesame seeds and sugar) to
those who are younger than you.

* Satyanarayan Puja

This Puja is performed throughout the year on a day of one’s choice. It

worships Lord Vishnu. The offerings are called Prasad. The convention is
that one does need an invitation to attend this Puja. It is celebrated in
Maharashtra and many parts of India.

This is a peculiar tradition. In a temple the performer tells a story from the
past with a specific message. He sings many verses to make his point

* Bhajan

This singing of devotional songs. It can be solo or in group.

* Peshwas

1 "[^ 0 S© wGr 6 th© Prim© Minist©rs und©r d©c 6 d©nts of Marstha

Kiny Shivaji. They came to prominence from 1707 onwards under Shivaji’s
grandson Shahu.
Balaji Vishwanath was the first in the family of Peshwas His son Bajirao -I
was an unmatched general of the cavalry. His grandson Bajirao -II lost to
the English in 1818.

* Kesari and Maratha

These were the two newspapers started by Tilak. Kesari was in Marathi
while Maratha was in English.
Chapter nine - Change according
to Countries, Time
and People
* Jalianwala Bagh Massacre

In Amritsar. Punjab, in April 1919 Brigadier General Dyer ordered his

troops to open fire on a crowd of unarmed men, women and children. Some
400 people died and many were wounded. This turned many Moderates
permanently against the British. Nobel Prize winner Tagore returned his
knighthood in protest.

Udhamsingh came to London and avenged this massacre by shooting dead

Sir Michel O’Dwyer the Governor of Punjab at the time the massacre.

* Gadr Party

Savarkar’s friends started Gadr (rebellion) movement in Amenca. His friend

in London Lala Hardayal run newspapers for the party. Large members of
the party were Sikhs and took part in various armed uprisings against the
British. They told Savarkar of their adventures when captured and sent to
Andaman Islands

* The Chaurichura episode.

During Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement of 1920s armed police

stationed Chaurichura fired upon unarmed crowd. But their ammunitions
run out. When the people realised this they surrounded the Police station
and set fire to it. Some 22 policemen died. Gandhi panicked and withdrew
his movement.

* Black hole of Calcutta.

During the days of Siraj-uddaula, he is alleged to have ca'ptured some

English men who were kept in a small room. They are said to have died of
suffocation. When Clive won the battle of Plassey in 1757 he marched on to
Calcutta and when the English became masters of Bengal they erected a
monument (called Holwell monument). This is the infamous Black hole of
Calcutta. It was eventually demolished in 1940.

* Hindu Scriptures

The ancient scriptures are Vedas (Shrutis), Smritis

Vedas - there are tour Vedas, Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and

Atharvaveda. Rigveda is the most important one.

Smritis - these are codes of Conduct. The well-known one is Manusmriti

Vasant Vyakhyanmala Series of public lectures in spring

These were started by Justice Ranade in Pune ini870s for enlightening

people of Maharashtra and increasing their knowledge of various subjects
such as current affairs, economics, science, and technology. It was
considered a great honour to be invited to deliver lectures at such functions
Similar lectures were held all over Maharashtra.
Chapter ten - Utility of all Human
Activities
* Sanyasi - one who has abandoned pleasures of family life. Any one who
wants to be a Sanyasi needs his wife’s permission. On ordination the first
act of Sanyasi is to observe a death ceremony on himself indicating that he
is dead to the world. What happens to his body after death is irrelevant. It
may be burnt or buried.

* Quit India movement

In 1942 Gandhi launched his satyagraha movement against the British Raj.
After the initial uproar for a few months, the movement subsided
A word of Gratitude
* We only see the tip of iceberg. 90% of which remains hidden. In a similar
manner, the contributions made by Hindu wives remain unknown. It has
taken me nearly ten years to complete this monumental work. My wife Mrs
Vinita supported me throughout.

* Pandit Ramakrishnayya of London had very kindly examined the text

minutely and made many suggestions of improvement.

* Hemant Kanitkar of London has heiped me with translations of some

passages and phrases from Marathi and Sanskrit into English.

* Following friends made financial contribution for this book

England
Mr Satyanarayan of London

Pandit Ramakrishnayya of London

Mr Manohar Rakhe of London

Mr Bipin Patel of London

Mr Uday Bhonsle of London

Mr Avinash Kshirsagar of Ilford, Essex

Mr Ninad Chitre of Brighton, Sussex

Mr Arun Bhat of Thornton Heath, Surrey

Mr Shared and Mrs Bharati Kulkarni of Famham, Surrey

Dr Anand Joshi of Gillingham, Kent

Mr Subodh Thakar of Hounslow, Middlesex

Dr Poshakawale of Birmingham

Dr V G Parnaik of Birmingham

Mr Dhirajbhai Shah of Birmingham

Mr Suresh Rajpura of Birmingham

Mr Ratnakar and Mrs Pratima Mande of High Wycombe,

Buckinghamshire ()
Mr Mukesh Patei of Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire Mr D Kathapurkar
of Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire Dr Uday Pathak of Newcastle Dr
Shreedhar Vaidya of Grantham, Lincolnshire Dr G L Bhan of Saddleworth

Dr Madhukar and Dr (Mrs) Vidula Ambekar of Nuneaton, Warwicjshire

Mr Anil Puntambekar of Loughborough, Leicestershire

America
Mrs Malati M Kale of Downers Grove, Illinois

Mrs Urmila Daate of Downers Grove, Illinois Mrs Vrinda Pandav of

Downers Grove, Illinois Mrs Vishnupriya Saane of Kansas City Mr Prakash
Waghmare of West Orange, New Jersey Mr Pradyumna Godbole of
Harleysville, Pennsylvania Mr Prasanna Godbole of Farmington, Michigan
Mr Ashok Basargekar of Orange, California Mr Viraj Sardesai of
Poughkeepsie, New York Mr Ram Sidhaye of Atlanta, Georgia Dilip
Risbud of San Hose, California
Switzerland
Mr Praful and Mrs Vela Kulkarni of Effretikon

Hindusthan (India)

Dr Pravanna Deshmukh of Chennai Mr Datta Hosabale of Mumbai Kamod

Deshpande of Pune Sanjay Athavale of Pune Dr Vijay Bedekar of Thane Dr
Shreerang Godbole of Pune

The author is deeply grateful to all above

About the author
Dr Vasudev Shankar GODBOLE was born in Pune, India in 1941. He was
educated at Bhave School, M.E.S College and the College of Engineering
in Pune. He graduated as a Civil Engineer from Pune University in 1962.
After working for Mumbai City Corporation he came to England in 1966
and has lived there ever since.

In 1978 he read Prof P N Oak’s book on Taj Mahal and became curious
became curious about the truth behind that monument. Godbole has been
involved in historical research after he became convinced that Taj Mahal
was NOT built by Shahjahan. He became deeply engrossed in historical
research. His main concern is how the history of Hindus has been twisted
and falsified by our enemies. His works are as follows

Taj Mahal: Simple Analysis of a Great Deception Why Rewrite Indian

History?

God Save India (Punjab Politics)

Taj Mahal and the Great British Conspiracy Around London in ten hours (A
special tour of places in London, associated with Indian Freedom fighters)

During the birth centenary of Veer Savarkar Godbole wrote articles on

Savarkar for Indian newspapers in England. He also gave three lectures
explaining work of Savarkar in England. He also started to discover places
in London associated with Indian Freedom Fighters and since 1987 he has
been a special one-day tours of such places.

Due to the efforts of Godbole and his friends Late Mr Sonapatki and Late
Mr Pendse, Greater London Council erected a blue plaque on the house in
Highgate, London where Savarkar lived for three years. It was inaugurated
by Lord Fenner Broackway on 8 June1985.

697/ Rationalism of Veer Savarkar -

Dr Godbole is also a qualified Teacher of Mathematics and a Researcher in
History. After living in England for more than three decades, Godbole has
had first hand experience of the deep-rooted anti-Hindu and Pro-Muslim
attitude of the English. They have a large share in maligning the image of
Veer Savarkar.

Godbole always provides references for his quotes. It is astonishing that

Savarkar’s opponents have been saying that Savarkar’s thoughts on various
subjects were absolutely correct, without giving credit to him. The reader
will find illustrations in this book.

The Sun is red at sunrise and sunset. In a similar manner great men never
falter from their thoughts in days of glory or of calamities. Over a long
period from 1906 to 1966 we find a remarkable consistency in thoughts of
Veer Savarkar.

Godbole has been involved in search of life of Savarkar since his centenary
year in 1983. The present book was published in Marathi in the year 2000
after a study of seven years. The fruit of further work of four years is this
volume.

Picture #58

RATIONALISM OF
VEERSAVARKAR
Vinayak Damodar SAVARKAR, popularly known as Veer Savarkar was the
unsung hero of the Indian freedom struggle against the British rule (1906-
47). He made an outstanding contribution to this great cause. Leaders like
Gandhi, Nehru and Bose adopted Savarkar's main philosophies, but many
years later. At the time of the Indian independence in 1947, many
prominent leaders of the Congress Party, including its President, were
members of Savarkar's secret revolutionary society called The Abhinav
Bharat. He was the main source of their inspiration and, yet, was never
given any credit for this.

Savarkar suffered terribly for 27 years at the hands of the English rulers. He
spent 10 V 2 years of hard labour in jail in Andaman Islands, 1,000 miles
off east coast of India, followed by further 3 years in various jails in India
and then 13 y 2 years in internment there. Despite having suffered this
appalling persecution, Savarkar had the greatness to proclaim," I never
hated the English just because they were English." He sincerely believed in
the universal brotherhood of man.

In prison, Savarkar faced religious fanaticism from Muslims too. Although

he was then in a helpless condition, he fought against their tyranny and
defeated them and won their respect. Yet he said in 1927, " I never hated
Muslims nor even despised them." He was a Humanist.

During his internment of 13 Vi years, Savarkar was forced to live in a

remote place called Ratnagiri and could move within the district but was
forbidden to take part in politics. Undaunted by this, he concentrated on the
task of social reforms and had to fight against the entrenched attitudes of
orthodox people. By 1933, with his sheer resourcefulness he managed to
achieve four incredible social changes in Ratnagiri.

* Removal of the practice of untouchability.

* Dining together by Hindus of ALL castes, including untouchables.

* Opening up of a new temple for ALL Hindus including untouchables.

* Running of a Cafe open to ALL Hindus including untouchables.

After his release from the internment in 1937, Savarkar fearlessly opposed
Gandhi's policy of perpetual capitulation to Muslim demands as it was
clearly proving to be disastrous to the nation. For this reason, Savarkar was
much misunderstood and maligned which continues to be so even today.
But unlike many public figures of his times, he did not abandon his
principles to suit the pubiic mood.

Savarkar was above all a Rationalist and this aspect of his life has largely
remained unknown to the public. This book is, therefore, designed to
enlighten the readers of this vital part of his character. It is also a valuable
guide for the rejuvenation of the Hindu Nation.

VANDE MATARAM

ITIHAS PATRIKA PRAKASHAN, THANE