& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Great patriot or rank traitor?

Understanding savarkar

Praful Bidwai writes from New Delhi
Savarkar's views can have no place in a democracy based on an inclusive non-ethnic, nonreligious conception of citizenship. Savarkar is alien to the Great Project that india embraced at independence. Savarkar was no "Veer" (hero) and must not be glorified. His ideological-political legacy is best left where it belongs: in the dustbin of history.***
THE controversy triggered by Petroleum Minister Mani shankar Aiyar's order to remove a plaque bearing Vinayak Damodar savarkar's poetry from the Andaman's cellular Jail is becoming a political campaign. The shiv sena is converting it into a chauvinistic agitation as its supporters hit Mr Aiyar's effigy with shoes. Mr L.K. Advani has joined the chorus condemning Mr Aiyar.
The congress, which faces elections in Maharashtra, has disassociated itself from Mr Aiyar. savarkar's descendants accuse the sangh parivar of "exploiting" his name electorally.
In rationality's interests, we must take a cool, dispassionate look at the whole affair, in particular, savarkar's role as Hindutva's originator. Was "Veer savarkar," as his admirers call him, a "great patriot"? Or did he collaborate with British rule? What was his agenda?
The Andamans sculpture "Freedom Torch" commemorates the Independence movement with quotations from subhash Bose, Bhagat singh, and Madanlal Dhingra (a savarkar disciple). Missing from it was the movement's greatest leader, Gandhiji.
Mr Aiyar had savarkar's poem replaced with a Gandhi quotation. It's hard to fault this on principle, although not on tactics.
The sangh parivar has been trying to put savarkar on a par with Gandhi and Nehru, although he's super-controversial and unacceptable to many Indians. The NDA renamed Port Blair airport after savarkar, installed his portrait in Parliament's central Hall, and commissioned a Lok Sabha Secretariat booklet glorifying him.
Four questions arise. Was Savarkar a legitimate part of the Freedom Struggle? What did Independence mean for him? Did he plot Gandhiji's assassination? Is his Hindutva compatible with pluralist secularism?
The young Savarkar was fired by nationalist zeal, although that nationalism was Hindu, not Indian. He got involved with a secret society which believed in killing British officials. He inspired Dhingra to murder William Wylie. For this, Savarkar was sentenced to life in 1911. That very year, he petitioned for clemency, calling himself a "prodigal son" and promising to "serve the government in any capacity." The petition was abject and wouldn't have been made by most other Andaman detainees. savarkar made similar loyalty pledges -- in 1913, 1914, 1917, 1920, and 1925.
In 1924, he was released after acknowledging that "I heartily abhor methods of violence and am willing to make the [unpopular Montagu-chelmsford] Reform a success."
savarkar gave his blessings to the RSS's formation, but never joined it. More important, he never participated in the mainstream Freedom Struggle. Instead, in 1923, he pioneered the Two-Nation Theory in his book, Hindutva.
In 1939, Savarkar pledged loyalty to the Viceroy, offering friendship between "Hinduism and Great Britain." Savarkar then was president of the Hindu Mahasabha, which like the RSS, didn't join the anti-colonial mobilisation.
What did "freedom" mean to Savarkar and his acolytes? They were driven by hatred of "foreigners." One Savarkar disciple V.G. Gogate, for instance, attempted to kill Ernest Hotson, acting governor of Bombay, because Hotson was given that post "in preference to an Indian."
This attitude was in sharp contrast to, say, Gandhiji's, for whom the Freedom struggle was against colonial rule, not the British. He argued: "It's not necessary for us to have as our goal the expulsion of the English. If the English become Indianised, we can accommodate them."
For savarkar, the purpose of freedom was to establish Hindu-padpatshahi (Hindu overlordship). For Gandhi, Nehru, or the Left, the goal was to establish a modern, plural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, democratic India. The two notions are irreconcilable.
Savarkar believed Hindus alone could be India's legitimate citizens because their pitrabhu (fatherland) and punyabhu (holy land) converge. Muslims and christians don't qualify.
Savarkar's was a brilliant mind, but one obsessed with violence, revenge and bloodshed. He wrote: "So long as [a] divine age has not arrived . bloodshed and revenge ["instruments created by nature"] cannot be purely sinful."
Savarkar in his Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History advocates that Hindu conquerors should have raped Muslim women. He admonishes shivaji for not doing so. savarkar described Tipu sultan as a "savage," Akbar as "foreign, cruel, [and] intolerant."
savarkar passionately hated Gandhiji, the apostle of nonviolence, peace and Hindu-Muslim harmony. savarkar mentored Nathuram Godse -- who was devoted to his ideology and personality. Godse wrote to savarkar: "Since ... you were released ... a divine fire has kindled in the minds of those groups who profess that Hindustan is for the Hindus."
Savarkar helped Godse with ideas and funds. Their relationship was pivotal to Gandhiji's assassination. As Sardar Patel put it: "It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that [hatched that] conspiracy . and saw it through."
Savarkar escaped conviction for a technical reason: an approver's (Digamber Badge) testimony couldn't be corroborated. But Justice G.D Khosla of the Simla High court confirmed Savarkar's involvement. Later, the Justice Kapur inquiry commission recorded: "All these facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group."
Savarkar's role includes encouraging and introducing an arms dealer to the assassins and their collaborators, goading them, prior knowledge, detailed planning, and blessing the assassins: Yashaswi hovun ya (be successful and return).
Savarkar and Godse are great national heroes for Mr Bal Thackeray. On May 16, 1991, Mr Thackeray said: "We are proud of Nathuram. He saved the country from a second partition."
But how should we regard Savarkar? He had his differences with the RSS. But he pioneered the Two-Nation Theory. And he fathered Hindutva, which the RSS carried forward through the Jana Sangh and BJP.
Savarkar was against superstition, cow-worship and yajnas. But that didn't prevent him from joining hands with rank obscurantists. He thoroughly opposed cultural pluralism and secularism.
Savarkar's views can have no place in a democracy based on an inclusive non-ethnic, non-religious conception of citizenship. Savarkar is alien to the Great Project that India embraced at Independence.
Savarkar was no "Veer" (hero) and must not be glorified. His ideological-political legacy is best left where it belongs: in the dustbin of history.
Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.