More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
We were revolutionists under necessity and not by choice.
‘Even though we are celebrating, there is immense sadness in my heart. This fact must enter our minds firmly that Lord Rama surely did suffer his life in the jungles for long; but in my case when “that” will be achieved, only then my vanvaas (exile in the forest) would end in the real sense.
Notably, at a Shivaji Jayanti function in Nasik in 1924, Veer Wamanrao Joshi, the famous Marathi journalist and playwright, gave Savarkar the honorific of ‘Swatantrya Veer’ or ‘The Valorous Soldier of Freedom’.
While addressing a women’s gathering, he emphasized on the need to make women ‘physically strong, mentally alert and politically aware’.
Hence Savarkar’s prescription was not to merely target the upper castes but remove this abhorrent practice from the entire Hindu society, top to bottom.
‘In the old days,’ explained Wheeler, ‘we used to be on the lookout for riots at the Muharram or Bakr Id [festival times], but not otherwise; nowadays they occur over anything
Object of Rawalpindi visit seems to have been to break up our settlement and make a fresh one for which Gandhi’s party could claim credit.
letter I received from a Hindu leader in Sindh makes it clear that the condition of Hindus in Sindh is worrisome. There is a caste called Sanyogi in Sindh who were converted by force centuries ago, but they have retained their Hindu roots and customs. They want to become Hindu again, but their Hindu caste panchayats are not willing to accept them back. The organizations that want [sic] to get these people back into Hinduism face a stiff resistance from the Muslim organizations of Sindh, who are saying that such efforts will go against ‘Hindu Muslim unity’ in the region. But the unity that
...more
I want to tell our Muslim brethren that you are Hindus by blood and race, and you are dearer to us than the Muslims of the world, but if you feel that you are dearer to the Islamic countries like Turkey than to the ‘Hindu Kafirs’, do understand that this delusion will end in your downfall.
In Bengal, Lt. Col. U.N. Mukherjee, in his book A Dying Race, concluded: We Hindus are most ridiculously, most contemptibly ignorant, we have no idea about what is going on around us. Others are not quite so ignorant . . . How do the two communities stand? The Mohammedans have a future and they believe in it. We Hindus have no conception of it. Time is with them . . . time is against us. At the end of the years, they count their gains, we calculate our losses. They are growing in number, growing in strength, growing in wealth, growing in solidarity . . . we are crumbling to pieces. They look
...more
Savarkar in fact writes: ‘The Hindu Mahasabha itself is in fact but an enlarged and more comprehensive edition of the Arya Samaj. The honour of being the first apostle of Hindu Sanghatna in modern days must ever rest with Swami Dayanand Saraswati .
When the Hindus of Punjab urged the Congress to take up their cause against this injustice, it was met with indifference. They finally decided to fight for their rights themselves.
The Morley–Minto Reforms, officially known as the India Act of 1909, sowed the seeds of separation and suspicion between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Separate electorates for Muslims and some seats for them in the joint electorates were given. Additionally, discriminatory provisions for eligibility to vote were a glaring bias. Thrice the amount of tax paid and seven extra years after one’s degree were the eligibility criteria for a Hindu to vote vis-à-vis a Muslim.
In the wake of the Khilafat agitation and the Moplah carnage of Malabar, the Hindu Mahasabha resolved that reconversion or shuddhi of those who had deserted the faith was the only way to restore the confidence of the community.
Delinking and underemphasizing Brahminism from Hinduism was seen by the Hindu nationalist leaders as an effective way to enhance the social base and integrate the Hindus, overcoming caste barriers. This was also the idea behind Savarkar’s conception of Hindutva that was beyond caste and even beyond pan-Indic faiths.
Along with Babarao and other leaders such as Dr B.S. Moonje, Dr L.V. Paranjpe, Bhauji Karve, Anna Sohoni, Cholkar, Vishwanath Kelkar and Dr Tholkar, Hedgewar started the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) on 27 September 1925, on the auspicious day of Vijayadashami. All these men broadly opined that Hindu–Muslim unity was a mirage and ‘Hindutva’ is the only nationalist creed.
Aasindhu Sindhu paryanta yasya Bharata bhumika Pitrabhu punyabhushchaiva sa vai Hinduriti smritah. (The one who considers this vast stretch of land called Bharat, from the Sindhu [the Indus] to the Sindhu [the sea] as the land of one’s ancestors and holy land, he is the one who will be termed and remembered as a Hindu.)
Savarkar was a rationalist but he never forced anyone to accept his viewpoint. He always preferred to lay the facts bare for everyone to discern. At the same time, he openly invited dissenting opinions and was ready to discuss and debate them without any prejudice.
He met groups of people in private and articulated his ideas on the ‘Seven shackles of Hindu society’: Vedokta bandi (denial of access to Vedic literature to non-Brahmins), Vyavasaya bandi (choice of profession by merit and not heredity), Sparsha bandi (untouchability), Samudra bandi (barring crossing the seas fearing loss of caste), Shuddhi bandi (denial of reconversions to Hinduism), Roti bandi (denouncement of inter-caste dining) and Beti bandi (denial of inter-caste marriage).
Can you prevent Christian children from attending public schools? No! You dare not, since you know the consequences. The British Government will reply with bullets. You insult the untouchables because they are ignorant and helpless. But you yield to the unjust demands of the Muslims because they are aggressive. When a Mahar becomes a Muslim or a Christian convert, you treat him as your equal. But as a Mahar, he will not receive the same treatment.
Interestingly, the non-Brahmin communities such as the Marathas, Kulavadis, Bhandaris and others were more resistant to change than the Brahmins.
Owners of public carriages and carts refused to seat untouchables, though they had no problems with non-Hindus.
On 21 July 1927, a gathering under the leadership of Dadasaheb Khaparde, a senior Hindu Mahasabha leader threatened a satyagraha or agitation if untouchables were not allowed entry within fifteen days.
For instance, despite being Brahmins, the Deshasthas and Chitpawans would not dine together.
Unlike the usual practice to blame the Brahmins or upper castes alone for the scourge of untouchability, Savarkar understood that the malaise ran deep.
Ambedkar’s unwillingness to share stage with Savarkar is inexplicable.
Savarkar’s declaration during the inauguration of the inter-dining programme in 1930 that he does not wish to be identified as a Brahmin or Vaishya but as a Hindu alone was essentially a call for complete dismemberment of the varna system.
‘Oh! Mockery to say to people that the suffering of some brings joy to others and works good to the whole! What solace is to a dying man to know that from his decaying body a thousand worms will come into life?’
Criticism apart, this is the technique of Gandhism: to make wrongs done appear to the very victim as though they were his privileges.
If there is an ‘ism’ which has made full use of religion as an opium to lull people into false beliefs and ...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Along with the shock of the murder, Savarkar was disgusted by Gandhi’s rationalization of it and the absence of an unequivocal condemnation.
It is reported that for earning merit for the soul of Abdul Rashid, the murderer of Swami Shradhanand, in the next world, the students and professors of the famous theological college at Deoband finished five complete recitations of the Koran and had planned to finish daily a lakh and a quarter recitations of Koranic verses. Their prayer was ‘God Almighty may give the marhoom (martyr i.e. Rashid) a place in the “ala-e-illeeyeen” (the summit of the seventh heaven)’.
Yet to apportion the blame on both communities equally or to chide the Hindus for everything in order to create false equivalences was becoming a hallmark of the Mahatma, Savarkar opined.
Was Gandhi not guilty of addressing even those brute Moplah rioters as ‘brave’, though here he seemed to whitewash Abdul Rashid’s crime by claiming that he was ignorant and hot-headed.
Could Gandhi list cases of rapes of Muslim women by Hindu mobs, or was it the other way round, he challenged. Were there assassinations of any leaders of the Muslim community by Hindus, while the converse had numerous examples of martyrs for the shuddhi cause beyond Shraddhanand?
On the other hand, innumerable Hindu leaders had courted jail and hardships for a cause alien to them—that of establishing a caliphate in Turkey. Yet, the Mahatma insists that the responsibility of spreading venom is equal for both communities, said Savarkar in exasperation.
Yet, his taking a stand like this, just to prove his own greatness, was according to Savarkar not only foolishness and cowardice but also a crime against one’s community.
When reports had been pouring in about how Abdul Rashid’s photographs were being circulated in several places as a ‘Ghazi’ or martyr for a religious cause and his act was being eulogized, did the Mahatma’s statement that it was just an individual act of foolhardiness cut any ice, questioned Savarkar.
Concluding his piece, Savarkar rationalized that if the diagnosis of a disease was done wrongly, the medication and the subsequent side effects were bound to have detrimental effects. It was the same with Gandhi’s assessment of the fundamental reasons behind Hindu–Muslim conflicts in India.
A candid and honest identification of the fanaticism in certain sections of the Muslim community and the manner in which that impinges on other faiths, especially the Hindus, and unequivocal condemnation and steps to e...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Gandhi had maintained his characteristic ambivalence even during the murder of Rajpal, the publisher of the controversial Rangila Rasool. This had riled many nationalist leaders including B.R. Ambedkar.
‘You may not be able to carry out valorous deeds like Shivaji, but at least follow his example in the field of Shuddhi. Remember how Shivaji converted Netaji Palkar, who was forced to become a Muslim by Aurangzeb, back to Hindu Dharma?’
In a daring move, Savarkar arranged for the sacred thread ceremony of two sons of Dhakras.
In October 1926, he converted one Prof. Pinto of Lucknow University into the Hindu fold.
From Nepal to Sri Lanka, an integrated, well-knit and united India was Savarkar’s vision.
The enslaved nation must also spread true (or even false) stories about inhuman practices of the rulers as that catch global attention. He lamented that the Indian leadership had never thought on these lines so far.
Quite interestingly, despite being a communist, Dange had acknowledged Savarkar as one of the greatest mentors and influencers in his life for his stellar role against the British through revolution.
He gave an example of when Aurangzeb imprisoned Shivaji, the latter did not die fasting in protest. He bided his time and escaped to build an even greater kingdom than before. This, according to Savarkar, was the strategic need of the hour.
This incensed Savarkar further. In his rebuttal in the Shraddhanand dated 16 November 1929, he wondered why Gandhi could not gather the moral courage to address a young man who was being praised from Kashmir to Rameshwaram, as ‘Martyr Jatin’ or ‘Brave Jatin’ or even ‘Brother Jatin’ as Abdul Rashid had been elevated.
He pointed the readers’ attention to Gandhi’s opposition to the collection of public funds for finding legal help to defend the revolutionaries of the Meerut Conspiracy case. But in a volte-face, sensing the public mood, Gandhi visited the revolutionaries in jail.
