It is 60 years since Vinayak Damodar Savarkar passed away. But few figures in modern Indian history continue to turn heads, provoke debate and divide opinion quite like him.
The latest controversy in Kerala has once again brought Savarkar to the centre of a familiar argument — over how he should be remembered, portrayed and understood.
A school quiz in Kasaragod recently asked students to name the freedom fighter who had received the “most punishment” from the British, with Savarkar given as the answer. It triggered a controversy. And the teacher who prepared it was subsequently suspended.
The issue has now reached the High Court. “For such an issue, should there be a suspension is the question … You can go on with the disciplinary proceedings… but can suspension be a punishment?” Justice Viju Abraham asked on Thursday.
Deferring the next hearing to August 17, he added: “Government pleader shall apprise the court of the specific reasons for which the petitioner was suspended.”
The episode is the latest reminder of how difficult it remains to discuss Savarkar without stepping into a political minefield.
From the time he challenged Mahatma Gandhi’s views while in London, to his nationalist interpretations in ‘The Indian War of Independence of 1857’, and his formulation of the political idea of Hindutva in the 1920s, Savarkar’s influence and the criticism surrounding him have travelled together.
There are several researchers who see Savarkar as a revolutionary whose ideas influenced figures such as Subhas Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh. Notably, it was Bose who, despite ideological disagreements, published the fourth edition of ‘The Indian War of Independence of 1857’ in the Far East.
All along, critics regarded him as a rigid ideologue whose commitment to Hindutva defined his politics. There have also been allegations of his links to the Gandhi assassination conspiracy.
However, many of his earlier political opponents respected him as a revolutionary. In fact, former prime minister Indira Gandhi released a commemorative stamp in his honour in 1970. A decade later, she officially declared: “Veer Savarkar’s daring defiance of the British government has its own important place in the annals of our freedom movement. I wish success to the plans to celebrate the birth centenary of this remarkable son of India.”
The question is not why Savarkar continues to remain controversial. It is whether the debate gets hijacked for political convenience. Here, we ask social observers and historians:
‘RSS is cherry-picking’
J Devika,
Academic
There is not much left to research about Savarkar; the question is whether crucial facts about him have been properly understood. Savarkar was a revered figure in Kerala in the 1940s. Kochattil Kalyanikuttiyamma, for instance, recalled in her memoir how his books were a craze among students during her school days. His famous act of jumping off a British ship and swimming to the French coast was remembered as a feat of valour by many.
During the Independence struggle, there were people who subscribed to the RSS ideology. Figures such as Madan Mohan Malaviya regarded Savarkar as a hero. A change in perception probably began when documents relating to his alleged involvement in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi emerged in the late 1960s, well after his acquittal. His role had remained underplayed earlier because of the elitist streak among those in power, many of whom also subscribed to Hindutva ideas. Indira Gandhi praised him. Her Hindu appeasement, particularly in the later part of her political career, was also well-known.
Savarkar’s writings, to me, were venomous. That is enough to dismiss him. The present debate is driven by the RSS’s cherry-picking of heroic episodes and to establish a role for Hindutva forces in the Independence movement. India’s freedom, however, was won through economic nationalism represented by the Gandhian-Nehruvian strands, rather than cultural nationalism.
For me, therefore, the debate is not really about Savarkar. It is about a much larger battle over whether India’s Independence should be understood through the lens of cultural nationalism or economic nationalism.
‘Marx’s grandson argued his case’
Sreejith Panickar,
Political observer
There was always a difference of opinion with Savarkar, but ideological criticism turned into vitriol after the Vajpayee government renamed the Port Blair airport as Veer Savarkar International Airport. Before that, Congress leaders and even communist stalwarts such as EMS, A K Gopalan and S H Mirajkar acknowledged him. Mirajkar, in fact, chaired a reception to mark Savarkar’s 75th birthday in Bombay.
All of them knew about Savarkar’s mercy petitions, which are now being cited to portray him as a ‘bootlicker’. We have to see those petitions in the context of the treatment meted out to him. He was not held as a political prisoner like Gandhi or Nehru — but in Kaalapani, under torturous conditions for a decade.
Interestingly, before his imprisonment, it was Karl Marx’s grandson Jean Longuet, a French socialist lawyer, who defended Savarkar at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in the famous ‘L’affaire Savarkar’ case of 1910. Arguing the case, he passionately declared: “...Sarvarkar was preaching everywhere with passion, the gospel of national independence, advocating armed uprising of his countrymen… The rallying cry of the young nationalist was the cry which has since become famous throughout India — ‘Vande Mataram’.”
Congress leaders like Rahul Gandhi forget that Indira Gandhi had hailed Savarkar’s “daring defiance of the British” and called him a “remarkable son of India”. The Left overlooks the positions taken by M N Roy, EMS and AKG despite their political differences with Savarkar. Any doubt that this hatred for Savarkar is a political charade?
'Hate has no place in a democracy’
M N Karassery,
Writer and social commentator
There was always disagreement with Savarkar’s politics. He was the ninth accused in the Gandhi assassination case and was acquitted for lack of evidence. The issue was later taken up in Parliament, and a commission appointed to examine the case attributed a role to him in the conspiracy. But it did not have any legal ramifications.
He was also among those who opposed the Quit India Movement in 1942. But many opposed Quit India — the Muslim League, the Communist Party and the Hindu Mahasabha, of which Savarkar was a part. It was well-known that Savarkar followed a line different from Gandhi’s.
But, this does not mean one should be hateful towards him. Subhas Chandra Bose was critical of Gandhi, yet addressed him as the ‘Father of the Nation’. Differences of opinion should not become hatred. Opinions can change, but hate has no place in a democracy.
‘Narrative driven by religious politics’
C Ravichandran,
Writer and rationalist freethinker
What is happening today is largely a political narrative. Even those participating in this narrative are careful about how they speak of Savarkar in certain parts of India. Rahul Gandhi, for instance, was asked by ally Uddhav Thackeray not to deride Savarkar in Maharashtra because he is a Maharashtrian icon.
In Kerala, most people still know little about the man. Criticism is fair, but it should be informed rather than blind or hateful. Look at the way the scene from the film ‘Kaalapani’ has been misconstrued. I do not believe this kind of slander is merely political. Politics today is often driven by one word — religion. These debates stem from the religious sentiments at play. Certain political parties today spew bile on Savarkar not based on facts or moral position, but to appease certain segments. For anyone with some basic political understanding, it’s as clear as day.
‘Reminded of Galileo’
Joy Mathew,
Actor and social observer
A democracy has always contained multiple narratives. There are different narratives about Gandhi and Nehru too. Neither was perfect in every sense.
What matters is how society benefits from the ideas and actions of such people. I tend to look at what a person has done for mankind. One cannot simply categorise a person as entirely good or bad because some of his actions were good and others were not.
As for the allegations over Savarkar seeking clemency, I recall how Galileo apologised to the Papal authorities over his understanding of the cosmos. He probably did so because, otherwise, his work might not have survived. He emerged from confinement and lived to further establish his scientific findings.
Whatever happened in Savarkar’s case has to be examined through reasoning. The rest of the noise is not necessarily useful.
‘Should not vilify’
M G Sasibhooshan,
Historian
The current discussion on Savarkar is spurred by petty politics. He has become the punching bag for those opposing Hindutva politics. This is unwarranted.
Context matters. The political dynamics of north India, particularly the relationship between Hindus and Muslims, were shaped by the history and experiences of that region, which people in the south may not fully comprehend.
Savarkar was imprisoned in the Cellular Jail in the Andamans, where the conditions were severe enough to drive people to madness.
If we were to criticise his petitions, there were greater wrongs during the period, including by leaders such as P C Joshi and S A Dange, who had informed the British police about Congressmen hiding during the Quit India phase. No one is a saint, and historical figures have to be understood in the circumstances in which they lived. In that sense, Savarkar should not be vilified. Oppose his ideology, but do acknowledge his contribution to the freedom struggle.
‘Hindutva icon propped up by prime minister’
Prof. K N Ganesh,
Author and former KCHR chairman
There have been many biographies on Savarkar — by Dhananjay Keer, Vinayak Chaturvedi, and, more recently, Vikram Sampath. Savarkar’s positions that he took later, in the 1940s till his death in the 1960s, provided a strong defence of Indian history in a particular way.
Savarkar was a proponent of Hindutva. He, however, was not the typical pious Hindu. He was a nasthika associated with the India House group. His idea of Hindutva as a polity adapted into a modern statehood was different from the statehood envisaged by Nehru or Gandhi.
Savarkar is at the centre of heated debates even now is because the kind of statehood he proposed is being supported by the current government, and he is being propped up as an icon by the prime minister.