Savarkar springs back and how

From national history to national heritage and national heroes to national flag, the Congress led-UPA Government discovers "communal overtone" in almost everything.

Such a behaviour, as Mr Arun Shourie sums up in the blurb of his book, Eminent Historians, is to, "Tarnish every person and institution, period from which people may derive pride, confidence, ascribe tolerance, magnanimity to the intolerant, portray the inclusive, open tradition as the one out to swallow others, and the exclusivist, totalitarian ideology as the ideology of broad-mindedness, of peace, tolerance, denounce as 'communal' anyone who demands proof, blame victims for the consequences of their ideology of the oppressors, suppress the role of the comrades in aiding imperial rulers, tarnish leaders, reformers who led the national mov ement, all the while control institutions, hog patronage, exercise power and have good time."

It was ironical that Mr Mani Shankar Aiyar, a known Savarkar-baiter, was destined to inaugurate the Swatantra Jyoti or Flame of Freedom at the premises of Cellular Jail in Port Blair, Andaman, in his official capacity as the Petroleum Minister. The flame that requires an uninterrupted supply of natural gas was commissioned by the BJP led-NDA Government last year. The Cellular Jail is identified with Savarkar as Sabarmati Ashram with Mahatma Gandhi and Allahabad's Anand Bhawan with Nehru.

Then Petroleum Minister Ram Naik, who, being from Savarkar's land Maharashtra, took special interest in the project, fell short of dedicating it to the nation. By the time it was complete, elections had been declared, and the model code of conduct forbade such inaugurations. The Swyatantra Jyoti had plaques with quotations of Bahadur Shah 'Zafar', Madan Lal Dhingra, Bhagat Singh and Veer Savarkar. Mr Aiyar removed the plaque embossed with Savarkar's quote. The only demerit of that quotation was that it came from his bete noire, Veer Savarkar, the volcano of nationalism, the bugbear of communists and allied anti-national elements.

Objectively speaking, excluding Savarkar is a flagrant act of omission. If there was one revolutionary in India synonymous with the Cellular Jail, it was Savarkar. Savarkar spent more than 10 years in that dungeon where one would found 10 minutes unbearable. The rest three whose quotations appear there had never set foot on the Andamans. The British deported Bahadur Shah 'Zafar' from Delhi to Rangoon where his grave is still located.

Madan Lal Dhingra, the first Indian revolutionary to be executed overseas, was hanged in Pantoville Prison in London in 1909. Bhagat Singh was hanged along with Rajguru and Sukhdev at Lahore Central Jail in 1931. But Savarkar landed in Port Blair on July 2, 1911, to serve a 'two lives imprisonment'. Between 1911 and 1922 he spent 11 years of rigorous imprisonment in this 'Indian Bastille', the most dreaded prison of the British Empire.

The Congress has always sought to undermine the revolutionaries who fought for India's independence without subscribing to the party's philosophy. Such revolutionaries demanded nothing short of complete independence for India when Congress, with its tunnel vision, could not see beyond 'Dominion Status'. It was not before 1929 Lahore AICC that the Congress made 'Purna Swaraj' its political creed.

The Congress had always tried to project its political philosophy as comprehensive rather than exclusivist. History, however, shows its tolerance is only for the intolerant. When Jinnah was a nationalist and archetypal secularist he was forced out of the party. His crime was that he would address Mahatma Gandhi as simply Mr Gandhi. But with 96 per cent of subcontinent's Muslims solidly behind Jinnah rather than the Congress during 1947, how could Gandhi have sought compromise? Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins describe it in Freedom at Midnight: "So desperate was he (Gandhi) to avoid Partition that he was prepared for a Solomonic judgement.

Give the Muslim the baby instead of cutting it in half. Place three hundred million Hindus under Moslem rule by asking his rival Jinnah and his Moslem League to form a government. Then hand over power to that government. Give Jinnah all India instead of just the part he wanted." (p 93)

Giving Muslim League to commandeer entire India and its overwhelming Hindu majority, is this the charter of 'secularism'? Or is it the acceptance to intolerant creed that was saying "damn to Congress, damn to India". Gandhi, went to meet Jinnah 14 times in one day, calling him his brother, to convince him to keep India united but Jinnah refused to entertain him. The Congress lost the test of 'secularism' in 1947 itself. But the same Congress brands Savarkar as communal because he spoke of Akhanda Prachanda Bharat (United Powerful India) with everybody living equal citizen but Hindus so powerful that they may not be dominated by anybody else again.

Babasaheb Ambedkar had this to say about Savarkar's approach vis-a-vis the Congress: "This alternative of Mr Savarkar to Pakistan has about it a frankness, boldness and definiteness which distinguishes it from the irregularity, vagueness and indefiniteness which characterises the Congress declarations about minority rights. Mr Savarkar's scheme has at least the merit of telling the Muslims, thus far and no further. The Muslims know where they are with regard to Hindu Mahasabha. On the other hand, with Congress the Musalmans find themselves nowhere because the Congress has been treating the Muslims and the minority question as a game of diplomacy, if not duplicity." (Pakistan or Partition of India, Ambedkar Writing and Speeches, VIII, p 143)

Earlier, Mr Aiyar's decision was thought to be his individual whim, which could be rectified. But now that the UPA Government has put its seal of sanction a collision is inevitable. From five per cent reservations for Muslims in Andhra Pradesh, scrapping of history text books, sympathising for Ishrat Jahan, forbidding wearing religious marks in the Army, to raking up tricolour hosting case against Uma Bharati and the Karnataka Government's arresting her, the Congress's old game of appeasement is now corroding the roots of Indian nationalism.

Appeasing Muslims is one thing, reopening a second Khilafat or Pakistani movement is another. To have Muslim League in the UPA dispensation is 'secular', to have ministers charged with inciting communal riots and dealing in smuggled arms is also 'secular', but to display a patriotic and inspirational quote by Savarkar at Cellular Jail is 'communal' and hoisting the national flag is 'communal'. The Muslim League that sabotaged the Quit India Movement, floated a multi-nation theory for India and supported Jinnah with all the intellectual arsenal he needed to justify Pakistan is today a part of the UPA coalition. If Mr Aiyar, keeping in view the forthcoming Assembly elections, has indulged in Muslim appeasement and he could not have been more imprudent.

While leaving Savarkar's plaque undisturbed at Cellular Jail would have made no news, Mr Aiyar has catapulted Savarkar once again to news headlines by removing it. At least in Maharashtra, Savarkar is what Netaji Subhas is in West Bengal, Bhagat Singh is in Punjab, or Sardar Patel is in Gujarat. Poems written by Savarkar are part of prescribed text in Maharashtra. It is sure to boomerang in forthcoming Assembly elections in Maharastra scheduled on October 13. The Shiv Sena have been prompt in taking up the issue and will work overtime to keep it alive. The Congress-NCP alliance has already discredited itself by sympathising with Ishrat Jahan. But now Sushil Shinde is vying with Balasaheb Thackrey to own up Savarkar.

To both, its supporters or critics, the legacy of Savarkar has a wonderful tendency to bounce back. "At bottom work, if true, is suffering," Savarkar once said, "and suffering, if true, is work. Suffering is the motor, the power that moves, and goads and propels a people. Unless the best amongst us suffer, the rest cannot work." When the legacy of Savarkar is suffering, we must know, it is also working.