BJP TODAY

June 1--15, 2003 - Vol. 12, No. 11

Defending Savarkar’s Bharat
Responding to Udit Raj’s article, Balbir K. Punj argues that the history of Hindus, and not the Manusmriti, was Savarkar’s only scripture of Hindutva, while Bulbul Roy Mishra claims that the BJP follows Vivekananda’s Hindutva, not Savarkar’s
Balbir K. Punj & Bulbul Roy Mishra

After reading ‘‘Is this Savarkar’s Bharat?’’ (The Indian Express, April 30) it seems the writer, Udit Raj, has read neither Savarkar nor Ambedkar. What he produces as Savarkar’s views on Manusmriti are pure fiction.

Had he cared to read Savarkar’s works, he would have discovered Patit Pavan Mandir. Maharashtra’s famous temple-builder, Bhagoji Baloji Keer, in deference to Savarkar’s wishes, built this temple in Ratnagiri where all Hindus, irrespective of caste, could assemble for prayers. Dhananjay Keer, biographer of Savarkar, Ambedkar, Gandhi and Tilak, notes: ‘‘Acharyas, Shankaracharyas, pundits and patriots declared Ratnagiri a place of pilgrimage. In fact, as one speaker then put it, Ratnagiri became the new Kashi of the re-awakened, purified and unified Hindudom where a Hindu scavenger acted as a priest, persons from the so-called depressed classes delivered sermons, Mahars read the sacred Geeta, Brahmins garlanded and bowed before these priests; and a Brahmin youth ran a Pan-Hindu hotel. Indeed, the Patit Pavan Temple came to be the university of Pan-Hindu movement’’ (Veer Savarkar, p.185).

Since 1925, Savarkar clashed swords with orthodox Hindus over temple-entry rights of ‘‘untouchables’’. ‘‘He is not God who can be desecrated’’ was his epigrammatic reply to orthodox Hindus. Removal of untouchability, he held, implied purification and salvation of misguided orthodox ‘‘touchables’’. He transformed the Ganesh Festival started by Tilak into a pan-Hindu festival. By and by, the orthodox hold slackened and ‘‘untouchables’’ were allowed to enter the hall of Vithoba temple, the most important shrine in Ratnagiri. During that time, Savarkar was the only leader who intrepidly and whole-heartedly supported the Dalit liberation movement launched by Ambedkar.

In 1929, when Ambedkar was in Ratnagiri in connection with a murder trial, Savarkar invited him to address a public gathering at Vithoba temple. But Ambedkar received a telegram demanding his immediate presence in Bombay. Thus people lost an opportunity of hearing Savarkar and Ambedkar on the same podium. Again on November 13, 1935, Savarkar wrote to Ambedkar inviting him to preside over a sah-bhoj (pan-Hindu dinner). Ambedkar appreciated Savarkar’s social work but declined the invitation since he was extremely busy with his Law College activities.

Savarkar censured the idea of depressed classes changing religion for that was pregnant with devastating implication for the nation. Is it not for the same reason that Ambedkar who said, ‘‘I was born a Hindu, but will not die as a Hindu,’’ chose to convert to Buddhism, a religion of Indian origin rather than to Christianity or Islam. Though they admired each other, they differed on Hindu history. Ambedkar said that Hindus were sick men and their history was one of continuous defeat. Savarkar explicitly pointed out some glorious chapters from Hindu history (see his Saha Sonari Panne) and said it was the duty of a noble son to turn even defeats into victory and bring glory to his ancestors. If Savarkar would have been an apologetic of Manu he would not have composed the Marathi song in 1929: The impurity of ages is gone/Scripture-born stamp is torn/The age-long struggle is ended/The net of enemies shredded/The slave of ages hoary!/Now is a brother in glory.

Savarkar’s social reformation activities gained wide recognition. He was never content as a policymaker. With his band of volunteers he visited slums and squalid dens, hamlets, hills and villages where untouchables lived. It’s true that his social activities were restricted to Ratnagiri. But this was so because of the internment imposed on him till 1937. After all, unlike Udit Raj, the British were not dismissive about Savarkar and held him as a grave threat to the empire. And the end of internment coincided with his entry into hectic political and organisational activities on national level.

Like Savarkar, Ambedkar, modern India’s archetype Buddhist convert whom Udit Raj claims to follow, was forthright about Islam. But his phony successors would live in a country run on the pluralistic tradition of Hindutva and make a career out of anti-Hinduism. Before the coming of British and a brief interlude of Maratha-Sikh-Jat rule, most parts of Hindustan saw unstinted Islamic rule. The Islamic kings surely did not read Manusmriti. Why then was this not the golden age of Dalits, especially as Islam believes in egalitarianism. Dalit leader Jogendra Mandal was the sole Hindu minister in newly-created Pakistan. He was an ardent Muslim Leaguer but failed to protect his community in East Pakistan during the 1950 riots. He himself had to flee with his family into ‘‘fascist and casteist Hindu India’’ where he became a free citizen.

Savarkar was no religious Hindu. In his last will and testament he said that he should be cremated in an electric crematorium without any religious rites. It wasn’t the Manusmriti, his only scripture of Hindutva was the history of Hindus — from Chandragupta Maurya’s time to India’s freedom struggle.

(Balbir K. Punj is a Rajya Sabha MP and convenor of BJP's think tank)

Bulbul Roy Mishra

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has pronounced unequivocally more than once that the BJP believes in the Hindutva of Swami Vivekananda. Thus it is not understood how Udit Raj inferred that the BJP’s Hindutva is based on Manusmriti in which Veer Savarkar had profound faith.

His inference was drawn from the fact that Savarkar’s portrait was installed in the Parliament at the initiative of the BJP. However, the reason for this was not his avowed faith in Manusmriti, but his role in the freedom struggle. It is a strange logic that merely because a party took the initiative to install the portrait of a freedom fighter, that party ought to be taken as believing in all the views and idiosyncrasies of that person.

India has bled enough in the relentless and meaningless wars of castes and faith, and is still bleeding at the hands of terrorists. Politicians like Udit Raj will surely earn the gratitude of the nation if they restrain themselves from encouraging another caste war by planting bitterness in the minds of under-privileged Dalits against upper-castes with an eye on vote-bank politics. One understands his passion to convert Dalits into Buddhists, but one fails to understand how by mere conversion, the economic status of Dalits will improve. Besides, it is also inexplicable why, to achieve his objective, he should distort Hindu philosophy that is not only liberal but also secular. He will do well to read Swami Vivekananda to understand Hindu philosophy.

Addressing the upper classes in India, Vivekananda wrote in his Memoirs of European Travel: ‘‘Let new India arise in your place. Let her arise — out of the peasants’ cottage, grasping the plough; out of the huts of the fisherman, the cobbler, and the sweeper. Let her spring from the grocer’s shop, from beside the oven of the fritter-seller... Let her emerge from groves and forests, from hills and mountains. These common people have suffered oppression for thousands of years — suffered it without a murmur, and as a result have got wonderful fortitude... Living on a handful of grain, they can convulse the world.’’ The fiery Swami’s admiration for the oppressed people is evident from the following words: ‘‘they have got the wonderful strength that comes of a pure and moral life, which is not to be found anywhere else in the world.’’ Vivekananda’s Hindutva was unique as he had profound respect for all religions without exception.

Udit Raj asks: ‘‘Is this their idea of India where 90 per cent of the inhabitants are considered unwanted?’’ Obviously the question is aimed at the BJP, perceived as Savarkar’s supporters. Surely no political party in a democratic country will proclaim even one per cent of the voters as unwanted. Thus his attempt to put words in the mouth of his political adversary is not only mischievous but also childish. As a neo-Buddhist charged with the missionary zeal to convert Dalits en masse, he may draw a lesson or two from Buddha’s philosophy of tolerance and sacrifice. To the Hindus, Buddha is an incarnation of the Divine, and a Hindu need not convert to Buddhism to follow his precepts.

Vivekananda stood for unity of all Indians, irrespective of caste, creed, and faith when he visualised future India with a Vedantic brain and Islamic body. Vedantic Hindutva does not admit any caste discrimination. This is true Hindutva. Let us not allow any distortion of this view by referring to the Manusmriti which has little relevance to the present time.

(Bulbul Roy Mishra is a freelance journalist)