*Two issues*. *I*. Savarkar's public career can broadly be divided into two parts or phases: (a) pre-Andaman and (b) post-Andaman.
In the first phase, he was a revolutionary "Indian nationalist" - fighting against the British colonial rule. It's in this phase, in conformity with that role, he fathered an "Indian nationalist" myth via (anonymously) authoring a book, translated as: '1857: The Indian War of Independence', half a century after the event - the big "rebellion". In the second phase, he would turn into a collaborationist "Hindu nationalist". Would be the proud author of the 'Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?'. That's sort of the foundational testament of "Hindutva" or "Hindu nationalism" - broadly similar to "Muslim nationalism" - exclusivist nationalisms, as opposed to inclusivist and composite "Indian nationalism". *II*. The other point is that, in this landmass, those who'd come to be known as "Hindus" - despite multiple internal divisions, have fought with the Muslims for ages - albeit, as separate groups, not as a composite entity. Since the advent of Islam, in a significant way; long long before the British rule. *If one was "Qufir", the other was "Mleccha".* (Nonetheless, there was no *crusade.*) But, *that's only one part of the story*. They have, regardless, also an equally long history of comingling and cooperation. *Produced: Urdu, Biriyani, Taj Mahal, Khayal and Thumri, Mughal/Rajput/Pahari paintings, Katthak etc. etc. and also "1857".* Sir Syed Ahmad Khan had articulated the apprehensions arising out of the tensions between the two trends when the Congress arose in 1885, as the expression of the latter trend. He advocated the continuation of the British rule - undiluted, in order to maintain peace between the two intrinsically antagonistic communities - as perceived by him. He did, in that, very much anticipate Savarkar or Jinnah. But, he only gave coherent voice to certain views that had already been there. As would Savarkar and Jinnah. So, in a very contrasting way, would Dadabhai Naoroji, Badruddin Tayabji and later Gandhi or Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan - from the other end, championing and advocating the traditions of collaboration. *In conclusion*: *While it's absolutely legitimate and even necessary to fight the distortions of our readings of the past - in order to shape our future, the "future" itself must not be a captive to the "past".* *It must be built upon rational humanistic values, regardless of our "past* ". <<An aggressive campaign to rehabilitate VD Savarkar (1883-1966) as a great Indian freedom fighter is under way. He is being touted as a legendary Indian nationalist, a freedom fighter who spent 50 years in the Cellular Jail. His multiple mercy petitions are being hailed as a ruse to secure freedom in order to work for uprooting the British rule. Last but not the least, he is glorified as a rationalist who fought against Untouchability. Let us compare these claims with the writings of Savarkar and records of his activities available in the archives of the Hindu Mahasabha in order to know the truth. It is true that Savarkar penned The Indian War of Independence 1857 in 1907 in which he glorified the joint struggle of Hindus and Muslims in the 1857 rebellion. In this tome he underscored the fact that Hindus and Muslims “were both children of the soil of Hindusthan…India therefore being the common mother of these two, they were brothers by blood”. However, Savarkar’s incarceration at the Circular Jail brought fundamental changes in his idea of India. His first official biographer, Dhananjay Keer corroborated the fact that while leaving the jail, he gave this mantra: “One God, one country, one goal, one race, one life, one language” which was later concretized as Hindutva. ... Savarkar in his presidential address to the Mahasabha session at Ahmedabad (1937) declared: “There are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India… there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems, in India.” Addressing the Mahasabha session at Kanpur (1942) Savarkar outlined the Hindutva strategy in the following words: “The Hindu Mahasabha holds that the leading principle of all practical politics is the policy of Responsive Co-operation (with the British).” He called upon all elected Mahasabha legislators to offer “Responsive Co-operation” unconditionally. What it meant at the political level was unambiguous. ... It is to be noted that Mookerji was deputy premier [in the Muslim League led ministry in Bengal] and held the portfolio of suppressing the Quit India Movement in Bengal. The Savarkar rehabilitation squad wants us to forget about the terrible betrayal of Netaji by Savarkar. When Netaji was planning to liberate India militarily, Savarkar offered full military co-operation to the British masters. Addressing the Mahasabha session at Bhagalpur (1941) he declared: “Our best national interest demands that so far as India’s defence is concerned, Hindudom must ally unhesitatingly, in a spirit of responsive co-operation with the war effort of the Indian government…by joining the Army, Navy and the Aerial forces in as large a number as possible…” According to Mahasabha documents Savarkar was able to inspire 100,000 Hindus to join the ranks of the British armed forces. Savarkar submitted a minimum of five mercy petitions ~ in 1911, 1913, 1914, 1918 and 1920. Savarkarites claim that these were submitted not as acts of cowardice but because he “wanted to die in action. Finding this the only way, he wrote six letters to the British pleading for his release”. A perusal of the two available mercy petitions show that these were submissions offering total surrender. ... Savarkar was incarcerated at the Andamans on 4 July 1911 for two life terms (50 years). On 2 May 1921 (after nine years and ten months] he was transferred along with his elder brother, Babarao, to the mainland. He was finally released conditionally on 6 January 1924 (total imprisonment of 12 years and six months) from Yeravda jail. Savarkar is glorified as a rationalist and a crusader against untouchability. These need to be compared with Savarkar’s beliefs/acts as recorded in the Mahasabha archives. He declared Manu to be the lawgiver for Hindus and emphasized that once we “re-learn the manly lessons” he taught, “our Hindu nation shall prove again as unconquerable and conquering a race as we proved once…” He declared Manusmriti to be “most worship-able after Vedas… Today Manusmriti is Hindu law”. He gave a personal guarantee that “the Hindu Mahasabha shall never force any legislations regarding the entry of untouchables in the ancient temples or compel by law any sacred ancient and moral usage or custom prevailing in those temples. In general the Mahasabha will not back up any Legislation to thrust the reforming views on our Sanatani brothers so far as personal law is concerned”. Savarkar even suggested to the Queen of England that India before it slips out of her hand “should be handed over to an equal an independent ally of Britain like His Majesty the Nepal King” who was the sovereign of all Hindus of the world. It is a really sad time for the largest democracy in the world that a personality antithetical to all its ideals is being presented as an icon with total disregard to historical facts available even in Hindutva archives.>> (Excerpted from: < https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/savarkars-rehabilitation-1503024319.html >.) Reproduced below is something from Sir Syed, in 1988, in order to have a better perspective. In the most telling portion, he's forecasting a bloodbath between the two warring nations, in case the British leave: "(W)ho [Hindus or Muslims?], after the departure of the English, would be conquerors — would rest on the will of God. But until one nation had conquered the other and made it obedient, peace could not reign in the land. This conclusion is based on proofs so absolute that no one can deny it." <<{7} After this long preface I wish to explain what method my nation — nay, rather the whole people of this country — ought to pursue in political matters. I will treat in regular sequence of the political questions of India, in order that you may have full opportunity of giving your attention to them. The first of all is this — In whose hands shall the administration and the Empire of India rest? Now, suppose that all English, and the whole English army, were to leave India, taking with them all their cannon and their splendid weapons and everything, then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations — the Mahomedans and the Hindus — could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable. At the same time you must remember that although the number of Mahomedans is less than that of the Hindus, and although they contain far fewer people who have received a high English education, yet they must not be thought insignificant or weak. Probably they would be by themselves enough to maintain their own position. But suppose they were not. [[38]] Then our Mussalman brothers, the Pathans, would come out as a swarm of locusts from their mountain valleys, and make rivers of blood to flow from their frontier in the north to the extreme end of Bengal. This thing — who, after the departure of the English, would be conquerors — would rest on the will of God. But until one nation had conquered the other and made it obedient, peace could not reign in the land. This conclusion is based on proofs so absolute that no one can deny it.>> (Excerpted from: < http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_sir_sayyid_meerut_1888.html >.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/greenyouth/CACEsOZjP4DSaEh_tY17%3DQP6TjZVxQxxzeaTTh5ufdwGMDUJxYA%40mail.gmail.com.
