The answer is obviously NO, unless you are a logically challenged leftist. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (28 May 1883 – 26 February 1966), much revered by the Nationalist-Right and much condemned by the Liberal-Left. An avid activist of Indian independence in his formative years, a prolific writer with astute legal knowledge, a voracious reader and the formulator of the Hindutva philosophy, Savarkar was one of the tallest figures in the history of post-1857 India who was, in intellect and knowledge, equivalent to the founding fathers of modern India.

As much as one would like to imagine today’s relatively powerful and prosperous India as one envisioned by the man whom we like to call Father of the Nation, Gandhi, it is, in reality, much closer to the India envisioned by Savarkar. In a case of veritable misfortune, the lobby that seeks to denigrate him by labelling him with all sorts of contemptuous adjectives, has carefully constructed a series of untruths regarding the man. On the other hand, the group that reveres him falls alarmingly short of either intellect or knowledge, or maybe both, in order to curb the spread of fabrications in an intellectual manner.

Veer Savarkar is possibly the most misunderstood, mischaracterised figure in the Indian political history. A patriot, revolutionary,reformer,poet, intellectual and an atheist,he has different facets and is a complex man in its entirety. People have spread various myths, falsehoods about him, given he’s associated with Hindutva ideology. But here we are trying to disseminate facts by countering the falsehoods and misrepresentations about him.

Source: Google

There’s reams and reams of opinions and columns on different portals where all sorts of fallicious,mallicious allegations are thrown upon Veer Savarkar to calumnize him.

  • First claim: Savarkar endorsed the idea of two nations within a nation – a Hindu nation and a Muslim nation. He thought Hindus and Muslims are separate nations.

Fact: Savarkar didn’t endorse that idea,he merely accepted a fact as it was. He observed:

“Indian Muslims have not come out of the shell of their deeply rooted religious loyalty and religious concept of a state. As per their religious belief, the world is divided into two parts, Muslim land and enemy land. All territories settled by Muslims or ruled by Muslims are Muslim lands. The lands populated by non-Muslims or ruled by non-Muslims are enemy lands and no Muslim must have any loyalty to that enemy land. Not only that, every Muslim must, by his capacity, by hook or crook, convert non-Musiims to isiam even by force or coercion if necessary. It is also their duty to invite a Muslim nation to invade such an enemy territory to conquer that land. It is no use quoting a few sentences here and there. Read the Koran fully to understand the Muslim attitude. Moreover, it is not what the book says, what is important is how its followers behave. If you study the history of Muslims and their current behaviour, you will realise that they follow the pattern that I have just depicted.”

Nearly same thing, in effect, is written by Dr. Ambedkar who was a dispassionate and unbiased observer of the whole situation surrounding Pakistan and partition. He says:

“Among the tenets one that calls for notice is the tenet of Islam which says that in a country which is not under Muslim rule, wherever there is a conflict between Muslim law and the law of the land, the former must prevail over the latter, and a Muslim will be justified in obeying the Muslim law and defying the law of the land…The only allegiance a Musalman, whether civilian or soldier, whether living under a Muslim or under a non-Muslim administration, is commanded by the Koran to acknowledge is his allegiance to God, to his Prophet and to those in authority from among the Musalmans…”

Was accepting the fact that India indeed was two nation because of Islam submitting to partition? Absolutely no. Savarkar clarifies:

“People still do not understand the important thing that stating the fact of Mussulman and Hindu nations being present in Hindusthan is not to accept the Pakistani adamancy of carving a country of the Mussalmans.”

 

Next claim: He wanted to impose Sanskrit and Hindi.

Fact: It is true that he supported Hindi and Sanskrit but we have to see the broader context to understand that. Gandhiji wanted Hindustani to be national language, Ambedkar wanted Sanskrit as a national language at that time. They all wanted to do that because they thought it would unite India. Now indeed it seems bad but at that most leaders wanted the same.

 

  • Next claim: He didn’t hide his hatred. He was pretty open about it.In his book “the six glorious epochs of Indian history” in his very first chapter, he calls the ‘Muslims as stupid.

Fact: Savarkar pointed out a false myth and ignorance among Muslims of that time about the name Sikandar, how that amounts to hatred? Like Ambedkar pointed out casteist notions of Hindus at that time and sometimes he call them sick men of India, would it mean that he hated Hindus? No. It was said in a particular context. Read the full statement of Savarkar and say how it is hatred to point out just a fact.

“A stupid notion common amongst most of the Muslims is worth a mention here. The name ‘Alexander’ was corrupted into ‘Shikandar’ in the Persian language. So long as the Greek empire had Persia under its sway, many of the Persian people highly impressed by the unprecedented valour of Alexander named their new born sons Shikandar. Later on, even after the Persians were converted to Islam, this practice of naming their children after ‘Shikandar’ persisted. The Muslim converts in India adopted that practice. But ignorant of the historical origin of the word ‘Shikandar’, thousands of Muslims in India, fondly believe that like Mohammad Ali, Kasim and others, the name Shikandar is a Muslim name, and that valiant Alexander must be some Muslim personality. Nay, he could be so very valiant and a world conqueror simply because he was a Muslim. If any one tries to convince these fanatic, vulgar and vainglorious Muslims that ‘Shikandar (Alexander) was not a Muslim, that he could never be one, as Mohammed Paighamber, the founder of the Muslim religion, was himself born not less than a thousand years after the death of Shikandar, these, diehard Muslims, would call that person uninformed.”

I don’t see any hatred in pointing out a truth. Gandhiji too said that according to his own experience,A Muslim was a bully and a Hindu a coward. Was he hating anyone or just stating what he faced? Sardar Patel’s famous 3 January 1948 public speech in Calcutta where he said:

‘Most of the Muslims who have stayed back in Hindustan, helped in creating Pakistan. Now, I don’t understand what has changed in one night that they are asking us not to doubt their loyaltyhttps://youtu.be/40aannaRcUI

Was saying a fact as it stands hatred towards Muslims? No.

 

  • Next claim: He wanted muslims to be treated like the Blacks of America.

Fact :In that quoted interview he merely says that Muslims were to be treated as minorities, reference to negroes is not to be understood as he wanted to treat them like negroes were treated in USA. This can be clarified by his other public utterences. He says:

“We shall ever guarantee protection to the religion, culture and language of the minorities for themselves, but we shall no longer tolerate any aggression on their part on the equal liberty of the Hindus to guard their religion, culture and language as well. If the non-Hindu minorities are to be protected then surely the Hindu majority also must be protected against any aggressive minority in India.”

 

“…the utmost that we can do under the circumstances is to form an Indian state in which none is allowed any special weightage of representation and none is paid an extra price to buy his loyalty to the state… the Hindus as a nation are willing to discharge their duty to a common Indian state on equal footings.”

 

“I stand for equality and no concessions while Jinnah is for more concessions and doesn’t stand for equality.”

Isn’t equal rights to everyone, majority and minorities alike, a symbol of true democracy? So,He was a true democrat in the sense of the word.

 

  • Claim: He says he has no problems with other minorities except Muslims

Fact: If a minority wants communal representations,if they want 6 votes to 4 Muslims (this was literally happening in some provinces), if they want to divide India, why wouldn’t any true patriot have problems with such kind of minority which was undemocratic?Muslims demanded preferential treatment above Hindus and other minorities, communal representations, separate electorates,all of which was against true democracy and secularism so obviously undemocratic demands of minority were problematic to him. Sardar Patel himself said to Muslim members of constitutional assembly who were demanding separate electorates, even after partition:

“I once more appeal to you to forget the past… You have got what you wanted. You have got a separate state and remember, you are the people who were responsible for it, and not those who remain in Pakistan. You led the agitation… What is it that you want now? I don’t understand. In the majority Hindu provinces you, the minorities, you led the agitation. You got the Partition and now again you tell me and ask me to say for the purpose of securing the affection of the younger brother that I must agree to the same thing again, to divide the country again in the divided part. For God’s sake, understand that we have also got some sense… There will be generosity towards you, but there must be reciprocity. If it is absent then you can take it from me that no soft words can conceal what is beyond your words. Therefore, I plainly once more appeal to you strongly that let us forget and let us be one nation.”https://www.vifindia.org/article/2013/november/18/sardar-patel-s-legacy-and-the-congress-a-reality-check

So, Patel directly says those who want separate electorates want another partition. Was stating a fact about such separatist mindset of minorities hatred? Then yes Patel was hateful as well.

  • Claim: In his constitution where he claims he will treat all minorities as equals was a lip service. Savarkar played an important role in aggrevating the already existing communal tensions.

Fact: Lip service? They’re making a document like constitution and not some drawing book dude and you are saying it’s lip service. Nonsense! Even in constitution assembly debates, Gadgil recognised many principles of the constitution document by Hindu mahasabha.

How Savarkar aggravated communal tensions when he wanted a true indian state which was democratic and secular. He said:

“Let the Indian state be purely Indian. Let it not recognise any invidious distinctions whatsoever as regards the franchise, public services, offices, taxation on the grounds of religion and race. Let no cognisance be taken whatsoever of man being Hindu or Mohammedan, Christian or Jew. Let all citizens of that Indian state be treated according to their individual worth irrespective of their religious or racial percentage in the general population.”

Is treating everyone in the eyes of law communal? Is making no distinction between Hindu and Muslim communal? Then Savarkar can be considered communal.

The Hindu Mahasabha under Savarkar published a constitution for free India in 1945 where they highlighted 16 fundamental right including freedom of religion,no state religion,living wage,right to education,freedom of speech,right to access to public places etc. Below are the screenshots of that document:

Source – https://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10973/52053/GIPE-069038.pdf?sequence=1%E2%80%A6

Is there anything communal, Anti minority in that document? Indeed no. It is an egalitarian document which makes no distinction between any communities and treats every person irrespective of faith as equals. Yet, people would blame him for the partition. How unfair and untrue it could be!

The partition was caused by the ideology of Islam which was harked back by Muslim league and Jinnah. Ambedkar says unequivocally unlike today’s leftists:

Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin.

So Savarkar, Ambedkar,Gandhiji, Nehru,all of them were irrelevant for true Muslims whose separatist mindset was naturally because of Quran and Hadith. They didn’t need Savarkar or Tilak to have communal feelings within them,it was inherent in their faith, Islam. An intellectually honest person,a truth seeking person should accept that fact.

 

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.