Savarkar more important than Chhatrapati Shivaji to BJP

For the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its leaders, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar seems to be more important than Chhatrapati Shivaji, because the former is politically relevant for the party, in terms of appealing to the Hindu voters.

That is why leaders of BJP in Maharashtra are extremely vocal in their protest against the historical revelation by Congress leader and Member of Parliament Rahul Gandhi that Savarkar had sent a mercy petition to the British government, describing himself as its obedient servant. Whereas, the party and its leaders are silent on the statement by former BJP leader and current Governor of Maharashtra Bhagat Singh Koshiyari, comparing Union Minister Nitin Gadkari to Chhatrapati Shivaji and that Shivaji is outdated.

The BJP has tried to imbibe, on the minds of many, that Shivaji established a Hindu kingdom, which is not the case. Shivaji did not establish a Hindu state, but he set up an independent kingdom, without the control of any foreign power. He did not ever make anti-Muslim statements and there were several Muslims with him in his army, apart from being his close associates. It will be difficult for the BJP to accept all these ideals of the Maratha king.

On the other hand, Savarkar is identified as anti-Muslim and a propagator of the two-nation theory, a Hindu nation and a Muslim nation. His anti-Muslim stand was clear on several occasions in his life time. Even in the prison, he had objected to the azaan (call for namaz for Muslims), stating that it disturbed the peace of the Hindus, especially in the morning. To counter that he appealed to Hindu inmates of the prison to blow the conch to match the sound of the azaan. Savarkar firmly believed that Muslims should not be in the nation’s army, as they will be traitors.

Savarkar coined the word Hindutva, which is identified with Hindu political, while Hinduism is to do with the practice of the religion.

Some political parties are up in arms protesting against Rahul Gandhi for his statement on Savarkar, while some are protesting against Koshiyari for his statement on Shivaji.

Unfortunately, the protests are on the lines of party loyalties, rather than reverence to their idol, against whom the statements have been made. The BJP and its leaders are silent on the insult to Shivaji by Koshiyari, rather its national spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi stated on national television during a debate on the apology to the British by Savarkar, that Shivaji had written to Aurangzeb five times, implying that the Chhatrapati too apologised to the Mughal ruler. The likes of Trivedi forget that Shivaji escaped from the Mughal king’s custody in Agra and did not apologise to get out of the prison.

Both the personalities, against whom statements were made, leading to protests, are from Maharashtra and given the political interests of the protesting leaders and their parties, claims are made that Gandhi and Koshiyari, have insulted the state by their statements about Savarkar and Shivaji respectively.

However, little do the protestors realise that they are themselves insulting Shivaji by making him a state personality; Shivaji is a national figure and should always be recognised as one. He was different from other heads of kingdoms, including his contemporaries, on several counts. He was not from a royal family and established his own kingdom to put an end to the atrocities on the masses by the foreign rulers, to get freedom from them and for the betterment of the masses. On the other hand, most other rulers were trying to protect their kingdoms, they inherited. Some others surrendered to the foreign powers either by owing allegiance or by establishing marital.

The BJP’s silence on the statement by the Maharashtra Governor, now and earlier, when he mocked at the child marriage of great social reformers Savitribai and Jyotiba Phule, stinks not only of party politics, but also of casteism, given the castes of Savarkar, Phule and Shivaji.

Nitin Gadkari, who is known to be vocal against the BJP leadership too, should have spoken up that it would be improper to compare him or anybody else to Shivaji.