You cannot have different yardsticks for Savarkar and Jinnah

By abhay mokashi

The claims and counterclaims about Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s stand with the British, when many were fighting for freedom from them, continues to haunt certain sections of the society. The controversy has started once again, after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who is on his Bharat Jodo Yatra, reiterating his statements on Savarkar’s mercy petition.

The BJP and several other Hindu organisations are up in arms against Rahul Gandhi, for his statement on Savarkar. They are supporters of Savarkar for his strong pro-Hindu stand, but they overlook some other facts about Savarkar. Savarkar was a non-practicing Hindu, rather an atheist and advocated beef and pork eating by Hindus.

Archived documents concerning Savarkar and his communications with the British rulers, were made public a few years ago and that brought to light two phases of Savarkar during the freedom struggle. In the first phase, he was a fighter against the British, but in the latter, he sought pardon from the British. Those standing up for Savarkar, should read A Lamb Lionised written by senior journalist Niranjan Takle. The book is based on Takle’s deep study of the documents.

While the blind supporters of Savarkar, either are ignorant of the historical facts concerning Savarkar’s relationship with the foreign rulers or do not wish to accept those facts; the opponents of Savarkar, insist, based on these documents, that by sending a mercy petition to the British, seeking pardon and assuring that he would keep away from the freedom movement, Savarkar, should not be called a Veer (brave). According to the opponents, he is a coward, as he sought pardon from the British.

It cannot be denied that Savarkar had been convicted for his participation in the freedom movement and was put in solitary confinement in Andaman, the nature of the punishment is known as Kaalaa Pani. Savarkar had also brought together Indians in the United Kingdom, who were fighting for India’s freedom.

There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the archived documents, which have been made public, as they are official government records. As such, these documents are not history books, written by authors, who take the liberty to interpret historical facts, depending either on their political leanings, their agenda setting or on their perception of the situation. Unless, it can be proved without doubt that the documents, which include the mercy petitions of Savarkar, are fake, they have to be accepted as real.

Savarkar is neither the only freedom fighter of India nor was he the only person to be sent to solitary confinement. There is no doubt that he suffered during the imprisonment, so did many others who were jailed. Many others were tortured and an equal number or more were hanged to death by the British. Almost, all of them had the opportunity to file mercy petitions and lead a comfortable life. None of them did that, so Savarkar is an exception on that count.

Young men like Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and so many others, not only did not seek pardon from the death sentence, rather they said they had no regrets for what they did for their motherland. Going by the documents related to Savarkar’s correspondence with the British and his mercy petitions, it is clear that he had a change of thought and probably regretted his acts; there is nothing wrong if this is true.

It is not unusual for human to change their stand on certain issues or to change their ideology. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is in the denial mode as regards the facts concerning Savarkar, accepts that an individual’s thoughts and ideals can undergo metamorphosis, rather the party leaders want people to undergo such metamorphosis to join their bandwagon. That is the reason that the BJP has been inducting leaders, especially elected representatives of opposition parties, into its fold.

Savarkar’s mercy petition to the British, his acceptance of a pension from them and the signing off, of the petitions with the line, “I beg to remain, sir, your most obedient servant, V D Savarkar”, cannot and should not undo his contribution to the freedom movement before this change of stand.

Such a stand on Savarkar, should apply to Mohammad Ali Jinnah too. Jinnah, who is blamed for the partition of the country, leading to the birth of Pakistan, was India’s freedom fighter, till he changed his position, with his two-nation theory. It cannot be denied that Jinnah defended Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak in a case filed by the British.