Savarkar
Page 12
In a rare approach of postulating a broad humanitarian acceptance, Vinayak always emphasized that he or his associates must not hate the British; that they should be considered enemies only till the time they illegitimately captured and subjugated Indians. But once India was liberated from these shackles, there should be no trouble embracing them as friends and fellow humans. So much so that if tomorrow another country captured England in a similar illegal and exploitative way, Indians must be the first to support England’s right to struggle and free itself. Vinayak proclaimed in both Mitra Mela and Abhinav Bharat that their true caste and religion is humanity and humanity alone. ‘Our concept of freedom,’ wrote Vinayak, ‘was expansive and all-embracing—the actual nation is this earth and the true king, the God Almighty. But in today’s India all kinds of civil liberties and personal freedoms are held captive. Even for spiritual freedom, political freedom to practice your path is necessary.’ 34 He found no incongruity between spiritual struggle for salvation and a political struggle for freedom. The latter, he believed, was a stepping stone towards the former and should not be considered a sin. The main aim of Abhinav Bharat was an overarching and all-inclusive vision of integrating the material and spiritual responsibilities of both the nation and the individual to attain a state of complete freedom—an almost utopian freedom in all its dimensions. This was not limited to just materialistic welfare, but intellectual, moral and spiritual progress too, along with political independence. The vision of freedom was one of divinity, of a divine goddess. No wonder then that they started and ended every meeting and their letters to one another with ‘Swatantrya Lakshmi ki Jai’ (Victory to the Goddess of Freedom).
Cautioning his young comrades against joining the organization with romantic ideals of revolution, he urged them to be prepared for the thorny path ahead:
Easy patriotism seems like the order of the day and has also led several people to important positions, but for us the steps of patriotism lead straight to the noose. If all these courteous petitions to the government seeking concessions could lead to freedom, we would be the happiest. But since that is an impossibility, that is why we are going on this path. The path of petitions and requests are important and at best, they were preliminary measures. But the ultimate means was only armed struggle. However, this path will be bloody and that is something I keep emphasizing to my associates by narrating the tales of similar political revolutions in Netherlands, Ireland, Italy, etc. It will not just be imprisonment like Tilak suffered. But you will be beaten black and blue, eyes gouged out, kept hungry for days and weeks, your parents, wife and kids will be brought before you and insulted in front of your eyes. While you might be strong enough to suffer physical and mental tortures on yourself but to see your innocent family suffer in front of you will require strength of another kind. Every trick will be employed by the oppressor to break your will, your soul, your heart and your resolve. Do you have it in you to suffer like the Hindus did in the past or the Protestants? Do you have it in you to burn in the pyre like Sati and yet remain alive and be a warrior of dharma for your country? If yes, only then this path is open for you. 35
The clarity of thought, purpose and vision of a man in his twenties is striking when one reads Vinayak’s prose and lectures of this time.
Meanwhile, the Nashik branch of Abhinav Bharat invited Tilak to its meeting on 25 and 26 August 1906. There was great enthusiasm that a national leader of his stature was sharing the dais with them and guiding their activities. On this occasion, Aabaa Darekar (also known by then as the poet Govind) welcomed the eminent guest with a poetic address titled ‘Lokamanyanchi Bhupali’. Hari Anant Thatte, the head of the Nashik unit, gave an elaborate account of the secret society and its collection of arms. The same evening, a secret meeting of the core members of the Abhinav Bharat with Tilak was conducted by Babarao. Despite a thorough scrutiny of all the attending invitees, there was a mole among the attendees, Narendra Singh Pardeshi, who had pretended to be a dedicated member but was a spy serving the police. Babarao addressed the gathering and voiced his opinion that India would never achieve absolute independence by merely petitioning for it. The revolutionary movement, he opined, needed to adopt the Russian way of revolution to achieve this objective. Tilak gave the young men a patient hearing and then shared the following words of advice:
There is nothing wrong in the basic approach of Abhinav Bharat. But before decisive means for gaining independence are available to us, any hasty steps driven by mere emotions will defeat our purpose wholly. Nothing will be gained by ordinary means. We have gone through this process in our times. My experience tells me to advise you to be a little more patient and at the same time alert, till you are fully prepared. Once all the preparations are complete, then I will become your leader. 36
It was a timely advice from an elderly statesman who had seen a lot of the revolutionary movement, its spirit, as well as its failures, and hence wanted it to succeed this time.
S.M. Paranjpe was invited for the Ganapati festival of 1905 by the Nashik branch. Over two days, he delivered six scholarly lectures and was felicitated by Vinayak. By then, news about the insidious plan of the British to partition Bengal had begun to trickle in. Vinayak proceeded to Kothur and then Poona where he condemned this move and forcefully advocated a bonfire of foreign goods as a mark of protest.
~
The years between 1905 and 1910 are considered an important watershed period in the evolution of anti-colonial political activity in the midst of seemingly contradictory application of colonial power—reforms and repression. The period saw tectonic shifts in the political scene in India. The move by the British government, particularly Viceroy Lord Curzon, to partition Bengal on communal lines, beginning with the release of the plan draft in 1903, under the pretext of it being too unwieldy and large to administer, proved to be one of the last nails in the coffin of internal schisms of the Indian National Congress.
From the late 1890s onward, the INC had been comatose. While resigning from the post of joint secretary in 1900, Dinshaw Wacha bitterly complained to Dadabhai Naoroji: ‘Your big leaders nowadays don’t care to attend the Congress, so we have a minor crew—most of whom try to boss themselves without judgement and wisdom.’ 37 Curzon too saw the Congress as a failing organization that was ‘tottering to its fall’. 38 But the Bombay leaders, especially Gokhale, tried to infuse some enthusiasm in the rank and file and undertook whirlwind tours of Bengal, Madras, the Central Provinces and Berar. 39 The prospect of an imminent change in government in Britain and the Liberal Party coming to power gave them a sense of hope to bargain better. The Government of India however tried to create a wedge among the leaders of the presidencies of Bombay and Madras vis-à-vis those of Bengal through preferential treatment and official interference in every matter of governance in Bengal.
The final blow came in the form of Curzon’s Partition of Bengal plan that was implemented on 16 October 1905. The Muslim-dominated areas of East Bengal were carved out craftily to also undermine the influence of dominant castes of the Hindu minority, such as the Brahmins, Baidyas and Kayasthas, who played important roles in the Congress movement. This led to massive outrage across Bengal. The leadership of the Congress was placed in a confusing dilemma. On the one hand, they were negotiating reforms with the government and Gokhale himself was readying to visit London to present the case before the British public. On the other, their own colleagues were advocating massive boycotts and violent protests to condemn the partition plan. Young and new leaders such as Bipin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo Ghose, who had hitherto little or no influence in the politics of Bengal, were seizing the opportunity and becoming the mouthpiece of the agitation, sidelining old-time Congress veterans such as Surendranath Banerjea and Bhupendra Nath Bose.
Several Congress leaders in Bengal scrambled for clarity on the organization’s stand on the issue and even wrote to Gokhale that the ‘Congress should express its opinion in unmistakable terms as to whether or not boycott is a legitima
te means of constitutional agitation and as such deserving of sympathy’. 40 The situation in Punjab too was not too comfortable for the Congress as provincial reforms suggested by the likes of Gokhale meant a larger share to the Muslim and Sikh representatives, with marginalization of the Hindus. Lala Lajpat Rai and other leaders there advocated a more strident approach than the one being adopted by the Bombay clique. ‘What Bengal has done,’ wrote Lajpat Rai, ‘should be done by every province in ventilating its grievances.’ 41 Despite regional differences of approach and localized problems, there was a slow emergence of a national pan-Indian political identity that made common cause with grievances in any part of the country and also drew from global experiences and ideas.
In all this, Tilak offered himself as a brilliant alternative who spoke out unabashedly for the interests of all these threatened factions, even as he consolidated his traditional base in Maharashtra. Aided by the support of young revolutionaries and secret societies like Vinayak and his Abhinav Bharat, the former having already opened channels of communication with similar societies across India, galvanizing a pan-India support was easier. The evolution from fledgling mass mobilizations to widespread revolutionary activities in different parts of India, and later abroad, was another feature of this period. In heralding this important phase of revolutionary activism in India and abroad, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s role is seldom discussed and scantily researched.
Also, around the same time, the Russo-Japanese war of 1904–05 and the defeat of a European force by an Asian country had a psychological impact on Indians. The director of criminal intelligence of India had cautioned: ‘It [the Japanese victory] not only thrilled the entire oriental world with new hope . . . but it inspired India to the realization that it would be only a matter of time when her people would also be able to hold their own as free people in their own country.’ 42
Vinayak who had kept a close watch on the happenings across India and also within the Congress decided that this would be the opportune moment to strengthen the hands of Tilak. Vinayak gave rousing speeches calling for action. In a meeting on 1 October 1905 held at the auditorium of the Sarvajanik Sabha in Poona, Vinayak floated the idea of creating a mass bonfire of foreign clothes. N.C. Kelkar and S.M. Paranjpe were present at this meeting. N.C. Kelkar, who was chairing the session, suggested to Vinayak that instead of setting clothes on fire, it might be more prudent to collect them all and distribute it to the poor and needy. Vinayak gently retorted that what they were setting fire to were not merely clothes, but the very roots of British imperialism and the sparks of the bonfire would be the first stepping stones towards freedom. ‘It is not the videshi [foreign] cloth that we burn,’ said Vinayak, ‘but the videshi itself—the treacherous attachment to foreigners and consequent betrayal of our Nation that we mean to burn here.’ 43
Interestingly, there was intense rivalry between Kelkar, then editor of Kesari , and Paranjpe of Kal . The Kesari of the following day promptly reported that clothes would be collected and distributed to the poor. Vinayak was disappointed that misleading information would completely beat the spirit of the idea. He visited different printing presses of the city, but they were all closed as it was a Sunday. He then rushed to Paranjpe’s house. The Manohar Press of the Kal was located within his house. The two men sat and personally prepared the typescript for the following day’s edition enumerating the real purpose of collecting clothes. 44
On Tilak’s return to Poona from Bombay, Vinayak met him and suggested that a massive bonfire of foreign-made goods and clothes be lit in Poona. Tilak appreciated the suggestion but asked him to ensure that there needed to be at least a cartload of foreign clothes in the bonfire in order to make a shattering impact. Vinayak immediately mobilized the entire Abhinav Bharat cadre to collect foreign clothes in large numbers. The Bhopatkar brothers who ran the Maharashtra Vidyalaya supported him with student volunteers.
Inspired by Vinayak’s speeches, many groups in Poona came forward to express their solidarity. On 2 October 1905, the Brahmin priests of Poona arranged a meeting at the Omkareshwar temple, supporting the concept of swadeshi and boycotting foreign goods. On 6 October, the women of Poona held a meeting in the Mahadev temple of Sardar Natu and decided to boycott foreign-made bangles, kerosene, glassware and other domestic items.
By that year’s Dussehra festival, enough clothes had been gathered and they were taken in cartloads during the procession, which started at Maharashtra Vidyalaya near Panjarapol. 45 Paranjpe and Bhaskar Bhopatkar were a part of the procession and Tilak joined them midway near Chitrashala in Poona. The procession ended near Fergusson College. Tilak, Paranjpe, Vinayak and several others made speeches. Vinayak, V.M. Bhat, Hari Anant Thatte, Shankar B. Moghe, Haribhau Risbud, the famous poet V.G. Maydeo 46 and others were also present. 47 One of the students present at the occasion was Vishnu Ganesh Pingley, who later became famous for his involvement in the Ghadr movement. It was almost 9 p.m. when the meeting ended, with a massive bonfire of the clothes at Lakdi Pul. When people implored Paranjpe to speak, he merely picked up an unburned coat from the bonfire, pretended to check its empty pockets and threw it back into the fire. This action indicated that the British were pickpockets who were looting this country and the bonfire was an attempt to destroy their influence.
On Tilak’s advice, Vinayak and his associates kept a watch on the bonfire till all the clothes were burnt. Meanwhile, Babarao organized similar bonfires at Nashik on the same day. The Nashik Race Course grounds reverberated with slogans of ‘Goranna hya deshaatoon hakalle jayeel ’ (The British should be expelled from India immediately). 48 Thus, an issue related to distant Bengal suddenly unified nationalists across India and strengthened the hands of ‘extremist’ elements within the Congress. All this, while the moderates were still hopeful of securing a reversal of the partition through their prayers, petitions and peaceful negotiations. Reporting the bonfire, the Bombay Samachar of 10 October 1905 stated:
Mr Savarkar, a student of Fergusson College who took a prominent part in the movement and was the mover of the proposal brought forward at a previous meeting in Poona for banning foreign goods called upon the audience to cast away all foreign articles in their possession. This appeal was quickly responded and caps, hats and umbrellas, etc., began to pour in from all sides from the audience. 49
The anti-British upsurge in the wake of the Partition of Bengal provided an impetus, even if temporarily, to swadeshi and a boycott of British goods. There was even talk of a passive resistance. Tilak presented as an alternative to the moderates’ version of constitutional reforms and legislative participation:
This is boycott and this is what we mean when we say boycott is a political weapon. We shall not give them assistance to collect revenue and keep peace. We shall not assist them in fighting beyond the frontiers or outside India with Indian blood and money. We shall not assist them in carrying on the administration and justice. We shall have our own courts, and when the time comes we shall not pay taxes. Can you do that by your united efforts? If you can, you are free from tomorrow. 50
Tilak’s Kesari and Mahratta were exulting in the victory that the extremist camp managed during this occasion. They also highlighted the growing estrangement between Gokhale and Pherozeshah Mehta within the moderate faction as the latter felt increasingly marginalized. It was in such a politically turbulent situation that the Congress session was held in 1905 in Benares with Gokhale as the president. In a masterful balancing act, he denounced the Partition of Bengal as ‘a cruel wrong inflicted on our Bengali brethren, a complete illustration of the worst features of bureaucratic rule in India, its utter contempt for public opinion, its arrogant pretensions to superior wisdom, its reckless disregard of the most cherished feelings of the people and its cool preference of Service interests to those of the governed’. In none of this was the government or Curzon criticized and it was made to appear like a mere oversight of a bureaucratic decision. Much to the surprise of the extremist faction, Gokhale also commended the
boycott movement, saying: ‘On an extreme occasion, of course a boycotting demonstration is perfectly legitimate, but that occasion must be one to drive all the classes, as in Bengal, to act with one impulse, and make all leaders sink their differences . . .’ Almost immediately, he added a note of caution to save his stand: ‘It is well to remember that the term boycott, owing to its origin, has got unsavoury associations and it conveys to the mind before everything else, a vindictive desire to injure another. Such a desire on our part as a normal feature of our relations with England, is of course out of the question.’ 51 He had cleverly posited himself and his ideology as the mainstream of the Congress, and those like the Lal-Bal-Pal trio (as Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal were called), the outliers or the extremists. The divorce between the two factions was almost nearly complete.
Even as the Congress’s internal squabbles intensified, Vinayak paid a price for leading the movement of organizing the bonfire of foreign clothes. The principal of Fergusson College, Sir Raghunath Purushottam Paranjpe, was an anglophile, and also the first Indian to achieve the coveted title of senior wrangler at the University of Cambridge. He was aghast that a student of his college had been found participating in such a movement. Vinayak was fined Rs 10 and expelled from the college residence. This earned Vinayak not only the distinct honour of being the first Indian leader to have organized a mass bonfire of foreign goods, but also the first student to be rusticated from a government-aided institution for political purposes. With no place to stay, Vinayak went to his friend, Ganpatrao Joglekar, who also offered to pay the fine. But the students had already collected vast amounts of money for the fine. Vinayak paid the fine from his own pocket and donated the rest for the nationalist cause. In a further vindictive act, Fergusson College rusticated Joglekar as well for supporting Vinayak. He then took shelter at his friend Haribhau Risbud’s house.