Notably, VD Savarkar’s elder brother, Babarao Savarkar, was also a revolutionary who was lodged in the Cellular Jail in Kaalapani. His younger brother too was a revolutionary. It was a family of brave patriots and revolutionaries.
Shahid Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Chandrashekhar Azad were admirers of the Savarkar family, and drew inspiration from them. Revolutionary Madanlal Dhingra who shot Sir Wyllie in London in 1909 after a failed assassination attempt on the then Viceroy, Lord Curzon, was a keen follower of Savarkar.
Savarkar was elected president of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1937, and served in that post till 1943. After the Muslim League’s Pakistan Resolution of 1940 Savarkar could foresee the problems ahead for Hindus in India, and wanted Hindus to be militarily well-equipped. Therefore, rather than the ‘Quit India 1942’, Savarkar gave a call to the Hindus to take advantage of the opportunity of getting militarily trained by joining the army in the British war effort in WW-II. Fortunately, a very large number of Hindus responded to Savarkar’s call, and joined the British army—finally making it Hindu-majority from its earlier position of Muslim-majority. That helped tremendously after partition and independence, providing a large army to India, the Muslims in the army having mostly opted for Pakistan. Unlike Gandhi and Nehru, Savarkar knew what a country of the size of India needed to defend itself. Dr Ziauddin Ahmed, the then VC of AMU, had indeed raised an alarm on the increasing number of Hindus enlisting in the armed forces, thereby reducing the proportion of Muslims. But for Savarkar’s whirlwind recruitment drive during WW-II, Pakistan, after partition, would have had 60–70% of the soldiers, enough to overwhelm India in the border areas in a conflict—this debt to Savarkar is sadly unacknowledged.
‘Quit India’, which Savarkar opposed, fetched nothing for India or the Congress in real terms, fizzled out in two months, and proved counter-productive (for details, please check the other forthcoming book of the author on Sardar Patel and the Independence Movement). Hindu Mahasabha activists protested Gandhi holding talks with Jinnah in 1944, denouncing it as appeasement. Savarkar considered Gandhi a naive leader and a sissy. He stated that although Gandhi “babbled compassion and forgiveness”, he “has a very narrow and immature head”.
Savarkar was years ahead of Gandhi-Nehru on many counts. Gandhi, Nehru and the Congress gave a call for complete independence for India very late at the end of 1929, what Savarkar had called for way back in 1900! Bonfire of foreign clothes on which the Gandhians claim copyright was performed much earlier by Savarkar in 1905, later copied by Gandhi. Upon creation of Pakistan, Savarkar had rightly predicted: “Till a nation based on religious fanaticism exists beside India she won’t ever be able to live in peace.”
In the 1930s and later, when the Muslims of East Bengal (now Bangladesh) began migrating to Brahmaputra valley in Assam for livelihood, pooh-poohing the grave warnings from sane quarters, pseudo-secular, naive Nehru made an irresponsible statement: “Nature abhors vacuum, meaning where there is open space how can one prevent people from settling there?” Savarkar responded with his masterly prediction: “Nature also abhors poisonous gas. The migration of such large numbers of Muslims in Assam threatened not just the local culture but would also prove to be a national security problem for India on its north-east frontier.”
Savarkar, in a statement on 19 December 1947, heartily supported an independent Jewish state; and demanded restoration to the Jews their entire historical holy land and Fatherland of Palestine. Terming it as an appeasement to Muslims by Nehru, he expressed regret at India's vote against the creation of the Jewish state at the UN (for details, please see ‘Nehru & Israel’ above).
Noting China’s invasion of Tibet in 1950, and Nehru’s weak-kneed policy, Savarkar had predicted in 1954 itself: “After what China has done to Tibet, kowtowing to the Chinese would whet its appetite. I won’t be surprised if China feels emboldened to swallow Indian land tempted by India’s weak-kneed approach.”
Savarkar and other prisoners in Kaalapani were subjected to brutally inhuman treatment. Had even 5% of that treatment been meted out to the likes of Nehru, they would have given up the fight for freedom. However, the sacrifices of Savarkar and others were not recognised.
What is most noteworthy is that while many who suffered in the fight for freedom remained faceless and unacknowledged, Nehrus enjoyed all the fruits of their sacrifice—and many, many times more. It was the most profitable investment they made, with returns thousands of times more, and through the decades, for the whole dynasty and descendants!
Talking of suffering and sacrifices, many were tortured and whipped in jails. Did Nehrus get that treatment? No. Nehru himself describes in his book of severe whipping of other imprisoned freedom-fighters in jails. For most Gandhiites, especially the top ones, the jails were, relatively speaking, tolerable. That their life in jail was not all that terrible can be inferred from an episode described by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who was in Ahmednagar prison along with Nehru and others: Upon their remonstration with the jailor for serving them food on iron plates, the jailer had apologised and had the plates replaced by China plates and dinner set. As the cook in the jail could not prepare food to their taste, a better cook was soon appointed!
Nehru had access to newspapers, magazines and books in Naini and other jails. He also had ample supply of reading and writing materials. He wrote ‘Glimpses of World History’ in Naini jail between 1930 and 1933; ‘An Autobiography’ during 1934-35 in Bareilly and Dehra Dun jails; and ‘Discovery of India’ between 1942 and 1946 in Ahmednagar Jail.
It is said that Sir Harcourt Butler, the then Governor of UP, had even sent quality food and a champagne bottle to Motilal Nehru in his prison, out of consideration for their association. They did not show similar indulgence to others. Even Subhas Chandra Bose, who was a non-Gandhiite, was ill-treated in prison, which severely affected his health.
Writes Nehru in his autobiography: “Personally, I have been very fortunate, and almost invariably, I have received courtesy from my own countrymen and English. Even my gaolers and the policemen, who have arrested me or escorted me as a prisoner from place to place, have been kind to me, and much of the bitterness of conflict and the sting of gaol life has been toned down because of this human touch...Even for Englishmen I was an individual and not merely one of the mass, and, I imagine, the fact that I had received my education in England, and especially my having been to an English public school, brought me nearer to them. Because of this, they could not help considering me as more or less civilized after their own pattern...” Contrast this with the fate of thousands of freedom fighters who really suffered.
And, it is worth noting that it was not as if the Gandhian Movement won independence for India. The main reasons for India gaining independence were the precarious economic condition of the UK thanks to WW-II, and their colonies, particularly India, becoming a huge financial drag, rather than a source of income; realisation by the British that they could no longer trust the Indian Army to suppress Indians and continue to rule over them, after the doings of the INA under Subhas Bose, the INA Red Fort trials of 1945-46 that mobilised public opinion against the British on an unprecedented scale, Indian Naval Mutiny of 1946 and Jabalpur Army Mutiny of 1946, both partially provoked by the INA trials; and exhaustion of the British militarily, administratively, financially, and above all, mentally after the WW-II to continue with their colonies. In fact, by the end of the Second World War territorial colonisation had ceased to be viable enterprise. The last movement of the Congress for freedom—Quit India—happened in 1942, many, many years prior to the grant of independence, and fizzled out in mere months. In fact, many of the princes of the princely states and other lackeys of the British were trying to impress upon the British not to leave, as there was little pressure upon them to do so.
Savarkar became a fierce critic of the Indian National Congress. No wonder an all-out attempt was made to falsely implicate him in the Gandhi Murder Case. Manohar Malgaonkar, after extensive research, published ‘
The Men who Killed Gandhi’ in 1977. He does not point to any guilt on Savarkar's part. Here is an extract from the author's introduction in the book:
“...Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar’s secret assurance to Mr. L.B. Bhopatkar, that his client, Mr V.D. Savarkar had been implicated as a murder-suspect on the flimsiest grounds. Then again, certain other pertinent details such as the ‘doctoring’ of a confession by a magistrate whose duty it was only to record what was said only came out in later years...”
Malgaokar's book also states:
“...Why were the police so anxious to implicate Savarkar? Was it merely that, having failed in their proper function to arrest Nathuram before he killed Gandhi, they were making a bid to save face by raising the bogey of some sensational plot which involved a big leader who, providentially happened to be in bad odour with the government of the day? Or was that government itself, or some powerful group in it, using the police agency to destroy a rival political organization or at least to destroy a fiercely uncompromising opposition stalwart?
“Or, again, was the whole thing a manifestation of some form of phobia peculiar to India, religious, racial, linguistic, or provincial, that made Savarkar a natural target for the venom of some section of society?
“...Savarkar being made an accused in the Gandhi-murder trial may well have been an act of political vendetta. Of course, Badge [approver who implicated Savarkar], on his track record is a slippery character and not to be relied upon, but he was most insistent to me that he had been forced to tell lies, and that his pardon and future stipend by the police department in Bombay depended upon his backing the official version of the case and, in particular that, he never saw Savarkar talking to Apte, and never heard him telling them: ‘Yeshaswi houn ya.’
“...[Dr BR Ambedkar confided to Bhopatkar, Savarkar's lawyer:] ‘There is no real charge against your client; quite worthless evidence has been concocted. Several members of the cabinet were strongly against it, but to no avail. Even Sardar Patel could not go against these orders. But, take it from me, there just is no case. You will win.’…”
It seems Nehru leveraged the emotions against the assassination of Gandhi to fix Savarkar, and ensured that no one came in the way—not even senior cabinet colleagues: they must have been wary lest they be accused or defamed of trying to protect an accomplice in the assassination of Gandhi.
Malgaokar's further wrote:
“…He [Savarkar] was sixty-four years old, and had been ailing for a year or more. He was detained on 6 February 1948, and remained in prison for the whole of the year which the investigation and the trial took. He was adjudged ‘not guilty’ on 10 February 1949. The man who had undergone twenty-six years of imprisonment or detention under the British for his part in India’s struggle for freedom was thus slung back into jail for another year the moment that freedom came…”
It has been reported that in the wake of the assassination of Gandhi, and the rumours that got floated, a mob went on a rampage against Savarkar in Mumbai. Yet, the state government then under the Congress made no arrangements to ensure security for Savarkar (who was bed-ridden) and his kin. His family members and friends had to somehow defend his house using sticks when the mob attacked it. In the process, his younger brother Dr Narayanrao Savarkar (also a freedom fighter) was seriously injured, and later succumbed to his injuries.
The ‘democratic’ and ‘freedom-loving’ ‘cultured’ Nehru tried to destroy all those who were opposed to him. Although the court acquitted Savarkar, he was so defamed that he could not rise again. After his acquittal, Savarkar was arrested by the government for making ‘militant Hindu nationalist speeches’, and was released after agreeing to give up political activities—what then was the difference between the British India and Nehru’s Independent India! Nehru had forbidden the Congress members to participate in any public function honouring Savarkar; and had refused to share the stage with him during the centenary celebrations of India's First War of Independence (which was called so for the first time by none other than Savarkar in his book that was banned by the British).
Savarkar was a multi-talented personality, who had also coined the terms that have been in common usage since: ‘Chitrapat’, ‘Doordarshan’, ‘Nirdeshak’, ‘Sampadak’, ‘Mahapaur’, ‘Parshad’, etc.
Savarkar renounced medicines, food and water with effect from 1 February 1966, terming it as atmaarpan (fast until death). He died on 26 February 1966. Not a single minister from the Maharashtra or Central Cabinet showed up at the cremation ground to pay homage to Savarkar. The Speaker of the Parliament turned down a request that it pay homage to Savarkar.
After the death of Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, as PM, approved payment of monthly pension to Savarkar, like it was done for other freedom fighters. In 1970, Indira Gandhi’s government issued a postal stamp in honour of Veer Savarkar. The commemorative blue plaque on India House, London fixed by the Historic Building and Monuments Commission for England reads ‘Vinayak Damodar Savarkar 1883-1966 Indian patriot and philosopher lived here’. The airport at Port Blair, the capital of Andaman & Nicobar, has since been named as Veer Savarkar International Airport. It was in February 2003 when the NDA government was in power that the portrait of Swatantryaveer Savarkar was put up in the Central Hall of Parliament—Congress Party MPs boycott the function, without ever offering a public explanation for their disgraceful behaviour.
There has been a demand that Savarkar should be conferred the Bharat Ratna posthumously.
Blunder–87:
Ill-Treatment of Public
Brigadier (Retd.) BN Sharma narrates an episode in his book ‘India Betrayed’ which is upsetting:
The author, then a young boy, lived in Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut, where his uncle was General Secretary. Nehru was to come to Meerut to deliver an election speech for Provincial Assembly Elections of 1937 at the Town Hall. Upon arrival he was angry at the arrangements. A man responsible for the arrangements bowed before Nehru with folded hands requesting him not to leave.
However, in full public view of thousands crowding the place, Nehru kicked the man, already prostrate at his feet, and kept doing so. Everyone was shocked and dismayed. Kriplani then physically pulled Nehru away. To the young mind of the author, this left a deep mark.
The author writes that Nehru was arrogant, and that he exulted in public display of anger. Nehru perhaps considered it a sign of royalty to be short-tempered and to show one’s temper, and anger and impatience publicly.
The dynasty of Kotwal Gangadhar Nehru (Jawahar’s grandfather) indeed had pretentions of royalty!
The extract given below is from the chapter “Nightmare of Nehruism” from the book “How I Became Hindu” by Sita Ram Goel. Goel states that Nehru came to address a public meeting in the Gandhi Grounds adjacent to the Chandni Chowk in Delhi in 1935 when he (Goel) was a student of the seventh standard:
“There was a thunderous applause as Pandit Nehru came up on the rostrum, greeted the people with folded hands, and was formally introduced by a local Congress leader.
“But the next thing I saw made me rub my eyes. The great man had become red in the face, turned to his left, and planted a slap smack on the face of the same leader who was standing near the mike. The mike had failed. Pandit Nehru was gesticulating and shouting at the top of his voice as if something terrible had happened.
“Meanwhile the mike started functioning again so that he could be heard all over the place. He was saying: ‘Dilli ki Congress ke karykarta kamine hain, razil hain, namaqul hain. Maine kitni bar inse kaha hai ke intizam nahin kar sakte to mujhe mat bulaya karo, par ye sunte hi nahin (the leaders of the Congress in Delhi are lowbred, mean, and mindless people. I have told them time and again not to invite me if they cannot make proper arrangements. But they pay no heed).’ ...
“This was a new experience for me. I had attended many public meetings in my village, at my district headquarters, and in Delhi. I had never witnessed such wild behaviour on a public platform. Of course, those other speak
ers were not so big as this one.
“Was it the way the big ones behaved? I wondered. I found it difficult to admire a man who had not only shouted at but also slapped someone who was placed lower than him in life, and who was in no position to hit back. And that too for no fault of the victim. Even as a young boy, I had nothing but contempt for bullies.”
Blunder–88 :
Special Treatment for Edwina
Osama Bin Laden was buried at sea by the Americans. Edwina too was buried at sea in 1960, as per her will—a tribute to Mountbatten’s naval career.
British frigate Wakeful which carried her body to the sea off Spithead, a channel off southern England, was escorted by an Indian frigate Trishul—such importance India gave her. Contrast this with the treatment meted out by Nehru to Sardar Patel, Netaji Subhas, Dr Ambedkar and Dr Rajendra Prasad after their death—that we covered above!
Going by Alex Von Tunzelmann’s ‘Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire’, Nehru-Edwina affair, at least from the Indian cultural angle, does seem bizarre—bizarre in the sense that Mountbatten allowed the brazen stuff. There can be nothing abnormal or bizarre in a man and a woman loving each other.
The normal situation is they are married to each other, or both are unmarried, or both are divorcees. But, in a situation where one is a widower, and the other is married, the social expectation is that the one who is married would take a divorce, and then do as she pleases with the other.
The abnormal situation is where a married person knowingly allows his wife to have affair with another. And, perhaps for political reasons.
One can always say, "So what?" Indeed so, for one is not raising a moral issue—only flagging a relationship. And perhaps the relationship went beyond the spiritual and the platonic—but that’s a conjecture, not something definite and known.
What is interesting is that it was not some fleeting romance. It continued through the years, well past the Independence, and right till her death. When she died in an Indonesian Hotel in Borneo on 21 February 1960, a number of letters were found strewn around her—said to be the love letters of Nehru!
Nehru's 97 Major Blunders Page 20