The recent statement made by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh that it was Gandhi who told Savarkar to file mercy petitions to the British, has once again stirred the never-ending debate on who really was Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
Was he a patriot or a traitor who became a servant of the British? Was he an intellectual freedom fighter of his time or just a right-wing fanatic who is credited as the father of Hindutva? Personalities like him may not have received such prolonged attention if it was not for the politics of the day or the past.
There are numerous people in the history of the Indian freedom struggle that has contributed quite a bit to the nation’s independence, but don’t even get a mention in the history textbooks taught in our schools. Many people were no more than a flicker of light in the star-studded sky of India’s freedom struggle.
After all, the Indian independence movement was not a monolith, but a very fragmented and complex movement with immense grass-roots presence ensured by various small and big entities. But no debate takes place for their legitimacy, either in their support or against them, just because of the simple fact that they don’t give any political mileage to any party. Savarkar is debated upon again and again because he is a medium of getting certain people of a certain ideology to vote for you. If Savarkar was what he was minus his stance on Hindutva, would the BJP put in so much effort to fight for his legacy? Or would the left-wing pay this much attention to him in that case?
History tells us that people are not monotonous, they have layers and sophistication to their character. So, it is extremely unwise to paint any historical figure with a single brush. The same goes for Savarkar, and Gandhi, and Ambedkar, or any other eminent personality in Indian history.
But in reality, there is no such thing as a perfect human. No man/woman is devoid of flaws. It is true that Savarkar did write in great praise about the Revolt of 1857 and it is also true that he was among the intellectuals who were vouching for India’s independence. But it is also a fact that he did write mercy petitions to the British when he was in prison, and not on the advice of Mahatma Gandhi as the Defence Minister claimed, but from his own will. Savarkar also proposed the two-nation theory in his address.
Thus, Savarkar before going to prison was a very different individual from what he became after coming out of prison. But the important thing is that his deeds are highlighted on the basis of which ideology you believe in. If you are from the right, he was no less than a patriot for you. And if you are from the left, he was no less than a traitor. Both factions emphasize that aspect of his personality that suits them politically.
The important thing is that India is in its 75th year of independence and what happened in the freedom struggle is also a 75-year-old matter. Those who were fighting for independence definitely wouldn’t want their country to be stuck on issues that have no relevance to its present. The Defence Minister should also think twice before making such untrue statements about history.
Because even he should remember that the then Home Minister Sardar Patel, whom his party gives immense credibility and respect, held Savarkar responsible for Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. And to acquit Savarkar from his wrongful deeds, the fact that the minister has to go back to Gandhi is quite ironic. If what Savarkar did was absolutely unquestionable, then there shouldn’t be a need to use Gandhi to legitimize man’s deeds posthumously.
Those who study history know that it is a subject that has space for many versions of the truth and every work of history is just an attempt made towards the truth. But when it is mixed with Politics, it results in a fusion of two things that are not meant to be put in the same place. And Vinayak Damodar Savarkar is one such product of this dangerous nuclear fusion of History and Politics.
Also Read: Uttarakhand floods: Man-made activities have turned the Land of God into a constant victim of floods
