This debate was carried in Mainstream, New Delhi in its issue of 3 December 2016 (Vol l IV, No 50... more This debate was carried in Mainstream, New Delhi in its issue of 3 December 2016 (Vol l IV, No 50, pp. 33-35). It relates to the future of the Indian National Congress in the light of its decline especially in the last few years. The article "Perish the Thought" is by Anil Nauriya
Anglocentric colonial historiography, often re-packaged in contemporary historical writings on th... more Anglocentric colonial historiography, often re-packaged in contemporary historical writings on the 20th century Indian freedom movement, frequently seeks to silence voices of such Muslims, Dalits, socialists, literary figures and others who did not conform to its preferred model. In the light of some recent writings, this note, published in The Hindu on 14 May 2003, has renewed relevance.
Title: Portrait as mirror
Author: Anil Nauriya
Source: The Hindu
Date: 03/03/2003 Type: Websit... more Title: Portrait as mirror
Author: Anil Nauriya
Source: The Hindu
Date: 03/03/2003 Type: Website Language: English
Keywords:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2003030300371000.htm Portrait as mirror By Anil Nauriya It is not the task of the Indian nation to confer special honours upon those who do not subscribe even to its basic values A PORTRAIT of V. D. Savarkar was unveiled in Parliament by the President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, on February 26. On the face of it, the matter may seem confined to "portraiture" and may seem to have ended. In fact, the problems of the ruling party, of the Central Government and of the constitutional functionaries involved in the episode may have just begun. The implications touch upon the future course of Government in India. The issue has a bearing also on the role of certain sections of the print and electronic media, for the portrait episode has acted as a mirror to them as well. After the facts relating to Savarkar's involvement in Mahatma Gandhi's assassination and on certain other issues were brought into the public domain, the authorities had three options. The first was to apologise and turn back from the course on which they had embarked. The second was to postpone the ceremony and verify the facts. The third was to brazen it out. They chose the third. This was facilitated by the existence of sections of the electronic and print media which live for the moment and thrive on party handouts rather than on painstaking and independent investigation. The tradition of closely scrutinising claims made by ruling parties, whichever these may be, seems to have been forgotten. In view of the political ineffectiveness of the NDA allies, it is the BJP-RSS and the Shiv Sena, which together comprise the effective ruling combine. Spokesmen of the BJP and RSS asserted that they did not need testimonials from the Congress, the principal Opposition party, or from any other quarter. They went on, however, to cite statements made on Savarkar's death in 1966 by Indira Gandhi, C. Rajagopalachari and a famous communist from Maharashtra. The fact is that Sardar Patel's letter dated February 27, 1948, to the Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, became public knowledge only in May 1973 when Volume 6 of Patel's correspondence was published. In the letter, Patel, who was Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, wrote about the plot to kill Gandhi: "It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that (hatched) the conspiracy and saw it through." (page 56) Now, Dr. Kalam has, at the behest of the ruling combine, unveiled in the Central Hall of Parliament of the world's largest democracy a portrait of this very individual. And this has been done to the applause of the ruling alliance. It is surprising that large sections of the media have yet to acknowledge the meaning of the event. Some sections of the electronic media even offered Savarkar's claimed position in Maharashtra as justification enough. Patel was privy to the intelligence reports. Many intelligence reports are also referred to by the Kapur Commission of Inquiry in the "conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi". This Commission submitted its report in 1969. In page 318 of Part II of the report, Savarkar's involvement with the assassins is clearly recorded. Though Savarkar was not convicted in the murder trial, this had little to do with his political responsibility for the murder. Even as regards Savarkar's legal responsibility for the conspiracy, it was not a case of "no evidence". The approver, Digambar Badge, had implicated Savarkar. The trial court took the view, as the distinguished barrister, K.L. Gauba, records in pages 220-221 of his book "Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi", that the approver's evidence required corroboration. Savarkar was thus clearly implicated in the Gandhi murder case. Although legal responsibility was apparently not proved according to the evidentiary process, his political responsibility is patent. That is why even in the course of the murder investigation, Savarkar pleaded illness and gave, as was his wont, an undertaking. He said in a statement to the Commissioner of Police on February 22, 1948: "Consequently in order to disarm all suspicion and to back up representation I wish to express my willingness to give an undertaking to the Government that I shall refrain from taking part in any communal or political activity for any period the Government may require in case I am released on that condition." (K.L. Gauba, page 209). Clearly, the giver of the undertaking was apprehensive about the evidence against him. The ruling combine's spokesmen have tried to suggest that the Congress, in its protest in regard to the portrait, has been misled by people who are dismissively described as some "Leftists" and "historians from Jawaharlal Nehru University". However, R.C. Majumdar did not come under either category. His work, "Penal Settlement In the Andamans" shows that Savarkar's earlier record which led to his incarceration in the Cellular Jail in Port Blair, Andaman Islands, is sullied. From jail he addressed mercy petitions to the British Raj. His mercy petition dated November 14, 1913, is published in R.C. Majumdar's book in pages 211-214. In the petition Savarkar wrote: "Now no man having the good of India and humanity at heart will blindly step on the thorny paths which in the excited and hopeless situation of India in 1906-1907 beguiled us from the path of peace and progress. Therefore if the Government in their manifold beneficence and mercy release me I for one cannot but be the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English Government which is the foremost condition of that progress." In accordance with this undertaking, Savarkar never thereafter took part in the freedom movement. It is significant that this mercy petition also entered the public domain only in 1975 when R. C. Majumdar's book was published by the Government of India. The earlier petition which Savarkar addressed in 1911 is yet to come to light but is referred to in the 1913 petition. As has already been repeatedly stressed by the Opposition parties, Savarkar was out of sync with the idea of nationhood which lay at the heart of the freedom movement and which underlies India's Constitution. For example, on August 15, 1943, Savarkar declared: "I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah's two-nation theory. We Hindus are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations." (Indian Annual Register, 1943, Vol II, P.10). He had made a similar statement in 1939, seeking to define Hindus by themselves as a nation. It is not the task of the Indian nation to confer special honours upon those who do not subscribe even to its basic values. Where do we go from here? So far as the ruling combine is concerned, it has drawn a perfect picture of itself. For the first time since the present Government came to power at the Centre, and perhaps for the first time since the Jana Sangh and then the BJP were founded, Savarkarism has been enshrined as the defining characteristic of Hindu communalism. Given the self-portrait of itself that the BJP combine has given the country and the world, its NDA allies need to consider how far they are willing to take their flirtation with it. It has been a costly dalliance. Savarkarism was, as Patel had noted, only the ideology of the "fanatical wing" of the Hindu Mahasabha. A year after Gujarat 2002, this has become official. The constitutional authorities who facilitated this and lent their office for the purpose are answerable before the world. It is not as if they had not been apprised of the facts. They were warned, though, to be fair, the warning did not come early enough. We should perhaps have been prepared for this outrage when a Shiv Sena nominee was elected the Lok Sabha Speaker. It has also been clear for sometime that political parties alone cannot be relied upon to be alert to all challenges to Indian nationhood. It may be too much to expect an apology from all the individuals concerned. Somnath Chatterjee is an honourable exception. But in the light of the remarks recorded by Sardar Patel and the other materials, all the constitutional authorities involved, whoever they may be and no matter how high the position they may hold, need to face their conscience and ask hard questions about their fitness to hold the offices they occupy. They are the custodians not merely of their own reputation but of the Republic's prestige. All of us need to ask the same questions about the roles we claim to perform. It is time for the country, its media and its people to pause and ponder. Capitulation, sectarianism and the glorification of the politics of assassination cannot be part of the Indian self-definition.
To define the nation on the basis of religion and then to say that the state would be non-religio... more To define the nation on the basis of religion and then to say that the state would be non-religious is an oxymoron.
Sheikh Mujib Anil Nauriya Sheikh Mujib's India policy became, in a short span of a couple of... more Sheikh Mujib Anil Nauriya Sheikh Mujib's India policy became, in a short span of a couple of years, unpalatable to the east Bengali middle class. Nurtured on a long tradition of India baiting the average east Bengali could not attune himself to the new relationship with India. Jayewardene is likely for sometime to be identified in Sinhalese minds as India's man, just as Sheikh Mujib was in Bangladesh. This can do no good to him or even to India.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) was favourably impressed by the political movement in Egypt in the ear... more Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) was favourably impressed by the political movement in Egypt in the early years of the twentieth century while he was still in South Africa. He was particularly impressed by Egypt’s nationalist leader Mustafa Kamil Pasha whose death occurred more than a hundred years ago in February 1908 in Cairo. Many aspects of the policy adopted by Mustafa Kamil Pasha’s Nationalist Party were appreciated by Gandhi at a time when he was contemplating civil resistance against the South African regimes. In subsequent years, Gandhi would remain a keen observer of Egyptian political developments; just as he admired Zaghloul Pasha, the great leader of the Wafd Party, Egyptian leaders too would take inspiration from Gandhi. Some of the specificities of the Egyptian movement which influenced Gandhi are explored in this lecture. An attempt is made also to examine the interface or symbiosis between Gandhi and Egypt. This has some contemporary resonance in the winds of change now s...
Moment of Truth for Janata Dal Anil Nauriya The Janata Dal had raised expectations of a possible... more Moment of Truth for Janata Dal Anil Nauriya The Janata Dal had raised expectations of a possible social and political transformation. Its electoral performance, and the political mistakes and miscalculations responsible for this, therefore evoke a sense of an opportunity lost. The situation is not irretrievable, however.
Gandhi's critics had argued at the time that he was carrying out his campaigns against untou... more Gandhi's critics had argued at the time that he was carrying out his campaigns against untouchability, that it would go only when caste was destroyed. It is not generally known that Gandhi moved to this position in the mid-1940s. It is also generally understood that while ...
An analysis by me, done around 20 years ago in March 2000, of the 1969 split in the Indian Nation... more An analysis by me, done around 20 years ago in March 2000, of the 1969 split in the Indian National Congress and some consequences of this development.
From The Hindu, Chennai (Madras), 17 March 2000.
Anil Nauriya, New Delhi, 8 July 2020
This debate was carried in Mainstream, New Delhi in its issue of 3 December 2016 (Vol l IV, No 50... more This debate was carried in Mainstream, New Delhi in its issue of 3 December 2016 (Vol l IV, No 50, pp. 33-35). It relates to the future of the Indian National Congress in the light of its decline especially in the last few years. The article "Perish the Thought" is by Anil Nauriya
Anglocentric colonial historiography, often re-packaged in contemporary historical writings on th... more Anglocentric colonial historiography, often re-packaged in contemporary historical writings on the 20th century Indian freedom movement, frequently seeks to silence voices of such Muslims, Dalits, socialists, literary figures and others who did not conform to its preferred model. In the light of some recent writings, this note, published in The Hindu on 14 May 2003, has renewed relevance.
Title: Portrait as mirror
Author: Anil Nauriya
Source: The Hindu
Date: 03/03/2003 Type: Websit... more Title: Portrait as mirror
Author: Anil Nauriya
Source: The Hindu
Date: 03/03/2003 Type: Website Language: English
Keywords:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2003030300371000.htm Portrait as mirror By Anil Nauriya It is not the task of the Indian nation to confer special honours upon those who do not subscribe even to its basic values A PORTRAIT of V. D. Savarkar was unveiled in Parliament by the President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, on February 26. On the face of it, the matter may seem confined to "portraiture" and may seem to have ended. In fact, the problems of the ruling party, of the Central Government and of the constitutional functionaries involved in the episode may have just begun. The implications touch upon the future course of Government in India. The issue has a bearing also on the role of certain sections of the print and electronic media, for the portrait episode has acted as a mirror to them as well. After the facts relating to Savarkar's involvement in Mahatma Gandhi's assassination and on certain other issues were brought into the public domain, the authorities had three options. The first was to apologise and turn back from the course on which they had embarked. The second was to postpone the ceremony and verify the facts. The third was to brazen it out. They chose the third. This was facilitated by the existence of sections of the electronic and print media which live for the moment and thrive on party handouts rather than on painstaking and independent investigation. The tradition of closely scrutinising claims made by ruling parties, whichever these may be, seems to have been forgotten. In view of the political ineffectiveness of the NDA allies, it is the BJP-RSS and the Shiv Sena, which together comprise the effective ruling combine. Spokesmen of the BJP and RSS asserted that they did not need testimonials from the Congress, the principal Opposition party, or from any other quarter. They went on, however, to cite statements made on Savarkar's death in 1966 by Indira Gandhi, C. Rajagopalachari and a famous communist from Maharashtra. The fact is that Sardar Patel's letter dated February 27, 1948, to the Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, became public knowledge only in May 1973 when Volume 6 of Patel's correspondence was published. In the letter, Patel, who was Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, wrote about the plot to kill Gandhi: "It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that (hatched) the conspiracy and saw it through." (page 56) Now, Dr. Kalam has, at the behest of the ruling combine, unveiled in the Central Hall of Parliament of the world's largest democracy a portrait of this very individual. And this has been done to the applause of the ruling alliance. It is surprising that large sections of the media have yet to acknowledge the meaning of the event. Some sections of the electronic media even offered Savarkar's claimed position in Maharashtra as justification enough. Patel was privy to the intelligence reports. Many intelligence reports are also referred to by the Kapur Commission of Inquiry in the "conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi". This Commission submitted its report in 1969. In page 318 of Part II of the report, Savarkar's involvement with the assassins is clearly recorded. Though Savarkar was not convicted in the murder trial, this had little to do with his political responsibility for the murder. Even as regards Savarkar's legal responsibility for the conspiracy, it was not a case of "no evidence". The approver, Digambar Badge, had implicated Savarkar. The trial court took the view, as the distinguished barrister, K.L. Gauba, records in pages 220-221 of his book "Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi", that the approver's evidence required corroboration. Savarkar was thus clearly implicated in the Gandhi murder case. Although legal responsibility was apparently not proved according to the evidentiary process, his political responsibility is patent. That is why even in the course of the murder investigation, Savarkar pleaded illness and gave, as was his wont, an undertaking. He said in a statement to the Commissioner of Police on February 22, 1948: "Consequently in order to disarm all suspicion and to back up representation I wish to express my willingness to give an undertaking to the Government that I shall refrain from taking part in any communal or political activity for any period the Government may require in case I am released on that condition." (K.L. Gauba, page 209). Clearly, the giver of the undertaking was apprehensive about the evidence against him. The ruling combine's spokesmen have tried to suggest that the Congress, in its protest in regard to the portrait, has been misled by people who are dismissively described as some "Leftists" and "historians from Jawaharlal Nehru University". However, R.C. Majumdar did not come under either category. His work, "Penal Settlement In the Andamans" shows that Savarkar's earlier record which led to his incarceration in the Cellular Jail in Port Blair, Andaman Islands, is sullied. From jail he addressed mercy petitions to the British Raj. His mercy petition dated November 14, 1913, is published in R.C. Majumdar's book in pages 211-214. In the petition Savarkar wrote: "Now no man having the good of India and humanity at heart will blindly step on the thorny paths which in the excited and hopeless situation of India in 1906-1907 beguiled us from the path of peace and progress. Therefore if the Government in their manifold beneficence and mercy release me I for one cannot but be the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English Government which is the foremost condition of that progress." In accordance with this undertaking, Savarkar never thereafter took part in the freedom movement. It is significant that this mercy petition also entered the public domain only in 1975 when R. C. Majumdar's book was published by the Government of India. The earlier petition which Savarkar addressed in 1911 is yet to come to light but is referred to in the 1913 petition. As has already been repeatedly stressed by the Opposition parties, Savarkar was out of sync with the idea of nationhood which lay at the heart of the freedom movement and which underlies India's Constitution. For example, on August 15, 1943, Savarkar declared: "I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah's two-nation theory. We Hindus are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations." (Indian Annual Register, 1943, Vol II, P.10). He had made a similar statement in 1939, seeking to define Hindus by themselves as a nation. It is not the task of the Indian nation to confer special honours upon those who do not subscribe even to its basic values. Where do we go from here? So far as the ruling combine is concerned, it has drawn a perfect picture of itself. For the first time since the present Government came to power at the Centre, and perhaps for the first time since the Jana Sangh and then the BJP were founded, Savarkarism has been enshrined as the defining characteristic of Hindu communalism. Given the self-portrait of itself that the BJP combine has given the country and the world, its NDA allies need to consider how far they are willing to take their flirtation with it. It has been a costly dalliance. Savarkarism was, as Patel had noted, only the ideology of the "fanatical wing" of the Hindu Mahasabha. A year after Gujarat 2002, this has become official. The constitutional authorities who facilitated this and lent their office for the purpose are answerable before the world. It is not as if they had not been apprised of the facts. They were warned, though, to be fair, the warning did not come early enough. We should perhaps have been prepared for this outrage when a Shiv Sena nominee was elected the Lok Sabha Speaker. It has also been clear for sometime that political parties alone cannot be relied upon to be alert to all challenges to Indian nationhood. It may be too much to expect an apology from all the individuals concerned. Somnath Chatterjee is an honourable exception. But in the light of the remarks recorded by Sardar Patel and the other materials, all the constitutional authorities involved, whoever they may be and no matter how high the position they may hold, need to face their conscience and ask hard questions about their fitness to hold the offices they occupy. They are the custodians not merely of their own reputation but of the Republic's prestige. All of us need to ask the same questions about the roles we claim to perform. It is time for the country, its media and its people to pause and ponder. Capitulation, sectarianism and the glorification of the politics of assassination cannot be part of the Indian self-definition.
To define the nation on the basis of religion and then to say that the state would be non-religio... more To define the nation on the basis of religion and then to say that the state would be non-religious is an oxymoron.
Sheikh Mujib Anil Nauriya Sheikh Mujib's India policy became, in a short span of a couple of... more Sheikh Mujib Anil Nauriya Sheikh Mujib's India policy became, in a short span of a couple of years, unpalatable to the east Bengali middle class. Nurtured on a long tradition of India baiting the average east Bengali could not attune himself to the new relationship with India. Jayewardene is likely for sometime to be identified in Sinhalese minds as India's man, just as Sheikh Mujib was in Bangladesh. This can do no good to him or even to India.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) was favourably impressed by the political movement in Egypt in the ear... more Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) was favourably impressed by the political movement in Egypt in the early years of the twentieth century while he was still in South Africa. He was particularly impressed by Egypt’s nationalist leader Mustafa Kamil Pasha whose death occurred more than a hundred years ago in February 1908 in Cairo. Many aspects of the policy adopted by Mustafa Kamil Pasha’s Nationalist Party were appreciated by Gandhi at a time when he was contemplating civil resistance against the South African regimes. In subsequent years, Gandhi would remain a keen observer of Egyptian political developments; just as he admired Zaghloul Pasha, the great leader of the Wafd Party, Egyptian leaders too would take inspiration from Gandhi. Some of the specificities of the Egyptian movement which influenced Gandhi are explored in this lecture. An attempt is made also to examine the interface or symbiosis between Gandhi and Egypt. This has some contemporary resonance in the winds of change now s...
Moment of Truth for Janata Dal Anil Nauriya The Janata Dal had raised expectations of a possible... more Moment of Truth for Janata Dal Anil Nauriya The Janata Dal had raised expectations of a possible social and political transformation. Its electoral performance, and the political mistakes and miscalculations responsible for this, therefore evoke a sense of an opportunity lost. The situation is not irretrievable, however.
Gandhi's critics had argued at the time that he was carrying out his campaigns against untou... more Gandhi's critics had argued at the time that he was carrying out his campaigns against untouchability, that it would go only when caste was destroyed. It is not generally known that Gandhi moved to this position in the mid-1940s. It is also generally understood that while ...
An analysis by me, done around 20 years ago in March 2000, of the 1969 split in the Indian Nation... more An analysis by me, done around 20 years ago in March 2000, of the 1969 split in the Indian National Congress and some consequences of this development.
From The Hindu, Chennai (Madras), 17 March 2000.
Anil Nauriya, New Delhi, 8 July 2020
[Lecture delivered at the Dr K R Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies & Centre for ... more [Lecture delivered at the Dr K R Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies & Centre for Zakir Husain Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia on March 3, 2009. The endnotes are subsequent additions.]
A shortened version of this review article was published in The Hindu, Chennai, on 29 January 200... more A shortened version of this review article was published in The Hindu, Chennai, on 29 January 2008. It critiques a narrative circulated in and by certain sectarian circles in regard to the assassination of Gandhi
Maulana Mohamed Ali Memorial Lecture delivered by Anil Nauriya at Jamia Millia Islamia Universit... more Maulana Mohamed Ali Memorial Lecture delivered by Anil Nauriya at Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi, October 2002.
[A slightly shortened version of this paper was published on 8 May 2000 when a BJP-led coalition... more [A slightly shortened version of this paper was published on 8 May 2000 when a BJP-led coalition government was in power in India. “Prime Minister” here therefore refers to Atal Behari Vajpayee who held that office in India at the time.]
A critique by me of some largely Cambridge-inspired historical revisionism in relation to Indi... more A critique by me of some largely Cambridge-inspired historical revisionism in relation to India's 20th century freedom movement. The article was published around 20 years ago but remains of some relevance as a few of the notions it questions tend to re-appear from time to time.
Uploads
The article "Perish the Thought" is by Anil Nauriya
Author: Anil Nauriya
Source: The Hindu
Date: 03/03/2003 Type: Website Language: English
Keywords:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2003030300371000.htm
Portrait as mirror
By Anil Nauriya
It is not the task of the Indian nation to confer special honours upon those who do not subscribe even to its basic values
A PORTRAIT of V. D. Savarkar was unveiled in Parliament by the President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, on February 26. On the face of it, the matter may seem confined to "portraiture" and may seem to have ended. In fact, the problems of the ruling party, of the Central Government and of the constitutional functionaries involved in the episode may have just begun. The implications touch upon the future course of Government in India. The issue has a bearing also on the role of certain sections of the print and electronic media, for the portrait episode has acted as a mirror to them as well.
After the facts relating to Savarkar's involvement in Mahatma Gandhi's assassination and on certain other issues were brought into the public domain, the authorities had three options. The first was to apologise and turn back from the course on which they had embarked. The second was to postpone the ceremony and verify the facts. The third was to brazen it out. They chose the third. This was facilitated by the existence of sections of the electronic and print media which live for the moment and thrive on party handouts rather than on painstaking and independent investigation. The tradition of closely scrutinising claims made by ruling parties, whichever these may be, seems to have been forgotten.
In view of the political ineffectiveness of the NDA allies, it is the BJP-RSS and the Shiv Sena, which together comprise the effective ruling combine. Spokesmen of the BJP and RSS asserted that they did not need testimonials from the Congress, the principal Opposition party, or from any other quarter. They went on, however, to cite statements made on Savarkar's death in 1966 by Indira Gandhi, C. Rajagopalachari and a famous communist from Maharashtra.
The fact is that Sardar Patel's letter dated February 27, 1948, to the Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, became public knowledge only in May 1973 when Volume 6 of Patel's correspondence was published. In the letter, Patel, who was Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, wrote about the plot to kill Gandhi: "It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that (hatched) the conspiracy and saw it through." (page 56) Now, Dr. Kalam has, at the behest of the ruling combine, unveiled in the Central Hall of Parliament of the world's largest democracy a portrait of this very individual. And this has been done to the applause of the ruling alliance. It is surprising that large sections of the media have yet to acknowledge the meaning of the event. Some sections of the electronic media even offered Savarkar's claimed position in Maharashtra as justification enough.
Patel was privy to the intelligence reports. Many intelligence reports are also referred to by the Kapur Commission of Inquiry in the "conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi". This Commission submitted its report in 1969. In page 318 of Part II of the report, Savarkar's involvement with the assassins is clearly recorded. Though Savarkar was not convicted in the murder trial, this had little to do with his political responsibility for the murder. Even as regards Savarkar's legal responsibility for the conspiracy, it was not a case of "no evidence". The approver, Digambar Badge, had implicated Savarkar. The trial court took the view, as the distinguished barrister, K.L. Gauba, records in pages 220-221 of his book "Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi", that the approver's evidence required corroboration.
Savarkar was thus clearly implicated in the Gandhi murder case. Although legal responsibility was apparently not proved according to the evidentiary process, his political responsibility is patent. That is why even in the course of the murder investigation, Savarkar pleaded illness and gave, as was his wont, an undertaking. He said in a statement to the Commissioner of Police on February 22, 1948: "Consequently in order to disarm all suspicion and to back up representation I wish to express my willingness to give an undertaking to the Government that I shall refrain from taking part in any communal or political activity for any period the Government may require in case I am released on that condition." (K.L. Gauba, page 209). Clearly, the giver of the undertaking was apprehensive about the evidence against him.
The ruling combine's spokesmen have tried to suggest that the Congress, in its protest in regard to the portrait, has been misled by people who are dismissively described as some "Leftists" and "historians from Jawaharlal Nehru University". However, R.C. Majumdar did not come under either category. His work, "Penal Settlement In the Andamans" shows that Savarkar's earlier record which led to his incarceration in the Cellular Jail in Port Blair, Andaman Islands, is sullied. From jail he addressed mercy petitions to the British Raj. His mercy petition dated November 14, 1913, is published in R.C. Majumdar's book in pages 211-214. In the petition Savarkar wrote: "Now no man having the good of India and humanity at heart will blindly step on the thorny paths which in the excited and hopeless situation of India in 1906-1907 beguiled us from the path of peace and progress. Therefore if the Government in their manifold beneficence and mercy release me I for one cannot but be the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English Government which is the foremost condition of that progress." In accordance with this undertaking, Savarkar never thereafter took part in the freedom movement. It is significant that this mercy petition also entered the public domain only in 1975 when R. C. Majumdar's book was published by the Government of India. The earlier petition which Savarkar addressed in 1911 is yet to come to light but is referred to in the 1913 petition.
As has already been repeatedly stressed by the Opposition parties, Savarkar was out of sync with the idea of nationhood which lay at the heart of the freedom movement and which underlies India's Constitution. For example, on August 15, 1943, Savarkar declared: "I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah's two-nation theory. We Hindus are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations." (Indian Annual Register, 1943, Vol II, P.10). He had made a similar statement in 1939, seeking to define Hindus by themselves as a nation. It is not the task of the Indian nation to confer special honours upon those who do not subscribe even to its basic values.
Where do we go from here? So far as the ruling combine is concerned, it has drawn a perfect picture of itself. For the first time since the present Government came to power at the Centre, and perhaps for the first time since the Jana Sangh and then the BJP were founded, Savarkarism has been enshrined as the defining characteristic of Hindu communalism. Given the self-portrait of itself that the BJP combine has given the country and the world, its NDA allies need to consider how far they are willing to take their flirtation with it. It has been a costly dalliance. Savarkarism was, as Patel had noted, only the ideology of the "fanatical wing" of the Hindu Mahasabha. A year after Gujarat 2002, this has become official.
The constitutional authorities who facilitated this and lent their office for the purpose are answerable before the world. It is not as if they had not been apprised of the facts. They were warned, though, to be fair, the warning did not come early enough. We should perhaps have been prepared for this outrage when a Shiv Sena nominee was elected the Lok Sabha Speaker. It has also been clear for sometime that political parties alone cannot be relied upon to be alert to all challenges to Indian nationhood. It may be too much to expect an apology from all the individuals concerned. Somnath Chatterjee is an honourable exception.
But in the light of the remarks recorded by Sardar Patel and the other materials, all the constitutional authorities involved, whoever they may be and no matter how high the position they may hold, need to face their conscience and ask hard questions about their fitness to hold the offices they occupy. They are the custodians not merely of their own reputation but of the Republic's prestige. All of us need to ask the same questions about the roles we claim to perform. It is time for the country, its media and its people to pause and ponder. Capitulation, sectarianism and the glorification of the politics of assassination cannot be part of the Indian self-definition.
From The Hindu, Chennai (Madras), 17 March 2000.
Anil Nauriya, New Delhi, 8 July 2020
The article "Perish the Thought" is by Anil Nauriya
Author: Anil Nauriya
Source: The Hindu
Date: 03/03/2003 Type: Website Language: English
Keywords:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2003030300371000.htm
Portrait as mirror
By Anil Nauriya
It is not the task of the Indian nation to confer special honours upon those who do not subscribe even to its basic values
A PORTRAIT of V. D. Savarkar was unveiled in Parliament by the President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, on February 26. On the face of it, the matter may seem confined to "portraiture" and may seem to have ended. In fact, the problems of the ruling party, of the Central Government and of the constitutional functionaries involved in the episode may have just begun. The implications touch upon the future course of Government in India. The issue has a bearing also on the role of certain sections of the print and electronic media, for the portrait episode has acted as a mirror to them as well.
After the facts relating to Savarkar's involvement in Mahatma Gandhi's assassination and on certain other issues were brought into the public domain, the authorities had three options. The first was to apologise and turn back from the course on which they had embarked. The second was to postpone the ceremony and verify the facts. The third was to brazen it out. They chose the third. This was facilitated by the existence of sections of the electronic and print media which live for the moment and thrive on party handouts rather than on painstaking and independent investigation. The tradition of closely scrutinising claims made by ruling parties, whichever these may be, seems to have been forgotten.
In view of the political ineffectiveness of the NDA allies, it is the BJP-RSS and the Shiv Sena, which together comprise the effective ruling combine. Spokesmen of the BJP and RSS asserted that they did not need testimonials from the Congress, the principal Opposition party, or from any other quarter. They went on, however, to cite statements made on Savarkar's death in 1966 by Indira Gandhi, C. Rajagopalachari and a famous communist from Maharashtra.
The fact is that Sardar Patel's letter dated February 27, 1948, to the Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, became public knowledge only in May 1973 when Volume 6 of Patel's correspondence was published. In the letter, Patel, who was Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, wrote about the plot to kill Gandhi: "It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that (hatched) the conspiracy and saw it through." (page 56) Now, Dr. Kalam has, at the behest of the ruling combine, unveiled in the Central Hall of Parliament of the world's largest democracy a portrait of this very individual. And this has been done to the applause of the ruling alliance. It is surprising that large sections of the media have yet to acknowledge the meaning of the event. Some sections of the electronic media even offered Savarkar's claimed position in Maharashtra as justification enough.
Patel was privy to the intelligence reports. Many intelligence reports are also referred to by the Kapur Commission of Inquiry in the "conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi". This Commission submitted its report in 1969. In page 318 of Part II of the report, Savarkar's involvement with the assassins is clearly recorded. Though Savarkar was not convicted in the murder trial, this had little to do with his political responsibility for the murder. Even as regards Savarkar's legal responsibility for the conspiracy, it was not a case of "no evidence". The approver, Digambar Badge, had implicated Savarkar. The trial court took the view, as the distinguished barrister, K.L. Gauba, records in pages 220-221 of his book "Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi", that the approver's evidence required corroboration.
Savarkar was thus clearly implicated in the Gandhi murder case. Although legal responsibility was apparently not proved according to the evidentiary process, his political responsibility is patent. That is why even in the course of the murder investigation, Savarkar pleaded illness and gave, as was his wont, an undertaking. He said in a statement to the Commissioner of Police on February 22, 1948: "Consequently in order to disarm all suspicion and to back up representation I wish to express my willingness to give an undertaking to the Government that I shall refrain from taking part in any communal or political activity for any period the Government may require in case I am released on that condition." (K.L. Gauba, page 209). Clearly, the giver of the undertaking was apprehensive about the evidence against him.
The ruling combine's spokesmen have tried to suggest that the Congress, in its protest in regard to the portrait, has been misled by people who are dismissively described as some "Leftists" and "historians from Jawaharlal Nehru University". However, R.C. Majumdar did not come under either category. His work, "Penal Settlement In the Andamans" shows that Savarkar's earlier record which led to his incarceration in the Cellular Jail in Port Blair, Andaman Islands, is sullied. From jail he addressed mercy petitions to the British Raj. His mercy petition dated November 14, 1913, is published in R.C. Majumdar's book in pages 211-214. In the petition Savarkar wrote: "Now no man having the good of India and humanity at heart will blindly step on the thorny paths which in the excited and hopeless situation of India in 1906-1907 beguiled us from the path of peace and progress. Therefore if the Government in their manifold beneficence and mercy release me I for one cannot but be the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English Government which is the foremost condition of that progress." In accordance with this undertaking, Savarkar never thereafter took part in the freedom movement. It is significant that this mercy petition also entered the public domain only in 1975 when R. C. Majumdar's book was published by the Government of India. The earlier petition which Savarkar addressed in 1911 is yet to come to light but is referred to in the 1913 petition.
As has already been repeatedly stressed by the Opposition parties, Savarkar was out of sync with the idea of nationhood which lay at the heart of the freedom movement and which underlies India's Constitution. For example, on August 15, 1943, Savarkar declared: "I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah's two-nation theory. We Hindus are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations." (Indian Annual Register, 1943, Vol II, P.10). He had made a similar statement in 1939, seeking to define Hindus by themselves as a nation. It is not the task of the Indian nation to confer special honours upon those who do not subscribe even to its basic values.
Where do we go from here? So far as the ruling combine is concerned, it has drawn a perfect picture of itself. For the first time since the present Government came to power at the Centre, and perhaps for the first time since the Jana Sangh and then the BJP were founded, Savarkarism has been enshrined as the defining characteristic of Hindu communalism. Given the self-portrait of itself that the BJP combine has given the country and the world, its NDA allies need to consider how far they are willing to take their flirtation with it. It has been a costly dalliance. Savarkarism was, as Patel had noted, only the ideology of the "fanatical wing" of the Hindu Mahasabha. A year after Gujarat 2002, this has become official.
The constitutional authorities who facilitated this and lent their office for the purpose are answerable before the world. It is not as if they had not been apprised of the facts. They were warned, though, to be fair, the warning did not come early enough. We should perhaps have been prepared for this outrage when a Shiv Sena nominee was elected the Lok Sabha Speaker. It has also been clear for sometime that political parties alone cannot be relied upon to be alert to all challenges to Indian nationhood. It may be too much to expect an apology from all the individuals concerned. Somnath Chatterjee is an honourable exception.
But in the light of the remarks recorded by Sardar Patel and the other materials, all the constitutional authorities involved, whoever they may be and no matter how high the position they may hold, need to face their conscience and ask hard questions about their fitness to hold the offices they occupy. They are the custodians not merely of their own reputation but of the Republic's prestige. All of us need to ask the same questions about the roles we claim to perform. It is time for the country, its media and its people to pause and ponder. Capitulation, sectarianism and the glorification of the politics of assassination cannot be part of the Indian self-definition.
From The Hindu, Chennai (Madras), 17 March 2000.
Anil Nauriya, New Delhi, 8 July 2020
The article was published around 20 years ago but remains of some relevance as a few of the notions it questions tend to re-appear from time to time.