SAHMAT & JANASAMSKRITI Present
A real Kerala story--straight out of Muslim majority Malappuram district...filmed much before the fake Kerala story...of the original inhabitants who have been cohabiting for generations without any issues. The hero of the story-Sreedharan, is alive and may be in Delhi for the screening. He was brought up a Muslim foster mom-who reared him as a Hindu. The story came out when he paid rich tributes to his Muslim foster mom when she died, as it is a common story for those around them. That is the real Kerala, of humanness, not of hate.
A real Kerala story--straight out of Muslim majority Malappuram district...filmed much before the fake Kerala story...of the original inhabitants who have been cohabiting for generations without any issues. The hero of the story-Sreedharan, is alive and may be in Delhi for the screening. He was brought up a Muslim foster mom-who reared him as a Hindu. The story came out when he paid rich tributes to his Muslim foster mom when she died, as it is a common story for those around them. That is the real Kerala, of humanness, not of hate.
.jpg)
VIVAN SUNDARAM: 28 May 1943 –29 March 2023
Vivan Sundaram: An artist and a founding trustee of
SAHMAT.
Vivan Sundaram was born in 1943, in Simla, Himachal Pradesh. He studied painting at the Faculty of Fine Arts, M.S. University of Baroda (1961–65) and at the Slade School of Art, London (1966–68) where he also studied History of Cinema. Active in the students’ movement of May 1968, he helped set up a commune in London where he lived till 1970. On his return to India in 1971, he worked with artists’ and students’ groups to organize events and protests, especially during the Emergency years.
In 1981, Sundaram participated in the seminal group exhibition, ‘Place for People’. Since 1990 he has made installations that include sculpture, photographs and video: Memorial (1993, 2014), an elaborate work made in response to communal violence in Bombay; a monumental site-specific installation at the Victoria Memorial, Calcutta, now referred to as History Project (1998); continuing work on his family, which includes the installation, The Sher-Gil Archive (1995), and digital photomontages, Re-take of ‘Amrita’ (2001–06), based on photographs taken by Umrao Singh Sher-Gil. A series of exhibitions using found objects include Trash (2008), an installed urbanscape of garbage, digital photomontages and three videos: Tracking (2003–04), The Brief Ascent of Marian Hussain (2005) and Turning (2008). Garbage and found materials were used to make garments, and the work crossed over into fashion and performance in GAGAWAKA: Making Strange (2011) and Postmortem (2013). In 2012, Black Gold, an installation of potsherds from the excavation of Pattanam/Muziris in Kerala, was made into a three-channel video.
A project on the artist Ramkinkar Baij, 409 Ramkinkars, was co-authored with theatre directors Anuradha Kapur and Santanu Bose in 2015. In 2017, a public art project on the uprising of the Royal Indian Navy and Bombay’s working class, titled Meanings of Failed Action: Insurrection 1946, was co-authored with cultural theorist Ashish Rajadhyaksha and sound artist David Chapman. A 50-year retrospective exhibition, ‘Step inside and you are no longer a stranger’, invited by the Kiran Nadar Museum of Art, New Delhi, showed from February to June 2018. A solo survey exhibition titled ‘Disjunctures’, invited by Okwui Enwezor and curated by Deepak Ananth, showed at Haus der Kunst, Munich, from June 2018 to January 2019.
Most recently, Vivan Sundaram was one of 30 artists specially commissioned to make new work to mark the Sharjah Biennial’s 30th anniversary edition. The ongoing Sharjah Biennial 15: Thinking Historically in the Present (February to June 2023), conceived by the late Okwui Enwezor and curated by Hoor Al Qasimi, includes Sundaram’s photography-based project, Six Stations of a Life Pursued (2022), signifying a journey with periodic halts that release pain, regain trust, behold beauty, recall horror, and discard memory.
Sundaram has had solo shows in many cities of India, as well as in London, Paris, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Amsterdam, Budapest, Copenhagen, New York, Chicago, Dallas, and at the Fowler Museum, Los Angeles. He has exhibited in the Biennales of Havana, Johannesburg, Kwangju, Taipei, Sharjah, Shanghai, Sydney, Seville, Berlin, and in the Asia-Pacific Triennial, Brisbane.
Vivan Sundaram has been an initiator and organizer of varied and inventive projects as an extension of his artistic practice. He has had a long-standing identity as an artist-activist engaged with artist groups and collectives, and has used different artistic strategies for collaboration and activism – some of it straightforwardly political/ left oriented. As founding member of the Kasauli Art Centre, he organized artists’ workshops and seminars at the Centre from 1976 to 1991. He contributed variously to the Journal of Arts & Ideas (1981–99) as a member of its editorial collective from its very inception. As a trustee of the Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT), he initiated and conceived art projects and curated exhibitions. In his own words, “… my politicization in the May 1968 student movement took on a specific ideological orientation by association with comrades from the CPI(M), though I have never been a member of the Party. On the art front, there was the setting up of the Kasauli Art Centre in 1976 – its informality and hospitality as well as active exchange and organized discourse. As a founding trustee of SAHMAT from 1989, I have been part of some head-on politics in the period especially from 1990 to 2003. I have curated on behalf of SAHMAT, many small and big exhibitions – installed and roving shows – that were exhibited across the country and that engaged with the public domain through innovative formats.”
Vivan Sundaram is the editor of a two-volume book, Amrita Sher-Gil: a self-portrait in letters
& writings, published in 2010; and managing trustee, with his sister
Navina Sundaram, of the Sher-Gil Sundaram Arts Foundation (SSAF), set up in
2016.
34th Safdar Hashmi Memorial, 1-1-2023
The cloth walls of the make-shift auditorium were decorated with colourful banners of verses written by Sufi-Bhakti poets and also by contemporary poets. The backdrop of the stage was a reproduction of an evocativc painting by the late Shamshad Husain, painted by him following the demolition. The auditorium design and its execution was helped by Kanishka Prasad, Vertika Chaturvedi, Aban Raza, Arushi Vats, Pragya S and volunteers Rahul, Amit, Naresh, Shyam Singh and untiring Kausar and Ashok.
All this was accompanied by exhibitions, one on the history of Ayodhya, invoking the rich legacy of our common culture and interwoven life in order to counter the propaganda of religious separation. The second exhibition portrayed the life and work of Safdar Hashmi, whose supreme sacrifice came as a grim reminder of the dangers faced by those who dare to speak out for an equitable social order and of the importance of defending freedom of expression--ideals held dear by Safdar and carried forward by SAHMAT for the last 34 years.
The programme commenced with the Aanya singing and playing the guitar. The 17 year old Aanya -the youngest ever artists to perform at SAHMAT- set the mood for the day by singing Kaun Azad Hua by Ali Sardar Jafri, Dastoor by Habib Jalib, Meri Khwahish Hai ke Yeh Soorat Badalni Chahiye by Dushyant Kumar, and ending with Hum Dekhenge by Faiz.
The vibrant Vedi sisters of the Aahvaan, by now familiar to SAHMAT audiences, took to stage next. They sang the poetry of love and brotherhood among all people, poetry of the great mediaeval poets like Kabir, contemporary poets and some of their own poetry. Their music was interspersed with recollections of their experiences while travelling through different parts of the country.
Sohail Hashmi who was conducting the proceedings invited M.K.Raina, one of SAHMAT founders, eminent theatre personality and a friend of Safdar Hashmi to release the reissue of a selection of Safdar Hashmi’s writings, first published in1989. M.K.Raina also released the 2023 calendar, documenting the life and work of Safdar Hashmi by presenting it to N.K.Sharma, a close comrade of Safdar. N.K.Sharma is a known theatre director and one of the founders of Jan Natya Manch. The artist Vijendrer Vij helped Lalit Narayan of SAHMAT in designing the calendar.
Famous puppeteer Dadi Pudumjee, an old associate of Safdar Hashmi, and SAHMAT who had first performed in Safdar Samaroh in 1989 with modern dancer Astad Deboo and his team of puppeteers, presented an excerpt from their full-length puppet play based on the teachings of the great Persian poet/ philosopher Rumi.
Poet Naveen Chourey had the audience in splits with his biting satire on the Modi-Shah duo and had them stunned with his incisive commentary on the severed inked finger of a voter.
Given the traffic chaos in Delhi on January1 some of the Hindi poets who had committed to recite their work could not reach the venue, those who could and recited their poetry included Tek Chand and Jasveer Tyagi, both active members of the Janvadi Lekhak Sangh the organisation of progressive writers that has been associated with SAHMAT from its inception. Writer Sangeeta Manral Vij also recited her poems. Senior poet and respected journalist Vishnu Nagar recited a few of his deeply satirical poems. Professor Apoorvanand, Saif Mahmood and Sohail Hashmi recited a number of famous and popular poems including the poetry of Sahir Ludhyanvi, Kuldeep Kumar, Kumar Ambuj, Ekram Khavar and others.
Since a number of artists could not reach the venue on time, the programme was suspended for about half an hour which provided people to greet old and new friends and partake the refreshment that was available on the venue. This time also allowed people to pick up the Calendar, Che Guevara Cups and Hum Sab Sahmat bags, produced for the occasion.
One of the most prominent among the leading vocalists of the younger generation Smt. Sunanda Sharma who had so readily agreed to perform for SAHMAT, had in fact rescheduled one of her prior commitments to be in Delhi, on the first and had been stuck in traffic for almost two hours, went onto the stage to give a most scintillating performance. Sunanda Sharma who trained under Padma Bhushan Girija Devi sang traditional Punjabi compositions including the classical tappa in a style that was uniquely Benaras. She concluded her presentation with a Meera Bhajan and the audience experienced the inclusivity of both our classical and folk traditions when Benaras, Punjab and Rajasthan came together in one performance.
Sunanda Sharma was accompanied on the Tabla by Ustad Akhtar Hussain, on the Harmonium by Pandit Sumit Mishra and on the Sarangi by Pandit Anil Mishra. Two of her disciples Pooja Mohley and Manisha Mishra provided support on the Tanpuras.
Two extremely talented young Musicians Aayush Mohan and Lakshay Mohan followed Sunanda Sharma, first it was Aayush Mohan on the Sarod who began with Raag Jaijaiwanti and followed it with a composition in Madhyam se Gara, Aayush Mohan was followed by Lakshay Mohan who began with Raag Madhuvanti and concluded with Raag Khamaj, The young Musicians have trained in the famous Maihar Gharana and are recognised well beyond the borders of India being the only Indian artists to have performed at the Grammy Museum. Both were most skilfully accompanied on the Tabla by Pandit Sanju Sahay of the Benaras Gharana.
For years the group of artists who are the last to take to the stage are the group known as the Chaar Yaar and it was in keeping with this tradition that Madangopal Singh ( a closefriend of Safdar Hashmi and founder member of SAHMAT) Deepak Castelino, Pritam Ghoshal and Amjad Khan took the stage and presented a medley that drew from the Persian, Turkish, Punjabi, Sindhi, Saraiki traditions of Sufi Mystics to the progressive poetry of the 1930s and 40 and from the anti-war poetry of the 1970s in the USA. The evening drew to a close as fog has started to descend on the streets of Delhi and the thousands that had blocked all roads in Delhi for the whole day had begun to return home.
The one thing that the organisers of the memorial and many in the audience will long remember about the 34th Safdar Memorial is the support of the artists, both young and senior, so readily extended by willingly making changes in their prefixed schedules to be able to perform at SAHMAT.
Aside from the riveting performances, cutting through poetry recitations, poetry of protest, songs of the freedom struggle, classical music and puppet theatre, there were also short interludes in which new publications were released through out the day.
A selection of writings in Hindi (Hamare Daur Mein) by the Marxist intellectual Aijaz Ahmad which were published earlier on various occasions were put together as a tribute to SAHMAT’s friend and supporter Aijaz Ahmed. The editor of the volume Rajendra Sharma gave a brief introduction to the selection. Releasing the volume Prof. Prabhat Patnaik underlined the charming aspects of Aijaz’s personality and theoretical significance of his writings.
Two volumes - Gandhi Reconsidered and its Hindi translation Gandhi Punarvichar were releases by Prof. Mridula Mukherjee who pointed out the significance of SAHMAT’s work. The volumes were earlier published in the year 2004 and were out of print for a long times.
Adding to the list of children’s publications, a book -Dard Battisi written by Rajinder Arora, an energetic supporter, designer, publisher and a writer was also released.
Sohail Hashmi who tirelessly conducted the proceeding called it a day with a vote of thanks to the comrades in Surjeet Bhawan, Vandana Sharma and Sujata for their full co-operation and comradery.
The material produced on the occasion, a calendar, books, Hamare Daur Mein, Gandhi Reconsidered, Gandhi Punarvichar, Dard Battisi and cups and bags are available at SAHMAT.
SAHMAT continues to grow because all of us contribute to it all the time.
Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust
c/o 36 Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla Lane
New Delhi-110001
Email: sahmat8@yahoo.com
Tel-23381276/23070787
Dear friends,
After a lock-down period of one and a half years, SAHMAT has started functioning, observing complete Covid protocol.The office is opening six days a week. You may recall that the lock-down came when our exhibition constitution at 70 was on at Jawahar Bhawan and a couple of lectures by Rajeev Dhavan and Sanjay Hegde were held and the remaining lectures had to be cancelled.
During the lock-down period we published the following books:
‘Constitution at 70’
‘We the People’
‘Dukh Likha Jana Chahiye’-(Hindi) (nq%[k fy[kk tkuk pkfg;s)
‘Kisano ke Liye jeene marne ka sawal’-(Hindi)-Prabhat Patnaik
‘A Matter of Survival of the Peasantry’-Prabhat Patnaik
‘The Attempt of Imperialism to Destroy Food Securiy in India’-Utsa Patnaik
We also organized a successful webinar with Social Scientist & Tulika on “In Defence of History’ on the occasion of the 90th birthday of our Chairman Prof. Irfan Habib.
Safdar Memorial on January 1, 2021 had to be held online.
We now have mounted an exhibition ‘India is not lost’ which showcases the work that we had done to observe various events of the National Movement. The exhibition is on at Jawahar Bhavan, R.P.Road since October 2, 2021. If the situation permits we can have a lecture series, music performances, etc coinciding with the exhibition. In mid-November we will have to take a call on the organization of the Safdar Memorial on January 1, 2022.
During this period we have kept all our colleagues on full emoluments.
We are approaching you with the request to find some time to visit the exhibition at Jawahar Bhawan.
Please contribute to meet the expenses for the smooth running of SAHMAT and plan future programmes.
Donations to SAHMAT are exempt under Section 80 G of the Income Tax Act.
SAHMAT continues to grow because all of us contribute to it all the time.
Sohail Hashmi
M.K.Raina
Ram Rahman
Gandhi in a New Avatar: Advisor to
Savarkar on Mercy petitions
Mridula Mukherjee
Aditya Mukherjee
Sucheta Mahajan
The
Indian Express, 13 October 2021, tells us that Shri Rajnath Singh, the Indian
Defence Minister, has claimed that “A
lot of falsehood was spread against Savarkar. It was repeatedly said that he
filed multiple mercy petitions before the British government. The truth is he
did not file these petitions for his release. Generally a prisoner has right to
file a mercy petition. Mahatma Gandhi had asked that you file a mercy petition.
It was on Gandhi’s suggestion that he filed a mercy petition. And Mahatma Gandhi
had appealed that Savarkar ji should be released. He had said the way we are
running movement for freedom peacefully, so would Savarkar.”. He also said that
“You can have differences of opinion, but to see him condescendingly is not
right. The act of demeaning his national contribution will not be tolerated”.
(Note the threat. Setting up Godse temples and hero worshipping him can be
tolerated but no criticism of Savarkar!)
What
are the facts?
Rajnath
Singh’s statement is presumably based on documents pertaining to the year 1920:
a letter from ND Savarkar, brother of VD Savarkar and Ganesh Savarkar, to Gandhiji,
Gandhiji’s reply, and an article in Young India by Gandhiji.
The facts are somewhat at variance with the claim made by
Rajnath Singh. The first mercy petition
was filed nine years earlier by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1911 itself, within
six months of his conviction, and numerous other petitions followed in
subsequent years, without any evidence or claim of it being at Gandhiji’s suggestion!
To quote from one such petition, submitted personally to the Home Member, Sir
Reginald Craddock, when he visited the Andamans jail in 1913, for his release,
offering to be loyal to the British Government:
“If the Government in their manifold beneficence and mercy release me, I for one cannot but be the strongest advocate of constitutional
progress and loyalty to the English government
which is the foremost
condition of that progress. I am ready to serve the Government in
any capacity they like, for as my conversion is conscientious so I hope my future conduct
would be. The Mighty alone can afford to be
merciful and therefore
where else can the prodigal son return but to the parental
doors of the Government?”
Further, as testified by GS Khoparde, a Savarkar
supporter’s question in the Imperial Legislative Council on March 22, 1920, “Mr
Savarkar and his brother had once in 1915 and at another time in 1918 submitted
petitions to Government stating that they would, during the continuance of war,
serve the Empire by enlisting in the Army, if released, and would, after the
passing of the Reforms Bill, try to make the Act a success and would stand by
law and order". In his reply, the Home Member, Sir William Vincent,
confirmed that : "Two petitions were received from Vinayak Damodar
Savarkar - one in 1914 and another in 1917, through the Superintendent, Port
Blair. In the former he offered his services to Government during the war in
any capacity and prayed that a general amnesty be granted to all political
prisoners. The second petition was confined to the latter proposal”.
Thus, it is very clear that Savarkar had
submitted numerous petitions between 1911 and 1920, without any advice or prompting
from Gandhi,. offering loyalty to the British government, and
expressing his willingness to serve them in any capacity. Therefore the Defence Minister’s statement that
Savarkar did not file mercy petitions but did so only on the advice of the
Mahatma is not borne out by the actual historical record.
So where does Gandhiji come into the story? Only in 1920, when N D Savarkar, the younger
brother of the two Savarkar brothers who were in jail, wrote to Gandhiji
seeking his advice, when he found that the list of prisoners being released
under the Royal Proclamation of Clemency by the British did not include the
names of the brothers. Gandhiji replied saying it was difficult to give advice
but suggested that he might draft a brief petition. In addition, he wrote an
article in Young India on 26 May 1920, titled Savarkar Brothers, where he refers to
the Royal Proclamation of Clemency and notes that while many other political
prisoners had been released under this but the Savarkar brothers were not.
He says “Both the brothers have
declared their political opinions and both have stated that they do not
entertain any revolutionary ideas and that if they were set free they would
like to work under the Reform Act…” (Government of India Act of 1919) “They
both state unequivocally that they do not desire independence from the British
connection. On the contrary they feel that India’s destiny can be best worked
out in association with the British.”
It is to be noted that nowhere in Gandhiji’s
article is there an appeal for Savarkar’s release, as stated by the Defence
minister.
“Mahatma Gandhi had appealed that Savarkar ji should be released.” Gandhiji questions the government decision not
to release them as they appear to pose no danger to “public safety” or “danger
to the state”, but does not appeal to the British. Nor does Gandhiji anywhere
say in his article, as claimed by the Defence minister, that “the way we are running movement for
freedom peacefully, so would Savarkar.” On the contrary, Gandhiji is
emphasizing that the Savarkar brothers do not want independence, and want to
work under the Reform Act.
There is a strange irony in this entire
episode. That Mahatma Gandhi is being roped in to establish Savarkar’s
nationalist credentials, that too on such flimsy grounds! The attempt is to
create a picture in the public mind that Gandhiji and Savarkar had a close
relationship, to the extent that the latter took Gandhiji’s advice on such
crucial issues as mercy petitions and that Gandhiji appealed for his release. It
is a clear attempt to try and normalise Savarkar’s begging for mercy when
numerous other nationalists refused to do so and Gandhiji even demanded the severest
punishment for himself.
What are the facts, which we are expected to
forget?
In January 1948, when Gandhi was assassinated, Savarkar was arrested as he was suspected of being the mastermind
behind the conspiracy. Sardar Patel, who was overseeing the whole case as the Home Minister, being a fine criminal
lawyer, was personally convinced of Savarkar’s guilt, otherwise he would
not have agreed to put him up for trial.
He told the Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, in unambiguous terms, ‘It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that [hatched] the conspiracy and saw it through’. (Durga Das, Sardar Patel Correspondence, 1945–50, Vol. VI, p. 56.)
In response to the Hindu
Mahasabha’s disclaimer, Patel wrote to Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, the Hindu Mahasabha leader, on 6 May 1948:
“…we cannot
shut our eyes to the fact that an appreciable number of the members of the Mahasabha gloated over the tragedy
and distributed sweets…. Further,
militant communalism, which was preached
until only a few months ago by many spokesmen
of the Mahasabha, including
men like Mahant Digbijoy
Nath, Prof. Ram Singh and Deshpande, could not but be regarded as a
danger to public security. The same would
apply to the RSS, with the additional danger inherent in an organization run in secret on military
or semi-military lines.” (Sardar Patel Correspondence, Vol. VI, p. 66.)
Patel further pointed out to Shyama Prasad
Mookerjee, ‘The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence
of Government and the state’. (18 July 1948, Sardar Patel Correspondence, Vol. 6, p. 323.)
The
Chief
Minister of Bombay, B.G. Kher, explained the political situation
in Maharashtra to Patel, ‘The atmosphere
of hatred against the Congress and Mahatma sought to be created by the Hindu Mahasabha culminated in the assassination
of Mahatma Gandhi at
the hands of a few Maharashtrians’.
{ B.G. Kher to Patel, 26
May 1948, ibid., Vol. VI, pp.
77–78.)
Savarkar was eventually not convicted in the
Gandhi Murder Trial
due to a technical point of criminal law:
for lack of independent evidence to corroborate the testimony of the approver.
However, the Commission of Inquiry
set up in 1965 under Justice Jiwan
Lal
Kapoor, a former judge of the Supreme
Court of India, got access to a lot of evidence
which was not available to the trial judge. Two of Savarkar’s close associates,
A.P. Kasar and G.V. Damle, who had not testified at the trial, spoke up
before the Kapur Commision, now that Savarkar was dead, and corroborated the approver’s statements. It is possible that If they had testified at the trial, Savarkar would have
been proven guilty. In fact, the Kapur Commission came to a conclusion
very similar to that of Sardar Patel: ‘All these facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group’.( Report of Commission
of Inquiry
into Conspiracy to Murder Mahatma Gandhi, 1970, p.303, para 25.106.)
Immediately after Gandhiji’s
assassination, the Government of India, with Sardar Patel as Deputy Prime
Minister and Home Minister, banned the RSS and put some 25,000 of its members
in jail. The Hindu Mahasabha chose to dissolve itself when confronted with a ban. Tainted
by its link with Gandhiji’s murder, the Hindu Mahasabha beat a tactical
retreat and Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, its main
leader, founded the Bharatiya Jan Sangh in 1951.
This was to be the main political vehicle
of Hindu communal
articulation from then onwards, its frontline
political party, till it merged into the Janata Party after the
Emergency and then was replaced by the BJP.
It is indeed ironic that the political forces who lay claim to being the most ardent nationalists today played no role at all when the actual struggle for India’s freedom was being
fought. Savarkar, after his release
from prison in 1924, never took part in any anti-British politics. In fact, he
was the originator of the theory of Hindutva, which defined authentic Indians
as those whose fatherland and holy lands, pitribhumi and punyabhumi
, were in India, thereby excluding Muslims and Christians, whose holy lands
were outside India, from the fold. The Hindu Mahasabha also became increasingly loyalist
in the 1930s and 1940s. Though the loyalist tendency
was there earlier, initially
some of its leaders
participated in Congress-led movements.
But from 1937
onwards, when Savarkar became the President
and undisputed leader, they joined the Muslim
League
in competing for the crumbs thrown from
the Imperial table. The outbreak of the Second World War brought the differences with the nationalist forces out
into the open. While the Congress provincial ministries resigned in protest against the British Government’s decision
to
make India a party to the War without her consent, Hindu Mahasabha leaders offered cooperation to the British, and advocated that Indians participate in the war-effort and join the Army. Savarkar, as President of the Mahasabha, appealed
to Hindus ‘to participate in all war-efforts of the British Government’
and not to listen to “some fools” who “condemn” this policy ‘as cooperation with Imperialism’.(
Savarkar, Hindu
Rashtra Darshan, pp. 203ff.)
In private, Savarkar told the Viceroy in October
1939 that the Hindus
and the British should be friends and made an offer
that the Hindu Mahasabha would replace the Congress if the Congress ministries resigned
from office.( Linlithgow,
Viceroy, to Zetland, Secretary of State, 7 October
1939, Zetland Papers, Volume 18, Reel No. 6.)
In accordance
with this pro-British policy, when the Quit India movement was going on in 1942, and the entire nationalist Congress
leadership including Gandhiji was in jail, Shyama
Prasad Mookerjee of the Hindu
Mahasabha was a minister in the Fazlul
Haq Ministry in Bengal. The Hindu Mahasabha also formed coalition
governments with the Muslim League in Sind and the NWFP. It is another matter that all this loyalism
could not get them
electoral success and they suffered a rout in the 1946 elections!
The RSS
too, as an organisation did not participate in any of the major battles for freedom from colonial rule. The RSS was founded in 1925, and apart from the Simon Commission
Boycott in 1928, at least two major movements, the Civil Disobedience Movement
of 1930–34 and the Quit India Movement of 1942 were launched by the Congress after that date.
In none of these did the RSS play any part. Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS did go to jail in his individual capacity in 1930, but he kept the organisation and its members away from the
Civil Disobedience movement. The government was very
clear that it had
nothing to fear from the RSS. A Home Department note on the RSS reported that, ‘At meetings of the Sangh during the Congress disturbances (1942), speakers urged the members
to keep aloof from the Congress movement and these instructions were generally observed’.
It is of course legitimate to ask why there was a silence on Savarkar in the RSS and Jan Sangh-BJP camp for over four
or five decades after Gandhiji’s murder. Was it because it was politically suicidal to mention
Savarkar as he was associated in the public mind with Gandhiji’s murder, and now that much time had
lapsed, it could be assumed that public memory was short and Savarkar could now be resurrected? Also, with the new public emphasis on ‘Hindutva’ as part of the new aggressive
phase, it was difficult to ignore the original
creator of the concept. Further, for a party claiming
to be ‘nationalist,’ it is a little embarrassing not to have any freedom fighters to show. Therefore, in a desperate
effort to discover nationalist icons,
Savarkar was sought to be
cast in that mould.
A nationalist veil is drawn over Savarkar’s communalism by remembering him as Krantiveer, the
Andamans revolutionary. That Savarkar shamed the revolutionaries by repeatedly asking for pardon in
the Andamans and that he never took part in any nationalist activity after his release as he had promised to the British
government, was sought to be forgotten.
And in 2003, when the BJP-led NDA government was in power, despite considerable
opposition, Savarkar’s portrait was installed in the parliament. One would imagine that even if there is
a whiff of suspicion about Savarkar this should not have
happened. And now the latest: an
effort to legitimize Savarkar by normalizing his embarassing mercy petitions as
being sanctioned by the Mahatma! The aim is also to project a close and friendly
relationship between the two, and thus hide the fact that they had nothing in
common. Savarkar as the ideologue of Hindutva and leader of the Hindu Mahasabha
was a consistent and vehement critic of Gandhiji, especially of his
non-violence and inclusive attitude towards the Muslims. There could not be a
sharper contrast between their formulations of who India belongs to. Savarkar clearly
says that “India must be a Hindu land, reserved for the Hindus”. He unambiguously asserts that Hindus should be “masters in our own house, Hindusthan, the land of the Hindus”.
(Hindu Rashtra Darshan, pp 92, 63). Gandhiji, on the other hand, in his famous speech in Bombay in August 1942 where
he gave the call for ‘Quit India’, declared unequivocally: “Those Hindus who, like Dr. Moonje and Shri Savarkar, believe in the
doctrine of the sword may seek to keep the Mussalmans under Hindu domination. I
do not represent that section. I represent the Congress. The Congress
does not believe in the domination of any group or any community. It believes in
democracy which includes in its orbit Muslims, Hindus,
Christians, Parsis, Jews—every one of the communities inhabiting this vast
country….Millions of Mussalmans in this country come from Hindu stock. How
can their homeland be any other than India?”
One cannot
help thinking what a contrast there is between Savarkar
and his men, and
revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh who prided themselves on never asking
for clemency, choosing to suffer all punishment, including death. In fact from the very early days Indian
nationalists had evolved
the practice of bravely accepting responsibility for committing anti-British acts, face trials, using the trials for
further propagation of nationalist goals
and
then willingly accept
imprisonment, exile or even death as
punishment.
It is pertinent to
note that Savarkar’s habit of petitioning the government for release from
internment and making offers of good behaviour did not end with his release
from British jails in 1924. Within three weeks of his arrest in connection with Gandhiji’s murder, on 22 February 1948, he made a representation to the Police Commissioner from Arthur Road Prison expressing his ‘willingness to give an undertaking to the Government that … [he would] refrain from taking part in any communal
or political public
activity for any period
the Government may require in case I am released on
that condition’. Even the most brilliant advocate would find it
difficult to prove that this too was on Gandhiji’s advice, unless of course so
strong was the bond between the two that the atheist Savarkar could claim
communion with Gandhiji’s spirit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)