Vinayak Damodar Savarkar – Some individuals find great inspiration in these three words, while others immediately label him a bigot, a coward, or a fanatic to put an end to the discussion.
“Savarkar is not a person, he is an idea. The unity of identity (reconciliation) in mind, word and deed, as manifested by Savarkar in his life, is unique, it is supernatural. His personality, his work, his oratory and his poetry give such a dimension to the life of Savarkar that he will always be remembered in the history of the world.
Whenever one will fight against subjugation, jump into the battlefield against injustice, whenever the time for the sacrifice of life comes, whenever the moment of surrendering everything and regaining the lost freedom of the motherland will be present, Savarkar’s name will be remembered with an immense proud which would infuse strength in the minds of generations! सावरकर माने तेज, सावरकर माने त्याग, सावरकर माने तप, सावरकर माने तत्व, सावरकर माने तर्क, सावरकर माने तारुण्य, सावरकर माने तीर, सावरकर माने तलवार, सावरकार माने तिलमिलाहट…” – Atal Behari Vajpayee, 28th May 2006, Pune.
He was the kind of man that, love him or hate him, you simply couldn’t ignore. He was an exceptionally talented student from the start of his academic career. He was born on May 28, 1883, in the little hamlet of Bhagur, in the Maharashtra region of Nashik. He had an older brother, a younger brother, and a younger sister as he was the middle child. Young Vinayak was drawn to the feeling of patriotism from a very young age, which was also reflected in his daily life at the time.
He was a well-read student with a strong interest in History and Culture. His aptitude for writing and public speaking, as well as his capacity for persuasion, all proudly exhibited his fervent patriotism! Savarkar was an avid reader who was familiar with nearly all of the Western thinkers. For his classmates to be inspired by revolutionary literature, he would even transcribe it from English into Marathi. Let’s not forget that he lost a lot of family members when he was incarcerated. Due to his arrest, he had to stay away from his wife and kids because they were being shunned by society.
THAT EXTEMPORE…
Savarkar had a remarkable oratory talent. This first became apparent when he was only 10 years old and competing in an extempore competition while still in school. Although the judges incorrectly claimed that he had by-hearted the topic and that his pragmatic approach wasn’t used, as required in an extempore, he outsmarted everyone in the competition. He issued a challenge to everyone, incensed by the outcomes, to make another speech on any subject the judges would suggest.
In under 5 minutes, he gave an equally exciting speech that was met with a standing ovation from the audience. Now, why was this particular anecdote included in the discussion? Because it demonstrates Vinayak’s incredible dedication from a young age and how brilliantly he used his brains! (This trait of his was frequently displayed in his final years).
FOUNDATION OF THE ABHINAV BHARAT AND THE BEGINNING OF A NEW ERA…
Young Vinayak was greatly influenced by his older brother, Ganesh Damodar Savarkar (also known as Baburao Savarkar), and together they launched “Mitra Mela” in 1899. While Savarkar was a good student at the esteemed Ferguson College in Pune, he renamed it, Abhinav Bharat, in 1904 in a meeting attended by roughly 200 members from various places in Maharashtra, taking it after Giuseppe Mazzini’s Young Italy.
After Savarkar left India to study law in 1906, the organisation expanded to include several ardent revolutionaries and political activists and had sections in various parts of India and London.
Savarkar quickly joined ‘India House’, another secret club in London that had already been founded by Shyamji Krishna Verma. Savarkar, who published a book on the subject in 1909, was the first Indian to formally recognise the “Sepoy Mutiny of 1857” as the “War of Independence”.
Because it was difficult to publish this book in England, he smuggled the manuscript to the Netherlands, where it was eventually published. Savarkar was one of the most prominent figures to oppose the terrible Morley-Minto reforms from abroad when they were passed in India at the time.
Swiftly identifying Savarkar as a significant “threat” to their imperial dominion, the British made him a political prisoner. Savarkar was detained in London in 1910 and given a warrant for his extradition to India due to his associations with the revolutionary organisation India House.
While the ship was anchored in the port of Marseilles on the way back to India, Savarkar made a valiant attempt to flee and seek refuge in France. In violation of international law, the French port officials however returned him to the British government.
Savarkar was transferred to the Cellular Jail in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands after being convicted of two life terms of incarceration totalling 50 years upon his return to India. Vinayak, who was then 27 years old, was subjected to horrifying torment that would eventually affect him forever (rather, changed his approach to fighting the war against the British).
THE TORTUROUS CELLULAR JAIL…
The Port Blair Cellular Jail was purposefully built to operate like a machine, robbing inmates of their humanity through cruel punishment and, it would seem, “reforms.” The British Government made sure that the political prisoners stayed separated from one another, which had the desired effect of solitary confinement.
Savarkar wrote an autobiographical book titled “My Transportation for Life” in which he detailed his time spent in such a cellular prison. The inmates’ regular work assignments included turning the oil mill. They felt as though they were being yoked like animals to the handle that rotated the wheel because this one piece of work was so brutal and inhumane.
Any type of human being may lose all of their vitality and, it would seem, their spirit in just 20 spins of that savage wheel. Additionally, regardless of age, every prisoner received the same treatment. Vinayak’s older brother Ganesh Savarkar was also a prisoner at the cellular jail during the time Vinayak was serving his sentence there.
Savarkar describes the emotional suffering, torment, and PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) his brother experienced as a result of the physical labour (or “reforming,” as they called it!) while in the cellular jail, in chapter 9 of My Transportation for Life.
Authors Cathy Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy published “Survivors of our Hell,” an article in The Guardian in 2001, in which they both discovered some secret documents from the Andaman cellular jail. One of the infamous tales they disseminated concerned a prisoner by the name of Mahavir Singh who went on a hunger strike to protest the use of corporal punishment while incarcerated.
The authorities attempted to forcefully feed him by inserting a rubber catheter into his nostril to end the strike! However, as a result of it puncturing his lungs, he was “drowned with milk,” which led to pneumonia and finally took his life.
Furthermore, they stated that “in just a 3-4 year period, 3500 out of 8000 detainees had either been slain or perished as a result of the cruel treatment that was administered to them”. Later, the British Government was forced to admit that the cellular jail’s death rate had surpassed 30% by the 1930s.
Mr Barrie (an Irish), the jailor of the Andaman Cellular Jail later admitted that Savarkar frequently served as the leader of several of the prisoners’ work strikes. In the Andaman Islands, Savarkar was identified as the “father of the turmoil.” Revolutionaries were maligned and mistreated by Barrie. He cruelly tormented and viciously mistreated the detainees. They were in a terrible state when Savarkar came, but he somehow made things better for inmates in general and political prisoners in particular.
Savarkar committed to protecting the rights of political prisoners and to compel the jail administration to provide them with physical and cultural facilities, which included a demand for a properly maintained library (to preserve the inmates’ sanity and effectively reform them!).
Savarkar’s leadership during these work strikes demonstrated his unwavering nationalist spirit and dedication to his causes, even in the face of extreme hardship. As a result, he was sent to the Ratnagiri Jail in the year 1921 (on May 2) and eventually freed in the year 1924.
AFTERMATH: THE DYNAMIC SOCIAL REFORMING INITIATIVES AND HINDUTVA…
Savarkar was an atheist who did not believe in a specific God in the traditional sense; this fact is not widely known. Those who don’t know (or, I suppose, don’t care) accuse Savarkar of being a religious extremist and fomenting “hatred” among the populace.
However, there are several records and proofs to the contrary. Rejecting casteism, Veer Savarkar held that people are “graded” according to their “karma” rather than their place of birth. He wrote “Jatyuchchedak Nibandh” (Essays on abolition of caste) and “Vidnyan Nishtha Nibandh” while incarcerated in Ratnagiri (Essays on Scientific Temper).
In his play “Ushaap” (Antidote to a Curse), he addresses issues such as untouchability, the kidnapping of women, Shuddhi & Vratabandha, and the hypocrisy of conservatives. On particular occasions, such as temple entries, he wrote poems (Malaa devaache darshan gheu dya).
“The Essentials of Hindutva” is a book by Savarkar that some people have misconstrued to the point where they believe Savarkar solely wants Hindus (Brahmins) to live in India! The following are some of the profound topics he discussed in his work that demand careful clarification:
Listed by Savarkar as the seven “shackles” of Indian society are as follows:
First, Savarkar says that the rigid caste system “deserves to be thrown into the dustbins of history.” Veer Savarkar’s second change was to make Vedic literature more accessible to all people, not just members of a specific caste. He described Vedic literature as India’s one-of-a-kind contribution to humanity and civilizational wisdom for the entire human race.
The third was to encourage people to pursue any vocation of their choosing based on aptitude and ability and to end rigidity based on caste. Savarkar argued that “merely imitating what one’s father accomplished, will make one both complacent and unproductive” in the absence of desire, competition, or aptitude.
Fourthly, Savarkar was a proponent of international travel and the idea that Indians should leave the country to explore other countries to “bring back the best of the world and spread the fragrance of India and her culture to every corner of the globe.” Fifth, Savarkar wished to eliminate the ban on dining with people of different castes. “Religion is in the heart, soul, and spirit; not the stomach,” he had declared.
The promotion of the sixth was that of inter-caste marriages. Veer Savarkar emphasised the necessity to cultivate a scientific temperament as the seventh component. We are 200 years behind Europe, he said, adding that industrialization, technology, and contemporary ideas could ensure that every man and woman in India has a job to do, food to eat, clothes to wear, and a pleasant life to live.
Additionally, Savarkar organised the Shuddhi, or purification or conversion, of those who had defected from the Hindu faith as a result of threats and coercion. He organised a bonfire for the Statue of Untouchability on February 22, 1933, to much hoopla. He provided Dr Ambedkar with support throughout his anti-untouchability campaigns in Mahad and Nashik.
MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT “HINDUTVA”
Savarkar carefully outlined the idea of Hinduism in his work “The Essentials of Hindutva.” To further their political goals and engage in their dirty politics, several people and a few political parties have misappropriated these concepts on a bigger scale (I won’t mention them because doing so would diminish the respectability of this post!!).
One: “Muslims should be boycotted”—this is the most widespread myth of them all, yet Veer Savarkar doesn’t say anywhere in his book that Hindus should despise Muslims and force them to leave the country.
Two, “Hindu Rashtra”: The four Vedas, a collection of shlokas and hymns that essentially emphasise how one should live one’s life, are the foundation and spirit of Hinduism. Additionally, the word “Hindu” comes from “Sindhu” or “Sapt-Sindhu,” which means the region of the river’s seven tributaries, including the Sindhu or Indus. Therefore, rather than only referring to a religious identity and “sanctimonious dogmas,” the name “Hindu” refers to a cultural identity and way of life.
Three: “Savarkar promoted the Brahmanical Patriarchy” As was made clear in the previous section, Savarkar did not support the hereditary caste system and organised numerous ceremonies for all societal groups to provide them with the immense knowledge of the Vedic and Pauranik scriptures, which are already deeply ingrained in our cultural identity. Additionally, he frequently showed his unwavering support for Babasaheb Ambedkar’s stance against prejudice towards the untouchables.
Four, “Savarkar was the brainchild of the two-nation idea” – Few people are aware that Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the founder of AMU and a close ally of the British, first proposed the Two-Nation theory in 1878, before Savarkar was even born. In reality, Savarkar vehemently opposed it and spoke of a terrible consequence should the country be split along religious lines.
THE FINAL WORD….
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Subhash Chandra Bose, Lala Lajpat Rai, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak and many other gems were there who worked fingers to the bone for India’s freedom instead of just spinning a wheel and burning down clothes. Savarkar in his last few years had crumbled mentally, and emotionally. “I gave my entire life to my nation, and all I’m getting is this???!” Isn’t it obvious that his conscience might have felt it after a point in his life?
Yamunabai, Savarkar’s wife, passed away on November 8th, 1963. Savarkar quit medications, food, and water, which he called atmaarpan (fast until death) on February 1st, 1966. In an article titled “Atmahatya Nahi Atmaarpan”, which he published before passing away, he made the case that it is preferable to terminate one’s life on one’s terms rather than waiting till one dies when one’s life’s purpose has been fulfilled and one is no longer able to benefit society.
Savarkar had urged his family to perform his burial solely and forgo the customs associated with the 10th and 13th days of the Hindu calendar before he passed away. Well, many people also labelled him a “coward” when he requested pardon to leave the Andaman jail, despite his vision for his country’s feelings.
But this supposedly “liberal” society ignores the fact that to defeat foreign invaders, you must unite on all fronts, whether they be political, military, or social (the latter being the most important, especially for a nation like India). Savarkar made a determined effort to bring Indians together on a societal level in his later years, despite being released on the condition that he does not get involved in politics.
This also demonstrated his “never give up” attitude from his early years (thus the extempore narrative), as well as his unwavering ambition to work for the welfare of his nation.
In the end, a few fundamental queries come up: Did we truly comprehend Savarkar? Did we truly make an effort to uphold his legacy? Are we paying him justice and making an effort to draw from his solid ideas and efforts to forge our national identity?
Many have argued that Vinayak Damodar Savarkar ought to have received the prestigious Bharat Ratna award, but regardless of whether he does or not, he is far above any accolade, and I believe that our society as a whole will truly pay tribute to him by learning from and compassionately acting upon his righteous conscience.