by Nalini Taneja
(
People's Democracy, March 25, 2007)
It
has now become a truism of modern secular historiography on India that
there was an 'early' Savarkar and a 'late' Savarkar (much in the same
way as intellectuals refer to early and late Marx!), and that the early
Savarkar was secular, humanist, and a nationalist revolutionary who,
only in his later years became the theoretician of Hindutva. His
nationalist, secular credentials are based on his activities in Europe
and his escape from a ship mid-voyage, and more and more frequently now
on his book, First War of National Independence, 1857, written by him,
originally in Marathi, in 1907. That we happen to be celebrating the
150th anniversary of 1857 will doubtless add to Savarkar's glory,
particularly as it is easy to prove that the Indian National Congress
to begin with, did not uphold 1857.
This distinction between
an early and a late Savarkar is clearly misplaced in so far as his
secular credentials are concerned, or even his espousal of modern
nationalism. A careful reading of the very text so often cited for his
secularism brings out clear continuities in his communalist, parochial
and elitist stance; between what he wrote in this text and in his
Hindutva text written in 1924 after he became a leader of Hindu
Mahasabha. His vision of an independent India was less forward looking
in 1907 than that of many of his contemporaries, and certainly also as
compared with many of the participants themselves in the 1857
rebellions.
The break with the tradition of a composite, lived
unity spontaneously acted upon in 1857, came with the consolidation of
communalist tendencies in the late 19th century, after which it had to
be consciously campaigned for by secular nationalists. Savarkar was
very much a child of this communal consolidation and its reliance on
revivalism, which colours his view of 1857 even when he defends the
rebellions and marks the unity of Hindus and Muslims against the
British.
We also need to look at what else Savarkar was doing
around the same years, and what else he was writing around that time,
and we need to explain first of all his conversion to secularism itself
from an even earlier adolescent hostility towards Muslims. Not only
does Dhananjay Keer, his biographer, describe an incident in which a
twelve year old Savarkar leads a march of his school mates to stone a
village mosque, but Savarkar himself in his later recounting,
uncritically and with pride recounts the same incident. "We vandalized
the mosque to our heart's content and raised the flag of our bravery on
it. We followed the war strategy of Shivaji completely and ran away
from the site after accomplishing the task." (VD Savarkar, Savarkar
Samagra, Vol. I, Prabhat Prakashan, pp. 152-153). It was seen by him as
a victory of the Hindus in their dharm yudh (holy war) against the
Muslims. More important than the period when he recounted this incident
is the fact that he never once regretted it: certainly not in his
author's introduction to the 1857 book.
He does make some
other statements, however, which are telling: his espousal of
Hindu-Muslim unity has little to do with his conviction of equal rights
to citizenship or an appreciation of shared living or composite
culture. "In 1857 the Hindus and Muslims set aside their centuries old
religious war to fight the Christians." (Savarkar Samagra, Vol. 5, p.
29). He has no doubt even in his so called secular-nationalist phase
that Hindus and Muslims are 'warring nations'. He recognizes that
Hindus and Muslims had to unite in 1857 if they had to present an
effective challenge to the British, but that necessity does not seem to
extend to the period when he is writing that text. He nowhere talks of
the necessity of a unified struggle in the present or in the future:
1857 is a special episode, which he is describing as it happened,
rather than learning from it to prescribe for the future.
In
1909 communal historiography had still not gained hegemony, 1857 was
not that far away-- just about 50 years--and many people of that
generation would still have been alive: it was simply not possible to
have given a version of 1857 in those days which did not recognize the
role of the Muslims in the 1857 rebellions, to give a communal version
that could vilify or negate their role in 1857. Savarkar could hardly
have done otherwise, once he decided to defend 1857--unlike many who
just maintained a silence or opposed it.
The areas of most
intense rebellions--Delhi, Meerut, Bareilly, Lucknow, Kanpur, Gwalior,
Jhansi, North-west Frontier--had sizeable Muslim populations and 1857
could not have assumed the form of civil rebellions without
participation of both Hindus and Muslims. All armies, without
exception, at that time were mixed, including that of Rani of Jhansi
and Nana Saheb, and all armies, of the British as well as the states
continued to be so in 1909 as well; so not even a sepoy Mutiny was
conceivable without participation of all sections of the population in
the country. Every family in the regions affected would have had a
member--parents, grandparents--either for or against 1857. 1857 was a
live, not distant memory in 1909. Even the British revenge against
Muslims, their policy of marking out enemies and weeding them out of
administration was part of 'current affairs' of that time. Folk songs
abounded all over the country, personifying their heroes who came from
all castes and regions, not to speak of religions. Just as today, it is
just not possible for even the most rabid among RSS to be able to say
about 1947 that killings were not on both sides, even as they may blame
Muslims for partition, it was not possible to present in 1909 the
communalist version of 1857 current in the shishu mandir texts and RSS
shakhas, which completely erase the role of Muslims in any struggle
against the Muslims. Mass media did not exist in the form that it does
today when even contemporary events can be easily falsified by the
might of a hegemonic media.
Therefore let us see what else he
wrote in his book on 1857, which throws a closer light on his world
view at the time of writing and publishing the book (1909). This book
is reproduced in Savarkar Samagra, Vol. 5, published by Prabhat
Prakashan from which we will quote.
We must remember that the
early twentieth century, when he wrote 1857, was a period of both
secular awakening and communal consolidation, and 'revolutionaries'
could well be revivalist, while other, more 'moderate' people (moderate
that is in terms of demands from British rule or in their advocacy of
methods employed) could be far more radical and democratic in their
views on society. Early twentieth century churnings were influenced by
anti-caste movements, by the social reform zeal initiated by the Bengal
renaissance and the 'moderates', the Arya Samaj and the backlash of
Sanatan Dharma, by Tilak, the drain of wealth critiques by Dadabhai
Naoroji, the census politics and divide and rule politics of the
British, the stirrings of revolution in 1905 in the Russian empire and
the swadeshi movement following partition of Bengal in 1905,
nationalism of both the liberation variety and the chauvinist
expansionist variety and much else. What did Savarkar adopt from this
wide spectrum of influences to make his own intellectual personality?
Although
his writings of that period are replete with references to 'learning
from history' to build a 'future' nowhere in this book or in other
writings of the period does he emphasize a secular unity or a secular
nation. Rather his sources of inspiration, as they come out in the 1857
text, are Shivaji and the Maratha movement, Guru Gobind Singh, the
'centuries old struggle of the Hindus' against 'Muslim tyranny', and
the cultural nationalism of Tilak rather than the anti-Brahman
movements and organizations inspired by Jotirao Phule. While in London
he translated the life of Mazzini, and what he emphasized about him was
that the nation can be built only by reaching back to the 'roots' of
its 'civilization'. Therefore he may have spoken of Hindus and Muslims
as "blood brothers" in 1857, who loved the motherland equally, but
throughout his 1857 text it is clear that for him the roots of India's
civilization lay in Hinduism, Hindus and Hinduism constituted the core
of India and that his vision of a future India was a Hindu India even
then. For him the inspiration essentially came not from the unity of
Hindus and Muslims that he saw as true in 1857, but from the great
Hindu past and the invented struggles of Hindus against Muslims.
Even
as early as 1909 his was a world inhabited by opposing religions and
unity was a pragmatic necessity. Mazzini had written in his On
Nationality: Whichever people by its superiority of strength, and by
its geographical position, can do us injury, is our natural enemy;
whichever cannot do us injury, but can by the amount of its force and
by its position injure our enemy, is our natural ally. Savarkar, who
was greatly inspired by Mazzini and wrote on him, agreed with him on
this. The English were guilty of the very sins attributed to the
Muslims. They were the target in 1857, not the Muslims, because they
were in power and not the Muslims. Given the percentage of Muslim
population in pre-independence India and its spread all over the
country it was inconceivable in 1909, or at any point till today, even
by communalists, that independence could have been won without the
contribution of Muslims. The criteria of a secular outlook for the
beginning of the 20th century (when he wrote the book) should not be
whether one sees Hindu-Muslim unity operating in the past, but whether
one sees in it the seeds of a nation free of religious prejudice and
religious inequalities.
Whatever may have been the basis of
Hindu-Muslim unity in 1857, and however many pages he may have devoted
to describing the role of the many Muslim leaders and of the unity
exhibited in 1857, for Savarkar in 1909 it was not something to uphold
as heritage for a secular unity in the future.
In 1909 too
religion formed the very basis of politics for him. In the 1857 book
too he politicized the references to religion and introduced religious
metaphors to make political points. The epigraph for the book on 1857
is taken from Swami Ravidas. It says: Die for the sake of dharma and
while dying kill all; in killing is your victory, the establishment of
your own rule." (Savarkar Samagra, 5, p.19). Swadharma and swarajya are
inextricably linked, he says, and this forms the title of his first
chapter. The principal causes of 1857 revolution, its divine force,
were swadharma and swarajya (p. 25). And lest we think that by dharma
is meant some nebulous 'way of life', he goes on to elaborate that "as
soon as the terrible, fatal and treacherous assault on our dearer-
than-life religion was realized, the thunder of 'deen-deen' (our
religion- our religion) reverberated in defense of religion, and when
this thunder was joined with the realization that the independence
provided to us by nature was treacherously taken away from us, and that
we are shackled in political slavery, a holy desire arose to gain self
rule, swarajya, and this sacred desire dealt a blow to the chains of
freedom, and it is here the roots of this revolutionary war
lie…Nowhere
else the love for one's own religion and the love for one's own rule
are so clearly visible than in the history of Hindusthan." Further,
"what effort was spared by Hindusthan for swarajya and what divine
inspiration it did not gain to retain swadharma?" And then he quotes
Guru Gobind Singh: "The man who fights for religion…even if each
part
of the body is cut off, he does not leave the field…" and goes
on to
give his opinion that indeed, the entire history of Hindusthan is
filled with episodes of brave men fighting for their religion, who did
not leave the field even when their bodies were cut to pieces (p. 25) .
Therefore even the matter of greased cartridges hurting religious
sentiments was just an episode, as annexation of Awadh and other such
episodes were, and the "war" would have been waged even had they not
taken place, because the matter was not just one of bad rule, but of
rule itself which was seeking to destroy the religious personality of
the Indians. (Chapters1-2). He has chosen to highlight mainly such
passages from leaders as go to illustrate this point. As Jyotirmaya
Sharma has shown in his essay on Savarkar, despite Savarkar's regular
barbs against Muslim theocratic politics, religion formed the very
basis of politics for Savarkar (Hindutva, Penguin), and that Savarkar
considers 1857 to be a political revolution on the lines of what
happened in Mazzini's Italy, but the essence of which was the
establishment of one's own religion as much as self rule (Sharma,
p.142).
What was the connection between swadharma and
swarajya? Savarkar said that the "ancients believed" that the two were
inseparable, much as Mazzini did, like heaven and earth were two ends
of the same thing and could not be dissociated (discussion in Sharma).
The sword of swarajya must always be there to defend swadharma. In
ancient times revolutions always took a religious turn and went hand in
hand with religion and religious sanction…Even Mazzini said the
same,
says Savarkar, and stands by it for 1857, and approves of it as an
essential and desirable element for politics of his time…
(Savarkar
Samagra p.19). Without our religion self rule means little, and without
self rule our religion is emasculated; the sword of swarajya should
always be drawn in favour of swadharma and concerns of the other world.
This bent of mind of the ancients is to be seen in every moment of
history…Political revolution without being joined with religion
was
unknown in our ancient world; this can be understood only if we
recognize that their seeds lie in this same grand worldwide sweep of
religion. This very means of swadharma and swarajya (i.e., where
religion and politics are inseparable) are valid even in the revolution
of 1857 (p.27). He quotes Bahadur Shah Zafar's proclamation as stating:
"Why has God given us wealth, country, rights? They are not related
merely to the happiness and enjoyment of individuals but for the holy
aim of protecting our religion." According to him Zafar warned that "if
you lose the opportunity and means to protect your religion you will be
considered a criminal and anti-religious in the court of God…God
has
willed that you attain self rule because that is the only means for
protecting your religion. Those who do not attain self rule are without
religion and are traitors to religion. Therefore rise in defense of
your religion and attain self rule." And then Savarkar himself goes on
to say: "'Rise in defense of your religion and attain self rule'--in
how
many divine miracles has this truth not been revealed throughout our
history?" (p. 28).
While there is no doubt that a religion
pervaded the world view of most people in 1857, the entire tone and
tenor of this proclamation, of which we are given no historical
reference, moves in tune with the tone and tenor of Savarkar himself.
Then he approvingly quotes Ramdas: "Had not Shri Samarth Ramdas
preached to us 250 years ago 'Die for your religion, kill all while
dying, kill all and establish your rule.' This is the elemental cause
of the revolutionary war in 1857. The telescope through which one can
discern the clear and true character of that war, that genuine
telescope, that is… Die for your religion, and while dieing kill all of
them, while killing win your rule. If you look at this war through this
telescope, one begins to see a very different picture. Swadharma and
swaraj--these two holy causes with which this revolutionary war was
fought, its holy character is not diminished by defeat. The efforts of
Guru Gobind Singh may have failed if we look at them from a traditional
perspective, but this does not lessen the divine character of his
efforts."(p.28).
It is clear thus that even in 1909, when he
wrote his 1857, for him, religious politics forms the raison d etre of
people's struggles and the motive force in history. For him swadharma
is no dharma of Buddha: it is filled with violence and hatred.
Swadharma is not identified by him with some secular duty either which
is given an exalted, dharmic status: his is not the language of an
atheist, as some historians have claimed him to be. Independence for
him is a religious duty, and the goal of independence is the assertion
of the religious will.
Another misconception is that he was
concerned with the idea of a nation. For a person inspired by Mazzini,
and who wrote on him, it is surprising that the word "rashtra" or
nation does not really occur in the book. Throughout the book he refers
to 1857 as "revolutionary war": for him it was, as he titled it,
essentially the 'First War of Independence' from the present enemy in
power. It is not a war qualitatively different from the earlier wars
against the Mughals, except that the enemy is the British and the
Hindus are joined by the Muslims in fighting against them. For him the
British too are qualitatively no different from the Mughals: they are
being fought because they are in power in 1857. He would accept even
later, in his Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History, that the Hindus
and Muslims had fought together against the British. For him the war
against the British is like the war against the Muslims earlier: both
represented an insult to religion. Throughout 1857 his references to
the battles of Hindu kings against the Mughals is referred to and
described as a fight of the Hindus against Muslims. One searches in
vain in his 1857 book for any nationalism or idea of nation in Savarkar
as we understand a modern nation. And it must be remembered he was no
Bahadur Shah Zafar or Rani Lakshmi Bai ruling in mid nineteenth
century. He was no 19th century peasant or tribal whose mental world
was hegemonised by religion. He was writing in the early twentieth
century after having spent considerable time in Europe, being exposed
to the ideas of liberalism and nationalism, and was somebody who had
gone on an academic scholarship to read for the Bar exams in London.
The idea that Savarkar upheld 1857 as a "national" war is really the
interpolation of the communalists, born out of the need for inventing
for themselves a nationalist personality. When he did begin to talk of
a nation, he articulated the idea of Hindutva and Hindu rashtra. In
1909 he refers to the 1857 as "war" for independence, and the war for
independence is a "dharmyudh" (holy war). The Hindus and Muslims are
fighting together, but the Muslims are fighting for their religion and
the Hindus for their own. He approvingly quotes a proclamation without
giving its source as saying: "Our revolt is only for the protection of
our religion, there is no other purpose behind it" and called upon
people to "leave aside all personal factors and co-operate with us in
the defense of our ancient religion." (p. 239).
It would be
fruitful to quote from his description of the endorsement of Bahadur
Shah Zafar as Emperor of Delhi by the rebels after capture of Delhi. He
writes: "However this establishment of the power of this old
representative of the Mughals, was not for bringing back the old Mughal
dynasty or the old barbaric tradition…it could appear so in a narrow
sense but was not so in truth, in a broader sense…The Mughal dynasty
had not been chosen by the people of this country. Mughal power was
imposed upon us by the aggressive personality of the Muslims and the
desire to conquer Hindusthan and as a result of treason by people
devoid of self respect. ..Here no such force was at work in elevating
Bahadur Shah to the throne once again. No, that would have been
impossible…It would have been suicidal to do so……because that would
have meant that the blood shed by Hindu martyrs, fighters for their
religion, for their independence, over the course of three-four
centuries has been in vain…the spate of aggression and conquests in all
directions started by the barbaric hordes of Arabstan with their
acceptance of Islam crushed all under their feet. Nowhere were they
resisted, so as they overran country after country, one human race
after another human race fell prey to their forcible conversions to
Islam. If somebody resisted this formidable and unchecked storm without
compromising and with great bravery, fearlessness and determination for
the first time it was this country. In the history of other countries
such resistance is only an exception. This war continued for more than
five centuries. For more than five centuries the Hindus fought for
their birthright [natural rights] against these foreign conquerors.
..and in this glorious struggle of centuries and centuries there arose
a new Hindu force in the western ghats from among whom thousands and
thousands of Hindus sacrificed themselves for the self respect of their
race, and which took upon itself uphold the honour of the Hindu race…A
brave Hindu, Bhaosahab Peshwa, led his army from Pune to the throne of
Delhi, captured it and washed off the dark stains of slavery on Hindu
culture. Hindusthan thus shed its slavery, wiped away its defeat and
became independent once again. Hindus once again became masters of the
land of Hindus--they became blessed once again. So, in truth, the
endorsement of Bahadur Shah as Emperor by the people did not represent
the reinstatement of the Mughal dynasty in 1857." (p. 238). This
crucial summing up of a defining moment in 1857 reveals his attitude to
history and his own world view, his parochialism, the invention of
unending bravery of Hindu royal houses
A sub-chapter in the book
is precisely titled: 'Hindu dharma and Hindu rajya must be Struggled
For', and Nana Saheb on departure after defeat is quoted as saying:
"Efforts will have to be made once again to re establish Hindu dharma
and Hindu rashtra." Throughout the 1857 book he refers to Hindustan as
"Hindusthan", and specific areas as "Brahmavarta" and so on. The only
heroes to whom separate chapters are devoted and the chapters titled
after their names are only Nana Saheb, Tantia Tope, Laxmi Bai, Mangal
Pandey, Kunwar Singh and Amar Singh; no Muslim heroes, though in
details of various areas they do emerge as local heroes. The old Hindu
royal houses are described in a way that leaves no doubt of his
admiration for the feudal order, including of the preference of sati of
Rajput women in the face of defeat and so on.
More
significantly, all the imperialist stereotypes about the
people--including the racial sterotypes--are reproduced in all their
glory by Savarkar. His easy characterization of the Sikh, the Bengali,
the Rohilla, the Maratha, the Gurkha as playing their ethnic and
racially designated roles is revealed in the fashion made familiar by
old British or rabidly communal historians and administrators.
Therefore the Sikh emerge as the betrayer, the south Indian keeps
quiet, and the Bengali is indifferent or black sheep, and so on.
Also,
in what has become the hallmark of communal historiography, in
characterizing it as the "first war of independence", there is complete
silence on all struggles that cannot be termed as "Hindu". So while we
have glowing passages of the kind quoted above with regard to Marathas,
there is no mention of Tipu Sultan and Haider Ali, of the peasant and
tribal revolts against the British rule all over the country and almost
every year since the coming of the British, the entire real pre-history
of 1857 that culminated in the great rebellions of 1857.
Considering
that he is writing in 1907-1909, long after the formation of many
social and political organizations, there is no cognizance or mention
that lack of such political organisations may have meant in 1857.
Dadabhai's study on drain of wealth may have been familiar to him as
also the impact of British rule on the different sections of the
people. But apart from talking of general "destruction" of "Hindusthan", there is no cognizance of colonialism or Imperialism.
The
celebration and glorification of violence so characteristic of
fascist/sectarian organizations, and the intense hatred towards those
characterized as enemies, the belief that might is right and
justification of unprincipled violence and cruelty is evident
throughout the book. The way the descriptions go, of attacks on "white
men women and children" "attacked for their very whiteness", Savarkar
may have lifted descriptions of senseless violence and cruelty from the
most prejudiced colonial accounts, except that he is proud of them. It
is sickening to read such descriptions, where the killing of children
is justified as killing of the litter of serpents who would grow up to
be poisonous. He has completely accepted the imperialist logic in
inverting the picture of 1857. Nobody who reads these descriptions and
the glorification of killing by treachery and senseless hatred can even
consider the proposition that Savarkar's 1857 book reveals that the
early Savarkar was a secular, nationalist and humane personality. It
covers so many passages in so many pages, that one can make a full book
of it. There is everything in that book which does the spadework for
the later, well defined and well developed communal historiography, and
it very much shows the future course that Savarkar was to take.