Answering Calumny-I: Savarkar— Visionary Or Venomous Quixote?

This is the first article in a five-part series. You can read other parts here: Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five. 

On 28 May, 2023, the 140th birth anniversary of Veer Savarkar, Frontline published an article referring to him as the 'Fountainhead of Fundamentalism'. This article has been regarded as a strong and comprehensive critique of Savarkar. However, for that reason and others, it offers us an opportunity to expose its hollowness.

On a closer examination itself, the article reveals inconsistencies beneath its seemingly profound perspective.

For instance, the writer states that it is illogical and morally wrong to present one's defeat as a sacrifice, but later acknowledges that Savarkar did make sacrifices for the nation.

This raises the question of whether his actions were genuinely sacrificial or simply a misrepresentation of defeat. This is just one example of the many inconsistencies in the article.

In the following discussion, we will delve into the main points raised by the article. We start with the question:

Was Veer Savarkar was merely a Romantic Revolutionary lacking historical knowledge?

This, about a person who thoroughly studied writings of military strategists, historians, and archival material from 1857. With meticulous research, he debunked the idea of the 1857 struggle being a 'mutiny' and contributed to it being acknowledged as a 'War of Independence'.

He effectively contested the prevailing historical narrative at a time when terms like "narratives" and "constructs" were not widely known.

From here, one can understand the true intentions of Savarkar and his colleagues at 'India House'. Their struggle was not about the 'romance of revolution', which they planned to wage through random assassinations. They actively engaged with global radical circles, advocating for the Indian cause and building momentum for Indian liberation.

They also supported popular movements within India. Recognizing the gathering storm of war in the West, they sought to garner sympathy for India's cause, leveraging anti-British sentiments in Western forces to create problems for the British.

Savarkar's arrest in French territory by British police and the subsequent Hague International trial brought significant international attention to the India's cause. Until 1910, it stood as a major medium of Indian outreach to international political forces.

Punishment propagated as sacrifice?

Addressing the allegation that Savarkar received the punishment any government, including the present-day Indian government, would have given for his misdeeds, we find the answer in the so-called clemency petitions themselves.

Savarkar's sentence in the Andaman prison began on 24 October, 1910. The prison initially resembled a torture chamber, designed to break the prisoners physically and mentally, stripping them of their dignity and patriotism.

In a petition filed in 1913, after enduring years of hardships and torture, Savarkar called for the release of all political prisoners, not just himself.

By 1914, he had already spent four years in the Andaman prison. Savarkar again petitioned for the release of political prisoners, emphasizing that their release would be advantageous for the government amidst the ongoing First World War.

He believed that grateful prisoners would actively assist the government's war efforts. It's worth noting that during this time, even Gandhi, setting aside his principle of non-violence, appealed for Indian recruitment in the British army.

In his petition, Savarkar included a line that often goes unnoticed but demonstrates his extraordinary willpower and determination:

There are two important points to consider here.

• First: Savarkar voluntarily requested his continued imprisonment in Andaman after experiencing four years of suffering.

• Second: this request indicated to the British that Savarkar remained unbroken and that he was willing to sacrifice himself for his fellow patriots.

While the petition was eventually rejected, this deliberate sacrifice, not only for the cause of India but also for the well-being of his fellow prisoners, was truly remarkable.

Readers are invited to reflect on the mindset of those who belittle and dismiss such sacrifices for the nation as mere glorification driven by "middle-class cowardice or boredom."

Visionary to Whom We Owe More Than We Realise

Savarkar held two consistent beliefs:

1. Networking with like-minded forces outside India was crucial for Indian freedom fighters in their quest for independence.

2. The Indian army, comprised of Indian soldiers and officers with international fighting experience, would play a vital role.

These beliefs were validated in the course of India's journey towards Indian freedom.

Even while confined in the Andaman prison, Savarkar envisioned the Andaman-Nicobar Islands as an important naval outpost for a future independent India.

In 1927, he further elaborated his vision for the Andaman Islands:

Savarkar's vision has become a reality today with the establishment of the Andaman and Nicobar Command (ANC), the first and only tri-service theatre command of the Indian Armed Forces.

Savarkar's historical insights and his consistent belief in universal recruitment, rather than relying on specific races or castes, and his campaign for Indianizing the British Indian army demonstrated his keen understanding of history.

In hindsight, one can see that Savarkar's strategy proved successful. The Indian National Army (INA) and the Royal Navy Uprising played a role in expediting India's independence.

At the same time, from a historical point of view, one cannot diminish the role and importance of the Gandhian movement in instilling a spirit of freedom. These two streams of the independence struggle influenced each other.

Now, let's move on to the next question regarding Gandhi and his concept of Satyagraha.