One of our brightest jewels

One of our brightest jewels
Bani Deshpande

Anil Nauriya, in his article entitled, `No jewels of the nation, these' (Total Recall, January 17) is trying to write off from the history of the national movement the name of one of the brightest jewels in the crown of the Indian revolutionary movement. He was reacting to a newspaper report that there was a proposal to bestow the Bharat Ratna on V.D. Savarkar and Shyama Prasad Mookerjee. The author's knowledge about Savarkar is based on two mercy petitions made by him to the government from the jail in Andaman quoted by R.C. Majumdar in his Penal settlement in Andaman.

The author's main objection to the petition of V.D. Savarkar dated November 14, 1913, and the earlier one of 1911 is the statement that, if released, ``he cannot but be the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English Government''. I am not a lawyer but in my humble opinion no lawyer in his senses will ever advice a revolutionary client to write,``If I am released from the prison I will against organise the revolt with superior arms and shall also evade arrest.'' Every revolutionary will try to obtain his own release by any means, fair or foul, since he is supposed to be at war with the existing government.

One must not forget that on June 8, 1909, Savarkar elder's brother Ganesh was sentenced to life transportation of 25 years. On December 24, 1910, V.D. Savarkar was sentenced to life transportation of life for 25 years. On January 30, 1911, just after six weeks, he was for the second time sentenced to life transportation of 25 years. The Royal Proclamation of December 1919 by the British, which inter alia made ``an appeal to forgive and forget for removing all bitterness and creating an atmosphere of goodwill for the success of the Reforms and Declaration of Royal clemency to political prisoners''. In this context, Tilak wrote in his weekly, Maratha, of January 25, 1920, with reference to the Savarkar brothers petitions in the previous decade, supplied by the younger brother, N.D. Savarkar, ``A cruel wrong has been done to the Savarkar brothers'' and quoted from their petition which said, ``if the reforms are effected and if at least the Viceregal council are made to represent the voice of thepeople then there would be no hesitation of my part to make the beginning of such a constitutional development a success, to stand by law and order which is the very foundation and basis of society in general and of Hindu policy in particular''. Tilak, instead of condemning them, asked ``what more did the Government want than this clear and definite assurance?''

In spite of such petitions, the confidential history-sheet of the brothers conduct in the prison show remarks about V.D. Savarkar, ``Punished eight times during 1912, 1913 and 1914 for refusing to work and possessing forbidden articles.'' About Ganesh Savarkar it says: ``His behaviour was bad and was frequently punished.'' Does all this suggest their meek surrender?

As a matter of fact, Mr Nauriya appears to be suffering from the pathological Macaulyian allergy for the word ``Hindu'', which socially and philosophically is a symbol of secularism. He takes umbrage at the statement of Savarkar supporting the two-nation theory. His only complaint can be that Savarkar did it a few years earlier than the Congress leadership did. Like the communists, Savarkar did not support the 1942 movement. Mahatma Gandhi also supported the British war efforts in the First World War against the radical nationalist schools of Tilak in the Congress.

It may be noted that before his arrest in London, Savarkar lived in the India House. Lenin, while in exile in England, also stayed in the India House where he and Savarkar had argued on the path for the Indian liberation and differed. But he paid it glowing tributes to the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. He felt that instead of wasting time mobilising all sections of society, it was enough if all the Hindus unite (being in an overwhelming majority) and overthrow the British. One is entitled to differ with his views but by no flight of the imagination can one accuse Savarkar of cowardice and communalism.

The Bharat Ratna award owes all its glitter and prestige to the immense sacrifices of men like Savarkar.

The writer is a Mumbai-based political commentator