Answering Calumny-V: Veer Savarkar And Mahatma Gandhi-Differences, Convergences And Unity

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

In the political discourse of India after 2014, there has been a strong emphasis on the differences between Savarkar and Gandhi from both sides of the political spectrum.

The main difference between Savarkar and Gandhi lies in their approaches to dealing with the issue of Islamist politics. Gandhi was an idealistic romantic who believed in the absolute superiority of Hindu values, while Savarkar was a realist.

During the Khilafat movement, Islamist leaders close to Gandhi, particularly Muhammad Ali, made it clear that Muslims were involved in the movement not out of principle but due to political considerations.

They were also enthusiastic about the possibility of an Afghan invasion of India.

All of this happened in the period between 1919 to 1921.

In 1895, the previous Amir of Afghanistan, Abdur Rahman Khan, had launched a campaign against the 'Kafir' tribes of Afghanistan.

The campaign lasted for 40 days and was carried out with well-equipped ammunition. The army of the Amir subjected the 'Kafirs' to tyranny, declaring that anyone above the age of seven who did not accept Islam would face severe consequences.

Women from the captured 'Kafir' population were forced to convert to Islam, and those considered attractive were sent to the Amir's Harem. Those who refused to convert were imprisoned, and widows were registered to be married off to those who converted.

In the Kafir villages, the village leaders were burdened with extra taxes, and if they couldn't pay, their women and children were taken and transported to Kabul.

Although the Amir occasionally made proclamations claiming to have abolished the slave trade, it was still encouraged covertly in the capital and openly in other regions.

As an example, in the Waigal region alone, 80 Kafir women were captured and sent to Kabul.

Documented evidence indicates that the campaign continued as late as 1899, with reports mentioning a group of 100 captured Kafir men, women, and children who were confined until they agreed to convert to Islam. Adult Kafir women captured during the campaign were sold in markets.

Then, within three decades, the descendant of the same Amir was speaking about invading India.

The Amir considered exploiting the widespread internal turmoil caused by the Khilafat movement to launch an attack on India, or at least initiate border incursions. However, he was eventually compelled to seek a peace treaty, indicating that the possibility of invasion was not completely out of the question.

Gandhi was asked about the condition of Hindus in Afghanistan, but he considered such questions as distractions and claimed to be unaware of the treatment of Hindus in that country.

He emphasized that his focus was on addressing the misrule in India and that concerns about Afghan Hindus should not deter him from overthrowing the present misrule. He assured that once India achieved self-governance (swaraj), it would have the ability to resist any form of misrule. (Young India, 3-11-1921).

Similarly, in 1947, Gandhi tended to believe the explanations provided by the Kabul embassy regarding the discrimination against Hindus in Afghanistan, questioning why Hindus could live there but not in Pakistan.

On the other hand, Savarkar recognized the dangers faced by Hindus and warned that they would become neglected and endangered if they did not unite politically. He highlighted the plight of Hindus in East Bengal (Bangladesh), Western Punjab (Pakistan), and Afghanistan.

Convergence between Gandhi and Savarkar

Despite their differences, both Savarkar and Gandhi agreed on the core nature of India, which they saw as a Hindu assimilation process.

While Savarkar explicitly stated this, Gandhi strategically acknowledged it.

An example of their convergence is this line from the famous bhajan associated with Gandhi's "Iswar Allah Tero Nam," which Hindu individuals could sing without compromising their faith, but it could not be sung by a fundamentalist Islamist.

The song equated Allah with Iswara, acknowledging the term Iswara as Brahman comprehended by Jiva through Maya. For an Islamist this should be more offensive than even Vande Mataram. This convergence between Gandhi and Savarkar was recognized by Jinnah.

Both leaders also shared a stance against conversion and emphasized the importance of religious harmony within India. In a 1931 statement, Mahatma Gandhi expressed his opposition to conversion projects happening in the country.

(Gandhi was against also Shuddhi of Arya Samaj. To him all conversion attempts were wrong.)

Similarly Savarkar and Gandhi agreed upon the Hindu nature of tribal communities. This is a critical point of convergence.

Savarkar considered tribal communities Hindu because of the common cultural and genetic osmosis that had been happening between all tribal and non-tribal communities from time immemorial.

Their religions naturally considered this land sacred. To Savarkar, 'sacred land' or Punya Bhumi was not a belief but an indicator of common inheritance.

Gandhi advocated for establishing strong connections with tribal communities. He did not view the active engagement of so-called mainstream Hindu culture with tribal communities as a form of conversion, contrary to the allegations made by modern Nehruvians, Marxists, and other 'Breaking India' forces.

Gandhi's perspective on reaching out to the so-called "aborigines" holds significant relevance in this context:

Gandhi also supported and encouraged Thakkar Bapa's initiative to recite Tulsidas' Ramayana in tribal areas.

During his Presidential address at Bhil Seva Sadan in Dahod on 2 January, 1925, Gandhi urged Bhil teachers to teach the Ramayana and Mahabharata, and he encouraged them to chant the Vaishnavaite Dwadasha Mantra (Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya).

In 1926, on the auspicious occasion of Sri Ram Navami, Thakkar Bapa constructed a Ram temple for the Bhils in Jesawada, which was fully supported by Gandhi.

Gandhi highly appreciated and recognized the significance of these efforts, stating that they marked "the beginning of our service to them, and not its end."

Although this may seem different from Gandhi's statement, "Rather than ask them to join my prayer, I would join their prayer," the paradox disappears when we understand that the so-called "Brahminical," "non-Brahminical caste Hindu," and "aboriginal" traditions are interconnected variations with a rich history of exchange, nurturing all elements without destroying any.

Thakkar Bapa and Savarkar

In 1935, Dutch Catholic Missions entered the central Indian tribal region of Mandla with the support of the British. They quickly established 30 mission centers and 22 schools for children.

In 1942, Catholic boarding schools were established with active support from the district administration, and a medical mission was also initiated.

Interestingly, the government instructed district educational authorities not to document the missionary activities in their reports.

Meanwhile, the missionaries coerced tribal youths into believing that getting baptized was a government order and threatened them with loss of livelihood if they did not convert.

Verrier Elwin, a well-known scholar, documented instances of physical and psychological abuse of tribals by the missionaries.

Elwin reached out to Amritlal Vithaldas Thakkar, commonly known as Thakkar Bapa, who was one of Gandhi's foremost disciples working for tribal welfare.

The Hindu Mahasabha under Veer Savarkar and Madan Mohan Malviya, a Congress-Hindu Mahasabha leader, also got involved.

Their secret collaboration with the missionaries exposed, the government quickly reversed its stance.

Savarkar successfully convinced the Governor to permit the establishment of Hindu schools. Subsequently, Gandhian activists and Sanghathan workers in the tribal field started several schools.

This situation presented an opportunity for Gandhi to ask Thakkar Bapa to cease his involvement and take no sides. However, what is to be noted here is that he allowed one of his closest associates to work with Hindu Sanghathanists to prevent the conversion of tribals and assert their Hindu identity.

Speech to Muslims after Partition

After the partition, Gandhi also spoke strongly about the issue of Islamism.

In a speech delivered to Indian Muslims in New Delhi on 18 September, 1947, he mentioned that Patel had informed him about his suspicions regarding the loyalty of the majority of Muslims in India. Gandhi believed that Muslims who wished to be citizens of the Indian Union should prioritize their loyalty to the Union above everything else.

On their part, the Muslims in Delhi had given a written declaration assuring their loyalty to the Indian Union.

Towards the end of his speech, Gandhi advised them that, as a sign of their loyalty to the Indian Union, they should publicly declare that all Hindu women who were abducted by Muslims in Pakistan should be returned to their families.

In other words, Gandhi linked the loyalty of Indian Muslims to their public condemnation of the abduction and forced conversion of Hindu women carried out by their fellow Muslims in Pakistan.

(Gandhiji, 'Speech to Muslims' (Harijan, 28-09-2947), CWMG Vol.96, pp.385-6).

When evaluating nation builders like Mahatma Gandhi and Veer Savarkar, it is important to consider all these aspects together. Both individuals were deeply rooted in their Hinduness, but their methodologies differed.

There are situations where Gandhi's approach would have disastrous consequences, while there are other situations where Savarkar's approach would not be desirable.

What may be considered poison in one context could be an antidote in another, and vice versa.

The healing or harming nature of a particular approach depends on the quantity and context in which it is applied.

The article published by Frontline serves as a clear example of how falsehood and hatred, both of which were detested by Gandhi, can be promoted under the guise of his name. It is important to recognize the deceptive nature of such tactics.

In reality, within the realm of political Hinduness, Mahatma Gandhi and Veer Savarkar represent complementary aspects, forming the yin and yang of its Tao. Everything else is mere details.