Jubilee Post News & Views
Dr. Lenin Raghuwanshi
People carry different opinions. A garden appears enchanting from flowers and plants of different hues. For a vibrant and better world, it is imperative to accommodate varied opinions, identify multiplicity of opinions and appreciate divergent views. Debates and discussions are important, yet it should be based on the premises of nonviolence, diversity, inclusive culture, justice, fraternity, dignity, democracy, ‘world is one’ dogma (Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam) and hope. The defiance of considering self as well as one’s own community as superior from others has always endangered humanity. There is always an anticipation of war if your society nurses a militarist tradition.
Hegemonic Masculinity begets a regimental tradition. Casteism adds more toxicity to it. Islam preaches universal education, yet the masculine and militarist traditions in Afghanistan prevent Malala from getting education, and bullets are used as deterrence. A decade back in July 2011 in Norway, an assailant, who thought himself as superior, killed 77 people by harping on a similar militarist tradition that induces hate motivated murder. Hitler’s fascism
was akin. Militarist tradition, masculinity, superiority complex and the resultant hate reaction only spread strife, fear and terror. Hitler has supporters in India in the manifestation of oganisations and individuals, who try to tackle dissidence with violence and by treading the path of fascism to establish their self-proclaimed superiority. Those who nurture the traditions of masculinity and militarism want to establish the odious caste and creed superiority.
The joint ploy of Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League Those who subscribe to superiority complex craftily exploit their respective religions to retain grip on power. In fact, superiority has an inbuilt void and has genesis in hate. They hatch all sorts of gambit in the name of religion and community, and then invoke fascism to protect the nexus and nurture hollowness imbedded in superiority complex.
It is important to understand such ploy at work in India. To suppress the Quit India Movement in 1942, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar headed Hindu Mahasabha had shamelessly aligned with his British colonial masters. His ‘liable support’ to the British Empire was not confined to mere ideological moorings. At that time, barring Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League, all political outfits including Congress were subjected to restrictions. In contrast, the Hindutva elements led by ‘Vir’ Savarkar had run alliance governments with the Muslim League.
At the Kanpur session of Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar had supported the alliance with these words: –
Hindu Mahasabha believes that realistic politics permit for agreements based on deliberations for progress. After receiving an invitation, the Sindh Hindu Mahasabha has owed the responsibility of running an alliance government with Muslim League. The Bengal example is widely known. The defiant League, which the Congress could not appease despite voluntary surrender, agreed for pragmatic agreements and social conduct after interacting with Hindu Mahasabha, thus paving way for the successful stint of the alliance government for a year under the premiership of Mr Fazlul Haque and under the stewardship of able and respectable Syama Prasad Mukherjee.(VD Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Vangmayah Hindu Rashtra Darshan, Edition 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindu Sabha, Pune 1963, Page 479-480) Savarkar admitted that Hindu Mahasabha’s second top leader Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was deputy chief in the Muslim League led alliance government in Bengal. Mukherjee also headed the ministry, which was tasked with suppressing the Quit India Movement.
At that time, the alliance governments of Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League ruled in Bengal, Sindh and North West Frontier Province. Interestingly, Savarkar had joined hands with the League when Congress was itself dead against the idea of having any kind of truck with the Muslim League.
The biography of Savarkar authored by Dhananjay Keer is reckoned as most reliable by the former’s admirers. It acknowledges that Savarkar had recommended the Hindu leaders to join the council of ministers led by Muslim League in Muslim dominated area.
In fact, the two bodies had already been working in consonance for some time then. Addressing Hindu Mahasabha’s Madurai session (1940), Savarkar had conceded that his party was working alongside Muslim organisations in several provinces to counter.
Savarkar’s statement as mentioned hereunder confirms that Hindu-Muslim communal forces worked unitedly against Congress. “At several places, Hindu Mahasabha nominees have defeated Congress candidates, and today Hindu organisations have emerged as a robust minority faction, and acquired such an equation in provincial assemblies and some local bodies that it can even influence the formation of Muslim governments too. Moreover, such governments (led by Muslim parties) comprise 2-3 Hindu ministers, who are tied up to the Hindu Mahasabha ticket.”
(VD Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Vangmayah Hindu Rashtra Darshan, Edition 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindu Sabha, Pune 1963, Page 399)
Here, Savarkar has expressed in no uncertain terms that he was least interested in the idea of a ‘cosmopolitan’ independent India, which accommodates all.
“Autonomy does not merely mean geographical independence of the land known as India. The independence of India will benefit Hindus only when it realises their identity pertaining to Hindutva, religion, race and cultural ethos. We are not ready to fight for such an autonomy, which is at the cost of our ownership and Hindutva.
(VD Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Vangmayah Hindu Rashtra Darshan, Edition 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindu Sabha, Pune 1963, Page 289)
Reciprocal agreement on the two-nation theory Before determining the complicity of Savarkar in furthering the two-nation theory before the country’s independence, it is imperative to shed light on his statements and actions while
helming the Hindu Mahasabha between 1937 and 1942. By this time, Savarkar was unshackled by the British and was a free man. The reference to a citation in the Hindu Rashtra Darshan published by the Maharashtra unit of Hindu Mahasabha would be of help here. In his presidential address at the 19th session of Hindu Mahasabha at Ahmedabad in 1937, Savarkar had said nonchalantly: –
Currently, two competitive nations coexist in India. Many immature politicians have committed an error in reckoning that Hindustan has already become a harmonious nation or it would become one with just our desire. This is a wishful thinking to merely turn dreams into reality by such friends, who have good intentions but raw beliefs. This makes them restless over communal delusions, and they then blame communal organisations. However, the reality is that communal dilemma is nothing but the outcome of cultural, religious and nationalistic rivalry between Hindus and Muslims over the past hundreds of years. We should face this bitter truth with nerve. Today, it cannot be accepted that Hindustan is a nation weaved in unity; on the contrary, Hindustan comprises two nations Hindus and Muslims.
(VD Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Vangmayah Hindu Rashtra Darshan, Edition 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindu Sabha, Pune 1963, Page 296)
In this way, much before Mohd Ali Jinnah espoused the two-nation theory in 1940, Savarkar had already been propounding it and both of them were against the idea of Indian nationalism. It may be recalled that while passing the resolution for the creation of Pakistan at Muslim League’s Lahore session (March 1940), Jinnah had referred to Savarkar’s aforementioned statement to buttress his two national theories.
Addressing a press conference on August 15, 1943 at Nagpur, Savarkar had even went to the extent of saying: –
I am not hostile to Jinnah’s two nation theory. Hindus comprise a nation within, and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations. (India annual register, 1943, Edition 2, Page 10)
The conviction in the two-nation theory had prompted Savarkar’s to expound that Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha represented their entire respective communities. Savarkar had thanked the viceroy for his assumption that Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha represented Muslims and Hindus respectively.
Delivering his vote of thanks as the president of Hindu Mahasabha at its 22nd session in Madurai, Savarkar had said: His Excellency the viceroy had after much deliberation arrived at a conclusion to recognise Hindu Mahasabha as the most exclusive representative of the Hindus.
(VD Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Vangmayah Hindu Rashtra Darshan, Edition 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindu Sabha, Pune 1963, Page 407)
Hindu and Muslim communalism have similar agenda
Pre-independent India’s enlightened political observer and critic Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar had, while broaching upon the shared agenda of Hindu and Muslim communalists, said: – It may appear strange that despite their rivalry on the issue of two nation, the thoughts of Savarkar and Jinnah are alike. Not only they accept, but resolutely advocate, that there are two nations in India, one each for the Hindus and Muslims. Their only difference is on the terms and foundation of such existence.
(BR Ambedkar, Pakistan ya Bharat ka vibhajan, Maharashtra government, Bombay 1990 (republication 1946) page 142)
Also Read : Weekend Rendezvous: Hina’s poetry is all about raising bars
Golvalkar supports Hitler’s ideology and Hitler’s aide Joseph Goebbels had said if a lie is publicised 100 times, it become a truth. In this way, the superiority complex inherent in Hitlers’ ideology, casteism and hegemonic masculinity coupled with the militarist Indian society and sub-cultures has posed a danger on humanity.
Simultaneously, it has also endangered the Sanatan legacy of debate and the ‘world is one’ dogma. Hitler’s ideology ruined Germany and waged World War II. Today, every sixth citizen on the earth is an Indian. If India treads the path of Hitler, what would happen to the world? Another point to ponder is that we are already suffering from terrorism sponsored by Pakistan, a country which was created on the basis of two nation theory. Now, corporate fascism is playing out in India.
(Author is a Human Right Defender and writer)
