'Savarkar Vandalised a Mosque, Called Gandhi a 'Plague'': Arun Shourie Interview

On 'Badi Badi Baatein', Arun Shourie talks about myths around Vinayak Savarkar, BJP's appropriation & Hindu Rashtra.

Arun Shourie talks about his book on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

(Photo: The Quint)

Video Editor: Nitin Bisht

Did Savarkar call Gandhi a walking plague? Did Gandhi ask him to write mercy petitions while he was imprisoned? Were Savarkar and Gandhi friends? What were Savarkar's views on cow worship?

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar — the man with one of the most controversial socio-political legacies of the pre-Independence era, his life story has been a subject of study in school's history textbooks and an inspiration for literary work. But he is also the subject of political contentions in present day India.

While scores of books already exist on Savarkar, he is being written about once again by Aun Shourie — former BJP leader, Union Minister in Atal Bihari Vajpayee's Cabinet, a Magsayay award-winning journalist, and a Padma Bhushan awardee.

So, what does Arun Shourie aim to address in his book?

"I feel many of them are just regurgitating things which advocate the myths that he himself created, and it deals only with specific issues relating to him arising from his own writings - legends and myths about his life and so on," Shourie said.

But while speaking on Savarkar, the conversation with Shourie steers to the present day BJP, and how issues like 'appropriating an advocate of Hindu Rashtra' may have made him snap ties with the party.

On 'Badi Badi Baatein, Shourie discusss the BJP, the 'challenges' of the concept of a 'Hindu Rashtra', and the myths, facts, and narratives about Savarkar.

Why did you once again feel the need to write a book to specifically address certain questions that are going on in the current discourse? 

Well, precisely because of the books on Savarkar now, I feel many of them are just regurgitating things which advocate the myths that he himself created, and it deals only with specific issues relating to him arising from his own writings - legends and myths about his life and so on. So, that is the way it is. And the issues are those, that are current today. And I was trying to go to the roots of these notions. That is how I landed on Savarkar.

To be the devil's advocate, he did seem to have rational views on some issues. First is the matter of, cow worship in Hinduism. In his own writings and articles, he has called out worshiping of the cow by the Hindus, eating cow dung and drinking cow urine as fanaticism. He's called it "madness" is called is called Mukta. He said, look after cows but do not worship them. What do you think shaped his views on cows the way he did?

Not only cows, but the other practices. For instance, the beliefs in appeasing the nine planets, all those things he ridicules because he wants to reform. In that sense, he was a rationalist, and he wanted to get people out of these superstitious beliefs. So, in this respect, I have great regard for his views and for the work that he did while he was confined to the Ratnagiri district. He used it for educating us.

Another social issue on which he had largely acceptable views was the abolition of caste. He promoted in the caste marriages and encourage sharing of space. There was an inauguration of a temple in Ratnagiri which he agreed to do only if the untouchables are allowed to enter with him. But at the same time, he didn't really get along with Dr Ambedkar, did he? And why so?

There were two points. One was - he was equally firm and equally explicit in talking to the 'untouchables' themselves, that there are gradations within you and you are treating other lower castes the way the upper castes treat you. So, get over that. And second thing, of course, was that when Dr Ambedkar decided that he was born a Hindu but he would not die a Hindu... and he converts to Buddhism, Savarkar was very strongly opposed to that. And if you see in one of the pages, his epithets for Dr Ambedkar are a very strong similarly. There is a third point also - doctor Ambedkar also had very strong criticisms of Hindus, not just on caste, but on other issues and mythological beliefs. There was his book called 'Riddles of Hinduism'... Savarkar was enraged that this Hindu hater, this man who speaking untruths and misleading people and so on...

Coming to the more contentious parts that keep him in the debates of today... You have spoken extensively about this in the book and you have quoted paragraphs. We have quoted things that he himself has said - the mercy petitions. The words used in those mercy petitions are something that usually shock his supporters. First and foremost, as is claimed by his supporters - Did he file those mercy petitions because Mahatma Gandhi asked him to? It's a very commonly propagated theory.

How idiotic can people be to do this! When was he sent there (Andaman jail)? in 1910. He goes he files his first petition within two months of going there. Where is Gandhi at that time Gandhi is in South Africa. He is leading satyagraha there. Every idiot should know - and Savarkar writes - that prisoners in the cellular jail were allowed one letter a year to their family. So, Savarkar keeps filing mercy petitions and I really don't hold it against him because the conditions were horrible, even though the other prisoners have alleged that he became a favourite of the jailers. Second point - at that time, Gandhi ji comes back in 1915, then Jallianwalla Bagh happens. Gandhi ji, as Rajmohan Gandhi has pointed out correctly, says that this has humiliated India and he's asking people to go to jail. And you claim he's asking him to file mercy petition to the same government? That means people don't look up anything. I think a general amnesty is announced and the brother of Savarkar, who was outside, he writes to Gandhi and said please guide us. What should we do? That letter is available. This is in after after those petitions have already been sent. These people who are propagating this know that nobody will hold it against Savarkar. So, you blame Gandhi, just like it's 'blame Nehru for everything'.

In his letter after he was accused of his assassination, he said that 'Gandhi and I were friends'.  Now, my direct question to you is, were Gandhi and Savarkar friends at all? And to begin answering that, would you please be kind enough to read out page number 491 from your book, where you have summarised the terminologies and phrases that he has used in his writings for Gandhi.

That's a good point, because I saw that some people say that Gandhi called Savarkar 'bhai'. But Gandhi would call everybody 'bhai', he is being friendly. Now let us see what Savarkar is doing. Adjectives he uses for Gandhi ji were words like paagal (mad), he said he has epileptic fits...He called him a 'dalal' of the British - this is at the time when he's dealing with the British. In Gandhi's in jail. These are the words of a friend? If you see the extracts that have been published by the Kapoor Commission from these magazines, they are nothing but venom against Gandhiji, against Nehru ji, against Congress leaders, everybody who fought for freedom. And you say they were friends?

How did Savarkar's dislike for Muslims begin? Because the theory that gets propagated is the fact that he was tortured by Muslims in the Andamans,  the men who were the prison guards. But according to his own account, while he was in school, he had vandalised a mosque along with fellow schoolmates. So, where did it all begin? And what's the story behind his dislike for the Muslims? 

There are several stories again. He himself says in his autobiography that he was incensed by some riots that took place in Maharashtra, Hindu-Muslim riots. He was very upset with that and that fired him and his fellow students to mock battles against Muslims... And then go to a mosque for finding the truth and there is nobody in the mosque... so he said they were destroying something or the other we just be meeting with some, you know, destroying something or the other... there's one part. But this business of torture, even he has not claimed that. The general conditions in the cellular jail were bad. It was terrible. There were three persons who would commit suicide every month, 450 or so were hanged.

Yes, there were Muslim guards, he speaks of that, they were very harsh, they were terrible, they looked down upon Hindus. They would make sure that the the Muslim prisoners would get it slightly easier. But the theory does not stand. Firstly, as you said, because his self-proclamation of hatred for the Muslims is from childhood. Second, who is the head of the cellular jail to whom all these guards are trying to please by their cruelty? This was a man called Barry who was an Irishman, who Savarkar called 'Barry saheb'. He is the root of the cruelty. But he does not develop any hatred for the Irish. Who put Savarkar there? The British. But Savarkar does not develop any hatred for the British. In fact, he collaborates with the British, tries to get positions of authority through them, in their government.

Was there anything about the Muslims that he admired at all?

Yes, he did - devotion to their religion and their pride in the religion. This is something he admires even in Cellular Jail and he tells the fellow prisoners, in his own account at least, that we must have that we must learn that from them.

India, according to him, was supposed to be a Hindu majority state. Today, when you see a leader who has used words like these in a country which is largely secular, it goes against every notion of the Indian Constitution. How do you look at the appropriation that is happening of Savarkar?

Because actually, these people are wanting to believe that the others that are rats and lizards. You see these are the words that are being used today, and they will be justified by saying that 'I'm only quoting Savarkar. There are several persons who are using similar words today to describe Muslims. And when you say we are, by and large, a secular country? I don't think so. We are by and large a secular country, not even in the courts. The courts say something if you and I say something on the lines of hate speech. But if, my good friends in the BJP say something like that, the Election Commission looks away, the courts look away. So, it's not a secular country. It's a secular country in words only in the Constitution, in the preamble to the Constitution.

There is a quote of Savarkar that I'd like to read out when he spoke about caste - "Centuries and centuries have passed, needs have changed, norms of change. Several of these prescriptions that seemed current then are an embarrassment today."  Now, 75 years have passed since Independence, but achieving this in terms of caste is still a challenge. But achieving this in terms of inter-religious associations now has almost become impossible. We are seeing the way anti-conversion laws are being misused. We are seeing how, Uttarakhand now has a Uniform Civil Code. We are seeing the kind of statements that go around when it comes to inter-religious harmony. How do you look at the current overlap of politics and religion from when you were active in the party and politics? How has it changed over the years?

You see there are different issues and the whole question of inter-religious living together is much larger. For instance, on the Common Civil Code, I myself have been in favour of it. Our Constitution says that the state shall strive for a common civil code, for all citizens, etc. And my appeal to even Muslims would be, who are sensitive on these matters, that please do not look at when this as a Hindu-Muslim issue. And I do not know what they've done in the Uttarakhand. I've not studied it. Mr Chidambaram has found several flaws in it. But okay, improve the code. So that is one. But all that is now suspect because of the general agenda, which is being pursued, and in that the pursuit of even this good thing like a common civil code will get lost.

What do you think is the general agenda that is being pursued?

It is, of course, this Hindu Rashtra business. If you see this monograph for this small book that Savarkar wrote, which is the origin of all this. The whole thing was to exclude Muslims.  First, he says we began as Hindus because we have common blood. That's not true. And this common blood was nothing but the Nazi ideology that started Germany thing in Europe from the last quarter of the 19th century. And Savarkar's things are just picked up from there. They must believe in something. The religion of tradition must be that which has been founded by somebody from here. That excludes Christians, Jews, Muslims. So, when they keep talking of Hindutva today, it is only to put others on the defensive and in actually in, in practice, it becomes a rationalisation for the local neighbourhood bully.

Do you think that the same case today, the local neighbourhood bully has continued?

What do you mean 'continuing'? It has been fanned. When people gang rape a Muslim pregnant woman in Ahmedabad, what are they doing it for? When they rape a nine-year-old Muslim Bakarwal girl in the hills, when somebody beats up a bangle seller in Indore, what are they doing it for? And who's providing the rationalisation? That is the neighbourhood bully. He has got this rationalisation which these leaders are providing of Hindutva, Hindu, Rashtra.

Do you think the neighbourhood bully also has the political protection of the current dispensation?

Yes. What is happening to the cases and who is defending them, and who is garlanding them when they come out of jail?

Were these the ideological differences, because of which you consequentially moved away from the Bharatiya Janata Party?

I certainly I oppose all this. And I certainly wouldn't have any place in a party like that. BJP is just a name that is continuing, the essence is very different, and by very different I mean unrecognisable.

You have served as a cabinet minister in Mr Vajpayee's cabinet, and now you have seen the BJP at its peak in the past ten years. Mr Modi is currently in his third term. You have been a strong critic of Mr Modi in the past. How do you look at the past ten years of his prime ministership?

No, it's a separate issue. For instance, the economy and what policies that are... on his silence on Manipur, on his silence on so many things. So, this is a very large issue which we have to take up on some other occasion.

You have been a journalist yourself and, you are a Magsaysay awardee, your articles in the Indian Express created a storm when the Emergency was in place. How do you look at the media today? Some of these narratives that you just spoke about, the narratives being fanned... Do you think the media is also, to an extent, responsible for it?

Of course it is! There's no media today, it is you people who are saying something independent on social media. Otherwise what is the media? And to the best thing is don't look at it. Gather information from direct sources from persons you trust and you know, and don't waste your time on them. See, there was a very good sentence by Bal Thackeray. He said you have the remote control, just switch it off. Why do you listen to them?  Switch it off, pray or meditate instead.

Do you think the political control over the media has risen over the years? 

Of course! But it is not just that the politicians that are to blame, the people in the media are also to blame. There is a sentence of Marx - They seem to be giants because we are on our knees.

Do you in any way find yourself ideologically aligned to the BJP of the present day? I never thought of that. They are doing what they think is right. I'm writing books, looking after my wife and son.

No! They are doing what they think is right, I am writing books...

I am quoting from your book where you have said that "one of the principal aims today is to erase Gandhi ji." But you didn't clarify by who!

What is there to clarify? It is by the rulers. I said that Pandit ji is not an inconvenience to them, Sardar Patel is not that much of an inconvenience to them. But Gandhiji signified the best in Hinduism and the values that he tried to instil in us...For instance, truth, humility... those things are certainly a great embarrassment to them and therefore they want to erase him. Second point is that he is the symbol of the struggle for Independence, for the freedom struggle. He's a symbol. These people did not participate in the struggle, these Savarkarites. They were with the British. So, as long as Gandhi is there, people are reminded of the freedom struggle and they are reminded the fact that X or Y were not in that struggle, they were with the British. So, it is Gandhi. That is why anyone who spat at Gandhi is today honoured. A temple for Godse? nobody will believe it. That the Prime Minister should say that before David Attenborough's movie came out, nobody knew Gandhi? He said this on television. I know, Mr. Modi,  I can't believe it. Einstein said when Gandhiji is killed, the generations to come will not believe that such a person existed. Churchill was fuming at Gandhi. The whole world knew him. Some fool of the other will question this 'Father of the Nation' business, say our nation has existed for 10,000 years. You cannot just go on making people accustomed to this, normalising the spitting on Gandhi, the forgetting of Gandhi. And Savarkar and all, I certainly feel, are being resurrected just for that purpose.