Dr HEDGEWAR’S ROLE IN FREEDOM STRUGGLE
Author : Rakesh Sinha
The propaganda against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) crossed all limits of not only political moralism but also academic discipline, as the Marxist academicians and intellectuals, failing to counter the growing influence of the Sangh Parivar, use Goebble’s Big Lie tactics to prove that the RSS remained aloof from the freedom struggle. A prominent CPM leader Sita Ram Yechury in his article ‘What is Hindu Rashtra?’ (Frontline March 12, 1992) says – “It (RSS) virtually boycotted and at times opposed the freedom struggle”. Four Marxist historians including Sumit Sarkar in their tract ‘Khaki Short and Saffron Flag’, while accepting the anti-imperialist character of Dr. K.B. Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS, claimed that the RSS remained aloof from the Civil Disobedience movement, (P. 22).
Similar claims were also made by K.L. Mahendra, a CPI ideologue, in his pamphlet ‘Defeat the RSS Fascist Designs’, (third edition, 1990, P.22-23) when he says ‘the RSS never participated in the freedom struggle’. However a Marxist bites another Marxist. The veteran Communist leader E.M.S. Namboodiripad (in his one of the most critical booklet `BJP-RSS: in the service of the Right Reaction’) reveals:
“One of those who were highly impressed and inspired by the Savarkar thesis was Dr.Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS. A nationalist who participated in the Gandhi led movement, he continued to be a Congressman for a decade more and participated in the 1930 Salt Satyagrah”. (p.8).
The Nehruites and Communists have manipulated the truth, distorted facts and misinterpreted incidents for their gains in the past too but what is conspicuous is the level the brain is being exercised to malign the face of the RSS by those who betrayed the most crucial struggle (Quit India Movement) for India’s independence in 1942.
At no stage of the freedom struggle either the RSS as an organisation or any individual member of it cooperated or integrated with the colonial regime and administration. Even Bipin Chandra,a Marxist historian conceded, however in a distorted manner, this truth when he says Hedgewar never integrated with the colonial regime. (Communalism in Modern India. P. 332). Both before and after the formation of the RSS, Hedgewar missed no opportunity to strengthen the anti-colonial struggle. To him, “there is no politics for a dependent nation other than the politics of freedom struggle. It is a sine qua non for it”. Mahatma Gandhi’s call for civil Disobedience Movement was responded by Hedgewar to such an extent that he transferred the responsibility of the Sarsanghchalak of the RSS to Dr. Paranjape, and along with prominent leaders of the infant organisation, including Appaji Joshi, jumped into the movement. He was arrested in Yeotmal while breaking the “Forest Law” and was sentenced to nine months prison. Can anyone imagine what would have been the reaction of the followers whose leader jumped into the movement and was imprisoned ? In fact Hedgewar did not want to create another political centre by using the banner and platform of the RSS. They were already divisions in the Congress. Besides the Communists, Hindu Mahasabha, Muslim League etc. had differences with the Congress not only on ideological plank but also in tactics, strategy and programmes too. It was on ominous sign for the freedom struggle. The need of the day was to accept the strategy and programmes of the Indian National Congress instead of beating drums separately under different banners what Hedgewar actually did.
Hedgewar’s political career begins from 1905 and ends with his death in 1940. In the first phase (1905 – 1918) of his political life, he was ‘an unalloyed Tilakite. Maharashtra witnessed two simultaneous lines in the public life one, propagated by Agarkar, emphasised the necessity of social radicalism as precondition of political change. But, Tilak emphasised on political activities as the first priority. Hedgewar endorsed Tilak’s approach.
Pandurao’s Khankhaje, leader of Swadesh Bandhav, a revolutionary organisation, wrote in Kesari, “Hedgewar and the other young men were in the forefront of Swadeshi propaganda and delivering
speeches”. After joining National Medical College in Calcutta in 1910 with the sole aim to participate in revolutionary activities, he became active member of “Anushilan Samiti” with his code name
“Koken”. He was closely associated with revolutionaries like Nalini Kishor Guha (who provides authentic account of Hedgewar’s revolutionary activities in Calcutta during his stay from 1910 – 1916). After his return from Calcutta to Nagpur, he used his contacts to organise revolutionaries with a plan of “armed revolt” which, according to P.L. Joshi (in his article “Mobilisation in Vidharba by Tilak in political thought and leadership of Tilak” edited by N.R. Inamdar P.370) was dropped on the advice of Tilak. Hedgewar’s revolutionary group was the biggest one and consisted of 150 hard core revolutionaries. G.M. Huddar says Hedgewar’s revolutionary group resembled a secret “conspiratorial group” of young men. (G.M. Huddar in -RSS and Netaji in the Illustrated Weekly of India, Oct. 7,1 1979). His plan of armed revolt was not an isolated case of adventurism but it was coincided by his manifesto for Indians Independence which was to be declared from many countries. He postponed his plan on the advise of Dr B. S. Moonje.
The second phase of his political career begins with his active participation in the Amritsar Congress in 1919 and soon he was elected the secretary of the Central Provinces Congress Committee. His differences with Tilak and Moonje came on the surface on the question of World War I and Non Co-operation Movement respectively. He refused to toe Tilak’s line of “passive co-operation” during the war period (1914-1919) and separated himself from the political forum of Tilakites ie. Rashtriya Mandal and formed Nagpur National Union to campaign for complete Independence. Thus he foresaw the congress resolution of complete independence in 1930. Moreover, the most conspicuous political action of Hedgewar was his voice against both imperialism and capitalism. He moved a parallel resolution in the subject committee of Nagpur session of the Congress in 1920 stating – “the goal of the Congress is to establish a republic in India and free the countries of the world from exploitation by capitalist countries”. His differences with Moonje who was described as his “mentor” occurred on two very important issues. Firstly, Hedgewar opposed Moonjels candidate Vijay Raghavachariar for Presidentship of the Congress in the Nagpur session of the Congress (1920) on the ground that he attended Governor’s party. The differences between the two became more acute on the question of non co-operation movement. S. Suntharalingam in his work “Indian Nationalism – a historical analysis” (Vikas Publishing House P.271) reveals that prominent Tilakites led by Moonje and G.S. Kharpade opposed non co-operation movement but Hedgewar refused to toe sectarian approach and jumped in the Movement with vigour and virulence and was sentenced to one year rigourous imprisonment on August 21, 1921 by the court with the remark that his defence was “more seditious than his speech”.
Another important incident is revealed by Sri Aurobindo’s biography (Published by Publication Division in the series of Builders of Modern India, by M.P. Pandit 1983 P.270) that Hedgewar the then secretary of C P Provincial Congress went to Pondicherry to draw back Aurobindo, who had been living sequesteral life since 1910 and was considered by Hedgewar as only alternative to fill the lull created by Tilak’s death before the Nagpur Congress, in to politics. Hedgewar requested him to accept the Presidentship of the Congress in that hour of great crisis of leadership. Being a pioneer of cultural renaissance and a man of non compromising character, Aurobindo was fittest person to lead the Congress and freedom struggle. However Aurobindo modestly declined. (Explanatory letter of Shri. Aurobindo dated August 30, 1920, Sri Aurobindo himself Vol.26, P.432-34, Sri Aurobindo birth centenary library).
Hedgewar’s vision for declaring complete Independence was transformed into action with Congress decision to observe Jan 26, 1930 as Independence Day. His circular to RSS Shakhas reads, “that the Indian National Congress too has adopted a goal of Independence naturally gives us immense joy. It is our duty to co-operate with any orgainsation working for the cause… Therefore on the evening
of 26.1.1930 all the shakhas of the RSS should hold rallies of Swayamsevaks at their respective places and worship national flag i.e. the Bhagwa Dhwaj. Through speeches it should be explained what is the meaning Independence and why we should work with the end in view. The rallies should conclude by complementing the Congress for accepting the goal of Independence.” This fact is accepted by even the worst RSS critics like Sumit Sarkar in his tract “khaki shirt and saffron flag”.
Thus the slanderous’allegations against the RSS by Bipin Chandra that “the relationship of the RSS to colonial rule was more complex and subtle. Its leadership also treated the Congress as its enemy number one which had to be weakened and destroyed by all available means”, (Communalism in Modern India, p 115), shows how he consciously tried to mislead the readers through “omission tactics”. The British Government tried to prove the RSS as the conspiratorial group, but in the absence of any proof it abysmally failed to do so. It left no opportunity to suppress the organisation. During Hedgewar’s imprisonment in 1930s under the provocation of the British, the owner of Mohile Bara, where the RSS shakhas used to take place dragged the issue into the court and forced the closure of the shakha there.
Hedgewar’s sympathiser Bhosale Lakshman Rao provided ground for the RSS activities. But soon after his death in 1932, Bhosale’s children who were in the protection of the British Raj went to court and forced the RSS to stop shakha in Tulsibagh’s land in 1934 (see Krishna Rao Mohorir’s interview Pratham RSS Shakha, Jagriti Prakashan). Anti-imperialist struggle was complementedby RSS activities and despite the ideological commonality between the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha on the question of Hindu nationalism, Hedgewar preferred Congress to Hindu Mahasabha. He and the RSS did not lend
support to the strategy and tactics of the Mahasabha and instead accepted the hegemony of the Congress as the only prime platform to lead the freedom struggle.
Source : http://www.hindunet.org/hvk/articles/0696/0127.html
Original article from India Express – 24 June 1996
2. Also Read – RSS and Bharat’s Freedom Stuggle
- Another imporant article in Swarajya Mag published in April 2017 – RSS and Freedom Struggle
Pingback: Dr.Hedgewar – The Founder of RSS - Dakshināvarta
What rot and nonsense. Everything written by Mr Sinha is a figment of his imagination not supported by historical accounts of either Indian or foreign historians.
Problem with rewriting history is that you can only change what is within your sphere of influence. Real history will continue to exist whether RSS likes it or not. You may vilify the Mahatma and glorify his killer but no way the world will replace Gandhiji’s statues with Godse. You will still, however unwillingly have to garland and do namaskar to Bapu when abroad.
Pl go through the bibliography of Dr.Sinha’s book and you can get all the historical records. Before contradicting, one should atleast have the patience to do some research. Neither Dr.Sinha nor the RSS has ever glorified the killer of Gandhiji. In fact, Guruji Golwalkar’s was one of the first to send a telegram of condolence to Devdas Gandhi after Gandhiji’s assassination. You may wish to go through the contents of the telegram to get an understanding of what Guruji described the killer as Gandhiji as.
Pingback: Doctor Hedgewar, the Founder of RSS and Freedom Movement | Arise Bharat
Savarkar begged for clemency from British to get out of Andaman jail. The letter is in GOI archive. No one challenged its authenticity; not even RSS. His portrait should be removed from the Indian parliament immediately. It is an insult to all other freedom fighters who gave their spent most part of their life in British jail and some even died in jail.
Firstly Savarkar was not the founder of RSS so your comment has nothing to do with the post of Role of RSS Founder.
Secondly, Savarkar moulded himself on the likes of Shivaji Maharaj. For him living and fighting was a far more bigger requirement and during his lifetime thousands of freedom fighters were inspired to work for the nation.
The exact quote from his letter to British Government.
Petition from V D Savarkar (Convict No. 32778) to the Home Member of the Government of India, dated November 14, 1913.
I beg to submit the following points for your kind consideration:
(1) When I came here in 1911 June, I was along with the rest of the convicts of my party taken to the office of the Chief Commissioner. There I was classed as “D” meaning dangerous prisoner; the rest of the convicts were not classed as “D”. Then I had to pass full 6 months in solitary confinement. The other convicts had not. During that time I was put on the coir pounding though my hands were bleeding. Then I was put on the oil-mill – the hardest labour in the jail. Although my conduct during all the time was exceptionally good still at the end of these six months I was not sent out of the jail; though the other convicts who came with me were. From that time to this day I have tried to keep my behaviour as good as possible.
(2) When I petitioned for promotion I was told I was a special class prisoner and so could not be promoted. When any of us asked for better food or any special treatment we were told “You are only ordinary convicts and must eat what the rest do”. Thus Sir, Your Honour would see that only for special disadvantages we are classed as special prisoners.
(3) When the majority of the casemen were sent outside I requested for my release. But, although I had been cased (caned?) hardly twice or thrice and some of those who were released, for a dozen and more times, still I was not released with them because I was their casemen. But when after all, the order for my release was given and when just then some of the political prisoners outside were brought into the troubles I was locked in with them because I was their casemen.
(4) If I was in Indian jails I would have by this time earned much remission, could have sent more letters home, got visits. If I was a transportee pure and simple I would have by this time been released, from this jail and would have been looking forward for ticket-leave, etc. But as it is, I have neither the advantages of the Indian jail nor of this convict colony regulation; though had to undergo the disadvanatges of both.
(5) Therefore will your honour be pleased to put an end to this anomalous situation in which I have been placed, by either sending me to Indian jails or by treating me as a transportee just like any other prisoner. I am not asking for any preferential treatment, though I believe as a political prisoner even that could have been expected in any civilized administration in the Independent nations of the world; but only for the concessions and favour that are shown even to the most depraved of convicts and habitual criminals? This present plan of shutting me up in this jail permanently makes me quite hopeless of any possibility of sustaining life and hope. For those who are term convicts the thing is different, but Sir, I have 50 years staring me in the face! How can I pull up moral energy enough to pass them in close confinement when even those concessions which the vilest of convicts can claim to smoothen their life are denied to me? Either please to send me to Indian jail for there I would earn (a) remission; (b) would have a visit from my people come every four months for those who had unfortunately been in jail know what a blessing it is to have a sight of one’s nearest and dearest every now and then! (c) and above all a moral – though not a legal – right of being entitled to release in 14 years; (d) also more letters and other little advantages. Or if I cannot be sent to India I should be released and sent outside with a hope, like any other convicts, to visits after 5 years, getting my ticket leave and calling over my family here. If this is granted then only one grievance remains and that is that I should be held responsible only for my own faults and not of others. It is a pity that I have to ask for this – it is such a fundamental right of every human being! For as there are on the one hand, some 20 political prisoners – young, active and restless, and on the other the regulations of a convict colony, by the very nature of them reducing the liberties of thought and expression to lowest minimum possible; it is but inevitable that every now and then some one of them will be found to have contravened a regulation or two and if all be held responsible for that, as now it is actually done – very little chance of being left outside remains for me.
In the end may I remind your honour to be so good as to go through the petition for clemency, that I had sent in 1911, and to sanction it for being forwarded to the Indian Government? The latest development of the Indian politics and the conciliating policy of the government have thrown open the constitutional line once more. Now no man having the good of India and Humanity at heart will blindly step on the thorny paths which in the excited and hopeless situation of India in 1906-1907 beguiled us from the path of peace and progress. Therefore if the government in their manifold beneficence and mercy release me, I for one cannot but be the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English government which is the foremost condition of that progress. As long as we are in jails there cannot be real happiness and joy in hundreds and thousands of homes of His Majesty’s loyal subjects in India, for blood is thicker than water; but if we be released the people will instinctively raise a shout of joy and gratitude to the government, who knows how to forgive and correct, more than how to chastise and avenge. Moreover my conversion to the constitutional line would bring back all those misled young men in India and abroad who were once looking up to me as their guide. I am ready to serve the government in any capacity they like, for as my conversion is conscientious so I hope my future conduct would be. By keeping me in jail nothing can be got in comparison to what would be otherwise. The Mighty alone can afford to be merciful and therefore where else can the prodigal son return but to the parental doors of the government?
Hoping your Honour will kindly take into notion these points.
If we see the mercy plea carefully we will find that in the first half Savarkar writes about the bitter treatment and complains about the food.This is hardly going to hurt hurt the british empire anyway.The sole purpose for including those things is for a better life for himself.
Even if the argument in the second part is to be believed that Savarkar wanted to trick the British Govt, one can say that he succeeded, though not immediately.Savarkar was sentenced to 50 yrs but was released in 14 yrs.
What the Hindutva camp do not say out in loud is that even congress member and Sardar Patels brother Vitthalbhai Patel backed by Mahatma Gandhi moved to court seek Savarkars release in 1920.
Was it due to his letters or congress effort or change of heart of the British Savarkar was released in 1924.What is interesting to note is Savarkars behavior after his release.
For that read the Paragraph again
“…Therefore if the government in their manifold beneficence and mercy release me, I for one cannot but be the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English government which is the foremost condition of that progress. As long as we are in jails there cannot be real happiness and joy in hundreds and thousands of homes of His Majesty’s loyal subjects in India, for blood is thicker than water; but if we be released the people will instinctively raise a shout of joy and gratitude to the government, who knows how to forgive and correct, more than how to chastise and avenge. Moreover my conversion to the constitutional line would bring back all those misled young men in India and abroad who were once looking up to me as their guide. I am ready to serve the government in any capacity they like, for as my conversion is conscientious so I hope my future conduct would be….”
Savarkar promised that he would never go against the british govt and that he would bring back the “young men misled on the path of freedom” back on the track.If we examine the works of Savarkar after his release we find that he did exactly what he promised.
For some reasons best known to Savarkar himself, he suddenly had no objections to the British ruling India.He became an law-abiding citizen of the British India.He gave up his freedom struggle activities and started his Hindutva campaign.There is not a single speech, single article, single call to the nations by Savarkar after 1924 in which Savarkar critisized the British.He neither joined Congress which was working for the freedom of the country from the british rule nor did he start any political body of his own supporting that cause.
This is not the only thing.He promised full co-operation to the Britishers.In 1937 he urged all the hindus to help the britishers in the war under the pretext of getting trained in arms and ammunitions so that it can be used latter.Could there have been any better opportunity of using the training than assisting Subhash Chandra Bose?But did Savarkar ever make any call to his hindu youths to join Subhash Babu??Nay…Infact so active was Savarkar in assiting the British army that because of his zeal many congress people even called him as the recruiting officer of the british army.
That Savarkar did not participate in any freedom struggle activities post his cellular jail is an established fact…as promised in the letter.
That Savarkar opposed congress and Gandhiji(who backed his release from cellular jail) is an established fact…. as promised in the letter
That Savarkar diverted lacks of hindus youths from the path of freedom struggle to his Hindutva is an established fact…as promised in the letter.
That Savarkar helped the britishers is an established fact…again as promised in the letter.
A lot more of his quotes can be brought out but that would be unecessary.I am sure readers would have formed their opinion by now.Is there any truth in the claim that Savarkar had begged for his freedom only to fool the British?To me his actions doesnt say so…
One last thing that needs to be said is about the comparison of Savarkar to Shivaji Maharaj.If Shivaji Maharaj wrote the letters, he on gaining the freedom from the Emperor faught back, but Savarkar when he wrote the letters on gaining freedom chickened out….Thats the difference between Great and Pseudo-Great.
To compare him with the great Shivaji Maharaj is again an insult to the great man.
Can you list out the initiatives that he took after the so-called clemency to ensure that the freedom struggle is derailed as you put it.
Regarding his so-called ‘clemency letter” , here goes :
One need not go to New Delhi’s ‘National Archives’ to see Savarkar’s letter which has been presented as a ‘Clemency Letter’. Savarkar himself published the said letter in his book “Letters From Andaman” (letters which he send to his younger brother Dr.Narayan Savarkar from Andaman) as letter no.8 dated 06-07-1920 (original application which he send to British has date 02-4-1920). A significant excerpt of it is as follows:
”As to the question so often put to me and others by officers no less exalted than the members of the Indian Cabinet ‘what if you had rebelled against the ancient kings of India? They used to trample rebels under the feet of Elephants’. I answer that not only in India but even in England and all other parts of the world such would have at times been the fate of rebels. But then why did the British people fill the whole world with a howl that the Germans had ill treated their captives and did not allow them fresh bread and butter! There was a time when captives were flayed alive and offered as victims to Moloch and Thor and such other Gods of war!’ The thing is this that this advanced stage in civilization attained by man is the resultant of the efforts of all men and therefore their common inheritance and benefits all. Speaking relatively to Barbarian times it is true that I had a fair trial and a just sentence and the Government is at liberty to derive whatever satisfaction they can from the compliment that they give a fairer trial and a juster sentence to their captives than the cannibals used to do. But it should not be forgotten that if in olden days the rulers flayed their rebels alive then the rebels too when they got the upper hand flayed alive the rulers as well. And if the British people treated me or other rebels more justly i.e. less barbarously then they may rest assured that they too would be as leniently treated by the Indian rebels if ever the tables are turned”
When the Montague-Chelmsford Reforms were introduced in 1919, Savarkar wrote to Montagu and Governor General, “I have further told them that if they granted real self-government to India with substantial elected majority in the Central Legislature and With no incubus of the Council of State upon it; and if they further granted full amnesty to Indian political prisoners in the country and outside, in India and in the Andamans. and to exiles in Europe and America, myself and many more like me will accept the new dispensation and, if elected to the Legislature, will exert to make the reforms a success. The Legislature that had all along treated me with scorn and indifference, and that excited an equal contempt in our hearts for it. Will, thenceforward, be our scene of action where we shall be proud to work and co-operate for the fulfillment of our aim.” (ibid, p.220)
All this clearly indicates that Savarkar was trying to deceive the British. Instead, some Indians are willing to be deceived. It is necessary to read ‘between the lines’ while reading political resolutions, letters and applications. Those who accuse Savarkar of cowardice or treason are either not capable or not willing to read ‘between the lines’. Savarkar never hid these letters or petitions. Instead, he detailed the political strategy behind the letters in his ‘My Transportation for Life’. Let no one make a song and dance that they have unearthed some State secret!
Is it true that Savarkar apologized for his deeds to seek release from jail in Andaman Islands?
No. He did not apologize for his deeds.
Savarkar was sentenced to Transportation for Life, TWICE and sent to Andaman Islands to serve that sentence. IT DID NOT MEAN 50 years in jail. After serving a few years (usually 3 to 4) the inmates were allowed to go to work outside the jail and eventually settle on the islands. Savarkar was denied this even after serving 11 years. That was utter barbarity.
At the time of the First World War Savarkar did write to Montague, then Secretary of State for India. He said that –
Britain should set up colonial self Government for India
In return Indian revolutionaries would cease all hostilities and help Britain in war effort.
The Governor General eventually replied, ” In the present circumstances it is impossible to give effect to your suggestion.”
NO PLEA FOR CLEMENCY HERE.
Due to outcry about prison conditions on the Andaman Islands the British Authorities decided to close the jail on the islands. Concessions were being made to prisoners who wanted to settle on the islands. But these were denied to Savarkar. He did want to settle on the islands. He was forcibly sent back to mainland India and kept in various prisons for further 3 years.
Is it true that Savarkar’s health deteriorated in the Andamans and hence the Government was compelled to transfer him to Indian prisons in 1921?
In Andaman no medical aid was ever given to political prisoners. British Authorities were absolutely callous in this respect. Savarkar’s elder brother Babarao suffered terribly. The Savarkar brothers were sent back to mainland India not because of failing health but because Government had decided to close down the prison settlement in Andaman, after several years of mounting public pressure in India.
What was the impact of Savarkar on the revolutionary movement?
In 1905, Savarkar started his secret society Abhinav Bharat – on the lines of Young Italy the revolutionary society of Mazzini. At the time of India’s independence, many Congress Party leaders were still members of Savarkar’s secret society – the Abhinav Bharat. They included Balasaheb Kher, Chief Minister of Bombay Province, Ravishankar Shukla, Chief Minister of Central Provinces, Sikandar Hiyat Khan, the Muslim Chief Minister of Punjab just to name a few. President of the Congress Party Acharya J B Kripalani himself was a member of Abhinav Bharat.
Due to Savarkar’s efforts, there arose a succession of revolutionaries. For example, Khudiram Bose (1908), Madanlal Dhingra (1909), Anant Kanhere, Karve and Deshpande (1910), Bal Mukund, Avadhabihari, Amirchand and Vasant Vishwas (1915), Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev (1931), Udham Singh (1941) and many more. Those who were sentenced to death went to the gallows fearlessly. Even the British officers admired their courageous behaviour and it made tremendous impact on the minds of millions of Indians.
Those who were not sentenced to death were sentenced to Transportation for Life to the Andaman Islands. They too accepted their fate with fortitude. The first one to be sentenced this way was the elder brother of Savarkar, named Babarao (Ganesh). So important was the sentencing of Babarao that Viceroy Lord Minto informed it to the Secretary of State for India, London by telegram. Bhagat Singh and Rajguru met Savarkar secretly when the latter was in internment in Ratnagiri (1924-37). Subhash Chandra Bose met Savarkar in Mumbai in 1943. On Savarkar’s advice, Bose slipped out of India and later formed the Indian National Army.
What are Savarkar’s contributions to the Indian freedom struggle?
As early as 1900, when even ‘home rule’ and ‘dominion status’ were not heard of, Savarkar fearlessly declared complete independence as the goal of the Indian political movement. It should be remembered that Gandhi had opposed Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s resolution in the 1929 Congress session at Lahore, demanding Absolute Political Independence.
Savarkar stressed that freedom would be achieved only by war and never through petitions
He formed revolutionary organizations like Mitra mela, Abhinav Bharat and Free India Society to achieve the goal of complete independence. The oath of Abhinav Bharat is preserved by British secret Police. The words Absolute Political Independence are unmistakable in the oath.
In 1905, Savarkar organized the first-ever public bonfire of bonfire of foreign clothes in Pune. At that time, Gandhi criticized this bonfire, but did the same in 1921.
Through his books like Mazzini and Indian War of Independence of 1857, he not only inspired his fellowmen but also outlined the strategy and the tactics of revolutionary movement.
By declaring the 1857 War as the War of Independence, Savarkar rebelled against the very concept of rebellion itself. Savarkar propounded that a struggle against a foreign rule was a war of independence and not a mutiny.
Savarkar established contacts with the Russian and Irish revolutionaries and International Socialist organizations.
Through articles or their translations in American or Irish newspapers and his famous trial at The Hague, Savarkar helped to create an international public opinion favourable to India’s freedom.
Savarkar was the first to envisage the flag of Indian Freedom Struggle and get it unfurled by Madame Cama in the International Socialist Conference at Stuttgart in 1907.
Even in the midst of revolutionary activities, Savarkar contemplated upon the Constitution of free India and held that free India should be a republic.
Savarkar’s magnetic personality, heroism, self-sacrifice, oratory and literature inspired generations of freedom loving people.
Savarkar correctly diagnosed that any alien rule rests on loyalty of native soldiers to it and that alien rule collapses when the native army gets infused with patriotism. While in England, Savarkar secretly sent revolutionary pamphlets to the camps of Sikh soldiers. In order to communicate effectively, he learnt Gurumukhi, studied Sikh history and scriptures and authored a history of Sikhs. His militarization movement during the World War II was a part of his revolutionary programme. Incidentally it was Savarkar who suggested to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose to launch freedom struggle from without. As acknowledged by Netaji Subhash Bose, the Indian National Army got trained personnel due to Savarkar’s militarization movement
After reading your comment, i can guarantee you that you have read Savarkar biography. You must just read few comments on net. Please read good book on Savarkar. You will gain respect on him.
Pingback: Dr.Hedgewar – The Founder of RSS | Arise Bharat
Excellent and timely. Should be given wide publicity, by creating and floating links appropriately in google. However a few typos might be corrected. I suppose that it is KL Mahendra not KL Malhotra who wrote the tract against RSS. Also perhaps Sri Aurobindo “moderately declined” ought too be “modestly declined:.
Om. Thank you for pointing out the errors. Made the necessary corrections