Evidence from Savarkar’s life – VI

By: Shreerang Godbole

On 23 July 1908, Tilak was sentenced to transportation to Mandalay, Burma. This news shocked Indians staying in London. They organized a meeting to condemn this sentence and requested the Moderate leader Gopal Krishna Gokhale who was in London at that time to chair the meeting. Gokhale not only declined their request but failed to attend the meeting. This enraged some revolutionaries and they mulled the idea of killing him. Savarkar pacified these hotheads. He rebuked them that their very thought was sinful. Savarkar warned that this senseless act, an attack on a compatriot for holding a different viewpoint would be detrimental to the strength and reputation of the revolutionary movement.

On 1 July 1909, Madan Lal Dhingra killed Sir Curzon Wyllie. Niranjan Pal who was Savarkar’s comrade in revolution narrates a significant incident. He writes, “The assassination of Sir Curzon Wyllie reminds me of another great trait in Savarkar’s character, his humanity. An Indian student laughingly described how Lady Curzon Wyllie ran down the staircase and threw herself on the body of her husband. All this was too much for Savarkar. “A wife sobs her heart out for her husband and you laugh at it! I do not trust you, I cannot!” Savarkar had replied in burning indignation.

On 19 February 1915, when Moderate leader Gopal Krishna Gokhale passed away, Savarkar was in the Cellular Jail, Andamans. The jailor Barrie who treated political prisoners and especially Savarkar with an iron hand hurried to Savarkar to break the news. ‘Well Mr Savarkar” said Barrie, “you always want news. Here is something for you. Gokhale is dead!” This news shocked Savarkar and he expressed his sorrow. Surprised, Barrie said, “But he was against you.” To which Savarkar replied, “No, no! I studied in his college. We may have had our differences, but opposition? Never! If only every Hindu becomes a patriot like Gokhale at the least …!” Barrie wrote down Savarkar’s response in his diary with the note, “On the surface, these Mahrattas may seem different and opposed to each other, but in their hearts, they are all one!”

Narayan Sadashiv Bapat alias poet Ulhas spent several years in close proximity to Savarkar when the latter was interned in Ratnagiri (1924-1937). He later became a supporter of MN Roy. Bapat has penned his reminiscences of Savarkar in a Marathi book Smritipushpe (1979).

The following incident narrated by him occurred around 1932 when Bapat was a lad of fifteen. In Bapat’s words: Once I asked Tatya (Savarkar’s nickname), “If someone were to kill Gandhi?” At this, he easily replied, “No, he is our own. He should not be killed.” I said, “But what if someone were to find his political positions to be harmful?” Savarkar replied, “If that happens, he may be interned for some time in some fort.” I have been narrating this incident for several years. I am penning it today. During the Gandhi Murder trial, I had asked the late Bhopatkar and even Tatya to record my witness, my reminiscence. But they felt that the Government was prejudiced and jaundiced. Rather than drawing the logical conclusion, they may conclude that a discussion had happened on Gandhi’s murder. Therefore, I kept quiet. I shall narrate one more thing. His extreme differences with Gandhiji are well known. But in one corner of Tatya’s heart, there was fellow-feeling for Mahatmaji. Many times, he would say, “His cow, shikha, Gita, Ram’s name…finally whatever said and done is Hindu.” Whenever I listened to his conversation, he would never refer to him as ‘Gandhi’ or ‘Gandhiji’ but always ‘Mahatmaji’ (pp 48, 49).

On 12 February 1943, Gandhi started a 21-day fast in Delhi. On 20 February, Savarkar issued a statement saying, “Mahatma Gandhi’s life is not so much his own as it is a national asset… the Nation which Gandhiji wants to serve by his fast even at the risk of his life does itself feel that his precious life at this juncture is of immeasurably greater value than his loss to it.”  To all-Party leaders who had assembled in Delhi at the time under the Presidentship of Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Savarkar exhorted, “The time has come that all those who are deeply concerned regarding the serious condition of Gandhiji’s health and desire to leave no stone unturned to save his precious life should realize immediately, whether we like it or not, the only way which is likely to prove more effective than any other in saving Gandhiji’s life is to issue a national appeal.”

On 26 July 1943, Jinnah narrowly escaped a murderous attack by a Khaksar Muslim. The following day, Savarkar issued a statement, “I am extremely pained to learn of the murderous attempt made on the life of Mr. Jinnah and felicitate him on his narrow escape… Such internecine, unprovoked and murderous assaults, even if their motive be political or fanatical, constitute a stain on the public and civic life and must be strongly condemned.” 

On 6 May 1944, the Government released Gandhi from Aga Khan Palace, Pune. The following day, Savarkar issued a statement saying, “The whole Nation feels a sense of relief at the news that the Government has released Gandhiji in view of his advanced age and declining health owing due to his recent illness. It was a human act. I wish Gandhiji a speedy recovery.”     

It is clear that Savarkar did not approve of Gandhi’s death either by assassination or fasting. In fact, to go further, Savarkar did not approve of attempts to cause nuisance at Gandhi’s public meetings. The incident to this effect has been narrated by none other than Nathuram Godse in his statement (para 36, 37) before Justice Atma Charan (8 November 1948).

In Godse’s words: “Mr Apte (co-accused Narayan Apte who was later hanged with Godse) and I decided to stage a series of demonstrations in Delhi into his (Gandhi’s) meetings and make it impossible for him to hold such prayers… But when Veer Savarkar read the report of this demonstration, instead of appreciating our move, he called me and blamed me privately for such anarchical tactics, even though this demonstration was peaceful. He said, “Just as I condemn the Congressites for breaking up your party meetings and election booths by disorderly conduct, I ought to condemn any such undemocratic conduct on the part of Hindu Sanghtanists also. If Gandhiji preached anti-Hindu teachings in his prayer meetings, you should hold your party meetings and condemn his teachings. Amongst ourselves, all different political parties should conduct their propaganda on strictly constitutional lines.” Later in his statement, Godse spelt how he developed differences with Savarkar over a period of time.

Evidence from Savarkar thought

Savarkar had clarified his position on Gandhi in 1928 during the Bardoli satyagraha. In his words, “In the battle-field of Bardoli, the cause of that great patriot being, as of now, befitting a general and because it is only correct that we should, to the extent possible, fight shoulder to shoulder in a  national struggle called by anyone, this time, we intend to speak and act to co-operate and help Mahatmaji. We but oppose when national interest itself is in peril and that too in the context of the national cause. Individually, our motto should be ‘vayam pancadhikam shatam’ (we are one hundred and five – after Yudhishthir’s famous sentence that while five Pandavas and one hundred Kauravas were against each other, all one hundred five were united against an external foe); ours is!”  (Collected Works, Marathi, 1963-1965, Vol 4, p 204).

It is easy to assume that Savarkar, revolutionary that he was, was an unexceptional votary of violence, murder and mayhem. Nothing is farther from truth. Even in his revolutionary days, Savarkar disapproved of wanton violence.

In a letter dated 6 July 1920 written to his younger brother Narayanrao from the Cellular Jail, he writes, “But even while combating force with force we heartily abhorred and do yet abhor all violence. For violence is force, aggressively used force that is life killing. I never cherished not even in my dreams any aggressive ambition for personal or national aggrandizement, and so far was I from being a party to violence that I actually kept opposing it tooth and nail whenever I saw it used by powerful combinations against their weaker but righteous rivals. I heartily abhorred violence resorted to in days gone by – by ambitious men and nations not only outside India but even in India herself.”

Savarkar remained steadfast to this view to the end. Speaking at the valedictory function of his secret organization, Abhinav Bharat in 1952, Savarkar said, “The destructive revolutionary spirit that uses provocation, dissatisfaction, unrest, law-breaking, use of arms, secret conspiracy and the like as means to secure freedom for our nation from foreign rule is righteous only for that time-frame… when our foremost aim of securing freedom is met, the final duty of our successful political revolution is to immediately dissolve all such destructive revolutionary tendencies that have been ignited in armed and unarmed resisting people. Because our end now is to safeguard freedom, to do nation-building. Now it is law-abidement, not law-disruption; constructive not destructive tendency that is the rashtradharma.”   

Upholder of lofty values

Savarkar forever opposed the assassination or pointless death of his political opponents, irrespective of their country or religion. He respected the right of others to put forth a different viewpoint. Leave alone killing, he could not bear torment being caused to an innocent foreigner.  This trait is a consistent feature of his personality at different stages of his life. There is not a single episode in his life that runs contrary to this trait. Sense of justice and magnanimity were the hallmarks of Savarkar’s life and thought. Savarkar was undeniably a staunch nationalist with firm views but above all, he was a great humanist. Courtesy, dignity and probity in public life were values that were dear to him.

To insinuate that he was directly or indirectly involved in Gandhi’s murder is grave injustice to the man and a travesty of truth. But what can one say of his supporters who form and spread the impression that Godse’s act was in tune with Savarkar’s thinking? More than Savarkar’s detractors, it is these self-proclaimed Savarkar-supporters who put a damning blot on his fair name. Is it too much to hope and expect that his thoughtless supporters and motivated detractors will care to read and understand Savarkar in his entirety?

Ordeal by fire: Gandhi Murder and Savarkar – V

By: Shreerang Godbole

Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated at 5.17 pm on 30 January 1948. On 31 January, police raided Savarkar’s residence and seized some correspondence. The then office-bearers of the Hindu Mahasabha (HMS) had issued a statement condemning Gandhi’s assassination. Nonetheless, in a separate statement dated 4 February 1948, Savarkar, who was then Vice-President of the HMS condemned the Gandhi murder in no uncertain terms.

On 5 February, the Mumbai Police arrested Savarkar from his residence and lodged him in Arthur Road (now Sane Guruji Marg) Prison. He was charged under the following sections – 302, 34, 100, 120-B and 307 as also sections 4, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act of 1878 and section 19 (F) of the Arms Act. In simple language, he was arrested and charged with murder, conspiracy to murder, illegal possession of arms and explosives or assisting in such illegal possession.

There is ample evidence to suggest that the Mumbai Police were acting with malice. On 11 May 1948, Savarkar was taken by them to the CID office. He was then made to sit in a chair and Godse and other accused were placed by his sides. They were all photographed in a group. In his affidavit dated 18 May 1948 before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Mumbai, Savarkar rightly expressed the apprehension that this photograph may be possibly used to concoct evidence against him. 

The police subjected Savarkar’s personal bodyguard Appa Kasar to unspeakable torture. They forced him to lie on an ice slab for fifty-six days at a stretch, plucked his finger-nails and thrashed him till he became unconscious. All they wanted was a confession from him that would nail Savarkar! To his eternal credit, Appa Kasar did not wilt. He refused to give the statement that the Nehru Government so desperately wanted.

On 4 May 1948, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India issued a notification constituting a Special Court to inquire into the Mahatma Gandhi Murder Case. Justice Atma Charan, then District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur was appointed as Special Judge. The Court held its sittings in a hall on the upper storey of a building in the Red Fort, Delhi. Savarkar who was then in Mumbai, was brought to Delhi before the commencement of the trial. All the accused, including Savarkar were lodged in the Red Fort in a specially selected area which was declared to be a prison. The charges framed against Savarkar and his written statement are outside the scope of this article. 

(They may be read online http://www.savarkar.org/en/biography/written-statement-savarkar)

On 10 February 1949, Justice Atma Charan pronounced that “Savarkar is found not guilty of the offences as specified in the charge and is acquitted thereunder: he is in custody, and be released forthwith, unless required otherwise.” In supreme contempt of court, the anti-Savarkar brigade doggedly refuses to accept this verdict. Nothing short of Savarkar’s hanging would have satisfied their lust. Clutching at one sentence from the Justice Kapur Commission Report that came much later, they vehemently insist that Savarkar was guilty of the Gandhi Murder.

Impropriety of Justice Kapur

In a public function held in Pune on 12 November 1964, senior journalist and grandson of Lokmanya Tilak, GV Ketkar stated that he and some others had prior information of the Gandhi Murder. After much public outcry, a special Commission of Inquiry was appointed by notification dated 22 March 1965. Gopal Swarup Pathak, MP was appointed to make the Inquiry. On his being appointed a Minister, Justice Jivan Lal Kapur was appointed to conduct the Inquiry on 21 November 1966.

The ‘Report of Commission of Inquiry into Conspiracy to Murder Mahatma Gandhi’ runs into two parts of 354 and 383 pages respectively. It is also available online. In brief, the terms of reference of the Commission were as follows: (1) Whether any persons, in particular GV Ketkar had prior information of the conspiracy of Godse and others to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi; (2) Whether any of such persons had communicated the said information to any authorities of the Government of Bombay or of the Government of India, in particular to the late Bal Gangadhar Kher, the then Premier of Bombay and (3) If so, what action was taken by the Government of Bombay, in particular by the late Kher and the Government of India on the basis of the said information.  

The Commission published its findings on the basis of the available information and evidence. With regards to the first term of reference, the Commission mentioned the names of individuals who had prior information of the danger to Gandhi’s life (not just in the limited sense of Godse’s act). Savarkar’s name appears nowhere in this list. If as per the Commission itself, Savarkar had no prior information; his name should be automatically taken to be cleared. 

The Justice Kapur Commission was constituted under ‘The Commissions of Inquiry’ Act of 1952. By law, an Inquiry Commission enjoys the status of a Civil Court. An Inquiry Commission is a body that collects evidence; it is NOT a judicial creature competent to pronounce a verdict. It is vested with the powers to summon an individual and cross-examine him under oath, order search or submission of any document, record affidavits and the like.    

An Inquiry Commission is subservient to a Criminal Court. It cannot inquire into a matter settled by a Criminal Court. Once Justice Atma Charan’s Special Court had pronounced Savarkar ‘not guilty’, the Justice Kapur Commission simply had no jurisdiction to pronounce otherwise! If the Nehru Government really believed that Savarkar was guilty, why did it not go in appeal in a higher court against Savarkar’s acquittal? The answer is plain.

Nehru knew that the case against Savarkar was not just flimsy, it was simply concocted. This was conveyed by then Law Minister BR Ambedkar to Savarkar’s counsel LB Bhopatkar in a secret meeting. An account of the meeting was provided by Shankar Ramchandra alias Mamarao Date, editor of the Marathi weekly Kal some 35 years later (Kal weekly, 6 June 1983).

The account has been related by Manohar Malgaonkar in his book ‘The Men who killed Gandhi’ (2008, pp 284-285) as follows: ‘While in Delhi for the trial, Bhopatkar had been put up in the Hindu Mahasabha office. Bhopatkar had found it a little puzzling that while specific charges had been made against all the other accused, there was no specific charge against his client. He was pondering about his defence strategy when one morning he was told that he was wanted on the telephone, so he went up to the room in which the telephone was kept, picked up the receiver and identified himself. His caller was Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, who merely said: “Please meet me this evening at the sixth milestone on the Mathura road”, but before Bhopatkar could say anything more, put down the receiver.

That evening, when Bhopatkar had himself driven to the place indicated he found Ambedkar already waiting. He motioned to Bhopatkar to get into his car which he, Ambedkar himself, was driving. A few minutes later, he stopped the car and told Bhopatkar: There is no real charge against your client; quite worthless evidence has been concocted. Several members of the cabinet were strongly against it, but to no avail. Even Sardar Patel could not go against these orders. But, take it from me, there just is no case. You will win.”

The law states that if the reputation of an individual is harmed as a result of inquiry by a Commission, such an individual has to be given opportunity to state his case and place evidence before the Commission. The working of Justice Kapur Commission started after Savarkar had passed away. It passed adverse remarks against Savarkar when he had no opportunity to defend himself.

Clearly, Justice Kapur’s action was illegal, unjust and improper. Kapur does not mention Savarkar’s name among individuals who had prior information of Gandhi’s murder. Then how on earth does he conclude that ‘all these facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group…’ (Vol II, 25.105). In dealing with Savarkar, Kapur’s language is inexplicably loose and vague. He reiterates roughly the same point elsewhere (Vol II, 25.97). But here the words ‘Savarkar and his group’ are replaced by ‘Savarkarites’!! Kapur clearly violated judicial ethics and committed the worst form of legal impropriety.  

Supporter and follower

In the legal process, Savarkar was exonerated of all charges related to the Gandhi Murder. Unfortunately for the Savarkar-bashers, this judicial verdict cannot be erased even if they move heaven and earth.

Instead of being satisfied by this small mercy, let us put Savarkar to one more test! Is the murder of a compatriot having difference of political opinion in keeping with Savarkar’s life and thought? Specifically, does Savarkar’s life and thought provide theoretical basis for Godse’s act?

To search for an answer to this question, one needs to distinguish between a ‘supporter’ and a ‘follower’. The distinction is not as simple as it might seem. Always a stickler for exact words, Savarkar once famously said that confusion in words leads to confusion in thought. In tune with Savarkar’s axiom that ‘he who fights is a braveheart, he who works is a worker’ one can say that ‘he who supports is a supporter, he who follows is a follower.’ Every follower of a leader is necessarily his supporter. But is every supporter a follower? The answer is ‘no’.

Shankar Ramchandra alias Mamarao Date worked for several years in the Hindu Mahasabha and went on to become all-India President. He did fundamental work in the purification of Devnagari script, a project close to Savarkar’s heart. Date had done yeoman work in the field of shuddhi or reversion to the Hindu faith of those converted to Christianity and Islam. The daunting task of editing and publishing Savarkar’s huge corpus of literature was accomplished by Date in Savarkar’s lifetime.

However, Date differed with Savarkar in his views on social reform and purification of language. If the question ‘Can Date be called Savarkar’s follower’ is posed to Savarkar’s supporters, chances are that they will invariably reply in the affirmative. However, if someone introduced Date as ‘Savarkar’s follower’ in Date’s presence, he would say, “No, I am only Savarkar’s associate. Follower I am of Tilak.”

Date well knew how difficult it was to call oneself Savarkar’s follower! Those who loosely use and comprehend words fail to draw a line between ‘supporter’ and ‘follower’. Nathuram Godse and his supporters, more often than not, support Savarkar. That qualifies them as Savarkar-supporters. But that is not the point. The point is – can Godse and Godse-supporters be called Savarkar’s followers?

Right Word | Comparison between RSS and PFI is absurd and unfair

By: Arun Anand

Some comparisons are absurd. The comparison between the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Popular Front of India (PFI) falls in this particular category. This comparison is mostly done intentionally to manipulate the narrative away from the real threats posed by the anti-national forces but sometimes the ill-informed people also fall in this trap. The margin of error has to be given to those who unintentionally fall prey to such propaganda.

The RSS, which was founded in 1925, is known as the world’s largest voluntary organisation that works in the socio-cultural sphere to build an egalitarian society based on the age-old tenet of ‘Vasudhev Kutumbakam’ (the whole world is one family). Its volunteers work for the welfare of the society and help in nation building. Their focus is to build bridges amongst different sections of the society and motivate them all to work for the welfare of the society at large. It fought in 1975 during the Emergency to protect the Indian democracy and is known to be on the forefront whenever the society needs a helping hand due to the onslaught of any major crisis or natural calamity. The biggest example in recent times was the COVID-19 pandemic where RSS volunteers led from the front to help the society.

On the other hand, Popular Front of India is a dubious organisation perpetuating an Islamist agenda. Various investigating agencies and police of several states have exposed their deeds.

The origin of PFI itself betrays its true colours. After the demolition of a disputed structure at Ayodhya in 1992, an organisation by the name of National Democratic Front (NDF) was created in Kerala. “In Public domain NDF portrayed itself as an organisation devoted to socio-economic reform work for Muslims, but its extremist and violent nature was exposed when some of its members were arrested for rioting and murdering eight Hindus on Marad beach in Kozhikode in 2003.” (Radicalisation in India, Abhinav Pandya, Pentagon Books, pp 62)

It is interesting to see that how a plethora of non-governmental organisations came together to help form the PFI that believes in political Islam. According to the official website of PFI, it has a presence in 23 states.

According to Pandya, “NDF’s activities were limited to Kerala. It was decided to create a nationwide organisation. In 2006, PFI was established by merging like-minded Karnataka Forum for Dignity and Manitha Neethi Pasarai (Tamil Nadu). Over the next three years, Goa Citizen’s Forum, Rajasthan’s Community for Social and Educational Society, West Bengal’s Nagrik Adhikar Suraksha Samiti, Manipur’s Lilong Social Forum and Andhra’s Association for Social Justice merged with PFI. However, it remained most active in Kerala. PFI’s other units are (1) All India Imam Council (Religious Scholars’ unit) and (2) Satya Sarini, an educational and charity organisation based in Malappuram, actively engaging in conversions.”

Another interesting aspect of PFI is its relationship with the banned outfit Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). According to Pandya, “A large number of PFI office bearers had strong links with SIMI, before it was banned in 2001.

PFI’s modus operandi

Soumya Awasthi, a Jawaharlal Nehru University-based scholar, came out with a research paper on PFI in 2020 where she discussed its modus operandi in detail. Awasthi says in this paper titled Popular Front of India: Understanding the Propaganda and Agenda, “Even though the organisation came into existence aiming for Muslim empowerment, the PFI’s modus-operandi has been to showcase the Muslim agenda as a side show. Instead they keep the issues of vulnerable societies (Women, labours, farmers, Dalits, Adivasi) at the forefront. This provides them with the cover of a charitable organisation working for the welfare of minorities and the weaker sections of the society. This is meant to fool the government — and the organisation has managed not to be banned yet.”

Awasthi further adds, “The PFI’s ultimate goal is to replace the democratic system of India with an Islamic State-styled government. The Popular Front of India (PFI)… calls India its enemy and asks for ‘total Muslim empowerment’…. The PFI runs projects like ‘School Chalo’ to encourage education for all up to the secondary level, as well as the ‘Sarva Siksha Gram’ and ‘Adopt a student’ campaigns. These campaigns and projects not only provide them legitimacy to function openly but also provide them cover over their actual missionary work. The PFI’s members believe that India is a democratic country. The doctrine is that slowly they (government of India) are reaching for our necks because of (political and social reasons). PFI members believe that if their rights are breached, then they will be left with no choice but to react — and their holy text provides for a jihad, which they will not be reluctant to utilise and justify their acts.”

“The writings of Syed Abu Ala Maududi, Allam Iqbal and Osama Bin Laden influence PFI members. They have maintained the image of a charitable organisation and worked for the ultimate goal establishing an Islamic state by converting and spreading fear through terror acts,” observed Awasthi.

According to Awasthi, “Cadres of the banned outfit SIMI are fast regrouping under the banner of the Popular Front of India (PFI). This outfit has expanded its tentacles to the north after carrying out the initial recruitment in South India. The spreading tentacles of the PFI and Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), the political wing of the PFI, came to light only when its members became influenced by the taqreer (speeches) of Zakir Naik. Interestingly, just days after the IRF was banned, the Kerala-based Islamic fundamentalist organisation PFI organised massive rallies in different parts of the country in support of Zakir Naik. Intelligence sources say there is electronic evidence of increasing interaction between members of these two groups, especially since the IRF ban.”

To gauge the role of PFI in anti-national activities, one can go through the official statement issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), on 1 June 2022 where it categorically said that it has provisionally attached 23 bank accounts of PFI having collective balance of Rs 59,12,051 and 10 bank accounts of PFI’s front organisation Rehab India Foundation (RIF) having collective balance of Rs 9,50,030 in the ongoing money laundering investigation against PFI and its related organisations.

ED investigation revealed that huge amounts of money including cash from questionable sources have been received by PFI and RFI. An amount of more than Rs 60 crore has been deposited in the accounts of PFI which includes cash deposits of more than Rs 30 crore since 2009. Similarly, around Rs 58 crore have been deposited in the accounts of RIF since 2010.

Further, investigation by ED revealed that PFI, in active collusion with other associated accused persons, has indulged in laundering of proceeds of crime in terms of Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002.

Investigations by the ED also revealed that PFI was covertly mobilising funds through well-organised network in Gulf countries as part of criminal conspiracy and these proceeds of crime were secretly and clandestinely sent to India through underground and illegal channels and by way of foreign remittances into the bank accounts of sympathizers/office bearers / members and their relatives / associates in India and thereafter these funds were transferred to the bank accounts of PFI, RIF and other individuals or entities.

The ED statement said, “In this way, the proceeds of crime have been placed, layered & integrated and therefore projected as untainted money in the bank accounts of PFI as well as RIF. This has been done as a part of a larger criminal conspiracy of PFI and its related entities to raise funds within the country and abroad to carry out various unlawful activities which have resulted in the registration of numerous FIRs or complaints against them… and conviction of its members or office-bearers.”

What we have discussed about PFI here is just the tip of the iceberg. It is also under the scanner of National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the police departments of several states. There has been a persistent demand to ban PFI from several quarters which doesn’t sound unreasonable going by its past record.

In this context to compare a nationalist organisation like RSS with a dubious outfit like PFI is not only absurd but it is grossly unfair to the RSS which has served this nation selflessly for 97 years.

Courtesy: Firstpost

Agneepath/Agniveer

By: M S VenkateshwarA retired officer from the Armed Forces of India

The Agneepath scheme announced by the government recently has invited extreme reactions from a section of people, both within the armed forces and outside, with some – from within the forces too – going to the extent of claiming that one of the most dangerous outcomes could be ‘ militarisation of society – an extremely serious charge – when viewed in the context of the number of veterans in society today.

While the senior leadership of the services has become the object of derision and memes, significant blame has been laid at the doorstep of the political dispensation too, on issues concerning the execution and nitty-gritties of implementation, which is beyond their scope.

What is the truth and what should be the way forward ?

A lot of discussion has centered around a narrative already created – as an offshoot of opposition to anything that the government of the day does. The same cynicism applies to military leadership at the higher levels too, with the retired fraternity being fairly unsparing in showing a mirror of ‘ virtuosity ‘, probably forgetting their own recent past in the very same positions of authority. Some comments – in the form of memes – have been downright derogatory and unbecoming of conduct expected from the ‘ services ‘ community.

Policy Making

There has been an attempt at confusing the roles of policy making, and execution. Policy is made by the government and execution is left to the services. The government directive would have been to work out a scheme on the lines of the short service commission for officers, with financial implications being specified, if at all. It is presumed that it would have been a consequence of a study, since policy making does not happen in a vacuum. The nitty-gritties thereafter, would have been left to service HQs, to work out the modalities. Hence, the issues of the rank structure, etc. would have been worked out by the services themselves. To say that government has dictated issues like rank structure is to deliberately muddy the waters !

The difference between policy making and execution/implementation needs to be understood clearly to assign culpability if any. However, from a holistic assessment, it can be safely surmised that the benefits likely to accrue to the individual as well as society make it a win-win for all.

The positives of the policy

At the end of the tenure of four years a few thousand well-trained youth at the peak of fitness – both mental and physical – will be joining the civilian society with no individual family commitments . At the individual level, it will provide them the ability to take risks – which becomes a great handicap a few years down the line – in whichever career option they choose. The liberal options being announced for pursuit of higher education for those who wish to, makes for availability of very promising alternatives to the youth. For the country, there will be a few thousand trained youth – every year – to absorb, and make the best use of. And these are youth who carry no baggage – hierarchical or otherwise – and can be groomed by the organisation they join. It is a given that the organisation will be the gainer since they will have a bunch of dedicated, motivated and most importantly, trained manpower who can be moulded, and entrusted with responsibilities beyond capabilties of normal people, secure in the belief that their integrity would be beyond reproach. And the tenure in the armed forces will be their USP .

Benefits to Society

The fall out of youth with integrity and character joining the work force will not be lost on the rest of the people who come in contact. This will have a ripple effect on the rest of the organisation in terms of efficiency and morale, since this will be an annual feature. It would not be mere hype to predict that a lot of organisations would be waiting to induct these Agniveers , mainly because they are an extremely well trained resource being made available.

Over a period of a few years, the change in society itself will be visible, since the forces have always been considered as a classless – albeit hierarchical – community. The same will rub off at the grass roots of society too, since most of the intake is from the rural areas !

Effects on the Military

The most important effect on the armed forces and hence a huge responsibility will be to ‘ manage change ‘. The arguments being bandied about – about the turnover and short duration of tenure – doesn’t not paint the leadership in a good light. The management of change in the units will rest upon the officers. The ability to extract the best from the men under command does not change, whether they are in permanent service or short service . If the template of the short service commissioned officers be any yardstick, are they – in any way – lacking vis-a-vis the permanent commissioned officers ? If so, the blame has to be taken by the leadership, and the same should be applied here too. There should be no leeway in any aspect of service. There are enough processes to weed out the bad apples by strict punishment being meted out and an example being set.

Today’s youth are growing with technology and are far smarter, if the adage of ‘ every succeeding generation being smarter than the previous one, since our ancestors were apes ‘, holds true. Therefore, the fear of them not being up to the task or being found to be wanting in any way, is unfounded.

Issue of Rank and Dress

This should not even be an issue, since these are mere cosmetics. The authorities – the Service HQs – should and probably would, certainly have the flexibility to change these since these issues are an internal affair, and beyond the scope of the civilian beaurucracy and politicos.

Fear of Militarised Society

Those among the experts – retired, serving or civilians – putting forward this apprehension really need to introspect. It is the kind of charge which points all the fingers at the one pointing it. It is akin to saying that the training in the armed forces churns out criminals ! Nothing can be farther from the truth than this misplaced charge. In all these decades of highly trained men – with huge experience – leaving the forces, the number ‘ turning rogue ‘ has been a statistic that armed forces all over the world have been extremely proud of . To raise such fears is to indulge in runour-mongering to prove a point and ‘ is an insult to the ethos of the armed forces* . However, should it happen, exemplary punishment to the initial cases should settle the issue once and for all. But to use this argument for withdrawing the scheme is to hold the country to ransom. Also, it implies a failure of the forces in training their soldiers, sailors and airmen.

The charge of 75 percent being perceived as rejects does not hold water since it is in nature of service in all military organisations. Even amongst the officer cadre, the steep pyramid ensures that only a miniscule number make it to the top. Those being overlooked is always construed as a limitation of the organisational structure rather than a failure . The same is a part of the formal counseling process, an aspect that needs to be inculcated in this case too. Needless to say, it is extremely important to ensure these kind of negative vibes are avoided at all costs, to avoid a spiral and prevent a culture of despondency at the very beginning . It assumes greater importance in these times of toolkits, which are highly effective in inflaming passions .

Conclusion

For the naysayers and the non-believers, one would only request them to go back in their career and recollect how they felt when they were immediately out of training, and freshly-minted commissioned officers who felt ‘ the world was their oyster ‘ and they owned it , purely on the strength of the confidence in their abilities , arising out of their extremely good training in the forces.

The same privilege should be accorded to the future Agniveers too , rather than make them dependent on doles, in the form of permanent absorption as the only option.