Savarkar unplugged: From film and science to caste and Hindutva
Born in Nashik in 1883, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar is one
of the most controversial figures in the history of the Indian
Independence movement. His fraught relationship with the Congress party
and Mahatma Gandhi, and his conceptualization of the idea of Hindutva
and Hindu nationalism, lends him perennial relevance in Indian politics.
However, as in the case of many other
contemporaneous leaders, debates on Savarkar are often shallow because
the bulk of his writing was in his mother tongue, Marathi. These essays
have rarely been translated.
In this first of a new series of translated journalism for Mint on Sunday,
we publish translated excerpts from Savarkar’s speeches, interviews and
essays. These provide insights into Savarkar, who died in 1966, as a
modernist, a rationalist and a strong supporter of social reform.
We would like to thank Ranjit Savarkar of the Savarkar Smarak in Mumbai, for giving us the permission to translate the originals.
On film
In this undated interview to a Marathi journalist that has been republished in a book of his essays, Vividha Lekh, or Various Essays, Savarkar spoke about the virtues of modern cinema.
“The
movies are one of the beautiful gifts of the 20th century. This is the
machine age. We are surrounded by things that have been made with the
help of machines. The world of entertainment cannot be an exception to
this rule. Please understand that I refuse to condemn the advances made
in technology. I would like modern machines to spread rapidly so that
the whole of humanity is happier.”
“I dislike
any restrictions on the innovative spirit of the human mind. That is
because modern progress and modern culture have emerged out of
innovation. The very essence of the progress made by humanity over the
past many years in science and knowledge can be found in contemporary
cinema. There is no better example of the use of modern technology than
the movies, and that is why I will never back any restrictions on them.”
These
remarks by Veer Savarkar are a stinging answer to the contempt with
which Mahatma Gandhi has spoken about movies. When I asked Savarkar
whether he was implicitly criticizing Gandhi, he asked me: “Is there
anything common between Gandhi and me?”
“I saw
my first silent movie when I was a student in London, and I liked it
immensely. I have seen some talkies as well, but not too many.”
“I
doubt the theatre can compete with the movies. It will barely survive
in a corner just as the folk arts barely survive in our villages today.
But its best days are behind it.”
“There is no
need to feel bad about this. What is the use of the wooden plough in the
age of the tractor? The wooden plough will be used only where there are
no tractors. I deeply oppose the charkha philosophy of going back to
nature.”
“Films are even superior to novels.
However well written be the biographies of national heroes such as
Shivaji, Pratap or Ranjit, there is no doubt their stories will be more
enjoyable and impactful on the screen.”
“Films
can even be used to educate our youth. We see life reflected very well
on screen. It is better to borrow a good thing rather than have nothing
at all. But one should neither blindly copy the work of others.”
“As
in all other fields, it is essential that our people are nationalists
in the field of cinema as well. Everything else comes after that. The
film industry too should believe that it will do everything possible for
the progress of the entire nation.”
“Our movies
should focus on the positives of the country, keep aside the negatives
and have pride in its victories. There is no value in making movies on
national defeat or on our failings. These should be forgotten. Our youth
should be inspired by movies that focus on the positive side of
things.”
On the Constitution of free India
In
his presidential address to the annual session of the Hindu Mahasabha
held in Calcutta in 1939, Savarkar spoke about how Hindus and Muslims
could bury their historical differences in a common Hindustani
constitutional state.
The National
Constitution of Hindustan: The Hindu Sanghanists Party aims to base the
future constitution of Hindustan on the broad principle that all
citizens should have equal rights and obligations irrespective of caste
or creed, race or religion, provided they avow and owe an exclusive and
devoted allegiance to the Hindustani State. The fundamental rights of
liberty of speech, liberty of conscience, of worship, of association,
etc., will be enjoyed by all citizens alike. Whatever restrictions will
be imposed on them in the interest of the public peace and order of
National emergency will not be based on any religious or racial
considerations alone but on common National grounds.
No
attitude can be more National even in the territorial sense than this
and it is this attitude in general which is expressed in substance by
the curt formula ‘one man one vote’. This will make it clear that the
conception of a Hindu Nation is in no way inconsistent with the
development of a common Indian Nation, a united Hindustani State in
which all sects and sections, races and religions, castes and creeds,
Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Anglo-Indians, etc., could be harmoniously
welded together into a political State on terms of perfect equality.
But
as practical politics require it, and as the Hindu Sanghanists want to
relieve our non-Hindu countrymen of even a ghost of suspicion, we are
prepared to emphasize that the legitimate rights of minorities with
regard to their religion, culture and language will be expressly
guaranteed: on one condition only that the equal rights of the majority
also must not in any case be encroached upon or abrogated. Every
minority may have separate schools to train up their children in their
own tongue, their own religious or cultural institutions and can receive
Government help also for these, but always in proportion to the taxes
they pay into the common Exchequer. The same principle must, of course,
hold good in case of the majority too.
On Muslims and modernization
At
the very end of a sharp essay on the religious idiocies of the Hindus
and Muslims, published in the May 1935 issue of the magazine Manohar, Savarkar asked Indian Muslims to “for the sake of their humanity” learn from Turkey under Kemal Ataturk.
Just
as it is my duty to repeatedly tell the Hindu nation to abandon its
silly religious customs, observances and opinions in this age of
science, so I will also tell Muslim society, which is an inevitable part
of the Hindustani nation, that it should abandon as quickly as possible
its troublesome habits as well as religious fanaticism for its own
good—not as a favour to the Hindus, not because the Hindus are scared of
your religious aggression, but because these practices are a blot on
your humanity, and especially because you will be crushed in the age of
science if you cling on to an outdated culture.
You
should abandon the belief that not even a word in the Quran can be
questioned because it is the eternal message of God, even as you
maintain respect for the Quran. But the norms that seemed attractive to
an oppressed but backward people in Arabia at a time of civil strife
should not be accepted as eternal; accept the habit of sticking to only
that which is relevant in the modern age...
Oh
Muslims, just think what the Europeans reduced you to after they escaped
from the clutches of the Bible, to master the sciences that are
beneficial for our times. You were pushed out of Spain, you were
subjected to massacres, you were crushed in Austria, Hungary, Serbia and
Bulgaria. Your control over Mughal India was snatched away. They are
ruling you in Arabia, Mesopotamia, Iraq and Syria.
Just
as our yagnyas, prayers, Vedas, holy books, penances, curses could not
harm the Europeans, so too will your Quran, martyrdoms, namaaz,
religious lockets will make no difference to them.
Just
as the maulvis sent armies to war in the belief that the men who fought
under the banner of Allah would never lose, so did our pundits
peacefully sit back to repeat the name of Rama a million times. But none
of this prevented the Europeans, with their advanced weapons; they not
only decimated the Muslim armies, but they even toyed with the fallen
flag of Allah.
And that is why Kemal Ataturk has
broken the bonds of all religious laws that have kept the Turkish
nation backward. He has borrowed civil law, criminal law and military
law from Switzerland, France and Germany, to replace the rules in the
Quran.
The literal meaning of what is said in
the Quran no longer matters. The only question today is what is
essential for national advancement in the light of modern science.
Turkey can hold its own against Europe today because Kemal has given
primacy to modern science in his nation. If Turkey had remained bound
within the covers of the Quran, as it was during the reign of Kemal
Sultan or the Khalifa, then the Turks would still be licking the boots
of the Europeans, as the Indian Muslims are doing today.
If
they want to advance as the Turks have done, Indian Muslims should
abandon the religious fanaticism that has been nurtured over a thousand
years, and accept modern science.
On the age of machines
Savarkar often called on his supporters to welcome the age of the modern machine. Here, in an essay published in the magazine Kirloskar,
and republished in a book of his essays on the scientific approach, he
argued that India would continue to lag behind Europe as long as its
leaders believed in superstition rather than science.
It
was 200 years ago that Europe entered the era that our country is now
entering. This means we are two centuries behind Europe. We are entering
what economists describe as the age of the machine. The spread of
machines some 200 years ago in Europe challenged traditional beliefs and
habits.
There were fears that humanity would
lose its essence in the machine age, religion would be undermined,
humans would begin to act like machines, our bodies would shrivel and
the prosperity that was promised with the use of machines would itself
be destroyed. Men would be reduced to being paupers rather than eating
well. Such shrill warnings were spread across Europe by a class that
stuck to tradition and religious naiveté.
The
reason machines are not more widely used by our people is because of the
religious beliefs in our society. Europe too did not accept machines
200 years ago because of the power of Christian religious beliefs. There
was a massive earthquake in Lisbon in the 18th century. The religious
leaders of Europe preached to the people that the earthquake was the
result of the Protestant perfidy against the religious beliefs of the
Roman Catholics. It was a punishment because Protestant marriage
ceremonies were led by women, Protestant priests were allowed to marry,
the words of the Pope are not considered infallible. It was in reaction
to these reasons that the people decided to protect themselves against
future earthquakes by trying to finish off the Protestants.
Such
naive people were incapable of even understanding that there were
physical explanations for earthquakes, let alone trying to use
seismology to design machines that could perhaps help them predict the
risk of an earthquake. Europe could truly embrace the machine age only
when its religious beliefs were demolished by the scientific approach.
But
in India, even someone as influential as Gandhiji swears by his “inner
voice” to say that the Bihar earthquake is a punishment for the caste
system. And that he is still waiting for his inner voice to tell him why
Quetta was rocked by an earthquake. And then there are Shankaracharya
and other religious leaders who swear by the religious books that the
earthquake was caused by attempts to do away with the caste system.
What
can one say about the religious naiveté of the ordinary people in a
country when its prominent leaders hold such views? Europe is in the
year 1936 while we are in the year 1736.
On the unpopular tasks of the social reformer
In
the same collection of essays on the scientific approach, where he also
mocked those whose religious sentiments get hurt very easily, Savarkar
wrote about how the true social reformer has to accept unpopularity.
And
that is why any reformer who seeks to root out harmful social practices
or preach new truths has first of all to compromise his popularity.
That is what Jesus meant when he told the majority who opposed him: “Ye
build sepulchres unto those whom your fathers stoned to death!” Jesus,
Buddha and Mohammad are today the gods and prophets of millions of
people, but look at how they were treated by their contemporaries. Jesus
was killed. Buddha had to face a murderous attack. Mohammad had to
flee, was injured in battle, was condemned as a traitor.
So,
reformers who rock the boat, who become unpopular, who disturb the
social balance, who hurt religious sentiments, who turn their back on
majority opinion, who think rationally—all these reformers face the
inevitable consequences of their actions. Every reformer has had to face
these challenges. This is because social reform—by definition rooting
out any evil social custom—means taking on the persistent social beliefs
of the majority.
And the reformer who pits
himself against the religious practices of millions will be the most
unpopular. And the man who has made popularity his business will give in
to the popular will out of fear, but who wants to do some good, will
eventually be overcome by his fear, will leave the road to social and
religious reform.
A true social or religious
reformer should only be driven by the desire to do good. As far as I am
concerned, so that I am not torn about the choice between popularity and
public good, I have this stamped on my mind: Varam Janahitam Dhyeyam Kevala Na Janstuti (It is best to think only of the welfare of people, not praise them).
On untouchability
Savarkar
was a strong opponent of the caste system. He repeatedly argued that
what the religious books say about untouchability is irrelevant. The
social practice was unfit for a modern society. In his collection of
essays on breaking the caste system, he welcomed the constitutional
provision that made untouchability a crime.
“Untouchability
is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden The enforcement
of any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence
punishable in accordance with law”
—Article 17 of the Indian Constitution
It
was a golden day for all humankind and Hindu Sanghatan when the
Constituent Assembly unanimously took this decision. These words should
now be carved on some eternal pillar like the Ashoka Pillar, so
important are they.
This historic decision
should be seen as the success of the hundreds of saints, social
reformers and political leaders who worked so hard over the centuries to
break the shackles of untouchability. The practice of untouchability is
now not just an evil that has to be criticized but a crime that will be
punished. Citizens are now not just been advised to abandon the
practice of untouchability, but have been told that it is against the
law to practise it.
Article 17 of the Indian
Constitution has used the word untouchability in the singular. There
should have been an explanatory note in the interests of clarity. After
all, there could be instances when untouchability has to be practised
for medical or personal reasons. These may not be damaging to society.
Of course, Article 17 is meant to deal with only that untouchability
that men and women have to face if they are born into a particular
caste...
Besides untouchability, social
cleavages and hierarchies of all types have been frowned upon. These
practices may not be punishable but will be looked down upon. This is
implicit in Article 17, given the fundamental rights guaranteed in the
Constitution and in its preamble. And later, in the sections about
fundamental rights, it is clearly stated that no citizen of the Indian
state will be discriminated against on the basis of religion, race,
caste, gender or place of birth. They are all equal under the law. In
this way, the Constitution has taken the wrecking ball to the edifice of
social discrimination.
On revolution
In
1952, Savarkar went to Pune to announce the closure of Abhinav Bharat,
the revolutionary outfit that he had set up as a student to fight for
independence. In a public speech, he said that revolutionary
organizations have no place in a constitutional state, echoing the views
of his friend B.R. Ambedkar.
The end of
the age of revolution and the coming of swarajya means that our primary
national duty in the new age is to abandon the methods of rebellion so
that constructive and lawful politics will gain primacy. To overthrow
foreign rule, we had to inevitably have secret societies, armed revolt,
terrorism, civil disobedience; these were holy. But if we stick to these
methods after we have got our freedom, then the damage we will inflict
will be worse that what even are enemies can do...
The establishment of swarajya does not mean that Ramrajya will follow immediately.
(After
explaining how 200 years of colonial rule had damaged India, Savarkar
says) ...it is our duty as citizens to support our national government
that we should at least for some time bear whatever pain lies ahead. So
that the national government gets time to address important questions.
We should support the government with our hard work and patience. There
is a lot of criticism of the mistakes the government has made... The
people have still decided to hand power to the Congress. They have not
snatched power from you. It is only fair to point out that had the
difficult task of setting matters right not been given to the Congress,
but to the socialists, communists or Hindutva parties, they too would
have made similar mistakes, either because of inexperience or the lust
for power.
