R.A. Jahagirdar
We publish this essay by Justice RA Jahagirdahr (1927-2011) on the
Hindutva ideologue
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in the context of the 8
th National Conference
of
Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations (FIRA) held in Nagapur on 11-12
February 2012. The official souvenir brought out during the conference had a
photograph of Vinayak Savarkar with the astonishing remark that the
rationalists cannot forget his contributions to humanity. This attempt to put this
Hindutva
ideologue, who in fact coined the word “
Hindutva”, on a rationalist pedestal is
nothing but reprehensible. Despite the enormous quantity of literature
available today conclusively establishing that Savarkar was a rabid Hindu
communalist, it is surprising that some ‘rationalists’ still project Savarkar
as their leader. What was still more surprising was that the entire FIRA
leadership did not make even a murmur against this crude attempt on the part of
the local host (
Akhil Bharatiya
Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti) of the conference to use the FIRA platform
to project their ideology. It is in this
background that we publish this essay by the late Justice RA Jahagirdhar (1927-2011).
Courtesy:
Collected Works of Justice
R.A. Jahagirdar (Retd) (1927-2011) published by
Rationalist Foundation, Pune. The book can be downloaded at
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/
It is generally be1ieved that Savarkar was a rationalist,
despite his belief in Hindutva. He advised the general public of India, more particularly
Hindus that Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas are good literature but
not guides. They should be kept in the cupboard as pieces to look good. Even
Bhagwad Gita allegedly dictated by Lord Krishna was a piece of literature and
only expounded what he regarded as a good guide. It described four phases of
man and we are free to follow any one as the pathway to God. In short, he did not
believe in the supernatural.
 |
| Vinayak Savarkar |
On these and other grounds
Maharashtra Andhashraddha
Nirmoolan Samiti has hailed him as a great social reformer of
Maharashtra.
If one reads the piece on Savarkar, he is in fact, regarded as a rationalist of
Maharashtra on par with Gadge Maharaj, who tried to teach people to clean
Maharashtra - even personally sweeping the land and
bylanes of the city and villages. He in his own language admonished the people
to lead a personal good life. Gadge Maharaj never invoked God for the social
reform he preached and in fact did not personally practice any rituals. He took
a broom in his hand and set an example of how and why the streets and public
places be swept.
This was not the rationalism of Savarkar. Though Savarkar advocated
that meat prohibited for the high caste Hindu, should be eaten by them. No food
was prohibited by Savarkar. Savarkar’s advocacy that Hindus should eat meat was
based upon the belief that meat has strength. But it was a myth, because he
forgot that an elephant, though so huge was strictly vegetarian and if an
occasion was available to it, it could also lift a lion (who was a strict
nonvegetarian) with his trunk and injure or kill it. The lion could attack and
kill an elephant more because of his agility and mobility. But Savarkar was
right in the absurdity of the ban on meat. Meat was a taboo to orthodox Hindus
because it was animal food. No food was prohibited, according to Savarkar. Food
should he chosen on the basis of its nutritional value and not on the basis of
religious edicts. He might even have ridiculed the Muslims and Jews for
prohibiting eating of pork because the people of Kodagu (Coorg in English) eat it
as a regular food item. To Americans, English and even Europeans, no food is
prohibited. Africans also eat almost any food, scarcely barring some. Despite
being born in a Chitpawan Hindu family (a sect of Hindus), Savarkar advocated
or at least did not prohibit eating meat. But should he be regarded as a
rationalist for this? It would be a very narrow conception. Hitler was a
vegetarian. Akbar was a vegetarian.
 |
A group photo of people accused in the Mahatma Gandhi's
murder case.
Standing: Shankar
Kistaiya, Gopal Godse, Madanlal
Pahwa, Digambar Badge.
Sitting: Narayan
Apte, Vinayak D. Savarkar, Nathuram
Godse, Vishnu Karkare
|
In this connection, it is interesting to note that M.N.
Roy, the great rationalist, persuaded Virendra Chattopadhyaya to eat beef in
Germany.
Roy told Chattopadhyaya that Hindus forbade eating cow’s
meat (beef), in
India, not
in
Germany.
So one can safely say that, Savarkar was a rationalist in matters of food.
That is not all. Because Savarkar said although the
Vedas and Upanishadas are Hindu scriptures, no one reads them.
Therefore, it is said that Savarkar was a rationalist. Normally if a person’s
source of knowledge is articles in a book, he is not a rationalist. Similarly, one
who regards a person or a book holy can never be a rationalist.
It is perfectly in order that a rationalist or even a
common man should reject Vedas and Upanishads. Puranas do not
teach any moral lesson. Shambhuk episode, Wali incident, Sita’s totally unjust Agnipariksha
and some other features make Ramayana unacceptable. Mahabharat is still
worse. There are many persons in Mahabharat who were not born legitimately. Of
course, this is imagination but the bulk of Hindu population believes in them,
as they are entertaining. Due to their entertainment value and because of
technical and other reasons they attracted audiences on T.V. on Sunday
mornings. But Bible was a failure in this predominantly Hindu kingdom. One can
speculate how a serialization of Quran would fare. Of course, the rationalists
regard them as myths. The three books mentioned are no doubt figments of
imagination for the rationalists. It is not mentioned that Savarkar condemned
these as wrong on ethical grounds or any of the Puranas on any other ground.
Rationalism as an appellation can hardly be applied. Ramayana, Mahabharata are
good entertainment stories, as Arabian Nights but no human being should and can
use them for self edification. There are so many irrational propositions in
them, which no rationalist can accept. Puranas come in the same category. Probably
they were composed in the third or fourth century to arrest Buddhism and
Lokayat. Upanishads are a different story. Though they are attached to Vedas,
they contain theoretical discussion and not one of them has canvassed that God
exists. Even Kathopanishad and Brihadaranyak Upanishads do not advance the
theory of theism. A rationalist cannot believe the Vedas. Rigved and Yajurved
contain at places such unrefined passages which are not brought to the notice
of the believers. Even Atharvaveda and Sam Veda do not contain any educational
material. Rationalists study them but by no stretch of imagination can accept
them. Savarkar in his voluminous writings examines them but does not condemn
them. As such, he might be a normal Hindu but definitely not a rationalist.
The literature to which I have made reference so far does
not contain any law that might have governed the Hindus. Sometimes as Ram Shastri
Prabhune says, they might have been weighed as Hadith; sometimes a story, here
or there, attributable to God or Gods might have given guidance or even wrong
guidance. For example, Shambuka episode earned for Rama the Sobriquet
Purushottam from Agastyamuni, one of the eight Rishis who were the preceptors
of Rama. Unfortunately, some of the Hindu kings thought they were following
Sanatana dharma by behaving according to these irrational, incoherent and even
unjust laws which endorse beheading of Shambuka (a Shudra youth) by Rama. They cannot he
called rationalists.
But the book which acted as a law book for Hindus, like
Savarkar, was a Smriti called Manusmriti. Even till 1956, the Courts, including
Privy Council, accepted the law propounded by Manusmriti as the law of Hindus.
It is the most irrational book which should not have seen the light of day. No
rationalist could accept the legal propositions that the Hindus were expected
to follow. Did Savarkar condemn the book? No, he even praised the book and said
the weakness of the Hindus was cause of not following the book. Remember this
was before 1956. There is no book in the world which treats the so-called
Shudras and women as contemptible and untouchables as inhumanly as Manusmriti.
I venture to think that the Hindus believed in Manusmriti and accepted it is
the reason why India
has not produced a single philosopher after Sankaracharya. There were only
Bhaktas like Tukararam, etc. but not thinkers or philosophers. Many of the Bhaktas,
it seems, were, schizophrenic. All Bhaktas were not of the same hue. But Hindus
accepted all of them with equal reverence.
There is not enough space here to enumerate all the
irrationalities of Manusmriti. But it is sufficient to remember that Manusmriti
tells us that the woman in her childhood depends upon her parents, in her youth
or adulthood on her husband and in her old age on her children. No woman
deserves freedom, women’s sensual pleasures must be kept under control, the man
is the one to whom the woman adheres, a woman should get a loaf of bread, a
seat and ornaments.
There are still more ‘gems’ about woman written in
Manusmriti. Remember, though Manusmriti was a Smriti, it was a law, binding upon
Hindus. In 1940, Savarkar in his presidential address of Hindu Mahasabha showed
his commitment to Manusmriti and said that if the lessons of Manusmriti were
learnt, Hindu society will be stronger. Savarkar was bold enough to say that “our
Hindu nation shall prove again unconquerable and a conquering race as we proved
once (Samagra Savarkar Sangrah, published by Maharashtra Hindu Mahasabha, Pune
p. 426.) I must casually mention that Hindu Mahasabha has done a great service
by publishing all Savarkar works in 1960 for only Rs. 160/-
Manusmriti further said that:
A) Shudras were born from the feet (of Brahma);
B) God has given only one occupation to Shudra viz.
serving the high caste;
C) If a Shudra arrogantly teaches the Brahmin about the
latter’s duty, the King shall cause hot oil to be poured in Shudra’s ears;
D) If a Shudra pretends to be of a higher caste, his lips
should be branded;
E) No collection of wealth should be made by a Shudra;
F) The son of a Brahniin from a Shudra woman inherits no
property.
There are more ‘gems’ like these in Manusmriti which no
rational man can endorse. But Savarkar did. Read this in Savarkar’s Samagra Sahitya
(original in Hindi).
“Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worshipable
after Vedas for our Hindu nation, and which from ancient times has become the basis
of our culture, customs, thought and practice. The book for centuries has codified
the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today, the rules which are
followed by crores of Hindus in their lives are based upon Manusmriti. Today
Manusmriti is Hindu Law. That is fundamental.” (Emphasis provided.)
Savarkar was addressing a joint conference of Hindu Mahasabha and RSS.
Savarkar has a reputation of being the leader and mentor
of Hindus. Untouchahility was a part of Hindu Dharma. Ambedkar fought against
it all through his life and ultimately embraced Buddhism. No religion or society
in the world (except Hindus) has sanctified untouchables. Savarkar was not
averse to untouchability, though later he established Patit Pavan Sangh in
Ratnagiri. It has never traversed beyond Ratnagiri and Pune. Untouchability is
regarded as a curse by all (except Hindu Mahasabha and RSS). Even Mahatma Gandhi
condemned it, though he could have been unwilling to exclude them from the
Hindu fold. Untouchables were regarded as ati-Shudras but outside the pale of
caste-system. Gandhi would have probably accepted them in the Shudra caste.
We have already seen how Manusmriti regarded untouchables.
Even the shadow of an untouchable cannot fall upon a Brahmin or in his path.
But he made some cosmetic changes to Hindu society. While permitting caste
Hindus to dine with untouchables, he emphatically said in 1939 that the Hindu
Mahasabha, “will not introduce or support compulsory legislation regarding Temple entry by untouchables,
etc. in old temples beyond the limit the non-Hindus are allowed by Custom as in
force today.”
Thus, he was not in favour of unqualified entry of
Harijans in temples as Ambedkar had launched in Kalaram temple; Kakasaheb Gadgil
participated in Parvati in Pune and Senapati Bapat, in general.
On 20th June, Savarkar again guaranteed that the Hindu
Mahasabha shall not enforce any legislation regarding the entry of untouchables
in the ancient temples or be compelled by law for amending any sacred ancient
and moral usage or custom prevailing in those temples. In general, the
Mahasabha will not support any legislation, which may be thrust upon it.
While considering the reformist views of the Savarkar
brothers, so far as personal law is concerned, let alone a rationalist, was
Savarkar even a reformer?
I have already mentioned above that Savarkar never made
efforts to ameliorate the condition of untouchables. Though he founded the Patit
Pavan Sangh but with Bhagurkars Patit Pavan Sangh untouchables remained untouchables. Hindu Mahasahha as an organisation
did nothing for untouchables. Savarkar opposed, as mentioned, the entry of
untouchables into temples. Gods of caste Hindu temples were surely, the Gods of
untouchables too, but the latter had no access to them. Laxman Shastri clearly
advised Gandhi that untouchabilily had no sanction of Shastras. Savarkar never endorsed
this view. This is the inhumanism of the rationalist Savarkar.
A couple of matters, not pertaining strictly to
rationalism need be mentioned here. He was a Hindu Nationalist believing that Hindustan belonged to Hindus and no one else. Akhand
(undivided) has always been the motto of Hindu Mahasabha of which Savarkar was
the President. In fact, it was founded by him. Yet, on 15th August,
1943 (four years before partition) he said, “I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah’s
two nations theory that Hindus and Muslims are two nations. We Hindus are a
nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two
nations.”
In the same place he mentioned that Hindus would he in the
dominant position. Dominant in what, say—more taxes, more posts etc. Savarkar
says nothing about it. Rest of the speech is confusing and incoherent and at
least needs no examination. A nation is always based upon territory. Muslims,
as a nation in Savarkar’s confession, would occupy a territory. Then where is
Akhand Hindustan (undivided India)?
At one time Sindh and Bengal
had Coalition Ministries. Shyam Prakash Mukherjee (son of Ashutosh) was a
minister in the Bengal. Savarkar’s hatred for
Congress was so intense that Dhananjay Keer (almost official Biographer)
mentions that, “Savarkar had advised the Hindu leaders in the Muslim majority
provinces to join Ministries formed by Muslim League (Keer -p.348)
This is the Hinduism or nationalism of Savarkar. That Savarkar
was opposed to Quit India movement need not be held against him. Consistent
with this view he advised Hindus to join armed forces “not to defeat fascism
but to strengthen Hinduism.” In fact, he chided Nehru for opposing fascism for,
according to Savarkar, Hitler and Mussolini knew what was best for their
countries.
When in Ratnagiri Jail (where he had been transferred),
Savarkar wrote his magnum opus Hindutva, wherein he made a distinction between
Hindutva and Hinduism. All those who come under the umbrella of Hinduism were
Hindus, for according to Savarkar, those whose history, gods, pitrubhumi
(father’s home-land) and matrubhumi (mother’s home-land) were within and from
this land were Hindus; so defined, Sikhs. Buddhists and Jains were Hindus but not
Muslims and Christians. Muslims’ attachment was for Kaba and Mecca, their holy places. Christians looked
towards Jerusalem
where Jesus was crucified. Their Pitrubhumi was India
but their Punyabhumi (land of worship) was abroad, not Hindustan.
Therefore, they are not Hindus. Savarkar’s confusion and incoherence are
evident here. He equated religion with nation. But see what he says elsewhere
that “change of religion leads to change of nationality.”
I have given enough material to show that Savarkar was not
a rationalist. He was communal. I do not hold against him that he was acquitted
in Gandhi murder case. The government did not appeal against him. Being a
lawyer I would say, agreeing with the Supreme Court, that he was doubly
innocent.
