In the recently held Karnataka elections, Narendra Modi made several statements which were not true, and which were made to raise the emotive pitch against his opponents. In a blatant lie, at a rally in Bidar, he asked, “When Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Batukeshwar Dutt, Veer Savarkar, greats like them were jailed fighting for the country’s independence, did any Congress leader go to meet them?” One is surprised as to how can this be an electoral issue today? The central tactic of BJP and communal organisations is to bypass the issues related to people’s needs and distract their attention towards emotive issues. Modi has very regularly raised such issues in an attempt to put his opponents in a bad light. He has no qualms about even saying untruths with great amount of confidence. In the statement–question raised by him about Congress leaders visiting Bhagat Singh and Savarkar in jail, he is speaking a lie on one side and trying to glorify his icon Savarkar on the other.
As a matter of fact, the Indian National Congress, while it had differences with revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, greatly respected the high level of commitment and dedication of these young men. There are reports in the Tribune (August 9 and 10, 1929) about Nehru visiting Bhagat Singh and his comrades in jail. Motilal Nehru had even formed a committee to demand humane treatment for the revolutionaries on fast unto death. In his autobiography, Towards Freedom, Jawaharlal Nehru gives a very touching account of his meeting Bhagat Singh, Jatin Das and other young revolutionaries, “I happened to be in Lahore when the hunger strike was already a month old. I was given permission to visit some of the prisoners in the prison, and I availed myself of this. I saw Bhagat Singh for the first time, and Jatindranath Das and a few others. They were all very weak and bedridden, and it was hardly possible to talk to them much. Bhagat Singh had an attractive, intellectual face, remarkably calm and peaceful. There seemed to be no anger in it. He looked and talked with great gentleness, but then I suppose that anyone who has been fasting for a month will look spiritual and gentle. Jatin Das looked milder still, soft and gentle like a young girl. He was in considerable pain when I saw him. He died later, as a result of fasting, on the sixty-first day of the hunger strike.”
The other aspect of the statement by Modi is to equate Savarkar with dedicated young revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh. This seems to be a clever ploy to elevate Savarkar to a level to which he does not belong. While Bhagat Singh was in jail, pending death penalty, he was requested by his family to seek clemency, which Bhagat refused. On the contrary, he wrote to the British Government that since he and his comrades have been sentenced to death for waging war against the empire, he should be made to face the firing squad and not be given death by hanging. In contrast, Savarkar, after being sentenced for his role in the case of murder of a British officer, totally changed his stance in jail, surrendered to the British and wrote a series of apology letters, promising them help in future! He continued to remain loyal to the British after his release from jail.
In the early 1920s, the Congress, in recognition of Savarkar’s initial role, tried to put pressure on the British Government for his release, but Savarkar was already writing petition after petition to the British to release him. He in fact gave a written undertaking, which in a way represented his total surrender to the British, “I hereby acknowledge that I had a fair trial and just sentence. I heartily abhor methods of violence resorted to in days gone by and I feel myself duty bound to uphold law and constitution (British: added) to the best of my powers and am willing to make the ‘reform’ a success in so far as I may be allowed to do so in future.” (from facsimile of Savarkar’s letter to British authorities, published in Frontline, April 7, 1995). There are many such letters and finally the British granted him clemency.
This act of his seeking pardon from the British was a betrayal of freedom movement. His followers present it as a tactical ploy to get released so that he could continue his struggle against British rule. As matter of fact, after his release, Savarkar floated the concept of Hindu nationalism, brought to fore the word ‘Hindutva’ (total Hinduness) and stated that there are two nations in the country, the Hindu nation and the Muslim nation! This was precisely opposite of the politics of Muslim nationalism being brought up by Muslim league. This is what also contributed to the tragedy of partition.
So Modi on the one hand lies about Congress leaders ignoring those struggling for freedom, while on the other he puts Savarkar in the same category as Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh remained committed to his ideology and path of resistance against British power. For his principles, he undertook a hunger strike in jail. In contrast, Savarkar buckled under the jail conditions and surrendered to the British. The Goebbelsian methods being resorted to by Modi need to be opposed.
