February 26th, 2012
In 1947 there was no consensus on what independent India should be like. Today, Hindutva forces are playing sectarian politics and still living by the British ‘divide and rule’ policy.
The brutal repression of the 1857 uprising included the killing of all those who were already leaders or had the potential for leadership. The mass slaughter (estimated over 10 million), where men were hanged at central points in villages and towns and their bodies left there to disintegrate, established a reign of terror by the British that lasted till the end of the 19th Century.
Relatives of those who had participated in the war, tried to erase the evidence of their acts for fear of reprisals. The British are great observers of anniversaries and each year, on May 10, the British officers would buckle their revolvers and move the women and children to a safe retreat. This ritual kept the memory of 1857 alive among the anglicised Indian population, who were the first to rise against the British. Rebels from Ireland (who had a longer history of suffering at the hands of the British) were role models, from whom Indians learned to make crude, homemade bombs and also use small arms.
Few Indians, who had the courage and gumption, took law into their hands and struck a blow for freedom, knowing that their act would cause sanguine retribution and martyrdom. Only those who felt that they could not live under the British and would happily die rather than live as slaves took up the challenge. There was no national press at that time and the level of literacy was abysmally low. The Bengali Hindus who had been the first collaborators of the British (and were the first to be disenchanted) gave the image of Mother India to the people and the slogan Vandey Maataram (Greetings to Mother India) was born. When the notion of revolt travelled further upcountry, the slogan Inquilaab Zindaabaad (Long live Revolution) came into being.
It should be remembered that the unchallenged British rule enabled Indian rulers to divide the country’s past into Hindu/Muslim and British/Modern periods. The people who rose against the British did not look upon themselves as Indians, but as Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs. There was no consensus on the idea of a resurgent India. Each practitioner of revolt gave his dream whatever colour he identified with and, therefore, favoured. For instance, the revivalist Hindus preferred the colour saffron as it represented the renunciation of worldly ambition and sacrifice. Thus, the struggle for Indian Freedom has the names of both Mahatma Gandhi and Savarkar on its pages.
| The unchallenged British rule enabled Indian rulers to divide the country’s past into Hindu/Muslim and British/Modern periods. The people who rose against the British did not look upon themselves as Indians, but as Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs. |
Savarkar represented not only the Hindus but also the votaries of violence. Savarkar was a Hindu nationalist, because his Hinduism limited his vision to the narrow space within Hindu/ Hindi/Hindustan, while Gandhi’s Hinduism was all embracing. It included all Indians, whether they were Christians, Muslims or Hindus. The Christians and Muslims had leaders from their own communities and looked upon Gandhi with suspicion.
The Khilaafat movement of Gandhi was the last coming together of Hindus and Muslims. It was called off because of the violence that led to the death of policemen at Chauri Chaura. This was made out to be a betrayal of Muslims by Gandhi and they never trusted him again. The British could continue to play the ‘Divide and Rule’ game and used it to leave India only after exacting Partition as a price in the name of protecting Muslims.
Jinnah conjured up the spectre of ‘brute Hindu majority’. This ideology holds true in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Karnataka. While Gujarat and Karnataka are ruled by self-proclaimed Hindu governments of the RSS ideology, Maharashtrians are anti-Muslim, despite being ruled by so-called secular parties such as the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party of Sharad Pawar. This goes to show how deep the communal virus has spread.
The Shiv Sena was supposed to become irrelevant after the Municipal elections in Mumbai and other cities in Maharashtra. But they won and the so-called secular parties have been trounced, despite the abysmal 46% voter turnout. If rulers fail to deliver (put their money where their mouth is), the people lose faith not only in them but also in the democratic process provided by universal suffrage. With less than half the population casting their votes, the universal aspect of the election process is lost and a democratic government based on ‘of the people, for the people and by the people’ concept, ceases to exist.
Savarkar’s devotees killed Gandhi and are now stifling democracy. They are aided and abetted by the Pawars of Maharashtra.