India’s Debt to Veer Savarkar

One thing that constantly astonishes me is my ignorance of Indian history. I admit that freely and feel sorry for myself — and for the hundreds of millions of Indians who are ignorant like me. I am partly to blame but we should remember that the Indian government — what I should really call the British Government 2.0 which started off with faux Britisher Jawaharlal Nehru at the helm — did much to misrepresent Indian history. Thanks to the interwebs (and thanks to Al Gore for inventing them internets), slowly I am learning a bit of history.

The other day I was thinking that even though I am ignorant of history, I figured out that Nehru was a clueless retard even though his name is plastered all over the country and they all say what a great man he was. I figured out that MK Gandhi must have been a self-obsessed authoritarian with an inflated ego.

The thing is, as Yogi Berra pointed out, you’d be astonished what you observe if you care to see. (I don’t know if Yogi Berra actually said it but it sounds like something that he may have said.) I saw without distorting glasses and I observed that India is a disaster zone. There were people who directed it since its political independence in 1947. They were in control. They — what’s the word I am looking for — yes, fucked up. Pardon my French.

My reasoning was syllogistic:

Major premise: India is evidently in dire distress.
Minor premise: India was led by Cha-cha and friends.
Conclusion: Cha-cha and friends were retards.

Those worthies — Cha-cha Nehru and his gang of retards — are definitely to blame. Cha-cha. Don’t you just feel like getting up and doing a bit of a dance. One-two-cha-cha-cha. Let’s do the cha-cha-cha.

The other day I was thinking. (A different other day than the other day mentioned previously.) In his book, “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution“, Richard Dawkins makes a point that I had not pondered before. He argued that circumstantial evidence is not the poor county cousin of eyewitness evidence, but rather circumstantial evidence can be more solid than eyewitness evidence.

Did you see that man enter the house at 7 PM? Yes, says the witness. But memories can be very unreliable at times. People make mistakes in identifying people. Circumstantial evidence, if available, can be quite foolproof. The finger prints on the knife, the shirt of the accused with the bloodstains that DNA shows to be the victim’s blood, the motive that the accused had, etc.

I pondered that matter at some length. I realized that the history we are taught in school about how great a person Cha-cha Nehru was is like an eye-witness account which has been retold a few thousand times. Someone somewhere made the assertion that Nehru was smart — and then it got repeated uncritically by others.

The circumstantial evidence says otherwise. Nehru was clueless about economic policy. Fabian socialism was known to be a disaster. Nehru was clueless about military policy. Thousands of Indian soldiers died in the disastrous war with China, thanks to Cha-cha. He was clueless about industrial policy. Import substitution industrialization (ISI, not to be confused with the Pakistani organization that DiggyVijay Singh moonlights for) chained India’s growth to what is now rightly called the “Nehru rate of growth.” Nehru was clueless about military strategy. He told the Indian army to halt their campaign to throw out the Pakistanis from Kashmir and took the matter to the UN. Tens of thousands of military and civilians have died as a consequence, and a few million Kashmiri Hindus are languishing in refugee camps in their own country.

I’d love to continue on the subject of the Nabob of Cluelessness, Mr Nehru. But I am sure you have better things to do and I don’t have the time to list all the cluelessness of Mr Nehru. India’s pathetic education system is his doing. The IITs are a prime example of that. But I will go into why the IITs have been a curse to India later.

Anyway, if you need convincing that Nehru, Gandhi and the rest of the unholy bunch were crazily mistaken, take a look at India — and weep.

So here’s what I learned today. India owes a debt to Savarkar. Taken from The Daily Pioneer. Reproduced in full since it is hard to find the piece when you need it in a hurry. If they come after me for copyright violations, I will take this down.

India’s debt to Savarkar
Thursday, May 29, 2008

Second opinion: Priyadarsi Dutta

His Irish admirers fondly misspelt him as ‘Sawarkar’, and politely declined to make amends when Shyamji Krishna Verma, his sponsor in England, clarified the point. It was difficult for his readers to imagine him without invoking imageries of war. His pen, dipped in blood, breathed so much fire that it was a wonder that “why the paper did not burn”. In those days, India’s freedom movement was not stricken with the phthisis of non-violence and obsessive compulsive disorder of Hindu-Muslim unity introduced by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, whose 125th birth anniversary was marked on May 28, was 14 years junior to Gandhi. But he was years ahead of him on many counts. He set the goal of absolute independence for India in 1900; Gandhi asked for it in 1929. He performed a bonfire of foreign clothes in 1905, during the movement against Bengal’s partition, an idea emulated by Gandhi for his noncooperation movement.

India could have been spared of its emasculation had it abided by Savarkarite clarity rather than Gandhian absurdities. To Savarkar, as he succinctly put down in his last book, Six Glorious Chapters of Indian History, no nation could aspire for civilisational greatness without acquiring military strength.

Savarkar lived to see the vindication of his proposition in contemporary India. Gandhi’s policy of pacifism failed to buy peace with Muslims, leading to carnages and expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan. Jawaharlal Nehru’s dream of “talking his way to leadership of the world”, and forging Hindi-Chini brotherhood through slogans failed badly. Slapped hard by China, he was exposed for what he was — a meek leader of a Third World country.

Independent India scarcely realises the greatest debt it owes to Savarkar; turning a Muslim dominated Indian Army into a predominantly Hindu-Sikh Army with his whirlwind recruitment drive during World War II. If it were otherwise, Pakistan, even after partition, would have 60 per cent to 70 per cent of soldiers, enough to overwhelm West Bengal, East Punjab, threatening Delhi, let alone much talked about Jammu & Kashmir.

Author: Atanu Dey


45 thoughts on “India’s Debt to Veer Savarkar”

  1. “The IITs are a prime example of [India’s pathetic education system]. But I will go into why the IITs have been a curse to India later.” — Are we there yet? I can’t wait…

    Nice post. The fraction of middle class Indians who believe reform is still possible by throwing more resources at India, but without ruffling feathers, stepping on toes, or some considerable bloodshed, is surprisingly large. The truth is that reform has become impossible without beating up a large number of crooks. Otherwise, they have elaborate pipelines to siphon off any amount of resource you pump in.

    The above holds even within the relatively idyllic confines of universities, even IIXs.

    We need to hurry or the crooks will actually outnumber the crook-beaters soon.


  2. Independent India scarcely realises the greatest debt it owes to Savarkar; turning a Muslim dominated Indian Army into a predominantly Hindu-Sikh Army with his whirlwind recruitment drive during World War II.

    40 years after asking for “absolute independence for India” Savarkar was leading a recruitment campaign for the British Empire during WWII?! WTF!

    Not that that’s the only inconsistent bit in this extremely tawdry article but considering that that the author hasn’t even bothered to provide sources, it’ll be a waste of breathe to even point them out.


  3. “what I should really call the British Government 2.0 which started off with faux Britisher Jawaharlal Nehru at the helm”

    …I think you are being kind when you put the current and former Independent India Administrationst in the same basket as the British Raj.
    Atleast the British were reformers and they introduced the idea of a pan India. On the other hand Con-Raj has introduced nothing but extreme poverty, illiteracy, millions of teeming slums and denial of freedom.
    Ofcourse you cannot ignore the cruelties during the British Raj (Jalianwalla Bag, Divide and Rule etc) – but the Con-Raj is surely guilty of way more atrocities by way of denial of freedom to its own people..
    Other than that this article is a little boring – you are fast becoming the fat boorish man in the party…we come to read you because we are all alike – but lets stop the acidity and talk about changes shall we?


  4. An interesting article! People generally get what they deserve. As long as they are happy in the hands of such rulers who dance to the tune of foreign intervention, thats what they will get. I think, as people, we are too selfish – No wonder, we get such leaders! Democracy makes sure that we get what we deserve. I am yet to read in detail about the contribution of Veer Sarvarkar. Thanks for encouraging me to do so…

    Destination Infinity


    @Atanu : This blog post of yours copied word to word.

    @GD People don’t even have an idea that they are being looted. That things have been going like this from the beginning. Today the youth population is so large in India and they don’t have clue to why the country is in this quagmire. Just have a look at the history books — trumpeting the Non-achievements of Congress and Nehru-Gandhi. And I believe redundancy and repetition helps while pointing out the bad policies of politicians.


  6. Agreed, many greats like Netaji Bose, Veer Savarkar, Shaheed Bhagat Singh and others haven’t received proper coverage in our schools’ history text books. They were true freedom fighters, but their stance is portrayed as “wrong” compared to the non-violent struggle championed by certain others, which takes up majority of the history syllabus.

    How did the “Yankees” get their independence from the empire, it was by fighting a war! And they’re damn proud of this fact, every American kid knows it growing up. Whereas young Indians are taught about civil disobedience, and self-reliance. These concepts might be in sync with our Hindu beliefs of self-sacrifice, but to gain your independence you must fight some battles. Our eventual freedom from the empire was all played out by politics, not a war.

    The revolutions we are seeing today in the middle-eastern countries, are civil disobedience movements. That’s the most these “struggles” will get you, you’ll drive out the present government, but what you’re left with is politicking over who gets to rule. When you drive out an enemy forcefully, the triumphant will be swift in their post victory moves and take charge. Our “leaders” let the massacres of Hindus and Muslims happen, over and over again, because while the populous was being torn apart by poltics, these guys were enjoying a free run.

    So unfortunately our people have been misled, and continue to blindly vote for more misfortune. The people who replaced the “raj” were not very different from them themselves, having deep control over the system such that our misery continues. To drive them out we need a revolution, we need to put into practice what has been learnt in those books and replace these blood-suckers with some real leaders. Some fighters, who can inspire, motivate, instill confidence and evoke pride. Not old men who seem to worry more about matching the colour of their turbans with “madam’s” sari!

    A WSJ revolution index ( puts India at no. 14, just behind Libya at 13. Hopefully, we’re next.


  7. Yes I just read the letters of Savarkar written from Adaman prison. Savarkar was intelligent, handsome and brave, a man who could see beyond his time, a type of person that India does not produce too often. One has to read what the man wrote and not rumors by Congress designed to denigrate him. And he was a real reformer and did not care for caste and amongst the first to eradicate untouchability, not like Nehru who was liberal in front of cameras but quite different when it came to his own family. It is so sad to read about his life because he suffered a lot for the sake of India, but his country does not honor him as he deserves. He was the fist to understand that a nation has to be clear about what it stands for and what its identity is before it can attain to any greatness…A far superior man to Gandhi in every way…


  8. I forgot to add that while Savarkar was above caste and all that he was deeply rooted in our culture. This is why he is different from Nehru who has a very shallow understanding of his culture. His favorite book was Kipling’s Kim, that should tell you something, the taste of a teenager…


  9. Atanu,

    Reading the complete works of Sawarkar made me his great admirer. If he had done nothing except writing poetry he could have easily become a great poet.

    He was an atheist, however not like the jholawallahs. He was a social reformer who worked hard to unite all castes. He was linguists. He had senses that time that the major disadvantage with Indian languages is that their large character set. He proposed several changes to the way we write the script so that all letters can be just fit into 26-30 keys.

    He embraced death through “prayovepashan”.


  10. In the article from the Daily Pioneer that you quote, the writer says that the British Indian Army was predominantly Muslim and that Savarkar helped correct the imbalance. Could you provide any further information as to where this proportion of Muslims and Non-muslims was obtained from? From what I’ve read and heard, the British Indian Army was two-thirds Hindu and the rest Muslim, with the officer corps consisting mostly of Britishers and Hindus, which explains why Pakistan employed so many British officers on contract till around 1951 to make up for the shortage of mid-level and senior officers.

    Also, could you point to where I can get more information about this ‘recruitment drive’ that Savarkar undertook ?



  11. The recruitment drive was because Savarkar wanted Indians to learn how to fight, he thought it would be good for them to be exposed to the war in order to acquire military experience which they were lacking…He was an atheist yes but not in the Western sense as being opposed to religion, he was atheist in the sense of it being one of the philosophical schools of Hinduism. India’s conservative party does not have educated visionary leaders like this anymore…I was reading Freedom at Midnight recently. It is amazing how much we have been reading our history written by Weserners. The book describes Savarkar as a “fanatic” and is full of praise for Gandhi and supports every single one of his idiosyncracies…Best to read Savarkar’s writings for itself and not to read second hand sources…He was not a “fanatic”; on the contrary the true liberal unlike Nehru the liberal in front of cameras. Also the British always gave trouble to Savarkar and jailed him quickly because they realized he was dangerous as far they were concerned, they were lenient towards Gandhhi and Nehru as they did not pose a threat to them like Savarkar…


  12. Hello Atamu!,
    I closely follow your blog. But surprisingly, this article by The Daily Pioneer tells very less about Savarkar.His contribution is very undoubtedly significant but should have chosen a better article to point out.


  13. “40 years after asking for “absolute independence for India” Savarkar was leading a recruitment campaign for the British Empire during WWII?! WTF!”

    If you had bothered to read Savarkar you would have already known the answer.

    Savarkar did not bring this up at WWII but had written about it much earlier but WWII was when he first had the chance to put it into practice.

    He wanted Hindus to get military training so that later the same trained soldiers could be used against Britain, the other reason for his promotion of this was that he realized Muslim over representation in the British army of that time.

    Many ungrateful brats like you have no idea what he went through in the Andamans.

    By the way a less well known fact is that unlike Gandhi’s periodic fasts unto death Savarkar did it for real near the end of his life when he gave up food and drink because he realized that he was getting old and wanted to go out on his own.

    In a speech on Azad Hind Radio (June 25, 1944) Netaji acknowledged Savarkar’s foresight in these words: “When due to misguided political whims and lack of vision, almost all the leaders of Congress party have been decrying all the soldiers in Indian Army as mercenaries, it is heartening to know that Savarkar is fearlessly exhorting the youths of India to enlist in armed forces. These enlisted youths themselves provide us with trained men and soldiers for our Indian National Army”

    Source: Balbir K. Punj Subhas vs Savarkar. 2002. The Asian Age, May 20, 2002


  14. It is a divine inspiration that everyone should join in a battle for defending the country’s freedom. Vitality of a Nation is its political independence. Once this is achieved, the nation is prepared to progress. It all depends on necessary physical and mental training of its youngsters. But many short-sighted leaders ignore this training. The weak will not survive in this world. Every nation needs to raise such ‘National Youth Armies.’ It is very easy to do. And what are we doing in India? Playing cricket!!

    28 September 1906

    Also check the link sky provided to see my point about Muslim over representation in the British Indian Army. They were only about 23% of Akhand Bharat but in the army they were nearly 37%.

    Here is Savarkar in his own words:

    Now I ask you all whether you could have ever been able to bring about such rapid militarization and industrialization of the country within a year out of your own sources ? Could have the Hindu Mahasabha or the Congress or any such public organization ever been able to recruit, train and equip half a million of our men and send them to learn real fighting on the field on the strength of its own resourses ? And even if you had aimed to do so, would the British Government have ever allowed you to do so ? We could not have conducted even lathi clubs on such a large scale. Even last year were we not as alive to the urgency of militarization of our Hindu people ? But were we not unable even last year even to run half a dozen institutions to impart military education even to a few hundred Hindu youths ? And now that the war has opened out an opportunity for us to send hundreds of thousands of Hindus to the army, the navy, the air services and to get them fully trained, equipped and armed as up-to-date soldiers and commanding officers and for building shipyards, aeroplane factories, gun factories, ammunition factories and get thousands of our mechanics trained into war technical experts,-hall we turn our back on all these facilities, refuse to join the army or to decline to participate in the manufacture of our materials simply because some fools will call it a co-operation with the Government or some booby will curse it as an act of violence ? If we do so we shall but deserve even ourselves to be bracketed with the fool and the booby…

    Of all courses open to us at present, I emphatically recommend to you this course : that the Hindus can best utilise the war situation by helping on their part the militarization and industrialization of India which the British on their side are also eager to effect for their own interests. And again, just think of the fact, that even if you Hindus refuse to join the army or the navy or the air force or the factories of war materials, the only immediate result will be that the Moslems will get into the saddle and instead of weakening the British Government you will find that you have strengthened a second enemy who is no less bent upon subjecting you to helotage in your own land…

    Again, what is the alternate programme to one adopted by the Hindu Mahasabha ? Shouting some slogans and going into the jail ? I appreciate the motive of those patriotic men in the Congress; I sympathise with their sufferings. But I must plainly state, that they have made a mess of all political movements and the Satyagraha they have now launched can bring no subatantial good to the country. It is to some extent useful and was perhaps meant to serve as a stunt for the next elections. Are the Hindu Sanghatanists going to adopt a counter-stunt ? We would have been justified in doing that too. But the Hindu Mahasabha as an organization cannot do the two things at one and the same time. If it participates in the war efforts with a view to reap the most subatantial benefits in militarizing the Hindus, and allies itself with the Government to that extent, it cannot as an organization take to any civil resistance to the Government, which act will directly prove detrimental to our first and greater objective. You cannot both eat and have the cake. Of course, the Hindu Mahasabha can resort to Civil Resistance, if the issue is more profitable than the two great objective which it seeks to gain, viz. militarization and industrialization…

    If the programme, most beneficial under the present circumstances of participating in the war efforts with the two objectives mentioned above, is likely to suffer by civil resistance on issues which do not serve the Hindu interests in any substantial manner and if the elections could only be won by any such harmful means, itis our clear duty to lose the elections rather than try to win them by pandering to the folliesof the electorate to the detriment of the Hindu cause. The Nizam Civil Resistance movement affords a sufficient and the latest proof to convince any sensible electorate that the Hindu Mahasabhaits are even braver than the Congressites even if going to jail is to be taken as the only test of bravery and patriotism. The thousands of Hindu Sanghatanists who braved ‘Lathi Mars’ in the Nizam jails can surely stand the ‘Laddu Mar’ in the A, B, and even the C class in the British jails standing shoulder to shoulder with their Congressite co-sufferrers. If the Hindu Sanghatanists were only out to win elections with a view to form ministries and gain pelf and power, they could have very easily done it by changing a cap as so many other people have done it…

    Click to access hindu-rashtra-darshan-en-v002.pdf

    I have only pasted parts of his long speech on this issue, the full speech can be read at the above link.


  15. We denounce you doctrine of absolute non-violence not because we are less saintly but because we are more sensible than you are. Relative non-violence is our creed and therefore, we worship the defensive sword as the first saviour of man. It was in this faith that Hindus worship the arms as the Symbols of the Shakti, the Kali, and Guru Govindsingh sang his hymn to the Sword. सुखसंताकरणम् दम􀁛ितहरणमु् खलदलदलनम् जयतेगम् ।।And we also join with the great Guru in the refrain and sing with him, ‘Hail Thee, Sword.’

    It goes then without saying that the Hindu Sanghatanist actuated by such a faith can never associate with the Gandhist ‘Satyagraha’ which demands freedom to preach this immoral principle of absolute non-violence condemning all armed resistance even to alien aggression, as it is highly detrimental to our Hindu interests in particular.

    Thus after taking stock of all other courses and factors for and against us, I feel no hesitation in proposing that the best way of utilizing the opportunities which the war has afforded to us cannot be any other than to participate in all war efforts which the Government are compelled by circumstances to put forth in so far as they help in bringing about the militarization and industrialization of our people.

    It was only a few Hindu Mahasabhait leaders like our revered Dr. Moonje and Bhai Paramanand who were trying their best to counteract the senseless policy of the Congress owing to which the Hindus alone had to suffer and lose whatever numerical strength they had in the army. Not only that the sophistical teaching of the so-called Satyagraha creed sought to kill the very martial instinct of the Hindu race and had succeeded to an alarming extent in doing so. That was the reason why throughout my tours as the President of the Hindu Mahasabha I made it my duty to put this point above all others and tried my best to give a fillip to military awakening amongst the Hindus by addressing thousands and thousands of Hindu youths from Punjab to Madras with no negligible success. But I was always at a loss to know how we Hindu Sanghatanists can find immediate ways and means to impart to our young Hindu generation the practical and up-to-date military training. Just then the war broke out and the British Government, to serve their own interests, were compelled to raise new military forces in India on a large scale…

    In examining these results we must bear in mind that the British are raising these Military forces and encouraging industrial development so far as it helps their war efforts with no altruistic motives of helping the Indians. They are doing whatever they have to do to help themselves. We are also participating in these war efforts or at any rate are not out to oppose them, with no intention of helping the British but of helping ourselves. I have put the situation almost bluntly in the above manner to disarm the political folly into which the Indian public is accustomed to indulge in thinking that because Indian interests are opposed to the British interests in general, any step in which we join hands with the British Government must necessarily be an act of surrender, anti-national, of playing into the British hands and that co-operation with the British Government in any case and under all circumstances is unpatriotic and condemnable. It is all the more amusing to find that this spirit of silly bravado is more rampant amongst those very Congressites who did not hesitate to serve the British Government by conducting their Provincial Ministries swearing loyalty and allegiance to the British Domination in the oath of allegiance which they had to take; who wept over the fancied destruction of Westminster Abbey, only the other day and had served the British Government as their recruiting officers during the last war and are even now promising full co-operation to the British, if but they get some of their fadist demands satisfied and assure the British that they would do nothing even as it is to embarrass the British…

    But the Hindu Sanghatanists at any rate must realise the difference between a senseless bravado and real act of bravery. As I have explained above in para ( c) how in practical politics, alliances are to be based on any point of common interests in spite of the fact of the conflict in all other interests between the allied parties. Who can say that Hitler or Stalin can be wanting in bravery or can be silly enough to play into the other’s hand and yet did not both of them join in alliance, in spite of their opposing interests on all other points, as soon as they found that their mutual interests coalesced on some points during this war?

    Click to access hindu-rashtra-darshan-en-v002.pdf

    The hallowed Gandhi and Congress launched Quit India campaign achieved almost none of its goals, led to many deaths but was dead as a doormat once the British supressed it.


  16. Julian,

    Many ungrateful brats like you have no idea what he went through in the Andamans.

    No ad hominem please. And I do know that the conditions in Andaman were nothing to be sneezed at. In fact, so bad were they that a broken and contrite Savarkar appealed for clemency multiple times from the British government. So desperate was he to get out that he promised to “abhor methods of violence” (so much for “denouncing the doctrines of absolute non-violence”) and swore “loyalty to the English government”. True to his word, after that, he gave up all campaigns, violent or not, against the British. 🙂

    Savarkar did not bring this up at WWII but had written about it much earlier but WWII was when he first had the chance to put it into practice.

    How convenient that the only theatre that Savarkar got to put his plan into practise was the British Indian Army so that these Indians could fight (and get killed) for the freedom of Europeans! But maybe he was just living up his promise of being loyal to the British Empire. One has to always admire a man who keeps his word. Wonder why Bose never followed this logic and merged his INA with Britain’s forces!

    Of course, that “speech” by Bose is a hoot! Bose was championing on the efforts of Savarkar which was helping to swell the numbers of His Majesty’s forces which in turn were combatants of his own Azad Hind Fauj! Predictably, the only source you have is a newspaper article by Punj.


  17. Actually the speech by Bose is quoted in multiple books which you would have known if you had done your research.

    Here is another source:

    Two great Indian revolutionaries: Rash Behari Bose & Jyotindra Nath Mukherjee by Uma Mukherjee, pg. 160, 1966.

    By the way it was for Bose’s INA that Savarkar’s book on 1857 was translated into Tamil for the numerous Tamil recruits of INA. Bhagat Singh had earlier brought out the third edition in Panjabi and Urdu.

    You seem to forget that Gandhi helped recruit soldiers both for the Anglo-Boer war and WW1 but that never seems to raise questions about his loyalty to India for our “secularists”.

    Going by your “logic” Shivaji must have been intensely loyal to Aurangzeb because of all the promises he made when he submitted lol.


  18. “How convenient that the only theatre that Savarkar got to put his plan into practise was the British Indian Army so that these Indians could fight (and get killed) for the freedom of Europeans!”

    Where else would he put into practice numbskull?

    Was there another major power willing to enlist millions of Indian’s to get trained in military matters?

    If so what country was this?

    And like the genius you are you seem to forget that it was also a way to counteract Muslim overrepresentation in the army.

    WW2 wasn’t just about European “freedom” too numbskull, if Hitler had won you think he would have freed India?

    Do read what Hitler thought of Indian’s and British occupation over India.

    If otoh Savarkar had asked Hindus to go join the Axis powers the same “secular” lobby would cite that as evidence for his Nazism.

    Hey at least Savarkar for all his disagreements with Congress didn’t go sabotage and spy on fellow freedom fighters the way those patriotic commies did during Quit India and continue to do so today for China.

    Here is what Aurobindo thought of Hitler:

    “No, it is not a matter to laugh at. It is a very serious matter. … If these people want that the Ashram should be dissolved, they can come and tell me and I will dissolve it instead of the police doing it. They have no idea about the world and talk like children. Hitlerism is the greatest menace that the world has ever met—if Hitler wins, do they think India has any chance of being free? It is a well-known fact that Hitler has an eye on India. He is openly talking of world-empire….


  19. There was in fact another freedom fighter who was subjected to similar torture though for a shorter period of time. He too wrote petitions.

    “VOC, languishing in prison, was left to fend for himself. His young wife, Meenakshi Ammal followed him — almost single-handedly organising the logistics of his appeals — from the Tirunelveli sub jail to the Coimbatore and Kannur central jails, where he spent his term. In those “pre-Non Cooperation days”, when there was no category of political prisoners, he did hard (convict) labour. VOC was even made to work the oil mill, depicted so poignantly in a poem by his friend Subramania Bharati. In prison he continued a clandestine correspondence, maintaining a stream of petitions going into legal niceties and giving evidence against them in a jail outbreak.

    When he stepped out of prison in late December 1912, after a high court appeal had reduced his prison sentence, the huge crowds present on his arrest were conspicuously absent. Probably externed from his native Tirunelveli district, he moved to Chennai with his wife and two young sons. Having been convicted for sedition, he had lost his pleadership sanad, thus depriving him of his livelihood. The Swadeshi Steam Navigation Company had collapsed, having been liquidated in 1911. His family had lost all its wealth and property in his legal defence, the public subscriptions for his defence fund being too paltry.

    Never really recovering from the penury caused by his prison life — he tried his hand at selling provisions, worked as a clerk in Coimbatore and for a few years after regaining his pleadership sanad, practised in the Kovilpatti court which by his own admission was only enough to meet his “betel leaves and areca nut expenses”. This however did not come much in the way of his public life.

    “He came out of prison a broken man, without money, without a Bar licence, with few others at the time showing the same zeal for freedom he had done, and banned from returning to Tinnevelly. He settled in Madras, offered advice to labour welfare organisations, and continued to play a role in the Indian National Congress he had joined in 1905, but his heart was not in it and he passed away in Tuticorin on November 18, 1936.

    According to resident armchair cyber warrior “Hades” VOC Pillai must have been no hero at all!

    Say that in Tamilnadu and see the reaction.

    While Gandhi’s grandsons continue to rake in money peddling his name and the ruling family which took the Gandhi surname are living like royalty, descendants of many of these freedom fighters are in penury. Savarkar’s grandson has been found begging on the streets.

    In their own lifetimes they were reduced to poverty, Bipin Chandra Pal died in poverty just like VOC Pillai.

    In Savarkar’s own family his 2 other brothers were also freedom fighters. In 1909 his elder brother Babarao/Ganesh Savarkar was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Andamans along with forfeiture of his entire property. Partly to avenge this Anant Kanhere, Krishnaji Karve and Vinayak Deshpande assassinated the British officer Jackson with a pistol sent by VD Savarkar from London, they were hung. In 1910 Narayanrao Savarkar the youngest brother was sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment, VD Savarkar was arrested in 1910 and sentenced to Transportation for Life in 1911. In 1918 Yesuvahini Babarao Savarkar’s wife died without seeing her husband which was her last wish, with the arrest of the three brothers she was reduced to penury and her health began to fail. It was 3 days after her death that a letter finally came from the Andaman saying that the British had no objection to her seeing her husband. Babarao was finally released in 1922 on a stretcher near death, its another matter that he survived and lived till 1945.

    Most people don’t know this but after Godse shot Gandhi Congress goons attacked and killed several Chitpavan Brahmins (Godse’s caste) much like they massacred Sikhs after Indira’s death. It was in one of these mob attacks on the Savarkar residence that Narayanrao the youngest was severely beaten, he never recovered fully and died in 1949.


  20. perhaps after all savarkar was not at fault, it was his proponents who said they had the sole dealership of his ideas….they went on to do things this country is ashamed to tell the world, example, sons of soil arguments in Maharashtra, crap that thing destroyed the indutrial base it was and the commercial center it was…u have quoted the Dialy Pioneer…didnt knw they spoke the truth, the only truth and truth alone, without any referances, it seems to me like the article was similar to wat is written abt gandhi and nehru in the text books….sometimes prejudice blinds the greatest of the mind, and blunts the critical thiking tht finds no logic in blasphemy…


  21. shshsh
    “perhaps after all savarkar was not at fault…”

    Perhaps? Perhaps? What was his fault? Why does he have to be linked with the actions of people he is not responsible for? People like you should read what he wrote and then you can understand the man, but people who have not read a single word are quick to form opinions. It was after reading Gandhi’s autobiography written by the man himself, that I came to feel disgust, what a self-centered man with so many complexes, a man I could not relate to at all or see as a leader or comprehend how people could follow such a one…His only saving grace was that he was very, very determined….


  22. Julian,

    You seem to forget that Gandhi helped recruit soldiers both for the Anglo-Boer war and WW1 but that never seems to raise questions about his loyalty to India for our “secularists”.

    Firstly, there was a comparison being made about Gandhi and Savarkar about who asked for purna swaraj first from the British. Ergo, to raise Savarkar’s demand from 1900 as a data point is absurd because ever since his release from Anadaman Savarkar was staunchly pro-British and there is no record of any anti-government activity for Savarkar neither in thought nor deed after his release.

    Your point about Gandhi is of course correct but superfluous to this discussion. And if you think that Gandhi was secular you either do not know the meaning of the word or have little knowledge of Gandhi’s methods. Theoretically speaking, Savarkar was more “secular” than Gandhi. That does not mean to whitewash the formers blatantly racist theories but just follows from the definition of the word ‘secular’. Hitler was pretty secular, as well, come to think about it.

    Where else would he put into practice numbskull?

    If someone had asked Bose this question, what answer do you think he’d have given? Or Bhagat Singh? Or the Hindu revolutionary groups in Bengal? Savarkar recruited for the British Empire because he wanted to help the British. All this talk of inculcating the martial spirit by a man who swore in writing to “abhor methods of violence” (and stuck to his promise) is nothing but a load of claptrap.

    Going by your “logic” Shivaji must have been intensely loyal to Aurangzeb because of all the promises he made when he submitted lol.

    If he had stuck to his promises till his or Auranzeb’s death then yes Shivaji would have been “intensely loyal to Aurangzeb”. But Shivaji did not. Savarkar OTOH scrupulously stuck to his promise of loyalty to the British and did not launch any anti-government activity neither in thought nor deed after his release. After his release he was just a pawn that the English played in in their communal game, sending Hindus soldiers to their deaths in service of the British Empire being a prominent example.


  23. I’m not a fan of Nehru, and I am a fan of Savarkar because, as a Hindu, his message still has a lot of relevance for me. I remember, some 20 years ago, I got out of having to consume ‘panchgavya’ by quoting Savarkar’s opposition to the practice (guess which of the 5 products he found unsavory!)
    However, Savarkar was quite willing to embrace ‘Socialism’ if that would make India strong. This is not a black mark against him because he had been completely marginalized and was way out of the loop.
    But this was Gandhi’s fault. He used ‘khaddar’ as a way to drive any independent person with their own following out of Congress and into the wilderness.
    Nehru got his promotion precisely because he was a supine fellow with no critical intelligence. Why blame the West for Nehru? Aurobindo was a far greater master of English as well as Greek, Latin, Philosophy, Law etc. But Aurobindo was ready to take up arms and give his life in the struggle. This is very different from saying- you are welcome to beat me to death, I will never raise a finger- why? Because, then the policeman who did the beating will be accused of having destroyed the property of the King- i.e. a source of tax revenue has been chopped down. Some bureaucrat will say- did you need to beat him all the way to death? Why not just make his cry a little? So what if he wanted to do a little hand spinning or whatever? These animals should be treated with kindness otherwise they will stop giving milk.
    BTW, Gokhale may not have gone to England for studies but his mastery of English, Statistics, Economics, Law, Parliamentary procedure etc, exceeded that of the great Q.C’s and Ministers of the period. Curzon scoffed at this young ‘Maths Professor’ but he changed his tune after meeting him. The point about Tilak was that he showed what Indians can do on their own. But, if so, why would they need the British?
    Gandhi had the answer. He showed that Indians were cowardly stupid and absolutely in love with the idea of remaining as dirty, ignorant, stupid and rustic as possible. Every time a Britisher negotiates with Gandhi, he gets to look good. People say- ah! the spiritual greatness of the British is revealed by their not giving this half naked monkey two tight slaps!
    Gandhi’s cleverness has never been properly appreciated. But it was a purely selfish cleverness. At least Nehru wanted his daughter to have some sort of life. Gandhi wanted to tyrannize over everybody.
    Why blame Nehru for being a stupid guy whose Dad sent him ‘phoren’ for education because (vide. Wolpert) he’d have turned into a typical ‘banka’- including being a catamite- if he’d stayed at home. After failing his ‘Matric’ for the third time, he’d have been married off before his nose collapsed from tertiary syhpilis and nothing more would have been heard of him.
    Nehru’s fault is not that he was stupid and initially misled but that he persisted in a suicidal policy even after its folly had been spelt out to him. But the fact that he stuck with Gandhi was sufficient proof that he was not fit to lead. Why blame the little man?
    Ireland is an example of a country which embraced very stupid policies after independence- similar to Indian nuttiness. The spent billions on promoting the gaelic language which only upper middle class professionals know hot to read(most of their mummies and daddies were part of the political elite).
    The Irish working class aren’t stupid and they can be extremely aggressive. But they cowed their working class by telling them that their ancestral language (which they didn’t know) was the best and their ancestral religion (which kept them poor, drunk and wretched) was the best and so on.
    Okay, Ireland did start doing well over the last twenty or 30 years but the idiotic nationalist parties utterly ruined the country running up massive debts.
    My fear is that India is seeing a sort of de facto break up and that corrupt kleptocratic chauvinists like the DMK in Tamil Nadu will simply enrich themselves by saddling their own people with debts that can’t be repaid.


  24. Larissa,

    Has it occurred to you that the problem was not Savarkar? Brave men can only lead men not eunuchs…

    I might disagree with the RSS/Sangh Parivar/Abhinav Bharti and their antediluvian policies but calling them eunuchs might be counter-productive. 🙂


  25. Has it occurred to you that the problem was not Savarkar?

    And Savarkar was neither part of the problem nor the solution. In fact he was a pretty much a nobody ever since his release from prison and he had almost no part to play in the Freedom Movement (as per his promise to the British). This Savarkar resurgence we see now is more a function of today’s politics than being based on any historical facts per se.

    Don’t be surprised if no one here on this board can provide a proper reference in order to back this recruitment drive of his and its effect, if any, on the composition of the British Indian Army.


  26. Hades,
    No Indians are so intelligent, they produce men like Savarkar and get ruled by Nehru and his offspring. Even his daughter in law who can barely speak the language or ever went to college or held a job gets to rule them. And the very best for this mentality, may her son and his hispanic girlfriend also rule them, is this not great, the mentality that allows for this? Yes you are a part of that eunuch mentality so it is useless arguing with people like you, as eunuchs cannot understand what genuine freedom consists in…
    Savarkar got jailed because he was a real threat to the British, Gandhi and Nehru toed their line and the British did not deal harshly with them…How could a man like Nehru whose favorite book was Kipling’s Kim be a threat, a man whose who barely understood his own culture juding from his superficial book The Discovery of India?
    Savarkar is popular today because people have begun to realize that everything he had predicted has become true…


  27. @Hades
    “Savarkar resurgence we see now is more a function of today’s politics than being based on any historical facts per se…”

    Its because intelligent Indians realize that Congress has ruined them since independence that they have begun to realize the vision of Savarkar. He stood for everything which is against what Congress and their cronies stood for…And associating Sarvarkar with people he was not responsible for is retarded and Congress has been cleverly trying to blacken his name through this tactic, people cannot be fooled by such rhetoric anymore, they have access to information and facts…they are getting smart and much to your dislike, I would not be surprised if Sarvarkar might gradually be resurrected and his contributions recognized, you cannot hide the truth for too long ultimately…


  28. @Hades

    “Don’t be surprised if no one here on this board can provide a proper reference in order to back this recruitment drive of his and its effect, if any, on the composition of the British Indian Army.”

    Yes you can’t find the positive “effects” of all kinds of schemes and politics that Congress says is designed to “help” the nation as well, I cannot find such effects since independence, can you? I will not be surprised if neither you or anyone can find positive “effects” of these things, it is pointless arguing with fools like you…


  29. @Hades,
    I see you have digested the contrived history syllabus at school quite well that your masters have set up for your edification…Sorry to speak negatively of your Cha Cha…but we believe in facts not fiction!


  30. Yes you can’t find the positive “effects” of all kinds of schemes and politics that Congress says is designed to “help” the nation as well, I cannot find such effects since independence, can you?

    Larissa, this is beyond ridiculous. The Congress’ schemes, good or bad, have nothing to do with the fact that there are no proper reference in order to back this recruitment drive of S’s and its effect, if any, on the composition of the British Indian Army. If you have no cogent points to make then, like Julian, it’d be better if you kept quite, with all due respect.


  31. Hades,
    I am just showing your mode of reasoning is irrelevant as you do not make any point…Savarkar’s popularity I think can only grow as people recognize he was right about most things…


  32. I find the causal link you draw between being “right” and popularity most interesting.

    Based on popularity, I doubt Savarkar would even make it to a top 50 of India’s Historical figures (not surprising given that we didn’t have a squeak out of the man after his release from prison–a point which just about makes we burst with irony when Savarkar of all people goes about inculcating martial spirit in other people). Most probably, Gandhi would be the most popular, which, going by your logic, is because people have recognised that he was “right about most things”? Or does your model only apply to people that you are already biased towards? Nehru would be fantasically popular as well as would be Bhagat Singh and Bose. Come to think of it, I quite like your model. 🙂

    Anyway, I’m off. If you ever get the time, do try and read up a bit of Savarkar’s own work. I pity you if after that you still end up admiring the man.

    P.S: A good guide to political morals: I know most of it might seem radical but it’ll surprise you to know that this was adopted while Savarkar was alive.


  33. Hades,
    What exactly are you setting out to prove? When I say popular, you know very well that I mean among those Indians who read. I grew to like Savarkar from his writings, he was a brave, perceptive and intelligent man, just as my dislike of Gandhi began after I read his biography, not from what I have been taught reagarding the man.
    Contrary to what you think Savarkar was a true “liberal” thoroughly grounded in our culture…Actually his ideas might be too radical for the fake ‘liberals’ out there…


  34. Dear Mr Dey,

    I have been an admirer of Veer Savarkar since childhood. Loved the blog. Are you aware that Savarkar was also into poetry? There is one, which he wrote addressing the ocean that prevented him from embracing his motherland while studying abroad. The mangeshkars have set it to tune and the result is a beautiful song (It’s in Marathi). You could check out this link…


  35. Veer Savarkar was a visionary in the correct sence. His views on foreign policy, militarisation, adoption of latest warfare and equipments for Indian armed forces, his views on building our nation as srong and well equipped nation are legendary. He was treated very shabbily by our Govts under Congressrules, however Neharu paid heavy penalty because of his illconceived foreign policy and under preparation of military, due to which our nation had to suffer humilliating defeat in war against China in 1962. Tit for tat policies adopted by Smt Indira Gandhi against Pakistan and first step in this regard taken by Lalbahadur Shastriji was in a sense tribute to Veer Savarkar.


  36. True!! … I really regretted when i first came to know about Veer Savrkar’s whole life after competing my school and how i wasted my time in preparing for History exams with chapters of Gandhi and Nehru which all were wrongly pictured there. ….After 1947 it is British Government 2.0 ruling in India (indirect Modern Slavery) , India really needs to raise group of freedom fighters again to battle against these corrupt ruling politicans and caste system. and it will need to control over Indian Police force.


  37. It doesn’t have to be Gandhi vs Savarkar. It was the the needs and times of that era – when the nation was yet to be carved out of 8 provinces, and freedom struggle was largely limited to Greater Mumbai and Bengal, and it was all too easy for British to divide and rule. They have learned their lesson from 1857. I would recommend below article’s by Karl Marx to whoever is really interested in understanding India under British Rule, and how he could almost predict 1857.

    Almost all freedom fighters got enlightenment when they visited abroad; what Gandhi did different was that when he came back he travelled across India, and his that effort helped him understand what divides it and what can be done to unite it. He actually choose a smart path, a path that could unite India; without alarming British right-way – as you could see how they went after each episode of agression after 1857, one of which was actually reason for Savarkar sent to Andaman.

    Lot can be learned about Gandhi from the words he choose to describes his mentor:

    “Gokhale as an admirable leader and master politician, describing him as pure as crystal, gentle as a lamb, brave as a lion and chivalrous to a fault and the most perfect man in the political field.”

    Under nonviolence, he could bring everybody together, with fear of savagery of war, muslims, women’s and children, all under the nose of British Empire. We must not forget that he supported the British recruitment of Indian soldier in 1914!

    What we call is minority appeasement – is actually minority fears, a bandage, and slow but sure path to bring them to mainstream, there is no alternative – if you taunt equality for all, there they go, because they don’t feel equal to start with!

    Had India been a country similar to 18th century US, with clear regions/country to fight for, and somewhat educated n equal people fighting the battle, Savarkar would have lead it’s freedom struggle!

    Where we are and what should we be doing now: As proud citizens of free India, the least we could do is pay tributes to all who got us here, from Savarkar to Gandhi and Netaji to Nehru; and try not to air efforts to divide India on their name!

    We did lot better than military oriented PAK; we are 3rd biggest economy, we didn’t choose outright socialism either – CHINA right now might look like USSR of 50s; but like UUSR they have instability in their DNA. I always felt proud to be an Indian, if you explore, everything is unique about us (i would recommend reading Swami Vivekananda works for greater understanding); yes we have our share of problems, starting with population growth and corruption; but all it will take now is little effort on our part, effort to spread the knowledge, find and do right, convince people around us to do right, and above all have a hope, and soon we will see it becoming even better country!


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: