Comparing V.D Savarkar and Bhagat Singh
It is considered incredibly trendy for snide leftists to mock Savarkar as a coward and/or a stooge of the British. And Bhagat Singh as genuine anti imperialist hero. The motivations for these are obvious. Savarkar is the intellectual and sipirital godfather of the Hindu Right while Bhagat Singh was avowed athiest and socialist quoted Lenin in a favorable manner. And yes truth be told the Hindu right hardly has any heroes that could be considered freedom fighters but what exactly does the left have apart from Gandhi and Nehru? who at best irritated the British Sardar Patel and Bose dont really fit into any neat paradigms at all . A fact which frustrates both the left and the right.
But what exactly did Bhagat Singh do? I am sorry to ask such rude questions about a beloved figure not just among the left but the right as well. But it has to be done. TLDR: he shot the wrong British guy in retaliation for the death of Lala Lajpat Rai. He was supposed to kill the chief of Police of Lahore James Scott but instead ended up killing John Saunders who while was still the Assistant Superintendent of police was still not the right target.He was later captured when he bombed a Delhi court house causing no deaths but some injuries. Apparently he didnt refuse to flee but shouted "Inquilaab Zindabad" . This version of events featuring this heroic though foolish action of Bhagat Singh does not add up. Honestly this guy does not seem to be vrey sharp at all. I think the pro revolutionary historians tried to mop up an even more foolish action of his and we are left this narrative. After all, he was in hiding after the assasination of Saunders. So suddenly he decided instead of carrying forward the revolution , that he would surrender?
Savarkar .while in London and set up a revolutionary house right in the lions den. Along with Madanlala Dhingra, VVS Iyer and others he managed to overtunr verdicts by threatening judges, assasinated a top diplomat Curzon Wylie who was aid to the Secretary of State to India and burned down a mill in Lancaster. Each of these actions are more admirable than every thing Bhagat Singh and his associates have done put together.
Savarkar was caught and when being transported on the way back to India to stand trial jumped ship through a porthole and swam to the island of Marseiles which was under French jurisdiction and pleaded for asylum (in French language which he learned in university) This was of course ultimately denied to him and he subsequently ended up in the notorious Kalapani. I actually saw a post by a leftist arguing that this attempt by Savarkar to escape was a form of cowardice. That is how deep the stupidity is seeped into the average leftist mind regarding anything to do with the Right.
Now I am sure Bhagat Singhs stay in jail was far from a pleasant one. And certainly he could plead for mercy ala Savarkar but it would have done any good as he was in considerable hot water as the situation was far more tense and British under a high degree of agitation compared to the time they arrested Savarkar. Also the French court was quite adamant that Savarkars arrest was made on flimsy pretenses and were quite against him being treated harshly. As at the time French were an allly of Britain (all that Napolean business was forgotten) Savarkar has some leeway on his side. Bhagat Singhs fate unlike Savarkars was sealed. The issue of mercy would not have risen up. And Singh was not tortured continuously which Savarkar was . One of the most vicious punishments meted out to him was where they would hang him by his hands for days on end and he would defecate on himself during this entire time.
It is amazing that these limp wristed effete leftists who likely traveled AC berth since the day they were born passing judgement on someone who gave so much of his life for his country. Bhagat Singh died and perhaps honorably. More on this perhaps later... But he died for what? Stupidly shooting the wrong guy, stupidly getting caught. And allowing himself to be used by communists and bolsheviks , possibly even the British who were encouraging communist literature as communists viewed the very notion of a country to be an abomination. Lenin preferred that Russia be defeated in WWI so that his revolution would be easier to implement.
It is not an assessment of ideologies. I find much of the views of both these men to foolish and destructive in their own right. What I do find amusing is that leftists who jump and down calling each and everyone who disagreed with them a fascist to go out of their way to claim Subhash Chandra Bose- the gentlement who made common cause with the Axis powers.
Thats a splash of cold water Bhagat Singh aficianados desparetly need I am afraid.
two observations on this article first one under congress so many years savarkar was not issue in school curriculum he was mentioned as freedom fighter after 2014 we see left demonising savarkar as british stooge seen he was projected as hero of freedom struggle etc
ReplyDeleteSavarkar was a dirty word not to be spoken in most history lessons. He was not mentioned in any school textbooks. I remember my sister first telling me about Savarkar in the early 90s as her history teacher told a group of students about him in hushed tones and his aforementioned actions as well as his views. They were spellbound that such a person existed.
DeleteSavarkar (and Hindutvas) popularity is really due to the internet era where such history could not be controlled anymore.
Now I dont care for these whatsapp lame history forwards such as Vikramadity conquering Russia and Mecca and what have you. However what is behind leftist scorn about whatsapp forward is really that they are losing the information war. In India perhaps the left has already lost the battle of Indian historgraphy among the population.
i agree with moonlife observations on savarkar, and like add problem is not with him signing mercy petition,or his dream of hindu nation what makes savarkar controversial is his latter statements such as him wanting hindus to join british army to fight non existent enemy islam who were themselves under colonial rule, qoute savarkar " We must stop complaining about this British officer or that officer, this law or that law. There would be no end to that. Our movement must not be limited to being against any particular law, but it must be for acquiring the authority to make laws itself. In other words, we want absolute independence.” he tired to sabotage Independence movement from within
ReplyDeletelastly from his statements we can conclude that he never wanted independent india he wanted british rule to act as buffer to prevent islamic rule he was ok with chrisitianity , he even advocated for creation of sikhistan to act as buffer state btw india and pakistan his absurd logic is akin to him suggesting to Han chinese that they must first fight against mongol invaders rather than to fight the occupation of japanese in manchuria during ww2 etc
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/Javedakhtarjadu/status/1448590252411539458?s=20&t=2eT8CuFMCLLWRethNhBsLA
Sorry deleted your previous comment by mistake. You mentioned Savarkar exhorting Hindus to join the British army to fight "non existent enemy Islam" (quotes mine). There was nothing non existent about Islams potency in that era
DeleteSavarkar said this around the late 30s, early 40s . By then the writing was on the wall, British's exit was only a matter of time. He was worried that Hindus on average had become weak and cowardly. (he was agreement with Gandhi on this) and hence military activity of any sort would have beneficial effect on virtues. Since the British army was the only game in town, he recommended that avenue
It is this negative of Hindu manhood that led to make foolish statements such as Sikhistan. However people are jumping on him as if he said this when he was the Prime minister of India.
Nehru had done far more damage to the prestige and self respect of the nation by dismissing loss of territory to China such as "nothing grows there anyway" than Savarkar had every done .
A loss of land is a humiliation and a stinging one in a country where land is sacred and it is the dream of average person to own a plot of land.
Restored the comment
DeleteIf he did "sabotage" it which he didnt, it was not his intention. Gandhi engaged in far more sabotage by signing up Indian troops for both world wars for mere verbal promises by the British which they broke anyway. The same crowd who bash Savarkar for this, even as he had far less appeal compared to Gandhi, turn a blind eye to Gandhis immense recruiting activities for the British.
Deleteone last point to b made here, that after gaining independence we would have settled the issue whether we wanted secular state or hindu state ,so savarkar demand was not practical as not many muslim left india after creation of bangladesh, later pakistan . population tranfer would have had to b made forcefully looking at repsonse for such demand by older genreation and thier acceptance of gandhi, nehru shows people didnt have such fear of islam , hindu being under threat from islam has been used later era for selfish electoral gains only there was never any intention to give equal rights to hindus, savarkar advicing hindus to fight islam insted of british and making a case for partition shows he didnt have clear vision .
DeleteThe point of this post is that Savarkar had contributed a lot more than a one time failed assasin and bomb plotting communist stooge Bhagat Singh. Do you agree ? If not, why not?
ReplyDeleteloss of manhood theory and need for avenue to gain martial training is flawed for couple of reasons jews had lived in exile for many centuries yet they were able to defeat 5 islamic nation simulatenously right after Independence chinese who endured centuries of humilation turning in to superpower, even defeating india in 1965 similar predicament can be observed in case of korea,germany etc
Deletewhat many try to allude is that gandhi was becoming infulential voice within hindu community so not many were comfartable with this idea ,what about rise of dalit movement, would the class struggle would have kept hindu united? there were many player during that era who wanted partition savarkar was among them for diffrent resaons, many dont speak about rivalry between raja hari singh and nehru due to which kashmir would have been lost
Deletepoint being islamic movement was sustained from within by many players to capture power after british left many freedom fighter had questionable intentions and flaws in approach bose wanted communist dictatorship like system and he was okay with muslim soliders, gandhi had diffrent vision, even sardar patel had diffrent vision etc
Deletei have heard equally a convincing arguement for nehru that given he did what was best to his of his ability in carrying forward india barring his failures in chinese war ,hindu laws which was due him trying project his image in west , look at the historical pic of Funeral Procession speaks of aprroval among masses
Deletehttps://twitter.com/IndiaHistorypic/status/1569339997807050752?s=20&t=SJPXMFU5ZYBETbPaNJmRJA
Hindu society is not a monolith as Hinduism is just an umbrella term of various sects who were historically at each others throats for a lot of their history. However since they werent Abrahamic there was still mutual respect and curiosity and amalgamation of dieties and beliefs.
DeleteI have seen documentaries of Dalits where upper caste hindus did not wish to accept them even as Hindus as they worshipped gods which they didnt recognize. It appears that the umbrella can cover only so many people at one time.
And yes Bose was Ok with Muslims. Merely OK. He was not particularly enthuastic about them as he recognized their anti Hindu tendencies and lack of patriotism. JAM is the best person to elaborate on this.
Bose preferred dictatorship and yes with an economy where the state was a major player but not to the extent of communism. He was of socialist inclination probably similar to Gamal Abdul Nasser and his various infrastructure projects
Deletekindly note iam not pro congressi/leftist , my point in all this we were never in postion to bargain assert anything in global stage since colonial era there many nuanices to arguments on freedom fighters nehru, gandhi , savarkar ambedkar etc all had best intentions on their own merit but they had their own flaws as well , we could not emulate sucess stories like chinese, korea, japan etc due to many society reasons as well
Deletei see u didnt publish my previous counter to comment u made about loss of manhood of hindu
DeleteI dont know which comment you are referring to. I posted all.
DeleteNehru was correct about reforming Hindu laws such as child marriage,ban on widow remarriage, ban on divorce and polygamy. A lot of those among the Hindu right such as Tilak wished to remain in the feudal era. Savarkar was the lone voice among the right who called for abolishment of regressive customs .Heck he even exhorted Hindus to eat beef.
DeleteKorea and Japan are very small countries with a homogenous population. Japan was modernizing 100 years before WWII. They had managed to defeat Russia in 1905 with their industrial might.
DeleteU.S helped rebuild both Japan and Korea not just with capital and security guarantees (thus freeing up defense budgets) but also with trade policies favorable to them.
China earned its own place in the world through discipline and focus after decades of horror after 30-50 million dead not just due to Japanese invasion but Maos famines and deaths squads.
India lacks the discipline and focus of Confucian nations due to lack of homogeniety, relatively lackadaisacal history since 1857 apart from a stray partition which affected only a part of northern India.
This sounds cruel and unPC but I have maintained that nations often progress after witnessing unprecendented horrors. Such as Europe after Black Death, 30 years war and now Rwanda is a success story after a horrific genocide. Historically man for man, Europeans were far more brutal and bloodthirsty than Africans. When they saw the error of their ways gradually and then finally (after WWII ,well until this Ukraine hysteria) then they became the most prosperous and peaceful nations on earth.
The west has to stop "helping" the Africans and let them learn lessons the hard way.
Similarly is a high intensity civil war the ticket for Indias track towards a superpower status(if it remains in one piece) . Who knows. But that is the most likely scenario.
re Jews and martial abilities
DeleteYour reasoning is flawed. The military ability of Israel didnt occur overnight. it was due to generations of European Jewish settlers who were encouraged by Zionists to pursue more physical ambitions rather being stereotypical bookish Jews. Also Jews were a small country which forced them to be tightly knit and have a survival instinct and consciousness about security that alarms visitors to this very day .
Their success in the 6 day involved a great degree of planning and preparation which lunk headed Indian generals and politicians are unable to do . Military ability is not simply running around with heavy sacks and calisthenics which too many ignorant Indians think guarantees victory. There is also planning, strategy,tactics policies, weapons, weapons systems, maintenance, coordination , logistics, ,transport, intelligence, diplomacy,international allies. And other non glamorous aspects to victory. In pretty much all of these Indian military is recieving a barely passing or failing grade. And U.S ,Israel,UK, France etc excel at these
We have seen what a pathetic situation the average Indian soldier is with using antiquated weapons and terrible food but we shout Jai Jawan Jai Kisan without thinking. How can such a country compare to any half serious power . Never mind Israel.
while i agree with ur analaysis but point out ,hindus and jews have one thing in common both had suffred under foreign occupation but jews had prophecy that they will return to the promise land so western evangalists funded zionist movement early ww2 made even strong case for it, they were histrorically merchant class and were exiled many times, so even if we negate western support them becoming military force to recokned with is huge tranformation ,modernsation helps win war but they cannot govern land without the help of local warlords as seen in afghn iraq etc
Deleteindia is unique case that after independence we gained large terriotry of land historically we never had since mughal era like andaman sikkim etc so inspite of many incompetence and selfish greed which led to partition we still mange to govern many territories though we make not make comparision to jews but certainly we are still hindus and even during savarkar era and b4 that many freedom fighters did put strong resisitance i disagree with savarkar theory that hindus were impotent and lack manhood
Deletein order to emulate western based success and model requires some kind of cultural revolution that happend in china,this means tranforming from agrarian to manufacturing based model ,problem with this sort of fantasy is indians are not chinese/koreans etc politicans wants certain population to remain poor and depend on thier welfare scheme they dont want to loose thier votebank which is y caste,regionalism,religious polarisatione etc are used to distract masses we are nearly 1.5b with huge area to govern so to turn indians especially hindu into agnostic or atheist since independence indian society had always lacked acountability civic duty etc people can get away with many things if they have right connections .in tier2,3 type of cities and villages local leaders have control over many aspects of life your caste matters and they dont let outsiders to devlop basic road, sanitation etc without giving them certain share in the project.there is no transparacency , there is no political will to introduce judicial reforms police reforms educational reforms oridinary citizens dont have power to hold any political, bureaucracy accountable for thier corruptions mafia are allowed to exist in certain sectors like mining, real estate etc
Deletethis idea of india becomes some sort of superpower is just a empty blabber, a lie and fantasy sold to public , but the fact is not many will agree for the process which leads to the outcome ,fact is we have crab like mentality we love to expolit and assert the power over masses once we gain poltiical power or financial ,otherwise the narrative of modiji being some sort of superhuman or avatar would not have become popular as part of election campaign there is one way we can maximise our chances only if regions is split into 5 parts and become autonomos and state has max powers, then again bimaru states in north becoming feudal is high so in short we have no hope to assert out dominance in global stage so we will still fighting these battles of hindu,muslim, caste etc till foreseeable future ,with hindusim having news sects to accommodate lgbtq+ ,feminism, incel movements
DeleteNot only did India gain a large amount of territory which were on the peripheries of Indian culture but also gained freedom due to factors beyond their control. Fact of the matter is that Gandhi, Nehru didnt really make any difference. Heck if Gandhi hadnt actually recruited for the British, they would probably would be smashed completely in WWI by the Germans. I dont think people realize what a desperate state the British soldiers were in on the Somme and other fields of battle.
DeleteAfter WWII, britain was flatass broke. But Churchill wanted to hold on to India out of pure pride. The voters had other ideas and showed him the door. Americans who were now the big boss held the British and its empire in scorn and contempt. They held the purse strings , Britiain needed the money so they had no choice but to accept.
Thats it. Thats the painful truth of our independence.
not only inidans even africans were recurited as they were used cannon fodder , we did not get independence on terms like of that of america even Haitians managed to kick out french invaders very early and got thier independence for its what worth we got independence via transfer of power act,point being we did not have any roadmap what nation of india will be ,ofcourse popular consesus was on socialism and socialist were supported by many then intellectuals i with u that agree ww2 was reason why we got independence some like to call it accident of history , many what if question arise like what if savarkar right ,we agreed hindusim as state religion? what if gandhi was not killed? what if independence was delayed by decade then jinnah would have died, would partiton taken place? etc
DeleteHindu society is not a monolith ,so u agree that savarkar had flawed vision to begin with and as result he could not become as influential as gandhi ,nehru espeically among hindus. also precisily reason why bose would have failed in law and order and keeping all the indian states united btw even ambedkar didnt have cordial relationship with gandhi, nehru etc
ReplyDeleteI am not defending Savarkars views. I have criticized them a lot here. HOwever I am defending his freedom fighting credentials.
Deleteyes his credentials as freedom fighter no doubt has a merit and i agree with his one particular vision that hindus must fight united irrespective of diffrence in cast etc against foriegninvaders but later he narrowed it down to islam ,iam yet to find any historical who had clear vision what india might become after independence,during that era, there is only partial disagreement regarding this article and i dont why sangh or any other intellectuals dont talk aboutand recognise other savarkar ie ganesh savarkar contributions
DeleteYsv
ReplyDeleteGlad that i stumbled upon your blog today itself after many days and that also on this auspicious tithi of mahalaya/devi paksha beginning :) as usual u have put up one more sharp article from history yday itself,and strangely i felt inclined to to visit ur blog today morn,guess it's telepathy afterall 😬🙏
While reading through the comments i came across the topic of NSCB and his ideas of secularism. When we judge or misjudge intellectuals and freedom fighters of the bygone era we fail to keep under purview the fact that india was yet to be divided along religious partition lines and most freedom fighters were still trying to build up an United Indian nationhood stretching from east Pakistan to west pakistan. And not just NSCB bit the freedom fighters of that era in general were not exactly compromising with their hindu identity or culture in return of secularism unlike what we see in India today. NSCB had threatened to call mass protest against a dhaka HC or Calcutta HC order banning Durga Puja in some year of the 1930s decade,i can't recall exactly but that order was pulled down after NSCB's agitation threat ,guess the British govt even back then couldn't dare risking pulling up a hindutva vadi Bose image thus stepped aside.
Neither would NSCB have tolerated partition pogrom and told women to accept rape in hands of Muslims as nonviolence which our father of nation advised in a bid to secure utopian ahimsa. As per his nature and past precedents,Bose would have pounced upon rioters with INA had it managed to reach into mainland bengal .
It's not that NSCB was above flaws,he had an incomplete understanding of islamic society and the collective mindset but he had no dearth of passion for a free United india neither was he a deceitful manipulator in the name of secularism. Arguing on one high court case he even gave written statement in angst that court and admin would hv been more considerate of him had he been a Mohammedan priest or something like that..
Also one major point we overlook trying to judge freedom fighters of pre1940s era,we forget that those of them who passed away before 1945 like NSCB had never witnessed the horror of direct action day and partition
Ysv
Glad that i stumbled upon your blog today itself after many days and that also on this auspicious tithi of mahalaya/devi paksha beginning :) as usual u have put up one more sharp article from history yday itself,and strangely i felt inclined to to visit ur blog today morn,guess it's telepathy afterall 😬🙏
While reading through the comments i came across the topic of NSCB and his ideas of secularism. When we judge or misjudge intellectuals and freedom fighters of the bygone era we fail to keep under purview the fact that india was yet to be divided along religious partition lines and most freedom fighters were still trying to build up an United Indian nationhood stretching from east Pakistan to west pakistan. And not just NSCB bit the freedom fighters of that era in general were not exactly compromising with their hindu identity or culture in return of secularism unlike what we see in India today. NSCB had threatened to call mass protest against a dhaka HC or Calcutta HC order banning Durga Puja in some year of the 1930s decade,i can't recall exactly but that order was pulled down after NSCB's agitation threat ,guess the British govt even back then couldn't dare risking pulling up a hindutva vadi Bose image thus stepped aside.
Neither would NSCB have tolerated partition pogrom and told women to accept rape in hands of Muslims as nonviolence which our father of nation advised in a bid to secure utopian ahimsa. As per his nature and past precedents,Bose would have pounced upon rioters with INA had it managed to reach into mainland bengal .
Also one more thing we forget when judging NSCB or freedom fighters of that era,many of them never witnessed partition. Horror and direct action massacres in person ,bose or bhagat singh would have opined differently had they lived long enough to witness the unfurling of our political independence.
YSV,
DeleteYou seem kind of obsessed with the concept of martial races.
Why is this so important?
Do you consider yourself "martial"?
Do you WANT to be "martial"?
Funny question coming from some one who hosts the blog "Sword and Shield of Hindustan". " hindustan" hahahahhahaha
DeleteI note the snark (as well as your stupidity ) in asking such a question. But I will address it as it is relevant
C.S Lewis stated that courage is the ultimate virtue as any other positive traits would be impossible to implement without it. Indeed the very word virtue derives from the Latin word for manliness and other qualities associated with masculine traits.
India is in a pathetic state because a handful of people have taken up the role of being martial for themselves and refuse to share it . And then insist that the rest of the country be grateful for them for their over representation in the military. The exact same military who smashed independence movements before 1947. But our patriots would prefer we not think about that hahaah.
I am old enough not to have delusions of grandeur unlike people who consider themselves "sword and shield of hindustan". I have no desire to go fight in any wars since pretty much all wars are dirty atleast since WWI (with partial exception of WWII, 1967 6 day war, 1971 Bangladesh liberation war ) are dirty designed to benefit a hanful of bankers, industries and their cronies in politcs.
Being martial in this context is simply being of sound mind and body and capable of defending yourself and your family . This is something I wish for all humans, not any select group.
I said this many times. How exactly you deduce that I want some speical status for being martial is beyond me.
But then my detractors are often of very low quality with poor skills for inference. What you dont realize that since your hero came to power in 2014, you are really a sword and shield for Ambani . hahahahahaa. Enjoy
Ill say in passing - the true mettle of many men have been thoroughly exposed in 2020 where I have seen muscled gym bros cower in fear double masked and now triple jabbed with an experiment vaccine* in fear of a virus which kills than .1% of the population without comorbidities. It has been quite a learning experience.
*You can not sue Pfizer for any side effects.
Iniyavel , all of your comments including those of your sock puppets will remain forever in moderation. And hey I see Jahan Soz is back with a vengeance, following an all too familar pattern.
DeleteI dont wish to deal with various infected individuals like yourself. I see your cheap tricks a mile away. You can keep trying to bait me with your stupid blogposts. It wont work. It will go the way of your various other unfinished/aborted blogs. If only your mom had aborted or your dad puled out, the world wouldnt have deal with your filth. But no use crying over spilt milk or rather unspilt seed.
Bhagat Singh was just 23 years old. Me at 23 and now at middle age are two different people. I am far more calculated, focused and less emotional than when I was at 23. Even Mike Tyson told in one of his podcasts, when he looks at himself in his 20s, he now thinks, "wow who is this guy !".
ReplyDelete