I
Owing to their stupendous ignorance of and a wrong approach to the Moslem problem, the Congress leaders betrayed a woeful lack of self-confidence in the conduct of the national struggle. This ultimately discredited the prestige and patriotism of the Hindus, undermined the pov/er of the national majority, and mortgaged the destiny of the country to the anti-national forces.
Savarkar’s insight perceived this growing danger from the designs of the awakened Muslim mind. He knew that Muslim opposition to the national aspirations was not confined to a song here or a piece of music there. According to him there was a fundamental difference in their outlook on life and literature and in their aspirations for the governance of Hindusthan as a nation. Therefore the first thing Savarkar did was to strive to bring into operation the Federal part of the 1935 Act, and frustrate the Muslim designs. Though the Federal part of this Act, he said, handed over no real power especially in the matter of Military and Foreign policy to the representatives of the people, it offered an opportunity for the realization of national unification of the States and other parts under the British occupation into an organized and corporate whole. But partly being not sure of the party domination at the Centre, and partly being afraid of the opposition led in the field by the youthful left-wing forged by President Subhas Bose, the Congress High Command bypassed the issue of Federation, Not because there was no promise for immediate independence that the Congress did not accept the Federation. The Congress could have fought here, too, to undo the unsatisfactory portion of the Federation.
A shrewd and practical politician as he was, Mr. Jinnah feared that if the Federation came into operation, it would weld India into a unified and united State under which the
252 SAVARKAH AND HIS TIMES
separatist designs of the Muslims would be totally crushed. Hence he condemned the Federation Scheme as ‘thoroughly rotten, fundamentally bad and totally unacceptable ’ ’ to the Muslims. In fact, this fear of Jinnah fully justified Savarkar, Bhai Parmananda and Dr. Moonje in their pro-Federation stand which was conducive to national solidarity. Had the Congre.ss accepted the Federal part of the Government of India Act of 1935, it would have made the Central Government an irresistible and irremovable power that would have been the death-warrant of the separatist Muslim ambitions, and would have muzzled the four or five Muslim-ruled rebellious provinces into complete subordination. But short-sighted, irrational and irresolute as its stand was, the Congre.ss lost a unique opportunity to consolidate and strengthen the integrity of India.
About this time World War II broke out. The Federation Scheme was suspended. The Congress party gave up power in all seven provinces, went into wilderness demanding the war and peace aims of the British Government, and launched an individual Civil Disobedience Movement. Mr. Jinnah rejoiced at this and declared in his Presidential Address at the Annual Session of the Muslim League at Madras with great joy ; “ After the war had broken out the first good news, along with other bad news that we got, was the declaration of the Viceroy that His Majesty’s Government are pleased to suspend the All-India Federation Scheme embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935 (cheers). . . . India’s future constitution will be considered de novo, including the policy and the plan on which the Government of India Act, 1935, was based. That was no doubt a great relief, because it was against that part of the Act that Muslim India was fighting from the very commencement.” ”
When the Congressmen gave up ministries, the Legislatures of the Muslim majority provinces had hardly any Muslim League members. But thanks to the jail-seeking policy of the Congress party, Mr. Jinnah was given sufficient time to consolidate his position and with what little strength he had in those provinces at his command, he soon established League
’ Z. A. Suleri, My Leader, p. 93.
- Ibid., p. 99.
DIFFERENCES WITH THE CONGRESS 253
Ministries in five provinces. These Ministries proved a stepping-stone to his future plans nd policies. The end of the rule of the Congress party in thi . even provinces wa.s hailed by Muslims all over India as tl * Jay of Deliverance. Their Pirpur Committee’s report lev*, led heinous charges against the Congress party. The Congress leaders on their part produced certificates of their • conduct from the British Governors. On top of it all, dr Jinnah continually voiced that “ A parliamentary system ba^ed on the majority principle must inevitably mean the rule of the major nation. . . . Western Democracy was totally unsuited for India and its imposition would be resisted by the Mussalmans.” ‘ The Mu-slims, Jinnah said, should be treated as a separate nation and not a minority, otherwise there would be irretrievable disaster to the country.
The Congress leaders thought that Jinnah was the voice of the Muslim classes and not of the Muslim masses. The Congress party and Pandit Nehru particulcirly stai’ted Muslim mass-contact drive to attract Muslim masses to the Congress. As this reading of the MusUm mind was historically untrue, the Muslim contact movement of Nehru prov^ to be not only a dismal failure, but also proved to be a Muslim conflict move- ment. Mr. Jinnah had made no secret of his burning hatred for the concept of the Constituent Assembly of an all-India character. To the Muslims he said : “ We do not want in any circumstances a constitution of an all-India character with one Government at the centre. … If we once agree to that, let me tell you, the Muslims will be absolutely wiped out of existence.” -
On September 1, 1939, Britain declared War on Germany ‘ to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defence of all that was sacred to man.’ H.E. the Marquis of Linlithgow, the Viceroy of India, proclaimed that India was at war with Germany and expressed that India would fight for human freedom as against the rule of force. Soon after this Gandhiji told the Viceroy that he was not thinking of the deliverance of India, and he broke down before
^ Z. A. Suleri, My Leader, pp. 117-18.
2 Ibid., p. 130.
2 Chur<mill on September 3, 1039.
254 SAVARKAR AND HIS TIMES
the Viceroy as he pictured before himself the House of Parliament and the Westminster Abbey and their possible destruction. Pandit Noliru on his return journey from China issued a statement at Rangoon declaring that India had no desire to take advantage of Britain’s difficulties and was not out to bargain.
The Liberals thought it disastrous if India were to offer help subject to conditions. The Parsees offered prayers and H.H. the Aga Khan appealed for heartfelt, loyal and unstinted service to the cause of the British Empire. Dr. Ambedkar lamented that India had no voice in her foreign policy in declaring war and in the making of peace. He further said that India should reuuiin witiiin the Bi itish Commonwealth of Nations and strive to achieve the status of equal partnership therein. He, too, appealed to Government to take steps to prepare Indians for defending their country. The Muslim League offered conditional support asking the British Govern- ment to create a sense of security and satisfaction amongst the Mussalmans, and curiously enough urged His Majesty’s Government to satisfy the Arab national demands.
As President, of the Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar declared that Britain’s claim that she entered war to Scifeguard the vital principles affecting human freedom was a political stunt so long as she continued to hold India in pohtical bondage. In his interview, on October 9, 1939, he plainly told the Viceroy at Delhi that none of the belligerent powers in Europe including Poland and, above all, Russia was actuated by any moral or human principle of Democracy, or the liberties of the down-trodden or political justice and equality beyond what suited the self-interests of the respective nations and states.
However, Savarkar said that the Hindu Mahasabha felt itself concerned with the issues at stake in the war so far as they were hkely to affect the safety and interests of the Hindu Nation. He, therefore, appealed to the British Government to make an unambiguous declaration of gi-anting Hindusthan the status of a self-govez’ning Dominion as an immediate step leading towards the final goal of complete independence and to introduce immediately responsible Government at the Centre based on the democratic principle of ‘ one man one
differences with the congress 255
.vote/ He urged the Viceroy to guard India’s Western Frontiers by Hindu forces, to introduce compulsory military training in High Schools and Colleges throughout India (as in Englar d), to start and encourage Rifle Classes, to expand the Indian Territorial Force, to inspire the people of India to feel instinctively that the Indian Army was the Army of the people of India and not of Britain, and he appealed to the British Government not to use Indian forces outside India proper. Savarkar called upon Capital and Labour in the countiy to utilize thvT unique opportunity of the European War to capture the markets by working to •,‘apacity all the existing industries and by starting new ones and replacing at full speed all foreign articles by Swadeshi.'^
But the main object of Savarkar ’s war policy was to make Hindus re-animated and re-born into a martial race. It w’as in this belief that, like Tilak, he had supported from the cellular jail in the Andamans the militarization movement during World War I, and was delighted to hear that his counti-ymen were allowed to go to Europe in thousands to light against the best military power in the world. In his youth, he wrote from London in 1906 quoting from the Spectator that soldiers could be thoroughly trained in six months, and casting a longing look at the then Boy Army of Britain, he felt that every Indian youth must learn Drill, Riding and Shooting. Long ago, in 1906 Savarkar observed in one of his letters from London that a nation’s existence depended upon its political independence. If the nation enjoyed independence, it could make progress. That indepen- dence in its turn depended upon the mental and military training the nation imparted to its youths. That was why after his release the first slogan he raised was, “ Down with the Arms Act, Start Rifle Classes.” Thus it can be seen from this that his militarization policy was consistent during both the World Wars.
Savarkar was the only all-India leader, and the Hindu Mahasabha was the only political party in India that launched an intense propaganda for the militarization of the Hindus and for the industrialization of the country with pure patriotic and political objects during World War H. Liong before the
‘ Savarkar, Whirlwind Propaganda, pp. 146-68.
256 SAVABKAB AND HIS TIMES
outbreak of World War n Savarkar had seized every . opportunity of bringing to the notice of the nation the woeful want of the military strength of the Hindus whenever he spoke in schools and colleges and even at literary conferences.
Savarkar stressed the need for Hindu militarization in his speeches in Poona, Wardha, Chalisgaon, Delhi, Nagar, Lahore, Hyderabad (Sind) , Sukkar and during the war years he sent forth appeal upon appeal and gave an impetus to the move- ment, explaining liis militarization policy at Meerut, Salem, Changanaeheri, at Calcutta in the Ashutosh Hall and Scottish College and at Sangli in the Willingdon College. In one of his speeches he said : Today it may well appear that these men in the armed forces are mere slaves in the pay of a foreign Government ; but there can be no doubt that when tlie crucial moment comes, they will prove themselves real patriots and staunch Hindus.” While addressing the students of the Scottish College, Calcutta, he said : “ Since the days of our First War of Independence in 1857, it has been the policy of the British Government to keep the army out of politics. Our policy against this should be to carry politics into the army by all possible means and once we succeed in this, the battle of freedom will be won.” On another occasion he said :
“ Forces beyond their control have compelled the British Government to trust you with arms and ammimition. Formerly youths had to rot in cells for being in possession of pistols, but today the Britishers are placing rifles, guns, cannons, and machine-guns in your hands. Get fully trained as soldiers and conunanders. Get thousands of mechanics trained into technical experts in building .shipyards, aero- planes, guns and ammunition factories. At another meeting he said : “ Why not co-operate when you are gaining ? Did you not flout the wily expectation of Lord Macaulay ? Then why not welcome this unique opportunity for our own good ? You know your enemies. I ask you to join the Army and wield the guns and turn them to the cause of freedom. I tell you this as plainly as I told the Viceroy himself about it. Do not worry about the bonds and agreements. The reverse of those scraps is blank. You can write new bonds and new agreements on it when the time comes. Mind, Swaraj will never come to you, although you cover the whole earth with paper
differences with the congress 257
resolutions. But if you pass resolutions with rifles on your shoulders, you will attain it.”
Till the day of Savarkar^s whirlwind propaganda for Hindu militarization, military career was the monopoly of the Muslims, who formed the three-fourths of the Indian Army. The realist in Savarkar sensed the danger of the Muslim preponderance in the army in case of internal anarchy and external pressure. With that md in view Savarkar preached militarizati m sc that when ae proper time came for the British to quit India, Free 1 li i could stand erect with its national army. The editors of Lie so-called nationalist papers that throve on military contracts and military advertisements of the foreign Government whom they asked to quit, basely enough decried the soldiers as hirelings ; their leaders described the soldiers as “ rice soldiers,” their partymen stigmatized them as mercenaries, and the meanest born amongst them called Savarkar ’ a recruit hero The worst of it was that those very journalists throve on papers, whose owners throve on Government contracts ; those very leaders whose relatives and friends made skyhigh profits out of military contracts ; those very persons who paid all sorts of taxes and co-operated with the British Government in conducting the railways and all other departments producing war materials with selfish motives and for paltry things and those followers of Gandhiji whose Gandhi Seva Sangh supplied the military with blankets, were the persons who ignobly attacked now and then Savarkar, who never asked his countrymen to contribute a pie to the war fund and whose propaganda for the Hindu militarization emanated from his selfless, patriotic, and far-sighted policy and anxiety for the welfare of India. What a paradox ! What a low level a slave country’s reason descends to ! In its degraded conditions it often curses the selfless as selfish.
Despite these curses, Savarkar vigorously carried on his propaganda. What of Gandhi-brand jail-seekers, some of Savai’kar’s flamboyant lieutenants, too, at first could make neither head nor tail of his militarization policy, and were sceptical about it. No wonder then that men who posed as radicals and were outside Hindu Mahasabha looked askance
17
258 SAVARKAR AND HIS TIMES
at this policy. When Savarkar thundered from the Presi- dential Chair at the Annual Session of the Maharashtra Marathi Literary Conference in Bombay in January 1938, asking the delegates to abandon their pens in favour of guns the wordy parrots of progress grew restless at the re-appear- ance of Shivaji, who wanted to give them arms to turn them to the cause of freedom. Savarkar shouted in his Presidential Address to the Literary Conference : “ The absence of poetry^ and poets, novels and novelists would not be felt during the coming decade. Austria and China suffered not because they lacked good literature, but because they lacked military power. Did you not hear, O learned men, and scholars, the last pathetic shriek of the President of Austria ? He said, ‘ We yield under German bayonets’ and not under German sonnets.”
Savarkar further said : ‘‘ If literature is a part of the national life, its primary aim ought to be the .security of national life. I absolutely admire the advocates of the principle of “ Art for Art’s sake.” But when a theatre is ablaze, it is the duty of the true worshipper of Art to rush out to extinguish the gathering flames. What worth is litera- ture, then, if a whole nation is writhing with pain under the oppressor’s heel ? ” Savarkar went on : “ Did you forget the fate of Nalanda and Takshashila, the seats of leaiming, and other gi’eat libraries that were turned into smouldering ruins ? … It was the triumphant sword of Shivaji that made Maharashtra safe for poets and philosophers.” He concluded his famous Presidential Address at this Literary Conference : “ I say, therefore, with all the emphasis at my command that the crying need of our times is not men of letters, but soldiers. It does not matter even if the whole decade is barren in respect of literature. Let there not be a song sung, or a sonnet composed. But let the streets resotmd with the thud of the feet of thousands of soldiers marching with modern rifles on their shoulders. A love song here, and a love story there, may come in as a diversion. We know even Napoleon would relax on occasions. Having brought his enemies to their knees, Bajirao I also enjoyed the prattle of love. But it gives me terrible pain to see my country reduced to the Brahmavarta of Bajirao II. My heart breaks with anguish
DIFFEBENCES WITH THE CONGRESS 259
when I St ’ the vapid emasculated young faces engrossed in love prattles. So my message to you, literary men, is that you should abandon your pens in favour of guns ; for literature can never flourish in a slave country. It has been well said that pursuit of science is possible only in a free nation protected by the power of arms.”
Independently and in honourable co-operation with the Government the Hindu Mahasabha workers and leaders gave an impetus to the Hindu ^’’ilitarization movement through the Hindu Mahasabha paper? they had at their command, from the platform and through the Militarization Boards which they had established independently of Government recruiting machinery. The effect of this intense propaganda was seen everywhere. The Muslim preponderance was effectively checkmated and brought down and the percentage of the Hindus in the army went as high up as seventy.
So powerful was the effect of this propaganda that Sir Ziauddin Alimed, Vice-Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University, in a speech at Poona raised an alarm at the increasing number of Hindus enlisting daily in the Land, Navy and Air Forces thereby reducing the percentage of Muslims in the fighting Forces. The Eastern Times, a prominent Muslim League paper, too, raised an outcry against the march stolen upon the Muslim monopoly and wrote : “ The Hindu Mahasabha also has agitated strongly for militarization of the Hindus as a great opportunity and with the active co-operation of the Government, has met with astonishing success.” ^
The Muslims and the British Government knew well what Savarkar’s militarization movement stood for. It aimed at carrying politics into the military ranks of the Indian Army, and winning over the Army to the side of revolution for the final overthrow of the British yoke. It was, indeed, the military movement of Shahaji to facilitate the mission of his son, Shivaji, for the attainment of Swaraj. Every British statesman knew what Savarkar aimed at. Writing in Great Britain and the East in January 1943, Sir Alfred Watson, former editor of the Statesman, Calcutta, Sciid : “In his belief of dictatorship, Nehru has a dangerous rival in Savarkar, who
^ Quoted by Bhide Guruji in From Quit India to Split India.
260 SAVARKAR AMD HIS TIMSS
does not hide his aspiration to rule under any veil of anony- mity but publicly proclaims it as the leader of the Hindu Sabha.” Sir Alfred proceeds : “ Savarkar claims domination on the democratic basis of counting heads. For that domina- tion he is prepared to fight and loudly demands that in recruiting for armies in India, the present rulers shall elect a majority of Hindus so that he may have an instrument to enforce his will when the British rule is finally abandoned. If it ever comes to a tussle between Nehru and Savarkar, as seems inevitable, there is little doubt who will win.’’ Except for the reference to dictatorship, Watson’s remarks are quite pertinent.
It is well known that Deshgaurav Subhas Bose cherished a loving admiration for Savarkar, and showed reverential respect for him whenever he visited Savarkar, the Prince of Indian revolutionaries. It is also an open secret now that Subhas, the devotee of Shivaji and his politics, had discussed the Indian political and international situation respecting World War II with Savarkar some months before his dramatic escape from India in January 1941. In the course of the discussion Savarkar, the Indian Mazzini, inspired Subhas Bose, the Indian Garibaldi, with the idea of an armed Revolution from outside in order to intensify the struggle for Freedom. The born general in Subhas took the cue, and played the role of the Indian Garibaldi, rightly called the Netaji of the Indian National Army, which was founded by Ras Behari Bose in the Elast. A world-famous veteran revolutionary and a man of great mental force and a powerful pen, Ras Behari Bose, who was the guide and sole adviser of the Azad Hind Government of Subhas Bose, was in correspondence with Savarkar till the outbreak of World War II, was President of the Japan Hindu Sabha, and had immensely contributed through the Indian League of Independence to the forces of the Indian Freedom Movement outside India. Netaji Subhas, the I.N.A. and India owe a debt of deep gratitude to Ras Behari Bose, the great figure of Indian Revolution.
The leader and the Founder of the I.N.A. both addressed special messages to Savarkar over the Azad Hind Radio. On one of such occasions Netaji Bose gave a broadcast on Jime 25, 1944, at night over the Singapore Radio and said : “ When
Savarkar and Hindu Mahasabha Working Committee Members in Bombay (1^40)
Savarkar and Cripps
At the time of the Cripps Mission, the Mahasahha delegation meets the Con- gress delegation
DIFFERENCES WITH THE CONGRESS 261
due to misguided political whims and lack of vision almost all the leaders of the Congress party are decrying all the soldiers in the Indian Army as mercenaries, it is heartening to know that Veer Savarkar is fearlessly exhorting the youths of India to enlist in the Armed Forces. These enlisted youths them- selves provide us with trained men from which we draw the soldiers of our Indian National Army.”
Ras Behari Bose said in his Radio talk addressed to Savarkar : “ In saluting you I have the joy of doing my duty towards one of my elderly comrades-in-arms. In saluting you, I am saluting the symbol of sacrifice itself.” Paying homage to Savarkar’s unexampled sacrifice, untold sufferings and matchless courage, he further said : “ I can see God’s divine hand clearly behind your unconditional release. You have once more proved your real greatness by propagating the theme that our politics must never depend upon the foreign politics of others. England’s enemy must be our friend.” * Ras Behari concluded with Bande Mataram, reiterating his belief that Savarkar’s leadership was the greatest hope inside India. Is any further evidence necessary to prove that the very I.N.A. movement, which Savarkar’s opponents exploited, was the outcome of his ideology, politics and his great book on ‘ 1857 ’, which provided the I.N.A. with slogans, battle cries, and vision, and inspired them to fight the battle of freedom ?
II
Savarkar’s main appeal to the Hindus was that they should elect only those Hindus, who could act openly, publicly and boldly as advocates of the Hindu Nation. The policy of the Congress party in power and in politics was entirely and grossly pro-Muslim. It encouraged the Muslims to be more and more communal, fanatical and overbearing. The actions of the Congress party were more anti-Hindu than their policy on paper, and they trampled upon even the most legitimate national claims and interests of the Hindus. One Congress Ministry asked the Hindus not to play any music whatsoever during the Moharam days. The Congress mutilated the Bande
^Ras Behari Bose’s message to Savarkar quoted in Indian Independ- ence League’s Publication.
262 SAVARKAR AND HIS TIMES
Mataram cowardly. In their zest to plead that their natio- nalism was above suspicion, they vued with one another to prove to the Muslims that the Congressite Ministries had always sacrificed Hindu interests, pandered to the Muslim prejudices and loaded the latter with weightages, posts and positions at the cost of the interests of the national majority. But the more the Congress fawned, the more the Muslims pretended to be oppressed and grew more fanatic.
Savarkar therefore unscathingly attacked this unjust and unpatriotic, servile, senile and placating attitude on the part of Congressmen. To Savarkar trampling the legitimate and just rights of the national majority and favouring others with undue weightages was perverse communalism, false and destructive nationalism. Not that he was not for a fair compromise with the Muslims on a true national basis. He had appreciated the right step taken by Sir Sikandar Hyat Khan, the Premier of the Punjab, in regard to the Shahid Gunj affair and said that it was wise for them all to bury the hatchet. Savarkar publicly appreciated the benevolent gestures shown by the Shias in Lucknow regarding the slaughter of cows and the playing of Music on public roads ; and expressed the hope that if all non-Hindus would adopt such an honourable, radical and accommodating formula of unity, that kind of mutual co-operation would develop into a common nationality, and common national State cemented with patriotic ties.
But Savarkar never tolerated any unjust or unpatriotic demand on the part of the minorities made overtly or covertly. When the Azad Muslim Conference, held at Delhi in April 1940, opposed the proposal of the vivisection of India, but resolved that the question of the nature and number of the safeguards must be dictated by the minorities themselves, Savarkar appreciated the first part, but denounced the latter part of the resolution as a demand for the pound of flesh. Savarkar believed that patriots fight for their Motherland they love as patriots, and not as mercenaries demanding their pound of flesh. When Sri Rajagopalachari came out with his sporting offer promising the Muslim League Pakistan if they joined the National Government, Savarkar replied indignantly that it was curious to see that “ even the Congressite leaders
DIFFERENCES WITH THE CONGRESS 263
like Sri Rajaji should fail to perceive that the two terms ‘ Pakistan ’ and an ‘ Indian National Government ’ were in themselves self-contradictory and self-destructive and how typical it was of the Congress! te conception of ‘ National Unity ’ that such eminent Congress leaders like Rajaji should have given an open assurance to the Muslims regarding Pakistan long before the British Government even dared to do so. The ‘ sportive offers ’ of Sri Rajagopalachari were becoming as much a pub] ; nuisance as the ‘ Inner Voices ’ of Gandhiji were wont to be . '
Not less infuriated was Savarkar by an article of Gandhiji in the Harijan dated the 13th October 1940, wherein Gandliiji stated that in case the British power was overthrown as a result of the war and an internal anarchy set in, “ the strongest power in the land would hold sw’ay over all India and this may be Hyderabad for aught I know. All other big and petty chiefs will ultimately succumb to the strongest power of the Nizam who will be the emperor of India.” Gandhiji also said in the article : “ If you ask me in advance, I would face anarchy to foreign orderly rule whether British or any other. I would unhesitatingly plump for anarchy, say, the rule of the Nizam supported by the chiefs becoming feudatory to him or supported by the border Muslim tribes. In my estimation, it will be cent per cent domestic. It will be Home Rule, though far, far from self-rule or Swaraj.”
Savarkar replied ^ that Gandhiji knew as little of Indian History as of Hebrew and stated that though the rule of an Allauddin or an Aurangzeb was also a cent per cent domestic rule, the Hindus detested it as veritable hell and added that any rule of Muslims in future would be similarly hated and overthrown by a new Shivaji, a Bajirao or a Ranjit. As for the Nizam, Savarkar reminded him of the fate of King Amanulla of Afghanistan. How anti-democratic and politically false was the spirit of Gandhiji ’s article was well demonstrated eight years later by his disciples, Nehru and Patel, who attacked Hyderabad State and smashed the Nizam’s ambitious role and his tyrannical un-domestic rule, vindicating the correct stand taken by Savarkar in regard to the Hyderabad
1 Savarkar, Whirlwind Propaganda, pp. 239-58.
264 SAVARKAH AND HIS TIMES
State in 1939 when he challenged the Nizam’s misrule and suzerainty.
in
Another point of difference with the Congress party was the attitude of the latter to the Census. Savarkar believed then that for at least ten years to come, all constitutional progress and matters regarding public services, representation in legislatures, etc. would necessarily be indexed or determined by the figures and information registered in the Census of 1941. He, therefore, condemned the senseless policy of the Congress party in boycotting the Census and said that the Congress policy would hit the Hindus hard.
The numerical strength recorded in the Census of 1941 in respect of the Hindus and Muslims was going to affect political discussions in India as had the Census of 1931 affected the Act of 1935. On the eve of the Census of 1941 Savarkai’ issued a fervent public appeal to all Hindus including the Bhils Santhals and all Animists to get themselves correctly enumerated. Savarkar announced : “ Hindus, wake up ; the hour of the Census strikes.” With a great hope and sense of duty, he issued instructions to all District and Provincial Hindu Sabhas to co-operate with the Census authorities, to watch vigilantly the operation, approach the authorities and secure an assurance from Government that Muslim women’s number would be scrutinized by Christian and Anglo-Indian lady Supervisors. In a special appeal, Savarkar exhorted the Arya Samajists, Lingayats, Jains and Sikhs that they might show their religion as Vaidic, Lingayat, Jain, Sikh, but they should at least see that they were recorded as Arya (Hindu) , Lingayat (Hindu), Jain (Hindu) , and Sikh (Hindu) as their religions were of Indian origin, and as they regarded India as their Fatherland and Holyland.
The Congressmen boycotted the Census as they did in 1921 and 1931 and the General Secretary of the Congress, Sri J. B. Kripalani, isisued a statement on the eve of the Census of 1941 to the effect that the Congress refused to have anytliing to do with the Census as it was a communal question. Savarkar retorted that if it was so, how did the Congress beg for votes
DIFFERENCES WITH THE CONGRESS 265
at the doors of the communal electorates at the time of elections ? Not only that, they even filled in their own castes and religion in the nomination papers. Moreover, it was very strange that these very Congressmen gave recognition to the numerical strength of the Muslims while deciding the political questions of India.
The Congress-minded Hindus respected the Congress mandate and suffered terribly. No wonder then that the Census, which showed T^-ndus to form .13 per cent in the Punjab in 1881, showed tv. ir percentage In be 49. in 1921, 48 in 1931 and 47 in 1941 and simultaneously recorded a rise in the population of the Muslims during ilie periods from 47 per cent to 53 in the Punjab. In Assam, thirty years ago, the Muslim percentage was 26 ; in 1931 it rose to 31 and in 1941 to 33.7 ; and Bengal, which had already suffered a great loss in the numei-ical strength of the Hindus in the Census on the previous two occasions and had reaped the fruits in the form of the Communal Award, was at last declared in 1941 a Muslim majority province. What the incorrect Census had done to the Bengal Hindus was the result of the criminal negligence of their top-most Hindu leaders, foremost news- papers and illustrious personedities towards the solidarity and correct recording of the Hindu population under the ruinous influence of the Congress. The Modern Reinew in its issues of June and November 1941 disclosed the mischief played by the Bengal Muslim League Ministry in the Census affair, avowing that the Muslims were not in a majority in Bengal and that many Hindus especially the tribesmen numbering about 14 per cent remained unenumerated.
Students of history and politics may note that these very Congressmen who boycotted the Census of 1931 took the figures of the Muslim population as correct while discussing and determining the question of communal weightages, etc. in 1931. It was they who boycotted the Census of 1941 and yet again conducted later on their negotiations with Jinnah and the British Cabinet Mission for determining the issue of Pakistan on the basis of these very census figures the procedure and reliability of which was so doubtful !
266
SAVARKAR AND HIS TIMES
IV
Two guiding principles inspired Savarkar through his political career ; they were the Independence and the Indivisi- bility of India. These were the articles of faith with Savarkar and the Hindu Mahasabha. To Savarkar from the Indus to the Seas, India was one and indivisible. In his Presidential Address at the Hindu Mahasabha Session at Ahmedabad in 1937, he stated that the very words, Portuguese India and French India sounded preposterous and insulting to us, and declared that the Hindusthan of tomorrow must be one and indivisible, not only a united, but a Unitarian nation from Kaslimir to Rameshwar, from Sind to Assam. He believed that the Independence of India was in sight ; but he sensed the danger to the integrity of India from the vacillating, servile, deceptive, and short-sighted lead and policy of the Congress in respect of the Blank Cheque offers, the Communal Award, the Simon Commission, the Census, the National Script, the Lingua Franca and the National Anthem.
And as foretold by Savarkar the anti-national forces through the Muslim League came out with a demand for dividing India into sej>arate independent States, and the time for struggling against and suppressing the forces of vivisection came. The Muslim League, at its Lahore Session in 1940, declared “ that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North-Western and Eastern Zones of India should be grouped to constitute ‘ Independent States in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign The Congress which had till then capitulated to the Muslim League in its communal demands was rightly apprehended by Savarkar to grant the demand for Pakistan. He, therefore, declared that a vote for the Congress was a vote for Pakistan and sounded a warning to the whole nation in April 1940 :
“ A number of Congress leaders of eminence are very likely to go a long way in acquiescing even in this notorious demand of the Muslims to break up the unity and integrity of India and the Indian State, if the Hindus do not repudiate in time the claim of the Congress to speak on behalf of Hindudom as a whole."
DIFFERENCES WITH THE CONGRESS 267
And when a year after, he told his audience at Lucknow that there was a move for compromise on the question of Pakistan among the Congress High Command, the purblind Congress press discredited Savarkar for having suspected the peerless patriotism of their holy fathers, and declaied with all the force at their command that Savarkar assertion was an untruth, although subsequently Congress politics literally bore out Savarkar \s assertions !
Mr. Jinnah denounce ’ the Hindu Mahasabha in his Presidential Address at ? Madras Session of the Muslim League in 1941 as an abs< Aitel 3 ^ incorj igible and hopeless body, and threatened that if the British Government failed to create an independent group of Pakistan States, others W’ould come and do it. Savarkar accepted Mr. Jinnah’s remarks about the Hindu Mahasabha as an unalloyed tribute to the unalloyed patriotism of the Hindu Mahasabha, and asked the Congress party to read with open eyes the widting on the wall — the declaiation of Pakistan — and warned them not to deceive themselves and to delude the masses by misreading and misunderstanding the demands of the Muslim League.
In his reply to Mr. Jinnah Savarkar further retorted that if the State of the Croats was an ideal and a prototype of his Pakistan, he asked Mr. Jinnah to refer to history about the fate of the Croats, the Serbs and the Slavs, who had been victims of larger States. As for the threat from outside forces, Savarkar replied that the Pan-Islamic alliance would be resisted by a Hindu-Buddhistic alliance from Jammu to Japan and he warned Mr. Jinnah : ‘‘ Then again, such parasite growths of the Pakistan type are no new experience to Hindudom. During the course of the last five thousand years of its continuous growth and consolidation, this gigantic Octopus of Hindudom has clutched and crushed Avithin the formidable grip of its mighty arms and absorbed a number of Shakasthans, Hunasthans, and the Marathas sw^allowed and gulped down your verj^ Mogul Empire entirely before it knew what was happening.” “The same fate,” asserted Savarkar vehemently, “ shall these your petty parasites of your Pakistan States meet after a miserable existence for a time, even if they ever come into existence.” He then concluded his
268 SAVARKAR AND HIS TIMES
historical reply to Mr. Jinnah, “History avers to the ever- abiding truth that in India :
‘ Pakistans may come and Pakistans may go But Hindusthan goes on for ever.’
Savarkar then put forth his historical formula for the formation of a imited and powerful Indian State. He said : “ There is, consequently, only one way for the Indian Moslems to secure their safety, peace and prosperity as a community in India ; and that is to get themselves incorporated whole- heartedly and loyally into an Indian Nation which can only be done on the following basic principles: —
(1) Independence of India and Indivisibility of India as a Nation and State. (2) Representation strictly in proportion to the population strength. (3) PubUc Services to go by merit alone, and (4) the fundamental rights of freedom of worship, language, script, etc. guaranteed to all citizens alike.”
After putting forth the basic principles for an honourable Hindu-Muslim unity and the formation of the Indian State, Savarkar reiterated his famous historic formxUa, which was the guiding .star of self-respecting and rising nation: —
“ On these terms and on these terms alone, if they come, with them, if they do not without them ; but if they oppose, in spite of them, the Hindus are determined to continue the good fight for the freedom and integrity of Hindusthan.” '
Savarkar, Whirlwind Propaganda, pp. 359-75.