SACW #1 | 30 Oct 2004

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire  #1  |  30 October,  2004
via:  www.sacw.net

[1] Bangladesh:  Ahmadiyya mosque razed, 12 houses robbed in B'Baria
[2] India: A national hero? (A.G. Noorani)
[3] Minutes of First national consultation for Delhi-Multan Peace March 2005
[4] Film And Book Review:
"Crossing the Lines: Kashmir, Pakistan, India" A 
story of people at war over borders and boundaries
A documentary film by Pervez Hoodbhoy and Zia Mian
and
"Between Past and Future - Selected Essays on South Asia by Eqbal Ahmad"
[5] Upcoming events :
(i) Two day Workshop by Anhad and Youth for Peace 
(New Delhi, 30-31 October 2004)
(ii) Demonstration to Mark The 20th Anniversary of November
1984 [Anti Sikh Riots] (New Delhi, November 1, 2004)
(iii) 'People's SAARC' Conference (Varanasi, 15-17 of January 2005)


--------------


[1]


The Daily Star
October 30, 2004	 

AHMADIYYA MOSQUE RAZED, 12 houses robbed in B'Baria
11 including 6 women injured
Staff Correspondent

Orthodox Muslim fanatics razed an Ahmadiyya 
mosque at Bhadughar in Brahmanbaria minutes 
before the Juma prayers yesterday.

In the latest incident of persecution of the 
minority religious sect, the hate-filled mob 
vandalised and robbed Ahmadiyya houses, injuring 
at least 11, including six women.

One of the injured, Shabju Mia, 52, president of 
Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat Bhadughar chapter and 
imam of the mosque, is in critical condition and 
undergoing treatment at Brahmanbaria Sadar 
Hospital.

Some 25,000 Ahmadiyya people live in the eastern 
district, where Ahmadiat was first preached in 
1912, before any other place in Bangladesh.

Witnesses said local BNP leader and former ward 
commissioner Abdul Quddus led the raiders who 
were carrying a banner of International 
Tahaffuz-e-Khatme Nabuwat Committee, Bangladesh.

Quddus, with two local businessmen -- Sobhan and 
Hossain - acting as his lieutenants, arrived with 
about 100 people carrying sticks in front of the 
tin-roofed bamboo-walled mosque at 1:00pm and 
asked the congregation to let them in.

"They asked our people to vacate the mosque 
saying we'll not be permitted to worship there 
any more," Monjur Hossain, district amir of the 
Ahmadiyya Jamaat, told The Daily Star.

He quoted a leader of the fanatic mob as saying, 
"We'll set up a madrasa here. And you are no 
longer permitted to enter this place, as we've 
been warning you time and again."

At this point, some 900 people led by the imams 
of two nearby Sunni mosques joined the raiders in 
storming into the Ahmadiyya's mosque. Many of 
them were brandishing machetes and axes.

Witnesses said the bigots dispersed the Ahmadiyya 
men guarding the entrance hitting them with clubs 
and sticks. They then broke into the mosque and 
went on a rampage.

They lashed and struck at the devotees right and 
left. One of them hit Imam Shabju on the head 
with an axe when he was delivering the sermon. 
While some others threw stones from outside on 
the tin-roof to crush it, said witnesses.

"After wreaking havoc to their heart's content, 
they broke off and took away the bamboo-walls, 
leaving behind a ruin of a mosque," said the 
Ahmadiyya imam in apparent indignation and grief.

SM Rubel, Neyamat Ullah, Nasir Ahmed and Sabbir 
Ahmed are the other men injured in the attack.

During the attack, hundreds of orthodox fanatics 
were standing around the mosque chanting 
anti-Ahmadiyya slogans

Hearing the news of the raid, family members of 
the Ahmadiyya devotees rushed out of their homes 
running towards the mosque to save and rescue 
their dear ones.

But the raiders swooped on them with maces, 
machete, clubs and axes injuring Asma Begum, 
Shamsunnahar, Pushpa, Hossena Begum, Jahanara 
Khatun and Fatema Begum. Besides, a number of 
other women and girls received minor injuries as 
the bigots pelted stones at them.

The mob later plundered and vandalised the houses of 12 Ahmadiyya families.

While leaving the place, they threatened of 
harsher torture if the Ahmadiyyas do not leave 
the mosque and the area immediately.

Police arrived at the spot one hour after the 
incident but did not record any case. But they 
sat in discussion with the local elite, the 
influential and the leaders of anti-Ahmadiyya 
groups and asked them to stop recurrence of such 
violence.

"They (police) asked the local influential to see 
that no fresh attack on us take place," said 
Monjur.

In 1987, Sunni fanatics captured the main 
Ahmadiyya mosque in the district, drove away, 
excommunicated and confined them to a small area. 
"Since then, we've been worshipping in this small 
mosque," the Ahmadiyya imam said.

South Asian People's Unity against Fundamentalism 
and Communalism yesterday strongly condemned the 
attack and demanded immediate arrest and 
punishment of the raiders.

"It is a part and continuation of the countrywide 
torture and aggression on Ahmadiyyas that have 
been tarnishing the country's image," said 
Shahriar Kabir, general secretary of the 
organisation, demanding of the government 
immediate reconstruction of the mosque.

	  


______



[2]


Frontline, Oct. 23 - Nov. 05, 2004


ANALYSIS
A national hero?

A.G. Noorani

The issue of Savarkar conceals within it potent 
vials of poison which will destroy India's 
nationalism and its democracy unless it is 
exposed boldly and resolutely.


"The writing of history is the royal road to the 
definition of a country and the identity of a 
society is in large part a function of historical 
interpretation."

- Edward Said


NO sooner had it grabbed power at the Centre 
under the guise of the National Democratic 
Alliance (NDA), the Bharatiya Janata Party 
decided on a systematic rewriting of India's 
history because it was determined to carry out 
its plans to redefine India as a Hindu state in 
all but name and so mould the identity of Indian 
society that, over time, even the pretence of 
secularism could be discarded. The issue of V.D. 
Savarkar's place in the history of India's 
struggle for freedom was raised only recently in 
that context. It is central to that insidiously 
sordid exercise.


THE HINDU PHOTO LIBRARY
  V.D. Savarkar.

Appraisal of the role of any figure in history is 
always a challenge to intellectual integrity and 
competences, particularly when the record is a 
mixed one. Savarkar was born in 1883 and died in 
1966. His inspiring work The First Indian War of 
Independence - 1857 was published in London in 
1909. Arrested on charges of abetment of murders, 
waging war against the British Crown and so on, 
he escaped through the port-hole of the ship, 
which was to bring him to Mumbai, when it 
anchored at Marseilles, but was captured on 
French soil by British pursuers. This and the 
Anglo-French litigation that followed gave him a 
halo of heroism. Savarkar was tried by a Special 
Tribunal of three of the best Judges - the Chief 
Justice of the Bombay High Court Sir Basil Scott, 
Sir John Heaton and Sir Narayan G. Chandavarkar, 
an eminent educationist.

He was sentenced to transportation for life and 
sent to Port Blair in the Andamans on July 4, 
1911. Unknown to the public and even to his 
family, he sent a mercy petition before the year 
ended. Savarkar wrote Hindutva in 1923 on his 
return to India. It propounded the two-nation 
theory, 16 years before M.A. Jinnah did. In 1948 
he was tried as a conspirator, along with 
Nathuram Godse, in the Gandhi murder case but was 
acquitted because the case against him rested on 
the evidence of an approver and the legally 
requisite independent corroborative evidence did 
not exist. From 1950 to 1966 he lived under an 
undertaking to the state not to take part in 
political activity. It was the last of at least 
four known similar apologies and undertakings he 
had given - in 1911, 1913, 1925 and 1948. It was 
not exactly a glorious end to a "revolutionary's" 
career. To define "the issue of Savarkar": What 
was heroic about his behaviour from 1911 to 1966 
when he died? It is a record of 55 years - half a 
century of a life between the ages of 28 and 83.

The Janata Party government, headed by Morarji 
Desai and of which A.B. Vajpayee and L.K. Advani 
were members, declared the cellular jail complex 
in the Andamans a national memorial. None of the 
three then said a word in praise of Savarkar. The 
plaque was put up later. One wonders how Prime 
Minister Morarji Desai would have reacted if it 
existed then. For, in a carefully worded 
statement in reply to a member's recall of 
Savarkar's past services, Morarji Desai told the 
Legislative Council on April 3, 1948: "May I say, 
Sir, that the past services are more than offset 
by the present disservice?" (Debates of the 
Legislative Council of Bombay; Volume 14, Part 
10; column 314; emphasis added, throughout).

Morarji Desai did not rewrite history. He weighed 
both the past and the present and pronounced 
against Savarkar; for good reason. He had, as 
Home Minister of the then Bombay Province, 
assigned the investigation into Gandhi's murder 
to his ace police officer Jamshid D. Nagarwala, 
Deputy Commissioner of Police in charge of the 
CID's Special Branch. Immediately on Gandhi's 
assassination on January 30, 1948, suspicion of 
complicity in the crime fell on Savarkar. 
Nagarwala confided as much to Morarji Desai. 
Having perused the record, Union Home Minister 
Vallabhbhai Patel told Prime Minister Jawaharlal 
Nehru that Savarkar was privy to the murder. In 
1970 a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice 
Jivan Lal Kapur, a Judge of the Supreme Court, 
categorically returned the same verdict on the 
basis of evidence which was not produced at the 
trial.

It is only in the last decade that details of the 
apologies and undertakings were published in 
widely read journals. True, Savarkar's ideology 
was a matter of record. But the halo of heroism 
obscured it. Opinion was divided. Very many were 
and still are unaware of the record. A city, a 
region or a State's pride in the hero it produced 
is understandable. To most, all that mattered was 
Savarkar's record upto 1911; the rest was 
irrelevant.


THE HINDU PHOTO LIBRARY

Mahatma Gandhi.

To another school, what really mattered was the 
ideology of Hindutva he propounded in 1923. 
Complicity neither in Gandhi's murder, now 
proven, nor in three other murders - of William 
Curzon Wylie, an India Office official, in 1909; 
A.M.T. Jackson, District Collector of Nasik, the 
same year; and attempted murder of Sir Ernest 
Hotson, acting Governor, in 1931 - was relevant. 
This is the stand predictably of the Sangh 
Parivar, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) 
and its political front, the BJP. Savarkar with 
his halo was too useful an icon to let go. 
Regardless of his sordid record. The Sangh 
Parivar's partiality is as notorious as its 
rejection of Gandhi, which former Union Finance 
Minister Jaswant Singh indicated to former United 
States Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott 
in strict privacy. One wishes he had the courage 
to express those views in public and in this 
country. RSS boss Rajendra Singh openly said in a 
press conference that "Godse was motivated by 
Akhand Bharat. His intention was good but he used 
the wrong methods" (Outlook, January 19, 1998). 
"Wrong methods" is a perverse euphemism to use 
for a heinous crime like murder, especially for 
the murder of the country's tallest leader. 
Significantly, neither the BJP nor the RSS 
denounces Godse to this day.

BOTH approaches are unhistorical. The record of a 
life must be viewed in its entirety and so must 
be the character and personality of the man. No 
one is perfect. One must weigh the blemishes and 
lapses in the scale with qualities of character, 
loftiness of vision and the quality of 
achievement. A great Indian and Maharashtrian, 
B.R. Ambedkar, did precisely such an exercise, in 
his famous lectures in 1943 published under the 
title Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah, with copious 
quotations on what constitutes greatness in a 
public figure. "Who can be called a Great Man?" 
he asked and replied: "A man is Great because he 
finds a way to save Society in its hour of 
crisis... He can do so only with the help of 
intellect" and sincerity of purpose. "A Great Man 
must be motivated by the dynamics of a social 
purpose and must act as the scourge and the 
scavenger of Society." A man who spreads hate and 
extols violence cannot be called "Great". Witness 
Hitler.

To come to the aspect of change one must ask what 
induced it. What was the provocation for change? 
Was it change of circumstances that induced the 
man to discard one ideology or policy and embrace 
its opposite later?

Does Vinayak Damodar Savarkar meet these tests? 
Both critics and admirers must apply them 
objectively to the facts and consider the record 
carefully. What was his concept of India's 
nationalism? And of its territorial integrity?

Contrast the record on these two crucial issues 
of two personalities and the truth emerges in its 
stark, undeniable reality. On January 5, 1961, 
Jawaharlal Nehru criticised communalism, be it of 
the majority or of a minority community. He 
added, however, that while the communalism of the 
minority becomes obvious, "the communalism of a 
majority community is apt to be taken for 
nationalism". Compare this with Savarkar's 
remarks to a students gathering in Kanpur. "What 
is called Nationalism can be defined as in fact 
the National communalism of the majority 
community which has been ruling and still aspires 
to rule this country. Thus, in Hindusthan it is 
the Hindus, professing Hindu religion and being 
in overwhelming majority, that constitute the 
National community and create and formulate the 
Nationalism of the Nation."

The divide is deep and fundamental. The inference 
is as clear - you cannot admire both. A choice 
must be made. The BJP is more consistent than 
Congress leaders who profess admiration for 
Savarkar for political ends. This is no way to 
defend secularism against the BJP's Savarkarite 
onslaught.

Logically enough, Savarkar rejected the national 
flag which the Constituent Assembly of India 
approved on July 29, 1947: "It can never be 
recognised as the National Flag of Hindusthan ... 
the authoritative flag of Hindusthan our 
Motherland and Holyland, ... can be no other than 
the Bhagava (saffron flag)... . to deliver 
expressly the message of the very Being of our 
Race... . It mirrors the whole panorama of our 
Hindu History. ... Hindudom at any rate can 
loyally salute no other Flag but this Pan-Hindu 
Dhwaja, this Bhagava Flag as its national 
Standard." The question must be faced honestly - 
can a person who speaks thus be regarded as an 
Indian nationalist, still less a national hero.

Consider another test, India's territorial 
integrity. Little do we realise the debt we owe 
to Nehru for his timely and successful attack on 
a British plan for transfer of power directly to 
each of the Provinces of British India leaving it 
to them to decide whether to form a Union or not. 
Nehru demanded and obtained transfer of power 
directly to the Union of India, as such. As for 
the Princely States, Nehru was categorical - the 
ruler must decide on accession only in accordance 
with the will of the people. At Simla on the 
night of May 10, 1947, Mountbatten showed Nehru 
in confidence the plan he had received from 
London for transfer of power to the Provinces and 
the States. Nehru exploded in wrath. His vehement 
rejection altered history. The June 3 Plan 
provided for transfer of power to the Union of 
India (The Transfer of Power in India by V.P. 
Menon; 1957; page 361).

Contrast this with Savarkar's line. It would have 
led to the Balkanisation of India. C.P. Ramaswamy 
Aiyar was, for all his admirable gifts, one of 
the most repressive Dewans of an Indian State and 
one who was the most detested by its people. He 
was brutal and unprincipled. As Dewan of 
Travancore he plotted secretly to declare it 
independent of India and carried out his long 
prepared plot by announcing on June 11, 1947, the 
State's decision to declare itself independent 
once the British quit India (vide "C.P. and 
independent Travancore", Frontline, July 4, 
2003). The people whom he had subjected to brutal 
repression were dead against this course. C.P. 
even appointed a representative to Pakistan. 
Jinnah welcomed this move in a cable dated June 
20, 1947. That very day C.P. received a cable 
from Savarkar. He enthusiastically supported "the 
far-sighted and courageous determination to 
declare the independence of our Hindu State of 
Travancore". It is not difficult to visualise the 
impact on India's unity if other princes had 
followed this course. Fortunately, Travancore 
acceded to India and C.P. had to quit the State. 
This is the "nationalist" whom the Sangh Parivar 
lauds today.

The BJP is, of course, perfectly entitled to make 
the most of the encomiums showered on Savarkar by 
politicians from Indira Gandhi downwards; 
thoughtlessly and opportunistically. Memories of 
his crimes had faded. The Indian state had become 
soft on Hindu communalism. Streets were named 
after him and statues raised in his honour. Since 
Savarkar was not then an issue, nobody cared to 
look at the record. Once Vajpayee and Advani 
raised "the issue of Savarkar" - his place in 
India's history - people began to dig up the 
records. Creditably, Sonia Gandhi strongly 
objected to the unveiling of his portrait in the 
Central Hall of Parliament facing that of the man 
he had conspired to murder - Gandhi. Her letter 
of February 24, 2003 to President A.P.J. Abdul 
Kalam merits high praise.

At no time, however, did the world of scholarship 
accept Savarkar's credentials either to Indian 
nationalism or to greatness. This is true of 
India as well as foreign scholarship.

What R.K. Dasgupta, an eminent scholar and former 
Director of the National Library of India, wrote 
of him last year deserves to be quoted in 
extenso: "But in what sense is Savarkar a 
national figure? And why should it take 56 years 
after our attainment of national freedom to 
realise that Savarkar was a national figure? 
Which historian of India has called Savarkar a 
national figure? He has no presence in the 
serious political and historical literature of 
our country. There is no mention of Savarkar in 
the 945-page Oxford History of India published in 
1958. Nehru does not mention him in his 
Autobiography and Subhas Chandra Bose too does 
not mention him in his two autobiographies. There 
is not a word on him in R.C. Majumdar, Hemchandra 
Raychaudhuri and Kalikinkar Datta's 1,122-page An 
Advanced History of India published in 1946. 
There is not even a passing reference to Savarkar 
in the 940-page The Role of Honour: Anecdotes of 
Indian Martyrs edited by K.C. Ghosh and published 
by the National Council of Education in 2002.

"Savarkar has, however, a strong presence in our 
books on communalism, an instance of which is 
David Ludden's Making India Hindu (1996). In this 
work, Richard H. Davis calls him `the ideological 
progenitor of the RSS'. In the same work another 
authority on our modern political history calls 
him a propagandist of the doctrine of Hindutva. 
How then is Savarkar a national figure? When the 
BJP has a majority in our Parliament, God forbid 
it, we will see portraits of Keshab Baliram 
Hedgewar who founded the RSS in 1925 and M.S. 
Golwalkar who succeeded him as the head of the 
Hindu Organisation in 1940. If the BJP becomes 
all-powerful we may have a marble statue of 
Nathuram Godse in the Central Hall of Parliament. 
Godse assassinated Mahatma Gandhi [on] 30 January 
1948, as Narendra Modi destroyed Gandhism in 
Gujarat which is now a BJP State.

"Savarkar is the father of Hindu communalism and 
has the distinction of spelling out the 
two-nation theory about two decades before 
Jinnah. We can now accuse Savarkar of subverting, 
through his doctrine of Hindutva, the ideological 
foundation of our 3,000-year tradition as 
interpreted by Sri Ramakrishna, Bankim, 
Vivekananda, Rabindranath, Sri Aurobindo and 
others. The portrait of the philosopher of 
Hindutva has virtually tarred with a large brush 
the other portraits which so long gave a moral 
spiritual lustre to the hall of Parliament." As 
Savarkar himself emphasised, Hindutva is 
different from Hinduism. It is a political 
ideology forged in modern times in antithesis to 
the ancient and noble faith of Hinduism. Savarkar 
scorned religion as such. He was an atheist.

In his recently published work, a Swedish scholar 
Henrik Berglund exposes the Sangh Parivar's 
thesis on "cultural nationalism" based on 
Savarkar's Hindutva: "The last requirement, and 
perhaps the most important in the sense of the 
potential for exclusion, is for the Hindu to 
regard India not only as his fatherland, but also 
his holy land. It should be noted that Savarkar 
always portrays the Hindu as a `he'. Savarkar not 
only claims that Indian Christians and Muslims 
cannot be regarded as Hindus, he also goes 
further to say that their allegiance to the 
country is not sincere... . the basic idea of 
territorial nationalism is discarded; the fact 
that you are living within the territory, even as 
a citizen, is not sufficient for membership in 
the nation. Not even if your family has been 
rooted in the same village for centuries can you 
become a member unless the primordially based 
criteria are met. Instead, you are to be regarded 
as a threat to the integrity of the country, 
since you are more attached to what Savarkar 
calls your `holy land'" (Hindu Nationalism and 
Democracy; Shipra Publications, New Delhi; pages 
207, Rs.450).

This is a formidable work; meticulously 
researched and based on an array of Indian and 
foreign sources. He concludes this excellent work 
with a devastating exposure of the BJP's 
exploitation of the name of Ram, its rejection of 
India's "composite culture" and projection of 
Muslims and Christians as non-Indian. "The party 
shows a distinct refusal to draw a line between 
what has happened in the past and what is 
relevant for a solution of the Hindu-Muslim 
problems of today, but it also disregards the 
complexity of the Indian Muslim identity today. 
Within the Muslim community there is a wide range 
of opinions of how to relate both to the Indian 
state as well as to the majority community, but 
few support the separatist ideas claimed by the 
BJP to be typical of the Indian Muslim. Instead, 
the BJP nevertheless continues to spread these 
kinds of stereotypes, which in turn form the 
basis of its own constructions of Hindu and 
Muslim identities.

"Within Hindu nationalism, Hindu values and 
traditions are important, but they are 
overshadowed by the strong influences of cultural 
nationalism. The fascination for the idea of the 
nation-state, and the acceptance of it as a 
necessary pre-requisite for the successful 
development of independence, democracy and 
prosperity, produced the Hindu nationalist ideal 
of a largely unitary state. While recognising the 
importance of a cultural and religious identity 
for all individuals, the party denies the 
minorities the right to exercise this at a 
political level. Instead, the BJP argues for a 
mono-communitarian state, in which Hindu values, 
symbols and traditions form the core and demand 
the respect of all citizens."

THE BJP has now produced a "White Paper" of sorts 
on Savarkar to refute the charges against him 
(Swatantra Veer Savarkar: A Byword for Valour and 
Patriotism; BJP Central Office, New Delhi). It 
seeks "resolutely (to) expose Congress-Communist 
combines shameful attempt to insult a great hero 
of the Freedom Struggle." It succeeds, instead, 
in exposing the BJP and its icon. Like all Sangh 
Parivar publications, it reeks of misstatements, 
bad logic, bad temper and bad English.


THE HINDU PHOTO LIBRARY

Hoisting the saffron flag at an RSS function. 
Rejecting the national flag which the Constituent 
Assembly of India approved, Savarkar said: 
"Hindudom at any rate can loyally salute no other 
Flag but this Pan-Hindu Dhwaja, this Bhagava Flag 
as its national Standard."


Surely, Uma Bharati was not prosecuted for 
hoisting the national flag simpliciter, but for 
doing so in a particular place and in a 
particular context. Why not ask the RSS to hoist 
the national flag at its Nagpur headquarters? 
Savarkar is mentioned along with Bhagat Singh and 
others. But Bhagat Singh broke with his mentor, 
Lajpat Rai, when he turned communal and 
reproached his father for pleading for clemency 
as he faced the gallows. Savarkar's entire career 
was studded with repeated begging for clemency. 
The pamphlet makes much of politicians' praise of 
Savarkar, as it is entitled to, but trips badly 
on the record.

Savarkar was not arrested on March 11, 1910, in 
London "on some fabricated offences". The charges 
were upheld by a Bench of which Sir N.G. 
Chandavarkar was a member. Savarkar had 
instigated the murder of the Collector of Nasik 
district, A.M.T. Jackson who, Dr. M.R. Jayakar 
wrote, "was a reputed Sanskrit scholar and, it is 
believed, a great admirer of Indians, their 
language and literature". He was at a theatre to 
watch a Marathi play, "Sharada", when he was shot.

For all the praise, there is a significant effort 
in the pamphlet to distance the Sangh Parivar 
from Savarkar. "He also had differences with the 
RSS and the Bharatiya Jana Sangh." On July 15, 
1949, he wired to the RSS boss Golwalkar "Hearty 
congratulations on your release. Long live the 
Sangh as the valorous champion of Hinduism".

We are told: "After his release in 1924, he spent 
much time in social work and literacy creation." 
The undertakings he gave to secure his release 
are not mentioned (vide "Far from heroism", 
Frontline, April 7, 1995).

Like all his apologies and undertakings, the one 
of May 9, 1925, was abject and widely worded: 
"That he will not engage publicly or privately in 
any manner of political activities without the 
consent of Government for a period of five years, 
such restriction being renewable at the 
discretion of Government at the expiry of the 
said term." He added: "I hereby acknowledge that 
I had a fair trial and just sentence. I heartily 
abhor methods of violence resorted to in days 
gone by, and I feel myself duty bound to uphold 
law and the Constitution to the best of my powers 
and am willing to make the reform a success 
insofar as I may be allowed to do so in future." 
Savarkar demeaned himself by submitting to a 
grilling by the Governor of Bombay personally in 
order to testify to the sincerity of his 1925 
undertaking.

On his arrest after Gandhi's murder, he wrote to 
the Commissioner of Police on February 22, 1948: 
"I wish to express my willingness to give an 
undertaking to the Government that I shall 
refrain from taking party in any communal or 
political public activity for any period the 
Government may require in case I am released on 
that condition." He denied that he was hostile to 
Muslims and endorsed the concept of equality of 
all citizens.

On July 13, 1950, Savarkar gave an undertaking to 
a Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising 
Chief Justice M.C. Chagla and Justice P.B. 
Gajendragadkar, through his lawyer K.N. Dharap 
that he "would not take any part whatever in 
political activity and would remain in his house 
in Bombay". On July 20, he resigned as president 
of the Hindu Mahasabha. Excelling these models of 
courage is his very petition to the British 
rulers on November 14, 1913: "If the Government 
in their manifold beneficence and mercy release 
me, I for one cannot but be the staunchest 
advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty 
to the English government which is the foremost 
condition of that progress. As long as we are in 
jails there cannot be real happiness and joy in 
hundreds and thousands of homes of His Majesty's 
loyal subjects in India, for blood is thicker 
than water, but if we be released the people will 
instinctively raise a shout of joy and gratitude 
to the government, who knows how to forgive and 
correct, more than how to chastise and avenge. 
Moreover my conversion to the constitutional line 
would bring back all those misled young men in 
India and abroad who were once looking up to me 
as their guide. I am ready to serve the 
Government in any capacity they like. The Mighty 
alone can afford to be merciful and therefore 
where else can the prodigal son return but to 
parental doors of the Government?"

In the entire recorded history of mankind, is 
there any instance of a man who wrote repeatedly 
such grovelling letters to the regime of the day 
and yet was lauded as a national hero? Of a man 
who always made others wield the gun, and, when 
caught, begged for mercy? Of a man who conspired 
to kill one whom the country regards as the 
Father of the Nation but is himself regarded as a 
national hero?

THE pamphlet claims that Savarkar was "exonerated 
by the judge for lack of any evidence" in the 
Gandhi murder case. This is false. Judge Atma 
Charan found the approver Digambar Ramchandra 
Badge's evidence "direct and straight forward". 
But no independent corroboration was available in 
1948-49. It became available only after 
Savarkar's death in 1966. His secretary Gajanan 
Vishnu Damle and bodyguard Appa Ramachandra Kasar 
deposed to Justice Kapur that Godse and 
accomplice Narayan Apte met Savarkar on January 
23 or 24 on their return from Delhi well after 
they had met him on January 17 to which Badge was 
witness.

Justice Kapur's findings are all too clear. "All 
these facts taken together were destructive of 
any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by 
Savarkar and his group."

In his crime report No.1, the main police 
investigating officer, Jimmy Nagarwala, stated 
that "Savarkar was at the back of the conspiracy 
and that he was feigning illness". Nagarwala's 
letter of January 31, 1948, the day after the 
assassination, mentioned, on the strength of what 
Kesar and Damle disclosed to him, that Savarkar, 
Godse and Apte met for 40 minutes "on the eve of 
their departure to Delhi and that these two had 
access to the house of Savarkar without any 
restriction". In short, Godse and Apte met 
Savarkar again, in the absence of Badge, and in 
addition to their meetings on January 14 and 17. 
Had they testified thus in court, Savarkar would 
have been convicted.

Union Home Minister Sardar Patel had kept himself 
"almost in daily touch with the progress of the 
investigation regarding Bapu's assassination 
case. I devote a large part of my evening to 
discussing with Sanjevi (the top police officer) 
the day's progress and giving instructions to him 
on any points that arise". His conclusion in a 
letter to Prime Minister Nehru was 
characteristically clear: "It was a fanatical 
wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under 
Savarkar that [hatched] the conspiracy and saw it 
through (vide "Savarkar and Gandhi", Frontline, 
March 28, 2003).

Advani spoke of Savarkar in the Andamans on May 
4, 2002. He admitted his intellectual debt to 
Savarkar and his essay Hindutva: "Today, Hindutva 
is considered an offensive word. But we must 
remember that the pioneers of Hindutva like Veer 
Savarkar and RSS founder Hedgewar kindled fierce, 
nationalistic spirit that contributed to India's 
liberation."

This is a brazen falsehood. Savarkar met the arch 
imperialist Viceroy of India, Lord Linlithgow, in 
Bombay on October 9, 1939 - the month the 
Congress asked its Ministers in the provinces to 
resign - and pledged his enthusiastic cooperation 
to the British.

Linlithgow reported to Lord Zetland, the 
Secretary of State for India: "The situation, he 
[Savarkar] said, was that His Majesty's 
Government must now turn to the Hindus and work 
with their support. After all, though we and the 
Hindus have had a good deal of difficulty with 
one another in the past, that was equally true of 
the relations between Great Britain and the 
French and, as recent events had shown, of 
relations between Russia and Germany. Our 
interests were now the same and we must therefore 
work together. Even though now the most moderate 
of men, he had himself been in the past an 
adherent of the revolutionary party, as possibly, 
I might be aware. (I confirmed that I was.) But 
now that our interests were so closely bound 
together the essential thing was for Hinduism and 
Great Britain to be friends, and the old 
antagonism was no longer necessary." A great 
fighter for India's freedom, indeed. This was 
revealed only in 2000 when Economic and Political 
Weekly published the Italian scholar Marzia 
Casolari's article based on archival research 
(Economic and Political Weekly, January 22, 2000).

The BJP's pamphlet claims that "he was the first 
Indian leader of India to daringly proclaim 
absolute political independence of India as her 
goal". Tilak used the word Swaraj in May 1897, 
when Savarkar was 14, and said on May 2, 1908, at 
Akola "Freedom is a birth right".

SAVARKAR'S book on 1857 published in 1909 was the 
work of a devoted Indian nationalist. He urged 
Hindus and Muslims to unite and "jump into the 
battlefield fighting under one banner and wash 
away the name of the English from India in the 
streams of blood". The book exposed his psyche - 
he approved of bloodletting, though never risked 
shedding his own blood. Years later Jayakar was 
repelled by his pleas at a meeting for revenge 
and retribution.

How did he come to write Hindutva in 1923? In 
1963 he claimed that the book on 1857 was written 
"from the stand point of the Hindu nation". His 
biographer records his vandalisation of a mosque 
when he was 12. In one of the poems he wrote 
before he left for London he exhorted "organise 
all Hindus and unify them". But the British cease 
to be "the enemy"; Muslims took their place. Even 
his admirers do not recite objective reasons for 
the change. They explain it away by identifying 
Hindu nationalism with Indian nationalism. It was 
not objective conditions but changes in his 
personality which took him back to his roots. He 
never developed but remained a prisoner to a past 
with memories of imagined wrongs for which he 
sought violent revenge. Since Gandhi stood in the 
way, he had to be killed.

The BJP's pamphlet says "communist and communal 
historians, who have an ingrained habit to malign 
those who profess a different ideology, have made 
every effort to denigrate Savarkar as an 
`anti-Muslim' figure. A holistic study of 
Savarkar's writings does not support this charge. 
In his book 1857 - The First War of Independence, 
he has paid glowing tributes to Bahadur Shah 
Zafar and other patriotic Muslims who fought 
shoulder to shoulder with their Hindu brethren 
against the alien rulers."

Not surprisingly the documentation stops there. 
Not a single other writing in this vein in the 57 
years from 1909 till he died in 1966 is cited. In 
speech after speech collected in his book Hindu 
Rashtra Darshan, he preached hatred towards 
Muslims. Analysing his two-nation theory, 
Ambedkar noted: "He wants the Hindu nation to be 
the dominant nation and the Muslim nation to be 
the servant nation. Why Mr. Savarkar, after 
sowing this seed of enmity between the Hindu 
nation and the Muslim nation, should want that 
they should live under one constitution and 
occupy one country is difficult to explain" 
(Pakistan or the Partition of India; 1946; pages 
133-34). Jinnah and the Muslim League bear a 
heavy responsibility for spreading the poisonous 
two-nation theory and for the Partition. But not 
an exclusive one.

R.C. Majumdar, a historian partial to the Sangh 
Parivar, opined: "One important factor which was 
responsible to a very large extent for the 
emergence of the idea of partition on communal 
lines... was the Hindu Mahasabha... under the 
leadership of the great revolutionary leader, 
V.D. Savarkar" (Struggle for Freedom; Bharatiya 
Vidya Bhavan, 1969; page 611).

However, as Nehru noted in his Autobiography: 
"Many a Congressman was a communalist under his 
national cloak" (page 136). We have Advani's word 
for that as well. He acknowledged that many in 
the Congress shared the Sangh Parivar's ideology 
even before the Partition. "There was a similar 
stream within the Congress even before 1947. In 
those days both the streams co-existed" (The 
Asian Age, January 4, 1998). Partition 
exacerbated the trend. So did the dwindling 
fortunes of the Congress, decades later. The 
veteran socialist Prem Bhasin explained why the 
likes of K.C. Pant drifted to the BJP.

"The ease with which a large number of 
Congressmen and women, small, big and bigger 
still, have walked into the RSS-BJP boat and 
sailed with it is not a matter of surprise. For, 
there has always been a certain affinity between 
the two. A large and influential section in the 
Congress sincerely believed even during the 
freedom struggle that the interests of Hindu 
Indians could not be sacrificed at the altar of a 
United Independent India. Pandit Madan Mohan 
Malaviya and Lala Lajpat Rai had, for instance, 
actually broken away from the Congress and 
founded the Nationalist Party which contested 
elections against the Congress in the 
mid-Twenties" (Janata, Annual Number, 1998). 
Janata was founded by Jayaprakash Narayan in 
1946. It continues to fight for secularism and 
socialism even in these times, thanks to the 
devoted labours of Dr. G.G. Parikh, the veteran 
socialist.

Lajpat Rai advocated partition of India in 1924. 
The issue of Savarkar conceals within it potent 
vials of poison which will destroy India's 
nationalism and its democracy unless it is 
exposed boldly and resolutely.

The last word must belong to Gandhi. At the 
famous Quit India session of the All India 
Congress Committee (AICC) on August 8, 1942, he 
said: "Those Hindus who, like Dr. Moonje and Shri 
Savarkar, believe in the doctrine of the sword 
may seek to keep the Musalmans under Hindu 
domination. I do not represent that section." 
This is the fundamental divide between Gandhi and 
Savarkar's heirs, the BJP.

______


[3]

MINUTES OF FIRST [PAKISTAN] NATIONAL CONSULTATION FOR DELHI-MULTAN PEACE MARCH
2005

Indo-Pak Peace March Preparatory Committee Meeting, October 25, 2004

The meeting was held at PSF National Secretariat Lahore. The members
of Pakistan Social Forum, Punjab Social Forum, Sindh Social Forum,
Joint Action committee for Peace and Democracy Lahore, Pakiitan
Peace Coalition, Anjuman Asiai Awam, Anjuman Mozareen Punjab,
Mutahida Labor Federation, Citizens Peace Committee Islamabad and
many other social organizations, social movements and political
groups participated in the meeting. The meeting among other things
discussed the following items:

* Background, purpose and rationale of the Peace March 2005 followed
by questions and answers.
* Presentation of the March Route in India and Pakistan followed by
suggestions and comments
* Mobilization strategies and suggestions
* Formulation of messages and slogans for peace march.
* Formation of Organizing Committee: ideas and nominations

   The participating coalitions and social organizations were
informed that the purpose of meeting is to discuss a proposal came
form many peace groups and networks in India for a joint peace March
from Delhi to Multan during year 2005. Mohammad Tahseen and B.M
Kutty explained the background of the proposal that came from Mr.
Sandeep Pandy of Ekta Pareshad during Pakistan India joint
convention for peace in the year 2004. The proposal was discussed at
various peace forums of Pakistan and India and finally Indian groups
accepted the suggestion and a process for organization has started
in India. Irfan added that the Indian groups have formed a joint
organizing committee for the peace march that comprised of active
peace groups, networks, social movements and other human rights
networks from all over the India. HE said that this meeting is an
attempt to bring as many peace groups working in Pakistan and
consult them for organizing this peace march along with Indian
committee. He also explained the Pakistan Social Forum's steering
committee has accepted to facilitate the march along with other
peace networks and coalitions.

The participants after some discussion realized the importance of
the March as it can mobilize large number of people of India and
Pakistan besides educating people on the issues facing civil society
of India and Pakistan. All the participating coalitions  agreed to
provide their input for organizing and making the peace march
successful.

The discussion of participants comprised of planning regarding
preparations of Peace March within Pakistan, formation of criteria
for Pakistani core marchers from Dehli to Multan, Formulation of
mobilization strategies, slogans and massages as well as selection
and formation of organizing committee. The participants gave
following suggestions;

Some of the suggestions & Recommendations came from the participants
were:

* There is a need to revive the date of Peace March. Present date
can be clashed with forthcoming L.G. elections in Pakistan. In
addition months of April and May are normally the wheat harvesting
season in Punjan so most of the farmers will be busy with their
harvesting chores. The participants therefore resolve to suggest
Indian committee to shift the starting date of the Peace March from
23rd of march 2005 to 23rd of February to facilitate more
participation of people in the peace march

* All provinces required to be participated equally in the
activities of peace march along with Punjab. The participants agreed
to the proposal of organizing parallel marches in other provinces
while the main march will be on its way from Delhi to Multan. This
will provide maximum participation of citizens of Pakistan
particularly those living away from the march rout.

* The activity should be shaped as Peace March cum Peace (Aman)
Mella. Such mellas especially at rural areas in the way can create a
good impact.

* A large joint banner should be designed as "Pak-India Peace March
2005". The names of all coalitions and organization, participating
in this activity can be placed on the banner.

* Many moots, processions, cultural activities reflecting the
culture of all provinces; meeting with lawyers, journalists & trade
unions and mellas are required to be arranged at all stoppages of
Peace March to welcome the marchers and to highlight the issue.
Moreover the participants of these processions can accompany the
core marchers till next place.

* An parallel inauguration ceremony can be arranged in Lahore while
the march will start from Delhi on February 23rd to announce the
activity simultaneously in Pakistan.

* Parallel peace marches can be arranged simultaneously with major
activity in all over Pakistan to increase the impact. These marches
can join the core marchers at Multan at the culmination point.

* A pamphlet/leaflet comprising of the purpose of peace march should
be published and widely dissemination prior to the march to mobilize
people.

* A peace conference cn be organized as the closing ceremony with
full participation and coverage of local and international media can
be arranged at Multan.

* A logo for the activity should be designed.

* In order to promote sharing and joint planning efforts the meeting
suggested to form a joint Indo-Pak organizing committee.

* The Peace March  can be called as "Aman Caravan"

* The participants also suggested criteria for the selection of core
marchers;
1.       Ideological Clarity of the issue
2.        Peace activist
3.       Representation from all walks of life i.e. scholars,
journalists, folk singers, old persons and story tellers.
4.       Representation from provinces
5.       Women representation

* The suggestions for the issues of messages and slogans are;
1.       Mass participation
2.       Ban of Missile tests
3.       Poverty alleviation
4.       De-militarization and denuclearization.
5.       regional cooperation
6.       Friendly visa policy
7.       Pro-people SAFTA
8.       Issues of prisoners & Fisher Folk

Some suggestions came for the mass mobilization for the peace march
were to print and disseminate a pamphlets, a poster & banners in all
major cities and towns on the march route. A website and e-
circulation of announcement for peace march, announcements in NGO
Magazines, newspapers and other print media, regular media forums &
conferences, discussion forums at district levels, series of press
conferences in major cities of Pakistan, material dissemination at
schools, colleges and universities can be some effective strategies.

The meeting decided to use main G.T. Road from Lahore to Multan as
the route of the March and there should be a stop over at average 15-
20 km distance daily. JAC Lahore agreed to coordinate the events &
activities in Lahore. Peace between India and Pakistan would be the
major focus of messages & slogans.

The meeting decided to form an organizing committee for preparation
of peace march comprising of 1-2 representatives of all
participation coalitions and networks, and equal representation to
provinces. Similarly women would be given representation in
organizing committee.  Moreover district organizing committees would
be formed who would be responsible to organize the activities at
district level. Big cities committees following the rout of March
would be formed.

The first organizing committee formed was as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. A.H. Nayyar, and Karamat Ali (Pakistan Peace Coalition), Sayeda
Diep and Mehar Safdar (Anjuamn Asiai Awam), Yaqoob, Yusuf Baloch and
Altaf Baloch (Mutahida Labor Federation), Riaz Ahmed (Citizen Peace
Committee) Dr. Christopher and Aqeela (Anjuamn Mozareen Punjab),
Irfan Mufti (Pakistan Social Forum), Abbass Shakir and Zia-Ur Rehman
(Punjab Social Forum), Shamoon Pitras (Chistian), Zahid Gardezi
(Multan) NAsreen (Cheecha Watani) Joint Action Committee Lahore will
give names of its representatives after its meeting. The meeting
also decided to offer other peace networks to send representatives
for this committee.

______



[4]


Film and Book Review:


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=32&ItemID=6479


Reviewing:

Crossing the Lines: Kashmir, Pakistan, India
A story of people at war over borders and boundaries
A documentary film by Pervez Hoodbhoy and Zia Mian
Eqbal Ahmad Foundation, 2004, 45 minutes

and

Between Past and Future - Selected Essays on South Asia
by Eqbal Ahmad
Oxford University Press, Pakistan, 2004


______



[5]    Upcoming Events:


(i)

Youth For Peace

Two day Workshop

October 30, 31, 2004
Venue: Anhad, 4, Windsor Place, New Delhi-110001
Tel- 23327366/ 67


  Schedule for October 30, 2004- ANHAD

9.00-9.30- Introduction of Anhad, Youth For Peace-Moyna Manku

9.30-11.00- Formation of Indian Identity-Sohail Hashmi

11.00-11.30- Tea Break

11.30-1.00- Threat to Secular Democracy-Harsh Mander

1.00-2.00- Lunch

2.00-3.30- Communalisation of Education- Rizwan Qaiser

3.30- 4.00- Tea Break

4.00-6.00- Legacy of the Freedom Movement-–to be confirmed

6.15 onwards:  Documentary – Michael Moore's Farhenheit 9/11


Schedule for October 31, 2004- ANHAD

10.00-11.30- Dalits- issue, movement & 
interrelation with communal politics- Anand Kumar 
B

( National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights)

11.30-12.00- Tea break

12.00-1.30- Indo-Pakistan Relationship- Praful Bidwai

1.30-2.30- Lunch

2.30-4.00- Relevance of Gandhi in our Times – Marko Ulvila
4.00-4.30- Tea Break
4.30-6.00- Communalism and Status of Women- to be
  confirmed
Kindly send an e-mail to 
<mailto:anhad_delhi at yahoo.co.in>anhad_delhi at yahoo.co.in 
or contact
Mansi Sharma/ Moyna Manku- 23327366/ 67 if you want to
participate in the workshop.


(ii)


Demonstration to Mark The 20th Anniversary of November
1984 [Anti Sikh] Holocaust

MANDI HOUSE TO PARLIAMENT [New Delhi]

Monday November 1, 2004, 1000AM


Kindly join in the protest action.


Lok Raj Sangathan


(iii)

Ref: Your august presence as Guest.
Greetings From PVCHR / FRM.

We take great pleasure in extending to you our
invitation to be the Guest at the 'People's SAARC'
scheduled on 15-17 of January 2005 in Varanasi of
North India.
This is a historical convention bringing together all
Secular and democrati[c] forces interested in the
preservation of the secular,
Pluralistic and democratic fabric of the South Asian
society. Several renowned
National and International social activists and
intellectuals are
participating.
Your august presence as the  Guest on 15 Jan. 2005
(10 AM) will help make this
Convention a great success and we request you to find
the time to
participate and give your views at the Convention and
lend your
voice to the 'People's SAARC Declaration'.
We will much appreciate if you can contribute to the
cost of your travel and we will take care of your
accommodation,
food and conveyance

Thanking you in anticipitation, we remain,
Yours truly

(DR. LENIN , Subodh,Dr. sandeep Pandey, Dr. Darin &
Shruti)



_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on 
matters of peace and democratisation in South 
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit 
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South 
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at:  bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/

Sister initiatives :
South Asia Counter Information Project :  snipurl.com/sacip
South Asians Against Nukes: www.s-asians-against-nukes.org
Communalism Watch: communalism.blogspot.com/

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.