Former BJP minister’s scathing critique of Savarkar challenges current government’s narrative, highlights Gandhi’s enduring relevance
Mohammad bin Ismail | Clarion India
NEW DELHI – In a meticulously researched and provocative new book, The New Icon: Savarkar and the Facts, senior journalist and former Union Minister Arun Shourie has cast a critical eye on the life and ideology of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the Hindutva ideologue being revived as a nationalist hero by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Released on January 31, the book has initiated a fierce political debate, with Shourie accusing the BJP of attempting to overshadow Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy by promoting Savarkar’s divisive and extremist ideology.
The 84-year-old author, a former minister in the BJP-led NDA government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee, has drawn on Savarkar’s writings, British archives, and contemporary records to dismantle the myths surrounding Savarkar’s role in India’s freedom struggle. Shourie’s book reveals startling facts about Savarkar’s mercy petitions to the British, his advocacy of violence, and his controversial stance on Muslims and Christians in India. He argues that Savarkar’s vision of a Hindu Rashtra (state), if followed, would transform India into a “cunning and deceptive saffron state.”
“On the last page, I have put forth my argument: Save Hinduism from Hindutva,” Shourie told the BBC in an exclusive interview. “Savarkar’s ideas are being invoked today in a way they never were before. This government is using him to erase Gandhi, whose inclusive vision makes Hindutva supporters uncomfortable.”
Shourie’s book, which includes nearly 600 references, scrutinises Savarkar’s claims, such as his alleged friendship with Gandhi in London and his role in inspiring Subhash Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army (INA). Shourie dismisses these as fabrications, citing historical evidence. “Subhash Chandra Bose himself recorded that nothing could be expected from Savarkar,” Shourie writes. “The INA was formed before their meeting, and Savarkar’s claims are baseless.”
The book also delves into Savarkar’s alleged involvement in the conspiracy to assassinate Gandhi. Shourie references the Kapur Commission report and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s letters to Jawaharlal Nehru, which point to a group of Savarkarites in Poona as being responsible for the murder. “There is no doubt that Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte were devoted followers of Savarkar,” Shourie writes. A government witness in the Gandhi assassination trial testified that Godse and Apte had sought Savarkar’s blessings before carrying out the act, with Savarkar reportedly saying, “Now that I have blessed you, you will definitely succeed.”
One of the most damning revelations in Shourie’s book is Savarkar’s series of mercy petitions to the British, in which he pledged loyalty to the colonial rulers. In one such petition, Savarkar wrote, “I will be of use to you, I promise that I will be grateful to you, no one will be as politically useful to you as I am.” Shourie argues that these petitions undermine the narrative of Savarkar as a fearless freedom fighter.
Shourie also critiques Savarkar’s ideology, which sought to relegate Muslims and Christians to second-class citizenship. “Savarkar believed that the holy land of Muslims is Arabia and that of Parsis is Iran,” Shourie explains. “This was a carefully crafted definition to exclude them from Indian identity. It benefited the British, who wanted to divide India.”
The book has drawn sharp reactions from Savarkar’s supporters, who accuse Shourie of distorting history. However, Shourie remains steadfast, asserting that his work is grounded in rigorous research. “I don’t remember any other government before this one invoking Savarkar’s ideas in this manner,” he told the BBC. “During Indira Gandhi’s time, a postage stamp was issued in his honour, and during Vajpayee’s tenure, a portrait of Savarkar was unveiled in Parliament. But his ideas were never discussed like this.”
Shourie’s critique of Savarkar is not just a historical analysis but a call to action. He warns against the dangers of adopting Savarkar’s vision, which he believes would undermine India’s secular fabric. “Gandhi was different from Savarkar’s advocacy of violence and division,” Shourie writes. “Savarkar was angry that Gandhi had become the face of the nationalist movement, while he, the self-proclaimed successor of Tilak, was sidelined.”
Shourie highlights Savarkar’s political failures, particularly in the 1937 elections, where his Hindu Mahasabha won only three out of 1,540 contested seats, while the Congress formed governments in seven provinces. This defeat, Shourie argues, fuelled Savarkar’s hatred for Gandhi, whom he saw as an outsider who had stolen his rightful place as the leader of the Hindu nationalist movement.