Shourie Finds it Convenient to Tar Savarkar : Sets Bad Precedent

Akshay Ranade is an Assistant Professor (Politics and International Relations) at Symbiosis International University. He is the Founder and Director of the research forum ‘Mimamsa Foundation for Indic Studies’ (MFIS) which focuses on building a strong Indic perspective to understand India.

Arun Shourie’s new book, ‘The New Icon : Savarkar and Facts’, is making quite a lot of buzz. For someone who was considered an icon of the ‘Intellectual Right’ to write a critical account of Savarkar – the controversial Hindutva ideologue – is a treat for a few and a surprise to others. I have always admired Shourie and have grown up reading some of his earlier books. Not that I agreed with him on all the issues he wrote about, but I was inspired by his diligence and the integrity with which he wrote. This is why Shourie’s new book comes up as a major disappointment. This review will not attempt to cloak any of that.

Before we proceed with the review, a brief disclaimer is in order, lest I be accused of producing a review ‘without even reading the book’. Firstly, yes, I have read the book in its entirety and have also gone through some of his ‘notable’ online interviews on this book. I particularly wanted to watch those interviews to see if there is any justification or rationale for the way Shourie has written this book. But I have to admit that the book at least offers some objective analysis, which is completely missing in the interviews, where Shourie flows in the new political current his interviewer wants him to swim in.

Second disclaimer : The review is not based on Shourie’s new politics or my political inclinations. That, as an admirer of Shourie’s work, I have tried to present the review only after carefully examining some of his claims and weighing them against the ‘facts as they are’. But after having done that, one cannot escape the conclusion that Shourie’s book is a politically colored project that lacks objectivity and thoroughness.

One of the podcast presenters laudingly calls this an ‘academic’ work filled with references and quotations. Indeed, that is necessary for any academic work. But there is something far more fundamental expected in academic writing, which Shourie’s book, unfortunately, lacks. First, for any academic work, a basic precondition is that the conclusions shall not precede the academic and critical enquiry of the subject – that the observations should flow from the critical study of the subject. The second prerequisite is that the conclusions should be proportionate to the data or the observations. Glaringly, Shourie’s book flounders on both accounts. Observations in the book are disproportionately biased in favor of making Savarkar a peculiar historical figure. This strengthens the suspicion that Shourie indeed had ‘predetermined’ views about Savarkar, which he sought to buttress through this bulky volume.

Firstly, on the claim of the book that it ‘unearths certain facts that will surprise you’. With the blurb making such a claim, one would expect that, indeed, something new was discovered by the author. Alas, if you believe that, you are up for a major disappointment ! For those who have studied, read, and analyzed Savarkar and also for those who have been his admirers, there is hardly anything new in the book. If at all there is anything new, it is the twist that Shourie gives to certain ‘facts’ to build a feeble case for his version of Savarkar.

Let’s take, for example, one aspect of Savarkar’s persona examined in detail by Shourie – an aspect of Savarkar’s life which Shourie claims he admires – which is his rationalism. Shourie says Savarkar was a thorough rationalist who appealed to reason when interpreting texts, tradition, and customs and was unsparing of those who did not stand to rational scrutiny, but with the curious claim that those who admire Savarkar do not know about it. One interviewer of Shourie says, “…this fact will shock Savarkar’s followers and possibly pleasantly surprise his critics”. Even at the end of the section that discusses Savarkar’s rationalism, Shourie himself asks, “What part of Savarkar’s writings on these subjects are those who are appropriating him today prepared to accept ?” (p. 51) – giving the impression that this aspect of Savarkar was completely unknown to his followers. The truth is, all this has been very well documented, and these views of Savarkar are well known among his admirers. All his biographers have studied and commented on them, and many of his essays on these very matters are often discussed by supporters and critics alike. One example here should serve the purpose.

Shourie points us to a speech that Vajpayee delivered at an event to commemorate Savarkar (p. 55). At that event, P.L. Deshpande, a famous literary figure from Maharashtra and by no stretch of imagination a Hindutvavadi, delivered the welcome address. In the entirety of his address, which was joyously received by the enthusiastic crowd, he focuses on the rationalist-humanist side of Savarkar, to the extent of declaring that the biggest gift Savarkar gave him (P.L. Deshpande) was that Savarkar made him an atheist. Accompanying Deshpande on the stage were, apart from Vajpayee, contemporaries and admirers of Savarkar, including members of the RSS. None of them had any qualms about accepting this facet of Savarkar. One may argue that it is the detractors of Savarkar who are finding this aspect of Savarkar’s world view new and hard to digest, and the fact that Savarkar, who was castigated by them all as a rabid communalist, actually happened to be a committed rationalist.

Savarkar’s admirers always knew this and accepted it. But what if one were to flip the logic and ask Shourie, for example, if he is prepared to accept all that Gandhi said and prescribed – Gandhi’s take on modernity, on the nature of state, and indeed on the use of violence. Is Shourie’s prescription of ‘two eyes for an eye, a jaw for a tooth’ to deal with terrorism instigated by Pakistan in tune with what Gandhi would have advised and demanded ? And if not, is it then safe to conclude that even Shourie is guilty of appropriating Gandhi and using him selectively ? This, however, is the least of the contradictions in the book !

The next major charge that Shourie hurls at Savarkar is that he actively created ‘myths’ about himself that were then ‘swallowed up by the gullible’. He begins with the ‘myth’ of his famous escape from the S.S Morea that was moored at Marseilles. Shourie begins by quoting Vajpayee’s speech to show how the ‘myth’ was created.

Two things are pertinent in this case : first, Savarkar himself never propagated the ‘myth’ of his glorious escape by swimming across the ocean to reach Marseilles. Savarkar himself at least ‘twice’ clarified that the jump from the steamer and swimming was no big deal. First, in the autobiographical account of his ordeal in Andaman written in Marathi titled ‘Majhi Janmathep’ – translated into English as ‘My Transportation for Life’. Savarkar on being asked by a guard on how many days he swam to reach the shores, replied, “What days and night ? I may not have swum even for 10 mins before I reached the shores”. Notice that here, Savarkar scoffs at even the idea of swimming ‘day and night’ and the expression that “I may not have swum even for 10 mins” unambiguously states that it was not a big deal.

The English translation, which Shourie quotes in the book, misses this little nuance of the original Marathi and quotes Savarkar as saying – “I swam only for ten minutes before I reached the shores”. This little nuance is important because Shourie, later in the same section, maintains that these ten minutes is also a ‘substantial exaggeration’ (p. 62), amounting to myth-making by Savarkar. Savarkar reiterates the same position in an interview that he gave to the Organiser, an RSS weekly, in 1965, a year before his death. Even Dhananjay Keer’s biography, which offers a more dramatic narration of the event, does not blow the incident out of proportion to the point that would amount to myth creation. It is important to note that Keer’s biography was published when Savarkar was still alive, and he would have had a chance to go through it.

But Shourie insists on attributing the ‘myth creation’ to Savarkar, and so he turns to one of the most convenient accounts for this ‘narrative’ given in the book titled Life of Barrister Savarkar written by the mysterious Chitragupta. The authorship of this book is indeed uncertain. Several accounts suggest several different authors, and the speculation is also that Savarkar himself may have written the book under a different name to escape the Government’s scrutiny. This is the book that gets into a highly poetic and exaggerated narration of the whole event, and so Shourie, conveniently ignoring the other accounts, insists on sticking to the book by ‘Chitragupta’.

Whether or not Savarkar authored that book and what the purpose of the book might have been, what one fails to understand is why anyone would insist on referring to a book whose authorship is debated. Another point to be noted here is that Chitragupta’s book was published in 1926 in Madras, and Majhi Janma Thep was published in 1927 and was well received by the people to the extent that within months, the first edition was sold out. Given the circumstances, if there is uncertainty about the authorship of a book and other more reliable sources exist, any academic researcher would know what to rely on. However, since Shourie is committed to insinuating that Savarakar was a myth-maker, he ignores other sources and focuses on Chitragupta’s version. Shourie uses this version for a host of other issues throughout the book when there are other ‘more authentic’ sources. This pattern of selective quoting is not an exception but the norm throughout the book.

Shourie expends an entire chapter on proving how Savarkar was inclined to lie and prone to myth-making by selectively quoting a ‘few lines’ from his written defense submitted to the court during the trial of Gandhi’s assassination (p. 467). It is a long written statement running into several pages, but Shourie picks up the initial few lines that can be used to buttress his predetermined conclusions. Shourie’s main objections are that Savarkar ‘lied about meeting Gandhi at the India House in 1908 and that he was lying when he referred to Gandhi as a ‘friend’. To quote Shourie, “Neither in India House nor anywhere else, neither in 1908 nor at any other time did Gandhiji and Savarkar live together as friends and work together as compatriots at all”.

Let us look at the charge about lying. Savarkar indeed mentions that in 1908, Gandhiji and he resided as ‘friends and compatriots’ in India House.

But it seems unlikely that he was lying as Shourie insinuates. It is to be conceded that Savarkar did get the year wrong in the written defense. Gandhi’s visit to India House happened not in 1908 but in 1906 (something which Shourie passingly notes in the book but glosses over to build his narrative (p. 469). Gandhi, in October 1906, had visited India House and stayed there for ‘at least a night or two’ before moving to London’s largest and most luxurious hotel, The Cecil, arguably the most magnificent in Europe. The detailed account of Gandhi’s multiple visits to London is found in James Hunt’s ‘Gandhi in London’. Savarkar had started living in India House by July 1906 and had already started becoming a known name there. So, Gandhi did visit India House when Savarkar was there and spent a night or two at the India House.

Later, in 1909 as well, when Gandhi had visited London again, the two had met – though not in India House, but at a dinner on the occasion of Vijayadashmi in Nazimuddin’s Indian restaurant in Bayswater, London. Gandhi meeting Savarkar in London and having stayed with him at India House earlier in 1906 is certainly possible. Is it conceivable then that Savarkar probably got the year wrong in the statement but he wasn’t necessarily lying or building a myth around him as Shourie wants us to believe ?

Also, Shourie then spends several pages showing what Savarkar was doing after 1910. That he completely glosses over those details that could link to a meeting between the two at India House in 1906 lays bare how he conveniently picks up ‘facts’ to suit his case. Consider this :what would Savarkar gain by lying about the year that he met Gandhi in London ? Was this information going to be of any consequence for his trial ? That small bit of detail was a highly inconsequential part of the entire written defence that runs into several pages. Savarkar himself maintains that such details, or memories as he calls them, ‘would naturally be held as too distant in so far as this case is concerned’. But Shourie insists on portraying this probable mistake as proof of his lying and myth-making tendencies. This brings us to the second point that Shourie focuses on about Savarkar lying that ‘Gandhi was his friend’. This is where I urge the reader to go through the entire written defense, which is available online. The portion that Shourie picks up and wants to use for building his narrative is the most insignificant part of the entire statement.

The written statement also never denies the fact that Savarkar and Gandhi had fundamental political differences. Never had Savarkar concealed his severe opposition to Gandhi’s politics and methods, and he was unsparing and forthright in his criticism of what he considered was detrimental to Indian interests. The statement attempts to make a point that despite these major differences, Savarkar never allowed it to fester into personal animosity and continued to nurture personal respect and goodwill. To explain the point, he reproduces several press statements that the Hindu Mahasabha under his leadership issued since at least the 1940s to show solidarity with the leaders of Congress whenever they faced arrests or difficulties. I am quoting just one example that Savarkar used in his statement to emphasize this point. The following statement was issued by Savarkar after the arrest of Congress leaders in August 1942 :

“The inevitable has happened. The foremost and patriotic leaders of the Congress Party including Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and hundreds of other leaders of the Congress Party are arrested and imprisoned. The personal sympathies of the Hindu Sanghatanists go with them in their sufferings for a patriotic cause.”

Savarkar goes on to reproduce several other such statements to make a point that political differences were not allowed to fester into personal animosities. In the same spirit, if Savarkar used the word ‘friend’ for Gandhi, how is he perpetuating the myth ? Nowhere in the entire chapter of the book do we get any sense from Shourie on the core focus of Savarkar’s written statement. Shourie, in the entire chapter, completely ignores the rest of the written statement and focuses on a few lines to make his case. His cunning twists and selective quoting of Savarkar’s statements are hallmarks of his machinations to paint Savarkar into a corner. But this seems relatively less significant of Shourie’s concoctions, compared to the ways through which Shourie wants everyone to believe that Savarkar was a Nazi sympathizer inspired by racist designs.

(Courtesy : Excerpts of an Article by Prof. AkshayRanade posted on indiafacts.org; 11.3.2025)

The fact that Savarkar, who was castigated by his detractors as a rabid communalist, happened to be a committed rationalist !