Nehru and Savarkar

[sankranti]

1. First all segregation and partition are completely different things. UK is leaving the EU - that is Partition - not segregation of citizens because of their beliefs. Partition of India was a political demand by a certain section of the Indian population. From what I understand Gandhi was against it till the end.

LOL... Brexit was due to economic difference. Partition was due to RELIGIOUS segregation. SEPERATE country for muslims. Does not get any more segregated that that.


How does it matter if someone kept changing their "principles". Fact remains that Gandhi brought into the very same philosophy that you blame Savarkar for. Why two different standards for two different people ? THe very definition of Hypocrisy.

2. Am sure he had his vices - and sure he was hypocrite for denying penicillin to his wife while administering it himself.

Glad you agree. So you deny Gandhi any moral authority. So on what grounds are you seeking a pedestal for him ?

I am surprised that you did not find hypocrisy for him asking Indians to pick up arms against the germans, or with him sleeping with underage girls while advocating celibacy to others.

3. Bose was not forced into exile - he escaped from house arrest where he was clearly comfortable. Bose was just as popular as Gandhi, if not more especially among the younger generation. The only leader with the same kind of popularity was Bhagat Singh at his zenith. Savarkar was no where close in terms of popularity on a national scale. I have not read of any physical torture that Savarkar had to endure in Cellular Jail - do enlighten me with sources.

That is exactly how one is forced into exile. Did you think a polite request by the British forces one into exile ?

Bhagat singh was INSPIRED by Savarkar, very much the same way Nehru was inspired by Gandhi. So you claiming lack of popularity of Savarkar is not on firm ground , especially since you quote his fan, Bhagat singh.

Finally #7 of this very thread gives details of Savarkar's torture. Have you even bothered to read the thread ?

 

[SrNair]

Ok, so let me measure Gandhi by your own parameters.

1. You claimed Savarkar wanted to segregate Muslims in the same way as African-Americans were in the US.

Yet it was Gandhi who segregated Muslims by agreeing to the partition of India. So by this very parameter, Savarkar and Gandhi were in the same page. Only Savarkar had a more principled stand and he stuck to his principles while Gandhi claimed to have principles, but he certainly had no problems with compromising on those principles for "national interest".

2. Next is Gandhi's claim to his "moral authority".
a.) Funny word for a man who admitted to sleeping naked with his own abused grand niece. (AFTER his wife's death)
b.) A man who denied his dying wife penicilline, but allowed the doctores to use penicillin to save his own life.
c.) A man who had no qualms asking Indians to pick up arms against the Germans, but had qualms asking them to pick up arms against the British.
d.) A man who did not do a day of honest labour after he returned by South Africa. He lived on monthly handouts by Birla, who ones famously said, "it cost the nation a fortune to keep Gandhi living in poverty" (mistakenly attributed to Sarojini naidu who merely repeated it)

Compare this to Savarkar who asked Indians to take up arms against the British, who was faithful to wife till the end, lived off his own resources, and was consistent in his approach to the british.


3. Next is the claim of Gandhi's popularity.

This was true, but it was also a creation of the British. Gandhi was 'popular" because he was allowed to publish since he supported British home rule. The british gave lighter sentence to him and his "Jail" was a serious of comfortable cells. Only thing that changed were degrees of comfort. Those were the benefits of being a collaborator, like Gilani or Yasin Malik in kashmir.

Nationalists like Subash chandra Bose and Savarkar were forced into exile and made to leave India so that they could never become popular enough to incite a revolution. Savarkar was never a british collaborator.

In absence of such powerful men of flammable ideas, the vacuum was filled by pusillanimous men like Gandhi. This was exactly what the british wanted. You think Gandhi would have become "mahatma" without active british support ?

Gandhi spent 15 years in jail, in relative comfort. Savarkar spent 11 years in "Kala Pani" being tortured every day of his life.


By what parameter is Gandhi superior to Savarkar and deserve a pedestal ?



This is the part where I give you a long rope hang yourself.

QUOTE me the part where I made such a claim. Must be easy enough for you.

Ambedkar homosexual acts and tendencies are record by western historians. Especially his fondness for african d!cks.

So you are saying Ambedkar killed his ugly dalit wife to marry a beautiful bhramin wife. Very typical of dalit mentality, won't you say ?

Who told you they are not beautiful ? @SrNair.

See all this posts .
Dont tell us that is not you .

Because the last post yours I quoted here validating that point

 

[Jackdaws]

LOL... Brexit was due to economic difference. Partition was due to RELIGIOUS segregation. SEPERATE country for muslims. Does not get any more segregated that that.


How does it matter if someone kept changing their "principles". Fact remains that Gandhi brought into the very same philosophy that you blame Savarkar for. Why two different standards for two different people ? THe very definition of Hypocrisy.



Glad you agree. So you deny Gandhi any moral authority. So on what grounds are you seeking a pedestal for him ?

I am surprised that you did not find hypocrisy for him asking Indians to pick up arms against the germans, or with him sleeping with underage girls while advocating celibacy to others.



That is exactly how one is forced into exile. Did you think a polite request by the British forces one into exile ?

Bhagat singh was INSPIRED by Savarkar, very much the same way Nehru was inspired by Gandhi. So you claiming lack of popularity of Savarkar is not on firm ground , especially since you quote his fan, Bhagat singh.

Finally #7 of this very thread gives details of Savarkar's torture. Have you even bothered to read the thread ?

No.
Segregation is different from Partition. The former is about denial of basic civic rights to a certain section of the citizenry based on religion or race. But you already know that - you are now arguing for the sake of argument.

Gandhi did what was right at that point of time - fighting the British through an armed uprising was doomed. It had been tried and failed.

Bhagat Singh was INSPIRED by Savarkar? I find that hard to believe. Bhagat Singh was an avowed atheist and socialist. Even though he avenged the death of Lala Lajpat Rai - he did not take kindly to infusion of any form of communalism. Give me some source.

I am asking you for a source to show me that Savarkar himself faced any kind of torture in Cellular Jail.

 

[sankranti]

See all this posts .
Dont tell us that is not you .

Because the last post yours I quoted here validating that point

So what does "a beautiful bhramin wife." mean to you ?

This is the part when you pray for the earth to swallow you up so that you do not have to show your face again after demonstrating a total lack of english comprehension.

 

[SrNair]

So what does "a beautiful bhramin wife." mean to you ?

This is the part when you pray for the earth to swallow you up so that you do not have to show your face again after demonstrating a total lack of english comprehension.

Any third person that mention some others wife is beautiful is actually meant something . Do I need to tell you that

 

[sankranti]

No.
Segregation is different from Partition. The former is about denial of basic civic rights to a certain section of the citizenry based on religion or race. But you already know that - you are now arguing for the sake of argument.

LOL... are you real ? Segregation literally means "the action or state of setting someone or something apart from others."

It literally has nothing to do with denial of rights

I actually thought that you knew what segregation meant.

Gandhi did what was right at that point of time - fighting the British through an armed uprising was doomed. It had been tried and failed.

British left India due to the armed Mutiny. In January 1946, the airmen of the Royal Air Force in Karachi mutinied first. The airmen seized the signalling equipment to inform other servicemen of their act. act. From Karachi the disaffection spread to bases like Kanpur (the largest Royal Air Force base in South Asia) and even Singapore.

Then riots broke out in India in denunciation of the trial of officers of Indian National Army at the Red Fort.

Then on On February 18, the naval ensign was lowered on HMIS Talwar, and flags of the Congress, Muslim League and the communists raised in its place. The Mutineers then used the signalling equipment on board the ship to communicate to other vessels and comrades in other ports.

In a few hours, there were demonstrations on Bombay’s streets close to the port area, as mutineers on board other ships trained their guns on the shoreline.

By the next day, the city’s millworkers had struck work as well. And over the next two days, the mutiny spread to 70 more ships across bases, involving more than 20,000 Mutineers.

Wait, it got better.

As the word of the Bombay mutiny spread, sailors from the offshore bases of Bahadur, Himalaya and Chamak began marching toward Karachi. When their commanding officer declared the city off-limits, the ratings commandeered motor launches anchored by the bay and moved towards the Hindustan and seized its armoury.

Among these sailors was Anand Bakshi, an aspiring poet who would make it big as a lyricist in Bombay’s film industry a decade or so later. Bakshi was among the fortunate. At least six sailors were killed as the British battalion opened fire on the ship, after a Baloch regiment refused to do so. A widespread strike followed in Karachi the next day

The mutiny ended on February 23 after the strike naval committee in Bombay met with Sardar Patel. It was Sardar Patel who asked the Mutineers to end the Mutiny after he was assured by the British their desire to step down.

Bhagat Singh was INSPIRED by Savarkar? I find that hard to believe. Bhagat Singh was an avowed atheist and socialist. Even though he avenged the death of Lala Lajpat Rai - he did not take kindly to infusion of any form of communalism. Give me some source.

Its from Dhananjay Keer's book "Veer Savarkar, Sangam Books, London, 2nd Ed, 1988." Late Shri Keer received Padmabhushan for this and other biographies.

Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev had met Savarkar in Ratnagiri in late 1920s and drew inspiration from him before embarking on their revolutionary activity. Even Subhas chandra Bose’s decision to leave India and join Japan-Germany axis in World War II was based on Savarkar’s advice that in international politics enemy’s enemy should be seen as a friend and befriended.

Bhagat Singh and his colleagues brought out an underground edition in 1928 of Savarkar's book ("1857 - First War of Independence' which was Banned by the British in both UK and India even before it was published). They regarded it as the Gita of revolutionaries. It was published in Germany in 1942 by the Friends of India Society. THis was his first act of revolution. In fact when he was arrested, a copy of the same banned book was recovered from him.

This same book inspired Netaji Subash chandra bose. The names of the battalions and divisions, songs and slogans, spirit and inspiration of the Indian National Army were all derived from this book by Savarkar.

This is brought out by K.F.Nariman (after whom Nariman Point was named) wrote in "The Savarkar Special Number" of Free Hindustan Weekly, Bombay : ' The idea of I.N.A. and particularly the Rani of Jhansi Regiment seems to have originated from Veer Savarkar's proscribed publication on the great 1857 Revolution and Mutiny."

I am asking you for a source to show me that Savarkar himself faced any kind of torture in Cellular Jail.

That is like asking me for proof of torture in Guantanamo Bay. This itself stinks of bad faith and deliberate obfuscation.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...tish-colony-andaman-and-nicobar-a7883691.html

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2001/jun/23/weekend.adrianlevy

Any third person that mention some others wife is beautiful is actually meant something . Do I need to tell you that

LOL... is that what they taught you at your govt. vernacular medium school ?

 

[pothead]

1. First all segregation and partition are completely different things. UK is leaving the EU - that is Partition - not segregation of citizens because of their beliefs. Partition of India was a political demand by a certain section of the Indian population. From what I understand Gandhi was against it till the end.

2. Am sure he had his vices - and sure he was hypocrite for denying penicillin to his wife while administering it himself.

3. Bose was not forced into exile - he escaped from house arrest where he was clearly comfortable. Bose was just as popular as Gandhi, if not more especially among the younger generation. The only leader with the same kind of popularity was Bhagat Singh at his zenith. Savarkar was no where close in terms of popularity on a national scale. I have not read of any physical torture that Savarkar had to endure in Cellular Jail - do enlighten me with sources.

The only 2 negatives people have about Savarkar are below.

1. He sold out to British
2. He is a Hindutva supporter

If you can name other negatives, please do add.

Let's address the 2 shall we.

People who say he sold out to British tend to ignore the below.
a. He was incarcerated in one the worst places imaginable.
b. How he was jailed in India even after his release Andaman.
c. How British kept tabs on him even after his full release.
d. Contrast his incarceration with Nehru Or Gandhi.
e. Contrast how British treated him to how they treated Nehru or Gandhi. Heck, British treated Nehru & Gandhi much much differently to how treated all other freedom fighters.

People say he is a Hindutva supporter. I say so what?
Is it bad to be a supporter of Hindutva, especially when it's a cultural one?
Compare Savarkar to Gandhi and how they treated untouchables to find out who the fraud amongst the two was. Savarkar was a Hindu reformer as well. Little wonder RSS had no caste issues since their inception. the Same was noted by Ambedkar as well.

Coming to segregation, whether we accept it not, it exists and it has been done by everyone since invasion of Mughals.
Let me know what you call denial of education, jobs & promotions based on reservation?
Or facilities and services provided based on religion?
Or laws like RTE that deny equal opportunity based on religion?
Segregation exists even today in India, unfortunately we celebrate it in pretence of affirmative action.
Let us not talk about housing societies and Ghettos that only cater on basis of religion.

Gandhi and Nehru damaged our freedom struggle. It is so obvious to any neutral person reading what they have done and how they were treated by British, when compared with others, even their contemporaries like Lajapat Rai etc and how they were treated by British.

History is written by winners.
British made sure they won when they left India. They achieved that farce through Gandhi and Nehru who made sure the legacy of hundreds of freedom fighters was forgotten.
What a travesty that we revere a man who destroyed out freedom struggle and nation as father of our nation.

 

[Jackdaws]

The only 2 negatives people have about Savarkar are below.

1. He sold out to British
2. He is a Hindutva supporter

If you can name other negatives, please do add.

Let's address the 2 shall we.

People who say he sold out to British tend to ignore the below.
a. He was incarcerated in one the worst places imaginable.
b. How he was jailed in India even after his release Andaman.
c. How British kept tabs on him even after his full release.
d. Contrast his incarceration with Nehru Or Gandhi.
e. Contrast how British treated him to how they treated Nehru or Gandhi. Heck, British treated Nehru & Gandhi much much differently to how treated all other freedom fighters.

People say he is a Hindutva supporter. I say so what?
Is it bad to be a supporter of Hindutva, especially when it's a cultural one?
Compare Savarkar to Gandhi and how they treated untouchables to find out who the fraud amongst the two was. Savarkar was a Hindu reformer as well. Little wonder RSS had no caste issues since their inception. the Same was noted by Ambedkar as well.

Coming to segregation, whether we accept it not, it exists and it has been done by everyone since invasion of Mughals.
Let me know what you call denial of education, jobs & promotions based on reservation?
Or facilities and services provided based on religion?
Or laws like RTE that deny equal opportunity based on religion?
Segregation exists even today in India, unfortunately we celebrate it in pretence of affirmative action.
Let us not talk about housing societies and Ghettos that only cater on basis of religion.

Gandhi and Nehru damaged our freedom struggle. It is so obvious to any neutral person reading what they have done and how they were treated by British, when compared with others, even their contemporaries like Lajapat Rai etc and how they were treated by British.

History is written by winners.
British made sure they won when they left India. They achieved that farce through Gandhi and Nehru who made sure the legacy of hundreds of freedom fighters was forgotten.
What a travesty that we revere a man who destroyed out freedom struggle and nation as father of our nation.

I honestly don't care if he wrote an apology letter to the Brits to get out of jail. Do whatever it takes to get out of the place - anyone would.

My point is fairly simple - do you please apartheid / segregation has a place in a modern nation-state? For example - different trains for Muslims, different beaches, not allowed in public parks, excluded from the best public universities/colleges/schools, denied the right to vote, giving less funding in various projects etc. - that is what Savarkar wanted and he clearly said so. Do you think India should accept such an ideology?

LOL... are you real ? Segregation literally means "the action or state of setting someone or something apart from others."

It literally has nothing to do with denial of rights

I actually thought that you knew what segregation meant.



British left India due to the armed Mutiny. In January 1946, the airmen of the Royal Air Force in Karachi mutinied first. The airmen seized the signalling equipment to inform other servicemen of their act. act. From Karachi the disaffection spread to bases like Kanpur (the largest Royal Air Force base in South Asia) and even Singapore.

Then riots broke out in India in denunciation of the trial of officers of Indian National Army at the Red Fort.

Then on On February 18, the naval ensign was lowered on HMIS Talwar, and flags of the Congress, Muslim League and the communists raised in its place. The Mutineers then used the signalling equipment on board the ship to communicate to other vessels and comrades in other ports.

In a few hours, there were demonstrations on Bombay’s streets close to the port area, as mutineers on board other ships trained their guns on the shoreline.

By the next day, the city’s millworkers had struck work as well. And over the next two days, the mutiny spread to 70 more ships across bases, involving more than 20,000 Mutineers.

Wait, it got better.

As the word of the Bombay mutiny spread, sailors from the offshore bases of Bahadur, Himalaya and Chamak began marching toward Karachi. When their commanding officer declared the city off-limits, the ratings commandeered motor launches anchored by the bay and moved towards the Hindustan and seized its armoury.

Among these sailors was Anand Bakshi, an aspiring poet who would make it big as a lyricist in Bombay’s film industry a decade or so later. Bakshi was among the fortunate. At least six sailors were killed as the British battalion opened fire on the ship, after a Baloch regiment refused to do so. A widespread strike followed in Karachi the next day

The mutiny ended on February 23 after the strike naval committee in Bombay met with Sardar Patel. It was Sardar Patel who asked the Mutineers to end the Mutiny after he was assured by the British their desire to step down.



Its from Dhananjay Keer's book "Veer Savarkar, Sangam Books, London, 2nd Ed, 1988." Late Shri Keer received Padmabhushan for this and other biographies.

Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev had met Savarkar in Ratnagiri in late 1920s and drew inspiration from him before embarking on their revolutionary activity. Even Subhas chandra Bose’s decision to leave India and join Japan-Germany axis in World War II was based on Savarkar’s advice that in international politics enemy’s enemy should be seen as a friend and befriended.

Bhagat Singh and his colleagues brought out an underground edition in 1928 of Savarkar's book ("1857 - First War of Independence' which was Banned by the British in both UK and India even before it was published). They regarded it as the Gita of revolutionaries. It was published in Germany in 1942 by the Friends of India Society. THis was his first act of revolution. In fact when he was arrested, a copy of the same banned book was recovered from him.

This same book inspired Netaji Subash chandra bose. The names of the battalions and divisions, songs and slogans, spirit and inspiration of the Indian National Army were all derived from this book by Savarkar.

This is brought out by K.F.Nariman (after whom Nariman Point was named) wrote in "The Savarkar Special Number" of Free Hindustan Weekly, Bombay : ' The idea of I.N.A. and particularly the Rani of Jhansi Regiment seems to have originated from Veer Savarkar's proscribed publication on the great 1857 Revolution and Mutiny."




That is like asking me for proof of torture in Guantanamo Bay. This itself stinks of bad faith and deliberate obfuscation.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...tish-colony-andaman-and-nicobar-a7883691.html

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2001/jun/23/weekend.adrianlevy



LOL... is that what they taught you at your govt. vernacular medium school ?

Segregation was a policy - not a word you pluck from a dictionary.

"It literally has nothing to do with denial of rights" - LOL. Are you serious? I am assuming you think segregation accorded all rights to everyone universally - hahahahahahha

Yes - The Naval Mutiny was the final straw which broke the camel's back - but it was not violent and certainly did not result in killing. Clearly there is a difference between ARMED uprising and uprising. The ARMED uprising which failed was 1857 and the Ghadar Mutiny. Read up.

So you have no source to show that Savarkar himself was tortured - just a general view. Great. That's what I thought.

 

[pothead]

I honestly don't care if he wrote an apology letter to the Brits to get out of jail. Do whatever it takes to get out of the place - anyone would.

My point is fairly simple - do you please apartheid / segregation has a place in a modern nation-state? For example - different trains for Muslims, different beaches, not allowed in public parks, excluded from the best public universities/colleges/schools, denied the right to vote, giving less funding in various projects etc. - that is what Savarkar wanted and he clearly said so. Do you think India should accept such an ideology?

I am not sure he has said that. Can you please quote?
If he has, I don't confirm that and neither does the current iteration of RSS.

I also don't deny his experiences making him prejudiced against Muslims. Not ideal but that's what it is.

Coming to segregation, why do you look at it from the prism of muslims? Do you honestly thing we have no segregation in India today? And do you know attribute that to Savarkar? Who is responsible for current segregation in India and why are we not analysing that in the same vein?

 

[Jackdaws]

I am not sure he has said that. Can you please quote?
If he has, I don't confirm that and neither does the current iteration of RSS.

I also don't deny his experiences making him prejudiced against Muslims. Not ideal but that's what it is.

Coming to segregation, why do you look at it from the prism of muslims? Do you honestly thing we have no segregation in India today? And do you know attribute that to Savarkar? Who is responsible for current segregation in India and why are we not analysing that in the same vein?

Read this -
https://www.dailyo.in/politics/tom-...ationalist-hindu-mahasabha/story/1/20207.html

There is a difference between state sanctioned segregation as a policy of the Government - which is what Savarkar espoused and what you are saying. Of course we have no segregation in India - and thank God for that.

 

[pothead]

Read this -
https://www.dailyo.in/politics/tom-...ationalist-hindu-mahasabha/story/1/20207.html

There is a difference between state sanctioned segregation as a policy of the Government - which is what Savarkar espoused and what you are saying. Of course we have no segregation in India - and thank God for that.

read the article, a bit biased considering the then political dispensation but the beret of the adjectives was informative.

1. No where does Savarkar mention segregation. You are implying it based on how he wanted to treat muslims as minorities similar to how they then had it in US (bit rich of the US author to write such adjectives when blacks in his own nation at that time were bearing much worse)
2. Negros was the commonly used word then, nothing derogative for that time.
3. Blacks then are not similar to Muslims in India. There is infinite difference in both cases. Blacks were forcibly rooted from their native and were made slaves in USA compared to Mughals pushing themselves in India and making the locals as slaves.

How is what is happening in India under garb of reservation, SC/ST act and RTE act not segregation?
Is it because the victims don't parade themselves in public and riot like other victims in India?

Do you even know why there was a Bandh in India couple of days back? Just go and see the draconian law that is being imposed on a section. THAT is classic case of segregation.
Worse, like you mentioned, it is state sanctioned in India.

 

[YogaMudra]

Segregation was a policy - not a word you pluck from a dictionary.

"It literally has nothing to do with denial of rights" - LOL. Are you serious? I am assuming you think segregation accorded all rights to everyone universally - hahahahahahha

Yes - The Naval Mutiny was the final straw which broke the camel's back - but it was not violent and certainly did not result in killing. Clearly there is a difference between ARMED uprising and uprising. The ARMED uprising which failed was 1857 and the Ghadar Mutiny. Read up.

So you have no source to show that Savarkar himself was tortured - just a general view. Great. That's what I thought.

1. Segregation was a policy of the muslim League, not Savarkar. Savarkar was against partition

2. Naval mutiny was the final armed struggle that gave us Independence. If you do not call turning all the guns of the mutinied ships onto British Mumbai, then I do not know what violence is. Its an act of war.

3. Savarkar was not only allotted the excruciating work of rope making, but also yoked into milking oil like a bullock. He was forced to produce 10 pounds of mustard oil or 30 pounds of coconut oil every day, a large amount for anyone. This is as per the cellular jail prison records.

Savarkar wrote a near-epic on the walls of his solitary cell, giving an account of the tortures that the prisoners suffered: "`85 in an hour our limbs were almost paralysed`85 when we all got down at 10 o’ clock to take our meals`85 our hands were bruised, our brains shattered." The torture of working on the oil-milk, the wretched punishment that followed and the pitiable conditions of the political prisoners have all been described by Savarkar in his book, The Story of My Transportation For Life.

http://www.savarkarsmarak.com/activityimages/My Transportation to Life.pdf

 

[Jackdaws]

1. Segregation was a policy of the muslim League, not Savarkar. Savarkar was against partition

2. Naval mutiny was the final armed struggle that gave us Independence. If you do not call turning all the guns of the mutinied ships onto British Mumbai, then I do not know what violence is. Its an act of war.

3. Savarkar was not only allotted the excruciating work of rope making, but also yoked into milking oil like a bullock. He was forced to produce 10 pounds of mustard oil or 30 pounds of coconut oil every day, a large amount for anyone. This is as per the cellular jail prison records.

Savarkar wrote a near-epic on the walls of his solitary cell, giving an account of the tortures that the prisoners suffered: "`85 in an hour our limbs were almost paralysed`85 when we all got down at 10 o’ clock to take our meals`85 our hands were bruised, our brains shattered." The torture of working on the oil-milk, the wretched punishment that followed and the pitiable conditions of the political prisoners have all been described by Savarkar in his book, The Story of My Transportation For Life.

http://www.savarkarsmarak.com/activityimages/My Transportation to Life.pdf

You don't know what segregation means. I am not going to explain it to you. Read up.

Naval mutiny was not an Armed struggle. Read up what an armed struggle means.

 

[YogaMudra]

Read this -
https://www.dailyo.in/politics/tom-...ationalist-hindu-mahasabha/story/1/20207.html

There is a difference between state sanctioned segregation as a policy of the Government - which is what Savarkar espoused and what you are saying. Of course we have no segregation in India - and thank God for that.

LOL... what is the credibility of that article ? This is what it says,

"Treanor talked to him when he was perhaps the only Hindu political leader to not be in jail (having asked the British for a pardon so he did not have to serve his 50-year prison term and the "prodigal son'' could return to the ''parental doors of the government")."

You don't know what segregation means. I am not going to explain it to you. Read up.

Naval mutiny was not an Armed struggle. Read up what an armed struggle means.

Why don't YOU read up on the diaries of Savarkar I have provided in the link ? Take your own advice.

Let me post a few lines for that book.

" Sir Henry Cotton

One day the news went abroad that a certain high official In England had forfeited his pension on my account. I could make no head or tail of this report till, a few days after, I fell upon a cutting from The Kesari of Poona which I found dropped in a corner of my room. That cutting helped me to piece out the news and gather up all its threads. It was thus: In London the Indians had a public meeting in connection with the celebration of the new Year.

The chief guest of the evening happened to be Sir Henry' the author of New India, and the president of the Congress Session in Bombay in 1904. In the hall where the meeting was being held, they had put up my portrait and Sir Henry Cotton happened to notice it. Looking at the portrait he said a few words in my praise, and regretted that a young man of such adventurous spirit and fervent patriotism should be reduced to a pass that had blighted his life for good. He expressed the hope that the International Court of Justice at Hague would restore me back to France and thus save itself from being the instrument of trampling under foot every man's bare right to hold his own opinions without any molestation from the State.

This reference to me by Sir Henry Cotton had raised a storm of criticism against him in the political dovecotes of England. To sympathise with Savarkar was such an abomination, even though the praise had not been free from censure! Some suggested that the speaker should be deprived of his knighthood. Others hinted that he should be made to forfeit his pension. Ultimately, the whole incident had proved to be nothing better than the proverbial storm in the tea-cup, though it was not without its repercussions in India. The Indian National Congress was alarmed by the news, and seemed to have lost its balance.

Sir William Wedderburn, the president of the Congress session that year, and Surendra Nath Bannerj i, one of its most prominent spokesmen, while returning from the annual Congress Session, attended a public meeting at Calcutta, where, speaking on the incident, they put a gloss on Sir Henry Cotton's remarks upon me. and declared that the Congress had nothing to do with Savarkar and his tribe and felt no sympathy whatever for him and his doings. I read this news in the cutting of the Kesari noticed above. Strange to say, the Kesari itself in its two leaderettes had sought to exonerate Sir Henry Cotton, and, in reference to me in that matter, had used a form of address that was highly insulting to me. It had said, "Sir Henry Cotton did not even know who this Savarkar was, whether he was a black man or a white man." Even a nationalist paper like the Kesari at Poona had to write in that tone then. It was a subterfuge, common in those days, to establish one's innocence and prestige by running down Savarkar as a traitor, and by referring to him, in name and style, as the veriest criminal. Every political organisation, at the time, used that handy weapon to save its own skin.

It was a cruel irony of fate, indeed, that an English gentleman should speak of Savarkar in glowing terms, while his countrymen at home should refer to him in newspapers and elsewhere in the language of insult and infamy. But it was not the newspapers that were really to blame in this matter. It only showed the wretched plight to which a foreign rule inevitably reduces a subject nation. It showed that we lost under it even the sense of humanity which, as individuals, we ought to hold, as the minimum that is due from one man to another. What a heavy price this, to pay for bare existence!

 

[YogaMudra]

Hridainath Mangeshkar lost his job with Akashvani Mumbai, for setting tune to Veer savarkars poem.

Link of the interview below. This is the hate that is spread against Veer Savarkar.