Why is Modi talking of Nehru, Bhagat Singh, instead of reforms?

In the recently held Karnataka elections, Narendra Modi made statements which are not true, and which are made to raise the emotive pitch against his opponents. In a blatant lie, in a rally in Bidar, he asked “When Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Batukeshwar Dutt, and Veer Savarkar were jailed fighting for the country’s independence, did any Congress leader go to meet them?...”

One is surprised as to how this can be an electoral issue today? The central tactic of BJP and communal organisations is to bypass the issues related to people’s needs and to direct the attention towards emotive issues. Modi raises issues which are of no relevance and tends to portray the Opposition in a negative light. Modi will go to the extent of even lying with great confidence to achieve this. In this statement, Modi was lying about Nehru not having visited Bhagat Singh on one hand, but also attempting to glorify his icon Savarkar on the other by mentioning him alongside Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt.

As a matter of fact, INC, while it had differences with the revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, they respected the high level of commitment and dedication of these young men. There are reports in the Tribune about Nehru having visited the jail to meet Bhagat Singh and his comrades.

The reports in Tribune on August 9 and 10 of 1929, tell us about Nehru meeting the jailed revolutionaries. Motilal Nehru had even formed a committee to demand the humane treatment for the revolutionaries on fast-unto-death. In his autobiography, ‘Towards Freedom’, Jawaharlal Nehru gives a touching account of his meeting Bhagat Singh, Jatin Das and other young men. “I happened to be in Lahore when the hunger strike was already a month old. I was given permission to visit some of the prisoners in the prison, and I availed myself of this. I saw Bhagat Singh for the first time, and Jatindranath Das and a few others. They were all very weak and bedridden, and it was hardly possible to talk to them much. Bhagat Singh had an attractive, intellectual face, remarkably calm and peaceful. There seemed to be no anger in it. He looked and talked with great gentleness, but then I suppose that anyone who has been fasting for a month will look spiritual and gentle. Jatin Das looked milder still, soft and gentle like a young girl. He was in considerable pain when I saw him. He died later, as a result of fasting, on the sixty-first day of the hunger strike.”

The other aspect of the statement by Modi is to equate Savarkar with the dedicated young revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh. This seems to be a clever ploy to elevate Savarkar to the level to which he did not belong. While Bhagat was in jail, pending death penalty, he was requested by his family to seek clemency, which Bhagat refused.

On the contrary he wrote to the British Government that since he and his comrades have been sentenced to death for waging war against the empire, he should be made to face the firing squad not just death by hanging.

On the contrary Savarkar, after being sentenced for his role in the case of murder of a British officer; totally changed his stance in jail. From an anti-British role, he changed completely and wrote apology letters. He surrendered to the British and promised them to help them in the future! He did remain loyal to British after his release from jail.

As a matter of fact, Congress in recognition of Savarkar’s initial role had mounted pressure on the British Government from 1920 onwards to release him. However, due to reasons best known to Sarvarkar, he preferred to give a written undertaking stating his ‘total surrender’ . “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 constitution (British, added) to the best of my powers and am willing to make the 'reform' a success in so far as I may be allowed to do so in future” (from facsimile of Savarkar’s letter to British authorities). There are many such letters and British did grant him clemency.

This act of his seeking pardon from British was a betrayal of the freedom movement. To counter this, his followers state that it was Sarvarkar’s ploy to get released, so that he could continue his struggle against the British rule. That wasn’t to happen. Soon after his release, Savarkar floated the concept of Hindu nationalism; he brought to the fore the word Hindutva (total Hinduness), and stated that there are two nations in the country, a Hindu nation and the Muslim nation! This was precisely the equal and opposite of the politics of Muslim nationalism being brought up by Muslim league. This is what also contributed to partition tragedy.

So Modi on one hand lies about Congress leaders ignoring those who had struggled for freedom. On the other, he puts Savarkar in the same category as Bhagat Singh. Congress was trying to get Savarkar released. Bhagat Singh remained firm on his ideology and path of resistance against British power. For his principles he undertook a hunger strike in jail. Savarkar on the other side buckled under the jail conditions and surrendered to the British. Such attempts by the Modi government to spread propaganda like how Joseph Goebbels did under the Hitler government need to be opposed.