Veer Savarkar did not support the militarisation policy only to oppose Subhash Babu’s Indian National Army or to help the British. He knew the importance of militarisation right from his early days as a revolutionary. At the outset of the famous prologue written by Savarkar in the Marathi book of Mazzini,(Giuseppe Mazzini autobiography (concise) translated in Marathi by Veer Savarkar), he says: ‘The theorems of science are not limited by time or countries. The principles of geometry are as true in Greece as they are in Hindusthan… Mazzini did not state these principles only for Italy. Italy is merely the reason. He has revealed the great truths of political science for the welfare of entire mankind.’
Clarity of Concept
Here, Savarkar wants to say that universally, the theory of revolution is essentially the same. In a letter written in London in 1906, quoting the sentence from the Spectator that stated—‘Full training can be given to the soldiers in a period of six months’—Savarkar writes: ‘Every Bharatiya youth should undergo training in parade, horse-riding and gun shooting.’ The same year, in another letter, he writes: ‘The survival of a country depends on its independence and its political independence depends on the intellectual and military training of the youth.’
Ten years before the outbreak of World War II, in February 1928, Savarkar’s long article, titled ‘Aagaami Mahayuddhachi Sandhi Sodu Naka’ (Don’t Lose The Golden Opportunity of The Upcoming World War), was published. This showed his strategy. On his release from prison, the first slogan he came out with was—‘Remove weapon restriction, start the rifle training classes.’
Speaking as the president of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1940, Savarkar said, ‘British are raising these military forces and encouraging industrial development so far as it helps their war efforts with no altruistic motives of helping the Indians. They are doing whatever they have to do to help themselves. We are also participating in these war efforts or at any rate, are not out to oppose them, with no intention of helping the British but of helping ourselves.’ (Samagra Savarkar Vangmay-SSV-Vol 6, Page 428). Savarkar clearly said, ‘First, learn how to use the weapons. Thereafter, you can easily decide how and when to use them, depending on the situation.’ (Savarkar, S S alias Balarao, Hindu Mahasabha Parva, Veer Savarkar Prakashan, Mumbai, 1975, Page 282)
Savarkar also stated: ‘Our ultimate aim in participating in this war is to create military instincts and combative attitude like Kshatriyas in the Hindu community, so that they can gain their independence and protect it.’ (Savarkar, S S alias Balarao, Akhil Hindusthan Ladha Parva, Veer Savarkar Prakashan, Mumbai, 1976, Page 272)… ‘For the sake of attaining Independence and protecting it, I am appealing [to] the young men to join the army. At present, we should take the military training and obey the orders of the British. But I have not assured anything about what will happen later on.’ (ibid, Page 31) Thus, his policy was quite clear.
Effect Of His Militarisation Policy
Earlier, the proportion of Hindus in the Army was less than one-third of the total. It increased to more than two-thirds due to Savarkar’s militarisation policy, which made the leaders uncomfortable. In his speech in Pune, Vice-Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University, Sir Ziauddin Ahmed said, ‘There is a sharp increase in number of Hindus in the Army, Navy and Air Force, while the number of Muslims in the fighting force is decreasing. It is scary.’
A prominent Muslim League paper, too, raised an outcry against the march stolen upon the Muslim monopoly and wrote: “The Hindu Mahasabha also has agitated strongly for militarisation of the Hindus as a great opportunity and with the active co-operation of the Government, has met with astonishing success.” Liaquat Ali Khan, acting Finance Minister of the interim government and leader of the Muslim League, wrote a letter to Governor General Lord Mountbatten complaining about the inadequate representation of Muslims in the Armed Forces. (Keer Dhananjay, Translated by D P Khambete, Swatantryaveer Savarkar, Popular Prakashan, Mumbai, Third Edition, Page 270-271)
Because of these soldiers, independent Bharat got skilled soldiers and Army officers who had the experience of actual war on the battlefield. Savarkar used to say that we can decide where to turn the gun point at the given time. An example of this can be seen in Singapore. Japanese writer Ohsawa says, ‘The chief of the Indian National Army proceeded alone to the front line and talked to Indian officers and soldiers in the British Army not to be fake to their love of India and the Independence of India in strong, heart-stirring words. A miracle was accomplished. The shooting was stopped. Savarkar’s militarisation policy in World War II began to shape. The speech finished, waves of cheer rose from the Indian soldiers who jumped into the INA. Japanese Imperial Guards were entirely stupefied.’ (Ohsawa, J G, The Two Great Indians in Japan- Volume 1, Kusa Publications, 1954, Page 48).
British officers and troops surrendered. Among those who surrendered were Bharatiya soldiers, from whom the Indian National Army (INA) raised an army of 50,000 soldiers. That means, because of the militarisation policy, the Indian National Army got soldiers recruited. Ohsawa says, “That was how Savarkar’s militarisation policy began to take shape.” The British were providing free weapons and training, and even paying for it. That means that the enemy himself was supplying us with free ammunition to defeat him. What was wrong in taking advantage of this? The naval mutiny was a form of rebellion against the British who were trained by the British themselves. According to former Prime Minister of UK Clement Attlee, one of the reasons why the British left Bharat was that ‘Indian soldiers were no longer loyal to the British.’ This shows the visionary leadership of Savarkar.
Comments