Shashi Tharoor on Savarkar: A Historical Clash

History is rarely black and white; it is often painted in shades of grey, interpreted through the lens of those who hold the pen. In the vibrant and often tumultuous landscape of Indian political discourse, few debates are as charged as the ideological confrontation surrounding Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Specifically, the critiques leveled by prominent politician and author Shashi Tharoor against the Hindutva ideologue have sparked conversations that resonate far beyond parliamentary halls.

When we discuss the intersection of शशि थरूर वीर सावरकर, we aren't just talking about two individuals. We are witnessing a collision of two fundamentally different visions of India: one rooted in a pluralistic, secular ethos, and the other in a cultural nationalism that seeks to redefine the nation's identity.

The Battle of Ideologies: Nehruvian vs. Hindutva

To understand Tharoor's critique, one must first understand his intellectual lineage. Shashi Tharoor is a staunch defender of the Nehruvian idea of India—a nation built on diversity, where citizenship is not tethered to religious identity. In contrast, Veer Savarkar was the father of Hindutva, an ideology that equates Indian identity with Hindu culture and heritage. This fundamental disconnect forms the bedrock of their "interaction" in modern discourse.

Tharoor has often argued that Savarkar’s vision was exclusionary. In his writings and speeches, he points out that while Savarkar was undoubtedly a patriot who suffered immensely in the Cellular Jail in the Andamans, his later writings sowed the seeds of division. It is a nuanced position, one that acknowledges the struggle but questions the philosophy.

I recall attending a literature festival a few years ago where Tharoor spoke. The atmosphere was electric. He didn't just dismiss Savarkar; he dissected the logic of the two-nation theory. He argued that while the Muslim League eventually demanded a separate state, the ideological groundwork for defining a nation by religion was also being laid by the Hindu Mahasabha under Savarkar. It was a moment of clarity for many in the audience—realizing that history is a series of actions and reactions, not isolated events.

The Controversy of the Mercy Petitions

One cannot discuss this topic without addressing the elephant in the room: the mercy petitions. This is perhaps the most contentious point where the names शशि थरूर वीर सावरकर appear together in headlines. Tharoor has frequently highlighted the letters Savarkar wrote to the British authorities while imprisoned, seeking clemency and offering cooperation.

For Tharoor, these petitions stand in stark contrast to the defiance shown by other freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh or Nehru himself. He uses this historical archival evidence not necessarily to brand Savarkar a coward—human suffering in solitary confinement is unimaginable—but to challenge the "Veer" (Brave) moniker that the current political dispensation champions so aggressively.

However, this is where the debate gets tricky. Supporters of Savarkar argue that these petitions were a strategic ploy, a "Shivaji-esque" tactic to get out of prison and continue the fight from within, rather than rotting away in a cell. Tharoor counters this by pointing to Savarkar's post-prison life, where he largely abstained from the Quit India movement and focused his energies on social reform within Hinduism and opposing the Congress, rather than fighting the British directly.

Redefining Patriotism in Modern India