A Conversation between Savarkar and Maulana Shaukat Ali

PROLOGUE

Maulana Shaukat Ali was a leading figure in the infamous Khilafat movement which was launched in the aftermath of Allied victory in World War 1. The said conversation happened in Bombay, where Savarkar had taken a stop in his return journey to Ratnagiri. He had been at Nashik courtesy of a government permission to leave Ratnagiri in view of a plague epidemic, and he was returning after the permitted number of months had passed. This meeting was reported in detail in special issues of Lokamanya and the Maharatta dated 25 February 1925. It has not so been edited as to conform to my semantic proclivities and such proclivities as pertain to punctuation; I produce here the conversation as I came across it — verbatim.

___________________________________________________________

Shaukat Ali: I hope you received the message that I sent across to you earlier.

Savarkar: Yes, indeed. And for the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity, I have set aside the issue that you consider contentious — that of Hindu sangathan [unity].

Shaukat Ali: Oh that’s wonderful news! We have striven so hard to attain Hindu-Muslim unity. In the wake of that, this sangathan campaign unnecessarily vitiates the atmosphere. The Muslim community automatically asks leaders like me that if the Hindus are going to unify, so are we. Hence for the sake of swaraj and for the cause of our helpless nation, it is best if all Hindus count themselves only as Indians and forget these religious differences. It always pained me that a patriot like you who has suffered so much for the cause of the nation’s freedom is unnecessarily getting embroiled in all these communal issues. Now that you say you have eschewed it, it is a big relief for me!

Savarkar: What you say is absolutely true, Maulana Sahab. However, I have not publicized my announcement to abandon the sangathan movement only in anticipation of a single commitment from you.

Shaukat Ali: And what is that?

Savarkar: I wish to know from you when you plan to abandon the Khilafat movement and All-Ulema movement? Once I know that, I will immediately give up my movement, too.

Shaukat Ali (angrily): How is that possible? Be practical and think coolly. A foreign force has occupied us and is hell-bent on ruining both our communities. In such a scenario, instead of uniting, if you organize these sangathan movements, how can we face the external challenge? And do please remember that all through history, you Hindus have always been defeated by Muslim force. So let us not create false equivalences here. Joining hands with the Muslims is the only way out for Hindus if they wish freedom.

Savarkar: This conversation is going nowhere. I am not permitted to dabble in politics. Hence I will not get into political discourses. Just suffice it to say that even before you and people like you began public careers, several of my comrades and I were neck-deep into revolutions and political life. Hence lessons to us on politics might be unnecessary. Secondly, regarding history, you must know that Arabia might have had a thousand-year history, but not Hindustan. And each time, we have been beaten, we have given it back with interest. From Attock to Rameswaram it was the Marathas who held sway over India, snatching from the Mughals. Hence let us not get into all these polemics. Just to answer the limited question that I have asked about when you plan to abandon Khilafat and Ulema movements.

Shaukat Ali: Look, we never conducted the Khilafat in secrecy. Hindus have nothing to fear from it as it is being led by a Hindu after all [Gandhi].

Savarkar: Possible. If Khilafat is not supposed to be dangerous because it is led by a Hindu, why should Hindu sangathan which is also led by a Hindu become dangerous? You are saying that the Hindus need to trust the Khilafat only because it has a Hindu leadership and the movement on the other hand is not trustworthy only because it has not got a Muslim to lead it. I ask you that when for the sake of communal unity and for the country the Hindus disregarded their apprehensions and lent their support to the Khilafat in their thousands, why can we not find even a handful of Muslims who, for the sake of the same unity and nation, support a Hindu sangathan movement too? In fact in gratitude towards the Hindus for standing with them, shoulder to shoulder, for a cause that is dear to them, the Muslims too must reciprocate and lend their support to Hindu unity. Where has there been any secrecy in sangathan, just as you claim there is none in Khilafat? It is no secret society. Instead of looking into the surreptitious nature of the Aga Khan mission or Hasan Nizami mission, why do you advise Hindus? Whatever happened in Malabar, Gulbarga, Kohat. . .

Shaukat Ali (interrupting): What happened in Kohat? Hindus have not complained, please ask Gandhi.

Savarkar: Let us not bring Gandhi into this. He has given several statements, which are quite economical with the truth even in the past. During the Malabar riots he did mention that just one Hindu was converted forcibly. The facts staring us in the face say otherwise. Hence I will not take into account his statements at all. I think we are going around in circles. Kindly answer me whether for the sake of the country and its unity you will completely eschew divisive movements like Khilafat and those that forcibly convert Hindus. The very next moment I pledge to wind up the sangathan and will prevail upon all my colleagues to do the same.

Shaukat Ali: But preaching our religion to Hindus is an integral part of our faith. Just this morning I met a young man who told me that last night he had a dream where God Almighty appeared and advised him to save himself by becoming a Muslim. I immediately directed him to the nearest mosque so that he could convert. Now this is no coercion; people are taking up the truth faith out of their own enlightenment.

Savarkar: Okay, let me agree with you for a moment. Likewise, tomorrow if a Muslim young man comes to me and narrates his ream where he was guided to become a Hindu, why can I not use shuddhi to make him one? After all that is what is shuddhi, there is no coercion here too, it is completely voluntary.

Shaukat Ali (angrily): Fine, carry on with your shuddhi, and we will with our tabligh [conversion]. Let’s see who wins. We are one unit; we do not have the scourges of castes and untouchability or regional differences like your community.

Savarkar: No provincial differences? It was by taking advantage of the differences between Durrani and Mughal Muslims, southern and northern Muslims and Sheikh and Sayyid Muslims that the Marathas overthrew the Mughal Empire. Shia-Sunni riots are a hundred times more violent and prevalent than Shaiva-Vaishnava ones that do not happen. The Sunnis recently killed an Ahmadi Muslim in Kabul by stoning him. The Bahavis think all other denominations of Muslims are worthy only of being killed or condemned to hellfire. Speaking of untouchability, I know of several Bhangi Muslims who are not allowed to touch the water of other Muslims or offer prayers in mosques with their co-religionists. In Travancore, a riot recently occurred between touchable and untouchable Christians. Maulana Sahab, the hearths of all houses are made of the same brick! I am a little aware of Muslim theology, history and literature. Hence I can confidently make these assertions to you. If you say that you are a united force of 7 crore Muslims, how did the Hindu Marathas overthrow you? How did the British manage to take over India?

Shaukat Ali: It is this arrogance of you Maharashtrians that comes in the way of any logical explanation by me for the larger picture of the country. You Marathas do not consider this country as yours or as one, else, for the sake of its unity you would have accepted my suggestion of abandoning these divisive and communal movements just as other provinces have so readily done.

Savarkar: I think you are unnecessarily blaming Maharashtrians. The battle of Shivaji was not just for the Marathas, but for the whole Bharatvarsha. From the last two decades and more, the flag of struggle that we have unfurled is also for the country. Have Ranade, Gokhale or Tilak fought only for Maharashtra? All the major political and revolutionary movements in the country in the last fifty years have come from this soil. Bengal was partitioned. But did Maharashtra not stand in strong protest and suffer that as though she herself had been vivisected? We protested and grieved with Punjab when the tragedy of Jallianwala Bagh happened. These are no favours that we have done; it is our sacred duty to stand with all our brethren and countrymen wherever and whenever they are in peril. Hence it is utterly ungrateful of you to not acknowledge this and rather make such atrocious allegations against Maharashtra. Secondly, you said that you are all the leaders of the united Muslim community and that the community does nothing without your orders. So did the riots in Malabar, Kohat, Delhi, Gulbarga — all of which were accompanied by the desecration of our temples and the piteous rape of your women — too happen under your instructions? If not, how can you claim that you represent that community or that they listen to you?

Shaukat Ali: We were jailed then and in our absence, the Muslim community became disillusioned, directionless and impatient.

Savarkar: But you were out of jail when the riots in Kohat, Delhi and Gulbarga happened. When such heinous and barbaric crimes are meted on us Hindus, how can we trust that your words and advice will assuage the rioters and they will up the violence? Tomorrow, if and when you or I die, what would happen to the interactions between the two communities? Our organization is not against you or anybody else. It is only for self-defence and protection against any kind of atrocity that we might face now or in future. As long as the Hindu sangathan movement is not violent, aggressive, usurping of your rights, property or life and as long as it stands for truth and self-protection, why should anyone have a grouse with it? As long as all these communal movements and missions of Aga Khan, Hasan Nizami or Khilafat carry on; as long as thousands of Hindus are forcibly coerced and converted; as long as Urdu newspapers openly proclaim the agenda to mass-convert Hindus in the next 5–10 years, advising Hindus to give up any attempts to organize and protect themselves for the sake pg some mirage that you call national unity is utter hypocrisy.

Shaukat Ali: But you do realize that you polarize the minds of Muslims with your activities. Muslims have been converting Hindus for such a long time. It is not a new thing that has come up now. It is your shuddhi that is a new phenomenon that sows the seeds of discord amidst tranquil society. Isn’t blatantly anti-Muslim?

Savarkar: But whose fault is this, Maulana Sahab? If a religion as tolerant and peace-loving as Hinduism — that never proselytized anyone forcibly and even forgave or forgot the coercive and violent attempts made on its faith — has to today take the help of shuddhi, where should the blame lie? On the victim or the aggressor? Till date we trusted people and kept the doors of our houses open. Thieves from across the world came in and looted our possessions. Today we have gathered some sense, become alert and have decided to keep our doors locked. And if the same dacoits come and tell us, ‘We have been looting for so long, putting a lock on your doors is being unfair to us and this will spoil relationships between us’, what are we to reply? Such a lethal unity is best broken in my view. Secondly, Christian, Parsi, Jew and other communities too have their sangathans and unions. Why doesn’t that pinch the Muslim psyche as much? Isn’t it logical to assume that Hindu sangathan harms some selfish political and religious interests of the Muslim leadership? Hence I asked you so many times about when you will abandon your movements and till now you have evaded a directed reply.

Shaukat Ali (angrily): We will not leave it. There is nothing anti-Hindu in it.

Savarkar: Good, then we too will not leave our movement. Our movement is not only not anti-Muslim, it has no angst against any community — Christian, Jew, Parsi or whoever else. Our movement believes that you have every right to organize yourself as a community. Just stop being aggressive predators. We have no such intentions and want to peacefully coexist with you in this country, which belongs to all of us. Just as Islam and Christianity proselytize a faith that they dearly believe to be the only true word, we Hindus too have a right to propagate a faith that we have come to believe for thousands of years and for generations — and that too not with a knife held to someone’s throat. We are organizing ourselves only to protect our community from any aggression. Self-protection is the natural right of any society. With no concern for religions, and believing in universal humanity, our movement believes in holding hands with everyone on the basis of One God, One Church, One Language, One prayer and the sanctity of our motherland.

The following conclusions can be arrived at:

1. Maulana Shaukat Ali was desirous of working towards the common goal of national independence, but was loath to renounce the cause of Khilafat. He was also not prepared to regard forceful conversions as problematic. Inasmuch as he said, ‘let’s see who wins’ with regard to the continuation of shuddhi and tabligh, he was prepared to accord greater priority to the cause of religion, given that he approached it competitively, than to the cause of national independence. The refusal to concede ill events perpetrated from within the camp of Khilafat is evidence that his competitive approach was not meant to be ‘healthy’ competition (which may be regarded as attempts by a religious group to preach its sermons in a better yet civil way when compared to similarly civil yet perhaps not as adroit attempts of another religious group; all the while regarding cordiality between the two as most important) but a ‘combative’ game of envy.
2. Savarkar was prepared to cease such activities as were in pursuit of the defensive Hindu unity or sangathan, provided the Muslims reciprocated first by ceasing Khilafat. No other interpretation could be derived from this approach, save that he sought not a combative stance but a defensive one. It must be borne that the Hindu Mahasabha had emerged only in response to the emergence of the Muslim League, and that the Congress was prepared to overlook such issues while simultaneously being far more sympathetic to the Muslims regardless of such erroneous conduct as characterized the Khilafat.

___________________________________________________________

Source: Dr. Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy (1924–1966)