Vande Mataram

What Pranab da wanted us to pay heed to on Hedgewar

When former President Pranab Mukherjee visited Keshav Baliram Hedgewar birthplace in Nagpur on Thursday, he must have known better than the lies of TheWire that the founder of the Rashstriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was subservient to the British interest in freedom struggle.

Pranab da must have been aware of Hedgewar’s role in the Non-cooperation Movement which sent him for a year’s rigorous imprisonment but not before he said the following in the court on August 5, 1921: “…What obtains today is a regime of usurped authority and repressive rule deriving power there from. The present laws and courts are but handmaids of this unauthorized regime.”

The sagacious political statesman must have known better than his junior Congress colleague Anand Sharma that RSS hurt the freedom struggle by playing no part in the Quit India Movement.

Pranab da must have lent an ear to Congress’ own Aruna Asaf Ali in the past who had revealed in an interview that RSS Delhi sanghachalak Lala Hansraj Gupta gave her shelter in his own house during the 1942 Quit India movement. Or that prominent Congress men like Achyutrao Patwardhan, strong RSS critic Sane Guruji were all kept safe in the homes of sanghachalaks/swayamsewaks. Be it food, safety or illness, RSS stood like a wall in safeguarding a few Congress leaders still out in open in 1942.

Pranab da must have been disgusted by the assertion of Professor and Indian Express edit-page writer Shamsul Islam that if RSS was fighting Quit India movement, its’ leaders ought to have been in jail. Pranab da must have known—what everyone knows except liars–that RSS has always been a social, and never a political organization. RSS had worked it out perfectly that Quit India was a hasty agitation bound to fail—and would only hasten the Partition. Why, RSS didn’t take part even in the Hindu Mahasabha agitations in freedom struggle!

Pranab da must have known better than a report in The Telegraph that Hedgewar had asked RSS to “consider the Bhagwa Dhwaj” as their national flag in 1931; the same year when the Congress Working Committee, which included Moulana Abul Kalam Azad, itself had recommended Kesari or Saffron colour for the national flag!!!

Pranab da must have been aghast at his colleague’s assertion that Bharatiya Jana Sangh sided with the British for the former wasn’t even around when the British left Indian shores, having been formed only in 1951!

Pranab da must have simmered at chicanery of his former Congress colleagues, applauding the “pluralism” of Congress when it’s no longer the original Congress which exists today. The real Congress was over in 1969 itself, half a century ago, when Indira Gandhi caused the split. The present Congress is an expanded version of Indira Congress only.

Pranab da must have found his conscience wounded for Congress came into being by a foreigner, AO Hume, only! And that Congress didn’t want complete independence from the British rule till as late as 1929 !

Pranab da must have been moved to term Hedgewar as the “great son of Mother India” for all RSS men, from its inception in 1925, had to take a pledge before joining the organization: Desh Ko Swatantra Kar (Free the Country).

When Pranab da visited the very place where RSS was founded and said “Today I came here to pay my respect and homage” to Hedgewar, he wanted his countrymen to brush up their information on the great man: That he refused to accept sweets on Queen Victoria’s coronation day in his school; that he was expelled for exhorting students to say “Vande Mataram” in high school; that he threw at bomb at a police station while still only 18; that his revolutionary activities expressed itself in Anusheelan Samiti.

If neither Pranab da nor Hindu ideologists hold any merit for Left-Liberal mafia, they would do well to pay heed to one of their own: the well-known Communist leader, Late EMS Namboodirapad himself: “Dr Hedgewar was a nationalist.” This ought to shut them up. (But you and I know, they won’t).

Remembering Bankim Chandra & Vande Mataram

Just two words—Vande Mataram—by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, who has his 179th birth anniversary (June 26, 1838) this Monday, tells a lot about we the Indians.

Vande Mataram epitomized India’s freedom struggle against the monstrous British Rule and ”every patriot,” as Acharya Kriplani was to write later: “from Khudiram Bose to Bhagat Singh to Rajguru died with Vande Mataram on their lips.”

Madan Lal Dhingra, inspired by Vande Mataram, shot dead Curzon Wyllie and embraced gallows. Veer Savarkar’s Vande Mataram vow led to him being arrested in England, brought to India, and sentenced to two life-imprisonments before being packed to Andamans.

Sister Nivedita and Bhikaji Cama differed in their own flags about India but didkeep Vande Mataram firmly in its centre.

All across the globe, from Lala Har Dayal’s Gadar Party whose many members greeted each other with the words; to mass of Indians in South Africa who welcomed G.K.Gokhale with this fervent cry, Vande Mataram galvanized millions of Indians at home and abroad for the liberation of the motherland.

It moved Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose to say: “Bande Mataram literally means `I salute the motherland’. It is the nearest approach to India’s national anthem.”

Yet, Vande Matram was not destined to be India’s national anthem. All it got was to be the national song of the country, and that too just the first two paragraphs, as the honour went to Janaganamana of Rabindranath Tagore.

It might make no sense to the uninitiated readers as to why Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru thought Vande Mataram couldn’t lend itself to orchestral music or why even before an official decision was taken by the Constituent Assembly of India, Janaganamana was played as a national anthem in the UN General Assembly. Or why India’s first President Dr. Rajendra Prasad announced Janaganamana as national anthem on January 24, 1950 even before the Constituent Assembly could pass a resolution to this effect.

It might make more sense to readers if they relate the opposition to Vande Mataram by a section of Muslim leaders in today’s India,–on the grounds that it’s an idolatrous prayer–with the one of Muslim League in blood-soaked years of pre-independent India.

Vande Mataram, a part of Bankim Chandra’s celebrated novel Ananda Math, about the Sanyasi Revolt of the 18th century (1763-1800)–against the British East India Company who had just taken a foothold in India with the conquest of Bengal after the Battle of Plassey (1757)–was the battle-cry Congress had championed from the very early days of its inception in 1885..

The Vande Mataram song, which was written at least seven years before Ananda Math was penned in 1882, came into national consciousness due to events in the Barisal province of Bengal. On April 14, 1906, Indian National Congress was to meet at the venue and pledge against the partition of Bengal. A mammoth gathering burnt an effigy of Lord Curzon and rendered the air with the shrieks of Vande Mataram. The District Magistrate promptly put a ban on its singing but unmindful, a procession which had the likes of Surendranath Bannerjee, Sir Bipin Chandra Pal and Sri Aurobindo in the front, took to the streets. Police rained lathis and kicks on the peaceful and unarmed demonstrators.

The poem spread like a wildfire. Secret societies, like the one of Ananda Math, began springing all over the country. Lala Lajpat Rai started a journal called Vande Mataram. Subramaniam Bharati brought out the Tamil verse translation of the song. Vande Mataram even soaked the army in its spirit. Twenty-four young men of the Fourth Madras Coastal Defence Battery were sent to gallows and died singing Vande Mataram.

However, Muslim League opposed Vande Mataram from the very beginning. In its 1908 session, it was deemed sectarian. In 1923, Maulana Mohammed Ali, as the president of Congress, opposed it.

Congress, in conformity with its Muslim-appeasement stance, introduced Mohammad Iqbal’s Hindustan Hamaara. The Muslim leaders wanted Iqbal’s song to replace Vande Mataram. The All-India Muslim League passed resolutions condemning Vande Mataram. The Congress Working Committee in 1937 maimed the song Vande Mataram to just two paras. The Muslim League wasn’t satisfied still. Jinnah asked Nehru in 1938 to completely abandon Vande Mataram. To placate the Muslim League, the Congress decided to allow the singing of a song by Basheer Ahmad, Quran recital as well as a prayer in English in the assembly.

As for Janaaganamana, famous Indologist Dr. Koenraad Elst has this to say:

Janaganamana itself is controversial because Tagore had allegedly written it in honour of the King of England, George V, the janaganamana adhinayak, master of the people’s minds, and the bharata bhagya vidhata, shaper of India’s destiny, mentioned in the opening line. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence for this, and there is no convincing alternative explanation for the said opening line. In his 1911, Delhi Durbar, George V had annulled the partition of Bengal, conceding a nationalist demand, and that could give this glorification of the king a nationalist twist.”

When a nation is founded on secular lines, implying that religion wouldn’t play a role in its governance, it’s a debatable if national interests or sentiments are decided on the whims of a community. France has put a ban on burqa (veil) in public places. Same is now the stance in Australia. Germany’s Chancellor Angelo Merkel has a similar view and parties in Britain have long called for ban on veils.

However in India, appeasement only ended up vivescating one-third of the undivided India.

Meanwhile, it has kept Bankim Chandra, arguably Bengal’s greatest literary figure, alive to this day. One of the first graduates of Calcutta University, Bankim Chandra  became a deputy collector in due course, like his father, Yadav Chandra Chattopadhyaya. He eventually became a deputy magistrate before his retirement in 1891. Three years later, he was dead.

Bankim Chandra was best summed up by Sri Aurobindo in these words: “And when posterity comes to crown with her praises the Makers of India, she will place her most splendid laurel not on the sweating temples of a place-hunting politician, nor on the narrow forehead of a noisy social reformer but on the serene brow of that gracious Bengali who never clamoured for place or power, but did his work in silence for love of his work, even as nature does, and, just because he had no aim but to give out the best that was in him, was able to create a language, a literature and a nation.”