saint vs a patriot
By Arvind Lavakare
March 06, 2003
If you're a Catholic, you'll want to get it banned. If you're an atheist,
you'll be titillated by it. If you're a truly objective journalist, you'll be
shamed by it. If you're an academician, you'll want to award it a Ph D. And if
you're a self-respecting Indian, you simply must read it so as to be shocked
from stupor into reality.
that kind of a book -- Mother Teresa, The Final Verdict (Meteor Books,
Kolkata, 2003, pages 427, price not stated) by Aroup Chatterjee, born, bred and
educated in what was once Calcutta, who moved to Britain in 1985 and now works
as a medical practitioner in London.
author's rationale for the book lies in the Teresa-induced image of a 'living
saint' in his native city being internationally portrayed as one containing an
endless number of 'sewers and gutters' where an endless number of dead and
dying people lay --- but not for long as they were picked up in smart ambulances
by 'roving angels' in the form of nuns belonging to Missionaries of Charity, the
multinational body headed by Mother Teresa. (Page [i] of Introduction).
That Chatterjee is an atheist and a doctor would seem to have fuelled this probe
into one who was labeled by the West and its Indian sycophants as the 'saint of
the gutters' though 'her only message to the world was that abortion was
murder.' (Page 393).
outcome is a virtual demolition job that devastates, to use the writer's own
words, 'the intense culture of deception surrounding Mother Teresa' in which
'she herself was the main perpetrator of this deception.' (Page 387)
Six years of research based on his own video/photographic work, his efforts to
seek the truth and published material cited over 15 printed pages are behind
Chatterjee's claim that 'Mother Teresa had been a publicity hungry and often
hypocritical person…she had not always been honest in her pronouncements' -- (page
380) 'she even lied even in her Nobel Prize Acceptance speech' (page
395) of December 1979. His disclosure that 'the current Pope has beatified
a "person" who never existed -- Juan Diego of Mexico' (page 400)
and his charge that 'the Vatican is ruthlessly following a well-defined agenda
when creating saints' (page 401) form part of the detailed narration of his own
mortifying two-year experience of venturing to be a hostile witness to the
ongoing process of canonising Mother Teresa.
of Mother Teresa's 'neglect of residents, indifference to suffering, massaging
of figures, manipulation of the media and conscious handling of millions of
dollars of stolen cash' (page [iv] of Introduction) --- are all there
in the book that few Indians would have dared to write.
retrospect, it seems grossly self-demeaning that our country should have
awarded Mother Teresa not only the Bharat Ratna (in 1980) but also a state
funeral --- gun carriage, cortege and all, including the substantial financial
cost. That funeral of September 1997 was attended by the nation's prime minister
I K Gujral, by Bengal's veteran Communist chief minister Jyoti Basu as well
as by Sonia Gandhi, the Congress' prime ministerial dream.
cocktail of political ideology had previously caused President K R Narayanan to
sit so long on the Vajpayee government's recommendation of a Bharat Ratna for Savarkar
that it was finally forced to wither away. It's the same ideology that recently
boycotted the ceremony to install Veer Savarkar's portrait in Parliament and
even appealed to the nation's President to refrain from unveiling the portrait.
perverse enough that this bunch of democratically elected leaders should have
shown total irreverence to the norms of parliamentary democracy by daring to
obstruct a decision of a Parliamentary committee that included representatives
of that cocktail.
worse is that in opposing Savarkar's posthumous entry into Parliament, this
bunch of politicking creatures overlooked the totality of the revolutionary and
inspiring incandescence of freedom that was lit by him in the early 20th
century when the country's British masters were crushing our aspirations and
milking our resources.
of Savarkar (1883-1966) was so uniquely variegated that it is almost
unbelievable that one individual could possess such an intellect, such talent,
such intensity as to be a firebrand freedom fighter from childhood, a potential
barrister, a writer of history, of poetry and Sanskrit prayers, a social
reformer, and a distinctive political ideologue with a prophetic vision on the
fate of Kashmir, the formation of Pakistan along with its subsequent hostility,
the mass Muslim infiltration from East Bengal into Assam and China's hoodwinking
Nehru on his Panchsheel.
suffered six months of solitary confinement, seven days standing handcuffed, ten
days of cross bar fetters and other tortures in the cellular jail on the
infamous Andaman islands of old where he was sent in 1911 to serve a total of
50-year life imprisonment for his alleged involvement in two cases: the murder
of the English district magistrate of Nashik and efforts in Bombay to 'overthrow
the legally formed government of the country.' He was in the Andaman prison till
1921, from where he was shifted first to Alipore jail and then, in January 1924,
released from prison but confined in his movements to Ratnagiri district (in present
Maharashtra) with stringent conditions. It was in May 1937, when Jamnadas Mehta
of the Tilak Democratic Swaraj Party agreed to support the new Cooper ministry
in Bombay on the express condition of Savarkar's unconditional release, that
Savarkar was finally rid of colonial shackles. And he soon plunged into
politics, becoming the president of the Hindu Mahasabha, even as those engaged
in the freedom movement sought his views and advice. Included in that lot was
Subhas Chandra Bose whom he inspired to make India free through military action.
there are at least two known biographies on the man: one by Dr Bhagwan Singh
Rana in Hindi and the other by Dhananjay Keer, hailing from the 'untouchable'
caste, who worked with Savarkar to help build a temple in Ratnagiri, and
who was awarded the Padma Bhushan in 1971 by the ruling Congress government. In
addition, there is a Marathi book devoted to the social reformation which
Savarkar effected during his years in Ratnagiri.
Congress and Communists of 2003 are not moved by all that Savarkar did or
suffered in trying to win freedom for his beloved country, by how Savarkar
kindled the minds and hearts of millions, including Bose and Bhagat Singh. They
choose, instead, to complain that Savarkar submitted amnesty petitions to his
colonial masters for his early release from the Andaman prison and made promises
to them of constitutional conduct instead of willing to suffer pain and all,
death included, as the price to be paid for upholding his cause. This bunch of
politicking creatures also believe Savarkar was a part of the conspiracy
which led to Nathuram Godse assassinating Mahatma Gandhi but was let off by the
court on a mere technicality. And, finally, this bunch brands Savarkar as a
Hindu fanatic, who must have no niche whatsoever in this oh-so secular country
of ours. Therefore, they proclaim, Savarkar has no place on the walls of our
august Parliament in New Delhi.
concealed in the criticism of Savarkar's pleas for release is the remark that
McPherson, Britain's home secretary, put on one such petition. As cited by Shyam
Khosla in Rajasthan Patrika of February 26, 2003, that note said, 'It
will be dangerous for the British Empire to release Savarkar. His pleas are a
ruse to get out the jail. Once out he will organise an underground movement
against the British. I therefore reject the petition on the ground that it will
be a danger to public safety.' Need more be said? And if prison life had, as
alleged, transformed him into a pro-British imperialist, why did Bose, Nehru and
M N Roy welcome him to full freedom in 1937? Why did S M Joshi and Achyut
Patwardhan want him to join their political party? Why did his Hindu Mahasabha
vehemently oppose the Cripps Mission proposals of 1942 and the Cabinet Mission's
plan of 1946?
Savarkar's connection with Godse, the Special Court appointed for the trial did
not accept the evidence of Digamber Badge who had turned approver and stated
that Savarkar had blessed the assassins in their mission. In Godse's reply to
the charge sheet against him -- reproduced fully in May it Please You Honour
(Surya Bharti Prakashan, New Delhi, 1987) -- he had categorically denied the
prosecution's stand that he was guided in his action by Savarkar and that, but
for Savarkar's complicity, he could not have acted the way he did. What's more,
Godse's reply stated 'I take the strongest exception to this untrue and unjust
charge and I further regard it as an insult to my intelligence and judgement.' (Ibid
page 45). Indeed, Godse's reply indicated his disenchantment with
Savarkar's belief that free India having got its own government, all parties
should conduct their propaganda on constitutional lines rather through
anarchical tactics and undemocratic conduct. (Ibid page 56).
case, the question remains: Why didn't the prosecution under Nehru's Congress
government appeal against Savarkar's acquittal? The answer is in the silence.
finally that visceral accusation of Savarkar's Hindutva and his alleged
riposte to that is the excerpt below from Savarkar's presiding address to the
Hindu Mahasabha's Ahmedabad session of 1937 cited at page 117 of The
Tragic Story of Partition (Jagaran Prakashana, Bangalore, 1984) by (RSS
leader) H V Seshadri.
Indian State be purely Indian. Let it not recognise any invidious distinction
whatsoever as regards the franchise, public services, offices, taxation on the
grounds of religion and race. Let no cognisance be taken whatsoever of a man
being Hindu or Mohammedan, Christian or Jew. Let all citizens of that Indian
state be treated according to their worth irrespective of their religion or
racial percentage in the general population.'
years after Savarkar spoke the above words, have you got a better enunciation of
what secularism should mean for the Indian nation? Silence is the answer.
silence lies the Indian tragedy of prejudiced and pernicious eyes that see a
jewel in a pseudo-saint and a thorn in a true patriot.