SB: Yes, even Hedgewar and EMS Namboodiripad were in the Congress once.

Dr Ganguly: Exactly, they too were volunteers. So you see, today’s Congress has forgotten what the actual Congress was. But that is a separate issue. The point is, you can interpret Savarkar the way you like. It is a very interesting phenomenon, and I read about it in a two-part article that was published in Vijayavani. The writer said that till 1996, there was no criticism of Savarkar. Nobody doubted Savarkar’s patriotism. Not an iota of evidence was found of Savarkar’s involvement in the Gandhi assassination case. It was actually a ploy by Nehru to humiliate him. Look at the tributes Savarkar got when he died.

It was in the mid- and late-1990s, and this I say from an article in Frontline. It was during this period that this entire propaganda actually started – of questioning Savarkar’s patriotism. And this was purely a malaise. The propaganda machine started around mid-1990s when they suddenly thought that Savarkar needed to be deconstructed, whereas Savarkar, in any case, was not in mainstream politics. Somewhere they felt that he needed to be deconstructed. Before that, this discussion did not exist at all. At least that is what that article said. I have not made a detailed study about this, but it was an interesting point that the writer had made.

Now, if you read Savarkar’s letters and relate it to the question of his amnesty, you will know that through his letters he was actually mobilising public opinion. He was asking his brothers to generate a public opinion by saying that prisoners must either be released or treated in a particular manner. If you see my great-great grandfather’s writings also – his writings on that period in Andaman – and if you read Barin Ghosh’s writings, Barin Ghosh got a little reprieve after a while. Because of his conduct and health, he was given duty in the jail library. And what would he do there? He would smuggle the official letterhead of the jailer or the librarian, and send letters about the condition in Andaman to people in the mainland. Obviously because those were in the official letterhead, they were not censored, and the letters were allowed to go. That’s how people came to know what the condition there is.

Those who want to degrade or have an agenda will say Savarkar had written amnesty pleas. Those who want to look at the other side will say that this actually generated a huge public opinion in the country that the prisoners were treated poorly, like criminals. So it all depends on how you look at it.

Even I believe that from 1911 to 1937, Savarkar was either incarcerated, under rigorous imprisonment, under observation, or under house arrest. I have not done a very detailed study, but this is my broad knowledge on this matter. From 1911 to 1937- 38, you show me one more leader who underwent all this.

A collaborationist would not have his movement restricted. You read CP Joshi’s letter that he wrote to the Home member of the Viceroy’s council during 1942. The communist leaders are complaining, “Our such and such leader was arrested from this district in Bengal, where he was involved in anti-sabotage work.” What did anti-sabotage work mean in 1942? During the Quit India Movement, “anti-sabotage-work” meant to sabotage the the Movement.

Let there be some kind of debate and discussion on this. You will hardly see any historian or institution publishing books on these things. Arun Shourie did one, and Sitaram Goel has done work on it, that’s it.

But regarding communists, can you pass off your trade union activities as participation in the freedom movement? Obviously not.