The Problem with Rahul Gandhi’s Savarkar Obsession

Congress MP’s Rahul Gandhi’s attacks on historical figures like Veer Savarkar and sacred Hindu texts like the Manusmriti betray a concerning superficiality in his understanding of history. His recent diatribe in Parliament reflects not only a lack of depth but also a penchant for perpetuating simplistic and politically expedient narratives. This intellectual laziness raises a fundamental question: is the Congress scion a slow learner, incapable of nuanced thought, or is he simply unwilling to engage deeply with India’s rich and complex past?

Take his frequent assaults on Savarkar, for instance. Gandhi has often portrayed the Hindutva ideologue as a ‘British collaborator,’ citing Savarkar’s mercy petitions from the Cellular Jail in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands as proof of his supposed cowardice. This claim wilfully ignores the context of Savarkar’s imprisonment—a harrowing ordeal that would have broken lesser men.

Sentenced to two life terms (of 50 years), Savarkar endured the most inhuman conditions at ‘Kaalapaani.’ Prisoners were manacled, flogged and forced to grind mustard seeds like bullocks. Food was infested with worms, medical aid was non-existent, and dissenters were subjected to brutal force-feeding via rubber catheters.

Savarkar’s mercy petitions, far from being acts of surrender, were tactical manoeuvres designed to escape a living hell and continue his fight for India’s independence. Historian Jaywant Joglekar compared these to Shivaji’s letter to Aurangzeb during his captivity in Agra—a strategic ploy rather than capitulation.

After his release in 1937, Savarkar led a robust political campaign to prevent the Partition of India and worked tirelessly to bolster India’s military strength. Yet Rahul Gandhi clings to half-truths, refusing to acknowledge Savarkar’s towering contributions to India’s freedom struggle.

Contrast this with Gandhi’s great-grandfather, India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, whose time in British prisons was far more comfortable. Nehru’s ‘jail’ accommodations reportedly included a personal bungalow, opportunities for gardening and time to write books. When his wife fell ill, his sentence was suspended without protest. To equate these privileged confinements with Savarkar’s torment is not just dishonest but absurd.

Rahul Gandhi’s grasp of history is further undermined by his shallow critique of the Manusmriti – which has been used as a tool of rank political opportunism by parties claiming to represent Dalits and other Leftist outfits. Labelling it a relic of patriarchy and caste oppression, Gandhi ignores the text’s historical and philosophical significance. Written nearly 2,000 years ago, the Manusmriti provided a framework for governance, justice, and personal conduct. While parts of the text have been misused to justify social hierarchies, its overarching ethos emphasized duties over rights, fostering moral responsibility and societal harmony. It advocated virtues like patience, humility, and respect for elders—values that resonate even today.

But nuanced readings are clearly beyond Rahul Gandhi’s intellectual appetite. For him and his Congress cohorts, the Manusmriti serves as a convenient punching bag to rally so-called progressive forces. Their attacks, however, often reveal more about their own opportunism than any genuine engagement with the text. Gandhi’s propensity for historical shortcuts reflects an alarming trend: the weaponization of history for identity politics.

This brings us to Gandhi’s broader pattern of historical gaffes. Whether confusing timelines, conflating events, or making baseless claims, his public statements frequently betray a tenuous grasp of facts. His attack on Savarkar for allegedly collaborating with the British ignores documented evidence of Savarkar’s fierce anti-colonial activities. Similarly, his claim that Savarkar opposed the Quit India Movement lacks context. Savarkar’s stance — ‘Quit India but not the Army’ — was rooted in pragmatism. He encouraged Indians to join the British-Indian Army, recognizing the strategic importance of military training for post-independence defence. This foresight proved invaluable during the Partition and subsequent conflicts with Pakistan.

Savarkar’s contributions were acknowledged even by his contemporaries. Subhas Chandra Bose praised him for urging youth to enlist in the armed forces, while Rash Behari Bose hailed him as a symbol of sacrifice. Bhagat Singh and Sukhdev considered Savarkar’s writings essential reading for revolutionaries. These endorsements expose the hollowness of Rahul Gandhi’s allegations.

Perhaps the most egregious of Gandhi’s claims is that Savarkar was complicit in Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. Despite being acquitted by the courts, Savarkar remains a target of Left-Liberal vitriol. This selective scepticism towards judicial verdicts reveals the ideological biases of Gandhi and his allies. Their attacks on Savarkar’s Hindutva philosophy are equally uninformed. Savarkar’s vision of a Hindu Rashtra was inclusive, advocating equal rights for all citizens irrespective of religion. He opposed the creation of a “nation within a nation” based on religious minorities — a prescient warning in light of contemporary communal tensions.

Rahul Gandhi’s facile approach to history and his reductionist narratives fuel polarization, eroding the possibility of meaningful discourse. Worse, they expose his own intellectual inadequacies, raising serious doubts about his capacity to lead the Congress.

I would say the question is not just whether Rahul Gandhi is a slow learner but whether he is willing to learn at all. His repeated historical blunders suggest a leader more interested in scoring political points than engaging with the complexities of India’s heritage. For a nation as diverse and historically rich as India, this is not just disappointing — it is dangerous!