http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=EDITS&file_name=edit1%2Etxt&counter_img=1
First, the facts. On December 5 last year, Congress stalwarts Pranab Mukherjee and Shivraj Patil, the CPI(M)'s vocal Somnath Chatterjee and CPI leader J Chittaranjan attended a meeting-at which no BJP face was present- chaired by Lok Sabha Speaker Manohar Joshi. Here, the decision to install Veer Savarkar's portrait in the Central Hall of Parliament was unanimously adopted.
None of the Opposition members objected to Mr Joshi's proposal to honour the famous Maharashtrian Brahmin. None said Savarkar-one-time Hindu Mahasabha President, freedom fighter, revolutionary-was a dodgy proposition. Subsequently, orders for a painting were placed and invitations for an unveiling ceremony sent out. Now for the Opposition's fact-defying U-turn. Between December 5, 2002, and February 26, 2003, the day of the function, Savarkar underwent-in the eyes of the Congress and the Left-a lightning apotheosis from patriot to venomous Hindutva ideologue who begged imperialists for clemency, backed the two-nation theory and played a fishy role in Mahatma Gandhi's assassination. The BJP stands accused of saffron subversion of democracy. President APJ Abdul Kalam, on his part, was reminded of his duty to the secular Constitution in a letter fired off by Congress chief Sonia Gandhi, who perhaps should have questioned her own flock with regard to this obligation. Given this brazen volte face, the BJP cannot be blamed for being livid, nor Dr Kalam for brushing aside those who would doubt his integrity even as they urged him to play politics on their behalf.
The Opposition boycott could have been dismissed as habitual churlishness, had it not been for the larger issues that arise. If Savarkar is a contentious figure, the Opposition, by not voicing its misgivings earlier, comes across as wishing to milk a cynically premeditated fracas. Again, if the Mahatma is to represent an inviolable ideological norm, portraits of Subhas Chandra Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru ought not to grace Parliament's hallowed precincts. If Bose differed with Gandhi on non-violent satyagraha, Nehru opposed the Quit India Movement's launch in 1942, arguing against the dilution of the war effort against Fascism and Nazism. If Bose went on to take up arms, Nehru went on to defy Gandhi's wish the Congress be turned into a social service organisation in free India, privileged industry over self-reliant village economy and opposed a role for religion in socio-political organisation. As for Savarkar's pledge of cooperation with the Raj, during World War I, Gandhi himself went against nationalist opinion. He did not join the Home Rule agitation and, arguing for unconditional support to the British, later helped make recruitments for the British Indian Army. The Left-which took five decades to have a change of heart on Netaji-can hardly make noises about Savarkar's mercy plea, given its dubious record during the freedom movement.
On her part, the Congress chief should display the courage of conviction to unambiguously state that she begs to differ with Indira Gandhi, for whom Savarkar was a "by-word for daring and patriotism", as well as with her other political ancestors who did not presume to question the freedom fighter's credentials. Finally, the Opposition professes to champion democracy. But democracy is incompatible with intellectual arrogance and exclusivism; nor does it brook the political hijacking of history. More important, it cannot survive without ideological plurality. Savarkar is an icon for countless Indians. His place in the pantheon of their political divinities is, therefore, as legitimate as that of any other venerated participant in the Indian freedom movement.