Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar are two names from history that are occupying current headlines.

The BJP-led NDA and the Congress-led INDIA are literally jostling it out in Parliament over who insulted Ambedkar, the Father of the Constitution, while in Mumbai Uddhav Thackeray met Devendra Fadnavis and demanded the Bharat Ratna for Savarkar. This, while Uddhav’s alliance partner Congress’s Rahul Gandhi pitted the Constitution against the words of Savarkar..

But what were the views of Ambedkar – who according to Union home minister Amit Shah the BJP cannot ever insult – on Savarkar, the BJP’s icon?

‘Savarkar’s attitude is illogical, if not queer’

In the Calcutta Session of the Hindu Maha Sabha held in December 1939, Savarkar explained who is a Hindu.

“. . . .who regards and owns this Bharat Bhumi, this land from the Indus to the Seas, as his Fatherland as well as his Holy Land;—i.e., the land of the origin of his religion, the cradle of his faith. The followers therefore of Vaidicism, Sanatanism, Jainism, Buddhism, Lingaitism, Sikhism, the Arya Samaj, the Brahmosamaj, the Devasamaj, the Prarthana Samaj and such other religions of Indian origin are Hindus and constitute Hindudom, i.e., Hindu people as a whole. Consequently the so-called aboriginal or hill-tribes also are Hindus: because India is their Fatherland as well as their Holy Land whatever form of religion or worship they follow.

Savarkar then quoted a Sanskrit verse and claimed the government should recognise this understanding of who is a Hindu.

Here’s what Ambedkar wrote in his book Pakistan or the Partition of India, which was published in 1945,.about Savarkar’s understanding of the term Hindu.

“the scheme has some disturbing features. One is the categorical assertion that the Hindus are a nation by themselves. This, of course, means that the Muslims are a separate nation by themselves. Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah, instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue, are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist, that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation…..” Ambedkar wrote.

“It must be said that Mr. Savarkar’s attitude is illogical, if not queer. Mr. Savarkar admits that the Muslims are a separate nation. He concedes that they have a right to cultural autonomy. He allows them to have a national flag. Yet he opposes the demand of the Muslim nation for a separate national home. If he claims a national home for the Hindu nation, how can he refuse the claim of the Muslim nation for a national home?” Ambedkar wrote.

‘Savarkar… is really creating a most dangerous situation’

Ambedkar elaborated further about Savarkar’s definition of Hindutva.

“It would not have been a matter of much concern if inconsistency was the only fault of Mr. Savarkar. But Mr. Savarkar in advocating his scheme is really creating a most dangerous situation for the safety and security of India. History records two ways as being open to a major nation to deal with a minor nation when they are citizens of the same country and are subject to the same constitution. One way is to destroy the nationality of the minor nation and to assimilate and absorb it into the major nation, so as to make one nation out of two. This is done by denying to the minor nation any right to language, religion or culture and by seeking to enforce upon it the language, religion and culture of the major nation. The other way is to divide the country and to allow the minor nation a separate, autonomous and sovereign existence, independent of the major nation. Both these ways were tried in Austria and Turkey, the second after the failure of the first.”

‘So dreadful an alternative’

Muhammad Ali Jinnah said India should be divided into two, Pakistan and Hindustan. According to Ambedkar, Savarkar believed that there were two nations in India, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus, but the two nations will be in one country and follow one Constitution.

“But the Constitution will enable Hindu nation to occupy a predominant position and the Muslim nation will be in subordinate co-operation with the Hindu nation.” Ambedkar explained Savarkar’s theory in his book.

Savarkar, in his 1939 speech, said old Austria and old Turkey as his model to build upon his concept of two nations within one nation.

“ Savarkar does not seem to be aware of the fact that old Austria and old Turkey are no more,” Ambedkar wrote. “Much less does he seem to know the forces which have blown up old Austria and old Turkey to bits. If Mr. Savarkar instead of studying the past—of which he is very fond—were to devote more attention to the present, he would have learnt that old Austria and old Turkey came to ruination for insisting upon maintaining the very scheme of things which Mr. Savarkar has been advising his “Hindudom” to adopt, namely, to establish a Swaraj….the scheme of Swaraj formulated by Mr. Savarkar will give the Hindus an empire over the Muslims and thereby satisfy their vanity and their pride in being an imperial race. But it can never ensure a stable and peaceful future for the Hindus, for the simple reason that the Muslims will never yield willing obedience to so dreadful an alternative.”