Our Political Desk
The Congress party, often criticized for playing divisive politics, has once again found itself embroiled in controversy. The latest statement by Karnataka minister Dinesh Gundu Rao has raised eyebrows, as he claimed that Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a revered figure in the Indian freedom struggle, was a beef eater. This remark, bizarre and out of place, reflects a deeper strategy the Congress has long employed—divide and rule. The attempt to distort history and target national icons for political gain is not new, but this instance strikes at the core of how historical facts are being weaponized to serve political narratives.
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a staunch nationalist and freedom fighter, endured extreme hardships during India’s fight for independence, particularly at the infamous Kala Pani prison. Savarkar’s unwavering commitment to India’s freedom made him a hero in the eyes of many. However, Gundu Rao’s attempt to smear Savarkar’s legacy by linking him to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and painting him as someone who consumed beef is not only a distortion of facts but also an attempt to stir communal tensions.
The accusation against Savarkar is historically inaccurate. Nathuram Godse, not Savarkar, was the one who assassinated Gandhi, although Savarkar was acquitted in the trial. The beef-eating claim, too, is baseless and seems more like an effort to diminish Savarkar’s image among his supporters, particularly among the Hindu community, where dietary habits are often linked to religious identity. Savarkar, being a Brahmin, is unlikely to have violated these customs, and the insinuation about his dietary choices appears to be a calculated attempt to divide Hindus based on caste and religious practices.
The context of Gundu Rao’s remarks brings to mind the enduring debate around Gandhi’s role during the Partition of India in 1947. Gandhi is often criticized by right-wing groups for allegedly favoring Muslims during the communal violence that followed Partition. One of the most contentious statements attributed to Gandhi was his suggestion that Hindus should adopt a non-violent approach, even in the face of Muslim aggression during the communal carnage. This statement, echoed by the young researcher Dr. Anand Ranganathan, has fueled the narrative that Gandhi’s policies were skewed toward appeasement of Muslims, particularly during the horrific bloodshed of that era.
In fact, the Congress party’s policies since then have often been seen as leaning towards minority appeasement, a strategy that the party’s detractors argue is aimed at consolidating the Muslim vote. Dr. Manmohan Singh, former Congress Prime Minister, famously stated that Muslims should have the “first right” over India’s resources—a sentiment that resonated with Gandhi’s earlier stance. The criticism from right-wing groups is that such statements reinforce a sense of entitlement for minorities while sidelining the majority community.
The Congress party’s focus on minority appeasement has extended beyond its tenure under Gandhi and Singh. Today, the party and its allies continue to adopt policies and rhetoric that seek to divide communities for political gains. Whether it is by playing up caste divisions among Hindus or fostering a sense of victimhood among minority groups, the Congress’s strategy is rooted in a divide-and-rule policy that has only grown stronger over the decades.
One recent example of this is Omar Abdullah, leader of the National Conference, expressing solidarity with Hezbollah during a function on October 7. Abdullah’s remarks come at a time when Hezbollah was involved in a conflict with Israel. His comments appear to be an attempt to position his party as sympathetic to Muslim causes, even those outside India, in a bid to consolidate his vote base in Jammu and Kashmir, where he is uncertain about returning to power.
This narrative extends to the Communist parties, which have also taken up the mantle of minority appeasement. Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan recently condemned the killing of a Hezbollah leader, signaling the Left’s alignment with pro-Muslim sentiments. Such statements, while seemingly addressing international issues, have a direct impact on domestic politics, as they resonate with Muslim voters who see these parties as their protectors.
The Congress and its allies, having struggled to regain power in recent years, have turned to a well-worn tactic: targeting Hindu icons to stir controversy and grab media attention. Gundu Rao’s comments about Savarkar fall squarely within this strategy. By attacking a figure who is revered by many Hindus, particularly in right-wing circles, Congress seeks to ignite controversy, ensuring its presence in the headlines while simultaneously appealing to caste and communal divisions within the Hindu community.
This strategy is not limited to Savarkar. Congress has, in the past, targeted other Hindu figures, including figures from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a right-wing organization with significant political influence in India today. The party’s willingness to polarize opinion by targeting prominent Hindu leaders reflects its desperation to win back the support of communities that have increasingly drifted towards the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) over the past decade.
Gundu Rao’s comments about Savarkar are more than just a political gaffe—they are part of a calculated strategy by the Congress to divide the electorate on caste and religious lines. By targeting a figure like Savarkar, the Congress seeks to undermine the legacy of those associated with Hindu nationalism while appealing to its traditional minority vote base. This divide-and-rule policy, a hallmark of Congress’s approach to politics, continues to manifest in various forms, from historical distortions to inflammatory statements. In a political landscape marked by increasing polarization, these tactics may serve short-term electoral goals, but they ultimately deepen the divisions within Indian society, hindering the nation’s progress toward unity and development.
