CHAPTER V I

SSNPATI 3APAT

475

CHAPTSR VI

SSNAPATI BAPAT

Among all the Hinduist revolutionaries under

our consideration, Pandurang Mahadev alias Senapati Sapat

sea;ns to have represented the most radical and humanitarian

Hindu outlook in his political thinking. A devout Hindu by

faith 3apat was deeply influenced by the two different

ideologies of his time# namely# Gandhism and 3olshevism, that

dominated not only the intellectual world but also the

political process in the first half of the twentieth century

India. 3apat, of course, had his reservations with respect

to the aforesaid ideologies but by and large he seems to have

tried to reconcile these two ideological trends with his

Hindu faith and produced a more liberal form of Hindu

consciousness. 3y propounding the theory of 'Shuddha

Satyagraha' (pure-satyagraha) and 'Prana-yadnya' (self-killing)

Bapat not only combined his revolutionism with that of

Gandhism but also contributed to the theories of political

resistance that have a particular relevance in a democratic

polity. Bapat's approach to Hindu Muslim relations in India

was also peculiar which made him distinct from the other

Hinduist revolutionaries. Barring Y.D.Phadke, scholars on

revolutionaries have, however, not taken a note of Bapat

as an important national revolutionary. Some attempts have

476

been made to explore 3apat's social and political thought

bat the subject needs more attention in its thoroughness

and depth. An attempt has# therefore, oeen made here to

explore and explain the major facets of 3apat's political

thought and to juxtapose him in the revolutionary tradition

of the region on the one hand and also in the tradition of

Hinduist political thinking in modern Maharashtra, on the

other.

Bapat did not write any major political

treatise explaining his political thought. However, he wrote

several pamphlets, letters, statements and even some essays

explaining his political views and responses at different

occasions. Sesicfes, we have his autobiography and other

poetical works such as 'Chaitanya Gatha' , 'Geeta-Hhriday*

'Heart of Bhagwat Geeta), 'Geeta Sevak*, 'Holy Songs',

'Gav-Geata' and several other poems in Marathi, Hindi, English

and even in Sanskrit that express his political outlook.

Cne of the striking features of Bapat's writing is that he

seldom wrote prose. He was fond of writing poetry and

hence put his views and ideas in the form of verses which

he composed from time to time. As a result one has to go

through all his poetical works in order to understand his

political and social ideas.

Bapat's oolitical career is equally

expressive of his political line of thinking as he practically

477

lived each and every value that h3 cherished. Moreover

he remained qaite active in politics even after India

became independent. His participation in the Saniyukta

Maharashtra Movement and liberation of Goa signify his

major political activities in post-independent period.

He was, thus, one of the few revolutionaries who remained

politically active even after India secured independence.

This is primarily because he saw politics as a means to

serve the mankind. We can read his political ideas as

much in his actions as in his writings. Moreover unless

we have his entire political career in our mind it is quite

difficult to make any sense out of which he wrote. We,

therefore, propose in the first instance, to have a brief

look at the development of 3apat's political career which

itself played an important role in shaping his political

ideas and then to discuss his political ideas.

Development of Bapat's Political Career

Born on l2th November 1880 in a lower middle

class Chitpavan Brahmin family at Parner in the Ahmednagar

district of the Bombay Presidency, Bapat took his primary

education there and came to Pune to study English at the

New iSnglish School in the last decade of the nineteenth

century. This decade, as we have noted in the preceding

pages, was full of nationalist activities so far as the

city of Pune was concerned. It moreover characterized the

4 78

tussle between the moderates led by M.G.Ranade and the

young extremists led by T H a k , 3apat witnessed these

debates between the 'Sudharaks' (social reformers) and

nationalists with a keen interest. In 1897, as 3apat's

biographer Y.D.Phadke tells us# 3apat had to leave Pune

following the death of Chintamani Deo, who had accommodated

3apat in his house at ?une.^ 3apat, thereupon, went back

to Parner and was sent to Ahmednagar to prepare for the

matriculation examination. In 1899 he became matriculate

securing the coveted Jagannath Shankershath Scholarship

for his proficiency in Sanskrit. Soon he joined the

Deccan College at ?une.

His joining the Eeccan College proved to be

eventful with respect to his revolutionary career. Because

it was at this period that Sapat came in contact with

Damodar 3alwant i^hide, a member of Chapekar club, who

initiated 3apat into revolutionary movement by administering

an oath with palm on a sword to devote all his life to the

service of the motherland. Ostensibly the event appears

to be miraculous and particularly after 3apat describing it .

as "God purified me by this e v e n t . A careful reading of

the historical context in which the event took place reveals

that it was in no sense a miracle as it is made out to be.

We have noted in the fourth chapter that the members of the

Chapekar club were keen on contacting the school and college

going students to secure their recruitment to the revolutionary

479

movement. The Deccan C o l l e g e at that time often proved

to be one of che centres of nationalist students where

professors like Francis Niniam 3ain cultivated the

nationalist feelings of the Indian students and even

condemned their colleagues such as Principal Selby and

Dr.3handarkar for their uncritical admiration of the

British rule. Y.D.Phadke notes that it was the same

Francis 3ain who influenced Bapat most during the latter's

4college days. In such an atmosphere it was natural for

the revolutionary activists at that time to locate the

potential revolutionaries at such educational institutions

and to initiate them into revolutionary movement. 3hide's

contact with 3apat signified the same. It is also worth

noting that Bapat himself, too, was not a passive witness

to the nationalist politics in the city at that time. We

have noted that he took keen interest in the ' nationalist-

reformer' controversy. He listened to the debates between

Hansaswaroop 3waml and Prof.Jinsiwale over whether Vedas

are man-made (Paurusheya) or otherwise and even approached

Tilak with a request to intervene in the dispute to settle

it once for all when the controversy assa-ned serious

proportion.^ This speaks for 3apat's early political

socialization at the hands of the nationalist leaders at

that time. The Hindu-Muslims riots, plague-atrocities,

assassination of Rand, national festivals like 'Shiva Jayanti'

and 'Ganesh Festival* - all served as channels of political

480

communication and agencies of political socialization.

Sapat was bound to oe influenced by these forces and events

around him and thus acquired nationalist attitude. It was

to this 'young nationalist' that 3hide appealed and

converted him as revolutionary. Thus 3apat's political

career started as a revolutionary and also as a result

of the revolutionary and nationalist politics in the city.

After passing the 3 .A,examination, 3apat

accepted a job in the Aryan Education Society's High School

at Bombay where he inducted some of his students into the

group of revolutionaries with which he was connected.^

Thereupon, after securing the Mangaldas

Nathubai Scholarship,3apat proceeded to England in the year

1904. There he was in Edinburgh, at Herriot-Watt-College

where he received his training in shooting at the Queen's

Rifles Club of the college. 3apat also got opportunities

to attend the political meetings of the British leaders.

He was associated with the activities of the 3ell Lodge -

a society which advocated the policy of temparence - in the

capacity of its Secretary. His association with 3ell-Lodge

brought him in contact with a socialist leader John Dingwal.

Dingwal was a leading member of the independent Labour Party

which showed sympathies for India's struggle for freedom.

Dingwal requested 3apat to read a paper on 'British Rule in

India' at one of the meetings organized by the local unit

481

of the Independent Party# to which 3apat conceded. His

preparation for this paper led him to study the impact of

the British rule in India in a more serious manner. As

part of his preparation 3apat read Dadabhai Naoroji's

'Poverty in India' and was deeply influenced by the argument

therein. He also read some other books such as

J .R .Seeley 's 'Expansion of England', Ilbert's 'Government

of Ind ia ', Winiam Digby's 'Prosperous British India'

'The Report of the Indian National Congress : 1904' which

helped him widening his understanding of the British rule

in India. It was after reading such books like that of

Dadaohai Naoroji's 'Poverty in India* that Baoat seems to

have understood the economic as well as exploitative aspect

of the British rule in India which he highlighted in his

speech at Edinburgh. It is significant to note here that

Bapat saw British rule in India more as 'imperial' than

'mlencha rule '. This might be because of his association

and interaction with the socialist as well as Russian

revolutionaries that he was able to develop insights into

the working of the imperial system,

Bapat's speech on the British rule in India

before the above mentioned British audience was critical

and provocative for which he was deprived of his scholarship,

This must have oeen a severe olow to freedom loving Bapat

who later on increasingly involved hinself in the

anti British campaign and activities going on at the

482

'India House' in London. Having been deprived of his

scholarship, 3apat had to face financial difficulties.

It was Shyamji Krishnavarma who accommodated 3apat in India

House and helped him financially. It was here that Saoat

came into contact with V,B.3avarkar. Sapat’ s contact with

Savarkar certainly fuelled the existing anti British

feelings in 3apat. It was on the advice of oavarkar that

3 apat decided to go to Paris to acquire the technique of

iuaking oomb with tha help of his Russian friends. 3apat

accordingly went to Paris and acquired the art of

manufacturing explosives along with Hemachandra Das and

Mirza Abbas. It is significant to note here that though

had close ties with Savarkar and though both were in

perfect agreement with each other on the issue of armed

revolution against the alien rule# Bapat never became the

member of the Abhinav 3harat despite Savarkar's drive for

recruiting more andmore Indian students to the Abhinav Bharat.

While doing all these things we find Bapat

growing increasingly violent in his criticism of the

British misrule in India. In 1906 Bapat appealed Congress

leaders to give up their politics of petitions and prayers

and resort to agitational politics, in his pamphet, 'What

shall our Congress do ?' In 1907 he read a paper on 'India

in the year 2007 ', in Edinburgh in which he explicitly

advocdced the use of violent means to secure justice and

explained his philosophy of killing. "To secure and preserve

483

high ideals" said 3apat, "human killing is perfectly g

justified ." 3apat had also announced his plan to

assassinate Morley in protest of Lala Lajpat Rai's

deportation in 19 07. He was, however, disuaded from doing

so by Savarkar, Thus in his London days, 3apat grew as

a ' pucca revolutionary'.

Having secured the art of making bomb,

3apat returned to India in 1908 with a ’bomb-manual’ and

two revolvers. The bomb-manual was found very useful by

revolutionaries all over India. The copies of the manual

were secretly distributed in different parts of India

where the revolutionary centres flourished. Bapat even

contacted the Bengal revolutionaries such as

Hemachandra Das, Uiiaskar Dutt, Upen 3anerjea,

Barindra Ghose and others. The Bengal revolutionaries

were ousy planning the explosion of bomb and kill top

officials . Bapat evidently disliked these isolated acts

of terrorism and advised restraint. In his views the

revolutionaries, instead of attempting sporadic terrorist

acts, should patiently build a well-knit organization of

secret societies ail over India and then wage a countrywide

struggle against the British. Thus it is evident that

Bapat favoured a strategy of nationwide armed revolt

rather than individual killings as part of his revolutionary

programme at this time though later on he allowed individual

injury and even killing in his scheme of shuddha-satyagraha.

484

3apat's suggestion went unheard and the

Bengal revolutionaries made unsuccessful attempt

to bomb to death the Mayor of Chandnagar. Thus began the

'cult of boinb', signified by the Aiipore Bomb Trial. Sapat

sensing the possibility of his arrest went underground.

During his underground life he visited several parts of

India, went by several pseudo-names to hide his identity.

He often meditated on human predicament and even thought

of embracing death by drowning himself in the waters of

Ganga. It is since this time (l912) that he started giving

a thouc^t to self-killing as a strategy of political

resistance. 3apat wrote : "It was on November 20, 1912

the following ttought occurred to me : (that) we must

collect at least 30,000 freedom loving people and out of

those, 15000 should inflict self-death in 3ombay announcing

that they were tired of slavery and hence contemplated to

rescue them from such humilitating state by sacrificing

their lives collectively. The freedom loving people should

then issue a statement to that effect and convey their

urge for freedom to the leaders of various nations in the

world. The rest of the 15,000 people should wait and see

the consequences of the self inflicted death on the world

9and decide their programrr.e further."

Bapat could not execute this plan as he was

arrested by the oolice. 3ut it is evident tnat the doctrine

of ' pran-yadnya* which he developed further in the thirties

485

could be traced back to this event. This kind of a

strategy of self killing reflects both the ever haunting

death instinct in 3apat on the one hand and also the

frustration that enveloped the revolutionaries following

the governmental repression 1908 on the other. The

revolutionaries were almost uprooted following the Alipore

bomb case. They were rendered helpless. It is quite likely

that the general gloom pervaded 3apat who started thinking

on some other strategies of revolution. The idea of

' pran-yadnya' signifies this development,

3apat was released soon in 1913 as the

police did not find any substantial evidence against him.

He returned to ?arner - his native town. He was still

under police surveillance and was being reported about his

activities to the Collector of Ahmednagar. During this

period 3apat examined his ideas about religion and

G.C?.3apat wrote, "During my underground life I hapoened

to have read the book, titled, 'At the Feet of the Master*

which stimulated me to rethink my previous (agnostic) views

regarding God. After my returning to Parner, I read

' Yoga-vasishtha', the 'Abhangas* of Tukaram; studied Ramadas'

'DasDodh', read ' Dnyaneshwari ' , Aurobindo's 'Life Divine'

and 'iissays on Geata'. I also studied ' 3rahmasutra' and

‘ Geeta Bhashya', Upanishads and 3ible, Koran and parts from

t’arsee-religious text, Ramkrishna and ’/ivekananda,

Swami Ramateerth and Maharshi Raman and so many other . . . .

486

re-examined my experiences during the underground life#

thought of the world around me# dived deep into 'inner

world' (Antah-srushti) and arrived at a conclusion that

God exists. This relieved me of my agnosticism."^^ It is

evident from this that 3apat since 1913-14 emerged as a

believer. This rather seems to be a peculiar characteristic

of the Knglish educated Indians at that time as we observe

most of them passing through this agnostic stage and later

emerging as firm believers. Swami Vivekananda, Maharshi

Vithal Ramaji Shinde signified this tendency in particular.

3apat also followed the same footsteps.

3apat's increasing faith in God considerably

influenced his political thinking. Since the time of

Mulshi-Satyagraha (l92l) we find Bapat increasingly using

religious vocabulary to express his political doctrines.

He started looking at politics essentially as a conflict

between 'sat' ttruth) and 'Asat' (untruth) or in terms of

'Sushta' and 'Dushta* (Good and Evil). These concepts

no doubt had wider connotations far beyond their normal

implications and did continue to express the radical

message which 3apat wanted to convey. They also reflect

the influence of Gandhian terminology. We find 3apat thus

responding to Gandhian ideas such as Satyagraha, Ahimsa,

Anasakti etc. and at the same time appropriating these ideas

to his original revolutionary faith.

487

3apat's thaory of *shuddha-satyagraha'

which he formulated in the wake of Mulshi-Satyagraha

signified a major development in his political thinking.

From this time we find him highlighting the 'moral cause'

underlying the political conflict in a peculiarly

Gandhian parlance out also criticizing directly or

indirectly the Gandhian concept of Anasakti (detacliment)

and Ahimsa (non-violence) for their exclusiveness. Sapat's

inclusion of violence in his scheme of 'shuddha-satyagraha'

signified his peculiar line of thinking and also the

improvement of Gandhian technique of satyagraha.

We find 3apat fervently participating in

Mulshi-Satyagraha and even leading it with his own

ideology of political action. It was at this stage that

3apat seems to have grasped the crux of class-struggle in

the society. The Mulshi-experience also made 3apat

familiar with the woes and agonies of the peasantry. It

was during this time that he was able to see the tortuous

life of the toiling people. It was here again that he was

aole to locate the xexus between the imperialist rulers

and the emerging capitalist class in India when the

3ritish government and the Tata Company joined hands in

pauperizing and uprooting the peasantry in Mulshi in order

to push forward Tata Company's project of erecting a dem

in the valley of Tamhin in Mulshi. The Mulshi project

was not an isolated one. In fact it was just a part of the

488

massive project of erecting several dams in the hilly parts

of Sahyadri in Maharashtra to procure electricity which was

basically to oe used for industries in 3ombay and for the

domestic purposes of urban dwellers. The Collector of Poona

who visited the Mulshi area to pursuade and pacify the

anti-dam agitators from Mulshi categorically explained the

above mentioned purpose of the project and said, "In the

course of erecting a dam the peasants would of course lose

their land. 3ut as the electricity procured from such

dams would help flourishing the industries in 3omoay and

there will be an incessant demand for the labour and the

deprived peasants would of course De recruited as industrial

l a b o u r e r s . " I t is evident from this that the government

and the bureaucracy stood firm in sup^xjrting the Tata Company

in its project of erecting a network of dams under the guise

of industrialization. 3apat who was well acquainted with

the imperial phenomenon# quickly grasped the anti peasant

implication of such developmental scheme and in order to

protect the interests of the peasant-class 3apat took lead

in organizing the anti-dam satyagraha.

As said earlier it is here that he actually

worked with the peasants and witnessed their poor plight.

The genesis of 3apat's concern for estaolishing 'surajya*

(good state) in the form of 'Gav-Rajya' (village-state) and

the implicit concern for the village poor could be traced

in the experiences which 3apat gathered at the time of

489

Mulshi satyagraha. 3apat not only obsarved the conflict

of interests between the industrial capitalists and the

peasants but also experienced a class antagonism between

the rich peasants and the poor farmers within the peasant

class. This was again coupled with the other antagonisms

such as Jrahmin Za*Tiindars vs. non-3rahmin peasant castes

and also urban dwellers vs. village dwellers.

Thus the Mulshi experience widened and

deepened 3apat's political understanding and helped him

in improving on his ,x3litical thinking. It is evident that

Bapat identified Mulshi-Satyagraha essentially as nationalist

and anti-imperialist s t r u g g l e . H o w e v e r , it is equally

evident that through this Mulshi experience he also

realized the class-caste contradictions in the Indian

society which he of course never cared to develop beyond

the rich poor, urban-rural or high caste-low caste dichotomy.

One of the major influences on 3aoat during

the twenties or rather since the 1920s was that of the

Jolshevik revolution that took place in 1917. 3apat's

contacts with the Russian revolutionaries go back to his

London days. His sympathy for socialist doctrines is also

well known but he was particularly impressed by the

egalitarian ideology of Solshevism when it thrived

successfully under the leadership of Lenin. Bapat was

working as an assistant editor of the 'Mahratta* (a paper

owned oy Tilak) when the 3olshevik revolution took place.

490

Bapat was jubilant to hear of the success of the Russian

revolution. Ha praised the phenomenon and contriouted

strongly worded article on Russian revolution which was

modified and toned down by Tiiak for its excessive

r a d i c a l i s m . T h e doctrine of equality, the anti-feudal,

anti-capitalist principles of Bolshevism appealed to 3apat

most. He had been cherishing these principles throughout

his life and hence sincerely oelieved that India should

also follow these ideals upheld by the iolshevik revolution.

In addressing the 3ombay ^residency Students' Conference

in 1937, Bapat said, "Study Moscow. That is my one appeal

to you. Moscow is the Jerusalem, the Mecca, the Kashi

of the New Age. . . . Study Moscow, therefore, I repeat,

study its plans and perforrcances, . . . but remember that

it is not an easy leap from Delhi to Moscow, from the

Indian system with its foreign rule and feudalism, capitalism,

individualism, to the Russian system with its self-rule and

14anti-feudalist, anti-capitalist collectivism." It is

evident from this utterance that Bapat was deeply influenced

by the Russian experimentation of 1917 and expected India

to follow the same egalitarian principles as enunciated in

Bolshevik programme and ideology. The pro-left orientation

of Bapat's political thinking owed much to this impact of

Bolshevism on him.

One of the salient characteristics of Bapat's

political career is his concern for constructive work, the

491

origins of which could be traced more into his

humanitarian attitude towards life rather than the

Gandhian thrust on constructive politics, though the

latter might have strengthened the constructive spirit

in 3apat. This is evident fro-n the fact that it was

as early as in 1908 that the thought occurred to him

that India is unspeakably unclean inwardly and outwardly

and that it needed the 'gospel of the broom*. To a

question asked by a fellow villager from Parner as to

what was his programme after his return back to India

Bapat replied, " . . . I am going to do sweeping work.

I a.n going to sweap our dirty village clean as far as I

can .” ^^ Bapat could not undertake the sweeping work as

he had to go underground but when he was released in 1913

he returned to Parner and began preaching the gospel of

the broom and spent many hours in cleaning streets and

latrines even in the areas occupied by the so called

untouchables. In later years too this 'sweeping work'

occupied him for certain hours of the day. Bapat wrote

many pamphlets, composed many verses explaining the

significance of the 'public cleaning' and also directed

the volunteers engaged in the task of sweeping and cleaning.

He believed that the work of cleaning the streets and

latrines was not only the precondition of public hygiene

but also a lesson in cooperative work.^^ Thus along with

his confrontational style of politics Bapat also undertook

492

constructive programmes which, again, signified his way of

understanding politics in terms of public service. While

explaining 3apat*s oolitical thought one has to take note

of this constructive and positive aspect of 3apat's thinking,

as his service-mindedness is frequently reflected in his

political thinking also.

The Post Mulshi Phase

3apat's arrest and the subsequent imprisonment

at the time of Mulshi Satyagraha cut off all his connections

with the political life for almost seven years. It was in

1931 that he was released from Jail. He was thereupon made

the President of the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee

(MPCC). Though he held the Presidentship of the M?CC, he

did not hesitate to express his opinions which were against

the policy and strategy of the Congress, Thus he upheld

the heroic act of Vasudev 3alwant Gogate who attempted to

Shoot the then Governor of 3ombay, Sir Ernest Hotson despite

the All India Congress Committee's resolution condemning

Gogate's deed was passed. This speaks of Bapat's

reservations about Mahatma Gandhi and Congress. He also

differed from the Congress on the issue of people's movement

for civil lioerties in the princely states. While the

Congress expected the initiative from the people in the

princely states, 3apat insisted that the Congress should

actually take up the cause of the people in their f i ^ t

against the arbitrary princely rule. 3apat criticized

the Congress leaders' Inability to arrive at a consensus

for framing the constitution for India and also settling

the Hindu-Muslim problem in India. He particularly

attacked the 'cult of personality' and held Gandhi

responsible for that. Thus it must be noted that 3apat,

despite his presidentship of the MPCC, remained a constant

critic of Congress programme.

Bapat, as Y.D.Phadke rightly points out,

was truly an independent politician and regardless of

party affiliation treated every issue on its m e r i t . T h e

post-Mulshi political career of 3apat particularly

highlights his independent behaviour. Thus his joining of

Hyderabad Satyagraha, his acceptance of the Presidentship

of the Maharashtra branch of Forward Block in 1939, his

participation in the liberation movement of Goa and in

the Samyukta Maharashtra Movement confirmed the same

independent spirit of 3apat which he showed from time to

time. While exploring# constructing and assessing the

political thought of 3apat one has to constantly bear in

mind his independent disposition which, aoove all other

considerations, influenced his political thinking. It is,

therefore, necessary to explain his political thought as

much in the light of his metaphysical outlook as in the

light of his political career.

493

494

We propose to discuss Bapat's political

ideas with reference to the following aspects of his

political thinking : (i) Philosophical foundation of

Qapat's political thought, (ii) Bapat’ s understanding of

tae British rule in India, ( i i i ) 3apat's theory of

Satyagraha and (iv) 3apat's vision of future India.

We shall elaborate on these aspects one by one.

( i ) Philosophical Foundation of 3apat*s Political Thought

3apat was a man with a metaphysical outlook

towards life. He did not develop any philosophical system

of his own as Aurobindo did and yet in his commentary on

'Geeta' (Geeta Hriday), 'Chaitanya Gatha* and in his several

other poems and correspondence we find 3apat reflecting

his own philosophical outlook that provided the basis for

his political thinking and actions. Unless we know his

philosophical outlook, no meaningful understaiiding of his

political ideas and views is ever possible. Let us,

therefore, see how he looked at the world around him,

what was his understanding of human life and how did he

understand human nature in its essence.

3apat describes hi-nself as the follower of

Advait Vedanta. He also calls his politics as 'Advaiti

Po lit ic s ', What does he mean by the term 'Advait Vedant' ?

In one of his interviews, 3apat has explained the meaning

495

o f the term i n th e f o l l o w in g m anner . Bapat s a y s , " I

believe that *3rahma' and '3rahma' alone exists. It is

the same Brahma which manifests itself through God (Ishwar)

as well as through every living being (Jeeva). T© convert

every 'Jeeva' into 'Shiva* (perfect being) is the function

o f t h i s Brahma a n d a c c o r d in g ly e v e r y o r d i n a r y b e in g is bound

to raise himself to the Ultimate Perfection# whether he is

a thief or any evil doer. He is going to became

Dnyaneshwara the one who identified himself with the

entire cosmos (V^shwa) and said that the entire cosmos is

18my abode. This is the 'lesla* (fancy) of C3od.” Bapat

has expressed such views several tines both in his speeches

and writings. However, in no other place than in the

statement entitled as 'Mulshicha Poornaviram' (Fullstop to

Mulshi Satyagraha) we find Bapat summarizing his philosophical

outlook in a remarkably clear and precise manner. Bapat

says, "The Brahma is the Ultimate and Singular Truth, The

other truths are partial manifestations of the Ultimate

Truth and the world is nothing but the chaos (galbala) of

all these partial truths. I t 's a fight among different

partial truths, one truth is being negated at the cost of

other. It 's because of different positions (Bhoomika 3hed)

that people talk of different truths (satya-bhed) and give

birth to the duality of 'truth and untruth'. This duality

further begets the duality of good and bad positions as

epitomized in the person of well wisher (Sadhu) and evil doer

(Dushta) and this duality of 'Sadhu' and 'Dushta* begets the

496

duality of actions (karma dwandwa) namely the elimination

19of evil doers and the protection of the well wishers."

Thus according to 3apat, we feel the

existence of the world only through and because of the

duality of cruth and untruth which in their Ultimate

Existence are essentially one. 3ut this realization does

not dawn upon everyone and hence one keeps fighting with

other for one's own truth calling the other 'untrue'.

Thus every honest struggle and sincere fight signifies an

attempt towards eliminating the evil and protecting the

good in its own way. In other words the essence of life

is to fi(^t out untruth i .e . to eliminate evil doer and

protect the truth as one sees it . This basic position of

Bapat leads him to respect every being with full trust

despite having differences of opinion with the person

concerned. This also explains how 3apat could go along

smoothly with the leaders of opposite ideologies such as

Gandhi and Savarkar despite having severe differences of

opinion with them.

3apat thus believes that the entire world

is the manifestation of 3rahma (Truth) and the Srahma is

inherent in every existence. iJvery thing, oeing the

manifestation of the same 3rahma is therefore/ holy and

sacred. It is significant to note here t h a t 3 a p a t * s

Advait Vedantism does not reject this world as 'maya* or

497

'Illusion* while accepting Srahma as the Ultimate Trxith.

On the contrary it treats arad takes it seriously as the

manifestation of the same sacred Brahma. This outlook -

the outlook to see the world as the 'inspiration' or

manifestation of the spirit or Brahma or Truth is peculiar

to A u r o b in d o who saw the w o r l d i n terms o f 'a s c e n d a n c e

and descendence of the spirit' and thus rejected the

artificial dichotomy between material and spiritual,

individual and universal. For example, Aurobindo says,

“ , . . the sharp division which practical experience and

long habit of mind have created between Spirit and Matter

has no longer any fundamental reality. The world is a

differentiated unity, a manifold oneness . . . not an

everlasting struggle between irreconciliable opposites.

. *. Substance is the foinn of itself on which it works

and of that substance if matter is one end spirit is the

other. The two are one s Spirit is the soul and reality

of that which we sense as Matter; Hatter is a form and

20oody of that which we realize as spirit."

We have already noted earlier that Bapat

had read Aurobindo’ s philosophy with great care and even

translated most of his works in Marathi in his later life .

Aurobindo's influence on Bapat is amply visible, particularly,

Aurobindo's concept of evolution as the ascendence and

unfolding of the Spirit seems to have impressed Bapat in

498

formulating nis world view. This is evident from the fact

that though dapat considers this world as a fancy of Brahma

visualized in the 'chaos of partial truths* ha says in

one of his poems that 'this drama (Natak) has got its own

laws and it takes place accordingly.' Further he says,

"This (world) is the game of progression of Truth (sat-roop)

oeing played by the Truth itself. This is a game of

evolution of Spirit (chit-vikas) being played by the Spirit

itse lf ."^^ Thus Sapat, like Aurooindo, believed that the

purpose of the 3rahma is to express itself progressively

through evolution. It is the same 3rahma or spirit that

works through human agencies while assigning different roles

to different human beings. 3apat says, "whatever actions

and role that the individual performs in this world is

nothing out the part assigned to him by God or Brahma in

this 'cosmic drama' (3hava-nataka) and through it the

Almighty ensures one's evolution . . . (afterall) God loves

2 2the evolution of every oeing (Jeeva)." Thus to 3apat

this world is a cosmic drama where every one has his role

to play, good or oad. There could be different positions

and roles of different individuals to be performed by him

as per the instructions by the Director of this play.

In this world some one may take the position that 'Ahimsa'

is the Ultimate Truth, the other may say that Justice is

the Ultimate Truth, so on and so forth but every one is

right in his own place as it takes all sorts to make

this world.

499

3apat rejects the materialistic interpretation

of world which denies the existence of God or creator. In

his letter to his son, B apa t wrote, "Some :5eople say that

the nature (Srushti) is the self-acting machine. This does

not satisfy my reason as no machine could be self-acting?

23some one has to operate i t ." To 3apat, God himself is

the supreme operator of this world machine. This, however,

does not make Sapat to ridicule those who sincerely believe

in the materialist Interpretation of the world or follow

agnostic line of thinking. Because Bapat believes that in

the cosmic play of God some are bound to be protagonists

of agnosticism or materialism; they are also actors on the

stage and a true Advaiti must value their argument and

opinion as they themselves are ordained by God to play such

roles. While speaking before the gathering of students

S a p a t made this point more clear. He said, " . . . some of you

may wonder how one who is incurably 'addicted* to God can

advise you to study Moscow - The Godless, anti-God Moscow.

There is no need of that wonder, my young friends. I see

God in their Godlessness. 'God speaks in X, God speaks

in Y; He ayes Himself, He noes. Unbound by logic's lowly light.

His Fancy glows glorious.' Such is my realization of God,

the Supreme reality, which is the source and the support of

all realities and unrealities, the Fabrications of His

24Fancy." Thus it is evident from this statement that though

a believer, Bapat never condemned the non-believers, the

500

agnostics or the hardcore materialists for their respective

philosophical outlooks. He had a sympathy for them as he

viewed them as 'divine actors'. Thus to 3apat the world is

the manifestation of Spirit and the human beings therein

are the active agents of God far from being merely the

puppets in the deterministic sense of the term. This

outlook leads 3apat to consider life as a sacred service

to God. It makes him treat every being as a part of

Divine and hence at par. This further makes him believe

every human action as sacred if cominitted out of a genuine

concern for the well being of mankind. It is the

selflessness, says 3apat, that justifies the morality and

sacredness of the action irrespective of its overt

expression such as whether it is violent or non-violent,

true or untrue, good or bad, as per the established norms

of the society. It is because of this peculiar outlook that

we find 3apat Justifying violence committed in the pursuit

of some noble cause. Because, to him, such overt act of

violence actually helps in serving the Divine purpose.

This outlook of 3apat seems to have permeated through all

his political thinking and particularly in his interpretation

of Geeta which we attempted in the *3hri Geeta Hriday*.

Sapat's 'Shri Geeta Hriday' is, therefore,

equally crucial in understanding his peculiar philosophical

outlook that we have been discussing so far. In his

501

commentary on Geeta, 3apat rejects the Sankhya position

regarding the root cause of the world and reiterates his

belief in his doctrine of Advaitl Vedantlsm, The Sankhyas,

as we know, have rejected the concept of God and refer to

two phenomena namely ‘Prakritl' and 'Purusha* - the

'Prakriti' being the root cause of the world. According to

Sankhyas the 'Purusha' is eternal, all pervading and yet

inactive and detached (Avikari) as all worldly affairs fall

essentially in the domain of 'Prakriti*, the 'Purusha* being

only a witness to it .^^ Bapat says that the Geeta does not

altogether reject the Sankhya school but certainly finds it

'inadequate' in explaining the phenomenon of *Eharma-adharma*,

26i .e . what is just and unjust. Bapat also maintains that

the view that the 'Purusha* is an inactive witness to

'Prakriti' is not tenable. Instead, he sees a positive

intervention on the part of 'Purusha* in the domain of

27Prakriti. Thus by treating 'Purusha* as God (ishwara) and

attriouting to him the origin of all existences B a p a t is

essentially reiterating his Vedantic faith and Interpreting

Geeta in an Advaiti-Vedanti tradition. The Interpretation

of Geeta in an Advaitl Vedanti tradition is not something

peculiar with Bapat only. iMany modern Indian thinkers like

Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Vinoba and others have interpreted

Geeta in this Vedanti tradition. What is unique with Bapat

is the peculiar message that he reads and makes us read

in the Geeta. This particular message is the foundation of

his political thought.

502

A c c o r d in g to 3ap a t the G e e ta b a s i c a l l y

speaks of four doctrines, namely, (a) the doctrine of

' dehamayabhanga* (destruction of oody-attachinent),

(b) the doctrine of ' sarveshasanga' (complete surrender to

G o d ) , ( i i i ) t h e d o c tr in e ' s a r v a o h o o t h i t a s a n g a ' (w e l l b e in g

o f a l l ) a n d th e d o c t r in e o f ‘ l o k a s a n g r a h a ' ( o r g a n i z i n g the

28people for action), ^ o n g all these four doctrines the

doctrine of *sarvabhootahitasanga', says 3apat, is the

supreme one. According to 3apat it is this doctrine that

actually justifies our social existence. That man exists

and acts to secure the well being of all is the noblest

thing in the world for which one should strive incessantly.

This inevitably leads one to follow the doctrine of

'lokasangraha' as no well being of a community is ever

possible unless the people concerned are mobilized after

some goal. Now, the one who faithfully follows the doctrine

of ' sarvaohootahitasanga' and 'lokasangraha* is invariably

remembering God and since remembering implies 'surrender'

the doctrine of 'sarveshasanga' is also followed, Bapat says

that one cannot completely surrender himself to God unless

he has destroyed the bodily-attachments and hence the

doctrine of *dehamayabhanga' is also equally important,

rt’hat is the scope of this doctrine of

'dehamayabhanga' 7 3apat says that it involves not only

the killing of o m ' s own self but also the killing of

503

other self, if by doing so, the goal of 'well being of all'

is likely to be secured. It is here where 3apat strikingly

differs from Mahatma Gandhi. While Gandhi condemns violence

in toto and highlights the doctrine of ‘ detachment’ (Anasakti)

as the core of Geeta-teaching, 3apat preaches the gospel of

detached violence to eliminate the villain from the scene -

(Anasakta-Khala-Himsa), In fact, according to Sapat, one

of the messages of Geeta is to kill the evil-doer with a

sense of detachment i .e . without having any personal hatred

or animosity towards him. 3apat argues that people generally

appreciate the spirit of eliminating evil (Khalatva) as moral

but seldom like to remove the evil by killing the 'evil doer'

himself. "As a matter of fact", says Sapat, "Geeta teaches

both the things : killing of the evil tendency as well as

29killing of the evil doer. According to Sapat, the real

dharraa is to know the 'immortality of death' (Maranache-

A-maratva). The doctrine of ' dehamayabhanga' helps in

realizing the real dharma. Thus, through his peculiar

interpretation of Geeta, 3apat rationalizes the use of

violent methods to secure desired social goals in politics.

In fact his theory of shuddha-satyagraha is entirely based

on the doctrine of 'dehamayabhanga'.

Thus Bapat viewed life not only as a fancy

of God but also as a fight against evil in all its

expressions. Not only that he understood God as much a

504

creator as a destroyer (Samharak) - it must oe noted here

that the eleventh chapter of 3hagwat Geeta depicts god both

as a creator and destroyer. We find the same image of God

in Aurobindo's philosophy. This kind of a view certainly

sanctifies even 'destruction* as divine. I t is evident that

this notion of 'destruction as divine* runs as an important

theme in 3apat's thinking. Ke, therefore, considers the

destruction of the evil as divinely ordained. As a matter of

fact tne entire political career of B a p a t signifies an

incessant fight against the evil. He did understood politics

as a fight between 'evil* (Dushta) and 'good* (Sushta). His

interpretation of Geata also highlic^its this fight between

evil and good and the subsequent destruction of the 'evil

doer*. (Sushta-Samhar) It is# therefore, necessary to think

of 3apat's political ideas in the light of his metaphysical

outlook.

Having thus understood the basic philosophical

frame of 3apat's thinking let us now switch over ourselves to

the remaining aspects of his political thinking.

(i i ) 3apat*s Understanding Of The British Rule In India

Among all the Hinduist revolutionaries under

our consideration Bapat*s understanding of the British rule

in India appears to oe closer to that of the extremists'

understanding. It was in 1906 that we find Bapat making a

systenatic statement explaining the consequences of the

505

British rule in India when he read a paper on the same

subject before the British audience in Edinburgh at the

instance of the British socialist leader, John Dingwal.

In this essay# 3apat admitted that the

British rule in India has accomplished the task of

integrating the country/ both politically and

administratively. He particularly appreciated the role

of modern English education in fostering the sense of

'national brotherhood' among the Snglish educated Indians

irrespective of their caste, creed, race and religion.

"Education and experience", said 3apat, "have done their

work. The Christian Indian is my brother. Sp is the ?arsee

and Mahammedon Indian. That has become every genuine Hindu's

faith. . . . The Christian, the Parsee, the Mohammedon and

the Hindu Indian taught by the angel of education and

experience will, in no long time, recognize the inviolability

of National Brotherhood. This work of revolution in ideas

has already commenced and has made wonderful progress in a

comparatively short time. Religion oeing out of the question

in national matters the interest of all the classes are,

in educated quarters, recognized as identical. The masses

have accepted the leadership of the educated and Faith in

common interest will in no long time permeate the whole of

I n d i a . C i S mp h a s i s added). Thus to Bapat, India was not a

nation prior to the British rule. It was only after the

introduction of English education that the educated Indians

506

became familiar with ideas like nation or nationalism.

Snglish language served as a unifying force among these

educated Indians and a sense of 'national brotherhood'

developed among them. Sapat also recognizes the fact

that the basis of this newly emerged Indian nationality

was not religion or any other parochial loyalty but the

common class-interests of the educated Indians. Thus 3 a p a t

gives ctue credit to the British rulers in India for

fostering a sense of nationality among the educated Indians

by way of introducing Snglish education and modern ideas.

3ut his appreciation of British rule stops there# because

his study and observation of the working of the British

imperial system in India lead him to see several

disadvantages of the alien rule.which according to him,

positively harmed India nullifying the ostensible progress

achieved in the field of education/ economy# polity and

other areas of human life . Bapat, therefore# becomes critical

of the British rule.

According to Bapat the initial benevolence

of the British rule in India disappeared rapidly. While

the earlier British rulers encouraged the introduction of

modern education their successors, followed policies that

thwarted the growth of education in India. Bapat criticized

the University Act of Lord Curzon under which 'the governing

bodies of the Indian universities were virtually officialized.*

507

Bapat observed that by placing the colleges under a penalty

of dissaffillation, the authorities 'compelled these

institutions to equip themselves at a cost which to them

was simply prohibitive'."'^ Bapat argued that such

retrograde steps taken by the '/iceroy of India certainly

deprived the educated class of their legitimate claims and

demands with respect to education. This inevitably caused

disappoint.r.ent among the educated Indians who started

showing disaffection towards the 3ritish government. Hare

we find Bapat locating the exact cause of the growing

discontent among the educated Indians towards the alien rule.

Since the British policies failed to respond favourably to

the rising expectations of the elites from the educated class

the inherent contradiction between the professed reformist

goals of tna British government and the deteriorating plight

of the educated Indians became manifest. Since the educated

class was denied due share in the adrriinistration of the state

discontent enveloped them and they grew anti-British and

increasingly national in their outlook. Thus according to

Bapat, the British rule did deny justice to the educated

Indians in whom the people of India had expressed their faith

and expected thon to lead the masses,

Bapat also criticized the denationalizing

spirit of the British educational policy. He pointed out

how the British authorities distorted Indian history that

used to oe taught in the schools and colleges. "Was he (the

508

Indian student) not taught” , asked 3apat, "that there was

a universal chaos in India before the benign British rule

was established ?" To Bapat such distortion of historical

past infused a sense of difference among the Indians and

killed the national sentiments in them. Bapat particularly

criticized Lee Warner’ s book, 'The Citizen of In d ia ', in

this connection. Bapat said, "Sir Lee Warner's book

supplies it with material from an Inadequate and unjust

opinions about matters of past history. That such a book

should be prescribed as a text book in the higher

vernacular standards where it will pass for an authority,

is a highly mischievous step,"^^ It has been the farniliar

cry of nationalist extremists like Tliak, Bipin Chandra ?al,

Aurobindo and Lala Lajapat Rai that the then existing British

educational system itself was a hurdle in the national

awakening of the Indians. "We are dissatisfied with the

conditions", wrote Aurobindo, "under which education is

imparted in this countiry, its calculated poverty and

insufficiency, its anti-national character, its subordination

to Government and the use made of that subordination for

the discouragement of patriotism and the inculcation of

loyalty. Accordingly we refuse to send our boys to

33Government schools." The extremist nationalists in general

oelieved that the British education lacked vitality, it

distorted Indian past through the prescri'oed text books and

thus systematically denationalized the Indians. Bapat,in the

509

similar vein criticized the British policy of education

for its denationalizing effect.

Bapat particularly criticized the economic

exploitation of India at the hands of the British government.

We have already mentioned earlier that Dadabhai Naoroji’ s

'Poverty And Un-British Rule in India' had deeply influenced

Bapat. Naoroji’ s theory of 'economic drain’ was widely

appreciated and appropriated by the extremist nationalists

in India to offer a counter-offensive to the British

economic policies in India in the course of their nationalist

discourse. Bapat who had carefully read Naorojl's

'Poverty and Un-British Rule in India' followed the same

argument in criticizing the British economic policy. He

particularly criticized Asquith* 3 Justification of the

Free Trade Policy of the British govt, which according to

Bapat proved to be harmful for the econorjic growth of India

and helped in further pauperising the country. Bapat

approvingly quotes Mudholkar's speech at the annual session

of the Indian National Congress (Amaravati, 1904) which

explained the ill results of the free trade policy and

concluded that it was because of the political injustice

done to India that all trade and industries which existed

in India - the cotton trade, silk trade, braceware and lace

manufacture etc. - declined and after a time died.^^ Thus

Bapat recognized that it was the 'imperial and colonial*

510

character of the British rule which proved to be so much

dangerous and harmful to India 's prosperity.

It is evident that it was because of B a p a t ' s

contacts with the socialists leaders in Britain that he was

quite familiar with the socialist critique of imperialism

and in a way# it helped him to see and assess the British

rule in India as an extension of British capitalism. It was,

again, because of his grounding in socialist doctrines that

Bapat was able to locate a nexus between the Indian

capitalists and the British rulers at the time of Mulshi

Satyagraha and led the peasants agitation as nationalist

offensive against British imperialism. To B a p a t British

imperialism was part of western imperialism in general

which thrived at the expense of the non-western world.

"To counter this imperialism and thereby the western

domination" wrote Bapat, in one of his poems, "there must

oe a united front of the eastern nations including Russia,

Japan, China, India and the Islamic n a t i o n s " , T h u s it is

significant to note here that Bapat viewed the British rule

in India as a part of western imperialism and hence regarded

the anti-British, nationalist movement in India as essentially

an anti-imperialist struggle. He was aware of the 'divide

and rule' policy of the British rule and rightly considered

it as an imperialist game. In this game the further division

of India on the lines of class, caste, province, language

511

and religion was to some extent bound to be encouraged by

the alien rule but 3apat preferred even such division to

British rule in India. This is amply evident from one of

his letters to Savarkar in 1944. 3 a p a t wrote, "I would get

the British out at any cost. Let us solve this problem of

ending the British yoke. If ending the British yoke

necessitates the acceptance of an akward alternative,

I would accept that alternative. . . . I say let os have

Sikhistan, Etavidistan/ Harijanasthan and whatever other

’ sthans’ are demanded in addition to Islamistan. . . . (but

**36the British must get out.) The letter shows how Bapat

viewed the British rule as an imperial rule with all its

tactics of domination including the policy of divide and rule

Bapat also exploded the myth of British

rulers* claim that they were spending on India more than

the country required and thus actually taking extra care

of the colony. As early as in 1906 Bapat wrote, "We are

told, India is too vast an estate - we ( i ,e , the British)

appoint a Viceroy to look after it and there is a Secretary

of State . . . and his council to manage the estate 1 . . .

Then there is viceroy assisted oy numerous departments and

sub-departments. What more can we do ? Specious argument

iMy answer is : India is not so vast as you make it out.

The present civilization has vastly diminished the size of

our iiarth. The departmental system which you boast of has

512

outlived Its functions, out of what several distinct states,

one state has been built up. The work of the departmental

system is dons . The people for whom new wants have been

created have come out to tell the truth. The educated

classes have coire out to help the government in

ascertaining the wants of the people. They desire and claim

as their right a voice in legislation and a hand in

admjnistration . . . India is ripe for representative

37g o v a r n i T i e n t I t is significant to note here that while

pleading the case of the Indians for representative and

responsible government, 3apat made it clear that the

historic mission of the British rule in India - the mission

of converting India into a nation - is long over and hence

the Jritishers must quit and make India free from their

colonial domination.

These were 3apat's views regarding the

British rule in India. Surely, his assessment of the

British rule was more a nationalist rhetoric than a

systematic exposition of the imperial phenomenon neatly

documented and systematically argued in the form of a book

or treatise. 3ut this need not deter us from constructing

his argument about the British rule in India out of his

scattered opinions about and the responses to the alien rule

in the land which we have so far attempted at. From this

attempt we find that 3apat viewed the British rule more in

its imperialist context than merely as a 'mlencha rule' as

513

the earlier revolutionaries like Ghapekar and even to

some extent Savarkar viewed. Secondly he juxtaposed the

British rule in the total context of western domination

over the non-western world in the wake of western

imperialism. This made him also to observe the phenomenon

of cultural domination as a strategy of colonialism.

Thirdly 3apat was also able to identify the class character

of the 3ritish rule in India. He saw that there was a

nexus between the British rulers and the emerging industrial

capitalists which ultimately strengthened the hands of the

British rulers and helped its perpetuation. Hence he

arrived at a conclusion that the fight against the industrial

capitalist was also a fight against the British rule. It is

with this faith in his mind that we see him organizing the

Mulshi Satyagraha. Finally we find Bapat recognizing the

historic role played by the British rulers in achieving

political integration of India and thereby fostering a

sense of national awareness. Thus although scattered^

Bapat's views regarding the British rule in India give us

several insights into the working of British imperial rule

in India without which we are unable to appraise the

nationalist discourse of the revolutionaries. It is from

this view point also that Bapat's views a’oout and his

understanding of the British rule constitutes an important

aspect of his political thinking.

514

i i i ) 3apat*s Theory of Satyagraha and

His Qpctrlne of *Self-kllllng* (Prana-yadnya)

3apat's theory of Satyagraha, particularly

his theory of 'shuddha satyagraha' and his doctrine

self-killing occupy an iirtportant place in his entire

political thinking. While he explained his theory of

satyagraha in the wake of Mulshi struggle the doctrine

of ' self“killing ' as a technique of political resistance

was relatively developed later in the year 1931 though

it had struck Bapat as early as in 1912. We shall discuss

both the doctrines one by one.

(A ) 3apat's Theory of Sudha-satyagraha

Gandhi's rise in Indian politics in the

early twenties also signified the rise of the Satyagraha

technique as a form of political resistance. Gandhi had

used this technique successfully first in South Africa and

applied it in India for the first time in 1917, i . e . at the

time of Champarana Satyagraha. Since then the technique

oecame so popular that it echoed even in the remote areas

of rural India and thus 'Satyagraha* became the watchward

of the nationalist leaders in India. Apart from its

universal practicability the technique of Satyagraha proved

to be more useful in organizing the mass struggles not only

against the alien rule but also against native oppressors.

515

Gandhi thus equipped the masses with a unique weapon to

fight oppression, exploitation and other such injustices

wherever they occur. T^e appeal of Satyagraha was so

powerful that even most of the revolutionaries decided to

give it a trial and joined the non-cooperation movement

launched by Ganciii in 1920-22, However, as the

non-cooperation movement was called off following the

Chouri-Chaura incident serious doubts were raised with

respect to the efficacy of non-violent Satyagraha. While

GancJii continued to reiterate his firm oelief in non-violence

many nationalist leaders recognized the limitation of

non-violence in the actual political confrontation and

thoui^ they continued to follow Gandhi's Satyagraha they

accepted it more as a strategy than as a faith. It is in

this peculiar context that we find 3apat propounding his

distinct theory of Satyagraha. Sapat's theory of Satyagraha

could be seen as a unique combination of the revolutionary

violence and the Gandhian technique of Satyagraha and also

as a Hinduist appropriation of Gandhi's philosophy of

Satyagraha.

As mentioned earlier, it was at the time of

Mulshi Satyagraha that Bapat explained his theory of

Satyagraha through several letters, statements, pamphlets

and written poetic messages (Nirop) which he issued from

time to time during the Mulshi struggle.

516

According to 3apat there are basically

two types of Satyagraha (a) ’Sama Satyagraha* and

38(b) Shuddha or Advait Satyagraha.

Sama-Satyagraha is essentially a peaceful

and a non-violent Satyagraha. In this Satyagraha# the

Satyagrahi (practitioner of Satyagraha) must have a faith

in his position which he considers to oe the ultimate

truth at that time. He should try to convince the other

party of his just and truthful demands by way of requests,

persuasions, appeals, prayers, discussions and argument.

The same-satyagrahi is not supposed to inflict any harm

or injury to the other party. The other party may inflict

positive harm upon the satyagrahi but the latter should

not lose his patience and poise and endure all the troubles

and tortures inflicted upon him by the other party. The

satyagrahi need not bother about the existing laws nor is

he expected to obey the same if they go contrary to his

truthful demand. If the satyagrahi is arrested and

prosecuted oy the authorities for violating any law then

he should explain his position to the concerned authority

and be prepared to accept the verdict of the court. If he

is punished in his trial then he must face the punishment

and as soon as he undergoes a punismient he may again join

the satyagraha. In short the Sama-satyagraha is essentially

peaceful, persuasive, non-violent and based on the belief

in the sensibility and sanity of the other party. According

517

to Bapat, the technique of sama-satyagraha could be used

in any dispute.

iiapat further classifies this sama-satyagraha

into two sub-types (x) primary (prathamik) sama-satyagraha

3 9and (y) advanced Cpragatik) sama-satyagraha. The primary

sama-satyagraha relies heavily on the persuasive technique

such as appeals# prayers, requests etc. out if they fail

then the satyagrahi should resort to Radical Sama-satyagraha

which implies non-cooperation, boycott, damaging the

property of the other party on a very small scale etc.

However, no violence is to be inflicted upon the other side

in whatever form and on whatever scale, at the time of

Radical Sama-satyagraha. Thus the essence of Radical

Sama-satyagraha is to adopt obstructive methods (minus

physical violence) to secure the desired goal.

3apat's doctrine of sama-satyagraha, by and

large, resembles the Gandhian non-violent satyagraha. So far

as the techniques are concerned, Bapat feels that the

persuasive and oostructive techniques used in the primary

and Radical sama-satyagraha are likely to fail in securing

justice to the agrieved party, if the other party is not

sensible and responsive enough to listen to what the

satyagrahi says. In such circumstances should the satyagrahi

wind up his fight or repeat the sa.ne non-violent techniques

even after experiencing its futility ? Here Bapat differs

518

from Gandhi. T © Gandhi, -^atyagraha is essentially a fight

aimed at changing the heart of the other party and hence

there is no alternative for the satyagrahi to give up his

non-violent techniques and hence the satyagrahi should even

prefer death to any resort to violent methods. To 3apat

this view is not tenable, and hence it is at this juncture

he propounds his theory of shuddha or Advaiti Satyagraha.

3apat explains his theory of shuddha

satyagraha in the following way ; Shuddha satyagraha neither

insists on absolute non-violance nor on absolute-violance.

I t allows the use of violence when the desired goal proves

to be of supreme significance as compared with the value of

non-violence in itself. Bapat says, "When the value of the

desired goal is lesser than non-violence and peace then

one must confine himself to sama-satyagraha alone." 3ut

non-violence for the sake of non-violence has no value in

itself. In other words non-violence cannot oe the end in

itself. There are some other goals too that are more

important from the point of ' sarvaohootahitasanga*. If

there is a conflict between the 'well being of all' and

non-violence, then, B a p a t says, 'well being of all' must

prevail over non-violence because the very purpose of

non-violence is to secure the well oeing (sarvabhootahita).

Bapat says, "the insistence on absolute non-violence itself

is an ignorance and ’ adharma', Sxcessivs insistence on

any value in its absoluteness is against the principle of

519

' ijok-c3harana' and amounts to 'Adharma'," H e n c e observance

of non-violence in its aosoluteness is also harmful. Thus

according to 3apat when sama-satyagraha fails and the

desired goal yet re:nains unattainad and if it proves to be

of more importance from the point of 'well being of the

people* then the 'shuddha satyagraha' is not only

permissible out inevitable.

3apat, again# classifies his

' shuddia-satyagraha' into two types. - prathamik (primary)

shuddha-satyagraha and pragatik (radical) suddha satyagraha.

The primary shuddha satyagraha includes a total daTiage of

the opponent's property and even Infliction of some physical

injury upon the other party whereas the radical shuddha

satyagraha implies a death penalty (Dehadanda) to the other

party, 3apat however# insists that even the shuddha satyagraha

has to be performed with giving prior intimation to the

concerned party against whom the satyagraha is to be

launched. 3apat himself had performed this kind of a

'shuddha satyagraha' in 1924 as a part of his Mulshi Satyagraha

when he wounded the train driver by shooting him and for

which he was sentenced to seven years' rigourous imprisonment.

Thus according to 3apat it is the cause rather than any

ethical value in its aosoluteness, that matters much. The

use of violence in shuddha satyagraha signifies the urgency

of cause rather than the killing of the person concerned.

520

i^apat's theory of satyagraha is remarkably

different from the Gandhian theory of satyagraha - both

in its philosophical origins and in its manifestation.

3apat's sama-satyagraha ostensibly resembles Gandhian

non-violent satyagraha but it is not so. In the first

instance though the non-violent satyagraha of Gandhi allows

non-cooperation, boycott and other such peaceful means of

obstruction it is totally against the positive damage of

any property; whereas Bapat’ s sama-satyagraha or, to be

precise, his radical samasatyagraha does insist on damaging

the property of the opponent on a limited scale. Secondly,

Gandhi insists on certain vows (vratas) such as B r a h m a charya,

Satya, Aparigraha, Anasakti, etc. as absolutely essential

for the practitioner of satyagraha. Baoat does not prescribe

such vows as absolutely essential though he otherwise

respects those vows as essential for one's moral development.

Thirdly the thrust of Gandhi's satyagraha is on 'bringing

about a change of heart* in the opposite party whereas in

Bapat's satyagraha the thrust is on elimination of the evil

( Dushta-Samhar), Thus Bapat's theory of sama-satyagraha,

in many ways differs from Ganciii's theory of satyagraha.

■ e doctrine of shuddha satyagraha is almost

the negation of Gandhian satyagraha, not because it allows

the use of violence but because it is based on such a

peculiar interpretation of Geeta which Gandhi would never

521

approve of. In other words the philosophical origins of

shudcJha satyagraha lay in Geeta whereas Gandhi's theory of

satyagraha itself is a new philosophy, an anti-thesis of

the traditional interpretation of Geeta which highlighted

war and violence as the core of Geeta.

We have noted earlier that 3apat believes

that the doctrine of ' dehamayabhanga' is one of the

essential doctrines that Geeta intends to teach us. The

main issue in Geeta, according to 3apat, is not whether

violence is better than non-violence or vice versa but

rather, how to abondon temptation (Koha) • If human body

(Deha) itself becomes a hindrance in performing our duties

i .e . Charma then it has to be destroyed with a sense of

detachment. 3apat says that if we regard our own body as

insignificant (Tuchcha) then notning should prevent us

frcro regarding other's body as equally worthless. In other

words if you are ready to sacrifice your own life for the

saice of some noble cause then you have every right to claim

others' lives too. Because to care for other's life is also

temptation (Moha) that is likely to degenerate us morally

and hence one must be ever ready to overcone all the

temptation including the temptation for our own body. This

is the essence of Geeta and that is the doctrine of

dehamayabhanga. Shrikrishna preached the same doctrine to

Arjuna and told that to kill the evil doer is also dharma

522

which is essential for the well being of the people. The

violence allowed in shuddha satyagraha is also intended to

k ill the evil doer and does not indicate any personal

animosity towards the victim of violence as such.

Now, Gandhi would certainly reject this kind

of an interpretation of Geeta, To him the essence of Geeta

40is Anasakti i .e . renunciation of fruit. Surprisingly

enough 3apat hardly enlightens us on the doctrine of Anasakti

Nor does he consider it as the core of Geeta teaching. To

him the core of Geeta is , as we have just mentioned to

remove 'moha'. The highest 'moha' (temptation) is that of

our own life Ctoody). Geeta asks us to remove it and hence

killing according to Bapat is removing ttanptation. The

message of shuddha-satyagraha is more a removal of the

temptation than killing the person for the sake of violence

alone. Thus 3apat justifies violence from the view point

of the doctrine of dehamayabhanga.

Bapat*s theory of Satyagraha mainly signifies

the traditional Hindu means of rajaniti (politics) namely

Sama (conciliation), Dama (monetary temptation), Danda

(penalty) and 3hed (destruction). The means of 'Dama' is

however kept aside by Bapat in his formulation of the theory

of Satyagraha but that omission is insignificant. The

ancient Hindu treatises on politics such as 'Manusmriti'

' Arthashastra' or ' Mahabharata* frequently talk of these

523

four means as the possible ways to secure desired goals In

politics. 'Sama' sli^ifles persuasion, 'Dama' implies

monetary temptation, 'Danda' implies threat of penalty and

*3hed' means destruction. 3apat in his primary

sama-satyagraha, as the name itself indicates, advocates

persuasive methods. His radical sama-satyagraha and

primary shuddha satyagraha certainly aim at giving a threat

of penalty or the penalty itself and the radical satyagraha

implies *Bhed*. Thus 3apat‘ s theory of satyagraha remains

essentially within the Hindu framework both in its origin

and its substance.

® ^apat*s Doctrine of Self-killing or Prana-yadnya

Along with his theory of shuddha-satyagraha

Bapat also introduced another technique of political

resistance and that is his doctrine of 'self- killing'. The

Sama doctrine runs in various names such as 'Atma-Yadnya' ,

' Jalasamadhi' (drowning oneself into water), 'Sthala samadhi'

in Bapat's writings. T^e essence of all these terms is

' self-killing* and hence for the sake of convenience we shall

use the sane term in our discussion.

Bapat's doctrine of 'self killing' as a means

of political action is more ridiculed than understood.

Actually he had some valid points to argue when he repeatedly

discussed this doctrine of self-killing since 1912 onwards.

524

Let us first try to undarstand his position in this

connection.

Bapat was as much concerned with the growing

menace o£ violence as Gandhi was. He, therefore, conceived

'self-killing* preferably 'collective self killing ’ to

counter the menace of violence that was enveloping the

world either in the form of international wars or in the

form of communal violence. 3apat in general agrees with

Gandhi that in the face of growing violence non-violence

is the only alternative left with us to counter the violence.

But in Gandhi's non-violence there is no thrust on

self-killing as such. Or in other words self-killing is

not the central theme of non-violence as per Gandhi's

understanding of the term goes. Bapat, on the contrary,

wants to place self-killing at the centre of non-violent

resistance. 3apat says, "The Congress condemns violence.

It advocates non-violence to achieve its goal - complete

independence. Against the masters - no violence, against

any opponent no violence. And yet slavery is to be fought,

disunity is to be fought against, Intertia, cowardice and

a thousand other vices are to be fought against. One

weapon in this fighting is words. . . . (But) where words

fa il , where ordinary deeds fail, self-inflicted deaths

41may avail." Thus 3apat feels that reasoning, persuasion

and other such means have their own limitation. They do not

525

work bsyond certain limits and hence some novel techniques/

with a minimum element of violence will have to be

innovated to move the inert masses or the party concerned.

The idea of 'self killing* says Sapat, would definitely

render some good results with respect to making the inert

masses active.

3apat makes a distinction between 'mass

murders' and 'mass-suicide' or 'mass self-killing'. To him

wars are mass murders. So the mass suicide may resemble,

ostensibly# mass-murders. "But the 'why' behind these

murders," says 3apat, "must be looked into before judging

them, ilvery 'why' is not wicked as every why is not worthy.

I am neither for nor against wars or mass-murders, separated

from their causes# material and metaphysical. 3ut I am

definitely of the opinion that mass suicide in a public

cause will be generally more defensible than mass murder

A Ohowever justified and justifiable." (Smphasis added)

3apat's idea of 'self-killing' will have

to be distinguished from the ordinary act of suicide though

Bapat himself agrees that under the existing laws

'self-killing' too# amounts to suicide. Yet# there is a

qualitative difference between the two. While the ordinary

suicide is generally committed in the feat of emotions

the act of self killing is a conscious# well thought out

action. Again# suicide# oy and large speaks for the escapist

526

tendencies on the part of the person who commits it.

Self-killing is not shere escapism, it is committed in the

noble cause of 'well being of the people' and does not

reflect any amount of frustration on the part of its

practitioner. 3 u t people in general laments B a p a t , fail

to see this qualitative difference between suicide and

self-inflicted killing. All killing is not criminal nor

is every attempt at killing Criminal for ever; but

"self-killing or suicide", 3apat wonders "is considered

43always criminal." Bapat therefore feels the need to

reconsider this issue of suicide and self-killing in a

fresh context. Personally he feels that one who commits

self-killing in the interest of the society must not be

treated as criminal and penalized.

Bapat also refuted the charge that

self-killing is essentially 'effeminate* in the pejorative

sense of the term. Bapat says, "This view is not tenable,

because manliness involves both the killing of the other

being as well as that of the self in the noble cause.

Attachment to one's own body is always subordinate to

manliness. Since self-killing overcomes this sense of

attachment to one's own body it is in all sense a manly

44act." Thus to Bapat the act of self killing indicates

the highest form of manliness where the practitioner is

conquering all the bodily-attachments and offers his life

to the noole cause.

527

One of the salient characteristics of B a p a t ’ s

programme of self-killing is that he expects the noble

people, particularly persons of high moral structure,

the leaders and rulers, rather than the average people, to

undertake collective killing in some noble cause. The

reasoning he offers for this selectiveness runs as follows.

According to 3apat it is the leaders who instigate violence,

hatred or struggles and the ordinary people fall prey to

their (leaders*) ill advice. Now if the same leaders would

evoke the sense of compassion and love among the people by

sacrificing their lives then it would definitely render the

45desired results. It is therefore that 3apat appealed

Nehru to commit self killing in the cause of the liberation

of Goa and thus perform ' shanti-yadnya.* It is significant

to note here that 3apat expects the leaders to be their own

followers and places higher responsibility on them - the

responsibility of setting an ideal before the people. He,

therefore, pleads that by and large the act of collective

self-killing should be sponsored and sanctioned by the

government itself.

3apat does not mind self-killing being a

routine way of resistance. This is evident from his

insistance on establishing organizations of self-killers.

(Swatmahom-Dal) Consisting of five, ten, fifty or even

hundred persons as per the requirement. Such organizations

5 28

should be instituted in almost all provinces. 3apat says

that we in India are facing innumerable problems such as

Hindu Muslim conflict# touchables - untouchables conflict,

industrialists - workers conflict etc. The self-killers'

associations could be used to solve these problems.

To 3apat the root cause of all these conflicts is violence

and that has to be countered by acts of self-killing. Thus

Bapat looks at ' self-killing' as a means of political

resistance to be used even in our day to day political life .

3apat mainly Justifies the idea of

'self-killing' on the basis of his doctrine of ' dehamayabhang'

which we have elaborately discussed earlier. 3ut there are

other cultural influences# too# which 3apat cleverly

appropriates to justify his doctrine of self killing. Among

such influences the major influence is that of the Hindu

way of looking at the death. The Advaiti Hindu regards

that the soul is immortal and the death signifies only the

outworning of the body. Thus the 'life* is continuous

and permanent whereas the death is momentary and transitional

This implies that one must not fear death while performing

any noble act. Nay, the highest ideal is to sacrifice our

life for the attainment of some supreme goal. This being

the general Hindu outlook we find that on certain occasions

such as 'samadhi* or ' prayopavesham’ (fast unto death)

'a self-desired' death is not only culturally accepted but

529

also sublimated in Hindu tradition. This signifies the

same peculiar Hindu-outlook towards death, i .e . death as

a beginning of a new life rather than as tha end of life .

3apat reminds the people of this peculiar Hindu tradition

and asks, "If the Hindus accept such self-inflicted death

(samadhi, prayopaveshan etc.) as perfectly legitimate

then why should*nt they accept 'self-killing' committed

in pursuit of some noble cause ? In old times, as everyone

knows that, the spiritual aspirants were never prohibited,

either by tirie people or oy the government-authority, from

embracing death in pursuit of 'moksha' (salvation). The

people, on the contrary olessed such souls holehaartedly.

Similarly, if scmeone who regards society (Samaj) as God

and wishes to serve it by offering his life/ why should it

46not oe permissible 7" 3apat thus attempts to rationalize

his doctrine of self-killing as perfectly legitimate so far

as the Hindu outlook towards death is concerned. 3apat's

way of rationalizing self-killing in this particular manner

is of course debatable as we sea that although the Hindu

tradition sublimates death cotrunitted in some noble cause

it hardly permits 'self- killing', except in the ritual

of 'satee*. A. self-desired death at the time of Samadhi

signifies more tha completion of one's mission on the earth

rather than 'self-inflicted killing* as 3apat interpretes it

Similarly the death in war is also hailed as an act of

bravery and heroism and in no way encourages self-killing

530

as such. Sapat, however, ignores this and attempts to

legitimize self-killing in the name of Hindu tradition.

Actually it seems that# while justifying self-killing

Bapat is more influenced by the Japanese tradition of

'harakiri* than the Hindu tradition of self-desired death

in pursuit of ultimate salvation tmoksha).

iJapat's doctrine of self-killing will have

to be distinguished again from Gandhian ‘ fast unto death';

though 3apat considers it as one and the same Gandhian

technique of fasting and also fast unto death basically

aims at self-purification. It is to be employed more

for purifying our mind as well as body than for ending it

though at times it may end. Gandirii has always made a

distinction between human and sub-human life and he considers

human life as sacred and hence preferable to subhuman life .

It is the sacredness of human life that prevents Gandhi to

embrace death for trivial conflicts disregard the human body

as worthless. This does not mean that Gandhi fears death.

In exceptional circumstances he would not hesitate embracing

death but that weapon he would use sparingly. This is not

the case with 3apat. Bapat being an Advaiti Hindu treats

human body as a transitional momentary phenomenon. Besides

he considers death as essentially a will of God (Hari).

There is an inbuilt faith that despite our will (samkalpa)

to die, death is not likely to occur unless God wills so.

531

This faitfi makes 3 a p a t rather reckless towards human life

and hence he does not mind employing self-killing as a

routine means of political resistance. Thus there is a

qualitative distinction between Gandhi's concept of

•fast unto death* and Bapat's doctrine of 'self- killing'.

It is evident fron the above discussion that

although 3aoat appears to offer self-killing as a counter

offensive to increasing violence he is evidently justifying

more the 'act of killing* rather than self-immolation.

This is perfectly consistent with his theory of shuddha

satyagraha as well as his faith in revolutionary violence.

3apat's several attempts at organizing *?ran-yadnya-Dal' or

his frequent announcements regarding *Jala-samadhi* make us

feel that he had grown non-violent but a careful reading of

Bapat's political career negates such propositions. His

doctrine of self-killing is actually a qualifying factor in

the preparation of shuddha-satyagraha because the very fact

that once someone else prepares himself for self killing,

he conquers *deha-maya' and thus becomes free as much to

k ill his self as that of the other. This certainly makes

Bapat to enjoy 'some space for violence* in his theory of

Satyagraha. It is true that Saoat himself personally never

resorted to violence after his Mulshi-Satyagraha but nor

did he condemn '/iolent-acts committed in the pursuit of

some noole cause. (Gogate's firing at Hotson, for example)

Thus till the end of his political career Bapat never

532

abandoned his faith in revolutionary violence and hence

his doctrine of self-killing makes more sense if seen in

the light of his revolutionary faith than his concern for

'growing violence'. This is not to suggest that his

concern for 'increasing violence' was a shere hypocracy.

3ut at the same time it must be noted that following 3apat' s

metaphysical understanding of the human life , violence is

also a part of cosmic-drama for which one need not repent

so much and Bapat as a revolutionary would also not repent

for that matter. 3ut if his 'doctrine of self-killing' is

interpreted as his anxiety aoout growing violence then

it seems that a formidable tension exists between the

revolutionary faith of 3 a p a t and his humanitarian concerns.

3ut as it is evident from his political career as well as

irom his metaediysical world-view that 3 a p a t ' s revolutionary

faith outweighs his occasional concern for non-violence and

hence his doctrine of self-killing has to be explained

mainly in the light of his revolutionary faith than otherwise.

(iv) Bapat's Vision of future India

3apat*s vision of future India constitutes

an important aspect of his political thinking which makes

him an unique revolutionary of his time. Very few

revolutionaries have indeed, thought of the political fate

of independent India in a clear cut manner. While some

of them did have some vague ideas about independent India

533

by and large they left this issue to the future generations.

This is possibly because they were more obssessed with the

ideal of liberating India and diverted all their energies

to that cause. This prevented them from thinking of the

future of independent India. 3ut there were few like

Savarkar and 3apat who had definite ideas as to what goals

the independent India would set oefore her, what means

she would employ to realize these goals and which set of

values she would embrace. These ideas enable us to construct

their vision of Future India which in turn reflects their

respective ideologies and thinking to which they were

committed. It is from this point of view that we are going

to examine Bapat*s vision aoout future India.

3apat prefers himself to be called a 'moderate

socialist’ a term which somewhat resembles a democratic

socialist. He therefore insists that India should embrace

the principles of democratic socialism. He does not use

the term 'democratic socialism* explicitly but his idea of

an ideal state is based on the combination of two principle

' Prajatantra' (Democracy) and 'Kashta-shahi' (Rule of the

toilers). This fairly reflects the spirit of democratic

socialism. Since his London days 3apat was familiar with

the socialist doctrines. His contacts with the leaders of

the British Labour Party and his reading of Faoian socialist

doctrines, particularly Webbs' 'Soviet Communism ; A New

Civilization' nurtured his socialist inclinations. The

534

impact of Russian ravolution was also at work in orienting

3apat*s thinking on socialist lines. And aboveall his

humanitarian concern for the backward, downtrodden and

poor people helped shaping his socialist opinions.

As a follower of socialist doctrines, 3apat

opposed the ugly face of capitalism, its naked exploitation^

suppression, concentration of power and above all its

manifestation in the form of imperialism. This is evident

from his participation in anti-imperialist nationalist

struggle and also from his leading of the Mulshi Satyagraha.

Bapat was also opposed to the doctrine of 'private property'

the very core of capitalism. In his 'Gav-Geeta' 3apat

categorically maintains, "The accumulation of property is

the root cause of moral degeneration. It kills the urge

to work and generate laziness. This laziness makes man

47sinful. Hence there should not be private property."

3apat also favours collectivization of land and in his

'Gav-Geeta'. This speaks for his anti-private property ideas,

Bapat's grounding in socialist doctrines

also makes him able to observe some of the pasic

contradictions in the capitalist society. One such

contradiction is the industrial capitalists vs. peasantry.

We have already noted that Bapat understood Mulshi struggle

as much a nationalist struggle as also an anti-capitalist

peasants' struggle aimed at protecting the interests of the

535

toiling classes. It is evident from his several statements

issued at the time of Mulshi Satyagraha that he was not

opposed to Tata Power Company's project in itself. What

he opposed was the way the company and government were

bent on depriving the peasants from their legitimate

share in the productive activity. 3apat was quite aware

that the emerging India was bound to follow the capitalist

mode of production which has already been set in by the

British rulers and this capitalist model of economy was

Pound to widen the gulf between the capitalists and

toiling classes. At such a juncture, felt 3apat, it was

necessary to organize the toiling people against the

capitalists in order to secure their interests.

The other major contradiction which 3apat

observed was the contradiction between the urban rich

and the village poor. 3apat was convinced that the

capitalist mode of production is going to widen the gap

between the city dweller and the villagers. The cities

are bound to flourish and prosper at the cost of rural India.

This in the long run was bound to prove fatal so far as

the homogeneous growth of the Indians is concerned. In his

'Gav Geeta' 3apat says, "The real India is the rural India

constituting of about seven lakh villages. But what is the

condition of these villages at present ? With the growth

of cities they have been pauperized. The bangalold growth

5 3 6

in the cities, achieved at the cost of the village farmers

indicates nothing but the death of the peasantry, the real

4 8owner of the land." Thus to 3apat if the gulf between

the rural and urban dwellers widens, India is likely to be

divided between the rural and urban India each part fighting

with other and disrupting the social and political unity

of the nation.

According to Bapat the root cause of all

divisive forces in the society is capitalism and hence

it had to oe tempered and checked otherwise it would

disintegrate tne nation, 3apat therefore calls capitalism

as the rule of selfish (Swarthshahi) from which nobody is

49going to benefit.

Thus 3apat*s views regarding capitalism

reflect his socialist inclinations. He was opposed to

capitalism, free market, open competition etc. as he

felt that India had little to gain from it.

3apat's critical attitude towards capitalism

and his sympathies for socialism does not however make him

Marxist or Communist. This is because of his faith in

democratic way of life . To 3apat, independent India must

be organized as much on the doctrines of socialism as on

the doctrines of democracy. The ultimate goal of the

Indian national movanent was in a way to effect a bourgeois •

537

democratic revolution and hence we find many of its leaders

cherishing the democratic values and aiming at establishing

a democratic state. 3apat was not an exception to this.

3ut he had a oroader view of the democratic state.

Bapat's love for democracy is again expressed

in many of his writings as well as in the various struggles

in which he participated. His ideas of democracy was not

only confined to the establishment of representative and

responsible form of government with its periodic elections,

adult franchise and the constitutional guarantee of some

civil liberties. These things of course ware there. 3ut

by democracy 3apat meant much more than this.

It is evident from Bapat's writings that

he had recognized the pluralist nature of Indian society.

3apat recognizes 'Plurality* as the salient feature of

nature (Srushti). He sayS/ "The entire humanity is

evolving step oy step and each country, each province,

each community has its own role to play in this evolution.

We must recognize this natural diversity among the different

communities and allow them the necessary freedom to

participate, on their own and according to their

capabilities in the process of evolution. Each province

has something to offer. Let us welcome them."^^ It is

with this basic pluralist faith that 3apat approaches

538

Indian reality with ail its religious, provincial,

linguistic and ethnic diversities.

The pluralist nature of Indian society leads

Bapat to prescribe a federal structure of state organization

for India. This federal state must be organized on the

basis of linguistic provinces. T© Bapat, the demand for

linguistic state is in no way secessionist in its character.

On the contrary it will strengthen the federation as well

as d e m o c r a c y . I t is with this faith that we find 3apat

fighting for the Samyukta Maharashtra moveinent which was

aimed at creating a linguistic state of Marathi speaking

people.

3apat was well aware of the communal problem

in India particularly the problem of Hindu-Muslim relations.

But his approach to this problem was radically different

from that of the other Hinduist revolutionaries and

particularly Savarkar. Bapat believed that the communal

problem in India was essentially the product of colonial

rule to which most of the leaders had fallen prey. It is

the politicians, the elites with their vested interests

that Instigate the coirununal rift and make the people fight

5 2with each other. The real answer to this comTiunal problem

is not counter communalism but a spirit of religious

tolerance. Bapat therefore insists on the establishment of

539

a secular state that would treat every religion with

respect and foster the spirit of t o l e r a n c e . B a p a t

severely criticized Savarkar's concept of 'Hindu Rajya*.

In one of his letters, published in the Poona daily 'T rik al ',

Bapat stated that the slogan regarding the establishment

of a Hindu raj within few days was as bad or as good as the

slogan establishing Pakistan. He urged that their (Hindus’ )

slogan should be ‘ Thode E/iane Garib Raj* (Rule of the Poor

within few days.)^^

Bapat's attitude towards the Muslims in India

was essentially liberal. Between ’Muslim Rule* and

'British Rule’ Bapat always praised the Muslim rule. As

early as in 1906 Bapat observed, "The mohamedan urges his

claim with still greater vehemence. Was not he at the top

only yesterday ?* . . . The ousted Smperor did not make a

distinction that is so jealously maintained today ( i .e . under

the British rule) - the distinction between the ruling class

and the subject class. Inspite of his being of the

Mohamedan faith he did not give cause for the people to

think that the aitibitioas of the Mohamedans were indulged

at the expense of the rest. All that was in the Emperor's

gift was open to all . " ^^ Thus oetween the British and

Muslims Bapat accepted Muslims as brothers. He never

considered them as 'hereditary enemy' as Savarkar did.

During his Hyderabad satyagraha also Bapat criticized the

Hindu Sanghanists for using the state people's agitation

540

for spreading communal poison. 3apat said, "There are

' Hindu-statists' (Hindu rajyavadi) who demand the rule

of only those belonging to Hincau religion, I prefer the

rule of toilers (kashta-shahi) to theocracy." 3apat also

criticized the Hindu Sanghanists for attacking Gandhi as

pro-Muslims and betrayer of Hindus. It seems that Baoat's

attitude towards Muslims in India was exactly like Tilak

of 'ijucknow“? a c t '. ” recognizing the pluralist reality of

India . Naturally we find him attacking Savarkar's parochial

position on this issue. To 3apat, communal harmony was the

backbone of Indian democracy and hence he highlighted the

spirit of religious tolerance, interpreted religion in the

widest possible way and fought every attempt that indicated

religious intolerance. Thus religious tolerance becomes a

central theme in Sapat's vision of future India.

The most remarkable feature of 3apat's vision

of future India is his idea of 'surajya* which he

enunciated in his 'Gav Geeta*. 3apat believed that Swarajya

cannot survive unless it is converted into 'Surajya' and

the basis of this 'Surajya' is , according to Bapat, the

establishment of 'Gramarajya'. This somewhat resembles

Gandhi's concept of 'village swaraj',

Sapat being a mass leader was much closer

to Indian realities than other Hinduist revolutionaries.

541

He had realized that the village population represented

the real India. As mentioned earlier he had noticed long

back the deterioration of the village farmers in the

process of capitalist development of the nation. Many

nationalist leaders in fact had visualized this decline of

the village coiiimunity and had lamented upon, Gandhi being

the most prominent among them. These leaders felt that

with the destruction of village ccmmunity in the process

of rapid urbanization would eventually signify the end of

'community spirit* which was essential for a true

'community life ' based on mutual exchange and cooperation

on the one hand and on participation of people in public

life on the other, 3apat also seems to have shared this

feeling. Coming from a village like Parner# 3apat had a

close experience of village life . The Mulshi Satyagraha

added to his understanding of the peasant's life in the

village. This must have motivated him to give priority

to the problems of village dwellers and accordingly we find

him developing his ideas about it . The emergence of

Gandhian ideology with its thrust on the simplicity and

the community spirit in village life also seems to have

influenced 3apat in formulating his ideas about Grama rajya

which constituted an important aspect of his vision of

future India.

542

iJapat's 'Grama-Swarajya* is based on the

rcllowing seven pillars ; Ca) self-sufficiency in food,

(t)} self sufficiency in clotheS/ (c) self-sufficiency in

education, (d) public hygiene/ le) Nyaya-Panchayat,

(f) self reliance and (g) collective f a r m i n g . T h i s

exactly resembles Gandhi's concept of village Swarajya.

Gandhi explained, "My idea of village Swaraj is that it is

a complete republic independent of its neighbours for its

own vital wants and yet interdependent for many others

in which dependence is necessity. Thus every village's

first concern will be to grow its food crops, and cotton

for its cloth. It should have a reserve for its cattle,

recreation and playground for adults and children. . . . the

village will maintain a village theatre, school and public

hall, it will have its own waterworks ensuring clean water

supply . . . Sducation will be compulsory. Every activity

will be conducted on the cooperative basis. There will be

no castes . . . with their graded untouchability. . . . The

government of villages will oe conducted by the panchayat

5 8of five persons annually elected . . . etc." Thus there is

a great similarity in ^apat's Grama-rajya and Gandhi's

village swaraj. 3ut the resemblance ends there only.

Because ooth 3apat and Gandhi had different understanding

and perspective of life and accordingly the inspiration,

purpose and the content of their respective Grama-rajya

is also different.

543

The basic purpose of Gandhi's village

swarajya is to revive the corrutiunity spirit which was being

rapidly suppressed since the emergence of modern state with

all its repressive powers. Therefore Gandhi had a very

clear idea as to how this village swarajya will be related

to state. In 3apat's Grama-swarajya we do not get any

clear idea as to how the entire fabric of these

village-swarajya would oe related to the state. 3apat’ s

love for democracy is well understood and as a part of that

his advocacy of Grama-swarajya is also well taken so far as

the thrust of popular initiate and self reliance is concerned.

3ut still the problem remains. Like Gandhi we do not see

3apat condemning the modern state with all its huge military

and bureaucracy. This inevitably raises certain issues with

respect to the feasibility of 3apat's Grama-rajya oecoming

a practical reality. Firstly we cannot have the modern

capitalists state with its enormous powers and the autonomous

Grama-rajya visualized by Sapat one and the same time as

these two ideals are mutually exclusive. Secondly Gandhi's

village owaraj is an exercise in organizing a non-violent

communal life as an alternative to the modern state which is

the embodiment of violence. 3apat, as evident in his writings,

does not regard the state as an embodiment of violence.

On th9 contrary in a typical Febian vein he expects the

state to play a mediating role in the overall develoanent of

the people. This prevents him from developing his idea of

544

autonomous 'Grama-rajya' to its fullest logic. Moreover

the entire thrust of Gav Geeta appears to bridge a gap

between the urban and village dwellers in order to secure

a homogeneous society that would strengthen national

integration. Bapat time and again urges the urban dwellers

and particularly Brahmins to take initiative in guiding,

and helping the villagers in the estaolishment of

' Grama-rajya* despite his ostensible thrust on local

initiative. In his opinion the Kshatriyas i .e . the

peasant castes need an enlightenment from the educated

Brahmins and unless they take initiative in reforming the

59villages, no Grama-rajya is ever possiole. There is

ample room to believe that in the corner of his heart Bapat

did visualize a Brahmin - Kshatriya alliance to provide a

leadership for modern Maharashtra. He even seems to have

understood this urban-rural dichotomy in terms of Brahmin

Kshatriya dichotomy. There is ample evidence in 'Gav Geeta'

to ascertain this statement. Bapat must have felt that

by invoking the ideal of Grama rajya it is possible to

Dridge the gap between these two varnas which has been the

central theme of ' Maharashtra-dharma' since Shivaji's time.

Seen from this angle Bapat's ideas of Grama-rajya appears

to oe far different, in fact a negation of Gandhian village

swaraj, in its inspiration, purpose and manifestation. It ,

however, did reflect his concern for the rural India which

almost every Hinduist revolutionary under our consideration

missed.

545

So far we have discussed the main aspects

o£ Bapat's political thinking. Our discussion reveals

that 3apat appears to oe a democratic socialist who valued

both liberty and equality one and the same time. The

sources of his egalitarian disposition were the influence

of socialist doctrines on the one hand and the influence of

humanitarlanism, based on Advaiti Vedantism, on the other.

These two sets of ideas seem to have dominated his political

thinking. Gandhism did provide some stimulation to Sapat

in developing certain political ideas regarding non-violence,

satyagraha, Grama-rajya, construction work etc. but while

responding to these Gandhian i<teas, 3apat seems to have

grown more and more Hinduist in his understanding of

human life and interpreting his political philosophy

accordingly. This influence of Hinduist tradition and

outlook sometimes outweighs the socialist in Bapat. Thus

his reservations about Marxian doctrine of dilectical

materialism/ as a perfect method of explaining social

dynamism, his criticism of Raghunath Dhondo Karve (1882-1953)

a rationalist and a pioneer of the birth control movement

and sex education in India - his recognition to the family

institution as a sacred social institution constituting the

very foundation of society and his peculiar world view

that it is a fancy of God speaks more for his Hinduist

position than socialist. Above all Bapat's revolutionary

faith in violence as a divine force makes him remarkably

5 4 6

different from being a socialist revolutionary. It is

true that ail leftist ideologies do not conctemn violence

as immoral in itself but nor do they consider it as

divine force in the sense Aurobindo/ Ghapekar or other

such revolutionaries considered it . In fact it has been

peculiar of almost all the Hinduist revolutionaries

except V.D.Savarkar that they invariably see violence as

divine agent acting in the process of 'destructive

construction' that characterise the cosmic-drama. To them

the destructive role of violence is also a part of 'divine

will' and hence it is as pure or sacred as non-violence

or peace, Japat being an 'Advaiti '/edanti' share the same

view and seems to justify violence as divinely ordained in

the doctrine of ' dahamayabhang' . This .nakes 3apat more a

Hinduist than Socialist.

The humanitarian stream in 3apat's thinking

and politics cannot of course be ignored. In fact the

progressive aspect of his thinking owes much to this

humanitarianism. However, so far as the Hinduist

humanitarianism is concerned, it is oased more on

philanthropic (3hoot-daya)considerations than on the

recognition of human dignity which comes essentially from

the belief in the doctrine of equality. To recognize

individuals as elements of God (Ishwari-Aunsh) and hence

to treat them at par is one thing and to see them as

'equal human oeing' irrespective of their 'divinity' is

547

another. Hindu haTianitarianism stems essentially from

the doctrine of 'equality of souls* rather than frc»n the

principle of 'equality of individuals’ as understood in

liberal or socialist faith. This no doubt makes one to

justify some progressive cause such as removal of

untouchability, serving the rural poor etc. but it

certainly does not make him ' revolutionary* in the Marxian

or even socialistic sense of the term. 3apat*s concern

for untouchables, down-trodden castes, and poor people

no doubt makes him progressive in his thinking and acting

but that is not the core of his politics. This is amply

evident from the fact that despite his compassion for the

untouchables we do not find 3 a p a t reacting to Ambsdkar's

movement at ail. This speaks for his political priorities

Thus we ace constrained to call him as a progressive

Hinduist humanist.

548

1. See, for example ; Pahdke Y .D . , Portrait Of A

Revolutionary - Senapati 3a?at, Bombay/ Senapati Bapat

Centenary Celebration Samiti, 1981.

See also : Kakade M .'/., Senapati Bapatanche Samajik

Ani Rajakiya Vlchar (Marathi)/ M .Phil. dissertation

submitted to the University of Marathwada/ Aurangabad,

1983 (unpublished) .

2. Phadke Y .D . , Ib id , p. 4.

3. Senapati dapat Wangmay Samagra Grantha/ Vol. 2,

Bombay, Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Samskriti Mandal,

2nd edition, 1977, p .2.

4. Phadke Y .D . , o p .c it ., p .6.

5. Joshi H .M ., Senapati Bapat ; Jeavan Darshan (Marathi),

Nagpur, Mangal Prakashan, 1900, p p .16-17.

6. Phadke Y .D ., o p .c it ., p .7.

7. Navare Shripad Shankar, Senapati (Marathi), Bombay,

Mauj Prakashan, 1976, p .28.

8. Ibid , p . 30.

9. Senapati Baoat Wangmay Samagra Grantha, Vol.4 , Bombay,

Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Samskriti Mandal, 1988, p .189,

10. Ibid^ pp. 262-63.

11. Bhuskute ^ .M ., Muishi Satyagraha (Marathi), Pune,

Dastane Ramchandra and Co ., 1968, p .16.

Notes and References

549

12« Navare S . 3 . , op.cit.

13. Bhave D .M ,(e d .), Senapatlnchya Samadhivar (Marathi),

V o l.2/ Nagpur, D.M.ahave, 1981, p . 164.

14. Kirloskar Jeevan e t .e l . (e d .) , Senapatl 3aoat

Samagra Grantha, V^oi.a, Bombay, vvaman Pandurang 3apat,

1967, pp.235-36.

15. Phadka Y ,D . , o p .c it ., p .19,

16. Senapati 3apat Wangmay Samagra Grantha, V o I.4,

o p .c it ., p*250.

17. Phadke Y .D ., o p .c it ., p .63.

18. Sanapatl Bapat Samagra Grantha, Vol.3, o p .c it ., p .242.

19. Senapati Bapat Wangmay Samagra Grantha, Vol.4 ,

o p .c it ., p .80.

20. Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, Pondicherry,

Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 7th impression, 1982, pp .240-41.

21. Senapati Bapat Wangmay Samagra Grantha, Vol.2 ,

o p ,c it ., p,127. (Verse 63, of the Ratnagiri Turungatil

Kavita).

22. Ibid, p. 127, Verses 66 and 72.

23. Ibid, pp.68-69.

24. Senapati Bapat Samagra Wangmay, Vol.3, o p .c it ., p .236.

25. Hiriyanna M ., Outlines Of Indian Philosophy (Marathi

translation by B,G.Ketkar : Bharateeya Tatwadnyanachi

Roop Resha), Pune, University of Poona, 1973, p . 288.

550

26. Senapatl dapat Wangmaya ; Samagra Grantha '^ol.2,

o p .c it ., p .398 (Shri Geeta Hriday : 'Verses 13 to 15).

27. Ibid/ p. 40C (Shri Geeta Hriday : Verses 56 and 60).

28. Ibid/ p. 397 (Shri Geeta Hriday : Verses 1 and 2).

29. Ibid, p .406 (Shri Geeta Hridaya ; /erses 171-172) .

30. Bapat P .M ., Brit ish Rule I n India, Edinburgh,

(Publisher not mentioned), 1906, p. 11.

31. Ibid, p. 16.

32. Ibid, pp. 14-16.

33. Singh Karan, Prophet of Indian Nationalism : A Study

of Political Thought of Aurobindo Ghosh : 1893-1910,

Bombay, Bharatiya V^dya 3havan, 1970, p .129.

34. 3apat P .M ., British Rule in India, op .c it ., p. 19.

35. Senapati 3apat Wangmay - Samagra Grantha, Vol.2,

o p .c it ., 0 .148.

36. Senapati 3apat Wangmay Samagra Grantha, Vol. 4,

op .c it ., p .312.

37. 3apat P .M ., British Rule In India, o p .c it ., p .23.

38. Senapati Bapat Wangmay Sanagra Grantha, Vol.4,

pp. 18-19.

39. Ibid. p .21.

40. Kher V .3 . , (e d .). In Search Of The Supreme, V o l.Ill ,

Alrimedaoad, Navajeevan Publishing House, 1962, p. 221.

41 . Senapati Bapat Wangmay Samagra Grantha Vol. 4,

o p .c it ., p. 211.

42. Ibid, p. 214.

43. Ibid/ p. 207.

44. Ibid, p. 208.

45. loid/ p. 233 .

46. Senapati 3apat Wangmay Samagra Grantham '^ol. 4,

op .o it ., p .223.

47. 3apat Senapati, "Gav Geata" (Marathi), Chapter 16,

Verses 728 and 729, in Prasad, (Marathi Monthly),

Pune, Y .G .Joshi, Dec. 1952, p .35.

48. Prasad, M a y , 1952, p .23, (Gav Geeta : Chapter 6,

Verses 256, 257.)

49. P r a s a d , July 1952, p. 37 (Gav Geeta ; Verse 454).

50. Prasad, Sept. 1952, p. 18 (Gav Geeta ; Verses 598 to 607).

51. Senapati aapat Samagra Wangmay, Vol.3, o p .c it ., p .204.

(Verses 6 and 8)

52. Prasad, July 1952, p .37 (Gav Geeta : Chapter 10,

Verses : 449-50) .

53. Senapati 3apat Samagra Wangmay, Vol. 3, o p .c it ., p .102.

54. Phadke Y .D . , o p .c it ., p .62.

55. 3apat P .M ., Sritish Rule In India, o p .c it ., p . 12.

551

552

55, Senapatl 3apat Wangmay Samagra Grantha/ Vol. 4,

57. Prasad/ Dec, 1952, p. 34. (Gav Geeta : Verses 690-92)

58. Kher V .3 . , (e d .) , Political And National Life

And Affairs, Vol.I, Ahmedabad, Navajivan Publishing

House, 1967, p. 65.

59. Prasad, July 1952, p. 36. (Gav Geeta : Chapter 9,

Verses : 413-414).