“Rape” It is a matter to observe that when this word is not there in disputed article of Savarkar and that article is written in historical background (not about today’s politics), narratives have been playfully set to spread their political anarchist views and discredit the Hindus from Savarkarism.
India is paying price !? Price of what? The leaders of that time who were perverted due to virtues did not listen to Savarkar’s visionary views in Indian politics. ‘Ahimsa’ blinded leaders, India is paying the price of them. At that time, you did not consider Savarkar’s views so important, then why did India start seeing Savarkar’s views only today?
The thought of Hindutva is being taken up by Hindus today, seeing that it will be harmful to their virtuous attitude of Hindu-Muslim unity (in the distortious way of Muslim appeasement), a conspiracy is being made to defame Savarkar’s views by disputing them! And if such conspiracies are not hatched by us, then India will really have to pay the price.
Lets take a look at the disputed part of Savarkar’s statement from ‘Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History’ book:
Even though the oppression of Hindu women was visible to the Muslim women, despite being a woman, on the contrary, they continued to support the Muslim men ! Why? As a religious duty (Jihad). It was a bitter truth that they will not feel the sorrow of Hindu women until their women get oppressed by the Hindu kings. Is it false? Why don’t we accept it?
‘We are Muslim women, how will these napak IN Hindus dare to touch us?’ With this hateful mindset, there will be no limit to the arrogance of those muslim women! So hasn’t Savarkar presented the same fact? Why is ‘Chivalry’ a ‘virtue’ for Hindus only? Why not for Muslims?
It describes how the Muslim invaders made use of the ‘chivalry’ of the Hindus. Which was definitely harmful to the population of Hindu nation. Even if the Hindu kings had shunned this perversion of morality, today we would have glorified it on the basis of the decision ‘Tit for tat’.
However, Savarkar did not wrote that Shivaji Maharaj should ‘rape’ Muslim women. He stated that he could not reciprocate! Is it not true? In fact, since Islam has been ineffective in giving proper rights to its women, it would have been appropriate to convert those non-hindu women into Hindus, and it has been benevolent too! Otherwise it would not have been unfair to kill or keep them as slaves also.
Savarkar’s authentic position is that the shield given by the Hindus to the enemy at the cost of the women of their own nation for the presentation of morality would have been a great loss. If the principles had been kept aside to avoid that loss, at least by the time fear is established on the muslim invaders and their women, then the atrocities on our women would have stopped to a great extent.
This is Savarkar’s opinion! It doesn’t need a big debunking. Of course, while the logical reason finds it appropriate to support it, the moral reason naturally finds it inappropriate ! Because we are Hindus ! If we were Muslims, we would not have doubted Savarkar’s statement about this perversion of virtue.
refrence : Six glorious epochs