By Anil Nair

Let's face it. There is a serious attempt by the Congress and the Left parties to appropriate national leaders according to their political philosophy and leanings. If Mani Shankar Aiyar has been incessant about Savarkar's letter for clemency, the Left has been extolling the contribution of Bhagat Singh and Raj Guru while trying to denigrate Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. This is not only irritating but also a countenance of the fact that freedom struggle should be seen only through the blinkered eyes of the Congress and the Left. The Left can scarcely step on the pedestal and talk about Savarkar's betrayal when its own history, as columnist M.V. Kamath has pointed out in several articles in this journal, is tainted by perfidy and cravenness towards the British.

In the interviews with Savarkar's son Vishwas and the Kashmiri film maker Ved Rahi, who made a brilliant film on the life of the great patriot, the debate whirled around the philosophy of Gandhi in comparison to that of Savarkar, and how each had its own place in history. When the attempt is made to distort the events that have taken place

and whose recording in various books has been challenged by the sheer weight of minatory argument there is the need to bring forth facts to establish those original truths that are being erased with impunity. One such is the question of caste system in Hindu society and how much did the leaders of the Congress try in their individual capacity to reform a disparate religion. Today, our Congressmen might have a truck with the Left and the various socialists groups who flaunt the 'progressive agenda', little knowing that the past is at best only indicative of their philosophy, and which cannot be harvested for all situations that arise out of today's contradictory noises being made in various states on the issue of Savarkar's legacy.

Gandhi supported the caste system. How many of our Congressmen will know that Mahatma Gandhi was only against untouchability. The Mahatma was never against the caste system that pervaded the Hindu society and which gave rise to the scourge of discrimination and unfair practices in day-to-day life since ancient times. Writing about caste system in his newspaper Young India (Wednesday, December 8, 1920) the Mahatma said, ''I believe that caste has saved Hinduism from disintegration... I consider the four divisions alone to be fundamental, natural and essential... I am certainly against any attempt at destroying the fundamentals''.

The Mahatma had good reasons, or so it seems, to defend the caste system. ''The caste system is not based on inequality, there is no question of inferiority. There appears to be no valid reason for ending the system because of its abuse'', he wrote in his acclaimed newspaper. The Mahatma was convinced that the caste system lends itself easily to reformation.

That is not all, the Mahatma's writings can be astonishing: ''I can see very great use in considering a Brahmin to be always a Brahmin throughout his life... Interdrinking, interdining, intermarrying, I hold, are not essential for the promotion of the spirit of democracy. I do not contemplate under a most democratic constitution a universality of manners and customs about eating and drinking and marrying''. Then he drops the bombshell: ''I decline to consider it a sin for a man not to drink or eat with any and everybody''.