Savarkar's Dadar bungalow may be razed soon
Mumbai: Savarkar Sadan, the erstwhile residence of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar which served as the venue for meetings that altered the course of India's history, may soon be pulled down to make way for a new building.
Three independent sources confirmed to Hindustan Times that residents had consented to redevelopment of the property and some had even sold their apartments to a developer.
'The exterior of the building looks alright as it has been painted recently. But internally, the structure is crumbling and there are frequent instances of water seepage,' said one of the three sources who requested anonymity. The Swatantryaveer Savarkar Rashtriya Smarak Trust was trying to get more space on the mezzanine floor of the redeveloped building for a larger museum dedicated to Savarkar; they also want to retain the name, Savarkar Sadan, for the mezzanine floor, the sources added.
But some Savarkar followers are opposed to redevelopment of the historic property and have approached courts and government bodies seeking heritage status and a 'monument of national importance' tag for the building.
'If the BJP is serious about respecting Savarkar, they should give heritage status to Savarkar Sadan without any delay,' Prof Pankaj Phadnis, a Savarkar admirer and former resident of the building told HT.
Savarkar Sadan was constructed as a two-storey bungalow in 1938 on a plot measuring around 405 square metres in Dadar's Shivaji Park. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, founder of Abhinav Bharat Society, a secret grouping of Hindutva activists, and a leading figure in the Hindu Mahasabha, a political party, lived here. He met several top leaders at the bungalow, including Subhas Chandra Bose in 1940, and Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte in 1948, before they left for Delhi to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi.
Savarkar's descendants continued to live in the building after his death in 1966. In the 1980s and early 1990s, three floors were added to the two-storey bungalow courtesy the regime of Transferable Development Rights (TDR), which enabled developers to construct floors above existing buildings.
The ownership of the building is split between several parties. The Hindutva ideologue's descendants, including his youngest daughter-in-law Sundar Vishwas Savarkar, 93, live on the first floor. Anjali and Vijay Kambe own part of the ground and first floors and the entire fifth floor, while Pravin Shah owns the second and third floor. The Swatantryaveer Savarkar Rashtriya Smarak Trust owns only one room on the ground floor, which serves as a mini museum, housing various trophies, outfits, and memorabilia connected with Savarkar.
As per redevelopment rules, 51% residents of a building need to consent to its redevelopment and all the owners of Savarkar Sadan, barring the trust, are either in the process of entering into an agreement with a developer or have already transferred their rights, three independent sources told HT in separate conversations, requesting anonymity.
Manjiri Marathe, an office-bearer of the trust confirmed that several residents were in talks with a builder for redevelopment. 'We have heard about the building's redevelopment, though we do not have any proposal as yet,' she told HT.
Discussions regarding the impending redevelopment were held during the trust's annual general meeting in December 2024, said sources. Subsequently, the trust sought a proposal from the builder, asking for more space on the mezzanine and demanding that the floor retain the building's name, Savarkar Sadan.
'These plans are still in the discussion stage and nothing has been finalised,' said Marathe.
Trustee Ranjit Savarkar, however, said, 'I am unaware about any such development. It's a private property.' Another trustee, former director general of police Praveen Dixit refused to comment on the subject.
The builder who has evinced interest in redeveloping the property is close to a political family that espouses the cause of Marathi, one of the sources quoted earlier told HT. Two plots adjacent to Savarkar Sadan will be amalgamated in the redevelopment project, the sources said. These include the plot that houses Laxmi Sadan, once home to the renowned classical vocalist Pandit Jitendra Abhisheki, and the plot facing Chhatrapati Shivaji Park.
In 2008, a public interest litigation was filed in the Bombay high court seeking heritage status for Savarkar Sadan. In January 2009, the Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee under the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) recommended the building be given 'Grade II A' heritage status, pertaining to buildings/ precincts of regional/ local importance possessing special architectural/ aesthetic merits or cultural/ historical significance. No modification is allowed to the exteriors of such structures while internal changes and adaptive re-use is allowed subject to strict scrutiny.
The proposal to classify Savarkar Sadan as a 'Grade II A' heritage structure has been awaiting approval from the state urban development department since 2011. Back then, BJP leader Nitin Gadkari also had recommended the same, but to no avail. The BJP has been in power in the state four times in the interim – from October 2014 to November 2019, for five days in November 2019, from June 2022 to December 2024, and since December 2024 – but has not approved the proposal.
Prof Phadnis, a former resident of the building, said, 'Respecting the will of Mr Savarkar (to let the Sadan be a private property), the existing owners should be fairly compensated by the government of Maharashtra or whosoever takes it up for preservation.'
Phadnis is also the founder and president of Abhinav Bharat Congress, a think tank which has moved a petition in the Delhi high court seeking amendment in the rules pertaining to 'monuments of national importance'.
As per the rules, any structure or place of historical, archaeological or artistic interest must have been in existence for at least 100 years for it to be declared a 'monument of national importance'. Since Savarkar Sadan may not exist in its original form till 2038, the rules must be changed to classify it as a monument of national importance and preserve its rich history.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
8 hours ago
- Hans India
Not colonial constitution but Hindu majority sustains India's secular demoracy
India stands as the world's largest democracy, a beacon of resilience amidst a region marked by political volatility. India sustains a vibrant secular democracy despite its staggering diversity—linguistic, cultural, religious, and social. Unlike its neighbours, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which have succumbed to military coups, authoritarianism, and democratic erosion, India's democratic experiment endures. This article argues that India's secular democratic character stems not from its constitution, a document derived from the colonial Government of India Act of 1935, but from the cultural ethos of its Hindu majority. This civilisational framework, with its emphasis on pluralism, dialogue, and coexistence, forms the bedrock of India's democratic success. The argument challenges two narratives: the left-liberal view of secularism, which often sidelines Hindu identity, and the Sangh Parivar's politicised Hindutva, which distorts Sanatana Dharma into a divisive ideology. Both misrepresent the Hindu Majority's inclusive ethos, obscuring its role as a unifying force in India's democracy. We will examine how the Hindu majority's cultural values—philosophical flexibility and acceptance of diversity—sustain India's secular democratic framework. Defining Hindutva-A pluralistic foundation: The term 'Hindutva,' coined by Chandranath Basu in 1892 for his eponymous book, encapsulates the essence of Sanatana Dharma, India's ancient spiritual tradition, distinct from the colonial label 'Hinduism.' This article adopts Basu's definition, emphasising Hindutva's inclusivity and pluralism, unlike Savarkar's 1923 nationalist interpretation, which some view as exclusionary. Hindutva, the new name of Sanatana Dharma, embraces diverse indigenous traditions, as articulated in the Rigveda's maxim, 'ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti' (Truth is one, but the wise express it in many ways). This ethos fosters a democratic temperament by encouraging dialogue, coexistence, and adaptability. Hindu majority's cultural ethos: The bedrock of democracy: India's Hindu majority, comprising over 70% of the population, is shaped by Hindutva's principles of flexibility and diversity. Unlike systems like Christianity, Islam, or Communism, which often emphasise conformity, Hindutva embraces diverse practices and philosophies. This pluralism extends to intellectual and social spheres, fostering a culture of dialogue and coexistence that aligns with democratic principles. The Hindu tradition of shastrartha (scholarly debates) exemplifies this ethos. Scholars from diverse schools engaged in respectful exchanges, mirroring democratic practices of negotiation and consensus-building. The concept of dharma, emphasising duty, justice, and harmony, further supports democratic values. These cultural traits enable India to manage its diversity, ensuring free elections, peaceful power transitions, and robust free expression within a secular framework. In contrast, Islamic Pakistan and Bangladesh have struggled to sustain democracy. Pakistan, founded as an Islamic state, has faced military coups (1958, 1977 and 1999) and authoritarianism, while Bangladesh, despite an initially secular framework, adopted Islam as its state religion in 1988, experiencing military rule (1975–1990) and democratic backsliding. Their exclusionary politics have marginalised and persecuted minority Hindus, including the 1971 genocide in Bangladesh, where over 30 lakhs were killed. India's Hindu majority, by contrast, has fostered a pluralistic environment, integrating diverse communities into the democratic process. While India's constitution provides a legal framework, it is the Hindu majority's cultural ethos—rooted in Hindutva's pluralism—that sustains secular democracy. The constitution, largely a derivative of colonial legislation, lacks the cultural depth to fully explain India's democratic resilience. Instead, it is the Hindu majority's tolerance and adaptability that have prevented India from succumbing to the authoritarian tendencies seen in its neighbours. Historical evidence: Hindutva's democratic roots: India's ancient history reflects practices aligned with democratic values. The ganasanghas (6th–4th century BCE) such as the Licchavis, involved collective decision-making, hereby suggesting openness to participatory governance. While limited to elites, these systems laid the groundwork for inclusivity. Chanakya's Arthashastra emphasises consultation, justice, and ethical governance, resonating with modern democratic ideals. The emergence of Buddhism and Jainism from the Hindu cultural matrix reinforced democratic values. The Buddhist sangha employed consensus-based decision-making, influencing societal norms, while the Bhakti movement (7th–17th centuries CE) transcended social and sectarian boundaries, promoting egalitarianism. These traditions shaped a cultural ethos conducive to dialogue and coexistence, evident in India's post-independence ability to manage diversity. The Hindu majority has historically supported persecuted communities. Jewish settlements thrived in Kerala and Mumbai since the 2nd century BCE. Zoroastrians (Parsis) found refuge in Gujarat after fleeing Islamic conquests in the 7th–8th centuries. Tibetans escaping Chinese oppression in the 20th century preserved their culture in India. This openness, without requiring conversion, reflects Hindutva's pluralistic ethos. Constituent Assembly's flawed framework: India's Constituent Assembly, predominantly Hindu, instinctively enshrined secular democracy, reflecting the Hindu civilisational pluralistic ethos. However, influenced by a colonial, Abrahamic lens, it crafted a constitution that denied Hindus equal rights. Articles 25–30 grant minorities special privileges while subjecting Hindu temples to state control, creating an imbalance that marginalises Hindu identity under the guise of secularism. This pseudo-secularism ignores the lesson of India's 1947 partition, driven by Muslim demands for a separate state, which underscored the Hindu majority's role as a shield against divisive forces, ensuring India's unity and democratic resilience. Misrepresentations of Hindutva: Two ideological streams undermine the contributions of India's Hindu majority: pseudo-secularism and pseudo-Hindutva. The left-liberal establishment, rooted in the Constituent Assembly's flawed pseudo-secular framework, misinterprets secularism as suppressing Hindu identity. It dismisses Hindutva's pluralistic ethos as divisive, distorts history by downplaying Islamic atrocities and temple destruction, and blames Hindus for the partition. This alienates the majority, fostering cultural dispossession and weakening India's secular democratic cohesion. Conversely, the Sangh Parivar claims to champion Hindu identity but distorts Hindutva's inclusive essence for political gain. Labelled as pseudo-Hindutva, their approach manipulates Hindu symbols and rhetoric to mobilise support while sidelining Hindutva's philosophical core. By focusing on socio-religious divides rather than addressing key Hindu grievances—such as constitutional inequalities, state control over temples, and legal disadvantages—it deepens polarisation and undermines India's democratic framework. Preserving Hindu majority: India's secular democracy relies on its Hindu majority to sustain its pluralistic ethos. However, aggressive conversion campaigns by Christianity and Islam threaten this foundation. The 1956 Niyogi Committee Report exposed predatory conversion tactics and recommended a constitutional amendment to ban it. Yet, Article 25's inclusion of the right to "propagate" religion enables demographic and cultural subversion under the guise of religious freedom. Religious freedom, though a democratic cornerstone, is not absolute. Just as the state criminalises suicide to protect life, it cannot allow the erosion of millennia-old traditions through conversion. To address this, India should amend Article 25 to remove "propagate," curbing conversions while preserving the right to practice faith. By safeguarding its Hindu majority, India can protect the cultural ethos that anchors its secular democracy and ensure its civilisational legacy endures. Strengthening democracy through Hindutva: To bolster its secular democracy, India must integrate Hindutva's universal values: Education Reform: Revise textbooks to reflect historical accuracy, highlighting Hindutva's democratic roots while avoiding exclusionary nationalism. Constitutional equality: Amend Articles 25–30 to grant Hindus equal rights, freeing temples from state control, ensuring fairness. Dharma-based policy: Develop policies rooted in dharma, promoting justice and harmony through community-driven interfaith dialogues. Interfaith coexistence: Leverage Hindutva's historical inclusivity to foster dialogue among religious communities, strengthening democratic resilience. Conclusion Critics may argue that emphasising India's Hindu majority risks promoting majoritarianism. However, recognising the Hindu civilisational ethos is not about privileging Hindus but acknowledging the cultural framework that has historically enabled pluralism. Secularism, in this context, does not reject religion or civilisational identity but ensures equal treatment for all. India's secular democracy thrives not because of its colonial constitution but due to the Hindu majority's cultural ethos, deeply rooted in Hindutva's pluralistic values. Unlike its neighbours, India's Hindu foundation has fostered inclusivity, contributing to its democratic resilience. By integrating Hindutva's universal principles through education, constitutional reforms, and inclusive policies, India can strengthen its secular democracy. This approach offers a model of governance that harmonises cultural heritage with secular principles, providing a balanced framework for a polarised world. (The writer is a retired IPS officer, and a former Director of CBI. Views are personal)
Hindustan Times
10 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Bonn climate summit a key test ahead of UN meet
The Bonn Climate Change Conference, the meeting that serves as a midway point between the larger annual UN Climate Change meeting (COP30), is set to open on Monday and will continue till June 26. The Bonn meeting is critical to thrash out differences before the parties meet in November for a climate deal, which will take place amid severe geopolitical turmoil and renewed tensions as Israel strikes Iran. The shadow of failed climate finance talks at COP29, Baku, also shroud these meetings. There are divergent views on the Baku to Belem road map to 1.3T, which is expected to be finalised at COP30 in Brazil this November. For example, according to an analysis made by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), G77 and China demand that equity and Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) must be at the core of climate finance, and developing countries must be allowed to self-determined pathways to use finance; the Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), another coalition of developing nations, has sought exclusion of international taxes, levies and debt approaches as they violate sovereignty. HT reported on June 3 that India has put forth its expectations, stating that without sufficient climate finance, even proposed nationally determined contributions will not materialise, leave alone any ambitious future NDCs. India has said climate finance should flow from developed countries to developing countries, and that public capital should be used strategically to crowd in private investments for climate action, pointing out that excessive borrowing poses risks to a country's fiscal stability. In an interview to HT earlier this month, Union environment minister Bhupender Yadav said: 'India's asks would be as articulated in Article 4.7 of the UNFCCC, i.e., economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing countries. No proposed strategies should foreclose the possibilities of accelerated social and economic development for developing countries. The principle of CBDR-RC should be reinforced. As regards India, its overarching goal of Viksit Bharat 2047 is of paramount importance and accordingly, climate actions of India should align with the goal of Viksit Bharat.' The Arab Group has also warned against approaches that reshape finance obligations from developed to developing countries. The EU, on the other hand, has said the road map should be a tool to unlock private capital for climate investments, proposing innovative financial instruments, carbon pricing etc. Canada has also proposed mapping barriers to private capital, creating enabling environments in developing countries. The difference in priorities is obvious. To be sure, the US, the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, has pulled out of the Paris Agreement. In January, President Donald Trump had signed an executive order soon after taking office directing the US' withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, weakening what had, over the past four years especially, become a global movement to combat the climate crisis. The turmoil and differences come at a time when climate change impacts have become stark and urgent. HT reported on June 12 that the World Weather Attribution has concluded that climate change added 3 degrees Celsius to heat conditions in the Arctic region — which caused Greenland's ice sheet to melt 17 times the normal rate last month. Until May, the world experienced an extended phase of 21 months with global-average temperatures more than 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level. The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) warned that there is an 80% chance that a year between 2025 and 2029 will be warmer than 2024 and that there is a 70% chance that the five-year average warming for 2025-2029 will surpass 1.5°C leading to frequent and severe heat waves, droughts, and extreme weather events. The next few weeks present a rare and revealing sequence: the G7 Summit (June 15–17), SB62 in Bonn (June 16–26), and the Financing for Development Conference in Seville (June 30–July 3). Together, they expose the power dynamics that continue to stall climate finance, Climate Action Network said in a statement on Friday. 'We are facing a crisis of legitimacy and a breakdown of trust in the UN climate process. Government negotiators at the SB62 session (Bonn) must send a clear signal that the decisions and actions they take will ensure that justice is not a side conversation, but the core principle that will determine whether COP30 can succeed or not,' said Tasneem Essop, executive director at Climate Action Network International. Only 22 countries have submitted updated national climate plans (aka NDCs) due this year with only one (the UK) rated in line with the 1.5°C temperature goal set in the Paris Agreement. Among major polluters, China and the EU are yet to land their 2035 targets. 'As if things were not uncertain enough, this year has also seen a new and extreme level of political weaponisation of the global economy and trade by the new administration at the helm of the US... As geopolitics worsen and the global economy continues to teeter, the implications are being felt across multilateral spaces, including UNFCCC. The strain of the rapidly degrading sense of cooperation among countries threatens faith in the legitimacy of multilateralism and the institutions that uphold it,' CAN said. 'We're in the middle of multiple escalating crises. There are few spaces remaining where countries come together and cooperate. It's more important than ever before that multilateralism is upheld and the goals that have been set — such as the transition away from fossil fuels in Dubai and the climate finance goal in Baku. The Bonn conference must reinforce our commitment to cooperative, equitable climate action despite the current moment,' said Avantika Goswami, Programme Manager, Climate Change Centre for Science and Environment. 'As political crises and global conflicts dominate headlines, we must not lose sight of the escalating climate emergency. Climate disasters are intensifying, hitting the most vulnerable communities and countries the hardest. The mid-year climate talks are not a side note — they are the foundation for a successful COP30. We need urgent progress now to deliver real climate finance, accelerate a just transition away from fossil fuels, and protect both people and nature. Delaying action means deepening injustice and multiplying both human and ecological costs,' said Harjeet Singh, climate activist and founding director of Satat Sampada Climate Foundation.
Time of India
18 hours ago
- Time of India
Suhas Shetty murder: NIA team visits Mangaluru
Mangaluru: The National Investigation Agency (NIA) team arrived in Mangaluru in connection with the Hindutva activist Suhas Shetty murder case. Mangaluru City police commissioner Sudheer Kumar Reddy CH said that the NIA team has arrived and the process of handing over the case to the investigation officer has begun. It may be recalled that the ministry of home affairs directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take over the probe into the Suhas Shetty murder case. According to the order dated June 7, the central govt took cognisance of the FIR registered on May 1 at Bajpe police station, which pertains to the attack on Shetty while he was travelling in a car with a few others. Shetty was allegedly attacked by Safwan and eight others and later succumbed to his injuries in hospital. It may be noted that Mangaluru City police arrested 12 people in the case. There was a demand from the right-wing organisations to hand over the case to the NIA. Soon after the incident, Dakshina Kannada MP Capt Brijesh Chowta had written to Union home minister Amit Shah, requesting the transfer of the Suhas Shetty murder case to the NIA. Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
