Sacrifice, History and Consciousness: From the Jauhar of Chittor to the Indian Freedom Movement

Swara Bhaskar’s recent remarks, in which the Jauhar of Chittor has been described as an act of cowardice, fall within the category of hate speech, defamation, or both. Therefore, this matter requires judicial examination. The law of the land is clear. The said remarks fulfil the essential elements required to constitute an offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. In relation to the defamatory and objectionable remarks, Ram Singh Chandlai, President of the Rajput Sabha, has written a letter to Swara Bhaskar. It is said that she is known for making anti-India remarks on social media in order to attract attention.

According to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Ashwini Upadhyay case, there is, so far, no information of any FIR having been registered in relation to this hate speech. Some time ago, DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin made remarks against Sanatan Dharma, and to date, despite the observations of the Madras High Court, no FIR has been registered against him. This tendency demonstrates a pattern, a conspiracy and a plan whose objective is to insult the ideals, values and culture of this ancient land—India.

Being born in India, being born into an Indian family and being educated in India are not, by themselves, sufficient to ensure that a person knows and appreciates the soul of India. Some people may associate such personality and conduct with the fact that their entire conduct is financed or sponsored. But the real question is whether such conduct can be allowed to go unpunished.

The Constitution of India grants all citizens the freedom of speech and expression. But this freedom is not absolute. It is subject to the reasonable restrictions prescribed by the Constitution, including those relating to public order, decency or morality and defamation.

There should be no such lapse on the part of the State or of those institutions that represent the glorious history of the sacrifices of the Rajputs as may create an impression that whatever is said against them constitutes neither hate speech nor defamation. Therefore, this particular instance of repeated insult to Indian values should be taken seriously, particularly because it is necessary that it should have a deterrent effect in the future.

History provides us with three stages of response. First, Protest; second, Non-Cooperation, that is, expressing one’s position through peaceful means; and third, the Boycott of the person accused of such conduct. But if even these measures fail to prevent wrongful conduct, lawful measures permitted by law may be resorted to in self-defence; because thereafter the question is no longer merely one of accepting criticism, but of preventing the defamation and destruction of the great and noble values of Rajputana.

There is no justification for showing sympathy towards Swara for her remarks, because she is neither innocent nor unaware of the remarks associated with her name. Deliberate and wilful misconduct is not a matter for sympathy, but for a deterrent response.

Tolerance is a virtue of the brave, but beyond a certain point, tolerance becomes an insult to the divinity within. The sacrifice represented by Jauhar is the extreme expression of the culture of that land, where the enemy could only face defeat. It is difficult for those who live at a lower level of consciousness to understand such high ideals of life, and for whom the glorification of merely the animal aspects of life appears to be the highest objective of life.

But this argument cannot constitute a basis for Swara’s defence either. Whatever the circumstances may be, she is not being asked to elevate the ideals of her own life or the level of her consciousness. But yes, she is certainly expected not to cross the Lakshman Rekha, because people who believe in the ideals of Rajputana are still alive today. And whenever there is a call to protect the values, culture, sovereignty and borders of India, time will have no option but to remain a witness to the events that follow.

Undoubtedly, her remarks are a reflection of the consciousness within her. But the next question is whether such remarks will simply be ignored by those who regard self-sacrifice as the highest form of honour.

Jauhar may be viewed not as cowardice or an escape from life, as Swara believes, but rather as an example of women’s empowerment, where the consent of women could not be obtained through force, undue influence or deceit. It is not merely a symbol of the high values of the queen, but also of the high values of all the women of the state—an ideal shared not merely by the nobility but extended to the entire population residing in the state.

It is not easy for women such as Swara to understand and appreciate such a tradition, as, according to this ideology, they know only the glorification of those bodily needs that do not go beyond food, sleep, fear and sexual desire.

Today, there is a serious need to recognise that ignorance cannot be ignored by considering it a matter of pleasure or good fortune; rather, proportionate punishment should be considered in accordance with it. Whether she apologises or not is a separate question. The real question is: how long will India tolerate the contemptuous, reprehensible and insulting conduct of such people who are described as Indian citizens but whose conduct and thinking are contrary to it?

This is not merely a problem affecting the Rajputs. A study of world history leads to the conclusion that the valour, courage and sacrifice of Chittor have inspired not only India but also people beyond the borders of India.

Impartial Study of History and the Question of Strategy

An impartial study of history also teaches us that individuals pursuing the same objectives may have different strategies. In medieval India, the political strategies of Maharana Pratap and Raja Man Singh of Amer were not the same. One chose the path of direct struggle, while the other determined his role within political relations with the contemporary empire. Such historical roles should be evaluated by understanding the circumstances of that time and the options available at the time.

The same applies to the Indian freedom movement. There was a great difference between the methods of the Moderates and the Extremists in the Congress, but both streams were moving towards protecting Indian interests from foreign rule and ultimately towards self-government. For some, gradual political reforms were acceptable, while others were moving towards the demand for immediate and complete independence.

Sri Aurobindo presented Swadeshi, Boycott and Swaraj as important means of the national movement during the Partition of Bengal movement. Mahatma Gandhi presented his distinctive conception of Swaraj in Hind Swaraj. Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev accepted the gallows for their ideal of independence. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose chose the path of going outside India and challenging British rule through the Indian National Army.

The paths were different, but the independence of India was the central objective.

Strategic Decisions and the Evaluation of History

In history, separating a single decision of a person from his or her entire life can sometimes lead to misleading conclusions. Mahatma Gandhi’s decision to start the Non-Cooperation Movement was important, but his decision to withdraw the same movement after the violent incident at Chauri Chaura was also his decision. This does not bring Gandhi’s historical role to an end.

Similarly, the petitions of the revolutionaries who endured severe torture in the Cellular Jail in the Andamans should also be evaluated in the context of the conditions of the prison, their strategy and the political possibilities ahead. Accepting death for the nation may be a sacrifice, but remaining alive and continuing the struggle for a larger objective may also be a strategy.

In wars and national movements, it is necessary to understand the objective, means, circumstances and strategy together.

From this perspective, the Jauhar of Chittor, the Battle of Haldighati, the execution of Bhagat Singh, Savarkar’s punishment of the Kala Pani, Sri Aurobindo’s stay in Pondicherry, the withdrawal of the movement after Chauri Chaura, the Gandhi-Ambedkar Poona Pact, the role of Indian soldiers in the Second World War, and the decisions connected with the Partition of India should not be understood by separating them from their historical contexts.

Suryapratap Singh Rajawat
Advocate, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur