Syama Prasad Mookerjee: Death and Martyrdom in Hindutva Myth-Making
An examination of the founder of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh—predecessor to the ruling Hindutva-fascist party in India, the BJP.
Prime Minister Modi and Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah offer tribute to Syama Prasad Mookerjee and Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya on Mookerjee’s birth anniversary. Image: Sabrang
Syama Prasad Mookerjee (1901-1953) was an influential politician, a major opposition leader in newly independent India, and the founder of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS), the predecessor of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Mookerjee played an important role in grounding Hindu nationalism in post-Partition India’s political arena, and remains a venerated figure of the right wing to the present day with the BJP regularly organising tributes and ceremonies to the late politician.
One of the major political moves that Mookerjee has been linked to in recent history is the abrogation of Article 370. In an article for Times Now, Akrita Reyar speculated that revoking Article 370 in August may have been a tribute and direct allusion to the first time Mookerjee addressed the Constituent Assembly in 1952 about repealing the special status of Kashmir. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was even set to make a speech to the nation on August 7th, the exact date of Mookerjee’s speech to the Assembly, but the event was postponed. Modi and several important figures of the BJP paid tribute to Syama Prasad on the sixty-sixth anniversary of his “mysterious” death, mourning and celebrating him as the first martyr for “United India.”
Given the importance of Mookerjee for the Hindu nationalist movement, it is curious that he has received relatively little academic attention and examination. Narratives and histories about Mookerjee seem to be disseminated primarily through Hindu nationalist channels. Analysis of his ‘martyrdom’ in particular is absent from academic discussions. This article explores Mookerjee’s life and death as appropriated by the right-wing for the purpose of forwarding the Hindu nationalist agenda.
A Moderate Communalist
Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee was the son of Ashutosh Mookerjee, an elite Bengali Brahmin, or bhadralok, and the Vice Chancellor of Calcutta University. In Portrait of a Martyr, Balraj Madhok describes his father as “an orthodox Hindu and an ardent nationalist,” credited with bringing several innovative, and culturally significant, programs to the university. Syama Prasad was, hence, born to a home of relative socioeconomic privilege, where he was raised in a culture of academic debate and ethnoreligious nationalism.
Syama Prasad Mookerjee. Image: The Print
Mookerjee became involved in politics in 1929 when he was elected to the Bengal Legislative Council from Calcutta University as a candidate of the Indian National Congress, later being re-elected as an independent. However, it was with the introduction of the Communal Award (or the MacDonald Award) in 1932, which proposed to split the electorate along the lines of religion and grant Muslims in Bengal more seats in the Council, that Mookerjee became invested in the representation of Hindus in politics. He publicly criticized the quota system introduced in public sectors and spoke about the need for Hindus to unite under a single banner.
Mookerjee also partook in several Hindu Mahasabha meetings before he was formally elected as the Acting President in 1940 when V.D. Savarkar became unable to lead activities due to poor health, later becoming the President in 1944. He rose quickly in the ranks of the Mahasabha and innovated strategies for Hindutva organisations by leading the major Hindu political party of the time.
V.D. Savarkar with Syama Prasad Mookerjee. Image: Scroll.in
Mookerjee proved himself to be a good representative at critical turns. He spoke eloquently, in slight contradictions, and with subtleties, which allowed him to maintain the rhetoric of Hindu nationalism but gave him deniability when faced with allegations of communalism levied against his colleagues. He presented himself as a moderate who supported the rights of all communities but stuck to majoritarian politics and demanded protection of the Hindu community from what he called a longstanding policy of Muslim appeasement. Moreover, Mookerjee was a political innovator who introduced strategies to expand Hindutva’s public outreach. For instance, soon after announcing that the Hindu Mahasabha would be standing for elections in 1945, he forwarded the idea that membership to the Mahasabha should be open to people of all religious categories, granted they adhere to the rules and values of the organisation. Indeed, when Mookerjee quit the Mahasabha it was partly on the question of its restricted membership. He essentially came to represent perhaps a less provocative and socially alarming face of Hindutva through his political career.
Mookerjee, the Hindu Nationalist Project, and the Birth of Jana Sangh
The Jana Sangh was founded in 1951 as a pan-Indian party when the Mahasabha proved to be incompatible with Mookerjee’s political goals and association when it became a political risk after the assassination of Gandhi. Acting as a separate entity officially, the Jana Sangh provided the Hindu nationalist movement a space to consolidate and provided a much-needed shift toward the political centre in a time when the RSS was banned and the Mahasabha was facing an uphill battle to improve its reputation.
“Mookerjee’s life and death are appropriated and adapted for political purposes in hagiographic retellings.”
The party was largely composed of Hindi-speaking politicians but advocated for the protection of local languages and cultures; it called for the protection of all citizens but rejected the idea of minority or majority status on the basis of religion; and it emphasized the need to deal with Pakistan strictly but ultimately sought to reunite India as an end goal. Thus, through the establishment of Jana Sangh, Mookerjee, rather than causing a rift in the Hindu nationalist agenda, managed to use the party as a conciliatory and consolidatory platform, allowing the Hindu nationalist agenda to imbed itself firmly in political life.
The symbol of the Jana Sangh, an oil lamp with a lit flame. Image: Wikipedia
However, Mookerjee’s role does not end with these strategic contributions. Mookerjee’s life and death are appropriated and adapted for political purposes in hagiographic retellings. Here, I consider two major biographical accounts that demonstrate the manner in which Mookerjee’s life and death are transformed for the purpose of the Hindu nationalist project. The first account, Portrait of a Martyr: Biography of Dr. Shyama Prasad Mookerji, was written by Balraj Madhok soon after his death. This work on Mookerjee sets the standard for how Mookerjee is mythologized in later discourse. The second account is a more recently published monograph, by BJP leader Tathagata Roy, entitled The Life and Times of Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee: A Complete Biography.
Both works follow the same basic rhythms, covering Mookerjee’s childhood, personal life, politics, and death as a hero’s saga. Mookerjee is depicted as an honest, sympathetic man and a born fighter. He is characterized as being “destined” to enter politics “to save the country from [separatist] evil effects” and an honourable person who led a “pure and manly life.” Roy argues, “Dr. Mookerjee could not be hypocritical (known today as being ‘secular’ in India and ‘politically correct’ all over the world) even if he tried to, and he did not. God did not make him that way.”
These histories do not seek validation from traditional academia, nor do they serve the same purpose as traditional historical inquiry. To borrow from Dipesh Chakrabarty’s article The Public Life of History, such narratives that exist outside of the realm of universities seek to “give pride to groups that have suffered marginalization.” While Chakrabarty focuses on Dalit historians for much of his paper, his analysis is entirely applicable to the Hindutva narratives about Syama Prasad Mookerjee where the Hindu nationalist project features as an oppressed and marginalized entity.
“Having established Mookerjee as an infallible hero, some of the most heavily criticized elements of Hindutva can be sanitized. ”
Mookerjee appears often as an embodiment, an emblem, or personification of the Hindu nationalist project itself. He represents the voice of reason to an almost prophetic degree, especially in scenarios where he has heated debates with his antithesis, Jawaharlal Nehru. He and his organization play the saviours and underdogs in a story of mistreatment of Hindus at the hands of the Muslim League and the Congress.
These biographies are also opportunities to defend the values and the reputation of Hindutva through Mookerjee. Having established Mookerjee as an infallible hero, some of the most heavily criticized elements of Hindutva can be sanitized. Take for example the charge of communalism that was often levied against the Mahasabha. Madhok narrates,
Another great charge of pandit Nehru against him [Mookerjee] and his organisation, which he repeated time and again was of communalism…Dr. Mookerji was both amused and grieved by this charge which amounted to the kettle calling the pot black. He held that the one organisation which had consistently encouraged and sustained communalism in the country was the Congress itself…‘If it is to be communalist’, [Mookerjee] argued, ‘to love one’s country, to love one’s community and not think ill of other communities, if we feel with, and attempt to unite 40 crores of Hindus living in India that have been liberated after 1000 years, if we try to recover our lost position in a manner which is 100% consistent with the dynamic principles of Hinduism for which Swami Vivekanand stood, I am proud to be a communalist.’ Neither pandit Nehru nor any other Congressman ever tried to reply to this argument and stand of Dr. Mookerji. In fact, they had no reply.
Even short anecdotes like this, where the term communalism is refashioned and Nehru is rendered speechless through Mookerjee’s charisma, serve the purpose of invalidating past and present accusations against Hindu nationalist organisations. Such histories present the opportunity to reframe debates that continue to be relevant to the present day.
Syama Prasad Mookerjee (left) with Jairamdas Doulatram (centre) and Jawaharlal Nehru (right). Image: The Print
This use of Mookerjee’s being for the political purposes ultimately culminates in the transformation of his death into martyrdom. My framework for understanding Mookerjee’s martyrdom draws upon DeSoucey, Pozner, Fields, Dobransky and Fine’s Memory and Sacrifice: An Embodied Theory of Martyrdom. The authors examine the archetype and myth of the ‘martyr’ to record common, underlying narrative structures. They argue that a martyr is a cultural resource used to “elicit desired behaviours, generate collective identities, and persuade a potentially indifferent audience.” Through memorialization practices, the martyr is immortalized but the meanings derived from such stories are based on the social and political needs of the organization or system doing the retelling.
The label of martyrdom cannot, hence, be separated from the political or social motivations that evoke the label in the first place. DeSoucey et. al. argue that often, the purpose of these retellings is to call for organized action—be it militaristic, social, cultural, or nationalist. This theory helps contextualize the historical works on Mookerjee that insist on the need to recognize his martyrdom because “martyrdom is a role that is assigned for present needs.”
Prime Minister Modi tweets image of Syama Prasad Mookerjee, emphasizing his role as a visionary. Image: Twitter
Kashmir, 370, and Mookerjee
To briefly explain the events leading to Mookerjee’s death, Mookerjee had taken up Kashmir as a key issue when he formed the Jana Sangh and was vocal about his opposition to Article 370 in Parliament. He popularized the slogan – ek desh mein do Vidhaan, do Pradhan aur do Nishaan nahin chalenge (in one country two Constitutions, two Prime Ministers and two flags will not do). Thus, when the 1952 Jammu Agitation began, Mookerjee expressed his support for the local party that called for the complete integration of Kashmir with India. To witness the situation on the ground, Mookerjee decided to visit Jammu, for which a permit was required for entry. However, he refused to apply for the permit and was subsequently detained upon entry.
Accounts differ about where Mookerjee was held and under what conditions. While Roy and Madhok claim that Mookerjee was taken to a small cottage where there were no medical arrangements nor any facilities for Mookerjee to occupy himself, Sham Lal Saraf, a Kashmir Health Minster at the time, claimed that Mookerjee was taken to a private bungalow known as the Heather Villa. Madhok, nonetheless, describes the conditions of the forty days of detention as “one of the most tragic and poignant episodes in the political life of free India.” However, Minister Saraf provided extracts from letters Mookerjee had written to his family and colleagues to the Times of India that express his satisfaction with the conditions.
Regardless, Mookerjee had been feeling a pain in his leg that would come and go for several weeks. On June 22, Mookerjee experienced a pain in his chest and was taken to hospital, where his condition improved for a few hours before it worsened over night and his pulse stopped. Madhok and Roy claim that Mookerjee was subjected to “criminal negligence” and that there was “foul play” at the hospital—Mookerjee had not died of illness, they argue; he was killed. Both Roy and Madhok dedicate an entire, detailed chapter to Mookerjee’s time in detention and the events leading up to his death.
For the sake of this article, the question of whether Mookerjee’s death was a murder must be put aside. What is more relevant is the manner in which his death is turned into a symbol of mournful pride for the Hindu Nationalist Right. The events leading up to death are very important for the myth of a martyr. As DeSoucey et.al. argue, these events must be “marked by personal agency, violence to the body, institutional execution, and, often, final words or actions that articulate the martyr’s commitment to tightly held beliefs and identification with a cause.”
Each of these elements are present in the histories drafted by Madhok and Roy. The mistreatment of Mookerjee who embodies Hindutva organisations brings glory and prestige. Furthermore, the treatment of the martyr after death is an important feature of martyrdom. While the physical body of Mookerjee was not mutilated or harmed, his death was never investigated, which becomes a reminder of the major injustice and mistreatment he, and by extension those that revere him, have faced. So, while Mookerjee is a figure worth examining for the fact that he has contributed much to the neo-Hindutva movement, he is also a figure consciously and strategically commemorated by the Right.
Keeping the Memory Alive
The usefulness of writing such histories and repackaging the past to fit a narrative of political righteousness is one that is not lost on current Hindu nationalist organizations. Bite-sized history articles on Mookerjee are available on several BJP websites.
A bust of Syama Prasad Mookerjee in Kolkata’s Chittaranjan Das Park vandalized in 2018 by six Jadavpur University students. The video of the act was widely circulated, the students were arrested, and the State BJP President Dilip Ghosh stated that the bust would be purified with milk later that week. Image: The Asian Age
“Mookerjee plays the role of invalidating traditional academia which has been under increased scrutiny in recent times.”
One such short pamphlet entitled Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee: A Selfless Patriot, written by Ganguly Anirban, after following the same model of history as Madhok and Roy, ends with a speech given by Amit Shah, the President of the BJP, on Balidan Divas or Martyrdom Day about how Mookerjee “saved India.” While paying his respects to Mookerjee, Shah brings up the injustice academics have done to Mookerjee. He states,
As the president of BJP, I am here to talk about the injustice done by history by not recognizing great deeds and sacrifice of such an eminent and selfless patriot as Dr. Mookerjee…The responsibility, thus, of projecting a real patriot rests with contemporary historians. These historians must be free from prejudice, biased opinion and free from any thoughts based on caste, creed, religion, party and fundamentalism. Unfortunately, biased historians manipulated the history of this country merely for the sake of their self interest. At first it was torn apart and distorted by Britishers and thereafter by Leftists. Both colonial historians and Marxist historians have distorted Indian history. It is because of such a distortion that Mookerjee could not get his due place in the history of this country, a place which was richly deserved. This denial, I believe, is an unforgivable sin.
Interestingly, here Mookerjee plays the role of invalidating traditional academia which has been under increased scrutiny in recent times. It goes to show that tributes to Mookerjee continue to serve newer, more contemporary purposes. In this short statement Amit Shah does what Roy and Madhok also attempt: invalidate academic history and bolster the value of non-academic, public histories that bring prestige to Hindutva narratives. Tributes to Mookerjee and literature on him all share these commonalities—by which the writer or speaker pay tribute to Mookerjee, speak about his life and death, before using it as a jumping off point to engage in some other kind of political dialogue. Keeping the memory of Mookerjee alive is therefore significant as he can play whatever role is required of him at the moment—be it criticizing academics and opposition parties, reworking and sanitizing Hindutva’s history, or pushing forward a narrative of righteousness and unity while continuing to engage in communal politics.
F. Ahmad is a graduate of the University of Toronto (MA, History) with a research focus on Kashmir and is a member of Jamhoor.