New Savarkar biopic on India’s most controversial freedom fighter / Screengrab from the official Youtube video

The new Savarkar biopic is worth watching not just for those who revere him, but especially for those who either don’t know much about him or abhor him. It paints a complex picture of a man who sacrificed the opportunity to live the elite life of a barrister admitted to the bar at Gray’s Inn in London and chose to light the fire amongst youth to fight for India’s independence. As a result, he suffered incarceration for a decade under inhuman conditions in the British penal island called Kālā Pānī, something that no other leader in India’s freedom struggle had to experience

Critics could argue that it is a one-sided adulatory narrative, but there is also no gainsaying the fact that the film is largely factual and depicts realities that armchair critics are often unaware of.

The biopic paints a sharp contrast between Mahatma Gandhi and Veer Savarkar, the two leaders who tower over India’s struggle to win its freedom from the British Raj. While Mahatma Gandhi is appropriately revered as the Father of the Nation, the last decade or so has finally seen Savarkar receive his just dues as the leader who the British feared the most, since he advocated for armed resistance unlike Gandhiji who stood for non-violent means.

Savarkar was the first Indian to masterfully reframe the so-called Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 as the First War of Indian Independence to liberate India from “the plague of slavery” and change the mindset of Indians who had become inured to being colonized for two centuries.  The movie also shows how Savarkar drew inspiration from Mazzini, an Italian revolutionary who fought for the unification of Italy, which in Italian was called Risorgimento or Rising Again. Mazzini organized a secret political society called “Young Italy” to promote Italian unification, and the Indian equivalent created by Savarkar was called “Abhinav Bharat”.

The movie covers an incredibly long stretch of history in a fast-paced way without letting up the intensity or pace of the narrative. That said, it also could have used some editing to shorten the length of a film that seems to be trying to capture too many complex issues and historical facts in one single movie.The portrayals of Mahatma Gandhi, Churchill and other leaders often felt like caricatures, and do disservice to an otherwise fact-based film.

The torture in Kālā Pānī and encounters with extremely cruel and fanatic Pathan jailers who used food to convert prisoners are shown graphically. Arguably, the extensive depiction of the torture could have been shortened, but it does have the desired effect of underlining for even his harshest critics that what he underwent was unique and unusual for a political prisoner. It’s ironic that while all the torture happened in a British penal colony, it was inflicted by fellow Indians under the direction of a cruel Irish jail warden who identifies himself as a former Irish rebel.

One can debate as to the righteous way to fight against an occupying power, but as the biopic points out at the end, India’s independence finally came primarily due to the fear of violence. The British decided to leave India only when it became clear that armed members of the Royal Indian Army and Navy were rebelling against their colonial masters. The “natives” could no longer be counted on to rule over other natives on behalf of their British colonial masters, as had been happening for two centuries.

Without retelling the whole story, the movie draws a pointed contrast between Savarkar’s approach of armed resistance versus peaceniks like Gandhi and Nehru, who also wrote letters and acted in ways that could be portrayed as obsequious to the British. Savarkar is shown asking Gandhiji about his actions in South Africa when he supported the British against the Zulus who were fighting for their independence.

The infamous mercy petition which detractors in India often cite to label Savarkar as a coward is addressed front and center, but with full context. Savarkar, having been trained as a British lawyer, petitioned for mercy under British laws for all prisoners and was even willing to exclude himself from those being released from Kālā Pānī . As Savarkar says in the movie, “saam daam dand aur bhed”, which essentially means by any means possible, are all legitimate ways to fight against a tyrannical colonial occupier. It was far more important to continue India’s freedom struggle back in India, rather than languishing in a distant penal island for two lifetimes or over 50 years, since he was the only one to ever be sentenced to two terms at Kālā Pānī .

The movie is worth watching even for those who are concerned about majoritarianism in India, if for no reason other than to understand that Savarkar’s Hindutva was actually very unlike the current interpretation. Anyone regardless of faith who considered “Hind” as his or her homeland and culture was a “Hindu” to him.

• Ram Kelkar is a Chicago-based columnist and investment professional.