By The Sampadak Express
Bollywood actor Randeep Hooda recently stirred up debate with his bold remarks on India’s freedom struggle. During the promotion of his film Swatantrya Veer Savarkar, he shared his views on India’s history, stating that the country did not gain independence solely due to Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, or the principle of non-violence. Instead, he emphasized the role of armed resistance in the freedom movement, which, according to him, has been largely overlooked.
In a candid conversation on journalist Shubhankar Mishra’s podcast, Hooda revealed that his journey into portraying Vinayak Damodar Savarkar began in anger—not towards the film industry, but due to the one-sided narrative of history that he had grown up with. “I did Savarkar out of anger. Not against the industry, but because when I was cast as Savarkar, I thought to myself, ‘How will I play this role? I’m a tall, sturdy Jat. I don’t even look like him.’ Savarkar was a real-life figure, whose photographs are widely available, and I didn’t see the resemblance,” he explained.
Reading Led to Revelation
Hooda said he began reading up on Savarkar casually, but things changed when historian Vikram Sampath’s book on Savarkar came out. “Once I started reading, I realized that even I didn’t know the full story. The information in the public domain is limited and one-sided,” he noted. His research led him to revisit Indian history from multiple sources, and he observed how the narrative around armed revolution was minimized.“
In school textbooks, the armed struggle is barely a paragraph long. Are we really to believe that we were so weak that we never picked up weapons against the British?” he questioned.
Non-Violence Alone Didn’t Bring Independence
Hooda argued that between 1946 and 1952, the British granted independence to 50–60 countries, none of which followed a non-violent path. “So how is it that only in India, non-violence worked? Were we the only ones to achieve freedom through peace?” he asked.
When asked directly whether he believes that India did not achieve independence because of Gandhi, Nehru, or non-violence, he responded, “No, we didn’t get freedom solely because of them. Try asking someone for a chocolate peacefully—you might not even get that. And here we are talking about independence from colonial rule.”
However, Hooda acknowledged Gandhi’s immense contribution. “Gandhi’s greatest contribution was that he transformed himself into a common man and connected with the masses. He brought the people of the country into the movement, which was very significant. But to say that we got independence only because of non-violence would be inaccurate.”
A Call for Broader Historical Perspective
Hooda’s remarks are a call for a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of India’s freedom struggle. He believes that history has been presented from a single viewpoint, sidelining the contributions of revolutionaries and armed freedom fighters like Savarkar. “We’ve only been shown one side of history,” he concluded.
His statements have reignited discussion around the complex and multifaceted nature of India’s independence movement, and the various ideologies and strategies that contributed to it.
