The recent controversy surrounding the Veer Savarkar International Impact Award 2025 reveals a deeper crisis: the public no longer knows whom to trust. When Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says he was “surprised” to learn that he had been chosen for the award, and the High-range Rural Development Society (HRDS) insists its officials personally visited his home to invite him, both statements simply cannot be true. One of them is plainly wrong yet the public is left to navigate this fog of contradictions without clarity. The controversy is heightened because the award itself carries the name of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, one of the most contentious figures in modern Indian history. Savarkar undeniably participated in the freedom struggle, but during his imprisonment in the Cellular Jail in the Andamans, he wrote repeated clemency petitions to the British authorities.
After his release, Savarkar never again raised his voice against British rule. His subsequent ideological positions—particularly his advocacy of Hindutva and his argument that Hindus and Muslims could not coexist—ran counter to the pluralistic vision of the national movement. Some historians see him as one of the earliest proponents of the ideas that later crystallised into Partition. His name also surfaced in the Mahatma Gandhi assassination case, though he was acquitted. Yet today, the ruling establishment elevates Savarkar to near-messianic stature. His portrait occupies pride of place in Parliament, while the ideals of the Mahatma are steadily pushed aside. What raises even more eyebrows is the HRDS, the organisation behind the award. Few in Kerala, or anywhere else, have a clear sense of what this NGO has actually accomplished for tribal development. It gained notoriety not for its social work but for employing Swapna Suresh, a controversial figure who accused Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan of wrongdoing, on a high salary. The HRDS released a diary with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s photograph on every page, accompanied by government messages but without even mentioning what the acronym HRDS stands for.
If Tharoor is truthful, he is justified in saying the organisation should not have publicised the award without verifying his acceptance. If the HRDS is truthful, then its credibility takes a further beating for mishandling communication so clumsily. For Tharoor, accepting a Savarkar award would have been politically explosive. Savarkar embodied values diametrically opposed to those of the Congress during the freedom struggle. And Tharoor himself has, on numerous occasions, appeared closer to the ruling establishment than to the Congress line. That he might accept such an award would not have surprised those who observe his late-career ideological drift. In the end, this controversy is not merely about an award—it is about truth, trust, and the erosion of credibility in public life.
