THE FIERY VEER SAVARKAR – MYTHS AND REFUTATIONS

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar! – A man who started India’s first secret society (“Abhinav Bharat”). A man who led the first-ever student bonfire against foreign clothes. 5 years later he was in London as a Law student and there he literally led the revolutionary movement sitting there, and wrote the seminal book on the 1857 uprising. He gave it respectability by calling it the ‘First War of Indian Independence’.

So, someone who had contributed so much & spent 12 long years in Kaala Pani, 2 years in the Indian mainland jail (14 years of imprisonment), someone whose degrees were snatched away from him and someone whose even the family members (wife Yamunabai and sister-in-law Yeshubai) had to beg on the streets to eke out their livelihoods when he & his elder brother were in Kaala Pani, had to face many grossly unfair allegations against him. The sacrifices that Veer Savarkar and his family members had to make were completely thrashed away by some power-hungry spineless politicians over the period.

To KNOW what Savarkar did is easy, but to UNDERSTAND what Savarkar did and intended to do in the near future is exactly what people have highly misunderstood. Time and again, Savarkar has been deliberately misinterpreted and portrayed as a coward, a broken man and a ‘Maafiveer’ instead of a ‘Swatantraveer’!

Many people who claim to be the torch-bearers of peace, love and non-violence have been blotting the image of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and his entire family, just so that Savarkar’s grand aura, his ideas and his fiery persona would outcast their freedom ‘fighters’. Nonetheless, several major accusations have been brought against this fearless individual throughout the years.

Before we proceed ahead, we have to understand the clear difference between a Petition and an Apology. A petition is a formal request for action, typically addressed to a government official or public entity. An apology is a way to show respect for someone’s feelings, value their friendship, and be honest and humble. A petition can include requests to dismiss a case, reduce bail, or provide a continuance. A petition can also be used to appeal a court’s decision. An apology can include three elements: Acknowledgement of wrongdoing, Expressing regret, and Making a promise to act differently in the future.

Accusation 1:

SAVARKAR WROTE APOLOGIES AND MERCIFUL LETTERS TO THE BRITISH WHEN HE WAS IN KAALA PAANI!

Rebuttal Points:

Veer Savarkar wanted to renew the fight (for independence) after escaping the British clasps.

Veer Savarkar himself revealed in his memoirs that he had often petitioned the British for his release (from Andaman jail), but that he had never expressed regret for his acts (against the British) in any of his pleas. Since Savarkar was a barrister, there was nothing improper in trying to get Savarkar’s release through the channels of then-current British law.

According to him, it was every revolutionary’s responsibility to continue attempting to flee the British and revive the revolution. He used to share this opinion with the other prisoners who were revolutionaries regularly. 

The renowned revolutionary Sachindranath Sanyal provides proof of this. The Lahore conspiracy case had resulted in a life sentence for him. Similar to Savarkar, he was freed on the condition of good conduct but was later sentenced to life in jail once more – this time for being the driving force behind the Kakori case.

“Savarkar had also promised cooperation (with the British government) like me”, says Sachindranath in his book. “I was released but not Savarkar. Why? Because the government feared that if Savarkar was released there may be another round of revolutionary upsurge in Maharashtra” (Pg. 226, ‘Bandijeevan’).

Veer Savarkar’s petitions included substance that was part of his long-term plan to fight British power!

In 1913, before presenting a petition to Sir Reginald Craddock, the Home Secretary of India at the time, Savarkar had a brief conversation with him. In transmitting the document to the British Government, Sir Cradodck made it quite evident that “It cannot be said to express any regret or repentance”. A hardline revolution against a tyrannical, suppressive and mighty empire can only be kept alive when the revolutionaries have a safe space away from the clutches of the authorities of that empire.

This is a very fundamental thing to understand and a similar thing had happened in the past – when Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was imprisoned by Aurangzeb in Agra, he had played a similar sort of politics to return to his base (Sahyadri) and continued the fight for Hindavi Swaraj (Kindly take a note that I’m not comparing the two personalities. I’m comparing the two situations). 

Hence, on a similar note, Savarkar had a grand strategy of uniting people against the British and for that only reason, he had written multiple petitions to the British. Furthermore, Savarkar’s aims are unequivocally revealed by the autobiographies of other notable revolutionaries who were also Savarkar’s fellow prisoners, including Ullaskar Dutt, Bhai Paramanand, Pruthvi Singh Azad, and Ramcharan Sharma.

Accusation 2: 

SAVARKAR DID NOT HAVE TO UNDERGO ANY SEVERE HARDSHIPS IN THE JAIL!

Rebuttal Points:

Although limited, the documents discovered in Andaman jail and the autobiographies of fellow revolutionaries attest to the harsh treatment that Savarkar endured.

Pruthvi Singh Azad, who was also undergoing a jail term (at Andaman) between 1916 and 1921 writes, “Veer Savarkar had taught the youth of modern India the lesson of revolution. He was one of the brightest leaders of the youth with a revolutionary bent of mind. The British made such a powerful personality to do the work of bullocks. He was forced to produce thirty pounds of oil per day in the oil mill” (‘Kranti ke Pathik’, page 108). 

Now, during the Japanese occupation (Second World War), a large portion of the Andaman jail’s records were lost. But according to the jail documents that are currently accessible, Savarkar received the following harsh punishments:

• On July 15, 1911, the eleventh day after being admitted to the jail, he was placed in a cell for six months of solitary confinement.
• Beginning on August 16, 1911, he was shackled to an oil mill (much like a bullock) for 14 days.
• His confinement had ended on January 15, 1912. However, on June 11, 1912, he was sent back to solitary confinement for a month after it was discovered that he had some paperwork.
• He was put through seven days of ‘khadi bedi’ beginning on September 19, 1912, after it was discovered that he had written a letter to another prisoner (In ‘khadi bedi’, a prisoner wears handcuffs that are fixed high up in a wall, requiring them to remain upright until they are released from punishment).
• Again, starting on November 23, 1912, a month of solitary incarceration for the same conduct. 

In addition, Savarkar stated in his autobiography that he endured many penalties and difficulties that were illegal and hence not documented in the records; this is a point that is supported by the memoirs of other fellow prisoners who were revolutionaries. Thus, despite their incompleteness, the records that are now accessible provide some insight into the severe penalties and adversities he endured.

Veer Savarkar’s unwavering will and mental fortitude are well demonstrated by the experiences related to other revolutionaries!

Ullaskar Dutt had been subjected to such cruel treatment in the cellular jail that he had temporarily lost his mental balance. Before that, when he was being held in shackles, he had a hallucination in which he saw jailor David Barry challenge him to a wrestling contest. Savarkar accepted the challenge on Dutt’s behalf and won! (“Twelve Years in Prison”, pages 64 and 65) This occurrence happened in the year 1912.

Now, it is evident that up until that point (1912), Savarkar must have radiated a strong will to fight and a steady mentality since even during a condition of hallucination, Savarkar was the one who seemed deserving of fighting on Ullaskar Dutt’s behalf.

Because he participated in a strike, jail personnel threatened to extend the term of another prisoner, Ramsharan Sharma, in 1913. According to reports, he said, “If Savarkar can serve 50 years in prison, then even I can serve the longer sentence” (‘Kala Panika Aitihasik Dastavej’, page 53). This demonstrates that Savarkar was still viewed as the ideal by the other incarcerated revolutionaries in 1913. Could it have happened if Savarkar had lost his mind and given up?

In his autobiography “Apbeeti”, the great revolutionary Bhai Paramanand, who was incarcerated for his involvement in a 1919 strike, states that jailor Barry and the jail administration would hold the Savarkar brothers accountable for any disputes that occurred in the jail between the inmates and the administration.

Accusation 3: 

AFTER BEING RELEASED FROM ANDAMAN, SAVARKAR DID NOTHING FOR THE NATION. ALSO, HE ‘HELPED’ THE BRITISH AND LATER ON, HE OPPOSED SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE!

Rebuttal Points:

Savarkar’s outstanding efforts to end untouchability and the accounts of other outstanding modern leaders:

During the 14 years of his protracted house confinement at Ratnagiri, Savarkar was prohibited from engaging in any political activity. Thus, he started campaigns to end the unjust behaviours associated with the caste system, untouchability, and blind faith that were then common in Hindu culture.

Following his incredible efforts to end untouchability, Vithal Ramji Shinde declared in public, “May God grant Savarkar the years I have left to live!” Dr Ambedkar had expressed his satisfaction that Savarkar was one of the few notable figures of the day who thought the caste system ought to be abolished. 

It is unnecessary to repeat what has already been stated and written about Savarkar’s significant contribution to the public domain’s eradication of untouchability. It is sufficient to argue that many notable modern (social and political) figures, including M.K. Gandhi, would not have made the arduous journey to Ratnagiri to visit Savarkar if he had been working with the British.

To stop the partition of the country, Savarkar launched a mass awakening movement.

After 1937, Savarkar was permitted to take part in political events. He rose to the position of Hindu Mahasabha President. The prospect of partition was very real because of the Muslim League’s irrational demands and the Congress’s appeasement strategy towards them. Savarkar started a movement of mass awakening to stop partition.

In his speech on (Singapore) radio, Rashbehari Bose said “I consider it my duty to pay my respects to a senior freedom fighter colleague like you. You have yet again displayed your great statesmanship by proposing that India’s foreign policy should not be dependant on that of any other country and our enemy’s enemy should be our friend”.

Eulogy (Tribute) offered by Subhash Chandra Bose and Rashbehari Bose to Veer Savarkar:

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose stated in his speech on Azad Hind Radio that it is encouraging to see Savarkar boldly encouraging Indian youth to enlist in the (then British) army, while the Congress leaders are choosing to mock them as mercenaries because of their irrational and unwise decisions. We at the Indian National Army (INA) have trained soldiers because of Savarkar’s efforts.

It is now possible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Savarkar communicated with Rashbehari Bose. It’s also evident from this evidence that Rashbehari Bose supported Savarkar’s campaign to get young Indians to enlist in the army.

The biography of Savarkar was written by Rashbehari Bose and published in the Japanese magazine ‘Dai Ajia Shugi’ in late March and early April. It had the title “Savarkar – Work and personality of the rising leader of New India”. Additionally, Rashbehari Bose once said, “One would feel politically empowered only if one (understands and) agrees with Savarkar’s views”. So, Savarkar certainly holds a special place among the greatest Indian freedom fighters.

Accusation 4:

SAVARKAR WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE TWO-NATION THEORY

Rebuttal Points:

It wasn’t pioneered by Savarkar in the first place!

Sir Syed Ahmed originally put out the two-nation idea in 1878. It was further supported by the famous Urdu poet Muhammad Iqbal. Later, it was embraced by the Muslim League, led by Jinnah, as a demand for partition. Savarkar’s numerous remarks make it abundantly evident that he was unrelated to these happenings.

Savarkar had urged the Hindu Mahasabha activists (who were his followers) to oppose the nation’s partition:

Savarkar highlighted that he was being mistakenly portrayed as the creator of the two-nation idea by purposefully misrepresenting his entire views as stated in an interview with the daily ‘Kaal’ (published on August 19, 1943).

Savarkar further stated, “Basically, Muslims all over the world, have always considered themselves to be a separate religious nation under the leadership of the Caliph (the Caliphate). However, in reality, Hindus by themselves constitute a nation from the perspective of a (modern) political democracy. They are in the majority and have been inhabiting this country from time immemorial. Muslims, on the other hand, are an aggressive minority”. Savarkar had always urged his supporters to resist the impending partition of India brought about by the Muslim community’s (aggressive) stance.

One more accusation was thrown on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and with the help of this accusation, many politicians have maintained their filthy political prowess over the years. The accusation is that Savarkar was involved in the assassination of M.K. Gandhi. The court had then fully cleared Savarkar of this accusation due to the lack of any corroborative evidence. Now, it is accurate to say that Nathuram Godse was once a follower of Savarkar. But once, Savarkar resigned from the presidentship of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1946, Godse and others were not in touch with Savarkar at all. 

Later on, a ‘Kapur Commission’ was established to re-open the case of Gandhi’s assassination which did try to paint Savarkar as one of the guilty in the plot to kill Gandhi. Certain individuals even went so far as to claim that Savarkar’s bodyguard Appa Kasar and secretary Gajanan Damle had admitted before the Kapur commission that they knew Savarkar was involved in the (Gandhi) murder plot.

In actuality, though, neither Kasar nor Damle ever gave a testimony before the panel, even though their testimonies had already been recorded by the Bombay police on March 4, 1948. They were not called as witnesses in the case of the killing of Gandhi. Among the 101 witnesses the Kapur Commission looked at, their names are NOT on the list. 

Recently in 2018, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the conclusions that were drawn on Savarkar in the Kapur Commission and stated that “The submission of the petitioner that Shri Savarkar has been held guilty for the murder of Gandhiji is misplaced!’”