People's Democracy

BHASKAR GHORPADE, a London-based Indian barrister, is one who has done Indian archaeology an important service. It was his efforts that were mainly responsible in getting the invaluable 12th century bronze idol of Sivapuram Nataraja back to India. In July 1994, Ghorpade, who considers himself a historian of sorts, announced he had unearthed an important document that would throw light on a particular chapter of India's pre-Independence history.

The document was the minutes of an 'inquiry' held at London's Gray's Inn in 1909 and related to the anti-British activities of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar", who was one of the founders of the Hindu Mahasabha and is considered to be the father of the anti-Muslim Hindutva ideology aggressively propagated by the Sangh parivar. According to Ghorpade it was this 15-day inquiry which resulted in the denial of barristership to Savarkar; the minutes of the inquiry, he says, reaffirm "the great revolutionary qualities of Savarkar."

Savarkar born on May 28, 1883, in Maharashtra's Nasik distirct, went to London in June 1906 to pursue studies to become a barrister, on a scholarship provided by the famous revolutionary Shyamji Krishna Verma. But he ended up forming an organisation called "Free India Society," committed to overthrowing British rule in India. For doing this and engaging in other anti-British activities Savarkar was not called to the bar. He appealed to the authorities of Gray's Inn to reconsider the decision. The inquiry took place on this appeal. Ghorpade says the minutes reveal Savarkar was offered a call to the bar if he gave an undertaking not to participate in politics. But Savarkar rejected the proposal.

For admirers of Savarkar this revelation underlines the "heroism and dedication" of their hero. Mahant Avaidyanath, the Hindu Mahasabha member of parliament from Gorakhpur, says this recent, important finding also proves that nothing, neither blandishments nor threats, could shake Savarkar from the path he had chosen, that of sacrificing himself totally for his motherland. "If he had accepted the inquiry committee's offer and given up political activity, he would have become one of the most famous advocates in British India. He could have amassed wealth and led a comfortable life. But Savarkarji was made of different stuff. He had no concern other than Bharat and its glory. Political activity leading to freedom was his life breath. Other incidents of his life also prove this. He is the greatest revolutionary Bharat has seen: greater than Bhagat Singh, Raj Guru and all others put together," Avaidyanath told Frontline.

But was Savarkar such a great, dedicated revolutionary thoroughout his life? Was he wedded to political life and the freedom struggle inseparably as it is made out by the advocates of Hindutva? A closer look at Savarkar's life and at documents relating to his life reveals that at many points in his life, he had subjugated himself to the British empire, thus attracting the charge of inconsistency. Material that was available, but was kept under cover for nearly eight decades, shows Savarkar's true colours.

What is clear from a study of these documents, many of them, available with the National Archives, New Delhi, is that Savarkar sought his release from British prisons not merely by giving an undertaking not to engage in political activity but also by acknowledging that he had a fair trial and a just sentence. It was this undertaking and the unheroic assurance that he had a fair trial that finally led to his release on January 6, 1924. The day marked the end of Savarkar's life in British prisons, including the Cellular Jail in the Andamans, Presidency Jail in Calcutta and Yerwada Jail in Pune. Altogether he had spent 23 years in British prisons, starting from January 30, 1911.

Savarkar was sentenced to jail for a total of 50 years on the basis of two cases. One of them related to the killing of Jackson, the Collector of Nasik who was murdered on December 21, 1909 by Kishore Kanhare of the Abhinav Bharath, an organisation founded by Savarkar. The assassination was a reprisal for Jackson referring V D Savarkar's elder brother Ganesh Savarkar's case of sedition to the sessions judge who sentenced him to life imprisonment on June 9, 1909. Thirty others were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, including transportation for life.

Investigations had shown that the revolver used to kill Jackson was from a consignment of arms and ammunition sent by Savarkar from London. Though Savarkar escaped the police dragnet during the hearing of the case, the British police caught up with him on March 13, 1910, and shipped him to Bombay on July 1, 1910. On the way, when the ship was about to dock at Marsailles, Savarkar jumped into the sea in a bid to escape. But his escort, with the help of the French police, captured him.

Savarkar was tried in Nasik for his involvement in the Jackson murder and in Bombay in a case alleging "efforts to overthrow the legally formed government of the country." In the Bombay case he was sentenced for life on December 24, 1910. Twenty five others were sentenced to various terms. The special tribunal for the Nasik conspiracy case sentenced him on January 30, 1911, to transportation for life.

According to one of his biographers, Dr Bhawan Singh Rana, these two sentences were to run separately and were for a minimum term of 50 years. In his book Veer Savarkar in Hindi he quotes from the judgement of the Special Judge, Basil Scott: "A dangerous criminal like Savarkar should undergo two sentences for transportation for life, i.e 50 years in Andamans." Fifty years later, on November 15, 1961, the anniversary of this sentence was celebrated by the Hindu Mahasabha as "Mritunjay Mahotsav."

The greater part of Savarkar's jail term was spent in the Cellular Jail. Life in the Cellular Jail - Savarkar vividly described the wretched conditions in his autobiography written in Marathi - seems to have broken his spirit completely and it was this that led to his conditional release which signified nothing short of abject surrender. As a matter of fact, Savarkar and his family had started negotiating with the British authorities as early as 1920 even while the Congress and other organisations fighting for Independence were agitating for his unconditional release.

It was in 1922, that Savarkar's family first approached the Bombay Presidency Government, under whose provincial jurisdiction he was convicted, for his release. This request was rejected. Throughout 1923, he and his family members pursued the objective relentlessly. Throughout these operations, Savarkar and his family displayed an increasing tendency to mollify the British authorities. The release order and other related documents make this clear beyond any doubt. The release order issued by the Governor exercising the power conferred on him by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, reads as follows: "(1) That the said Vinayak Damodar Savarkar will reside within the territories administered by the Governor of Bombay in Council and within the Ratnagiri District within the said territories, and will not go beyond the limits of that district without the permission of Government, or in case of urgency, of the District Magistrate. (2) That he will not engage publicly or privately in any manner of political activities without the consent of government for a period of five years, such restriction being renewable at the discretion of Government at the expiry of the said term."

Savarkar accepted these conditions without any compunction. But this was not all. Seeing his spirit broken and will power completely shattered, the Government suggested that he should state that his trial was fair and the sentence awarded was just. At the same time, it told him this was "in no way made a condition of his release". Yet, he went ahead and made this statement: "I hereby acknowledge that I had a fair trial and just sentence. I heartily abhor methods of violence resorted to in days gone by, and I feel myself duty bound to uphold Law and the constitution to the best of my powers and am willing to make the Reform a success insofar as I may be allowed to do so in future."

The reference to the Reform here is to the Montagu-Chelmsford proposals of 1919 which fell woefully short of Indian hopes and expectations and were rejected by all sections of Indians. Here Savarkar went out of his way in offering his mite to make them a success. Soon after his release, Dr K B Hedgewar, the founder of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), came to meet Savarkar in Ratnagiri; he is said to have obtained Sarvarkar's wholehearted support to the founding of the RSS, which was inaugurated on Vijayadasami day, 1925.

The story of Savarkar's surrender to British imperialism does not end here. In February 1925, serious communal trouble broke out in Kohat town of the North-West Frontier Province (NFWP), Jivan Das of Kohat had written a booklet, Rangila Rasool, portraying Prophet Mohammed in bad light. This caused communal riots in Kohat, in other towns in the NWFP and in the western parts of the then Punjab. As rumours spread throughout the country, Savarkar felt so agitated he wrote an article in the Mahratta of Pune on March 1, 1925.

The Government did not take to this kindly. He was warned that "any future writings of a similar character will be regarded by Government a sufficient justification for reconsidering the question of his release". Post-haste, despite his having very strong views on the Kohat incidents, Savarkar sent a longish explanation at the end of which he thanked the Government for having given him an opportunity to explain himself and hoped that in future too they would be pleased to be as kindly disposed towards him. In this letter, dated April 6, 1925, he made it clear he would have no truck with the idea of Swaraj: "The only place where the word Swaraj occurs is at the end of the third paragraph and there it is obvious that a reference is not at all to show or indicate what I or other people think of Swaraj but in what exaggerated terms Mr Gandhi thinks of Khilafat."

The Government was not mollified even by this. It told him curtly on May 6, 1925 it considered his explanation far from satisfactory. "…it should have been obvious to you that an article of the nature which you published in the issue of Mahratta of the 1st March, 1925 was bound to inflame the feelings and increase the tension between Hindus and Muhammadans and was contrary to your undertaking not to engage in any manner in political activities without the consent of Government."

This letter was received by Savarkar on May 8 through the district Magistrate. It so unnerved him that the very next day he wrote back to D O' Flynn, Acting Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Home Department, thus: "…I most humbly beg to request inasmuch as this order came to my hand on the 8th of May, all my writings and speeches prior to that date should not be subjected to that interpretation as they were guided by the first or direct interpretation I naturally put on the meaning of terms of my condition of release."

Savarkar took fright that the Government might resort to some severe action against him for some of the writings and speeches made between March and May 8. One warning from the Government, and his concern for the so-called welfare of Hindus had disappeared into thin air.

The period of the conditions attached to his release was extended by two years after the expiry of five years in 1929; it was extended again in 1931, 1933 and 1935. In view of the elections and the impending takeover of the reins of the government by elected representatives, the Government left the matter to be decided by the new government, which, in May 1937, removed the conditions completely. Immediately thereafter Savarkar became the president of the Hindu Mahasabha and started heaping abuse on Mahatama Gandhi and the Congress.

It is not as though the biographers of Savarkar did not know about this act of surrender which in a sense undid all the revolutionary feats attributed to him and made him a legend. But they camouflaged it in such a way that the facts were not made public. Veer Savarkar, written by Dhananjay Keer and considered by many to be the most authentic biography of Savarkar, relates the incidents leading to his conditional release thus: "…Now helpful winds began to blow in his direction. Sir Rufus Issacs, now Lord Reading, who as Solicitor-General had led for the crown in Savarkar's extradition trial in England was Governor-General of India. He must have felt sympathy for Savarkar. His Excellency Sir George Lloyd, the Governor of Bombay, came with his councillors to interview Savarkar. Lt Col J H Murray, I M S who was the Jail Superintendent in the Cellular Jail was now at Yerwada as the Jail Superintendent. The conditions for release were prepared in the light of the discussions held between Savarkar and the Governor who was accompanied by A Montgomerie, the then Home Member. After substituting a few words, Savarkar accepted the conditions and signed the terms on December 27, 1923. On January 4, 1924 Dr Svarkar (V D Savarkar's brother) was informed that his brother would be released on January 6 and he was allowed to make arrangements for his brother's stay in Ratnagiri in consultation with him."

In the paragraph preceding this the biographer did refer to the demands for Savarkar's unconditional release made in many forums including the Kakinada session of the Indian National Congress. However, Savarkar's decision to accept a highly conditional release is explained away as "helpful winds blowing in his direction". Anand Vidyasagar, Ramnachandra Rao and Harindra Srivastva, who wrote Savarkar: A study in the Evolution of Indian Nationalism, Vande Mataram and Five Stormy Years: Savarkar in London respectively , do not refer to the statement that the "hero" added to the release conditions and the loyalty he expressed to the British laws and Constitution.

As for the followers of Savarkar and his ideology such as Avaidyanath, this ignoble chapter of Savarkar's life does not exist at all. Avaidyanath questioned the very existence of Savarkar's statement that he had had a fair trial. "It is not possible that he gave a statement like that," Avaidyanath insisted. But these documents necessitate a reappraisal of Savarkar's contribution to the freedom struggle and raise important questions regarding the genesis of the Hindu Mahasabha.

Is it possible that the British Government was using Savarkar to create an anti-Congress outfit, discovering in him a Hindu Jinnah to help them effectively implement their divide-and-rule policy? Nobody had ridiculed and castigated Mahatma Gandhi, the unquestioned leader of the Congress and the Indian masses, in the 1920s and 1930s as Savarkar did. Jinnah was to do it much later but in a much milder and cultured style.

Although Savarkar's conditional release was not much of a secret at the time when it occurred - it was criticised by sections of the press at that time - it was cleverly covered up by the Hindutva combine which conferred on him the title of "Veer Savarkar". The inconsistencies in his involvement in the freedom struggle were swept under the carpet and he was glorified as a person who gave a new direction to India's modern self-realisation.

(Courtesy : Frontline, issue dated April 7, 1995)