Excerpts of Savarkar’s interview by an American journalist

Download PDF
“O Goddess of Freedom . . .
Here is The Bounteous One, our very own Motherland,
Why oh, why did you push her away?
Oh why did your Motherly love of old wither away?
Oh so anguished is my soul!
For she is now but a slave to others,
Why oh why did you abandon her so,
Answer me, I pray!”

         V. D. Savarkar, Jayostute
(translation by Anurupa Cinar)

Hi, Everyone! Here are some rare excerpts of an interview of Savarkar with an American journalist. The exact date is not known, but the year is 1943, judging by the content.

The interview is entirely from the perspective of an American. But point to note is that here is proof indeed that Savarkar had become a force to be considered in a very short time. Specific comments to highlight this are in red.

The journalist makes some very puzzling comments re Savarkar’s appearance. Savarkar, of course, must have worn his dhoti which may have appeared like a nightgown to American eyes. But why should it have been dirty? Why were the glasses specked? Why the unshaven cheeks? From all reports, Savarkar wore pristine clothes and was immaculately turned out.

·        Was it the journalist’s imagination? Was Savarkar prone to the 5 o’clock shadow? Or had he just returned from a hectic tour and had no time to tidy himself?

I don’t know.

There was no ostentation in Savarkar’s room. It was austere in the extreme—maybe even dull and dreary. Perhaps that colored Treanor’s opinion.

Anyway, here are the interview excerpts:

“Would you wish that I should confess to you everything?” asked old man Savarkar.

I hadn’t meant to ask an awkward question. I thought perhaps since he’d been con­victed and served time it was all a matter of record. He had already admitted they wanted to hang him and that he had gotten off with 50 years.

What I was curious to know was whether the old man, now so respectable, had actually thrown the bombs which killed the high government officials in England. That was when he said:

“Would you wish that I should confess to you everything?”

It was some other fel­lows and he wasn’t saying who. It’s not important now, anyway. That was way back at the beginning of the cen­tury when Savarkar was sowing his wild oats as a terrorist.

It was before my time. It’s like storybook stuff when bombs had fuses that revolu­tionaries lit with a match. That was Savarkar’s time as a revolutionary in London and later in India.

Now he’s in good odor de­spite the fact that some of his fellow terrorists threw a bomb at a viceroy. Those were the days.

Savarkar is quite a sight to western eyes. He’s a leading politician at the mo­ment, head of the Hindu Mahasabha . . .

Savarkar was not specially dressed for the occa­sion of this interview. He looked at his worst. His sunken cheeks were unshaven, his perfectly round, metal-rimmed eyeglasses were specked, and he was dressed in a soiled length of cloth which looked like a nightgown and was insecurely fastened in front with silver studs, some of them missing.

But he didn’t appear to give damn. He is interested in ideas. I didn’t tell him that in America people are apt to consider political ideas dull and he apparently doesn’t suspect it. When he talked over his plans he seemed to see a great American political audience with a voracious appetite for Indian politics.

His voice would become like a phonograph record and he would go on and on, braiding and unbraiding a tired look­ing handkerchief while be carried on about the Hindu Mahasabha.

I suppose he’s a little of a fanatic to our taste. But he has a certain power of personality and is definitely a figure of some importance on the Indian political scene today, particularly now that many of the leading Hindus are de­tained along with the Mahatma.

To savarkar it must be rather odd to be almost the only one not detained.

As a consequence of his terrorist activities, he was sen­tenced to 50 years in all. The first 14 he served in solitary confinement on the Andaman Islands, when the “old war,” as he called it, broke out, and one thing led to another and he was transferred to the mainland. He spent another 14 years interned in a village and six years ago was set free.

How he managed it I don’t know, but despite all that con­finement he was enough in tune with the spirit of the times to get into the political whirl and come to the top of a strong minority party which exerts a considerable influence today. He’s a real story. I for­got to mention that his ter­rorist party was active in California 40 years ago, trying to line up the Sikhs in Central California.

I got him on the subject of Gandhi and the fast. As is everyone, he was respectful to the Mahatma, but he wasn’t respectful to the so called weapon of the fast. I judge he thinks fasters—al­ways excepting Gandhi, who is in a special category even to his political opponents—be fed through the nose with milk. At least he used that expression several times.

“If a fast is so effective,” he asked, “why doesn’t Churchill fast against Hitler? What would Hitler say?”

I couldn’t think for the moment what Hitler would say. But Mr. Savarkar is sure it would be something rude.

Then we fell to talk­ing about America’s interest in India. As an old terrorist who did 14 years solitary confine­ment, he did not gush the usual sentimentality that America should offer some influence because her heart is pure. I am tired, as a matter of fact, of Indians who want us to help them because our heart is pure.

“The world is run by self-interest, not the Bible,” he said. “What is your self-interest in India?”

He offered that our self-interest was as a fighting base, now and in the future. He fore­sees a long fighting future of 50 years before we get the world settled and thinks we would be smart to have a little Indian good will.

“Why not oblige India?” he asked. “You will need her someday.”

And That’s it!
Toodle-oo!
Anurupa


 

Savarkar’s Constitution for India

Download PDF

 

“The living owe it to those who no longer can speak to tell their story for them.”
Czestaw Mitosz, The Issa Valley: A Novel

Anti-propagandists and detractors have been writing so fast and furiously saying that Savarkar was “communal,” anti-Muslim, and what not that this erroneous, unjust accusation has come to be an accepted fact.

Anyone who will take the trouble to read Savarkar’s words in their original form will see the truth for themselves.

I am presenting below the main points of Savarkar’s guideline for India’s proposed Constitution. You can judge for yourself how very democratic his ideas were. He truly believed in equal rights for all.

Savarkar’s Proposed Guidelines for the
National Constitution of Hindustan

(A) Hindustan from the Indus to the Seas will and must remain as an organic nation and integral centralized state.

(B) The residuary powers shall be vested in the Central Government.

(C) All citizens shall have equal rights and obligations irrespective of caste or creed, race or religion—provided they avow and owe an exclusive and devoted allegiance to the Hindustani State.

(D) The fundamental rights of conscience, of worship, of association etc. will be enjoyed by all citizens alike; whatever restrictions will be imposed on them in the interest of the public peace and order or national emergency will not be based on any religious or racial considerations alone but on common national ground.

(E) “One man, one vote” will be the general rule irrespective of creed, caste, race, or religion.

(F) Representation in the Legislature etc. shall be in proportion to the population of the majority and minorities.

(G) Services shall go by merit alone.

(H) All minorities shall be given effective safeguards to protect their language, religion, culture etc. but none of them shall be allowed to create “a state within a state” or to encroach upon the legitimate rights of the majority.

(I) All minorities may have separate schools to train their children in their own tongue, religion, or culture, and can receive government help also for these, but always in proportion to the taxes they pay into the common exchequer.

(J) In case the constitution is not based on joint electorates and on the unalloyed national principle of one man one vote but is based on the communal basis, then those minorities who wish to have separate electorates or reserve seats will be allowed to have them, but always in proportion to their population and provided that it does not deprive the majority also of an equal right in proportion to its population too.

Mr. J. D. Joglekar has given an interesting “Vignette” in his Veer Savarkar: Father of Hindu Nationalism:

“I started reading books on nationalism in 1942. In the next four years I read considerable literature on that subject. I also read Savarkar’s Hindutva a few times. Therein he has written, “It may be that at some future time the word ‘Hindu’ may come to indicate a citizen of Hindustan and nothing else.’ This clearly shows that Savarkar was ready to include Muslims and Christians in the family of the Hindus. In his concept of nationalism, loyalty to land and secularism had primacy.

In 1946, Savarkar was staying in a hotel in Poona for some much needed rest and change. I met him there. While discussing the above point I said to  him, ‘I do not understand why Hindu Sanghatanists are dubbed communalists?’

          ‘I write for people. I cannot read for them. If my reading would have helped them to understand what I say, I would have done that,’ he said.”

Anurupa

And More Wagging of a Malicious Tongue . . .

Download PDF

 

“Upon my tongues continual slanders ride,
Which in every language I pronounce,
Stuffing the ears of men with false reports.”

  William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part 2
 

Hi, Everyone! I found a write-up on this link I am giving below (I have pasted the contents at the end of this post:

It begins with the following words:

“Recommended, particularly for those who call him, inaccurately, “Veer” Savarkar.”

Since I have absolutely decided I shall not remain quiet anymore, I dashed off a comment. Unfortunately, it was not posted by the moderator of the website. I did write to the contact person of “longreads” too but received no answer.

So I am posting my answer here:

“I, Anurupa Cinar, am writing this as one who very correctly describes Savarkar as one of the greatest freedom fighters of India. I say this with the authority of four years of intensive research on Savarkar, Gandhi, and the Freedom Movement of India. I have presented my research conclusions in the form of a novel “Burning for Freedom”, released in June 2012.

What I have not been able to address there, I am presenting to everyone as a series of blog posts on my blog, www.anurupacinar.blogspot.com. The topic I am currently writing on there is, Gandhi Facts: Gandhi Revealed

To get back to the issue of Savarkar’s petitions. Savarkar himself has written in many places, has advised other freedom fighters, too, that any petition or pledge made to the British, the enemy of Mother India’s freedom, is not worth the paper it is written on. Sign it, get free, and continue to work as free Indians for the cause of India, so he has always avowed. Of course, there are petitions he made to the British, but when he was free after making them, he continued to work for freedom of India.

He made these petitions, but unlike Gandhi, he never, ever avowed allegiance or loyalty to the British. Visit my blog for Gandhi’s loyalty to the British.

Any true Indian would be washed over by shame before bringing up Savarkar’s petitions in “free” and “democratic” India.

Before any mention is made of Savarkar’s petitions in free India, let us first see how his rights, and the rights of thousands of other Hindus, were trampled upon ruthlessly by the “democratic” Government of “free”  India! Savarkar was taken from his home in the early hours of the morning on February 5, 1948, with a trumped-up charge of “preventive measures” under the Bombay Security Act. He was not allowed to see anyone, not even a lawyer, until March 23, 1948!

Instead of imprisoning the actual culprits killing the Brahmins, Hindu Mahasabhaites, and RSSmembers, the Government went after the victims of these riots!

Savarkar’s petitions in “free,” “democratic” India reflect only upon the Government’s Reign of Terror.

For answers visit www.savarkar.org to read of what actually happened, and do read my novel “Burning for Freedom.” It is an eye-opener!

Anurupa Cinar

I do hope more voices will join mine.

Anurupa

The Text of the Post:

“Inamdar mentions how anxious Savarkar was about his fate. On February 22, while in detention at the Arthur Road Prison in Bombay, Savarkar gave a written undertaking to the Commissioner of Police: “I shall refrain from taking part in any communal or political public activity for any period the government may require in case I am released on that condition” (Exhibit D/104 in the case). This is not the conduct of a man innocent of the crime.

No appeal was filed against his acquittal. Yet another undertaking was given to Chief Justice M.C. Chagla and Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar in the Bombay High Court on July 13, 1950, while he was in detention. “He would not take any part whatever in political activity and would remain in his house” for a year. These were part of a sordid series of abject, demeaning apologies.

The first was on July 4, 1911, within six months of his entry in the Cellular Jail in the Andamans, where Advani wanted to build a memorial to him. The second and third were in October and November 1913 to Sir Reginald Craddock, Home Member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council. “I am ready to serve the government in any capacity they like…Where else can the prodigal son return but to the paternal doors of the government,” this “nationalist hero” wrote.

The fourth and fifth were submitted in 1914 and 1917. The sixth came on March 30, 1920. Its text was published in full in Frontline (see the writer’s article “Savarkar’s mercy petition”, Frontline; April 8, 2005). The seventh was submitted in 1924 ( Frontline, April 7, 1995). The ones of 1948 and 1950 were the eighth and ninth. Which other political figure had such a disgraceful record of abasement before the British during the Raj?

Gandhi’s murder was also one in a series—Curzon Wylie’s in London in 1909, A.T.M. Jackson, Collector of Nashik, in 1910; and the attempted murder of Acting Governor of Bombay Ernest Hotson in 1931. In each case Savarkar used others as his pawns.

Those who laud him ignore this long and consistent record from 1911 to 1950 because they value his doctrine.”

The Wagging of a Malicious Tongue . . .

Download PDF

 

“Upon my tongues continual slanders ride,
Which in every language I pronounce,
Stuffing the ears of men with false reports.”

 William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part 2
 

Hi, Everyone! From the very beginning of my research, A. G. Noorani came to my notice as a very particular Savarkar-basher. I do not know, nor intend to find out, why.

I am a very picky reader. I will read books which express views opposed to mine, but I have no respect for writers whose intent is malicious, who ridicule others, or who use coarse and vulgar language in expressing their opinions.

A. G. Noorani, in my opinion, falls in the bracket of one whose “intent is malicious.” There are no other words to describe his constant diatribe denouncing Savarkar. He throws together many words that give the illusion of being convincing arguments but upon reading have no substance.

The only reason I am mentioning him here is because he is at it again. He has an article published in Frontline where he is once again indulging in naming Savarkar as a co-conspirator in Gandhi’s assassination. After four years of my silence, I feel enough is enough. If we don’t speak out, people will only have the word of the detractors of Savarkar to follow.

That is why I wrote a letter to the editor of Frontline. The letter did get published though in a very much watered-down version. I am going to give here my letter in its totality.

“To,

Mr. R. Vijaya Sankar

Editor, Frontline

Subject:     Essay:   Savarkar and Gandhi’s Murder, by A. G. Noorani, Volume 29 – Issue 19, Sep. 22-Oct. 05, 2012

Dear Sir,

Every year or so Frontline and A. G. Noorani take it upon themselves to begin the Savarkar-bashing by rehashing the unsubstantiated, inconclusive, and irrelevant points re Savarkar’s alleged involvement in Gandhi’s murder.

Now, I, on the other hand have some pointed and very much relevant questions of you.

1)    Why did Morarji Desai not show the same diligence in the prevention of the Mahatma’s murder as he did in its investigation afterwards?

Indeed, why did not Sardar Patel appoint one man in charge of the investigation prior to Gandhi’s murder? Why was Nehru silent?

2)    Why did Morarji not take any action upon Dr. Jain informing him of the conspiracy to murder Gandhi? Dr. Jain claims he gave Morarji the names, but even if had not, could he not have been imprisoned (like the 20, 000 others who rotted there after Gandhi’s murder) and perhaps tortured to give that information, just like so many were tortured to cough up evidence against Savarkar?

Do read this article:

3)    Why was Nagarwala struggling ineffectually with mere instincts, when Delhi police had concrete knowledge, just like Morarji, that editors of Hindurashtra were involved in the conspiracy? A simple phone call would have given the names Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte.

And over and above all of this, even if nothing was known, a simple search of incoming people would have prevented a gun being taken into the prayer grounds.

·        Whywas this simple preventive action not taken?

·        Whywas the murder of the Mahatma which could have been so easily prevented, not prevented?

·        Whywas no Government official, minister, or policeman held responsible for this incredible, hard-to-swallow, utter incompetence?

It is time for Frontline and A. G. Noorani to put aside the vociferous yapping on Savarkar’s “moral” responsibility and time to talk of the Government’s culpability in the murder of the Mahatma, the Father of the Indian Nation.

We want answers to these questions.

Anurupa Cinar

Author Burning for Freedom

www.anurupacinar.com”

Tomorrow I shall post another comment I posted (but which never got past the website moderator) on the longreads website where the Frontline-Noorani duo are continuing their Savarkar bashing.

Anurupa

Savarkar: Framed by a picture . . .

Download PDF
“A picture is worth a thousand words—that just makes it a thousand times more efficient at innuendo, insinuation, and implication.”

         Anurupa Cinar

 

Hi, Everyone! Today I am going to give some excerpts from an affidavit submitted by Savarkar on May 18, 1948.

·        The stark words reveal the fact that Savarkar was allowed to meet his lawyer only after three-months plus of incarceration.

They also reveal another concern that Savarkar had—a group photograph taken with others suspected in being involved in the conspiracy to murder Gandhi.

For the entire document click here:

“I, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, do hereby swear and state on solemn affirmation as under:-

1.   That on 5th February, 1948, I was arrested, in my house “Savarkar Sadan” at Dadar, Bombay by the Bombay Police. I am, since then, under detention in the Arthur Road Prison, Bombay. . . .

4.   . . . I was remanded to Police custody. I was then taken to the Arthur Road Prison. The Bombay Police repeated the remand application from time to time and they were granted. The present remand expires on the 18th of May, 1948.

5.   That on the 11th of May, 1948, I was taken from the Arthur Road Prison, Bombay, to the C.I.D. Office by the Bombay Police Officers. I was then made to sit in a chair and Godse and others who are suspected to be concerned in the murder of Mahatma Gandhi were placed by my sides. We were then all photographed in a group. I disclaim any association with them of any of them at any time.

6.   That I apprehend that the same photograph may possibly be used to concoct evidence against me.

7.   That after I was photographed, as stated above, I got an opportunity, for the first time to see my advocate Mr. S.V. Deodhar on 14th May, 1948. . . . ”

How true was Savarkar’s concern is amply proved by the fact that this particular photo (and another taken on the first day of the trial) are used by several people on blogs, websites, books, or any place where they would like to finger Savarkar as a conspirator in Gandhi’s murder.

I give a typical comment re it below:

“There is a picture of Savarkar in that link which is very telling. All these people were accused of plotting to kill Mahatma Gandhi.”

Really, what does the picture actually tell? Only that Savarkar was charged in the Gandhi-murder Case. Unfortunately, the picture cannot speak and say that he was acquitted.

Sometimes the photo is accompanied by comments like these (or a variation thereof):

“Among those who sat in the dock he alone seemed to be well cast for the role he was playing.”

Sometimes there is an offending oval circling Savarkar’s face.

Yes, this picture has been a very efficient tool in the Savarkar-bashing trend. It is very difficult to combat an imagery produced by a picture.

Which is why I say:

“A picture is worth a thousand words—that just makes it a thousand times more efficient at innuendo, insinuation, and implication.”

Anurupa

Nehru’s Machiavellian Move, Part II

Download PDF

 

“If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared”

– Niccolo Machiavelli

 

Hi, Everyone! Do please forgive the glitches in the format of the post, for some reason I cannot iron them out right now.
 
Gandhi was murdered on January 30, 1948, and five days later, police came to Savarkar’s home at dawn and whisked him off to jail.

    The charge?

There was none!
Instead an order was passed under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947, and Savarkar was held in isolation, in jail without access to a lawyer. Below is the excerpt of the order:

“AND WHEREAS, I, JEHANGIR SOHRAB BHARUCHA, I.P., Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, am satisfied that the person known as Mr. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Bar.-at-Law, is acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the peace of Greater Bombay.

NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the said Act, I hereby direct that the said Mr. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Bar.-at-Law, be detained.”[1]

Note the words in bold. At a time when Savarkar’s home had been invaded by a maddened crowd, his brother severally injured by rioters; when people were rioting against the Brahmans, Hindu Mahasabhaites and RSS members; when the police were victimizing them and throwing them in jail for no reason—Savarkar, instead of getting protection, got jail time.

Freedom in India did not bring democracy—apparently only exchanged one tyrannical ruler for another!

Nehru had no qualms at throwing Savarkar in jail—a sixty-four-year-old Savarkar who was in extremely poor health.

This is how free India treated a fifty-year veteran of her freedom movement.

This is how free India treated a freedom fighter who suffered gross injustice in the legal system of the British Raj.

This is how free India treated a freedom fighter who suffered fourteen years hard labor in the worst of the British Raj jails.

Did Nehru for one second imagine what it must have been for Savarkar—who spent ten years in solitary isolation in the monstrous Cellular Jail—to back to solitary isolation in free India, stripped of all rights, when he had not even committed a crime?

In 1960, Nehru confessed to his friend Leonard Mosley one reason for accepting partition.

“The truth is that we were tired men, and we were getting on in years, too. Few of us could stand the prospect of going to prison again—and if we had stood out for a united India as we wished it, prison obviously awaited us.”[2]

Here we have a man

—Jawaharlal Nehru—who confesses to partitioning of India, inflicting indescribable horror and pain on India and Indians, just because he is afraid of facing jail, so heartlessly flinging Savarkar and so many others in jail . . . !

But then again, perhaps it is to be expected of such a man!

What comparison can there be in the kind of jail experience Nehru, the favorite of the British, experienced versus the horrors and indignity suffered by Savarkar?
I shall give you one comment on Nehru’s experience:

“On 31 October he [Nehru] too was arrested; he was subsequently tried and sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment. Churchill, who was shocked at the severity of the sentence, had to be assured that Nehru would in fact receive specially considerate treatment.” [3]

Yet Nehru feared being imprisoned.

What must Savarkar have gone through?

Did Nehru care?

Does anyone care?
 
Anurupa
 
Attributions for the quotes:
 

[2] History of the Freedom Movement of India, Vol. III, R. C. Majumdar, page 796.

[3] Transfer of Power, V. P. Menon, page 101.


 

  
 

 

Nehru’s Machiavellian Move, Part I

Download PDF
“The new ruler must determine all the injuries that he will need to inflict. He must inflict them once and for all.”

         Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

 
Hi, Everyone! I am going to give you all something to chew on. These are thoughts that have come to my mind, not something I have researched on.

There is a very important fact re the Gandhi-Murder Case that is largely ignored. There were two separate crimes committed in January of 1948.

·        The first was the attempted (or rather plan to) assassination of Gandhi on January 20, 1948

Also, an important point to consider here is, the assassination did not take place as the assassin changed his mind and decided not to kill the Mahatma. That should also change the legal complexion of the charge.

 

·        The second, the assassination of Gandhi on January 30, 1948.

Why were there not two separate trials?

Why?

The threadbare, hearsay (non)evidence that the Government had tortured out of Badge could, at a stretch, connect Savarkar to the first crime, the plan—one never actually carried out—to assassinate Gandhi.

·        Put in this proper perspective, it is immediately apparent that the legal consequence of this crime could not possibly be of the same magnitude as the legal consequence of conspiracy to murder.

There would be no possibility of Savarkar being sentenced to death, if the crimes were separated.

·        Also, the separation of the two crimes would immediately have led to a focus on why the Government of India could not prevent the murder of the Mahatma.

Only by rolling these two separate crimes into one Nehru—and again, as the Prime Minister he is certainly to be held responsible—could achieve so many goals:

1)      Utter ruin of Savarkar

2)      Cover-up of the Government culpability in not preventing the Mahatma’s murder

3)      Wiping out the Hindu-Sanghatanists

4)      By unleashing the Reign of Terror, the control of the press, and the bans, opposition was licked into shape and the common man was duped; Nehru reigned supreme as the “lovable” and beloved Prime Minister.

It was a Machiavellian move; it was a diablolical masterstroke.

Anurupa

Hell Hath No fury Like a Nehru Scorned

Download PDF

 

“Vengeance is a monster of appetite, forever bloodthirsty and never filled.”
         Richelle E. Goodrich, The Tarishe Curse.

Hi, Everyone! The Government of India had no evidence to charge Savarkar with, never mind trying him in court. The account below quoted from Manohar Malgonkar’s The Men Who Killed Gandhi (Lotus Collection, Roli Books, 2008) will give an idea of the horrendous extent Nehru resorted to in his vengeance against Savarkar.

Though Nehru is not specifically named, there was only one man who ranked above Sardar Patel in the cabinet and that was Jawarharlal Nehru. In any case, as the Prime Minister of India, Nehru must be held accountable for the doings of the Government under his command.  

I am quoting from the 2008 edition which as Malgonkar says “is now the complete single account of the plot to murder Gandhi.”[1]

Pages 281-85

“Savarkar being made an accused in the Gandhi-murder trial may well have been an act of political vendetta. Of course, Badge, on his track record is a slippery character and not to be relied upon, but he was most insistent to me that he had been forced to tell lies, and that his pardon and future stipend by the police department in Bombay depended upon his backing the official version of the case and, in particular that, he never saw Savarkar talking to Apte, and never heard him telling them: ‘Yeshaswi houn ya.’ [meaning: return with success.]

But many years later on 16 June 1983, the Poona newspaper Kal edited by S.R. Date, published a report on the subject, which was later reprinted in a volume published by the Savarkar Memorial Committee on 16 Feb. 89. I quote excerpts from it. It purports to report something that Savarkar’s counsel at the trial, L.B. (Annasahen) Bhopatkar, a Poona Lawyer, had revealed to his friends after he returned to Poona from Delhi in January 1949, after the Red Fort trial was over, and Savarkar found ‘Not Guilty’.

‘While in Delhi for the trial, Bhopatkar had been put up in the Hindu Mahasabha office. Bhopatkar had found it a little puzzling that while specific charges had been made against all the other accused, there was no specific charge against his client. He was pondering about his defence strategy when one morning he was told that he was wanted on the telephone, so he went up to the room in which the telephone was kept, picked up the receiver and identified himself. His caller was Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, who merely said; “Please meet me this evening at the sixth milestone on the Mathura road, “Please meet me this evening at the sixth milestone on the Mathura road,” but before Bhopatkar could say anything more, put down the receiver.

That evening, when Bhopatkar had himself driven to the place indicated he found Ambedkar already waiting. He motioned to Bhopatkar to get into his car which he, Ambedkar himself was driving. A few minutes later, he stopped the car and told Bhopatkar: There is no real charge against your client; quite worthless evidence has been concocted. Several members of the cabinet were strongly against it, but to no avail. Even Sardar Patel could not go against these orders. But, take it from me, there just is no case. You will win.’ Who . . . Jawaharlal Nehru? . . . But why?


They had arrested Savarkar even though they did not possess sufficient evidence to do so. To be sure, the mass of papers seized from his house had yielded scores of letters from Nathuram and half a dozen from Apte, but these were disappointingly innocuous. All that they did was to establish the fact that Nathuram and Apte knew Savarkar and held him in great esteem. But this in itself was not enough to satisfy a magistrate that a prima facie case existed so that he could issue a warrant.


This, however, was no more than a technicality, and they got over it by arresting him under the Preventive Detention Act—one of the most malignant pieces of legislation with which the British had armed themselves while they ruled India. Even though Indian politicians of all shades of opinion had persistently condemned the British for this Act, the Congress had been in no hurry to repeal it after the British had gone. Under its provisions Savarkar was initially held ‘as a detenu’. After that they proceeded to build up evidence against him that would enable them to change his detention into arrest, with what would be called ‘retrospective effect’.”

It was no secret that Savarkar had suffered tremendous injustice in his pre-independence trials:

·       In London in 1910 when the Court of Britain bent their law to deprive Savarkar of his rights.

·       At Hague (1910-11), where the motions of an arbitration were gone through to quiet the voices of protesters who demanded that Savarkar be given the rights trampled upon in Marseilles.

·       In India (1911) where the British Government of India having used skullduggery to get Savarkar extradited to Indian soil, then proceeded to use flimsy and inadequate evidence to sentence him to a total of fifty years of transportation.

All this he suffered for the freedom of his beloved motherland, India. And what did the Government of his beloved India do upon gaining independence—embroil him in yet another unjust trial, one aiming for the death penalty . . . !

·        Truly, I must say, when Nehru claimed, “I am the last Englishman to rule in India”[2] he certainly knew what he was talking about!!

He used the very same unjust laws and that the British used to wipeout freedom fighters in his efforts to annihilate Savarkar.

Anurupa



[1] As Malgonkar says, “One of the most prestigious magazines of the times, LIFE International, agreed to publish my story and commissioned a well-known photographer, Jehangir Gazdar, to visit the homes of the men in it to take photographs. It came out in the Magazine’s issue of February 1968. But by then I had realized that my story deserved a full book to itself. I broached the idea to my Agents in London and they agreed and found a publisher, Macmillan.” The first edition came out in the “emergency” political climate, so this particular incident given here was not included in it. In the following years other information was revealed. This particular 2008 edition incorporates all the information and is illustrated with unpublished documents and photographs as well.

 

[2]John Kenneth Galbraith’s book Name-dropping.

Power: The Corrupter

Download PDF

 

“The power to lead is the power to mislead, and the power to mislead is the power to destroy.”

    – Thomas S. Monson

“The measure of a man is what he does with his power.”

                                                                                                                – Plato

 
Hi, Everyone! With the independence of India, the political scene within the Congress fold had changed considerably. There was a shift in power. Prime Minister Nehru was in a strong position. He was no more the Second-in-Command; he was no more second to the Mahatma.

·       Throughout his political career Nehru had acquiesced in many of Gandhi’s suggestions and schemes, just to hang on to the power. He knew as well as the next man that to oppose the Mahatma was to commit political suicide. Now he had acquired that power. He didn’t need the Mahatma.

·       Of late years, especially after Noakhali, it was getting difficult to keep a lid on Gandhi’s sexual peccadillos—his predilection for young girls, even those from his own family. Gandhi himself was ready to talk of the “purity” of his “experiments.”

·       Gandhi had refused to pay respect to the flag of India as his charkha was out-voted in favor of the chakra. He had ranted and raved re that in his Harijan.

·       Gandhi’s latest debacle was interfering in Government policy and twisting the Government arm into handing the fifty-five crore Rupees to Pakistan.

Yes, he had only nuisance value for Nehru and the Government of India. In Lester Pearson’s biography he says Nehru had told him that Gandhi was a “hypocritical old man.”

Gandhi was no more the cossetted and spoilt favorite of the British. He was now an albatross around Nehru’s neck.

·       Could this be why there was such abysmal lack of protective security for the Mahatma? Even after the bombing event? 

One is hard put to it to not think it. The police of free India were the same that worked so brilliantly for the British. In the British times, hardly a scheme was allowed to materialize successfully, so efficiently did the police work! What changed then in free India?

·       Was it the orders they received?

Points to note:

·       Morarji Desai had the utter nerve to sanctimoniously point unjust fingers at Savarkar for complicity in Gandhi’s murder, when one word from him was all that was required to prevent Gandhi’s death.

·       Government of India arrested 20,000 people and tortured so many after the death of the Mahatma. Could they not have arrested a few to prevent the death of the Mahatma?

They had ten days, one culprit in custody, and direct information but did nothing to save the Mahatma.

·       After the death of the Mahatma, the Government of India galvanized into action and ruthlessly put to death the name and reputation of Savarkar—and were only prevented from putting him to death by the prevailing of justice in free India—and annihilated the Hindutva-minded people and their work.

This is why I call it their diabolical masterstroke. So many birds all killed with one stone—killed with the bullet that killed Gandhi.

Anurupa

Kapur Commission, Part II

Download PDF

Category: Gandhi-Murder Case

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

  Carl Sagan

 

Hi, Everyone! In all fairness I have to say Justice Kapur has given all the evidence of the Government’s and the police’s failure to prevent the murder of the Mahatma in his report. His bias lies in the way he has presented it.

I shall first give you the salient facts of the case.

On January 20, 1948, a bomb exploded 150 yards away from Gandhi’s prayer meeting. The police apprehended a Madanlal Pahwa red-handed. The police brutality being what it was, by January 24th they had information that his co-conspirators were editors of the Hindurashtra. They didn’t have the names.

·       I ask you: why could they not find out the names in the 6 days they had in hand before Gandhi’s murder?

Surely one phone call to the Hindu Mahasabha office, one issue of the magazine, and so many other perfectly easy ways were there to find this out? If not there was always the option of torturing people to get information—that was a standard police practice, after all.

 

 On the other side, In Mumbai, Madanlal’s friend Dr. Jain actually had information on the conspiracy. He could name Nathuram as one involved. He met Morarji Desai and told him all.

·       Whythen did Morarji, the Home Minister of Bombay Presidency not take any action?

Sardar Patel put one man in charge of the investigation to coordinate the Bombay and Delhi police only after Gandhi’s death. Why not before?

Refugees in Delhi were clamoring “Let Gandhi die” outside Birla House where Gandhi was staying. Surely, there should have been stringent, very stringent, security after the bomb blast at the hands of Madanla Pahwa, a refugee?

·       Whywas the Mahatma’s life not considered worthy of this basic protection?

To say that the Mahatma did not wish it is not a convincing argument. The Mahatma could not possibly say otherwise, for it would mean an out and out contradiction of his principle of nonviolence. But throughout his career the Mahatma took very good care to be surrounded by armed guards. He even took refuge behind them at the slightest sign of provocation.

The British had taken very, very good care to protect the Mahatma’s life, why did the Government of India not do the same?

·       A simple frisking of each person entering the prayer ground would have been enough to prevent this tragedy. But even that was not done.

Why?

Kapur instead of seeing the seriousness of all these Government and police omissions which led directly to the murder of the Mahatma, brushes it all under the carpet as mere “incompetence.”

·       If it were mere “incompetence” surely some heads would have rolled? Someone would have been held accountable by the Government?

·       Whydid no one resign?

Kapur also remains utterly silent on the number of people—20,000—thrown in jail by the Government after the murder of Gandhi. Nor does he make a peep re the fact that so many of them were tortured. Is there any value in court to any evidence that is tortured out of a man? Surely, many a man will say whatever the police want them to, just for the torture to stop?

Point to note:

Despite all of this, all the (non)evidence the Government could concoct against Savarkar was a hearsay evidence from Badge, one of the co-conspirators.

With the whole battery of the Government’s vicious, horrendous tactics unleashed upon the Hindus, and with the Reign of Terror that followed, there was still no evidence against Savarkar.

For there was no evidence to find!

The fact that none of this is in Kapur’s report, the fact that he does not hold the Government of India culpable in any way, is a sure indication of his bias in its favor.

Tomorrow I shall write on what possible reason the Government of India had to look the other way rather than prevent Gandhi’s death.

Anurupa