Category Archives: Gandhi-Murder Case

A. G. Noorani at his malicious tongue-wagging again!!

Posted on by
Download PDF
Hi, Everyone! I have to say, A. G. Noorani is tireless in his malicious and malevolent misrepresentation of Savarkar!! He was at it again on the death anniversary of the Mahatma with his article in the Hindu @ http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/how-savarkar-escaped-the-gallows/article4358048.ece

I immediately wrote an article in reply, but the Hindu did not publish it, nor did they answer any emails sent to them in connection to it.

In this particular article I am specifically exposing Noorani’s blatant misrepresentations upon which he bases his spurious claims of Savarkar’s complicity in the death of the Mahatma.

·        How long must we remain silent in the face of this gross injustice to Savarkar?

The only way to combat malicious outpourings such as Noorani’s is to educate ourselves re the true facts and speak up.

So, readers, do please read my article which has, very fortunately, been published in www.niticentral.com. Here is the link:

For more information on this, do check the Gandhi-murder Casecategory in my blog.

Anurupa

And More Wagging of a Malicious Tongue . . .

Posted on by
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 . . .

Posted on by
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 . . .

Posted on by
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

Posted on by
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

Posted on by
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

Posted on by
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.

Kapur Commission, Part II

Posted on by
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


 

Kapur Commission, Part I

Posted on by
Download PDF

“His reputation is what men say he is. That can be damaged; but reputation is for time, character is for eternity.”

- John B. Gough

Without beginning nor end am I, Inviolable am I.

Vanquish me? In this world no such enemy is born!

- V. D. Savarkar, Atmabal

 

Hi, Everyone! The Kapur Commission, the Commission of Inquiry into the Conspiracy to Murder Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, was set up in 1966 as a one-man commission. Justice Jivanlal Kapur was the one man who was in charge of this commission. It took three years to complete the inquiry.

The Commission chased down a plethora of witnesses and has recorded some minute details which throw light on the events that happened those fateful days around the end of January, 1948.

·        But for all that there are some crucial findings the Commission did not look into, particularly with respect to Savarkar.

·        Also, there is a grave evidence of bias—a bias against Savarkar and a bias in favor of the Government of India.

I shall come to these points soon, but let me comment on the limitations of this Commission first.

·        A Commission that was to look into an event of such a magnitude should never have been a one-man show. To preclude all possibility of bias there should have been a panel of judges.

·        There were three aspects to consider in the death of Gandhi:

a)     There was an initial conspiracy and then the second act of killing.

b)    There was the question of the police investigation which for some inexplicable reason was not able to prevent the assassination of the Mahatma.

c)     There was the aftermath of Government reprisal. The aftermath of brutality of the police investigation.

These aspects should have been on the Commission’s agenda.

The Kapur Commission was not setup to deliver unbiased justice, so one is not surprised that it didn’t!

Bias of Kapur Commission against Savarkar:

While researching my novel, I was able find evidence of Savarkar’s state of mind, his opinions, and the position he held re India. I was able to find the evidence of his relationship with Nathuram Godse and the point at which they differed in their beliefs. I could do that with my limited resources.

·        Why was Kapur unable to discover it?

Why did he not discover that Savarkar’s clear position was to not create friction with the Government of free India? When there was threat to the country from without, it is particularly inopportune to create a threat from within. Country first was Savarkar’s abiding principle. He had said publicly that the tri-color flag of India was to be respected and had even hoisted it on the Independence Day against the resolution of the Hindu Mahasabha.

Also, Nathuram has stated his differences with Savarkar in his statement.

So why did Kapur disregard all of that? When neither Savarkar nor Nathuram were living to speak for themselves, their own writings and actions should have been considered. Surely there were witnesses who could have testified to this too? Why was it not done?

Kapur has also rehashed the so-called evidence dished out by Prosecutors trying Savarkar and which the Court subsequently dismissed as not being proof of Savarkar’s involvement.

·        So why is Kapur using that to point fingers at Savarkar?

Then there are the statements of Gajanan Damle and Appa Kasar both of whom now mention that Savarkar met Nathuram at some point.

·        Neither had any evidence of what was said in those meetings—if they actually took place.

Surely a Supreme Court Judge does not consider this as evidence?

Throughout the Commission’s findings Kapur refers to Nathurman and Apte as “Savarkarites” or failing that “Savarkar and his group.”

·        Is “Savarkarite” a term that should appear in this legal document? This is a highly prejudicial term to use; it implies Savarkar’s involvement without there being any basis for it.

·        Nor is there any reason to use the term “Savarkar and his group.” There is no foundation laid to justify the use of this term in connection with Gandhi’s murder.

·        Savarkar staunchly stood for the rights of the Hindus; he advocated that Hindus defend themselves when the Government so obviously would and could not. That is a completely separate issue from conspiring to Murder Gandhi.

This particularly confusion of ideas is evident in the minds of many, but it is unacceptable in a Supreme Court Judge, especially upon whom rests the onus of the truth.

 

Kapur also makes a statement that “all these facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group”.

·       Again I ask, why call them “Savarkar and his group”? The others charged were convicted. There was no need to theorize about them. So who does he mean by saying “Savarkar and his group”?

·       Nor is he right by saying there is no other theory for why the murder of Gandhi took place.

Even I, without any legal training can vouchsafe a theory that is more than enough to raise reasonable doubt.

No, the facts are not destructive of “any other theory.” That I shall be writing on in the following posts.

But by writing so, Kapur has fostered the prejudices of the people and allowed writers of A. G. Noorani’s ilk to perpetrate the idea of Savarkar’s involvement in Gandhi’s murder.

The voices flinging mud against Savarkar rise loud and clear, year after year—and again this year too!

But the voices in support of Savarkar are silent. I too was just such a silent voice. For the last four years I have writhed in silent pain at the injustice of it all. But no more; I have decided that come what may, I must speak out.

Anurupa


 

A Diabolical Masterstroke . . . !

Posted on by
Download PDF
“A reputation once broken may possibly be repaired, but the world will always keep their eyes on the spot where the crack was.”

                                                                                               – Joseph Hall

 

Hi, Everyone! In the last so many posts we have seen the lengths that Gandhi-Nehru-led Congress went to in getting rid of their “bête noire”—as they saw him—Jinnah.

Nehru has even written in his jail diary on December 28, 1943:

“Instinctively I think it is better to have Pakistan or almost nothing if only to keep Jinnah far away and not allow his muddled and arrogant head from (sic) interfering continually in India’s progress” (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; First Series; Vol.13; page 324).

For them partition of the Indian motherland was not too big a price to pay in their quest for power . . . !

Savarkar was another whom the Congress High Command considered a thorn in their flesh. They must have wished dearly that he too could be got rid of; for though in failing health and retired from politics, Savarkar was still a force to be reckoned with. He had been exposing the Congress’s harmful intent toward India—how they must have gnashed their teeth over it!—and there was every chance that the Hindu Mahasabha could be a formidable opponent in the next elections.

How to neutralize both must have been a thought that occupied Jawaharlal Nehru’s mind after independence.

And then an ideal opportunity fell into his lap. With a diabolical masterstroke, Nehru (as the Prime Minister of India he can certainly be held responsible for it) entangled Savarkar by charging him as a co-conspirator in the Mahatma’s assassination. And he simultaneously unleashed such a Reign of Terror against all the Hindutva-minded people, that people were forced to dust their hands of Savarkar just to save their own skins.

So much mud was flung at Savarkar, his name, his reputation that even an acquittal from the Special Court of India was not enough to wash away the mud.

Even today, Congress and its mouthpieces continue to fling mud at him. This was one of the first things I realized when I began researching on Savarkar four years ago. This injustice is what has driven me to write my novel Burning for Freedom. And now drives me to expose Gandhi and the Congress Culpability in the partition of India.

In India, at least as far as Savarkar is concerned, never mind the concept of “Innocent until proven guilty”—even the concept of “Innocent when proven innocent by the Court” is not accepted!!

I have come across many people—and not just Congress-followers, but people who claim to be “Savarkarites” and others too—who imply that Savakar was involved in the conspiracy of Gandhi’s assassination just because he was closely associated with Nathuram Godse.

Today, Savarkar and his name and reputation are victims of Congress Savarkar-bashing, brainwashing of the Indians, and an apparent inability of many to grasp the legalities along with no respect for the Indian Judiciary system that acquitted Savarkar.

Unfortunately, it is clearly a case of “too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”[1]

It is extraordinary that Indians are as one in turning a blind eye toward the numerous and horrific dodgy doings of their Mahatma—and yet they are unable to take a suspicious eye off Savarkar for things he did not do!

In the next five posts I am going to write on some details of the Gandhi-Murder Case and the Kapur Commission which (aided and abetted by Frontline and A. G. Noorani) has quite a large hand in maintaining the fiction of Savarkar’s involvement in Gandhi’s assassination.

Anurupa


 



[1] John F. Kennedy