Rebuttal of Defamatory Article on Savarkar
An article defaming Swatantryaveer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
has been published in the issue of ‘The Week’ dated 24th January
2016. By distorting reality under the guise of research, the author has
slighted a great freedom fighter. The baseless allegations by A. G. Noorani and
Shamsul Aslam have been repeated, despite their having been categorically
contradicted repeatedly in the past.
Swantantryaveer Savarkar had rebelled against the British
by demanding complete independence in 1905 itself. In the contemporary
political milieu, not even the Congress had dared to voice such a demand till
1930. The article defaming this uniquely courageous personality contains mainly
five allegations against Swantantryaveer Savarkar. They are as follows:
Allegation no. 1 – While at Andaman, Swatantryaveer
Savarkar lost courage and wrote a series of apology letters to the British, and
he was never subjected to hardwork like Kolu (hand oil mill)
Reality – Swatantryaveer Savarkar had written numerous
applications for his release from prison; he even mentioned this fact in his
autobiography Maajhi Janmathep. However, these applications do not, in any
manner, express contrition or apology. Savarkar was a Barrister. As such, his
attempts to use legal means to free himself from imprisonment cannot be
criticized. He believed that it is the primary duty of every revolutionary to
free himself from the clutches of the British in order to return to the freedom
struggle. He often expressed this opinion before the fellow revolutionaries
imprisoned at Andaman. The great revolutionary Sachchindranath Sanyal is living
proof of this strategy. He had received a life sentence for his complicity in
the Lahore conspiracy and he secured his release through a declaration like that of Savarkar. Then he returned to
his revolutionary activities and again received a life sentence as the
mastermind behind the famous Kakori conspiracy. On page 226 of his
autobiography “Bandi Jeevan” he says, ‘Savarkar had given the same assurance of
co-operation in his application that for release, as I had given. Why was I
released and his release denied...because the Government was apprehensive that
if Savarkar was released, the revolution would flare up again in Maharashtra.”
‘The Week’ has cited an application dated November 1913.
However, it contains no hint of regret or apology. The main demand in this application was “Either he be
sent to Indian Jail where he is entitled to certain previlages, or be given the
status of Political Prisoners or alleast he be given the privilages granted to
common criminals”.
Whether spirit of
Savarkar was really broken
during imprisonment or his
applications were part of a larger strategy can only be ascertained by
referring to the records made by his fellow revolutionaries in prison as well
as the prison records. However, Mr. Takle has not used any of these methods. The
reality becomes apparent when we refer to the mentions of Savarkar in the
autobiographies of the well-known revolutionaries Ullaskar Dutt, Bhai
Paramanand, Prithvising Azad and Ramcharan Sharma. Ullaskar Dutt had suffered
through a phase of insanity due to extreme torture. Before that, while he had
been suspended from handcuffs, he hallucinated in a high fever. He saw that
Jailor Barry challenged him to a duel and Savarkar fought the duel on his
behalf and defeated Barry. (12 years in prison life – page 64 & 65) The
fact that even in his hallucinations he thought only of Savarkar
capable of fighting on his behalf testifies to the high morale of Savarkar in
1912.
In 1913, when Ramcharan Sharma, the editor of Surajya
Patra was threatened with an increased sentence for participating in a strike,
he remarked “If Vinayak Savarkar can survive 50 years of imprisonment, I shall
survive too.” (Kala Pani ka
Aitihasik Dastavej page 53) Thus,
even in 1913, Savarkar was a role model for the revolutionaries. If Savarkar
had lost his courage, this would not have been possible.
Great revolutionary Bhai Parmanand, who was also lodged
in Andaman, while writing about strike in 1919 said “For any conflich arising
in prison, Jailor Barry and Superintendent used to hold Savarkar brothers
responsible.” (“Aap Biti” page 102)
While submitting this application, he had discussed in
person with Sir Reginald Craddock. While forwarding this application to the
British Government, Sir Reginald Craddock had made certain commens/observations in his covering letter
dated November 23, 1913, which are highly relevant in the present case. He says
“Savarkar’s petition is one for mercy. He cannot be said to express any regret or repentance,
but he affects to have changed his views, urging that the hopeless condition of
Indians in 1906-07 was his excuse for entering upon a conspiracy. Since that
time, he said, the Government had shown itself much more conciliary in the
matter of councils, education and so forth, that the case for revolutionary
action has disappeared.”
“In case of Savarkar, it is quite impossible to give him any liberty here,
and I think he would escape from any Indian Jail. So important a leader is he
that the Europeon section of Indian anarchists would plot for his escape which
would before long be organized. If he were allowed outside the Cellular Jail in Andamans, his escape would be certain.
His friends could easily charter a steamer to lie off one of the islands and a
little money distributed locally would do the rest.” (It should be noted that the fears expressed by Reginold Craddock came true in 1914, when Germany send a warship SMS Emdem to rescue Savarkar and other revolutionaries from Andaman and carry them to Singapore to led proposed Mutiny. Unfortunately SMS Emdem was destroyeed and Mutiny at Singapore was crushed for lack of leadership.)
“Even a man like Savarkar cannot be
kept indefinitely at hard labour. His consecutive sentences which will keep him
in confinement for life, are estimated at fifty years. In his case the punitive
requirements would have been satisfied after a few years’ hard labour, and the
remainder of his term would not be of the nature of a punishment for his crimes
but of mere incarceration, because he would be dangerous to the community
outside”
But these conclusisive observations of Sir Reginiold
Creddock made in his covering letter dated November 23, 1913 or actual experiences of great freedom fighters like
Prithvisingh Azad, Bhai Paramanand, Ram Charan Sharma and Sachchindranath
Sanyal have been convinienty ignored by Mr. Niranjan
Takale clearly proves that the allegations made against Savarkar are false and made
intentionally to defame him.
On the basis of entries on Savarkar’s history sheet, Mr.
Takle claims that he was given the easier task of weaving rope rather than the
arduous tasks of Kolu (Hand oil mill)
or coir pounding, and thereby imply that Savarkar is not truthful in his
biography Mazi Janmthep.
In his memoirs “The Legendary Crusader”, the great
revolutionary Prithvi Sing Azad says “ Take the example of Veer Savarkar,
the great thinker who had taught the youth of modern India the theory and
practice of revolution. He was the brilliant leader of young revolutionaries.
Even such a eminent person was forced to do manual work which is normally done
by bullocks. He was yoked to an oil press and was forced to extract 30 pounds
of oil every day.”(page 84-85)
But Kolu
(Hand oil mill) or coir pounding were
routine tasks for prisoners and the history sheet would only include the
entries of punishments meted out and other personal information of the
prisoners and thus the entries of Kolu
(Hand oil mill) or coir pounding can not be found in Savarkar’s history sheet or as a matter of fact, that of any other prisoner.
It interesting to note that in the same application dated
14th November 1913, which has been reffered by the Week, Savarkar
had complained about Kolu work allotted
to him. In his covering letter to this application, Sir Reginald Craddock also acknowledge this fact.
But these recorded facts and the testimonies of Savarkar’s fellow prisoners like
Prithvisingh Azad have been
deliberately ignored by Mr. Niranjan Takle in order to defame the great
revolutionary leader Swatantryveer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
As per the prison records currently available, Savarkar
was subjected to the following inhuman punishments:
¨
30th August 1911 6 months solitary confinement
until further orders.
¨
11th June 1912 One month's separate confinement for
writing letters to others without sanction.
¨
10th September 1912. Seven days standing handcuffs
for having in possession a letter written to another convict.
¨
23rd November 1912 One month's separate confinement
for being in possession of a note written by another convict.
¨
30th December 1912 Refused to eat his food all day.
¨
1st January 1913 Do.
¨
2nd January 1913 Ate his food this morning.
¨
16th December 1913 Absolutely refusing to work.
¨
17th December 1913 One month's separate confinement
without work or books.
¨
8th June 1914 Absolutely refusing to work. Seven
days standing handcuffs imposed.
¨
16th June 1914 Absolutely refusing to work. Four
months chain gaug imposed.
¨
18th June 1914 Absolutely refusing to work. Ten
days cross bar fetters imposed.
¨
16th July 1914 Convalescent gaug for 1 month.
¨
18th May 1915 Convalescent gaug.
¨
11th June1916 Discharged from Convalescent gaug on
admission to hospital.
Since many punishments meted out to Swatantryaveer
Savarkar were illegal, no mention was made of them in the prison records. Not
only has Savarkar stated this in his autobiography Majhi Janmathep, it has been
corroborated by the references in the autobiographies of his fellow prisoner
revolutionaries. Even the incomplete list above is enough to afford a glimpse
of the extreme and inhuman punishments meted out to Savarkar. On reaching
Andaman, he was immediately put in solitary confinement for six months. The
magnitude and inhumanity of this punishment can only be imagined.Savarkar had mention in his application dated 14th
November 1913 that only he was subjected to this treatment.
With reference to the prison records, Mr. Takle remarks
that Swantryaveer Savarkar’s conduct during the five years was very good.
However he has conveniently overlooked the following remark entered in the
column ‘Present Attitude’ – “He is always sauve and polite but
like his brother, he has never shown any disposition to actively assist
government. It is impossible to say what his real political views are at the
present
time.”
This is a clear indication of the fact that in 1919,
Savarkar was still being regarded as a dangerous prisoner by the British
Government. And the decision to deny a general pardon to Savarkar was taken by
the Bombay Presidency Government based on this very report.
The fact that one month after the meeting with Reginald
Craddock (in which he had presented the reffered application) Savarkar went on
strike and was sentenced to solitary confinement for one month as a result of
it, that he repeatedly refused to work despite suffering other inhuman
punishments is undoubted proof of his indomitable courage.
If further proof is required, Swatantryaveer Savarkar
Rashtriya Smarak has discovered genuine proof of Savarkar’s mental courage.
Three patriotic Urdu poems in Savarkar’s own handwriting have been discovered
in Andaman. These poems dated 1921 exhort the youth to rebel against the
British. One of these songs is believed to have reached the accused in the
Kakori conspiracy through Sachchindranath Sanyal. Savarkar’s ghazal ‘Yahi
Paoge’ was among the patriotic songs sung by the imprisoned revolutionaries.
(Kakori ke Diljale page 112). In one of his Urdu poems Savarkar says
Our
brave leader is the slayer of Ravan, Ram
Our
proud charioteer is the God of Karmayog, Krishna himself
O
Bharat, what army can stop thy chariot?
Why
this delay, Rise brothers, we are our own saviours.
The poem “Pahila Hapta” (First Installment) written
before the imprisonment at Andaman expresses the same sentiments found in this
poem. The newly discovered poems prove beyond doubt that rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years had not altered Savarkar’s beliefs in the smallest degree.
Savarkar’s point of view about his petitions
Savarkar’s point of view behind the various petitions, is
elaborated in his letter dated 6-7-1920, written to his brother. As this letter
had been censosred by prison administration, Government was aware of it. News
paper reports about this letter were published and Bombay police also took note
of it in their reports. The whole letter is reproduced below.
Cellular Jail
6-7-1920
Port Blair
My dearest Bal,
Your letter to
dear Baba dated 2-6-20 reached us and made us glad by removing the sense of
anxiety caused by your constant postponing your coming over here. My health is
just as it was when you left me. It is not worse either. But after your going
the health of our brother has been going from bad to worse. It is his turn now.
The complaint is the same. Digestion troubles and consequent liver disorder.
His weight is 106 lbs. Because I write this much do not imagine that our health
must be worse still. Not so. I write exactly as it stands. If something worse
happens I shall inform you of it.
After all the
general amnesty has come ! Hundreds are being released. Thanks chiefly to the
great exertions of the Bombay National Union and of our leaders and of our
patriotic countrymen who organized, supported and signed the mass petition for
the release of Indian political prisoners. That huge petition signed by no less
than 75,000 people at such a short notice as that must have certainly put an
immense though unacknowledged pressure on the Government. At any rate it
elevated the moral status of the P.P.s (political prisoners) and
therefore of the cause for which they fought and fell. Now indeed our release
if at all it comes in worth having, as the people have expressed their desire
to have us back. We cannot sufficiently thank our countrymen for sympathy and
solicitude for us all. They had really shown greater regard for us than we
honestly believe to have deserved. Nor have their efforts been entirely
fruitless. For although we two have been declared to fall outside the scope of
the Amnesty and are still rotting in the cells yet the sight of hundreds of our
political comrades and co-sufferers' release makes us feel relieved and repaid
for all the agitation that we have been carrying on for the last eight years or
so through strikes, letters, petitions, the press, and the platform, here and
else where.
On the 2-4-20 I
put in a fresh petition to the Government of India on subject of Royal clemency
recently granted. Therein after thanking the Government for the release of
hundreds of political prisoners and for thus partially granting my petition of
1918, I have pleaded for the further extention of the Royal clemency to those
who are yet in jail as well as to the Political exiles abroad. I had once more
defined my personal position as regards the political situation in India,
especially with reference to those questions which from time to time are still
being discussed and debated upon in the official circles and have been
personally pressed before me by some of them only very very recently .
We believe in an
universal state embracing all mankind and wherein all men and women would be
citizens working for and enjoying equally the fruits of this earth and this
sun, this land and this light, which constitute the real Motherland and the
Fatherland of man. All other divisions and distinctions are artificial though
indispensable. Believing thus that the ideal of all political science and art
is or ought to be Human state in which all nations merge -their political
selves for their own fulfilment even as the cells in an organism, organisms in
families and tribes, and tribes in nation-states have done; and believing
therefore that humanity is higher patriotism and therefore any Empire or
Commonwealth that succeeds in welding numbers of conflicting races and nations
in one harmonious, if not homogenious, whole in such wise as to render each of
them better fitted to realize, enrich and enjoy life in all its noble aspects
is a distinct step to the realization of that ideal I can conscientiously
co-operate with any attempt to found a common-wealth which would be neither
British nor Indian but which may, till a better name be devised, be styled as
an Aryan Common-wealth. With this end in view I am willing to work now. And
therefore I rejoiced to hear that the Government have changed their angle of
vision and meant to make it possible for India to advance constitutionally on
the path to Freedom and strength and fullness of life. I am sure that many a
revolutionist would like me cry halt under such circumstances and try to meet
England under an honourable truce, even in a halfway house as the reformed
Council Halls promised to be, and work there before a further march on to
progress be sounded.
For it was this very
principle that humanity was a higher patriotism that made us so restless when
we saw that a part of it should aggrandize and swell like a virulent cancer in
such wise as to threaten the life of the human whole; and forced us for the
want of any other effective remedy; to take to the Surgeon's Knife and feel
that severity for the moment would certainly be mercy in the long run. But even
while combating force with force we heartily abhorred and do yet abhor all
violence. For violence is force aggressively used-force that is life killing. I
never cherished not even in my dreams any aggressive ambition for personal or
national aggrandizement, and so far was I from being a party to violence that I
actually kept opposing it tooth and nail whenever I saw it used by powerful
combinations against their weaker but righteous rivals. I heartily abhorred
violence resorted to in days gone by-by ambitious men and nations not only
outside India but even in India herself. I felt as rebellious against the caste
systems and the untouchability inside India as her dominated by foreigners from
outside.
Thus we were
revolutionists under necessity and not by choice. We felt that the best
interests of India as well as of England demanded that her ideals be
progressively and peacefully realized by mutual help and co-operation. And if
that be possible even now I shall take the first opportunity to resort to
peaceful means and rush in the first constitutional breach effected by
revolution or otherwise, however narrow it be and try to widen it so as to
enable the forces of evolution to flow in an uninterrupted procession.
If the reforms
whole heartedly effected and worked out by the Government would serve the
purpose of such a constitutional breach as that then revolution ceases and evolution
becomes a watchword and a rallying cry of us all. And I as one humble soldier
in Her rank would honestly try my best to make the reform successful, that is,
work them out so as to render them a stepping stone to the realization of the
great mission of our generation of making India free and great and glorious,
leading or marching hand in hand with others to the appointed destiny of man.
Such were my view
when I was working in the revolutionary camp. And such are my views after 12
long years of being pent up within the four walls of a solitary cell. True it
is that we found it impossible to bear love and loyalty to laws that were
dictated by the Sword, and constitutions that serve as masks to conceal the
heidousness of Tyranny yet it is equally true that we honestly felt and still
feel ourselves in duty bound to stand by the side of Law -that is the
expression of the righteous resolve of a free people and constitution that
holds together harmonizes and fuses the efforts of free men and women towards
the good of man and the glory of God.
As to the question
so often put to me and others by officers no less exalted than the members of
the Indian Cabinet 'what if you had rebelled against the ancient kings of
India? They used to trample rebels under the feet of Elephants'. I answer that
not only in India but even in England and all other parts of the world such
would have at times been the fate of rebels. But then why did the British
people fill the whole world with a howl that the Germans had ill treated their
captives and did not allow them fresh bread and butter ! There was a time when
captives were flayed alive and offered as victims to Moloch and Thor and such
other Gods of war !' The thing is this that this advanced stage in civilization
attained by man is the resultant of the efforts of all men and therefore their
common inheritance and benefits all. Speaking relatively to Barbarian times it
is true that I had a fair trial and a just sentence and the Government is at
liberty to derive whatever satisfaction they can from the compliment that they
give a fairer trial and a juster sentence to their captives than the cannibals
used to do. But it should not be forgotten that if in olden days the rulers
flayed their rebels alive then the rebels too when they got the upper hand
flayed alive the rulers as well. And if the British people treated me or other
rebels more justly i.e. less barbarously then they may rest assured that they
too would be as leniently treated by the Indian rebels if ever the tables are
turned?
Please
do not hope much from this petition so far as our release is concerned. We
never pitched our hopes too high and if not released we shall not be very much
disappointed. We are quite prepared to face it either way. You have tried your
best and it is mainly due to your unceasing efforts that the release of P.P.s
because such a burning question as that and though not we two, yet hundreds of
others have won back their liberty.
Hoping to find you
in good health and with best and loving regards to all our friends and
relations.
I remain dear
brother
Yours
affectionately
TATYA
According to police report, this letter was reported in
Maratha, alongwith other newspapers, on 25th January 1920 and based
on this, question was asked in legislave assembly.
Allegation no. 2 – After his release, Swatantryaveer
Savarkar did not serve the nation, he collaborated with the British, he opposed
Netaji Bose.
During his prolonged house arrest of 14 years at
Ratnagiri, Savarkar was banned from political activities. So he directed his
struggle against the social evils of the caste system and superstitions
prevalent in orthodox Hindu society. In recognition and approbation of his
signal contribution to society in this 14 years, Karmaveer Bhaurao Shinde had
remarked in his speech ‘ May God grant the remaining years of my lifespan to
Savarkar. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar had remarked to Savarkar ‘I am happy that you
are among the few people who believe in the eradication not just of
untouchability but of the caste system itself.”
As the detailed history of Savarkar’s immense struggle
for eradication of untouchability is available to all, a detailed discussion of
it is not merited.’ Let it suffice to state that had Savarkar been a
collaborator of the British, as alleged by Mr. Takle, numerous freedom fighters
including Mahatma Gandhi would not have travelled all the way to Ratnagiri to
meet Savarkar.
When Prithvisingh Azad later escaped from imprisonment
and returned to India, Swantantryaveer Savarkar’s younger brother Narayanrao
offered him refuge. (Kranti te Pathik – page 153). Later, Prithvisingh Azad and
well-known lady revolutionary Durgabhabhi Vora opened fire on Lamington Police
Station in 1930 to protest against Bhagat Singh being sentenced to death. In
this, they were accompanied by Savarkar’s trusted colleague, freedom fighter
Ganesh Raghunath Vaishampayan. (Kranti ke pathik page 190)
As Savarkar was under constant police observation, it was
impossible for to organize revolutionary activities openly. A layman can also
observe this, but not Mr. Takle. Fact that after admitting himself that
revolutionary Vinayak Chavan was follower Savarkar, Takale makes the allegation
that Savarkar had joined hands with Britishers proves his intention to defame
this great revolutionary leader, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
After 1937, when the political restrictions on Savarkar
were relaxed, he became President of the Hindu Maha Sabha. The threat of
Partition was looming over India against the backdrop of the unrealistic
demands of the Muslim league and the attempts of Congress to court the League.
At that time Swatantryaveer Savarkar took untiring efforts to make people aware
of the necessity of preventing Partition. Savarkar’s presidential speeches are
available for reference in the volume Hindu Rashtra Darshan.
He aggressively campaingned for recruitment of Hindu
youths in Army. During that period, only 35-40% Indian soldiers were Hindues.
But because of campaign of Savarkar, this percentage increased to 65%. Savarkar
foresaw that in case of partition, Muslim regiments will go to Pakistan and in
case of war, greater military power of Pakistan will prove hazardous to India.
Savarkar really was a great visionary because this is what happened. All the
Muslim regiments joined Pakistan and Pakistan started war in Kashmir. But due
to foresight of Savarkar, Indian Army was able to repell them.
Another aspect behind the policy of Militarisation.
Veer Savarkar was in contact with great indian
revolutionary leader residing in japan, Ras Beharo Bose, through some Japanese
monks. In view of the impending world war, they had plans for rebellion in
armed forces. Such attempts were also made during WW1, in which members of
Savarkar’s Abhinav Bharat had played an important role.
On 21st March 1942, Rasbihari Bose addressed
Savarkar thus ‘ I consider it my duty to bow before a senior fellow warrior
like you. You have once again proved your greatness by advocating the strategy
that Indian politics should never be dependent on the politics of a foreign
nation and that the enemy of our enemy should be our friend.”
On 25th June 1944, Netaji Subhashchandra Bose
said in his address on Azad Hind Radio “
With their eccentric and fanciful political thought and
lack of foresight, a majority of Congress leaders today are deriding Indian
Army soldiers as mercenaries; it is cause for satisfaction that Veer Savarkar
is exhorting the Indian youth to join the army. From this very army shall our
Indian National Army get trained soldiers.”
In addition to this, there is undoubted evidence that Savarkar
was in touch with the revolutionary Rasbihari Bose, the founder of the Azad
Hind Sena, who was then in Japan. According to it, it is clear that Rasbihari
Bose supported Savarkar’s initiative encouraging youth to join the army. In
March and April 1939, Rasbihari Bose penned a biography of Savarkar for the
Japanese magazine Dai Ajiya Shugi. This biography was titled ‘Savarkar – the
rising leader of New India: his achievements and personality’. It is important
to note the conclusion of this article which informs the people of Japan about
Savarkar’s Hindutva and his policy of encouraging the youth to join the army.
He concludes his article thus ‘If you agree with Savarkar,
you will have political power, and he has a strong position in the Indian
independence movement.”
Allegation no. 3 – Savarkar propogated the two-nation
theory.
As evidence for this, Mr. Takle cites the statement
below, allegedly made by Savarkar in Nagpur on 15th August 1943 “I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah's two-nation theory.
We, Hindus, are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus
and Muslims are two nations.''
However, Savarkar had himself refuted this statement,
published in a few newspapers, was a distortion of his views. In the interview
with Savarkar published in the daily Kaal dated 19th August 1943,
Savarkar had clarified that either deliberately or due to lack of space, the
distorted and misleading idea that Savarkar supported the Two Nation Theory had
been published. Basically, Muslims all over the world have always considered
themselves as a religious state under the rule of the Khalifa and it is in this sense that the Muslims consider
themselves a separate nation. But in reality, from the point of view of political
democracy, Hindus have always been the nation as they have lived here since
time immemorial, while Muslims have always been an aggressive minority. The
threat of Partition was created due to this approach of the Muslims and
Savarkar ordered the party workers of the Hindu Maha Sabha to actively oppose
Partition. The Two Nation theory was originally propounded by Sir Sayyad Ahmed
in the 19th Century, it was then propogated by the poet Iqbal and
finally this demand was supported by the Muslim League under the leadership of
Jinnah. Savarkar was not related to it in any way. This is clear from the
speeches he made from time to time. It is important to once again stress the
fact that Savarkar himself had immediately clarified that the quoted statement
was a distortion of his views.
Allegation no. 4 –
Swatantryaveer Savarkar was a collaborator in the assassination of Mahatma
Gandhi.
Savarkar had been honourably acquitted of the charge of
assassinating Gandhi. Nathuram Godse was an erstwhile follower of Savarkar but
there was not the slightest evidence presented in court to prove that Savarkar
was involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Gandhi. Despite this, Mr. Takle
has concluded from the Kapoor Commission Report that Savarkar was the
mastermind behind the conspiracy; this statement is utterly false.
The Kapoor Commission deliberately referes to Godse and
the other accused as Savarkarites at numerous points in their report. Godse and
others were followers of Hindu Maha Sabha and Savarkar was in contact with them
in his capacity as President. For about two years before Gandhi’s
assassination, he had resigned from his post as President and thus had had no
contact with Godse thereafter.
It should be noted
that Nathuram Godase severely critisied Veer Savarkar in his editorials in Agrani
for hoisting of National Flag by Veer Savarkar On 15th August 1947
and extending his support to Central Government setting aside the ideological differences
during most critical statge of our nation.
Therefore to call these accused repeatedly as Savarkarites
is unjust. It is not becoming for a retired Justice of the Supreme Court to
make such irresponsible statements.
Further, Kapoor Commission in Chapter 25 has made
statements to the effect that the evidence available to Nagarwala pointed to a
conspiracy to murder and that Nagarwala should have investigated it as such.
But without any concrete evidence, they make the irresponsible statement ‘All these facts taken together were destructive of any
theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group.’ However
there is no such reference in the findings of Chapter 25. Nor in the final findings
of the report. This false and entirely unsupported statement cannot be
considered as a finding of the Commission.
Even further, Mr. Takle has added another extreme
falsehood to his article by stating that two witnesses, Savarkar’s secretary
Gajanan Damle and his bodyguard Appa Kasar had testified that they were aware
of Savarkar’s complicity in the Gandhi assassination. These two persons were
not called as witnesses during the actual trial of the case or by Kapur
commission. Their names do not even appear on the list of the 101 witnesses
examined by the Kapoor Commission.
Allegation no. 5 – Savarkar was opposed to the tricolour
National Flag.
Reality – Savarkar was in support of the Indian tricolor Flag,
adorned with the Ashoka Chakra. In fact he himself hoited National Tricolor
flag on his house on 15th August
1947.
However he was strongly opposed to adoption of Congress flag, the
tricolour sporting the charkha as a National Flag.
It should be noted that the first Indian National flag unfurled
by Madam Cama at the Stuttgart International Conference was designed by Veer
Savarkar and was a tricolor flag.
Ranjit Savarkar,
Chairman,
Swatantryaveer
Savarkar Rashtriya Smarak.
(English translation by Gayatri Gadgil)
