Veer Savarkar Vindicated.

Rebuttal of Defamatory Article on Savarkar

An article defaming Swatantryaveer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar has been published in the issue of ‘The Week’ dated 24^th 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 14^th 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 14^th 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 25^th 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 21^st 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 25^th 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 15^th 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 19^th 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 19^th 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 15^th 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  15^th 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)