By Karan Thapar
Launching a biography of V.D. Savarkar, Union defence minister Rajnath Singh claimed that the Hindutva icon had written mercy pleas to the British government on Mahatma Gandhi’s advice. Critics say Singh is manufacturing history and making up facts. Supporters say the defence minister has “deliberately highlighted facts that have been conveniently and politically forgotten”. Where does the truth lie? That is the key issue that was discussed in Karan Thapar’s interview with Rajmohan Gandhi, the well-known historian and biographer of Mahatma Gandhi and also his grandson.
The following is a transcript of the video interview, which was published on The Wire’s website on October 19, 2021. It has been lightly edited for style and clarity.
Rajmohan Gandhi, let us take it step by step so that it is easier for the audience to understand. First, defence minister Rajnath Singh said that amongst the many falsehoods about Savarkar is that he filed multiple mercy petitions before the British government. But the truth is, Savarkar filed seven in all and they started in 1911, 1913 and 1914. So, when Rajnath Singh says that it is a falsehood to claim Savarkar filed multiple mercy petitions, isn’t Rajnath Singh completely wrong?
Well yes, he is, I’m afraid, completely wrong. It is a fact and not a falsehood that Savarkar filed a series of mercy petitions starting quite soon after he was sent to prison in the Andamans in 1911. So, yes, he is completely wrong.
Now, the second thing Rajnath Singh has said and I’m quoting him, “Savarkar did not file these petitions for his release.” But the truth is, in his own petitions, Savarkar calls what he is doing a ‘petition for clemency’ and if you look at the petition of 1913, and I am quoting, he asks the government “in their manifold beneficence and mercy” to release him. That is clearly a request for release. Once again isn’t the defence minister completely wrong?
When someone says to the British rulers that “you are kind, you are beneficent, you are merciful; please release me” – if these words are not a humble request for release, what are they?
So there is absolutely no doubt about it. He intended to ask for mercy
Well in his own words, it is so clear.
Okay, so that is absolutely clear. Just for the sake of the audience, I will underline it: the defence minister is completely wrong when he says Savarkar did not file multiple petitions. And he is completely wrong when he adds that these were not petitions for Savarkar’s release. Savarkar did file multiple petitions and he specifically asked for mercy and clemency.
He is completely, totally wrong.
Thank you, sir. Let us then come to the third thing defence minister Rajnath Singh has said and again, I am quoting from the defence minister: “It was on Gandhi’s suggestion that he [Savarkar] filed a mercy petition”. Now the truth is Gandhiji was approached by Savarkar’s younger brother Narayan Rao for help. And Gandhiji in January 1920 replied to Narayan Rao. I want to quote from that letter. This is what Gandhiji said: “It is difficult to advise you. I suggest, however, framing a brief petition setting forth facts of the case, bringing out in clear relief that the fact that the offence committed by your brother was purely political.” Doesn’t it follow from that quotation that what Gandhiji advised was to explain the facts and thus argue that the offence was political? Gandhiji did not say “appeal for mercy and clemency”.
Before I respond to this strange claim that Gandhi advised Savarkar’s mercy petitions, let me speak of where Gandhi was when he wrote the letter that you have just quoted from, and what Gandhi was doing at the time when he replied to Savarkar’s brother.
In January 1920, Gandhi was in Lahore. He had been in Punjab – undivided Punjab – from September 1919, travelling from district to district in Punjab to collect evidence of the atrocities in a Punjab that was run by governor Michael O’Dwyer and terrorised by brigadier Reginald Dyer. The Jallianwala [Bagh] massacre had taken place in April 1919. Following that massacre the people of Punjab were terrified and terrorised; so terrified that they were unwilling even to contribute some rupees for a memorial for the victims of the massacre. At meeting after meeting in Punjab, Gandhi told them that India’s honour was at stake. If they were not willing to contribute, said Gandhi, he would sell his ashram in Sabarmati to raise the memorial. Money then began to flow in.
Now, this is the point I wanted to make: What had terrified the Punjabis and what had enraged Gandhi was not just the massacre but the infamous “crawling order” that some of you will remember. Indians, as is well known, were ordered to crawl on their knees and hands on that Amritsar lane where an English woman had been attacked during demonstrations. Gandhi was affronted and offended to his roots by this crawling order. He called it worse than the massacre.
Now, could Gandhi have advised Savarkar to go down on his knees before the British? The suggestion is ridiculous; it is unthinkable. Maybe, Karan, you will give me the chance later to discuss the Gandhi-Savarkar relationship and the differences in their outlooks. But on your question, we should ask, “Why did Gandhi write to Savarkar’s younger brother Narayan?” Well, he did so because he had been requested more than once by Narayan, on behalf of Savarkar, to do something to obtain Savarkar’s release, and the release also of Vinayak’s older brother Ganesh, [who] was also imprisoned.
Now contrary to what Rajnath Singh says – I have heard the video, “Gandhiji ke kehne par Savarkarji ne likha (Savarkar wrote the petitions after Gandhiji told him to do so).” These are Rajnath Singh’s words. Contrary to these words, the initiative and the request for help comes from Savarkar. Narayan tells Gandhi that his older brothers are weak in their prison. Even though a royal proclamation of December 1919 had announced an amnesty for many prisoners, his brothers are not on the list of those to be freed, he says. Please advise, he requests Gandhiji. Gandhi wants to help. He suggests, as you point out, that the brothers should send a short letter emphasising that their activity is political. Gandhi’s reply and the letter from Narayan Savarkar, Savarkar’s younger brother, are both easily accessible in The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi volumes.
Now let us get the picture right: Rajnath Singh is asking us to believe that a letter that Gandhi writes in January 1920 to a request from the Savarkar brothers should be interpreted as advice given by Gandhi nine years earlier that Savarkar should send a mercy petition. The suggestion is absurd beyond description. It is laughable.
You’ve said two very important things in that answer that I want to pick up and highlight for the audience. First of all, you said that the very suggestion that Gandhi advised Savarkar to plead for mercy is ridiculous and unthinkable. You also said later on that it is absurd. And the second thing that you said is that the letter Gandhiji wrote wasn’t of his volition. It was in response to a plea for help from Narayan Rao, Savarkar’s younger brother. And as you said, there was absolutely no way that in those circumstances after the Jallianwala massacre and the infamous crawling order that Gandhi would have advised anyone to go down on their knees and plead for mercy from the British. That is very clear, I am simply underlining it because that literally attacks the very core point made by Rajnath Singh that Savarkar pleaded for mercy at Gandhi’s suggestion.
However, in fairness, I should point out that roughly four months after that letter that Gandhiji wrote in January 1920, he also in May of that year wrote an article for Young India which was about the two Savarkar brothers who were at the time incarcerated in the Andamans. Gandhi himself said that in that article he was presenting what he called ‘a case for their release’. So even though Gandhiji clearly and definitely did not tell them to plead for mercy, he did on consideration believe that the Savarkars had been wrongly detained and deserved to be released. That’s why he wrote a case for their release.
Yes, that article that Gandhiji wrote is also available, easily accessible. Of course, Gandhiji wanted Indians wanting independence to be released, whether or not they agreed with him on everything. In 1919, Gandhi had similarly asked for the release of the famous Ali brothers – Shaukat Ali and Mohammed Ali. In this May 1920 article that you referred to, Gandhi points to the royal proclamation of December 1919 and says that the Savarkar brothers too should be released. There is no doubt on that score. He wants them released. All who fight for India’s independence should be released and they get his support.
But there is a very interesting couple of sentences in that article Gandhi wrote in May 1920 for Young India. I want to quote them because in a sense those sentences reflect how Gandhi saw the Savarkars. He says, “The Savarkar brothers state unequivocally that they do not desire independence from the British connection.” That is such an important sentence. And then Gandhiji adds, “On the contrary, they feel that India’s destiny can be best worked out in association with the British.” So Gandhiji didn’t see the Savarkars as freedom fighters, he saw them as British subjects willing to continue to be British subjects, but wrongly detained.
Gandhiji is quoting from a statement that was made on behalf of the Savarkar brothers. So you are right that the Savarkar brothers are emphasising their loyalty to the British connection at this point. At the same time, they are in their own way working for independence. So Gandhi concedes that, he is aware of that, he wants them released. He sees them, along with many others who are detained, even if there are differences, Gandhi wants them released.
Let me now quote from one of Savarkar’s petitions for mercy. It’s specifically the petition sent by Savarkar in 1913. I believe it was the second of his seven politicians. First of all, Savarkar writes “I, for one, cannot but be the staunchest advocate of loyalty to the English government.” He then says, “I’m ready to serve the government in any capacity they like.” And finally, he ends that petition with the following sentence: “Where else can the prodigal son return but to the paternal doors of the government?” Now, are those the words of a freedom fighter? They certainly don’t sound like it to me.
This is a pathetic letter, Karan. The sentences are hard to hear. They must have been very hard for you to pronounce. Yet, Savarkar wrote them. True, he wrote them more than a hundred years ago, still it is sad today to hear them and it is sad that he wrote them.
So, would I be right in saying that these don’t sound like the words of a freedom fighter? Or am I being unfair when I say that?
I think you are underlining the obvious Karan.
Once again, to be absolutely fair, it is also true that there were several other people incarcerated in the Andamans, who also wrote letters of mercy and petition to the British government to secure their release and they are considered freedom fighters by India today. Satyendra Bose is an example from 1908, I believe people involved in what’s called the Kakori conspiracy are examples from the mid-1920s. So to be honest, writing letters of mercy and petitions for clemency was quite common. Savarkar wasn’t unusual when he did it.
Yes, it must be recognised that many wrote mercy petitions. It must also be recognised that many did not. Sadly, Savarkar was in the category of those who sent mercy petitions.
That is another very important point you’re making Gandhi. Many may have written mercy petitions, Savarkar was one of them. But equally, many did not. In other words, there were many who suffered like Savarkar in the Andamans – in that dreadful cellular jail – but did not write mercy petitions and Savarkar was not one of them. Savarkar was one of the many who did write mercy petitions. So, it is not that everyone wrote mercy petitions.
Absolutely right.
In which case, let me put you a point that his critics often make to ask if it’s a fair comment or a prejudiced one. Many of his critics say that these mercy petitions, and remember there were seven of them, are in a sense proof that he was a coward and a traitor. Is that going too far?
Yes, I think it is going too far. Those who never wrote mercy petitions despite severe trials – and there were so many of them – certainly would have felt let down and betrayed on hearing what Savarkar did. But a man’s whole life should not be judged solely on the basis of some disappointing or regrettable actions.
That is another very important point: A man’s whole life should not be judged on the basis of one or two, or a few disappointing actions.
Are you being deliberately generous and humane when you say that or are you being a historian when you say that?
I am trying to be an objective observer. I would like myself to be judged on the basis of my whole life and not on the basis of some terrible things I may have done. So I would like to assess others also in the same way.
In which case, let me quote something written by one of Savarkar’s better known – and I would say better – biographers Vaibhav Purandare. This is what Purandare has said: “In my opinion, the petitions do not make him less of a revolutionary or an apologist for British rule.” As a historian and a biographer yourself, would you agree with Purandare’s comment?
Well, I would say that the petitions by themselves do not make Savarkar an apologist for British rule. Nonetheless, we should remember that quite apart from these petitions sent prior to 1920, when later on the war started in 1939, and again later when Quit India was launched in 1942, Savarkar stood on the side of India’s British rulers. There is irrefutable and documented evidence of that. Jinnah and the Muslim League on one side, Savarkar and the Hindu Mahasabha on the other side, both stayed firmly outside the freedom movement during those crucial years.
Now by 1939, Jinnah had decided that not the British but the Hindus were his chief foes. Savarkar had made his peace with the British years earlier. He had decided that not the British but Muslims were his chief foes. Now, [Mahatma] Gandhi, [Jawaharlal] Nehru, [Sardar Vallabhbhai] Patel, Subhas [Chandra] Bose, [Maulana Abul Kalam] Azad and the bulk of the Indian population thought that British rule was the chief foe. Hindus and Muslims had to live with one another, despite their differences. The British would leave one day, but fellow Indians would remain and had to get along with one another. Now, this fundamental difference that I have described does not make Savarkar an apologist for British rule. But it certainly reduced the fervour for Indian independence that Savarkar had displayed before he was imprisoned.
But you are again making a very important point that many perhaps are not aware of and certainly it needs to be underlined for them, that as late as 1939, in fact even as late as 1942, Savarkar stood with the British. And in a sense, this does exemplify what Savarkar wrote and I read it out earlier in his 1913 petition, when he said “I, for one, cannot but be the staunchest advocate of loyalty to the English government.” He said that 1913, he proved that in 1939 and 1942. And this also exemplifies what Gandhiji wrote in that essay for Young India in 1920, when he said “The Savarkar brothers state unequivocally that they do not desire independence from the British connection.” And again, in 1939 and 1942, Savarkar was proving the point.
I am afraid that is the record in history.
We are coming to the end of this interview, but I want to ask you two more questions. First, about the relationship between Gandhiji and Veer Savarkar. I believe they met in 1909, when they were both in London. I believe Gandhiji admired the way Savarkar had tried to escape through the porthole of a ship in Marseille. But at the same time, when Kasturba Gandhi died in 1944, Savarkar refused to contribute to a fund created in her name. Hw would you, therefore, describe the relationship between the two men?
First, let me point out Karan that Savarkar’s famous escape from the ship had taken place after Gandhi and Savarkar had met in London. There is no doubt that Gandhi, along with every Indian hearing about that dramatic escape, admired it.
I won’t condemn Savarkar for not contributing to the fund created in Kasturba’s memory, which was set up, I might add, for the welfare and education of rural women. Yet, it should be remembered that apart from being Gandhi’s wife, Kasturba – who died while in detention in 1944 – she represented thousands who suffered greatly while in prison for participating in the Quit India Movement, even if not all of them died in prison, as Kasturba had died.
Now as for the relationship between Gandhi and Savarkar, let me first speak of the crucial differences in their outlooks. On the Hindu-Muslim question, their difference is most clearly brought out in what Dr B.R. Ambedkar wrote in his well-known book Thoughts on Pakistan, published in 1940. Let me quote Ambedkar: “Strange as it may appear, Mr Savarkar and Mr Jinnah, instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue, are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist that there are two nations in India, one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation”.
Now Gandhi, of course, was totally opposed to the two-nation theory. He was opposed to it before Partition and he was opposed to it when he lived in [independent India] for some months after Partition. That was one major difference.
The second major difference was on the road to reach independence. Now, the road of assassination and violence, Gandhi was firmly opposed to this approach. For one thing, a revolutionary who used a gun or a bomb, sometimes or often, killed not the targeted official but someone else. Secondly, Gandhi argued that killing Englishmen today will definitely lead to killing fellow Indians tomorrow. So, Gandhi offered another road to independence: not bombs, not guns, not assassination but Satyagraha, non-violent direct action as a superior and safer path to independence.
Now I should mention one important aspect of Gandhi’s prescription of Satyagraha rather than the cult of the bomb, for this aspect is often overlooked: Satyagraha or non-violent direct action empowered the poor and the weak of India, who were the great majority. Whereas the revolutionaries’ bomb tended to give strength to the dominant high caste, to Rajas and Nawabs. The method of the bomb was likely to empower those who were already on top, socially and financially. Non-violent struggles, on the other hand, tilted the balance in favour of the poor, the Dalits, the women, the physically disabled.
Let me quote what Gandhi said in April 1931, this is an important quote to recognise: “I declare that we cannot win Swaraj for our famishing millions, for our deaf and dumb, for our lame and crippled by the way of the sword. With the most high as witness, I want to proclaim this truth: we were able to enlist as soldier’s millions of men, women and children because we were pledged to non-violence.”
Now, Savarkar’s closest team on the other hand, the RSS leadership, who made no secret of their admiration for Savarkar, were all Brahmins. Empowering the lower rungs of India’s social ladder was not Savarkar’s goal. So, these are the differences.
But let me say a word or two on the relationship. Savarkar’s dislike of Gandhi was never concealed. He could not never accept Gandhi’s stress on Hindu-Muslim partnership or Gandhi’s uncompromising commitment to an India for all, not just for the Hindus. An equally important role in this light may have been played, in my assessment, by Gandhi’s commitment to a free India, where the weakest Indian of any religion or any caste would have a role and would be respected. Now, I am aware and it is true that Savarkar wrote in favour of inter-caste marriages, no doubt about it. He sought the consolidation of all Hindus against the Muslim ‘other’. However, I am not aware of any call by Savarkar to the Hindu high caste to acknowledge the cruelty meted out to the so-called untouchables.
Gandhi on the other hand, again and again, connected all the problems that India was facing to the crime of untouchability. And as historians know, in 1920, at Gandhi’s initiative, the Indian National Congress had made the removal of untouchability one of its prominent political goals. Here is what Gandhi said in 1921, two years after Jallianwala Bagh: “What crimes for which we condemn the government as satanic have we not been guilty of towards our untouchable brethren. We make them crawl on their bellies, we have made them rub their noses on the ground, with eyes red with rage we push them out of railway compartments. What more than this has British rule done?”
My understanding is that Gandhi’s keenness on Hindu-Muslim partnership and his candour about the inequities in Hindu society infuriated Savarkar. Savarkar became Gandhi’s fiercest foe. Gandhi had other critics and opponents too – for a while Subhash opposed Gandhi. Yet it was Subhash Bose who in 1944 addressed Gandhi from Rangoon as the father of the nation. Moreover, Bose was as firm a believer as Gandhi in Hindu-Muslim partnership and equality. Ambedkar opposed Gandhi strongly, but with Gandhi’s blessing, he not only joined free India’s first cabinet under Gandhi’s closest political colleagues Nehru and Patel, he architected the constitution which abolished untouchability, gave equal rights to Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, agnostics and others.
But there were two leaders who persisted with their opposition to Gandhi: Jinnah was one and Savarkar was the other. After Pakistan was created, with Jinnah as its head, he was no longer in India but Savarkar remained in India and unreconciled for Gandhi.
That is a very clear answer. There are in fact enormous gulfs – in the plural – ocean sized gulfs of difference, between Gandhi and Savarkar on issues that mattered closely to Gandhiji. Hindu-Muslim unity is one of them and the way in which independence should be won is a second and the treatment and attitude towards Dalits or who were called untouchables at the time is a third. I think it is very important for the audience to remember that.
No matter what Rajnath Singh, the defence minister may try and suggest through the facts which are clearly false which he has propounded that Gandhiji, somehow, was close enough to Savarkar to tell Savarkar to plead for mercy which is not true. He didn’t do anything of the sort. The gulfs of difference in their ideology is the important factor about the relationship between the two men.
One last question sir, I will ask you for a really brief answer because we are running terribly short of time. How do you yourself, as a historian, view Savarkar? He is considered a freedom fighter. He wrote a highly acclaimed history of 1857 which, I believe, was the first to interpret the mutiny as a war of independence. But on the other hand, he is the father of Hindutva and he made it crystal clear that he did not believe the minorities were the equals of Hindus. So briefly, how do you personally, as a historian, view Savarkar?
Let me try to indicate, very shortly both the positives and the negatives. Not many outside Maharashtra know of the influence of Savarkar’s poetry. In his poems, his love of Maharashtra comes across. We can also sense in his poetry and in his prose his love for India’s geography, India’s physical space, the Himalayas, the oceans, the rivers. Savarkar was proud of India’s geography, India’s past and of India’s talents. And that 1909 escape from the ship was talked about for years across India at the time. It did make him a daring hero.
He was also a skilled theoretician, an ideologue. His theory – that only those Indians were true Indians who saw India as their homeland and their holy land – made Muslims and Christians, second class citizens from the start. It was undemocratic and in the modern age reactionary, but the formulation possessed a strong appeal for quite a few. And he attracted passionate followers; he was quite a personality.
But an observer finds a troubling element in Savarkar’s life. This element was distinct from the two-nation ideology, different from the notions of greater rights for some, lesser rights for others. Notions that most people today would reject. That trait I am referring to was this: under the theory that ends justify any means, Savarkar seemed to encourage political violence. But he also made sure that when violence actually occurred and some people were caught and punished, he himself could claim that he was not involved. Some will find this skilful and admirable, others will not.
I can think of a common phrase in English that sums up what you’re saying: he didn’t practice himself what he preached to others. Some would say that’s tantamount to hypocrisy, I don’t want to be judgemental, I’ll simply leave that thought hanging in the air; the audience can decide for themselves.
I thank you Gandhi for joining us. I thank you in particular for establishing unequivocally that there is no question that Savarkar wrote multiple pleas for mercy and clemency; that he specifically asked for clemency; and that there is no sense in which, as you put it, it’s ridiculous, unthinkable and absurd to believe that Gandhiji, in 1920 after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, would have actually asked Savarkar to bend his knees and beg for mercy. I thank you for clarifying all that.
I don’t know if the defence minister will be listening but I certainly hope the audience who hears this will understand that whether it was done advertently or inadvertently, accidentally or purposefully, they were told something that is not the truth and you have now corrected it.
Thank you very much Rajmohan Gandhi, take care, stay safe.
This story first appeared on thewire.in