 |
||
|
||
|
||
To prove their sick theory that Veer Savarkar had begged for mercy from the British to secure his release from the Cellular Jail, the Communists like to flaunt a booklet published by the Government in 1975 called Penal Settlements in Andaman authored by RC Majumdar, the historian they otherwise dub as "communal". Why the sudden love for Majumdar who their "eminent" historians routinely denigrate? Simply because the famous scholar had reproduced in it a petition submitted by Savarkar on November 14, 1913, requesting his release from the jail. This, to the Communists, constitutes "evidence" of his "cowardice".
Fine up to here. But what would they say if it is pointed out that Savarkar had filed not one, but six (August 30, 1911, October 29, 12, November 14, 1913, September 10, 1914, October 2, 1917 and March 30, 1920) mercy petitions ? While we await AK Gopalan Bhavan's response, let us see how the British treated these "entreaties". The Home Secretary, Sir RH Craddock, personally visited the Andamans and had a two-hour-long talk with Savarkar on November 21, 1913. Impressed by Savarkar's sharp intellect and articulation, he wrote in his Note dated November 23: "Savarkar's petition is for mercy. He cannot be said to express any regret or repentance. It is quite impossible to give him any liberty here, and I think he would escape from any Indian jail. So important is he that the European section of the Indian anarchists would plot for his escape which would before long be organized. If he were allowed outside the Cellular Jail his escape would be certain." (National Archives of India, Home, Political Affairs, February 1915, Nos. 68-160).
Repeated rejections of the Savarkar brothers' petitions aroused a public agitation in Maharashtra. A British official, H McPherson, admitted on March 18, 1920: "There is considerable demand for the release of at least one of these two brothers. One cannot read the history sheets of the two brothers without feeling that the latter (Veer) is the really dangerous man with the brains and temperament of the born leader, whereas the former (GD) has nothing like the same ability or force of character... The objection to release in his (Veer's) case lies not so much in the seriousness of his offence as in his temperament..." (NAI, Home, Political, August 1920, Nos.368-373).
But, the British Government did not agree. On June 19, A Montgomerry, Chief Secretary of Bombay, wrote back to McPherson: "The Government of Bombay gave this case their most careful consideration... .and came to the conclusion that the release of either of the Savarkar brothers was inadvisable. The Government of India accepted the policy that dangerous convicts of the type of the Savarkar brothers should not get the benefit of amnesty."
Compared to our Leftist intellectuals and pseudo-secularists, the British were shrewd judges of character. They knew that Veer Savarkar was a revolutionary who did not aspire to earn a halo of passive martyrdom by rotting in a jail, but wanted to give a fight. So his "mercy petitions" were nothing but attempts at tactical retreat. Veer Savarkar's hero was Shivaji, not Rana Pratap.
In 1909, while he was being transported to India as a prisoner, he committed the daring feat of jumping into the ocean off the French port of Marseilles. One may differ with Savarkar's ideology, but no one can question his patriotism and heroism. Mahatma Gandhi, who joined the public chorus for the Savarkar brothers' release in May, 1921, said: "He is clever. He is brave, He is a patriot. The evil, in its hidden form of the present system of Government, he saw much earlier than I did. He is in the Andamans for having loved India too well. Under a just government he would be occupying a high post." (Young India, June 18, 1921)
While the British at least honoured Savarkar, they held India's communists with utter contempt even after they offered their services as fifth columnists. When the CPI's then general secretary, PC Joshi, submitted a memorandum to the Government detailing his party's opposition to the Quit India Movement, the Additional Secretary, Home, Richard Tottenham, wrote on March 24, 1943: "The fact, however, is that the communists are the sort of people who must always be 'anti' something rather than 'pro' anything (except perhaps themselves and a shadowy entity called 'the people'). It would be something gained if we could at least drive them into the position of proclaiming themselves openly as 'anti-CSP (Congress Socialist Party) and Forward Bloc', or in other words, 'anti-Left wing Congress''
How prophetic this turned out !
(The author is a historian and columnist)
|
||
|
||
|
||