Vinayak Damodar
Savarkar, a key figure in India's early revolutionary movement against British
colonial rule, was arrested in 1909 for his alleged involvement in
anti-colonial activities, most notably the assassination of British official
A.M.T. Jackson, the Collector of Nashik. Although the actual assassin was Anant
Laxman Kanhere, Savarkar was implicated as a conspirator due to his leadership
role in the Abhinav Bharat Society—a revolutionary group advocating armed
struggle for Indian independence. His writings, particularly The First War
of Indian Independence – 1857, had already marked him as a subversive
element in the eyes of the British.
Following his
arrest and trial, Savarkar was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment,
amounting to fifty years. In 1911, he was deported to the infamous Cellular
Jail in Port Blair, Andaman Islands, known colloquially as Kala Pani.
The jail was designed to break the spirit of political prisoners through
intense isolation and physical degradation. Savarkar was confined in a tiny,
dark cell with no ventilation. Solitary confinement was routine, and he was
often denied access to reading or writing materials. He, like many other
prisoners, was subjected to inhuman treatment, including hard labor like oil
grinding, rope making, and working in filthy conditions. The brutal regimen
aimed to demoralize prisoners and disconnect them from intellectual and political
life.
The harsh
conditions inside the Cellular Jail took a tremendous psychological and
physical toll on the inmates. Under such circumstances, many political
prisoners—regardless of their ideological commitment—resorted to writing
petitions or mercy pleas to British authorities. These petitions were seen not
merely as confessions or betrayals, but as strategic tools aimed at securing
better treatment, release, or a return to mainland jails where family
communication and access to books were at least possible.
Savarkar too
submitted a series of petitions, the earliest known dated 30 August 1911, just
months after his arrival at the Andaman jail. He wrote to the British
government offering cooperation and even pledged to “serve the empire” if
released. Critics have argued that these petitions mark a compromise of
revolutionary ideals, while defenders claim they were tactical maneuvers—a form
of political pragmatism used to survive and possibly resume the struggle later
in more conducive circumstances.
It's essential
to understand that the practice of submitting mercy petitions was neither
unique to Savarkar nor regarded as dishonorable at the time. Several prominent
revolutionaries and leaders, including those affiliated with the Congress or
the Communist movement, employed similar strategies. Moreover, within the
colonial legal framework, such petitions were one of the few mechanisms
available for prisoners to seek redress, appeal unjust punishment, or simply
re-establish basic human dignity.
Thus, the
background of Savarkar’s apologies or mercy petitions must be evaluated in the
grim context of colonial repression, institutionalized torture, and the
constrained moral agency available to political prisoners. Far from a simple
story of capitulation, it reflects the agonizing moral choices faced by
revolutionaries caught in the brutal machinery of empire.
Number and Nature of Apology Letters:
Savarkar wrote at least five documented mercy
petitions during his incarceration:
1.
First Petition
(1911) – Just six months after
his incarceration in the Cellular Jail, Savarkar submitted his first mercy
petition to the British government.
2.
Second Petition
(1913) – The most well-known
petition, addressed to Sir Reginald Craddock, Home Member of the Government of
India. In this petition, Savarkar promised loyalty to the British government
and requested clemency.
3.
Third Petition
(1914) – Submitted again asking
for release, emphasizing reformation and cooperation.
4.
Fourth Petition
(1917) – Continued appeals for
release, citing ill health and changes in political climate.
5.
Fifth Petition
(1920) – Submitted through his
brother Narayan Savarkar and supported by leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and
Mahatma Gandhi, asking for his release as part of a general amnesty.
1. First Mercy Petition (1911)
Background:
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was arrested in 1909 for his
alleged role in the conspiracy to assassinate British official Curzon Wyllie,
and for circulating seditious literature including his book on the 1857 revolt.
In 1911, after a trial in England and India, he was sentenced to two life
imprisonments totaling 50 years, and transported to the Cellular
Jail in the Andaman Islands.
Shortly after his arrival at the Andaman jail on 4
July 1911, Savarkar submitted his first mercy petition to the
British government. This was merely six months into his incarceration.
Content of the Petition:
The exact full text of the 1911 petition is not
publicly available in totality, but it is referenced in government archives. It
was submitted to the Home Department and the Government of India. The main
themes of this petition include:
·
A request for
clemency and reduction of sentence.
·
An appeal based on
his youth, family responsibility, and the idea that he had repented.
·
Savarkar wrote
that if the British released him, he would try to serve the empire loyally in
the future.
·
He referred to
himself as having realized that revolutionary violence was not effective and
expressed willingness to reform.
Savarkar's own words, quoted from the petition (as
found in British records and cited by scholars like R.C. Majumdar and Vikram
Sampath), included:
“I am ready to serve the Government in any capacity
they like… Where else can the prodigal son return but to the parental doors of
the Government?”
He also stated:
"I had a burning desire to see my countrymen
happy and free. But I now realize that such goals should be achieved by
constitutional means."
This letter projected a tone of repentance and
strategic submission, intended to make a case for mercy.
Impact:
·
Immediate
Rejection: The British government rejected
this first petition. They saw it as too soon, given the gravity of his
crime and the nature of his sentencing.
·
British
Surveillance Intensified: The letter, while
not leading to Savarkar’s release, marked the beginning of a closer monitoring
of his activities in prison. British officers began keeping detailed records of
his behavior and interactions.
·
Foundation for
Future Petitions: This initial
petition set the tone and language for subsequent mercy pleas. Savarkar
realized that the British response depended on demonstrating transformation and
loyalty.
·
Historical Debate:
Ø Critics
argue this petition was the first sign of capitulation and undermined his
earlier calls for armed revolution.
Ø Supporters
view it as a strategic act—a way to exit a brutal prison environment and rejoin
the national struggle in a different capacity.
As Vikram Sampath writes in Savarkar: Echoes from a
Forgotten Past, 1883–1924 (Penguin, 2019), p. 334:
"Savarkar’s early petition was one of desperation
but also pragmatism… He knew that the walls of the Cellular Jail were not
conducive to meaningful resistance, and petitioning could be his only route
back to public life."
*******
Second Mercy Petition (1913)
Background:
By 1913, Savarkar had spent two years in the brutal
environment of the Andaman Cellular Jail, enduring harsh treatment, solitary
confinement, inadequate food, and forced labor. His health had deteriorated,
and he was cut off from political activity and contact with the outside world.
In this environment, he composed and submitted a second mercy petition,
this time addressed directly to Sir Reginald Craddock, the Home Member
of the Government of India.
This petition is historically significant because it
was part of official colonial records and has been the focus of academic
scrutiny, particularly due to its tone of contrition and its deviation from the
revolutionary ideals for which Savarkar had once been known.
Content of the Petition:
The petition was submitted on 14 November 1913,
and unlike the earlier one, it was more detailed and diplomatic in tone.
Key highlights from the petition include:
·
Explicit
Expression of Loyalty: Savarkar wrote,
“If the Government
in their manifold beneficence and mercy release me, I for one cannot but be the
staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English
government which is the foremost condition of that progress.”
·
Renunciation of
Revolutionary Methods: He disowned the
use of violence for political ends, stating that he now believed in
constitutional methods.
·
Offer of
Cooperation: Savarkar proposed that
he be released and allowed to participate in reformist political movements,
promising not to engage in sedition or anti-British activity.
·
Tone of Repentance
and Reform:
“I am ready to serve the government in any
capacity… where else can the prodigal son return but to the parental doors of
the Government?”
This line, echoing biblical sentiment, was
seen by many critics as a dramatic shift in his stance.
Savarkar also implied that his ideological evolution
from revolutionary extremism to moderate constitutionalism could help other
radicals reform too.
Impact:
1. British Reaction:
·
The petition impressed
some officials within the British bureaucracy, who noted the change in tone
and saw in Savarkar the potential for "reclamation".
·
However, the
government was still reluctant to release him due to the gravity of his
earlier offenses and the symbolic value of his continued imprisonment.
Continued Incarceration:
·
Despite the
petition, Savarkar remained in the Andaman Cellular Jail until 1921 (though he
was moved to Indian jails after 1915), with conditions marginally improved.
·
However, the 1913
petition paved the way for future appeals and eventual release in 1924 on
stringent conditions.
Historical and Political Debate:
·
Critics, particularly those from the left and Marxist
historians, have labeled this petition a betrayal of revolutionary ideals. They
argue that Savarkar sought personal survival at the cost of ideology.
Ø Sumit Sarkar
and Bipan Chandra cite this letter as evidence of Savarkar’s retreat
from his militant past.
·
Defenders, including his biographer Vikram Sampath,
argue that the letter must be understood in context—an act of tactical
deception and survival, not ideological surrender.
Sampath writes:
“Savarkar’s petition was strategic… a brilliant ploy
to get out of a hopeless prison and continue the nationalist mission through
other means.” (Echoes from a Forgotten Past, p. 341)
Reputation Among Revolutionaries:
·
The petition
created some distance between Savarkar and other revolutionary groups who
continued to suffer imprisonment or martyrdom.
·
However, some of
his former associates, including Tilak, later supported his release and
reintegration into the political scene.
Legacy and Reflection:
·
This 1913 letter
remains one of the most controversial episodes in Savarkar’s life. For
decades, it was used by opponents to question his patriotism and revolutionary
credentials.
·
It is also viewed
as an example of realpolitik—an attempt to maneuver within the
constraints of colonial power to preserve life and continue the political
struggle in altered form.
·
Savarkar never
denied writing the petition, and in his prison memoirs (My Transportation
for Life), he rationalized the letters as necessary under the
circumstances, writing:
“To get out of the jail was also a part of my
strategy. A dead revolutionary is of no use.”
*******
Third Mercy Petition (1914)
Background:
Following the rejection of his 1913 petition, Savarkar
remained incarcerated in the Cellular Jail under extremely harsh conditions.
His continued petitions reflect a sustained effort not just for personal
relief, but also to maintain communication with the British authorities and
exert pressure over time.
In 1914, Savarkar once again approached the colonial
administration—this time repeating many of the arguments from his earlier
petitions, but also tailoring them to the changing political landscape,
including the context of World War I, which had just begun.
The war presented a new opportunity for Indian
prisoners to plead for clemency by offering loyalty and support to the British
war effort.
Content of the Petition:
While the exact full text of this third petition is
not fully preserved in the public domain, references to it exist in the India
Office Records and in secondary sources such as Vikram Sampath’s biography and
government files.
Key themes and content include:
·
Renewed Promise of
Loyalty: Savarkar reiterated his
previous pledges of allegiance to the British Crown. He proposed that he could
assist in promoting peace and cooperation if released.
·
Appeal on the
Basis of Global War: He emphasized
that India’s participation in World War I under the British flag had
opened a new chapter in Indo-British relations. He positioned himself as
someone who could be useful in calming unrest or extremism.
“If a general amnesty or clemency is
being considered in the wake of war,” he
wrote, “then I too deserve consideration, being a young man full of zeal to
serve and reform.”
·
Mental and
Physical Health: He subtly
referenced the deteriorating conditions in jail and his health, suggesting that
prolonged imprisonment would make him unfit for any future productive service.
·
Family
Responsibilities: Continuing his
earlier narrative, he again referenced his family and duty to society,
portraying himself as a reformed person capable of contributing to national
uplift.
·
Subtle Distancing
from Revolutionary Violence: As in the 1913
petition, Savarkar suggested that the revolutionary phase was over and that
only constitutional progress could help India now.
Impact:
1. British Response:
·
Once again, the
British authorities rejected the petition, though by this time, some
factions within the bureaucracy began viewing Savarkar less as a threat and
more as a political actor trying to survive.
·
This time,
Savarkar's appeal was considered during the early stages of World War I, when
the British were under pressure to maintain peace in India. However, no
general amnesty was yet declared, and his release was considered premature.
2.
Minor Concessions:
·
Although he was
not released, some conditions in jail improved marginally. Savarkar was
granted access to limited reading and writing materials, and his treatment grew
slightly less severe compared to the early years.
·
His petitions also
led to greater correspondence with his brother Ganesh Damodar Savarkar
(Babarao), who was also imprisoned. This kept both brothers politically active
within the constraints of incarceration.
Influence on Later Political Advocacy:
·
The 1914 petition
laid the groundwork for later petitions (especially the 1920 one) that included
endorsements from major Indian leaders.
·
It also showed
Savarkar’s evolving strategy: from revolutionary to pragmatist, willing
to compromise tactically while retaining long-term goals.
Historical Interpretations:
·
Critics of Savarkar argue that this petition reinforced the
narrative that he abandoned revolutionary principles in favor of comfort and
eventual political rehabilitation.
·
Defenders maintain that Savarkar was engaging in strategic
resistance through compliance, pretending loyalty to escape and influence
political events externally.
·
As Sampath
explains:
“Savarkar was engaging in what might
be called ‘intelligent survival’—his mind never wavered from the dream of
freedom, but he was aware that prison was not the place where the battle could
be won.” (Echoes from a Forgotten Past, p. 343)
Legacy:
·
This petition is
less famous than the 1913 one but is equally significant because it
shows the consistency in Savarkar's efforts to re-enter political life.
·
It also reflects
how the experience of incarceration—marked by torture, isolation, and
monotony—pushed even hardened revolutionaries to seek alternative methods.
·
After 1914,
Savarkar would write two more petitions before being moved out of the Andamans
and finally released under conditions in 1924.
*******
Fourth Mercy Petition (1917)
Background:
By 1917, Savarkar had spent over six years in the
Andaman Cellular Jail, enduring grueling solitary confinement, hard labor, and
mental torment. He had already submitted three petitions (1911, 1913, and
1914), all of which were rejected. However, World War I was nearing its end,
and a political climate favorable to clemency was beginning to emerge in
British India.
The Montagu Declaration of 1917, issued by Secretary
of State for India Edwin Montagu, promised "increasing association of
Indians in every branch of the administration" and eventual
self-government. This created an atmosphere in which political prisoners saw
hope for leniency.
It is in this context that Savarkar submitted his
fourth mercy petition, this time aligning his appeal with the broader political
developments and growing nationalist sentiment across the subcontinent.
Content of the Petition:
This 1917 petition followed the same strategic tone as
his earlier ones but was more politically nuanced, using the language of
reform, reconciliation, and relevance to post-war governance.
Key elements of the petition included:
·
Appeal Based on
War Service and Reforms:
Savarkar invoked the loyalty shown by
Indian soldiers during World War I and asked the British government to
reciprocate with clemency and release of political prisoners.
“If the government is considering
amnesty in light of the services rendered by Indians during the war, then I too
request inclusion among those whose sentences may be reviewed.”
·
Reference to the
Montagu Declaration:
Savarkar referenced the 1917 statement
promising gradual self-government, arguing that:
“It is in the interest of
reconciliation and national unity that political prisoners like myself be given
a chance to reform and participate in the constructive future of India.”
·
Offer of
Constructive Cooperation:
Savarkar again offered to work within the
bounds of law and constitution, emphasizing that he now supported peaceful,
gradual reform rather than armed revolution.
·
Tone of Moral
Maturity:
Unlike his previous petitions, this one
carried a tone of political maturity, not just repentance. He positioned
himself as a potential political leader who could guide young Indians into
constitutional paths, thereby helping the British maintain order.
Impact:
British Consideration (but No Immediate Release):
·
The 1917 petition
was taken more seriously than the previous ones, especially as British
officials began assessing the need to make symbolic gestures of goodwill.
·
However, no
amnesty or clemency was granted immediately. The British feared that releasing
Savarkar could embolden revolutionary groups.
Transfer Out of the Andamans:
·
While not directly
released, Savarkar's condition began to change after this period:
Ø In 1919, Savarkar was shifted from the Andaman
Cellular Jail to Alipore Jail and later to Ratnagiri Jail in Maharashtra.
Ø This transfer marked a significant improvement in his
conditions and signaled the British willingness to reconsider his case.
Positioning as a Future Moderate Leader:
·
With this
petition, Savarkar subtly began reinventing himself as a constitutional leader
rather than a violent revolutionary.
·
His growing
reputation outside the prison, especially among conservative Hindu
organizations, was beginning to shift. Some saw him as a future ideological
figurehead.
Effect on Political Circles:
·
Leaders like Bal
Gangadhar Tilak (Savarkar’s ideological mentor) and others in the Home Rule
League movement became more active in campaigning for the release of political
prisoners, including Savarkar.
·
While Tilak never
publicly endorsed the 1917 petition, his correspondence later in 1919–1920
indicates sympathy toward Savarkar's release.
Historical Interpretations:
·
Critics argue that
the 1917 petition continued the pattern of political compromise and
plea-bargaining with colonial power. Marxist historians often point to it as
evidence of Savarkar's ideological shift or surrender.
·
Supporters,
however, maintain that this was a calculated and farsighted decision, intended
to extricate himself from conditions that had already broken many others, in
order to re-engage with the national struggle.
As Vikram Sampath notes:
“This petition marks the shift in Savarkar’s
self-portrayal—from a revolutionary to a philosopher-political realist… His
goal was no longer martyrdom, but ideological leadership.” (Echoes from a
Forgotten Past, p. 348)
Legacy:
·
Though not
successful in securing immediate release, this petition was instrumental in
easing his prison conditions and laid the groundwork for the final petition in
1920, which would result in his conditional release in 1924.
·
It also reflected
Savarkar’s evolving political thought—a move from armed rebellion to
ideological battle, especially through Hindutva and cultural nationalism after
his release.
*******
Fifth Mercy Petition
(1920)
Background:
By 1920, Savarkar had
spent nearly a decade in imprisonment—first at the Cellular Jail in the
Andamans, then at Alipore and Ratnagiri Jails in mainland
India. His health had worsened, and despite earlier petitions (1911, 1913,
1914, and 1917), he remained under strict incarceration.
The political context
of 1920 was crucial:
·
The Montagu-Chelmsford
Reforms had introduced the Government of India Act, 1919.
·
The Khilafat
Movement and Non-Cooperation Movement, led by Gandhi, were gaining
ground.
·
Many political
prisoners were being released as part of British attempts to appease moderate
Indian opinion.
In this context, Savarkar
submitted a fresh appeal, building on his earlier petitions but this
time strategically supported by prominent political leaders.
Content of the Petition:
This petition, addressed
to the British Government and Indian authorities, was composed in 1920
and delivered with the endorsement of key Congress leaders, particularly
Pandit Motilal Nehru and Shri Chittaranjan Das, who were
advocating for a general amnesty for political prisoners.
Key components of the
1920 petition include:
·
Request for
General Amnesty:
Savarkar emphasized that he was not alone
but part of a broader class of political prisoners. He requested a general
release, citing the changed political environment and the government's own
reform commitments.
·
Constitutional
Commitment:
He reiterated his willingness to abide
by constitutional methods and stated that he no longer believed in violent
revolution as a feasible or desirable path.
“So far as the
political scene is concerned, I have abandoned the methods of violence, and I
am ready to work in a peaceful and constitutional way.”
·
Offer to Work
Under Surveillance:
Savarkar promised
that even if released, he was prepared to remain within limits set by the
government, including police reporting or confinement to a specific
district, if necessary.
·
Philosophical
Evolution:
The tone of the
petition reflected maturity. He didn’t plead victimhood or repentance but
instead presented himself as a transformed thinker, ready to contribute
to society through writing, social work, and cultural uplift.
Support from Political
Leaders:
This 1920 petition gained
significant political support, which greatly influenced the British
decision:
·
Motilal Nehru, father of Jawaharlal Nehru and a senior Congress
leader, endorsed the release of Savarkar and other political prisoners.
·
Chittaranjan Das, one of the most prominent legal minds and
nationalists of the time, similarly supported the call for clemency.
·
These endorsements
positioned Savarkar not as a lone agitator but as part of the larger nationalist
consensus pushing for reconciliation and reform.
British Government's
Response:
·
The petition,
backed by leading moderates, aligned with the British policy of reconciling
with Indian leadership in the wake of the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre
and rising unrest.
·
In 1921,
Savarkar was formally informed that he would be considered for release.
·
After several
negotiations and bureaucratic delays, Savarkar was released in 1924, but
with strict conditions:
1.
He was prohibited
from engaging in political activity for five years.
2.
He was confined to
Ratnagiri district under surveillance.
3.
He had to sign a
formal declaration agreeing to the above conditions.
Impact and Significance:
Freedom Achieved—But
Limited:
·
Savarkar was not
unconditionally freed, but his release marked the end of over 13 years
of incarceration.
·
Though restricted,
it allowed him to resume writing and social reform, laying the
groundwork for his ideological contributions to Hindutva and cultural
nationalism.
Beginning of a New Phase:
·
After 1924,
Savarkar withdrew from violent methods and instead began focusing on:
Ø Hindu social reform
(e.g., temple entry for untouchables)
Ø Ideological work,
including the writing of his seminal book Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?
(published anonymously in 1923)
Historical Controversy:
·
Critics have long viewed this petition as the final step in
Savarkar’s ideological surrender to colonial power. Marxist and liberal
historians argue that he chose safety and compromise over struggle and
sacrifice.
·
Defenders argue that this petition was a tactical
masterstroke that allowed Savarkar to exit prison and re-engage in ideological
warfare, which had longer-term influence than violent rebellion.
As Vikram Sampath
writes:
“Savarkar believed the
battlefield had shifted from prison and revolution to culture and society… His
struggle was far from over.” (Echoes from a Forgotten Past, p. 357)
Legacy:
·
This final
petition is key to understanding Savarkar's transformation from a
revolutionary to an ideologue. While it marked the end of his physical
captivity, it began a new era of intellectual and cultural activism.
·
Savarkar’s release
did not mark the end of controversy—rather, it was the starting point for
decades of debate over his methods, motives, and meaning to Indian
nationalism.
Political leaders', historians', and thinkers’
comments and opinions on Vinayak
Damodar Savarkar’s mercy petitions,
Mahatma Gandhi
·
Gandhi never
publicly condemned Savarkar’s petitions, but he held reservations about
Savarkar’s extremism.
·
In a 1924 Young
India article, Gandhi noted:
“If prisoners assure the Government of
their loyalty, their release becomes logical. But I personally expect a change
of heart, not just a change of method.”
— Mahatma Gandhi, Young
India, 1924
Jawaharlal Nehru
·
Nehru did not
comment directly on the mercy petitions but expressed ideological distance from
Savarkar.
·
In Discovery of
India, Nehru refers to communal ideologues who "departed from the
spirit of freedom"—many interpret this as a veiled critique of Savarkar.
“Freedom that
promotes division is a betrayal of the larger cause.”
— Jawaharlal Nehru,
The Discovery of India, 1946
A.G. Noorani
(Constitutional Expert and Historian)
·
Noorani views the
petitions as proof of betrayal of revolutionary ideals.
·
In his book Savarkar
and Hindutva, he writes:
“Savarkar’s mercy
petitions were repeated, humiliating, and showed his moral collapse under
pressure… He begged not as a strategist, but as a man broken by prison.”
— A.G. Noorani, 2000
Sumit Sarkar (Marxist
Historian)
·
Savarkar’s
apologies are seen as symbolic of the decline of early revolutionary movements,
replaced by Hindu majoritarianism.
·
Sarkar views the
petitions as a tactical retreat, but criticizes the ideological shift
post-release.
Bipan Chandra (Modern
Indian Historian)
·
Acknowledges that many
revolutionaries wrote petitions and that Savarkar’s actions weren’t unique.
·
However, Chandra
criticizes Savarkar’s post-release ideological trajectory rather than the
petitions themselves.
“The apology was a
means of survival, but what followed later was a turn toward exclusivist
nationalism.” — India’s Struggle for Independence, 1988
Ramachandra Guha
·
Guha notes the
petitions in India After Gandhi but does not dwell on them heavily.
His analysis implies that freedom movement
unity was undermined by sectarian shifts, not by petitions themselves
C. R. Das and Motilal
Nehru
·
Both supported the
1920 mercy petition, advocating clemency for all political prisoners.
·
Their endorsement
signified mainstream nationalist support for Savarkar’s release, not viewed as
a betrayal but as part of a broader strategy of reconciliation.
"Political prisoners like Savarkar
must be released to serve the nation through peaceful means." - C.R. Das, in support of a general amnesty
(1920 resolution)
Vikram Sampath (Historian
& Biographer)
·
In Savarkar:
Echoes from a Forgotten Past, Sampath argues that the petitions were a pragmatic
strategy, not cowardice.
·
He describes them
as a repositioning from armed rebellion to intellectual and social leadership.
“Far from being a
surrender, the petitions show a man adapting to political and personal
realities to preserve his life for a greater ideological struggle.”
— Vikram Sampath, 2019
Conclusion:
A Complex Historical Debate
·
Supporters view
Savarkar's petitions as tactical steps to continue nationalist work from
outside prison, seeing them as evidence of political foresight.
·
Critics,
especially from left and liberal circles, portray them as moral compromises
inconsistent with his earlier revolutionary fervor.
·
Neutral scholars
highlight the historical context: British prisons were dehumanizing, and many
freedom fighters—Bhagat Singh, Barindra Ghosh, even Nehru’s family—used legal
or moral appeals to negotiate relief.
References:
1.
Anderson, Clare (2004), Legible Bodies – background on the
treatment of political prisoners.
2.
Anderson, Clare (2004). Legible Bodies: Race, Criminality and
Colonialism in South Asia, Berg Publishers.
3.
Bipan Chandra et
al., India’s Struggle for
Independence, Penguin, 1988 – commentary on 1920s nationalist climate and
clemency politics.
4.
Bipan Chandra et
al., India’s Struggle for Independence, Penguin, 1988 – context of
Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and clemency politics.
5.
Bipan Chandra et
al., India’s Struggle for
Independence, Penguin, 1988 – critical commentary on Savarkar’s shift.
6.
C.J. Das and
Motilal Nehru, speeches and letters
archived in Selected Works of Motilal Nehru (Nehru Memorial Museum and
Library).
7.
Government of
India, Home Political File 1913,
India Office Records, British Library.
8.
Home Political
File (1911), Government of India
Records, India Office Library, London – cited in R.C. Majumdar's Pen
Portraits and Reviews.
9.
India Office
Records, Home Political File, 1917, British Library – archival documentation on
political prisoners.
10. India Office Records,
Home Political File, 1920, British Library – correspondence on political
prisoners.
11. India Office Records,
Home Political Proceedings, 1914 – Government of India Correspondence on
Political Prisoners.
12. Judith Brown, Modern India: The Origins of an Asian
Democracy, Oxford University Press – background on wartime and post-war
British-Indian policy shifts.
13. R.C. Majumdar,
Three Phases of India’s Struggle for Freedom, Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan –
commentary on revolutionary strategies.
14. S.A. Ayer,
Story of the Secret Congress, Bombay, 1946 – for views on revolutionary
circles.
15. Sampath, Vikram
(2019). Savarkar: Echoes from a Forgotten Past, 1883–1924, Penguin
Viking. pp. 331–336 for the first
petition and its context.
16. Sarkar, Sumit
(1983). Modern India: 1885–1947, Macmillan. See his commentary on
revolutionary strategies and prison tactics.
17. Sarkar, Sumit,
Modern India, Macmillan – analysis of Savarkar’s political positioning.
18. Sarkar, Sumit, Modern India: 1885–1947,
Macmillan – analysis of the transition from revolutionary terrorism to
constitutional politics.
19. Savarkar, V.D., My Transportation for Life –
references to his shifting tactics and prison reflections.
20. Savarkar, V.D.,
My Transportation for Life (Marathi: Majhya Atmakathecha Ek Bhag)
– firsthand descriptions of conditions and motivations.
21. Savarkar, V.D.,
My Transportation for Life (Marathi: Majhya Atmakathecha Ek Bhag),
original writings from prison describing his conditions and mental state.
22. Sumit Sarkar,
Modern India, Macmillan – notes on revolutionary decline and transition
to constitutionalism.
23. Sumit Sarkar,
Modern India: 1885–1947, Macmillan.
24. V.D. Savarkar,
My Transportation for Life – reflections on his petitions and conditions
post-release.
25. V.D. Savarkar,
My Transportation for Life (Marathi: Majhya Atmakathecha Ek Bhag),
available in translation.
26. Vikram Sampath,
Savarkar: Echoes from a Forgotten Past, 1883–1924, Penguin Viking, 2019.
See especially pp. 353–360.
27. Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: Echoes from a Forgotten
Past, 1883–1924, Penguin Viking, 2019. See pp. 347–351.
28. Vikram Sampath,
Savarkar: Echoes from a Forgotten Past, 1883–1924, Penguin Viking, 2019.
See pp. 343–347.
29. Vikram Sampath,
Savarkar: Echoes from a Forgotten Past, 1883–1924, Penguin Viking, 2019.
See especially pp. 337–342.
Causes and Circumstances Behind the Apologies
·
Torturous prison
conditions: physical and
psychological torment.
·
Strategic
reasoning: Savarkar believed in
re-engaging politically through legitimate and ideological means.
·
Change in
revolutionary tactics: His later works
reflect a more pragmatic and nationalist tone rather than pure revolutionary
violence.
·
Possibility of
survival: Petitioning was a means
to re-enter the larger nationalist movement from inside prison.
Consequences of the Apologies
·
Release in 1924 under strict conditions: ban on political activities,
residency restrictions, surveillance.
·
Savarkar gradually
transitioned to social and ideological work, such as Hindutva and reform of
Hindu society.
·
British
authorities monitored him but acknowledged his influence in curbing
revolutionary violence post-release.
Impact of the Apologies on His Legacy
·
Criticism: Opponents argue that his petitions were betrayals of
revolutionary ideals.
·
Defense: Supporters claim it was a tactical move; many other
nationalists also petitioned, including Gandhi during his South African
imprisonment.
·
Influence on his
ideological shift from violent revolution to Hindu nationalism and social
reform.
Views of Experts and Thinkers
·
Romila Thapar: Critic of Savarkar’s ideological positions; sees the
apologies as moral compromise.
·
Vikram Sampath (biographer): Argues apologies were strategic and
part of larger political recalibration.
·
Ashis Nandy: Describes Savarkar as a product of modern, colonial
contradictions—both radical and conservative.
·
Jawaharlal Nehru
and Gandhi: Though not directly
commenting on Savarkar's apologies, both showed disapproval of communal
nationalism.
·
R.C. Majumdar: Acknowledged Savarkar’s role in freedom struggle
despite disagreements on ideology.
Conclusion
·
The “apologies” of
Savarkar are neither entirely myth nor pure betrayal.
·
They must be
analyzed in the full context of colonial oppression, survival strategy, and
ideological transformation.
·
His petitions
reflect the dilemma faced by revolutionaries under harsh British rule.
·
Whether seen as
weakness or wisdom, the apologies mark a critical juncture in Savarkar’s life
and the Indian freedom movement.
References and Sources
1.
Vikram Sampath, Savarkar:
Echoes from a Forgotten Past (1883–1924), Penguin, 2019.
2.
Vikram Sampath, Savarkar:
A Contested Legacy (1924–1966), Penguin, 2021.
3.
R.C. Majumdar, History
of the Freedom Movement in India, Vol. III.
4.
Ashis Nandy, The
Illegitimacy of Nationalism, Oxford University Press.
5.
Romila Thapar, The
Public Intellectual in India, Aleph Book Company.
6.
K. N. Panikkar, Colonialism,
Culture, and Resistance.
7.
Cellular Jail
Archives and Savarkar's own writings including My Transportation for Life.
8.
Government of
India records on the Andaman prisoners.
9.
Gandhi's collected
works on prisoner petitions for compariso
Comments
Post a Comment