SAVARKAR AS A FREEDOM FIGHTER: SUPREME COURT HONOURABLE JUSTICES DIPANKAR DATTA & MANMOHAN REWRITE HISTORY OF INDIAN FREEDOM STRUGGLE!
Shamsul Islam
According to press reports a Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Dipankar Datta [to retire in February 2030] and Justice Manmohan [to retire in 2027] temporarily paused legal proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi initiated by a Lucknow court concerning his defamatory remarks about Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966) on April 25, 2025. Rahul was charged with offences under Section 153A (promoting enmity) and 505 (public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). While granting stay the bench recorded that Rahul had a “good point in law” which would entitle him to an order of stay on the summons.
However, the bench issued a strong oral warning to Rahul against such statements. The Justices cautioned Gandhi that the court might initiate action suo motu – meaning on its own initiative – if similar statements were repeated. Justice Datta was said to have stated: “This is not the way to treat our freedom fighters. They have given us freedom.” The Lucknow defamation case was filed after Gandhi’s remarks during the Bharat Jodo Yatra on November 17, 2022, that Savarkar collaborated with the British and received a pension. Rahul approached the Supreme Court after Allahabad high court refused to cancel summons. During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench asked Rahul’s lawyers, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Prasanna S. whether “Does he [Rahul] know his grandmother also sent a letter to the freedom fighter praising him?” adding, “You cannot make such statements without knowing history…”. (‘Supreme Court Stays Summons Against Rahul Gandhi Over Savarkar Remarks’, The Wire, 25- 04-2025.)
According to another press report Justice Dipankar Dutta admonishing Rahul stated that “His statements would prompt other to make similar remarks against other freedom fighters” while reminding that in Maharashtra Savarkar was “worshipped as God”. Justice Datta asked Rahul’s lawyers whether their client knew that “even Mahatma Gandhi used ‘your faithful servant’ while addressing the Viceroy…Tomorrow, somebody can say Mahatma Gandhi was a servant of the British… You are encouraging these sorts of statements”.
The apex court issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh and the complainant, Nripendra Pandey, a Lucknow resident. It listed the case after eight weeks. (Krishnadas Rajagopal, ‘Remarks on Savarkar: Supreme Court stays summons to Rahul Gandhi indefamation case’, The Hindu, April, 25, 2025).
Let us compare the claims of these Honourable Justices that Savarkar (the only ‘Veer’ or brave in the Hindutva list of the pantheon of great freedom fighters) was great freedom fighter who gave us independence with the contemporary documents available in the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS archives.
Savarkar’s Hatred for the Tricolour
Savarkar, abhorred every symbol of the Indian people’s united struggle against the British rule. He refused to accept the Tricolour (at that time there used to be a charkha or spinning wheel in the middle of it) as national flag or flag of the freedom struggle. In a statement issued on September 22, 1941, for the benefit of Hindu Mahasabha cadres, he declared,
“So far as the flag question is concerned, the Hindus know no flag representing Hindudom as a whole than the ‘Kundalini Kripanankit’ Mahasabha flag with the ‘Om and the Swastik’ the most ancient symbols of the Hindu race and policy coming down from age to age and honoured throughout Hindusthan…[It] flies aloft on every Hindusabha branch office at thousands of centres. Therefore, any place or function where this Pan-Hindu flag is not honoured should be boycotted by the Hindu sanghatanists at any rate…The Charkha-Flag in particular may very well represent a Khadi-Bhandar, but the Charkha can never symbolize and represent the spirit of the proud and ancient nation like the Hindus.” (Bhide, A. S. (ed.), Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s Whirlwind Propaganda: Extracts from the President’s Diary of his Propagandist Tours Interviews from December 1937 to October 1941, na, Bombay, 1940, p. 470-73.)
Muslim League [ML] under MA Jinnah demanded Pakistan in March 1940. Long before Savarkar had laid down the two-nation theory. Savarkar took over the leadership of Hindu Mahasabha [HM] in 1937. While addressing the 19th Session of Hindu Mahasabha at Ahmedabad in the same year stated:
“As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India, several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation…India cannot be assumed today to be a Unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems, in India.” (Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan (Collected works of Savarkar in English), vol. 6, Hindu Mahasabha, Pune, 1963, p. 296.)
The Quit India Movement began on August 9, 1942, as per Gandhi’s call to ‘Do or Die’ in order to expel the British from India. The British rulers swiftly responded with mass detentions on August 8th itself. Over 100,000 arrests were made, including the total top leadership of Congress including MK Gandhi, mass fines were levied, and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. Hundreds of civilians were killed in violence, many shot by the police and army. Congress was banned. It is not generally known that during these times of repression Savarkar announced full support to the British rulers. Addressing the 24th session of the HM at Kanpur in 1942, Savarkar outlined the strategy of the Hindu Mahasabha of co-operating with the rulers in the following words:
“The Hindu Mahasabha holds that the leading principle of all practical politics is the policy of Responsive Co-operation [with the British].” He called upon HM councillors, ministers, legislators and conducting any municipal or any public bodies to offer Responsive Co-operation which covers the whole gamut of patriotic activities from unconditional co-operation right up to active and even armed resistance…” (V. D. Savarkar, Hindu Rashtra Darshan, vol. 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindusabha, Poona, 1963, p. 112.)
HM and ML joined hands in running coalition governments in Bengal and Sind (and later NWFP). Defending this collusion between HM and ML against Congress Savarkar stated, “In practical politics also the Mahasabha knows that we must advance through reasonable compromises. Witness the fact that only recently in Sind, the Sind- Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the responsibility of joining hands with the League itself in running coalition Government. The case of Bengal is well known. Wild Leaguers…as soon as they came in contact with the HM and the Coalition Government, under the premiership of Mr. Fazlul Huq and the able lead of our esteemed Mahasabha leader Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji, functioned successfully for a year or so to the benefit of both the communities.” (Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan (Collected works of Savarkar in English), Hindu Mahasabha, Pune, 1963, pp. 479-80.)
It is to be noted that Mookerji was deputy premier and held the portfolio of suppressing QIM in Bengal. Backstabbing Netaji Subhash Chander Bose. When Netaji was planning to liberate India militarily, Savarkar offered full military co-operation to the British masters. Addressing 23rd session of Hindu Mahasabha at Bhagalpur in 1941, he declared:
“Our best national interests demands that so far as India’s defence is concerned, Hindudom must ally unhesitatingly, in a spirit of responsive co-operation with the war effort of the Indian government in so far as it is consistent with the Hindu interests, by joining the Army, Navy and the Aerial forces in as large a number as possible and by securing an entry into all ordnance, ammunition and war craft factories…Again it must be noted that Japan’s entry into the war has exposed us directly and immediately to the attack by Britain’s enemies…Hindu Mahasabhaits must, therefore, rouse Hindus especially in the provinces of Bengal and Assam as effectively as possible to enter the military forces of all arms without losing a single minute.” (Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan (Collected works of Savarkar in English), vol. 6, Hindu Mahasabha, Pune, 1963, pp.)
According to HM documents Savarkar was able to inspire one lakh Hindus to join the ranks of the British armed forces who played crucial role in killing INA soldiers in Eastern India.
Veer Savarkar submitted minimum 5 mercy petitions [MP] in 1911, 1913, 1914, 1918 and 1920. Savarkarites claim that these were submitted not as an act of cowardice but “as an ardent follower of Shivaji; Savarkar wanted to die in action. Finding this the only way, he wrote six letters to the British pleading for his release”. A perusal of the two available mercy petitions will prove that there cannot be a lie worse than the claim that Savarkar’s MP petitions were in league with the tricks which Shivaji used to hoodwink the Mughal rulers successfully. The mercy petition dated 14th November 1913 ended with the following words:
“[Therefore], 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. …Moreover, my conversion to the constitutional line would bring back all those misled young men in India and abroad who were once looking up to me as their guide. I am ready to serve the Government in any capacity they like, as my conversion is conscientious so I hope my future conduct will be. By keeping me in jail nothing can be got in comparison to what would be otherwise. The Mighty alone can afford to be merciful and therefore where else can the prodigal son return but to the parental doors of the Government?” (Reproduced from RC Majumdar, Penal Settelment in Andamans, Government of India, Delhi, 1975, pp-211-213.)
The petition dated 30th March 1920 from this prodigal son of the British masters ended with the following words:
“The brilliant prospects of my early life all but too soon blighted, have constituted so painful a source of regret to me that a release would be a new birth and would touch my heart, sensitive and submissive, to kindness so deeply as to render me personally attached and politically useful in future. For often magnanimity wins even where might fails.” (National Archives, Delhi)
There was nothing wrong on the part of the CJ detainees in writing mercy petitions to the British. It was an important legal right available to prisoners. Apart from Savarkar, Barin, HK Kanjilal, and Nand Gopal too submitted petitions. However, these were only Savarkar and Barin who sought forgiveness for their revolutionary past. Kanjilal and Nand Gopal did not demand any personal favour but status of political prisoners.
Savarkar was incarcerated at Andamans on July 4, 1911, for two life terms [50 years]. On May 2, 1921 [after NINE years TEN months] he was transferred along with his elder brother, Babarao, to the mainland. He was finally released conditionally on January 6, 1924, from Yeravda Jail after serving total imprisonment of TWELVE years SIX months.
Savarkar received monthly pension after release. The first official biographer of Savarkar, Dhananjay Keer corroborated the fact that “[The] district magistrate of Ratnagiri fixed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 50 and later raised to Rs. 60”. (Dhananjay Keer, Veer Savarkar, Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1950, p. 219).
Savarkar was a great defender of the Hindu princes ruling native India. According to Savarkar, the Hindu princes were not only co-religionists but also descendants of the brave Hindu kings in the past, both Hindu Mahasabha and RSS proudly described the Hindu princes ruling native India in league with the British rulers as ‘Shakti-sthan’ (centres of power) of Hinduism. It surely meant that Hindu sectarian leadership had neither any idea about the aspirations of toiling Hindu masses nor believed that Hindu princes were nothing but fifth column of Britain in India. The crucial fact should not be missed here that only those princes (both Hindu and Muslim) who remained loyal to foreign rulers by contributing men and material in suppressing the ‘Mutiny’ were retained as native rulers by the colonial masters in the post-1857 period.
These Hindu rulers as true and committed henchmen of the White masters never allowed any democratic activity in their kingdoms, this is what Sardar Patel underscored plenty of times. There were endless instances of rape, killing, maiming and terrible persecution of political activists demanding basic human rights in these native states. Mysore was a Hindu princely state a darling of Savarkar where 26 patriotic Indians were massacred by the police of the ruler for daring to salute Tricolour. Shockingly, it was in defence of this massacre which had sent a wave of indignation throughout India that Savarkar sent the following message to the Mysore Hindu Sabha session at Shimoga on April 17, 1941:
“The chief aim of the Mysore State Hindu Sabha must be to consolidate and strengthen the Hindu power in the Hindu State and to stand by the Maharaja and the Hindu State in weal and woe extending the most loyal and patriotic support to them in defending the Prince and the State against any subversive activities carried on by any non-Hindu forces or by the Hindu dupes of the Pseudo Nationalistic organisations.” (AS Bhide, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s Whirlwind Propaganda: Extracts from the President’s Diary of his Propagandist Tours Interviews from December 1937 to October 1941, na, Hindu Mahasabha, Bombay, p. 343)
Savarkar even preached that it was legitimate to have the King of Nepal as ‘Free Hindusthan’s Future Emperor’ if the British leave India. His advice to the British rulers was very clear:
“If an academical [sic] probability is at all to be indulged in of all factors that count today, His Majesty the King of Nepal, the scion of the Shisodias[sic], alone has the best chance of winning the Imperial crown of India. Strange as it may seem, the English know it better than we Hindus do…It is not impossible that Nepal may even be called upon to control the destiny of India itself. Even Britain will feel it more graceful that the Sceptre [sic]of Indian Empire, if it ever slips out of her grip, should be handed over to an equal and independent ally of Britain like His Majesty the King of Nepal than to one who is but a vassal and a vanquished potentate of Britain like the Nizam.”i [Italics as in the original] (Bhide, AS, (ed.), Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s Whirlwind Propaganda: Extracts from the President’s Diary of his Propagandist Tours Interviews from December 1937 to October 1941, na, Bombay, 1940, pp. 256-57.)
Sardar Patel in a letter to prominent leader of Hindu Mahasabha, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee on July 18, 1948, stated unequivocally:
“As regards the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, the case relating to Gandhiji’s murder is sub judice and I should not like to say anything about the participation of the two organizations, but our reports do confirm that, as a result of the activities of these two bodies, particularly the former, an atmosphere was created in the country in which such a ghastly tragedy became possible. There is no doubt in my mind that the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasabha was involved in the conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of Government and the State. Our reports show that those activities, despite the ban, have not died down. Indeed, as time has marched on, the RSS circles are becoming more defiant and are indulging in their subversive activities in an increasing measure. (Letter 64 in Sardar Patel: Select Correspondence1945-1950, volume 2, Navjivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1977, pp. 276-77.)
It is perplexing that the bench despite orally declaring Rahul slanderer gave him relief. Were they not sure of their oral interventions? Thanks to the fact that for the time being oral injunctions have not been put into the 25th order but if done in future we shall see elevation of Savarkar through a judicial decree to the status of a Holy figure, never to be questioned. India will have to consign to dustbin innumerable writings including of DR. BR Ambedkar and file cases against those researchers who want to know real Savarkar.
Justice Datta tutored an unheard wisdom to Rahul. Savarkar and MK Gandhi were both freedom fighters because “even Mahatma Gandhi used ‘your faithful servant’ while addressing the Viceroy”. The Lordship reads the mode of addressing (used in all communications by the ruled during the colonial period) and does not bother to read the text written in letters by them. Savarkar begged for release renouncing his revolutionary past, got his period of imprisonment slashed from 50 years to 12.5 years only [3/4th remission] and was granted a monthly family pension as we discussed above. Justice Datta has only denigrated Mahatma Gandhi by arguing that so far as attitude to the British masters was concerned Gandhi was a collaborator of the colonial masters like Savarkar as he too wrote ‘your faithful servant’.
The Apex court Justices were right in stating that Rahul’s grandmother, former PM Indira Gandhi praised Savarkar and admonished him “without knowing history” exactly for this reason Indira Gandhi praised Savarkar and Honourable Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan continue idolizing him. The tragedy of the narrative of Indian freedom struggle has been that Hindu nationalism was equated with Indian nationalism. Most of the post-independence historians kept under wraps the glaring facts presented above. Both the Lords must opt for refreshers’ course to know the real history of the freedom struggle. If Savarkar was ‘Veer’ and led India to freedom, Honourable Justices must enlighten Indians, who were Bhagat Singh and hundreds of martyrs like him.
Top - Home