Rebuttal of Defamatory Article on Savarkar
An article defaming Swatantryaveer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
has been published in the issue of ‘The Week’ dated 24th 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.”
“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
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
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.
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 were not found
in Savarkar’s history sheet or that of any prisoner.
In his memoirs “Kranti ke Pathik, great revolutionary Prithvi Sing
Azad says “ Veer Savarkar
It interesting to note that in the same application dated 14th
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
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
23rd November 1912 One month's separate
confinement for being in possession of a note written by another
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 (Discharged on
11th June1916 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 14th 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
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 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, awake 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 11 years had not altered Savarkar’s beliefs in the
Savarkar’s Thoughts about the 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.
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
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 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
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
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
According to police report, this letter was reported in Maratha,
alongwith other newspapers, on 25th 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
During his prolonged house arrest of 14 years at Ratnagiri, Savarkar
was banned from political activity. 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
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
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 21st 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 25th 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 15th 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 19th 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 19th 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 Savarkarwadi – Savarkar’s followers – 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 is out of hatred that the accused in the case were repeatedly
referred to as Savarkar’s followers. Kapoor’s hatred of Maharashtra
becomes evident through the fact that in the findings of his report para
26.112, he has compared Godse to the lightning moves of the Maratha
army. 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 had not
been called as witnesses during the actual trial of the case. Their names
do not even appear on the list of the 101 witnesses examined by the
Allegation no. 5 – Savarkar was opposed to the tricolour
Reality – Though it is a fact that Savarkar was strongly opposed to
adoption of Congress flag, the tricolour sporting the charkha as a National
Flag, he was in support of the Indian tricolour adorned with the Ashoka
Chakra. In fact he himself hoited National Tricolor flag on his house on
15th August 1947.
It should also be noted that the first Indian National flag unfurled by
Madam Cama at the Stuttgart International Conference was designed by
him and was a tricolor flag.
– Ranjit Savarkar, Chairman, Swatantryaveer Savarkar Rashtriya Smarak, Dadar, Mumbai