Vinayak Savarkar

The Unread Judgments on Gandhi’s Assassination

The investigation, trial, appeal to the high court and appeal to the privy council were all completed with remarkable speed, in 20 months.

This year on January 30 will be exactly 75 years to Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination at the hands of those against his message of non-violence and fierce defence of a syncretic India. In a series of articles and videos, The Wire takes stock of Gandhi’s murder, and delves deeper into the forces and ideas behind independent India’s first act of terror. Recent years have seen another attempt to kill Gandhi, his ideas, spirit and message. We hope to help unpack where India stands today and its future, through the lense of how the Father of the Nation’s legacy is being treated.

Seventy five years ago, Nathuram Godse pumped three bullets into the chest of Mahatma Gandhi. The investigation, trial, appeal to the high court and appeal to the privy council were all completed with remarkable speed, in 20 months. A study of the judgments is rewarding for legal historians, and for collectors of trivia. For reasons of space, we are not going into the details of the conspiracy and the specific roles of the different accused persons, and are assuming that the reader is broadly familiar with these. Though Gandhi was shot in Delhi, the plot was hatched in the erstwhile Bombay Province and so, the investigating officer of the case was Jamshed Dorab Nagarvala (Jimmy Nagarvala), the deputy commissioner of police, Special Branch Bombay (Nagarvala rose to be inspector general of police and also headed the Indian Hockey Federation for many years). He was chosen not only for his skills as an investigator, but as Tushar Gandhi mentions in his book Let’s Kill Gandhi, he was fortuitously neither Hindu nor Muslim, and therefore communally neutral. The trial judge was Judge Atma Charan, ICS who sat at a special court constituted on May 4, 1948 under Sections 10 and 11 of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947. The court sat in a hall on the upper floor of a building in the Red Fort, which formerly housed barracks. Godse, Narayan Apte, Vishnu Karkare, Digambar Badge, Madanlal Pahwa, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal Godse and Vinayak Savarkar, who were then at Bombay, and Dattatreya Parchure, who was then at Gwalior, were brought to Delhi before the trial started and were lodged in the Red Fort in an area which was declared to be a prison. The charge-sheet against the accused (there were 11 in all but three were declared absconding) was submitted to the court on May 27, 1948. Badge was tendered a pardon on June 21, 1948.

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty

Since India was not yet a republic, the prosecutor was the Crown and the title of the judgment is “The Crown versus Nathuram Vinayak Godse and Others”. The charges were read out and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried. The prosecution was led by C.K. Daphtary, then advocate general of Bombay, who later became solicitor general of India, and then attorney general for India. His team of lawyers included J.C. Shah, who would go on to become chief justice of India and later head the post-Emergency Shah Commission of Enquiry. Godse was represented by V.V. Oak, advocate but later on applied for and got permission to argue himself. Apart from other counsel representing other accused, it is noteworthy that Savarkar was represented by the formidable P.R. Das of Patna who would soon thereafter lead a challenge to the zamindari abolition acts after the commencement of the Constitution. The evidence of the prosecution began on June 24, 1948 went on till November 6, 1948. The prosecution examined 149 witnesses, and brought on record 404 documentary exhibits and 80 material exhibits. The recording of the statements of the accused began on November 8, 1948 and continued till November 22, 1948. All the accused, except Shankar Kistayya, an employee of the approver Digambar Badge, filed written statements. They brought on record 119 documentary exhibits. The accused declined to adduce evidence in their defence. Interestingly and significantly, in his written statement, Godse took full ownership of the act and denied that the other accused had conspired with him to commit the murder. Some of the accused pleaded alibi. Kistayya, in his written statement, stated that at the bidding of Badge, he transported revolvers and bombs from place to place. He later retracted his statement, likely at the instance of the other accused. Savarkar contended that he had no control over the acts of Godse and Apte. Among the witnesses to be examined by the prosecution as PW-78 was Morarji Desai, the then home minister of the Bombay Province. His evidence was used to corroborate the meeting of one Professor Dr J.C. Jain (PW-67) with the Premier of Bombay B.G. Kher on January 21, 1948 about the explosion which took place at Birla House, Delhi on January 20, 1948 (Madanlal Pahwa and others made an abortive attempt to assassinate the Mahatma on that day). Final arguments began December 1, 1948 and continued till December 30, 1948 and the judgment running into 110 printed pages was delivered promptly in less than six weeks, on February 10, 1949. Also read: How the Probe Into Gandhi’s Assassination Honed in on the Hindu Mahasabha The first thing that strikes a lawyer on reading the judgment of the special court is the logical manner in which the judge divided his judgment into 27 chapters. Judge Atma Charan rejected Godse’s defence that he was solely responsible, and disbelieved alibis pleaded by others. He convicted Godse, Apte, Karkare, Pahwa, Gopal Godse, Kistayya and Parchure. Godse and Apte were sentenced to death while the others were sentenced to transportation for life. However, he acquitted Sarvarkar and in acquitting him, he noted that the prosecution case rested only on the evidence of the approver, Badge, and felt it would be unsafe to base any conclusions on the approver’s evidence alone. Strictures were passed against the Delhi Police for slackness in investigation of the case from January 20, 1948, when there was an abortive attempt by Pahwa, until January 30, 1948. The court said: “Had the slightest keenness been shown in the investigation of the case at that stage, the tragedy probably could have been averted.” Unlike in the case of a regular death sentence, which required confirmation by the high court under Section 381 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (now, Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure, 1973), Judge Charan ruled that under Section 16 of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act as extended to the Province of Delhi, the death sentence was not required to be submitted to the high court for confirmation. Judge Charan was later made the judicial commissioner of Ajmer. He was a judge of the Allahabad high court from December 22, 1952 to March 24, 1954, when he died in office. All the convicted persons filed appeals before the East Punjab high court at Simla, as it was then known. The high court was located at the Peterhof, which had earlier housed at least seven viceroys and governors general. The building is today a luxury hotel run by the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation. The three judges on the special bench which decided the appeals were A.N. Bhandari, ICS, G.D. Khosla, ICS and Achhru Ram. Godse once again sought and was granted permission to argue his own case. The judgments of the high court were again delivered swiftly, on June 21, 1949. The main judgment running into 360 typed pages was by Justice Achhru Ram. Justice Bhandari wrote a long concurring judgment without indicating why he felt the need to write a separate judgment. Justice Khosla wrote a one paragraph judgment only to disagree on the recommendation of the Justice Achhru Ram to commute the sentence of Pahwa. Godse’s appeal was not to challenge his conviction or sentence but only to dislodge the finding of conspiracy against the others. Obviously, he wanted to be known as the sole ‘hero’. Justice Bhandari’s judgment is written in the style of a story. It contains political history starting with the return of Gandhi from South Africa in 1914 and he narrates that history with a political slant. He makes character sketches of the different accused in interesting language. For instance, in describing Badge, the approver, he says he had a ‘penny-catching meanness of mind’. Justice Bhandari acquitted two accused, Parchure and Kistayya, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence. In the context of Parchure’s retracted confession, he makes observations which ring true even today – he says, a retracted confession is a source of great anxiety to criminal courts all over the world and particularly to criminal courts in this country where the police administration has degraded itself by crude methods.

Photo taken during the trial of the persons accused of participation and complicity in Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination in a Special Court in Red Fort, Delhi. The trial began on May 27, 1948. V.D. Savarkar, wearing a black cap, is seated in the last row, while Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte are up front. Credit: Photo Division, GOI

Justice Bhandari found that the strictures by the special judge against the Delhi Police were unjustified and that “it was impossible for any police officer, however capable and efficient he might have been, to have prevented Nathuram from committing the crime on which he had set his heart.” He recommended grant of clemency to Gopal Godse, on the ground of his comparatively young age (27 at that time) and that he had probably joined the conspiracy under the combined and powerful influence of his brother Nathuram and Narayan Apte. Justice Achhru Ram, in his judgment, paid compliments to Godse saying that he “argued his appeal, I must say, with conspicuous ability evidencing a mastery of facts which would have done credit to any counsel…“ He also observed, “although he did not succeed in passing the Matriculation Examination, he is quite widely read. In arguing his appeal in this Court, he displayed a very fair knowledge of the English language and a remarkable capacity for clear thinking.” He convicted Godse and four others and acquitted Kistayya and Parchure. He recommended the case of Gopal Godse as well as Pahwa for commutation of sentence, taking note of their young age. He also held that the strictures passed by the trial judge against the Delhi Police were not justified. Justice Bhandari went on to become the chief justice of the Punjab high court, with a long tenure of seven years. Justice Achhru Ram retired soon after the judgment was delivered and practised as a senior advocate in the Supreme Court in its early years. Incidentally, he was the father of Col Prem Kumar Sahgal of Indian National Army fame and husband of Captain Lakshmi Sahgal. Justice Khosla became the chief justice of the Punjab high court for a shorter tenure of two years. After his retirement, he was appointed the Commission of Enquiry to enquire into the death of Subhas Chandra Bose in 1970. He also headed a Commission of Enquiry on film censorship which was formed in 1968. He recommended the creation of an independent Censor Board, separate from the government. He was also part of the Commonwealth Commission of Enquiry to enquire into the affairs of British Guiana. He was also a writer and broadcaster, and among the many books he wrote, one was The Murder of the Mahatma. Also read: How the RSS Distanced Itself From Gandhi’s Killer There was only one avenue of appeal left. A petition for special leave to appeal to the privy council was lodged by all the five who stood convicted and sentenced by the high court – Nathuram Godse, Apte, Karkare, Pahwa and Gopal Godse. They were represented by John McGaw, Barrister. The Crown was represented by the well-known Labour politician and King’s Counsel D.N. Pritt, who later appeared in the Supreme Court on behalf of Telangana Communists who were sentenced to death, ̐and also before the Bombay high court and other high courts in India. Significantly, he had also appeared for Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru before the privy council in 1930. He was assisted by two Indian barristers, R.K. Handoo and P.V. Subba Row. The judicial committee of the privy council had as its members Lord Greene, Lord Simonds, Lord Radcliffe, Sir John Beaumont and Sir Lionel Leach. Lord Radcliffe was the same person who, in five weeks, had drawn the border between India and Pakistan. Sir John Beaumont had been chief justice of the Bombay high court and Sir Lionel Leach had been chief justice of the Madras high court. After hearing McGaw’s arguments, the privy council without feeling the need for the Crown to reply, declined special leave to appeal. The governor general in council rejected the mercy petitions of Nathuram Godse (which was filed by his parents because he was not aggrieved by his own conviction and sentence), and Apte. Godse and Apte were hanged in Ambala jail on November 15, 1949. Pahwa, Karkare and Gopal Godse were released from jail in October 1964. After their release, they were felicitated at a function in Pune when Dr G.V. Ketkar, grandson of Balgangadhar Tilak, who presided over the function, revealed that Nathuram Godse had disclosed to him his idea to kill Gandhiji but was opposed by him and that he had had the information conveyed to the then chief minister of the Bombay State, Kher. A furore followed and the Government of India appointed a Commission of Enquiry initially headed by Gopal Swarup Pathak, MP and senior advocate, to enquire into the conspiracy to murder Gandhiji. But soon Pathak was appointed Union minister and the Commission was reconstituted under Justice Jivan Lal Kapur, a retired judge of the Supreme Court. The Commission in its report of 1969, like the special judge, faulted the Delhi Police for not acting between January 20, 1948 and January 30, 1948. He also found that important information had not been disclosed to Nagarvala. He observed:

“AlI these facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group and, in the opinion of the Commission. Mr. Nagarvala tripped because perhaps he was badly served by informants and contacts on whom he had every right to rely or there was some erroneous conclusion. Of course, he does say that this was merely an information which had yet to be verified: but did it deserve to be so seriously considered under the circumstances?”

A good 47 years later, one Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis, an ‘activist’, in a petition of the year 2016, filed a public interest litigation asking for a fresh enquiry into the murder, contending that there were four bullets and not three which were shot and that there may have been a second assassin. He argued that the reason why the privy council did not admit the appeals of the convicts was that the appeals could not have been decided before India became a republic with its own Supreme Court (contemporary newspaper accounts of the proceedings before the privy council do not indicate that this was the reason why the privy council declined leave to appeal). The Supreme Court appointed late senior advocate Amarendra Sharan as amicus curiae. He did painstaking research by examining the entire record of the case and exhibits at the National Museum. By a judgment dated March 28, 2018, the Supreme Court (Justices S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao) dismissed the petition, holding that there were only three bullet wounds in Gandhi’s body. The court said that reopening the case would be an “exercise in futility and would none the less fan new fires of controversy.” Raju Ramachandran is a senior advocate practising in the Supreme Court and M.V. Mukunda is an advocate practising in the Supreme Court.

Savarkar Portrait Unveiled in Karnataka Assembly, Congress Leaders Protest

Congress leaders alleged that the BJP government is attempting to divert attention away from real issues by stoking controversy.

New Delhi: The Bharatiya Janata Party government in Karnataka has put up a portrait of Vinayak Savarkar in the state assembly, leading to protests from opposition parties on the steps outside the building.

The protest was lead by former chief minister and Congress leader Siddaramaiah, NDTV reported. Today (December 19) is the first day of 10-day winter session of the state assembly.

Belagavi | VD Savarkar’s portrait unveiled in Karnataka Assembly hall. Congress MLAs have staged a protest with LoP Siddaramaiah writing to Speaker to install portraits of personalities like Valmiki, Basavanna, Kanaka Dasa, BR Ambedkar, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and many others. pic.twitter.com/Esgdl8bdgP

— ANI (@ANI) December 19, 2022

“I am not against putting up of anyone’s portrait. The government wants to divert the attention of the people from real issues like law & order. It is not a protest, it is our demand to put portraits of all national leaders and social reformers (in the Karnataka assembly hall). The speaker has unilaterally taken a decision to put up Veer Savarkar’s portrait in the assembly,” Times of India quoted Siddaramaiah as saying.

Also read: ‘Savarkar and Hindu Mahasabha Stayed Firmly Outside the Freedom Movement’

“They want that our assembly proceedings should not take place. They want it disrupted. They have brought this photo because we are going to raise a lot of corruption issues against them. They don’t have any development agenda,” Karnataka Congress chief and MLA D.K. Shivakumar told ANI.

When asked about the protests, chief minister Basavaraj Bommai reportedly claimed that the decision was taken by the speaker. “What happens inside the assembly is decided by the speaker. I will talk to our leaders and the opposition as well,” Hindustan Times quoted him as saying.

While the BJP has been keen to portray Savarkar as a freedom fighter and even a “brave revolutionary“, historians have pointed out that Savarkar “not only refrained from participating in the freedom struggle after the British released him from prison on account of his relentless pleas for mercy, but also actively collaborated with the English rulers to whom he had declared his loyalty”.

Beyond the Usual Debate, There is Also the All-Too-Human Savarkar

If Gandhi’s bodily practices have offered a window into his politics of fasting and nonviolent protest, perhaps we need to look at the ordinariness of Savarkar’s physical and health problems to fully understand the political trajectory he took.

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar is often considered a nonhuman subject. Many of his disciples and supporters worship him as a deity, while some of his critics and antagonists see him as evil incarnate – a monster. Both are incorrect.

Conversely, I argue something quite banal: Savarkar was human. I think Savarkar would have preferred this reframing.

But before any reader misunderstands my argument, please let me explain.

While recently teaching Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s writings for one of my undergraduate classes, it occurred to me that there has been a great deal written about Gandhi’s illnesses and health-related concerns as part of an effort to think of Gandhi’s humanity, but nothing comparable exists in the literature about Savarkar. Academics are only too aware of the difficulties of writing about figures like Gandhi and Savarkar who occupy a larger-than-life status in public culture. To interpret them as human subjects and discuss their vulnerabilities and frailties is often met with suspicion and consternation.

Gandhi made his body a topic of political protest and self-inflicted harm through his fasts that were on public display, while also discussing everyday problems of sickness and health as part of his interpretation of modernity. Savarkar’s life’s circumstances and politics followed a different trajectory altogether, especially as a political prisoner in the Andamans.

Not surprisingly, Savarkar had a lot to say about what it meant to be human. These ideas informed his conceptualisations of “Hindu” and “Hindutva” that are necessary to consider as central to his political thought.

Also read: Lies on Savarkar’s Mercy Petitions Expose the Legitimacy Crisis of Hindutva Brigade

In his key text Essentials of Hindutva (1923), Savarkar argues that blood is what makes us human. He further argues that our humanity is connected to our sexuality, especially when he notes that “the sexual attraction has proven more powerful than the commands of all the prophets put together.”

Our capacity for language also made us human – an observation with which linguists would later concur.Most important was Savarkar’s assertion that violence is a key characteristic of Human Nature.

Savarkar’s oeuvre is full of analyses that all humans are violent, including Hindus. To underscore this claim Savarkar added that ahimsa (nonviolence) was antithetical to being human. In fact, he argued that proponents of nonviolence should suffer cruel and brutal death. To be human was to recognise oneself as a violent being. Only those Hindus who understood the human condition would be up to the task of inflicting violence in the name of humanity. This interpretation was Savarkar’s gift to Hindutva-vadis, who have embraced this essence of being Hindu.

Savarkar also wrote about suffering as part of the human condition. He explained that Hindus had grieved for millennia as victims of invasions. While the early invaders, such as the Greeks, Huns, Sakas, and Kushanas, had either been conquered or assimilated by Hindus, and the later Europeans, like the Portuguese and the British, were forced to leave India, Hindus had continued to suffer at the hands of Muslims. Yet if suffering was a part of being human then there was no endgame to Savarkar’s argument. The only remedy was for Hindus to seek what he called ‘justifiable vengeance’ in a permanent war.

Today’s Hindutva-vadis echo this claim by stating that they are in a thousand-year war against Muslims, confirming that violence remains central to being Hindu.

V.D. Savarkar. Photo: savarkarsmarak.com

Savarkar’s writings also provide insight into his personal suffering. While the narratives about his difficult time as a prisoner in the Cellular Jail in the Andamans are well known in this context, what is often ignored are the physical and mental illnesses he experienced throughout his life. As the French theorist Roland Barthes points out in his autobiography, to write about life is to write about the body, its anatomy, its diseases, its distresses. Yet I am aware that to talk about Savarkar’s health is to walk a fine line in the eyes of both Savarkar’s disciples and critics. Savarkar’s humanity cannot simply be reduced to a discussion of his illnesses.

At a seminar I once discussed the fact that Savarkar’s body weight had dropped to 95 pounds as he was ill for over a year in the Cellular Jail. This was around the time that he wrote petitions requesting to leave the Andamans. He also penned a letter to his brother Narayan Damodar Savarkar pleading for his help as he was not sure he would survive the malarial climate and long illness.

A member of the audience was very upset and accused me of trying to “humanise” Savarkar.He could not be redeemed as a human I was told.

One of the criticisms faced by the philosopher Hannah Arendt in her reporting of the 1961 trial of the German Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann was that she spent too much time discussing his health and appearance. Arendt went one step further, arguing that Eichmann reflected “the banality of evil.” She was excoriated for suggesting that Eichmann was quite ordinary: a human, not a demon. Even the most brutal killers can look common or pathetic when they are out of power, old, or ill.

For Arendt, it was Eichmann’s banality that offered a window into his evil acts. The challenge that confronted Arendt, and it is also relevant in writing about Savarkar, is: When is it no longer possible to write about a human subject as a human?

Savarkar presents a different sort of ordinariness when he discusses illnesses. Tuberculosis, bronchitis, pneumonia, malaria, and dysentery are all mentioned in his writings. He frequently commented on the depression and suicidality of fellow prisoners in the Cellular Jail. He shamed these individuals for contemplating suicide as he considered it an effeminate form of death. A masculine death was one that involved killing an enemy on the battlefield before dying. This was an act of veerata and bravery that Savarkar aspired to, but never fulfilled.

Savarkar’s own experiences with angst are never fully discussed in his writings. There are illusions to psychic breaks at various moments in his life, including in childhood. The best documented moment was shortly after the execution of Madanlal Dhingra in 1909.

Nearly every biographer – from Dhananjay Keer to Jaywant Joglekar to Harindra Srivastava – has written about the fact that Savarkar decompensated physically and mentally. Savarkar was distraught as he felt his political project had failed. He had nowhere to live in London and felt completely alienated. He believed that he was constantly being followed.

Savarkar arrived in the coastal town of Brighton to stay with Niranjan Pal, the son of the nationalist Bipin Chandra Pal. In an essay published in the Maharatta (1938), Niranjan Pal described Savarkar’s fragile condition at the time, noting that he sat by the sea and “wept like a child.”

Group photo of Hindu Mahasabha. Standing - Shankar Kistaiya, Gopal Godse, Madanlal Pahwa, Digambar Badge. Seated - Narayan Apte, Vinayak D. Savarkar, Nathuram Godse, Vishnu Karkare. Credit: Flickr

A group photo of the Hindu Mahasabha. Standing – Shankar Kistaiya, Gopal Godse, Madanlal Pahwa, Digambar Badge. Seated – Narayan Apte, Vinayak D. Savarkar, Nathuram Godse, Vishnu Karkare. Photo: Flickr/File

According to Pal, this was the moment that Savarkar apparently composed his famous poem ‘Sagaras’, a work that reflected his existential crisis. A line that Savarkar repeats throughout the poem is: ‘My soul is in so much torment’. Every stanza ends with this sentence. He describes that he is trapped and overwhelmed by darkness. He asks the ocean to take him back to Bharat Mata. Hindutva-vadis have interpreted this poem as representing Savarkar’s devotion to the motherland as a patriot and nationalist. A psychic break and suicidal ideation do not appear in these analyses.

Savarkar’s condition worsened, and he was no longer able to take care of himself. He also developed bronchitis and pneumonia. He was sent to the Mendip Hills Sanatorium in Wells, Somerset, where he was placed under the care of Dr. David Chowry Muthu, a tuberculosis specialist who had published articles in British medical journals discussing the links between mental health and pulmonary problems.

Dr. Muthu was a visitor to Shyamji Krishnavarma’s India House, where Savarkar resided for a period in London. It is possible that he and Savarkar met at an earlier point. In fact, the cost of staying at the sanatorium was paid by Krishnavarma. Dr. Muthu would later serve as Ramanujan’s physician when the mathematician fell ill at Cambridge University. The details of Savarkar’s stay at the sanatorium are not well documented. Nor is it known whether the other reason for sending Savarkar to Wells was to receive treatment at the nearby Mendip Hospital that specialised in psychiatric care.

We know that Savarkar left Wells prematurely as he received news that he might be arrested. He ended up traveling to Paris, where he continued to need the assistance of friends.

Harindra Srivastava explains that he had interviewed Balarao Savarkar, Savarkar’s personal secretary.Balarao narrated something about Savarkar that had never been revealed earlier.

One day when Savarkar was living in Bombay he asked Balarao to accompany him to the sea. He explained that he was “going into the sea for good.”

Balarao was perplexed and asked Savarkar to explain what he meant. Savarkar apparently stated that he no longer had a desire to live. Balarao convinced Savarkar to abandon any plan of suicide, saying that there was much work to be done for the cause of Hindutva.

Also read: Bhagat Singh and Savarkar, Two Petitions that Tell Us the Difference Between Hind and Hindutva

Savarkar suffered with physical and mental health problems throughout his life. This is not an extraordinary revelation in any sense. The fact that Savarkar condemned others who were suicidal as effeminate provides an important insight into his own experiences of suicidality.

Throughout his writings he regularly blamed effeminate Hindus as responsible for the problems of all Hindus. If only Hindu men had expressed their masculinity throughout history, Hindus would not have been vicitimised by foreign invaders, especially Muslims.

Savarkar has left us with an interpretation of the human condition that reflects his own subjectivity. The nom de guerre ‘Veer’ attached to his name by his admirers reflects a hagiographical interpretation of Savarkar.

There was another side to him which shows him as all too human.

Vinayak Chaturvedi is an Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California, Irvine. His forthcoming book Hindutva and Violence: V.D. Savarkar and the Politics of History will be published by Permanent Black in India and SUNY Press in the US.

If you know someone – friend or family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers they can call to speak in confidence. Icall, a counselling service run by TISS, has maintained a crowdsourced list of therapists across the country. You could also take them to the nearest hospital.

BJP’s Maharashtra Unit Wants Bharat Ratna for Savarkar

CPI leader D. Raja criticised the demand, saying the BJP may soon ask the honour to be conferred on Nathuram Godse.

New Delhi: Maharashtra BJP unit on Tuesday said it will ask the party-led NDA government at the Centre to confer Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian award, on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

In its election manifesto, released by BJP working president J.P. Nadda along with chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, state party president Chandrakant Patil and Mumbai unit head Mangal Prabhat Lodha, the state unit also sought the honour for social reformers Jyotiba Phule and Savitribai Phule, a party leader told PTI.

Other promises that the party makes include making the state a $1 trillion economy and creation of five crore jobs in the next five years and providing houses to all by 2022.

While releasing the manifesto, Nadda lavished praise on Fadnavis, saying “the chief minister has changed the political culture of Maharashtra”.

The BJP has promised to connect all 11 dams in the perennially parched Marathwada region and provide drinking water supply with the help of a closed pipeline. It has also promised to invest Rs 5 lakh crore in several infrastructure projects in the state.

Polling for all 288 Assembly seats in the state will be held on October 21 and counting of votes will take place on October 24.

CPI criticises demand

Slamming the BJP Maharashtra unit’s plan to seek Bharat Ratna for Savarkar, Communist Party of India (CPI) general secretary D. Raja on Tuesday said the ruling party may even propose the honour for Mahatma Gandhi’s killer Nathuram Godse.

“This is the biggest irony of our times, that while we are all celebrating the birth centenary of Gandhiji, the BJP is seeking Bharat Ratna to Savarkar, who was an accused in his assassination case,” Raja told PTI here.

“The day may not be far off for BJP to demand Bharat Ratna to Gandhiji’s assassin Nathuram Godse. This is part of their agenda,” the CPI leader said.

Also Read: How Did Savarkar, a Staunch Supporter of British Colonialism, Come to Be Known as ‘Veer’?

The CPI is contesting 16 of the 288 seats in the October 21 Maharashtra assembly elections, Raja said. “Our primary objective is to defeat the BJP and it allies,” he added. In seats where the CPI is not contesting, the party will support other opposition parties and ask people to vote against the BJP, he said.

Raja accused BJP president Amit Shah and other senior leaders of the ruling party of speaking on issues such as dilution of Article 370, but keeping mum on core issues like farmers’ distress, the PMC Bank scam and job losses.

(With PTI inputs)

Rajasthan Textbooks Will No Longer Call Savarkar a ‘Brave Revolutionary’

The Congress is revising textbooks to undo some of the changes made by the previous BJP government.

Jaipur: The Congress government in Rajasthan is all set to undo the changes made by the previous Vasundhara Raje-led Bharatiya Janata Party government in the state board textbooks. The government has decided to remove the reference to RSS icon Vinayak Savarkar as a “brave revolutionary”, and add details of his clemency application to the British.

With the BJP coming to power in the Centre in 2014, the Raje government had taken to glorifying the Narendra Modi government and propagating the party’s Hindutva ideology by altering the school syllabus.

The state board textbook for Class 10 had given significant space to Savarkar, in the chapter on India’s freedom struggle. He was mentioned as the “only brave revolutionary to be sentenced to two life terms of imprisonment and put in tireless efforts to stop partition”, sidelining Jawaharlal Nehru. In addition, no reference to Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination or the 2002 Gujarat riots was made in the books.

Also read: The Chapters of History the Government Doesn’t Want Students to Read

To glorify the Modi government, the textbooks talked about a number of the regime’s decisions – from demonetisation to the surgical strikes – and called them “historical”. No critical analysis of any government policies was offered.

Under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Act, 1957, the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education (RBSE) forms a textbook committee that is responsible for the preparation and periodic revision of textbooks.

Soon after coming to power in December last year, the Congress government had constituted a textbook revision committee. Now, the committee has recommended that the textbook be revised to include how Savarkar had asked the British for clemency.

Announcing that the committee’s recommendations would be included in the textbooks for the new academic session, state education minister Govind Singh Dotasara said on Monday, “The previous BJP government turned education into a laboratory of the RSS for its political scores. It went up to to glorifying people like Savarkar and Deendayal Upadhyay, who the Sangh has always looked up to. But based on strong evidences and facts, the committee has written that [it must include that] Savarkar had applied for clemency to the British.”

Former education minister in the state under the BJP regime, Vasudev Devnani, has called the move anti-Hindutva.

“After Maharana Pratap, the Congress government has insulted great patriot and freedom fighter Veer Savarkar by its anti-Hindutva mentality. The party idolising only one family has always shown such conduct about other great personalities,” he tweeted.

Not Possible to Get Definitive Answer on Savarkar’s Role in Gandhi Assassination, Says Amicus Curiae

Senior advocate Amarendra Sharan has told the Supreme Court that there is no need to investigate the murder again.

The trial of persons accused of participation and complicity in Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination opened in the Special Court in Red Fort Delhi on May 27, 1948. Left to right front row: Nathuram Vinayak Godse, Narayan Dattatraya Apte and Vishnu Ramkrishna Karkar. Seated behind are (from left to right) Diganber Ram Chandra Badge, Shankar s/o Kistayya, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Gopal Vinayak Godse and Dattatrays Sadashiv Parachure. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

New Delhi: The amicus curiae appointed by the Supreme Court in a special leave petition filed by researcher Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis seeking a re-investigation into Mahatma Gandhi’s murder has held that “no substantive material has come to light…requiring either a re-investigation of the Mahatma Gandhi murder case or, to constitute a fresh fact finding commission with respect to the same”. However, the report has once again brought the role of former Hindu Mahasabha president Vinayak D. Savarkar into sharp focus.

In his report, senior advocate Amarendra Sharan, who was assisted by his colleagues Sanchit Guru and Samarth Khanna, has noted that “the bullets which pierced Mahatma Gandhi’s body, the pistol from which it was fired, the assailant who fired the said bullets, the conspiracy which led to the assassination and the ideology which led to the said assassination have all been duly identified”.

The amicus curiae also delved deep into Savarkar’s role in Gandhi’s assassination. He finally observed that “during the entire episode of the unveiling of the conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi, no suggestion has been put by any of the advocates either from the defence or prosecution or by the trial court that there was a larger conspiracy involving others apart from those accused”.

Of 12 accused, two were sentenced to death, three got life term

Following Gandhi’s murder at 5:15 pm on January 30, 1948, in the presence of a large number of people in New Delhi, the assailant was arrested on the spot and an FIR was registered half an hour later at Tuglaq Road Police Station. There were a total of 12 accused who were charged and prosecuted under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Indian Arms Act, Explosives Substances Act and so on.

Nathuram Godse and Narayan D. Apte were both convicted by the trial court on February 10, 1949 and the high court on June 21, 1949 and sentenced to death. Vishnu Karkare and Madanlal Pahwa were given life sentences by the high court. Shankar Kistayya was convicted by the trial court but acquitted by the high court. Gopal Godse was convicted and given a life sentence. Savarkar was acquitted by the trial court and let off as no appeal was filed in the high court. Dattatraya S. Parchure was sentence to life imprisonment by the trial court but acquitted by the high court. Digambar R. Badge turned an approver. Gangadhar S. Dandawate, Gangadhar Jhadav and Suryaeo Sharma absconded.

Badge, who was granted a pardon on June 21, 1948, “disclosed the conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi. His statement was duly corroborated by independent witnesses,” Sharan’s report says.

In November 1966, a one-man commission, under Justice Jivan Lal Kapur, was formed after the grandson of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, G.V. Ketkar, said that he had prior knowledge of the danger to Mahatma Gandhi’s life. A large number of witnesses were examined by Justice Kapur and the commission submitted its report on September 30, 1969. But “thereafter a quietus was given”, said the amicus curiae.

Also read: How Savarkar Escaped Conviction For Gandhi’s Assassination

The commission had examined the “role of Savarkar” at length. The amicus curiae noted that “Vinayak D. Savarkar, who was the former president of the Hindu Mahasabha and was the foremost ideologue of the right wing Hindutva philosophy at the relevant time. His close relationship with both Nathuram V. Godse and Narayan Apte is well documented. However, Godse and Apte drifted apart from Savarkar on the issue of Savarkar supporting the Nehru led government in 1947 and hoisting of the national flag on 15.08.1947.”

On Savarkar’s acquittal in Gandhi’s assassination case, the amicus curiae observed that “Vinayak D. Savarkar was acquitted of the charges of conspiracy by the Ld. Trial Court because the statement of the approver, PW 57, Digambar R. Badge with respect to his role remained uncorroborated”. But what remains intriguing is that “no appeal against his acquittal was filed before the Hon’ble High Court”.

However, the report of the amicus curiae observed that “the Kapur Commission, which was set up in 1965 in its report dated 30.09.1969 has dealt with the role of Savarkar in detail”.

Stating that the Commission had remarked on the matter at Page 317 of its Volume II, the report of the amicus curiae quoting the panel said:

“The statement of Appa Ramchandra Kasar, bodyguard of V. D. Savarkar (Ex. 277) which was recorded by the Bombay Police on 4th March 1948 shows that even in 1946 Apte and Godse were frequent visitors of Savarkar and Karkare also sometimes visited him. During the period when the question of Partition of India was being discussed all these three used to visit Savarkar and discussed with him the question of the Partition and Savarkar was telling Apte and Godse that Congress was acting in a manner detrimental to the Hindus and they should carry on propaganda through the agency of the Agrani against the Congress, Mahatma Gandhi and his dictatorial policy.

In August 1947 when Savarkar went to Poona in connection with a meeting Godse and Apte were always with Savarkar and were discussing with him the future policy of the Hindu Mahasabha and told them that he himself was getting old and they would have to carry on the work.

In the beginning of August 1947, on the 5th or 6th, there was an All India Hindu convention at Delhi and Savarkar, Godse and Apte travelled together by plane. At the Convention the Congress policies were strongly criticised. On the 11th August Savarkar, Godse and Apte all returned to Bombay together by plane.

In the month of November 1947 there was a conference of All India State Hindu Mahasabha at Mahim and Dr.Parchure and Surya Dev of Gwalior also attended that meeting.

In the middle of December 1947, Badge came to Savarkar to enquire after his health but he could not see him. But two or three days later he again came and had a 15-minute talk with Savarkar. Karkare, Apte and Godse also met him during that month twice or thrice.

Gajanan Vishnu Darnle, secretary of Savarkar was also examined on 4th March 1948 by the Bombay Police. He said that he had known N.D. Apte of the Agrani for the last four years. Apte started a rifle club at Ahmednagar and also was an Honorary Recruiting Officer during the war. Apte was a frequent visitor to Savarkar’s house and sometime came with Godse. Savarkar had lent Rs. 15,000 to Apte and Godse for the newspaper when security was demanded from the Agrani. That paper was stopped and the new paper called the Hindu Rashtra was started. Savarkar was one of its Directors and Apte and Godse were the Managing Agents. He knew V.R. Karkare who was a Hindu Mahasabha worker at Ahmednagar for about three years and occasionally visited Savarkar. Badge was also known to him for the last three years. He also used to visit Savarkar.

The statements of both these witnesses show that both Apte and Godse were frequent visitors of Savarkar at Bombay and at conferences and at every meeting they are shown to have been with Savarkar. In January 1948 they were travelling with him both from Delhi to Bombay and back. This evidence also shows that Karkare was also well-known to Savarkar and was also a frequent visitor. Badge also used to visit Savarkar. Dr. Parchure also visited him.”

Most importantly, the Kapur Commission had said that:

“All this shows that people who were subsequently involved in the murder of Mahatma Gandhi were all congregating sometime or the other at Savarkar Sadan and sometimes had long interviews with Savarkar. It is significant that Karkare and Madanlal visited Savarkar before they left for Delhi and Apte and Godse visited him both before the bomb was thrown and also before the murder was committed and on each occasion they had long interviews. It is specially to be noticed that Godse and Apte were with him at public meetings held at various places in the years 1946, 1947 and 1948.”

The amicus curiae observed that the commission had concluded that “All these facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group”.

The amicus curiae, however, said, “to be fair, Shri Vinayak Savarkar died in 1966 and had no opportunity to present his case before the Kapur Commission or, to cross examine the witnesses who had appeared before Kapur Commission.” Further, he noted that “since the late Vinayak D. Savarkar had been acquitted, at this stage, it would neither be advisable/ desirable nor possible to come to a definitive finding with respect to Vinayak D. Savarkar’s role in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.”