‘Extra Dangerous Prisoner’ and contexualising his appeal for clemency

It is well-known that deportation to the Andamans was not an ordinary punishment. Even earlier to this, deportation had always been considered only for extreme cases. In the case of political prisoners such as the Savarkar brothers deportation carried a double quantum of punishment because it also involved several restrictive and harsh measures.

What crimes were they charged with that led the government to separate them from the other political prisoners who were imprisoned in the jails on the Indian mainland? This is the question that needs to be addressed by those who have charged Savarkar with cowardice and a weakened resolve.

The most obvious reason should be that they posed a bigger and more dangerous threat to the stability of British rule in India. The government had clearly come to believe that the real danger to it was likely to come from men like Savarkar than the leadership of the Indian National Congress. The government had apprehensively concluded that the influence and views of men like Savarkar had to be isolated and kept away from other prisoners who were also in prison for anti-British activity. The government had also come to understand that a line was required to be drawn among the most dangerous and the less dangerous. Savarkar was a dangerous man in the government’s point of view. We have already noted the letter ‘D’ that was placed on his prison shirt making him in 1911 to be the only prisoner in the Cellular jail to be given the ‘honour’.

Savarkar reached Port Blair on July 4, 1911. He would suffer this, the world’s most feared and notorious jail till May 2, 1921. His pain would be intensified as he knew that his elder brother was also in the same jail and the two would not be allowed to meet for a long time.

His first experience of the jail and its notoriety was when he realised that all political prisoners were put under the charge of wardens who were Pathans and Baluchis and were feared for their fanatical hatred of Hindus. Three such wardens were specially chosen for Savarkar.

In the Cellular jail prolonged handcuffing, leg chains, crossbar fetters, gunny bag clothing, harsh solitary confinement along with food restriction were routine. Savarkar was made to undergo these conditions several times. The handcuff punishment meant standing against a wall inside the cell, hands extended above the head and chained to the wall. This was done for eight hours and extended for a week at one stretch (for example from September 1912 to June 1914). Most prisoners passed urine and stool on the floor. Solitary confinement meant no human interaction and being limited to the cell. Savarkar was also put in a chain cage and also the crossbar. The crossbar meant being chained at three points with legs apart. The prisoner could not move or bend. On one occasion (July 1914) Savarkar was put in chains for three months. With regard to hunger strikes and refusing food under protest – it happened countless times in the case of Savarkar.

When we compare the conditions in the Andaman jail with those in the mainland it is easy to note the glaring contradictions in the narrative that has been built around the imagined sacrifices that are supposed to have been made by people who underwent prison terms in jails in India as a result of participation in different Satyagrahi movements and so on. There were exceptions, no doubt. The Central Jail Lahore is one example. This is where several great revolutionaries were kept.

Interestingly, as the possibility or a reasonably early Independence began to dawn, jail going came to be seen as a kind of a stepping-stone for a political career and an office of privilege and perks. Studies have shown that in the 1936-37 elections (Provincial Autonomy) a key qualification for becoming a Congress Party candidate was a jail term as a political activist. Stories abound of how even a short term or even mild imprisonment in the freedom movement was enough to launch a successful political career as well as other benefits.

On the other hand, in the case of Savarkar see how the story goes. Soon after it was established that Madan Lal Dhingra and Savarkar were close associates, the Bench of the Greys Inn (London) where Savarkar was to enrol resolved to reject Savarkar’s call to the Bar. As if this were not enough, about a month after reaching Port Blair to begin his life sentence, Savarkar learnt that the Bombay University too had decided to withdraw the B.A. degree, which Savarkar hard-earned several years earlier. One can also imagine the state of Savarkar’s mind, being a prolific reader of books and writer that he was when the Cellular jail authorities did not allow him to touch a paper or pen for almost 18 months after reaching Port Blair. Savarkar received his first letter from home (his younger brother) eight months after reaching Port Blair.

Jaiprakash Naryan and Dr. Rammanohar Lohia who were at the notorious Lahore jail too suffered very harsh terms such as solitary confinement and being put in chain fetters and handcuffs.

On his return to the mainland with his jail term being continued Savarkar had spent some time in Yeravda Jail. He would often narrate to other inmates the stories of the lives of the revolutionaries and the inhuman conditions in which they were jailed and punished. Most of the incidents were naturally first hand from the Andamans. He was surprised to note the indifference of the Satyagrahi prisoners: “Why should they try to understand the suffering and sacrifices? They were mostly putting in all their effort to secure better facilities and privileges in the prison.” As Savarkar put it: “They were vainglorious men and they bragged of their suffering before those who had passed through ten years or more of transportation for life in the Andamans…” It can, therefore, be noted that when the Government of India deported a person to the Cellular jail it was a different story altogether.

At first, before I take up Savarkar in the context of the several petitions submitted by him to the Government, it must be remembered that he was a man of law, blessed with a very fertile mind. He was a prolific writer. It is important to understand the content and context of his petitions. He has been much maligned for making these appeals to the Government. Clearly however much of what has been said by many of the opponents and critics of Savarkar is selectively and subjectively argued.

The first petition was the result of a Government of India initiative. On June 22, 1911 Britain celebrated the Coronation of George V. A grand Durbar was also planned for December 1911 to commemorate the event in India. The government asked all political prisoners to submit a clemency petition. Like thousands of other prisoners, Savarkar too made his submission. His petition was probably the first to be rejected. Interestingly, at the time of the submission of the petition Savarkar was undergoing six-month solitary confinement in the Cellular jail.

Savarkar’s second petition is dated November 14, 1913, which says, “Therefore will your honour be pleased to put an end to this anomalous situation in which I have been placed, by either sending me to Indian jails or by treating me as a transportee just like any other prisoner”, mainly on legal grounds.

The third petition of Savarkar was submitted to the Chief Commissioner Andaman Islands in October 1914. Let us see the background. In June 1914 he was given the 7 days standing ‘handcuffed’ punishment. As soon as this ended he was given another 4 months in solitary confinement in which 10 days were in crossbar fetters. Considered one of the most mental and physically taxing punishments. The first World War had started in Europe (1914). He explained why he was appealing for a release of thousands of prisoners – essentially to contribute to the war effort. He ended this petition with these lines: “If the Government suspect that my real intention in writing all this is only to secure my release, then I beg to submit let me not be released at all, with my exception let all the rest be released, let the volunteer movement go on—and I will rejoice in that as if myself was allowed to play an active part. It is only through a sincere desire to see the right thing done that I have dared to write this frank and outspoken petition for your gracious consideration.”

As the war in Europe had gradually begun to move towards a successful end for Britain led allied forces the Government of India had given the first indication of some forthcoming political reforms. Towards the end of 1917 the Government asked prominent citizens including political prisoners to record their views. Savarkar too like hundreds of others made a representation on October 5, 1917. “…In conclusion, I beg to add, in all sincerity, that if the Government thinks that it is only to affect my own release that I pen this; or if my name constitutes the chief obstacle in the granting of such an amnesty then let the Government omit my name in their amnesty and release all the rest; that would give me as great a satisfaction as my own release would do”.

Soon after the end of the War, possibly as a gesture in reciprocation of India’s huge contribution in terms of manpower and resources, the Government notified the Montagu – Chelmsford Reforms in the form of the Govt. of India Act 1919. A Royal clemency for political prisoners was also a part of this package. Several great revolutionary freedom fighters benefitted from this clemency. For example among those who were released were Bhai Parmanand, Barin Ghose, Hemchandra Das, Sachindranath Sanyal. The clemency had required that the affected prisoners was expected to sign a pledge. Most of the great men were naturally reluctant to do so. Savarkar however persuaded them to sign the pledge. The result was that all the political prisoners in the Cellular jail were either released or shifted to jails on the Indian mainland. The Savarkar brothers, however, were kept back in the Andaman.

On March 20, 1920 Savarkar submitted the last of his petitions sent from the Cellular jail. It was essentially a legal submission that sought an answer to their confirmed detention even as others charged for similar offences had been released. He also explained how the motive of political prisoners was never personal. He drew attention to how some prisoners with similar sentences were released even in 4 years. He also noted that for 10 to 11 years they (the Savarkar brothers) had done all the punishing prison work that was assigned to them.

The continued detention of the Savarkar brothers drew widespread attention. Gandhi too commented on the unfairness of this whole oppressive process (Young India, May 26, 1920). A massive signature campaign seeking the release of political prisoners across India, in particular, the Savarkar brothers was organised. This collected over 75,000 signatures.

On June 22, 1920, a few months after Savarkar’s last petition from the Andamans, Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy pleading on behalf of the leaders of the Khilafat movement: “…As one who has enjoyed a certain measure of Your Excellency’s confidence, and as one who claims to be a devoted well-wisher of the British Empire, I owe it to Your Excellency, and through Your Excellency to His Majesty’s Ministers, to explain my connection with and my conduct in the Khilafat question… My duty to the Empire to which I owe my loyalty…”

The year 1919 is a major turning point in India’s struggle for freedom from colonial rule. The tragedy of Jallianwala Bagh was the first indication that the days of the British in India were now numbered. The same year the Indian National Congress held its annual session at Amritsar (December 1919). The Montague–Chelmsford Reforms had also been announced. Congress put on record its keenness to fully cooperate in the new circumstances. This was the language of its Resolution: “…the Congress begs loyally to respond to the sentiment expressed in the Royal Proclamation . . . and trust that both the people and the authorities will cooperate to work the reforms…”

I have drawn attention to these two references, out of context no doubt, only to explain how if Gandhi and the Congress could petition the Government in ‘loyalist’ terms, Savarkar too was only following a similar trend. To doubt Savarkar’s commitment to the cause of freedom would in this sense also mean doubting Gandhi’s resolve towards freedom.

The Savarkar brothers were brought back to the mainland in May 1921. Savarkar was released on restrictive conditions on January 6, 1924. The conditions were hardly better than being kept in jail. His last lecture to fellow prisoners in the Yeravada prison was on Madan Lal Dhingra. He also said: “Yes I am free. The iron fetters on my feet are broken…my soul is still imprisoned for my vision is still not reached… it engirdles my soul and stiffs it….”

We have taken note of the petitions that were made by Savarkar from the Andamans. It has been argued that in making the petitions Savarkar’s basic stand was in keeping with the trends of the time.

Savarkar was a political and pragmatic man. To him being locked away in a distant land, away from the homeland which was the arena of all the nationalist action was like a life being wasted. The Government of India understood Savarkar’s mindset and that is why it kept him away under deportation and even after his return to the mainland a strict check on him both in jail and even after his release was ensured. And this is precisely the reason why Savarkar was keen to return to the mainland even if it meant being kept in prison. He knew that he could contribute and make a difference even if still in jail. We have already taken note of how being kept in the Andaman was one thing and being detained in a jail on the mainland was significantly different.