Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone of “Veer Savarkar College” last Friday (January 3, 2025). This college, affiliated with Delhi University, will be constructed in Roshanpura, Najafgarh. The proposal for this institution was approved by the Executive Council of Delhi University in 2021. The college will be built at an estimated cost of Rs 140 crores and will feature 24 classrooms, 8 tutorial rooms, 40 faculty rooms, a canteen, departmental libraries, and a conference room. This institution is expected to become a significant center of education for the region and beyond. While laying the foundation stone, Prime Minister Modi aptly stated that this college would not only provide opportunities for learning, innovation, and knowledge to future generations but also inspire its students with Veer Savarkar’s patriotism, sacrifice, and struggles. Unfortunately, the Congress Party and its student wing, NSUI, are opposing this initiative. Politicians, organizations, and political parties that oppose great personalities who dedicated their lives to the nation must remember that true heroes never die. They live in the memories, inspirations, conduct, and ideals of society and the nation. They flow like lifeblood in the veins of the people, providing them with direction and energy. Veer Savarkar was one such great freedom fighter. Throughout the Indian independence movement, very few exhibited the same intensity, rationality, and brilliance as Savarkar.
The British were extremely apprehensive and fearful of him, evident from the fact that he was sentenced to two life terms of imprisonment. He was among the rare patriots whose two siblings also made significant contributions to the freedom struggle, with two of the brothers being sentenced to life imprisonment. From a young age, nationalism and patriotism were ingrained in Savarkar’s values. During his childhood, he organized the “Mitra Mela” to awaken a spirit of patriotism among the youth and adolescents in his region. By the time he passed his matriculation examination, he had developed such ideological acumen and organisational skill that he boycotted the mourning ceremony of “Queen Victoria” in entire Nasik in 1901 and in this he achieved unprecedented success in bringing together teenagers and young men. In 1902, when the coronation of “Edward VII” was celebrated in British colonies, young Savarkar protested in his district, arguing, “Why should we participate in the festivities of those who have enslaved our nation?” In 1904, he founded the revolutionary organization “Abhinav Bharat” Sangathan, which aimed to resist British rule. In 1905, he led the youth in opposing the partition of Bengal, imposed on religious grounds by “Lord Curzon.” He was the first person to publicly burn foreign goods and demand complete independence (Purna Swaraj), becoming a pioneer of the Swadeshi movement.
By 1906, while Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak had emerged as a prominent nationalist leader on the national stage, Savarkar’s name was gaining recognition as a fiery patriot among the youth of Maharashtra. With Tilak’s efforts, Savarkar received the Shyamji Krishna Varma scholarship in 1906 to study law in London. During his time in London, he established the Free India Society to mobilize Indian students for the cause of independence. From there, Savarkar actively supported the activities of “Abhinav Bharat” in India through his writings, letters, and poems. He worked closely with revolutionaries such as Lala Har Dayal, Shyamji Krishna Varma, Madam Bhikaji Cama, Madan Lal Dhingra, Virendranath Chattopadhyay, Bhai Paramanand, Sardar Singh Rana, V.V.S. Aiyar, Niranjan Pal, and M.P.T. Acharya. In London, he translated the work of Italian revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzini. In 1907-08, he became a member of a library in London, by scrutinizing British documents and read British history, wrote an important and research-based book called “The Indian War of Independence, 1857.” This was the first book of its kind that the British government banned even before its publication.
Due to the strict surveillance and thorough investigation by the British police, when it could not be published in Britain and India, attempts were made to get it published from France, then Germany, and when it failed there too, the book was finally published from Holland and as soon as the book was published, the ‘Revolt of 1857’ was termed as the first freedom movement. Before that the British dismissed it as “rebellion (Gadar) or Sepoy mutiny (Sipahi Vidroh).”
In 1909, when the great patriot and revolutionary Madanlal Dhingra murdered Sir William Hutt Curzon Wyllie, a British military officer who kept Indian students under surveillance, Savarkar agreed to fight his case. Writing in The Times of London, he justified the assassination and condemned Dhingra’s death sentence as unjust. And when the British, after debating in a closed room, sentenced Madanlal Dhingra to death, Veer Savarkar united all the Indian students living there and protested against this unjust decision of the British government. He also publicised and propagated the last and powerful statement of the immortal martyr Madanlal Dhingra in various colleges and universities of England, which inspired the youth to sacrifice and fight for freedom. The British did not want to let it become public at any cost. After all this, it was natural that he became a thorn in the eyes of the British government. He was arrested and brought to India. But Savarkar’s bravery and courage were so indomitable that he jumped from the ship into the sea near Marseilles, a port in France, and swam to the shore. But French guards, unable to understand his plea in English, handed him back to the British. He became the first individual whose case was tried at the Hague-based International Court of Justice between France and Britain, which ruled in Britain’s favor.
In India, Savarkar was tried and falsely implicated in the murder of Nashik district collector A.M.T. Jackson. He and his elder brother were sentenced to life imprisonment and sent to the Cellular Jail in the Andaman Islands. From 1911 to 1921, Savarkar endured inhuman conditions in the Andaman jail, deprived of basic amenities like air, water, and sunlight. While other political prisoners had access to some facilities in jail. Prisoners sentenced to Kala Pani were denied even minimal comforts and subjected to relentless physical labor, such as toiling at oil crushers (Kolhu Chalana) and weaving coir ropes, which left their hands and backs bloodied.If any of them stopped for a moment to rest, he would be flogged. These freedom fighters were subjected to such inhuman tortures that at times, thoughts of suicide would flash in their minds.
Despite such torturous conditions, Savarkar’s resolve to fight for India’s freedom remained unbroken. Savarkar himself admitted that he too had thoughts of suicide, but he decided that it was more meaningful to live for the country, go out and do whatever possible to achieve independence for the country, rather than die a slow death while being confined in prison cells. On other hand efforts were made by leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak the then senior politicians of Congress for the release of Veer Savarkar , additionally seventy thousand people from across the country sent applications to the British rulers for his release. Anger and discontent began to grow across the country against the injustice and atrocities being committed in the Cellular Jail on a staunch patriot like him. Ultimately, the British government agreed to release him, but under certain conditions along with affidavit.
These conditions were later distorted and misrepresented by some political ideologies to malign his image as an alleged apology or clemency plea. Despite the truth being somewhat different, it has been alleged against him that he had apologised to the then British government, had sung odes in their praise and had sworn loyalty to them. Although, in the political field, the trend of making allegations and running away has been prevalent. No one upholds the ideal of presenting the necessary evidence for that. Shouldn’t those allegations be tested on the touchstone of logic and facts? While baseless accusations continue to be made, no credible evidence has ever been presented to substantiate them. Truth should be tested against logic and facts, not political convenience.
First and foremost, we must understand the difference between a petition for mercy, a general application, and a bond of assurance. At that time, political prisoners were required to submit a bond or affidavit pledging to remain courteous, law-abiding, and disciplined as a formal legal procedure to secure their release. To label this affidavit as a mercy petition and propagate it as such is a grave insult to the resolute patriotism and self-sacrificing personality of Veer Savarkar.
After the First World War, King George V of Britain issued a royal proclamation for the release of political prisoners, not only in India but also in other British colonies. This proclamation offered prisoners an opportunity to file petitions. Such gestures of magnanimity were frequently employed by the British to propagate their supposed nobility and supremacy worldwide, presenting themselves as champions of democracy rather than imperial rulers. Following this royal proclamation, petitions or affidavits were not submitted by Savarkar alone; they were filed by numerous political prisoners. In fact, Savarkar himself wrote to the British authorities on behalf of other political prisoners in the Cellular Jail, advocating for their release. In a letter written in 1917, he even stated, “If my release becomes an obstacle to the release of other political prisoners, the British government should consider releasing them instead of me with seriousness and positivity.”
Another undeniable fact is that the so-called “mercy petition” propagated by his adversaries was filed with the consent of the then-Congress leadership. Under the presidency of Bipin Chandra Pal, the Congress leadership passed a resolution to send a petition to the British government seeking Savarkar’s release.
Later, similar petitions were the basis for the release of like Sripad Dange (founder of CPI) and other great revolutionaries Sachindranath Sanyal, and Barindra Ghosh from the Cellular Jail. Motilal Nehru also signed a bond for Jawaharlal Nehru’s release from Nabha Jail, submitting it to the then-Viceroy. On January 25, 1920, Mahatma Gandhi himself advised Veer Savarkar’s younger brother, Narayanrao, to file another petition. On May 26, 1920, Gandhi wrote a long article in Young India, demanding the release of the Savarkar brothers. Moreover, should the significance or contribution of a national hero be diminished because of one letter, petition, or alleged apology? This petition could also be viewed as a part of his strategic plan. It would be more apt to call it a tactical move. Does Shivaji’s greatness diminish because he wrote four apology letters to Aurangzeb? Instead of waiting helplessly in a dark, anonymous cell to die in silence, living a passive life, wouldn’t it have been better to step out and lead a meaningful, purposeful, active life dedicated to the nation, society, and culture?
Regarding the alleged praise for the British government or expressions of loyalty to them, this accusation is baseless and illogical. If this were true, why would the British release him under stringent conditions, extend his five-year house arrest (Najarbandi) to thirteen years in Ratnagiri with severe restrictions, and deny him any special privileges or leniency? Historical accounts are replete with instances of how the British rewarded their collaborators with privileges, positions, representation, and honors. The kind of facilities did the British provide to their close ones even in jail, how generously they treated them, how much they obliged them by giving them some position or representation, with what honors and awards did they honor their people. Even while leaving India, British took full care of the welfare of their people.
There are many such incidents and evidence that before the transfer of power, they ensured that the interests of the people spying or informing for British Raj should be taken care of properly in the government of independent India. On the contrary, Savarkar, after his release, had his graduate and law degrees revoked and was kept under strict surveillance. He remains one of the few freedom fighters who were monitored by both pre-independence and post-independence governments and faced considerable governmental wrath. In comparison, several other freedom fighters openly without any external pressure and circumstantial compulsion praised the British government or their policies at different times without facing the same criticism. These praises were considered either natural or a result of the circumstances and understanding of the time. Then why one-sided and baseless allegations against Savarkar ji?
Gandhi, for instance, wrote multiple letters expressing gratitude and allegiance to the British in various contexts. Publicly, he advised Indians to remain loyal to the British and even described British rule as a privilege for Indians. From his letters and writings, it appears that he often became emotional while mentioning the many favours of the British. In his letters during World War – I, Gandhi encouraged Indian soldiers to participate in the war, portraying it as their duty. Does this diminish his stature in the freedom struggle? Rather, we accept all his statements in a larger perspective by considering them as a sign of his political skill, candor, and policy-tactics adopted for a bigger goal. This is appropriate and logical too. Many Congress leaders like Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Surendranath Banerjee, and Gopal Krishna Gokhale, and social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, openly endorsed British rule and their way of life at various points. If their contributions are not diminished on these grounds, Why questions and allegations on Savarkar who sacrificed every moment of his life and every particle of his body for the nation? Even Dr BR Ambedkar, on several occasions, advocated for the British, going so far as to oppose immediate independence to secure the rights of Dalits. Does this diminish his monumental contributions? On the contrary, the entire nation and society stand in reverence for his role in eradicating social discrimination, untouchability and establishing equality. Similarly, the greatness and sacrifices of Savarkar, who dedicated every moment of his life and every fiber of his being to the nation, cannot be undermined by such allegations. His strategies, like those of other great leaders, were aimed at achieving the larger goal of national liberation. This is the lens through which his life and contributions must be viewed.
Some scholars and individuals with a shallow understanding of historical contexts criticize Savarkar for opposing Gandhi’s “Quit India Movement” launched in 1942. Is it not true that several prominent leaders of the time, such as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (then President of Congress), C. Rajagopalachari, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, raised serious questions about the timing and methods of the movement? In fact, some historians believe that Gandhi hurriedly initiated the Quit India Movement in response to the pressure created by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s armed struggle plans during 1941–42. They argue that the movement lacked a concrete strategy, a well-defined plan, and clear objectives, making it easy for the British to suppress it within weeks. As expected, the British arrested all senior Congress leaders as soon as the movement began, leaving it leaderless. Apart from sporadic violent protests by students and youth, the movement had no significant impact on the British government.
Savarkar, on the other hand, wanted the Congress to clarify its stance on the Muslim League’s demand for Partition. He sought justice for communities that considered India their ancestral and spiritual homeland, ensuring that in the event of the British accepting the Muslim League’s demands, the lives and properties of Hindus would face minimal harm. Was this stance unreasonable? On the contrary, he toured the country encouraging Hindus to take military training. Considering the “Direct Action Day” massacre orchestrated by Jinnah and the subsequent genocide of Hindus during Partition in Pakistan, Savarkar’s efforts and foresight seem not only justified but also visionary. Will the so-called self proclaimed intellectuals who question Savarkar’s concept of Hindutva and motherland-holy land (maatrbhoomi-punyabhoomi) also put Ambedkar in the dock?
Because he too had cautioned and warned the then leaders and society about the aggressive, intolerant, disruptive, expansionist tendencies of Islam. He categorically stated that Islam’s brotherhood is limited to its followers and that Muslims would never accept India as their motherland because they identify more with their conquerors. According to Ambedkar, Muslims would not assimilate into indigenous governance because their highest allegiance lies with Islamic doctrines like the Quran, Hadith, and Sharia, which prioritize Islamic symbols, beliefs, and holy sites over any other considerations, which sets them apart from the rest.
The truth is that both Savarkar and Ambedkar stood on the solid ground of realism and objectively assessed the past, present, and future. Their approach was marked by foresight, not narrow-mindedness. Both leaders were vocal critics of any artificial, imaginary, or hollow unity that could disintegrate or turn bloody under the slightest pressure. They believed that India’s secular character would last only as long as Hindus remained the majority. Those who champion blind secularism must answer whether Pakistan or Bangladesh, which were carved out of India, have managed to establish non-Islamic or democratic regimes. Is their soil, climate, language, or culture vastly different from ours?
Bangladesh’s formation and fortune were made possible with India’s help, yet Hindus there continue to suffer unimaginable violence and horrific living conditions—something which any sensitive and aware individual can comprehend. Leaving aside these two nations, is there any Islamic country that has successfully implemented a secular system of governance? Take Turkiye, for instance, which was founded on secular principles but is now heavily influenced by organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabi ideologies. Can anyone deny that despite best efforts, Gandhi failed to prevent the tragedy of Partition and was unable to fully foresee or assess the communal-religious realities post-independence? Those who, in their ignorance or bias, equate Savarkar with Jinnah and label him a proponent of the two-nation theory should revisit Savarkar’s 1939 speech at a program in Lahore. Responding to a question at a Hindu Mahasabha event, he clearly stated that his concept of a nation was entirely different from that of the Muslim League and Jinnah.
Savarkar was staunchly opposed to dividing the nation based on religion. In his view, all citizens should be equal before the law. He rejected the idea of the state creating divisions in society by privileging minorities or majorities. In the India of his vision, no one would be neglected, nor would anyone be granted special privileges. To him, anyone who considered India both their Punyabhumi (spiritual homeland) and Pitribhumi (ancestral homeland) was an Indian. He left behind this broad and inclusive definition of nationalism as his legacy to his society and time.
The truth is that Swatantryaveer Savarkar was a realist thinker and visionary leader who could see beyond his times. His significance is neither diminished by the baseless allegations leveled against him nor by his advocacy for Hindu interests. His every fiber was dedicated to the nation. He was a staunch proponent and advocate of an undivided India. With his sharp intellect and logical analysis, he successfully established the 1857 rebellion as the “First War of Independence.”
Savarkar took decisive steps to eradicate untouchability by establishing the Patit Pavan Mandir. He spearheaded initiatives to free society from seven shackles: restrictions on inter-caste dining (rotibandi), inter-caste marriages (betibandi), physical touch (sparshbandi), professional pursuits (vyavasaybandi), overseas travel (sagarbandi), Vedic rituals (vedoktabandi), and religious re-conversion (shuddhibandi). He also launched a vigorous campaign to help those who had converted to other religions return to their original faith. Savarkar remained committed to social reform throughout his life.
He enjoyed great respect among contemporary political leaders. Prominent leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, and Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose admired him. Gandhi and Ambedkar were particularly impressed by his efforts to abolish untouchability and uplift the marginalized. Revolutionaries and patriots like Subhas Chandra Bose, Sachindra Nath Sanyal, Roshan Singh, Rajendra Lahiri, Sardar Bhagat Singh, Durga Bhabhi, Sukhdev, and Rajguru were inspired by his work and ideas at various levels. Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi described his death as an irreparable loss to the nation and openly praised his contributions to national life. In 1970, she issued a commemorative postal stamp in his honor. She also donated Rs 11,000 from her personal account to the Savarkar Trust. Furthermore, in 1983, she directed the Films Division of India to produce a documentary on his life titled The Great Revolutionary. The current Congress leadership, which opposes Savarkar, must reflect on whether their ideological stance is different from that of Indira Gandhi’s Congress. It is worth noting that after independence, the Congress established a committee comprising Dr Rajendra Prasad, Dr Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Dr S Radhakrishnan, Jayaprakash Narayan, and Vijayalakshmi Pandit. This committee oversaw the publication of a book on India’s freedom struggle titled “To the Gates of Liberty”, with its foreword written by Jawaharlal Nehru. The book included two essays by Savarkar: Ideology of the War of Independence: Swadharma and Swaraj and The Rani of Jhansi. Interestingly, the committee used the honorific “Veer” before Savarkar’s name in the book.
Savarkar was honorably acquitted by the court of the false allegations regarding Gandhi’s assassination. In fact, Savarkar was deeply concerned about Gandhi’s health and safety. He frequently urged the Indian government to ensure Gandhi’s security. Among his contemporaries, Savarkar had perhaps the clearest understanding of Gandhi’s role and importance in India’s independence movement. Even after independence, he lived a life of service to the nation, embodying the spirit of “Idam na mama, idam rashtraya” (Not for myself, but for the nation).
Any grateful society and nation will always cherish and take pride in such a true and valiant son of the motherland. The nation will remember him as a true patriot, an emotional poet, a realist thinker, an insightful historian, a skilled strategist, and a visionary statesman. In the words of one of India’s most popular and illustrious Prime Ministers, the late Atal Bihari Vajpayee: “Savarkar means brilliance, Savarkar means austerity, Savarkar means sacrifice, Savarkar means logic, Savarkar means youthfulness.” He further said, “Savarkar is not just an individual but an idea; not just a spark but a flame; not confined but expansive.”
Comments