A special MP/MLA court in Pune has dismissed an application filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi seeking to introduce the maternal side of the complainant’s family tree in the defamation case related to his remarks on Hindutva ideologue Veer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The court ruled that the maternal lineage of the complainant, Satyaki Savarkar, was irrelevant to the case at hand.
The application, filed by Gandhi through his advocate Milind Pawar, alleged that Satyaki Savarkar had deliberately concealed his maternal lineage to hide familial connections between the Savarkar and Godse families. Gandhi claimed that Satyaki is the son of Ashok Savarkar (brother of Vinayak Savarkar) and Himani, who is allegedly the daughter of Gopal Godse, brother of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse.
“The complainant has deliberately, systematically, and very brilliantly avoided and suppressed to disclosure of the family tree from his maternal side,” the application stated.
Gandhi argued that the omission of the maternal family tree was significant as it would establish “the direct family relations between the Savarkar and Godse families,” thereby questioning the complainant’s credibility and intent.
However, the court disagreed.
In his detailed order issued on May 28, Special Judge Amol Shinde observed, “This court finds that this case is related only to the defamatory speech made by the accused in London against Vinayak Damodhar Savarkar. The complainant is a grandson of one of the brothers of Vinayak Damodhar Savarkar.”
Judge Shinde further emphasised the legal standing of the complainant under Section 199(1) of the CrPC, which allows only an “aggrieved person” to file a defamation complaint. “The complainant seems to be an aggrieved person,” the judge recorded.
Rejecting the need to delve into Satyaki’s maternal side, the court stated, “The case is not related to or about the family tree of Himani Ashok Savarkar… Therefore, this court does not find any merit in the application of the accused. There is also no need to send the matter for further investigation. Hence, the application is without merit and is liable to be rejected.”
Judge Shinde also clarified that the burden of proof lies on the complainant. “If he fails to prove the case, then the accused would be entitled to be acquitted,” he stated.
In his application, Gandhi had also raised several historical contentions. He submitted that Vinayak Savarkar was a co-accused in the Mahatma Gandhi assassination case, though he was acquitted due to lack of evidence. The plea attempted to link Savarkar ideologically and personally with Nathuram Godse, citing common beliefs in Hindutva and the “Hindu Nation.”
The application noted: “Both Godse and Savarkar were staunch supporters of ‘Hindu Nation’ and considered Muslims and Christians as ‘misfits’ in India. They conspired to kill Mahatma Gandhi, whom they considered to be lenient towards Muslims during the Partition.”
Further referencing historical documents and historians’ views, Gandhi claimed that Savarkar was a strong proponent of the two-nation theory well before Muhammad Ali Jinnah. “Savarkar’s views articulated in 1937 and further solidified in 1943 emphasised the separation of the two communities and their distinct identities, a perspective that laid the groundwork for the eventual Partition of India,” the application read.
The plea also accused Savarkar of harbouring and promoting anti-Muslim views during and after his incarceration. “Savarkar promoted an anti-Muslim form of Hindu nationalism and saw Muslims in the Indian police and military to be ‘potential traitors.’ He advocated that India reduce the number of Muslims in the military, police and public service and ban Muslims from owning or working in munition factories,” the application stated, quoting various historical sources.
Referring to Savarkar’s 1963 work Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History, the application alleged: “Savarkar has said that Muslims and Christians wanted to destroy Hinduism. He advocated the use of rape as a political tool and accused Muslim women of actively supporting their men’s atrocities against Hindu women. He had also written that young and beautiful Muslim girls should be captured, converted and presented to Maratha warriors as a reward just like Muslim ruler Tipu Sultan distributed Hindu women among his warriors.”
According to Gandhi’s legal team, these historical assertions were necessary to counter Satyaki’s claim that Gandhi’s London speech had defamed Savarkar. They argued that Gandhi was only quoting what Savarkar himself had written.
The defamation case stems from a speech delivered by Rahul Gandhi in London, where he allegedly remarked that Savarkar had written in his book about how he and his friends “enjoyed” assaulting a Muslim youth. Satyaki Savarkar, claiming to be directly aggrieved by the remark as a descendant of Savarkar, filed the complaint in Pune.
However, with the court declining Gandhi’s request to examine the maternal family tree and focus solely on the alleged defamatory content, the case will now proceed on the basis of the primary issue: whether Gandhi’s comments in London amounted to criminal defamation of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
Do Gandhi’s Accusations Hold any Truth?
Savarkar’s approach to India’s freedom struggle starkly contrasted with Gandhi’s non-violent philosophy and Nehru’s secular socialism. While Gandhi advocated for Ahimsa (non-violence) and mass civil disobedience, Savarkar believed in armed revolution and militarisation as a means to achieve independence. His rivalry with Gandhi began in 1909 when he openly criticised Gandhi’s methods during a meeting at India House. Savarkar viewed Gandhi’s emphasis on Hindu-Muslim unity and non-violence as appeasement that weakened the Hindu community’s resolve against colonial and perceived Muslim aggression. He opposed the Quit India Movement of 1942, urging Hindus to join British war efforts to gain military training, a pragmatic move to strengthen Hindu society against future threats.
The two-nation theory, often attributed to Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League, was not originated by Savarkar, despite Congress’s claims. The concept predates Savarkar, with roots in Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s 1876 writings and the formation of the Muslim League in 1906. Savarkar, however, articulated a version of the theory in 1937, stating that Hindus and Muslims constituted two distinct nations within India —a view shared by Jinnah but with different implications. While Jinnah sought a separate Muslim state (Pakistan), Savarkar opposed partition, advocating a secular state with equal rights for all, provided minorities pledged undivided loyalty to India. His Hindu Mahasabha worked to protect Hindu interests against what he saw as the Muslim League’s aggressive separatism, particularly during the 1940s when partition loomed.
Savarkar’s ideology profoundly influenced the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), founded by Dr K.B. Hedgewar in 1925. His concept of Hindutva and emphasis on Hindu unity inspired Hedgewar, whom he met during Savarkar’s internment in Ratnagiri. While Savarkar was not formally associated with the RSS, his writings and speeches significantly influenced its early ideology, particularly its emphasis on Hindu Sangathan (organisation). Savarkar’s vision of a strong, unified Hindu society resonated with the RSS’s mission to foster national pride and discipline among Hindus.
Beyond politics, Savarkar was a social reformer. He opposed caste discrimination, organised inter-caste dinners, and established the Patitpavan Temple in Ratnagiri in 1931, open to all castes, including untouchables. He also opened India’s first pan-Hindu café in 1933, promoting social equality. As an atheist, he rejected orthodox practices like cow worship, advocating rationality while upholding cultural Hindutva.
