Was Veer Savarkar's Petition to the British a Gesture of Surrender or a Plea for Mercy?

Within the broader context of Indian history, the actions of certain individuals have been subject to much debate and scrutiny. One such figure is Veer Savarkar, who, in 1911, submitted a petition for clemency to the British government. This action has been interpreted in various ways, leading to significant discussions about his motivations and beliefs.

Veer Savarkar: A Controversial Figure

Veer Savarkar, an Indian independence activist, is considered a controversial figure in Indian history. He was arrested in 1909 for revolutionary activities against British rule and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment on the Andaman Islands, where he served for a rigorous 11 years. His residency there included the infamous 'Kaala Paisani' facility, where he underwent brutal physical torture. His elder brother also served a nine-year sentence on the same island, with both unable to meet in prison.

Savarkar's journey from a revolutionary to later advocating Hindu nationalism has left his legacy complex. While some view him as a martyr for India's freedom, others criticize his later alignment with the British. The question arises: was Savarkar's 1911 petition a gesture of surrender or a plea for mercy?

Context of the Petition

Historians suggest that Savarkar's petition was part of a broader strategy to seek release from prison. The petition, known as a Mafinama, was a formal statement submitted to the government requesting mercy or clemency. At the time, Savarkar had already completed his legal education but was denied the opportunity to become a barrister due to his revolutionary activities. This was further exacerbated by his denial of a fair trial in London and the brutal torture he endured on the Andaman Islands.

Significantly, Savarkar's petition does not solely focus on his personal circumstances but also touches upon the greater cause of India's freedom and the partial independence achieved. Some scholars argue that this action is indicative of a desire to negotiate a better future for India within the constraints of the British Raj.

Historical Interpretations

The interpretation of Savarkar's petition varies widely. Critics argue that by submitting a petition to the British government for mercy, Savarkar effectively submitted to British rule. They claim that this act was a form of surrender, especially given the context of his long and torturous imprisonment. Proponents, on the other hand, argue that Savarkar's actions should be viewed in the context of his later alignment with Hindu nationalism.

Notably, Savarkar later distanced himself from his earlier revolutionary activities, aligning himself with Hindu nationalist ideologies. This shift in his political stance has been interpreted as a strategic move, rather than a genuine act of surrender or submission.

Legacy and Impact

Despite the controversy surrounding his petition, Savarkar's legacy remains complex. He was eventually released from the Andaman Islands and moved to Ratnagiri, where he was placed under house arrest for over 30 years. While imprisoned, Savarkar's personal life was also marred by tragedy, including the death of his son and the destruction of his home.

His treatment by the British is often cited as an example of the harsh and discriminatory nature of colonial rule. Even after India gained independence, Nehru, another controversial figure, is accused of neglecting Savarkar. It is noteworthy that while Nehru was a dedicated fighter against British occupation, he did not spend significant time in serious jail. After independence, Nehru founded a political dynasty that dominated Indian governance for nearly 90% of the time.

In conclusion, while Veer Savarkar's petition for clemency in 1911 is a critical phase in his life and Indian history, the context and implications of this action vary widely in interpretation. The petition's true nature remains a subject of debate, influenced by the broader political and social milieu of the time.