Blab News
Grandnephew of Vinayak Savarkar Confirms 10 Clemency Petitions Filed by Ideologue During British Rule
In a quiet session of the special MP/MLA court in Pune, Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of the Indian nationalist Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, stepped forward to confirm a detail that has long fueled debate about his great‑uncle’s conduct while imprisoned at the Cellular Jail in the Andaman Islands.
The testimony was delivered amid a criminal defamation suit that Satyaki has filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The case, overseen by Special Judge Amol Shinde, probes whether Gandhi’s remarks about Savarkar amounted to defamation. As the court listened, Satyaki presented evidence that, within the first month of his sentencing, Savarkar had lodged ten clemency petitions with the British authorities.
According to Satyaki, the petitions were forwarded by prison officials for approval and subsequently recorded in government archives. He stressed that the language used in the petitions was devoid of any overt loyalty to the colonial regime and adhered strictly to the official protocol for clemency requests. The petitions were rejected by the colonial administration, which warned that a release could enable Savarkar to re‑engage in revolutionary activities.
Satyaki drew parallels between Savarkar’s actions and those of other revolutionaries of the era. He noted that figures such as Rajguru, Batukeshwar Dutt, and Ashfaqulla Khan never filed clemency petitions, and that he was unaware of Bhagat Singh or Dutt petitioning the British for treatment as prisoners of war or for leniency. He argued that filing a clemency petition was a standard procedure under British rule and that no prisoner was compelled to submit one; the decision was left to individual preference.
The court’s record includes an excerpt from one of Savarkar’s petitions in which he requested that other prisoners be released while he himself remained incarcerated and classified as a Class D prisoner. The record also shows that Savarkar did not sign the petitions with the phrase “I beg to remain, Sir, your most obedient servant, V.D. Savarkar,” a claim that Satyaki denied.
The defamation case has attracted attention because it involves a prominent political figure and a historical personality whose legacy remains contested. The court has yet to decide on the merits of the defamation claim, leaving the matter in limbo.
Archival records corroborate Satyaki’s account, listing ten petitions filed by Savarkar, all of which were rejected. Savarkar was eventually released in 1924 following a series of petitions and negotiations.
This case illustrates how historical narratives can be contested in contemporary courts and highlights the procedural aspects of clemency petitions during the British Raj—an administrative practice that was not unique to Savarkar.
At present, the court continues to hear the defamation case. Neither side has issued further statements, and the outcome remains pending, underscoring the ongoing debate over Savarkar’s legacy and the legal mechanisms that governed political prisoners during colonial rule.
The testimony was delivered amid a criminal defamation suit that Satyaki has filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The case, overseen by Special Judge Amol Shinde, probes whether Gandhi’s remarks about Savarkar amounted to defamation. As the court listened, Satyaki presented evidence that, within the first month of his sentencing, Savarkar had lodged ten clemency petitions with the British authorities.
According to Satyaki, the petitions were forwarded by prison officials for approval and subsequently recorded in government archives. He stressed that the language used in the petitions was devoid of any overt loyalty to the colonial regime and adhered strictly to the official protocol for clemency requests. The petitions were rejected by the colonial administration, which warned that a release could enable Savarkar to re‑engage in revolutionary activities.
Satyaki drew parallels between Savarkar’s actions and those of other revolutionaries of the era. He noted that figures such as Rajguru, Batukeshwar Dutt, and Ashfaqulla Khan never filed clemency petitions, and that he was unaware of Bhagat Singh or Dutt petitioning the British for treatment as prisoners of war or for leniency. He argued that filing a clemency petition was a standard procedure under British rule and that no prisoner was compelled to submit one; the decision was left to individual preference.
The court’s record includes an excerpt from one of Savarkar’s petitions in which he requested that other prisoners be released while he himself remained incarcerated and classified as a Class D prisoner. The record also shows that Savarkar did not sign the petitions with the phrase “I beg to remain, Sir, your most obedient servant, V.D. Savarkar,” a claim that Satyaki denied.
The defamation case has attracted attention because it involves a prominent political figure and a historical personality whose legacy remains contested. The court has yet to decide on the merits of the defamation claim, leaving the matter in limbo.
Archival records corroborate Satyaki’s account, listing ten petitions filed by Savarkar, all of which were rejected. Savarkar was eventually released in 1924 following a series of petitions and negotiations.
This case illustrates how historical narratives can be contested in contemporary courts and highlights the procedural aspects of clemency petitions during the British Raj—an administrative practice that was not unique to Savarkar.
At present, the court continues to hear the defamation case. Neither side has issued further statements, and the outcome remains pending, underscoring the ongoing debate over Savarkar’s legacy and the legal mechanisms that governed political prisoners during colonial rule.
