A litany of abusive articles by several eminent British gentlemen began appearing in newspapers after this. F.F. Skirme, a retired ICS officer, denounced the activities of India House and Shyamji, saying that several young fellows coming to England for studies ‘have been ruined by these scoundrels’, 4 who have plenty of money and assist their young compatriots in finding tuition and lodgings. Sir Evan James, KCIE, wrote in an article titled ‘Ambition and Sedition in India’, in the June issue of the National Review :
Curiously enough, even in England exists an ardent Indian rebel, a Mr. Shyamaji Krishnavarma, President of the Indian Home Rule Society, numbering 150 members, whose influence over the young Indians who come to England for legal or other education can scarcely be very good from the British Government’s point of view . . . That the desirability of ousting the English from India is being widely taught is a fact . . . if once the tolerant millions are fully imbued with hatred of the British, our rule has gone. Our Army may be strong, but it will be impossible to hold hundreds of millions in check if they are determined to get rid of us . . . the perambulation of political missionaries should be stopped and the prosecution of seditious speeches and articles in the Press revived . . . we might give India autonomy, but it must be complete, as we cannot leave our white troops to be used as mercenaries by native rulers. 5
In response, Shyamji wrote that he considered it an honour to be called an ‘ardent Indian rebel’ for advising his countrymen to shake off an ‘oppressive foreign yoke’. 6 The issue regarding India House and Shyamji even reached the British parliament where Mr Rees, a member of the House of Commons, questioned the Secretary of State, Lord John Morley, if he was aware of the speeches, the tone and tenor of the editorials of the Indian Sociologist , and the comment of considering it an ‘honour to be an ardent Indian rebel’. He was also asked if the government was aware of ‘the boarding house to which young Indians are attracted for the purpose of perversion’ on their arrival in England. 7 He also urged the government to prosecute Shyamji to ‘his ultimate expulsion as an undesirable alien who endeavoured to debauch the loyal subjects of His Majesty’. 8 Morley brushed away the question. But the London press was captivated by the subject. The Daily Telegraph had a heading ‘Debauching the King’s Subjects’ 9 while the Standard screamed: ‘British Rule Defied: Occupation of England by India Suggested’. 10 The Globe went further:
Mr Rees will ask Mr Morley in the House today whether a gentleman of the name of Shyamji Krishnavarma may receive it in the neck for sedition. He edits in London a paper called The Indian Sociologist , and it is fearfully bitter. In fact its subscribers say that if it would only start a good limerick competition as well, it would shake London to its core. 11
An article in the Indian Sociologist in July 1907 titled ‘British Financial Jugglery in India: Beware of Indian Rupee Promissory Notes’ warning potential investors against placing their money in Indian securities further raised British hackles. 12 In July 1907, under Section 26 of the Post Office Act (1898), the Government of India intercepted copies of the Indian Sociologist sent to British India. Along with the Indian Sociologist , a ban was imposed on the import of newspapers, for example, the newsletter Justice of H.M. Hyndman and the Gaelic American , given their revolutionary content. 13
Shyamji realized that it would be impossible for him to continue his work in this hostile situation in London. The breaking point came when O’Brien, a detective from Scotland Yard, arrived to India House posing as an Irish sympathizer and a staffer of the Gaelic American . He had attended meetings of India House as a spy from early 1907 itself. On this occasion, he solicited Shyamji for an interview in such a clumsy manner that it alerted the latter. Shyamji thereafter decided to leave Britain for good and move to Paris in September 1907. 14 The October 1907 edition of the Indian Sociologist mentions this change of address to: 10 Avenue Ingres, Passy, Paris. By 1909, there were nearly 250 politically active Indians in Paris. 15
It is worthwhile examining why western Europe was fast emerging as a nerve centre of activities of several anti-colonialists. Many of them, like Ho Chi Minh and Jomo Kenyatta (and men like Gandhi and Vinayak), would become leaders of independence in their own home countries. Compared to the autocratically ruled colonies, more liberal laws were in place in these metropoles. Anti-colonialists were thus able to make use of this to protect themselves from persecution by the colonial governments back home. They could take advantage of the fact that European empires did not constitute unified legal spaces. This means that the laws that existed in Europe were entirely different from those in the colonies. The anti-colonialists were thus free here to carry on their political work without the threats of immediate imprisonment or accusations of sedition being slapped on them. In France, publication of material considered anti-British was easy as there were no legally binding restrictions. The Russian revolutionaries too were successfully evading government surveillance and printing their pamphlets in Switzerland. 16 Continental Europe was also considered a safe place to learn how to manufacture bombs and explosives. As an officer noted in his official report of 6 December 1910 that Miss Perin Naoroji, granddaughter of Dadabhai Naoroji, ‘with one or two others, was recently receiving instructions in the manufacture of bombs from a Polish engineer named Bronjesky in a private flat in Paris’. 17 Additionally, weapons could also be purchased and smuggled back to India from these countries. Innovative methods were used to achieve this end. For instance, Virendranath Chattopadhyay and Madame Cama sent revolvers to India in 1910, by concealing them in toys ‘forwarded ostensibly as Christmas presents’. 18
Anti-colonialists moved from Britain to France prior to the First World War, and after that from France to Germany or Switzerland in the inter-war period. This transnational dimension of anti-colonial activity contributed significantly to the extension of colonial surveillance institutions across countries and continents in the early decades of the twentieth century. Anti-colonialists created alliances with local liberation movements, white politicians, writers, intellectuals and the press in order to amplify their views to a larger global audience. They succeeded in tapping the strong nationalistic sentiments and the fascination with justice, liberty and democracy that existed in different European countries.
With Shyamji’s exit from London, the responsibility of the management of India House fell on Vinayak. He decided to concentrate largely on foreign propaganda—showcase the cause of India’s liberation in countries outside England and enlist their support. The Irish press came out in open support and regularly carried his articles. The Gaelic American of New York and its editor, G.F. Freeman, also became a willing partner in Vinayak’s efforts. His articles were soon translated in French, German, Portuguese, Italian and Russian newspapers and, thereby, managed to thrust India’s politics on to the world stage.
A diehard supporter of Shyamji and Vinayak, and an avowed communist, Guy A. Aldred, brought an important Russian revolutionary to India House for an interview with Vinayak in mid-March 1909. Madan Lal Dhingra too was part of these meetings. The revolutionary was none other than Vladimir Ilich Lenin. What transpired between them is unknown and even Vinayak concealed these details till almost 1937.
Under Vinayak, the atmosphere at India House was completely transformed. The London press began to call it ‘The House of Mystery’ as one did not know what transpired behind its seemingly innocent high walls. A young Irish revolutionary, David Garnett, who was living in London, and had visited India House several times before, notes its atmosphere during a visit in 1909:
At my entrance there was some surprise. Nanu (Niranjan Pal) came forward and welcomed me and stopped a young man, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, and introduced me to him. He was small, slight in build, with broad cheekbones, a sensitive refined mouth and an extremely pale skin which was almost as pale as ivory on the forehead and cheekbones, but darker in the hollows. Soon after my arrival we trooped into the dining room and Savarkar, after addressing the company in Hindi, stood up and began
to read aloud. I looked at Savarkar and thought that his was the most sensitive face in the room . . . the sight of those brown men, some sitting round a long table, others leaning against the walls, all listening intently to the staccato voice of the speaker, was very strange to me . . . I listened attentively and made out that he was reading about a battle in which an Indian General called Tatia Tope had been defeated by English troops and Sikhs. Savarkar was, although I did not know it, reading aloud a chapter from his extremely propagandist history of the Indian Mutiny called The Indian War of Independence of 1857 . . . when he had finished his chapter, the greater part of the audience went into an adjoining room and someone put a record of Indian music on the gramophone. It was ‘Vande Mataram ’. 19
The ‘seditious activities’ and pamphlets of India House became a constant feature in the London press towards the end of the decade and also a topic for discussion in the British parliament. Campbell Green wrote in the Sunday Chronicle dated 14 March 1909:
India House looks pretty much like a hostel or a lodging house for students. That is the truth. The point of moment is—is it the whole truth or nothing but the truth? Those who profess to know, not only in London but in Calcutta and Bombay, will tell you that it is not the whole truth; that in fact it is far from the whole truth! 20
Around the same time that Vinayak took over the leadership of India House, news emerged that the International Socialist Congress was going to be held at Stuttgart in Germany from 18 to 24 August 1907. Nearly 900 delegates from across the world were expected to participate and discuss matters related to colonialism, militarism, immigration and women’s suffrage. It was organized by socialist and labour parties in Europe. This was too big a platform to let go for Vinayak and his associates. They hoped to enlist the support of the powerful working-class movements and other socialist parties from across the world; more so when colonialism was listed as a topic of discussion. It was decided that Madame Bhikaji Cama and Sardar Singh Rana would attend the Congress as Indian delegates. Vinayak designed what was to become one of the earliest flags conceptualized for free India. 21 It had three horizontal stripes of equal width, each of three colours—‘green (the sacred colour of Muslims), the centre band was saffron (the sacred colour of the Buddhists and Sikhs) and the lower stripe being Hindu red’. 22 In the centre, Vande Mataram , or Salutations to the Motherland, was embroidered on a golden band. The top section had eight stars in a row, the middle had the sun on the left and the moon on the right. These symbolized the different faiths and provinces of India.
Speaking about this flag on the occasion of its anniversary celebrations in 1937 in Poona, Vinayak said: ‘When we designed this national flag, we had many flags of different nations in view. On the USA flag a bunch of stars is depicted. Each star represents one state of the United States of America. Abhinava Bharat Society was founded by a band of young Indian patriots. The green colour on the flag suggests this sense. Saffron is the colour of glory and victory. Red colour implies strength.’ 23
The British Labour leader, James Ramsay Macdonald, who later went on to become the prime minister, tried his best to scuttle the invitation to Madame Cama and Rana as delegates. But the Indians were supported by Marxist labour leaders such as French socialist leader Jean Jaurès, German leaders August Bebel, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, and the British representative of the Social Democratic Federation, H.M. Hyndman. In fact, in his speech there, Hyndman made a passionate plea for Indian freedom:
India was conquered for the Empire not by the English themselves but by Indians under the English and by taking advantage of Indian disputes . . . if civilization is to be gauged by the standard of science, art, architecture, industry, medicine, laws, philosophy and religion, then the great state of India at that period was well worthy of comparison with the most enlightened and cultured parts of Europe, and no European monarch could be reckoned in any way superior to Akbar, Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb or Shivaji; while it would be hard to name any European Minister of Finance equal to the Hindu Rajahs: Todar Mal and Nana Furnavis. 24
Madame Bhikaji Cama made history at the Congress by proudly unfurling the Indian flag of independence on 18 August 1907, overcoming all odds and opposition. She thundered with pride, amid a protest walkout by Ramsay Macdonald:
This flag is of Indian independence. Behold, it is born. It is already sanctified by the blood of martyred Indian youth. I call upon you, gentlemen, to rise and salute the flag of Indian independence. In the name of this flag I appeal to lovers of freedom all over the world to cooperate with this flag in freeing one-fifth of the human race. 25
Moving a resolution in English, she went on to add:
The continuance of British rule is positively disastrous and extremely injurious to the best interests of Indians. Lovers of freedom all over the world ought to cooperate in freeing from slavery the one-fifth of human race inhabiting the oppressed country, since the perfect social state demands that no people shall be subject to any despotic or tyrannical form of Government. This Congress calls upon the socialist members of the Parliament to urge the government to give self-government to the Indian people . . . you are discussing colonies all the time, but what about dependencies? Take up the cause of justice and make it a point to bring India to the front at every Socialist Congress. 26
Madame Cama’s speech was widely appreciated by the delegates and she was hailed as India’s Joan of Arc. Several Independent Labour Party delegates stoutly opposed the resolution being brought to the Congress. Anglophile Miss Mchillan strongly upheld the view that British rule was greatly beneficial and necessary for Indians. However, Hyndman and other pro-India leaders vociferously opposed this view. 27
A few months after the Socialist Congress, Bhikaji Cama made a whirlwind tour of America to spread the propaganda and enlist support for Indian freedom. She was widely interviewed by the American press. In one such interview given at Hotel Martha in Washington where she was staying, Madame Cama called for total liberation of India from British control. On 28 October 1907, addressing the members of Minerva Club at the Waldort Astoria Hotel, she said:
The people here know about the conditions in Russia, but I don’t think they know anything about the conditions in India under the English Government. Our best men are deported or sent to prison like criminals and there they are flogged so that they have to go to the prison hospitals. We are peaceful, we do not want a bloody revolution, but we do want to teach the people their rights and to throw off despotism. 28
Such calls for complete freedom and an uncensored view of British rule to the international community were a far cry from the patient demands and respectful petitions that were still being made by the INC back home. The narrative of the discourse on independence had suddenly been changed.
Thrilled by the success at the Socialist Congress, Vinayak and his comrades drew out an elaborate plan of action for the future. The main task on their agenda was the purchase and manufacture of arms from within and outside England and smuggling these back to India. The Indian Arms Act of 1878 made it illegal for any Indian to possess a weapon of any kind without a licence that was most cumbersome to procure. Abhinav Bharat was in constant touch with revolutionaries in Russia, China, Ireland and Egypt. Vinayak and V.V.S. Aiyar met Mustafa Kemal (later Atatürk), the Turkish revolutionary who was fighting for the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, when he came to London. They drew plans to orchestrate a simultaneous armed uprising in different parts of the British Empire. The blockage of the Suez Canal to limit the British further was also planned, with the promise of active support from Egyptian revolutionaries. As writer Emily Brown states:
Savarkar had gained a valuable support from students and sympathizers in the United States and most of the European countries. The extent and importance of this international propaganda, which had its focal point at India House, was not fully realized by either the Indians or the British until the outbreak of World War I in 1914. 29
Vinayak also wanted Abhinav Bhara
t members to gain experience in warfare. With the outbreak of war between Spain and Morocco, he dispatched his associates, M.P.T. Acharya and Sukhsagar Dutt, to join the Riffs of Moors—a coloured people who were fighting against the imperialist invaders, the Spaniards. A lot of money was spent in the procurement of guns, uniforms and their training. The duo were given a grand farewell, seen off by Vinayak and Aiyar. They left on the German Far East liner Luetzow to Gibraltar. But after seven months, they returned in unkempt and dirty uniforms, crestfallen and worn out. Neither the Moors nor the Spaniards were willing to enlist their services because they thought the Indians had been planted by their opponent. The only result was the expenditure of ‘three hundred pounds, not to mention the physical sufferings undergone by the . . . volunteers’. 30
Without letting his spirits dampen, Vinayak decided to create a laboratory of sorts to manufacture bombs within India House itself. It is said that he often appeared at Abhinav Bharat meetings with the yellow stains of the highly explosive chemical—picric acid—on his hands. Vinayak sent Hemchandra Das Kanungo of Anushilan Society of Bengal who had come to London, along with Senapati Bapat and Mirza Abbas to Paris to procure the ‘Bomb Manual’. It had detailed instructions on the ingredients that went into making a bomb, the process of manufacture and use. In an interview, Senapati Bapat mentions how they stayed in the faraway suburbs of Paris during this time. 31 Hemchandra was a skilled photographer and also knew the art of making cabinets. A Russian professor who never revealed his name but had been involved in a political assassination and was fleeing to Spain advised them about the organization of a secret underground society, even as Bapat assiduously noted it all down. They met a Russian tailor who gave them a copy of the ‘Bomb Manual’. Hemchandra quickly took about fifty photographs of it and returned the manual. Some opine that it was Russian revolutionary, Nicholas Sanfranskie, who had given them the manual in Paris. 32
Savarkar Page 20