On all these grounds, I believe that the Government, hearing my readiness to enter into any sensible pledge and the fact that the Reforms, present and promised, joined to common danger from the north of Turko-Afghan fanatics have made me a sincere advocate of loyal co-operation in the interests of both our nations, would release me and win my personal gratitude. The brilliant prospects of my early life all but too soon blighted, have constituted so painful a source of regret to me that a release would be a new birth and would touch my heart, sensitive and submissive, to kindness so deeply as to render me personally attached and politically useful in future. For often magnanimity wins even where might fails.
Hoping that the Chief Commissioner, remembering the personal regard I ever had shown to him throughout his term and how often I had to face keen disappointment throughout that time, will not grudge me this last favour of allowing this most harmless vent to my despair and will be pleased to forward this petition—may I hope with his own recommendations?—to His Excellency the Viceroy of India.
I beg to remain,
SIR,
Your most obedient servant,
(Sd.) V.D. Savarkar,
Convict no. 32778
Petition from V.D. Savarkar to Rufus Daniel Isaacs, Earl of Reading, Governor-General of India, dated August 19, 1921, Ratnagiri District Prison:To
HIS EXCELLENCY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA, in COUNCIL;
Through HIS EXCELLENCY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE GOVERNOR OF BOMBAY, in COUNCIL
The HUMBLE PETITION of VINAYAK DAMODAR SAVARKAR, Convict No. 558, in RATNAGIRI DISTRICT PRISON, showeth that—
The petitioner, who was convicted in 1910 and transported to the Andamans in 1911, was brought back to the Indian Jails this year. He has thus put in nearly 11 years in Jail. Had he been in Indian Jails throughout these years he could have earned anything between 2 to 3 years of remission as he had been promoted to the rank of a Foreman (a first rank convict officer). So practically he had put in nearly 14 years of imprisonment, the maximum, which under the usual practice, entitles a convict’s case for being considered with reference to his conditional release.
Moreover the announcement of the proposed visit of His Royal Highness the PRINCE of WALES raise a strong hope in him that now at least His Excellency the Viceroy and especially His Excellency the Governor of Bombay would be pleased to forgive all that had been offensive in his past and extend to him the benefit of the amnesty so long denied to him.
In praying for this extension he is not asking for any new interpretation of the Royal Proclamation, as the amnesty had already been extended to cases worse than those of the petitioner; e.g. Barin Ghose who confessed to have ordered the murders and Hem Das who actually manufactured the bomb with full knowledge of its destination (vide Rowlatt Report); as well as Pyarasingh and others of the Punjab case who were charged under dacoity &c., actions technically falling outside the ‘State Offences’ but arising out of them, were released in virtue of that amnesty.
The petitioner begs to assure His Excellency that he is not the man he was in the days of conviction. Then he was a mere boy. Since then he has grown not only in age but also in experience; and he sincerely regrets that he should have ever been caught up in the whirlwinds of political passions and ruined the brilliant career that was already his. Ever since the visit of the Right Honourable Mr. Montague [sic] to India he [SAVARKAR] had repeatedly affirmed his faith in the Reforms and the promises made by the Government in his [SAVARKAR’s] previous petitions to the Government. The sight of the linked Asiatic Hoards, now hanging over the Frontiers and who had been an hereditary curse of India—at any rate the non-Mahomedan India—leaves him convinced that a close and even a loyal cooperation and connection with the British Empire are good and indispensable for both of them—only he prays that it may be lasting and fruitful.
But if anyone had been attributing any other motive to him then the petitioner begs to state that such secret reports be not relied upon in face of his frank and full above confessions of his faith. His past will bear out the fact that he is not given to own any belief he does not contribute to. Men over zealous or over anxious to please the Government enraged at their own past misdeeds had always been making the petitioner a scapegoat by attributing to him words or acts without any foundation.
But to disarm any suspicion that may yet linger in the Government Quarters, the petitioner begs to solemnly pledge his word of honour that he shall cease to take any part in politics whatever. His broken health and the long sufferings make him determined—apart from any such condition—to retire and lead a private life and so he is willing to undertake to observe honestly this or any other such definite and reasonable condition that the Government may be pleased to dictate.
These reasons added to the fact that of all the thousands of seditionists convicted before and after the petitioner, none has been held up in Jails so long as the petitioner and his brother (they have remained while all those lifers convicted with them have long been released) make him confident that the visit of H.R.H.[sic] the Prince would mark the end o f their misery and that he and his brother G.D. Savarkar (in whose case the above mentioned grounds hold good to even a greater extent) would be released.
But if the petitioner’s ill luck still persists in suppressing the Voice of Mercy then as a last alternative he prays that the special grievances arising out of his sudden transfer from the Andamans should be redressed: Had he been in the Indian Jails throughout these 11 years the petitioner would have earned something like 2 years of remission or even more. Had he been in the Andamans to the end of his term he would have been by this time eligible to be sent out on Ticket of Leave and could have taken his family there, in virtue of the system there. But as it is he is deprived of the advantages of both these systems. So he prays that either: The remission of 2 to 3 years be restored to him, or
He be allowed to take his family with him and sent back to the Andamans on Ticket of Leave. Even the meanest of convicts, after putting in 9 years in the Andamans and with a year of good conduct, is entitled to lead a private life under the ticket of leave system—and it would not be much if the petitioner expects that at least that much will not be denied to him, after putting in 11 years in the Andamans and in the Jails, and with 7 years of Jail good conduct. He would—if allowed this much at least—be simply glad to lead a retired and private life forgotten by and forgetting the world in the blessings of a dear home life—that world which is so terribly afraid of having its safety disturbed by so hapless, hopeless and broken individual as the petitioner.
In conclusion the petitioner humbly begs to emphasize that the continuation of this agitation or that in India may not be allowed to prejudice the interests of the petitioner. He would not have suggested this but for public statements to this effect both in the press and the platform. He could have no control over the actions of millions of people and to make him and his brother suffer longer on ‘administrative grounds’ would be to punish them for the actions of others, which are entirely beyond his power to check.
He is confident that this petition would not fail in persuading His Excellency the Governor-General and His Excellency the Governor of Bombay to order the immediate release of the petitioner and his brother—for which act of kindness he would ever pray for Their Excellencies’ long life and prosperity.
Full-text of Ganesh Damodar Savarkar’s petition, dated July 4, 1922, Sabermati JailTo
His Excellency,
The Governor of Bombay in Council.
May it please your Excellency:
I was sentenced on the 8th of 1909 to a sentence of transportation for life, passed by me partly in Indian jails, but largely at Port Blair from 1910 to 1921. Both under the rule which makes a life convict eligible for release at the end of 14 years including remission and the recommendation of Indian Jails Committee which has advised the release of life convicts at the end of 10 years including remission, I am entitled to an immediate release.
/> At the time of general amnesty given to political prisoners in December 19191 and my brother Vinayak D. Savarkar were injustly [sic] excluded for the time being from the benefit of the general pardon and when my brother represented the matter to His Excellency the Viceroy about both of us we were informed that his Excellency ‘is not prepared at present to extend to them the benefit of the amnesty’. The decision to exclude us was not final, as the language of the official reply makes it clear. I therefore trust that even at this late date, we brothers will be granted the release, which we had reason to expect even in 1919. But apart from this my claim to release is over due under the 14 years rule, for if the remission due to me during my stay at Port Blair in my various capacity of ordinary 3rd class convict and 2nd and 1st class convict is counted. I have completed these 14 years in June 1921 and my brother will complete in the current month of July 1922. So far however we have been deprived of there mission rightly and justly due to us. Throughout our stay at Port Blair we were put in Cellular Jail and given hard labour and our condition of jail life were all those of rigorous imprisonment in an Indian jails [sic], unlike what happens in the case in the case of ordinary transportees. But while incarcerated in Port Blair we were denied the rights accruing from such incarceration i.e. the right of securing a self-supporting ticket at the end of 10 years which is generally synonymous with ticket of leave and the like. And now we are being denied of the rights accruing from the sufferance of rigorous imprisonment in an Indian jail. The Inspector General of prisons during his visit to Vijapur jail informed me in reply to my verbal inquiry, that the question of me and my brother being granted remission would be decided very shortly and in reply to a written petition send to him by me in March last, he replied that the question was still under consideration of the government. I respectfully contend that it is very unjust to us that while suffering the hardships of both kinds of imprisonment we are being deprived of the rights accruing from either. I am entitled to an ordinary Port Blair remission of about 950 days and my brother about 840 days approximately and therefore under 14 years rule both of us are entitled to an immediate release, my 14 years having been completed with remission if given long ago in 1921.
The recommendations of the Indian Jails Committee however entitle us to a release at the end of 10 years including remission and since I have finished 13 years of actual imprisonment and my brother 11½ years we are entitled to be released at once. Government have released all the other prisoners in connection with the Nasik murder and conspiracy cases, we cannot but regard it as a matter if extreme hardness that my brother should be singled out for exclusion.
My record of jail conduct ever since 1914 viz. for over 8 years has been very good there being not a single punishment inflicted on me. My brother’s record is far better than that of any other political prisoners in Port Blair since he has only one or two punishments in about 1913 or 14 throughout the long period of 11½ years. In my case the punishment inflicted on me in 1909 and 1910 at Yeruda [sic] jail were [sic] for inability to grind the full 35 lbs. of the grains which was obviously beyond my strength as my considerable decrease in weight during the period proves. The punishment given to me in Port Blair were [sic] due to extremely hard labour given to me along with other political prisoners and the conjoined action taken by us to stop the persecution which physically was unbearable. But later on since 1914 I never joined in any such action although the strike was taken up again at times by others. For the last more than 8 years of jail life, in Port Blair and in India I have given no occasion to any jail official to take any disciplinary measure against me and even the Chief Commissioner of Andamans testified to me his ‘appreciation of my good behaviour’. I had been officially informed which in Bijapur that the Chief Commissioner has recommended for us to the Government. I therefore respectfully urge that I and my brother are entitled to immediate release under.
The promise of the future consideration of granting amnesty implied in His Excellency’s reply to my brother.
The general rule regarding release after completion of 14 years including remission, and,
The recommendation of Indian Jails Committee regarding release after completion of 10 years including remission. I therefore request the early and favourable consideration of the petition
I beg subscribe myself
Your Excellency’s petitioner
[signature]
Sabermati Jail
Date 4 July 1922
Full text of petition submitted by Sai. Yamunabai Vinayak Savarkar to Sir George Lloyd, Governor of Bombay, n.d. (c. 1921–22), Bombay:To,
His Excellency Sir George Lloyd,
Governor of Bombay,
BOMBAY.
Respected Sir,
I, the undersigned, Sister-in-law of Ganesh Damodar Savarkar, one of the prisoners formerly transported to Andamans but now brought from there and kept in the Ahmedabad Jail, beg to lay before Your Excellency the following few lines of favourable consideration.
2. According to the Jail Committees recommendations, some 700 prisoners who have served out more than 10 years of their sentences have been released by Your Excellency’s Government. Among these, a prisoner by name of Mr. V.N. Joshi, who was sentenced to transportation for life in the Jackson murder case itself, has also been released. My brother-in-law was transported for life for the mere publication of a book-let containing a few poems, and thus his offence is perhaps almost insignificant as compared with that of Mr. V.N. Joshi referred to above. Besides, my brother-in-law has actually completed more than 13 years of his term in prison, and his conduct in Jail is exemplary. Therefore if Mr. Joshi was entitled for release, under the Jail Committee’s recommendations, my brother-in-law was more so. I therefore fervently appeal to Your Excellency to take these facts into consideration and like Mr. Joshi, release him.
3. My brother-in-law’s release is due from other point of view also. According to the Indian Penal Code, Section 55, no prisoner can be retained in prison for more than fourteen years. This term, as per Government Resolution No. 5308 (Judicial Dept.) dated 12-10-1905 includes also the remission earned by the Convict. My brother-in-law has, from the date of his sentence (9th June 1909), been all along, kept in prison, even in the Andamans. He has thus served more than 13 years of his sentence actually in rigorous imprisonment. Adding to this the remission which he should and would have earned in the Indian Jail—and every prisoner confined in prison earns nearly 2 months remission per year, as a prisoner, and more than that as a convict officer—I believe he has completed his fourteen years, and therefore I pray that, even on this ground, his release is now due. I need not point out that, according to the Jail Committee’s recommendations, his release is really overdue. I pray therefore that he should be released on either of the grounds shown above.
4. Until his release I pray that he should be given all the concessions which he enjoyed in the Andamans as a first class prisoner, Viz.
A letter or an interview with a parcel once a month.
Books not prescribed by Government.
Newspapers sanctioned by Government.
5. In conclusion, I beg to point out that my brother-in-law has been trebly [sic] wronged.
While in the Andamans, he has been denied the benefits of comparative freedom given to a transported prisoner. There he was, for all the thirteen years nearly, kept in rigorous imprisonment, and was not let out as an ordinary transported prisoner.
Secondly, my brother-in-law has not been treated as a prisoner undergoing rigorous imprisonment, although he has been undergoing it, in lieu of transportation. As such, he should have got nearly 2 ½ years remission, and entitled for release, under Sec. 55 of the Indian Penal Code.
Thirdly, as I have pointed out above, he has not been given the benefit of the Jail Committee’s recommendations, and although he was more entitled for release than Mr. Joshi, he has not been released. Thus all the benefits of a transportee, or of a prisoner undergoing rigorous imprisonment, and all the chances of relea
se have been unjustly refused to him till now!
I therefore pray that, as mere justice demands, he should be released immediately.
I beg to remain,
Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
[signature—in Devanagari]
Address: c/o Dr. N.D. Savarkar
Girgaon, Bombay
Full text petition from V.D. Savarkar’s wife, Yamunabai Savarkar to Sir Lloyd George, Governor of Bombay, n.d. (c. 1921–22)To His Excellency Sir George Lloyd,
Governor of Bombay,
BOMBAY.
Respected Sir,
I, the undersigned, wife of Mr. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, one of the prisoners formerly transported to Andamans but now brought from there and kept in the Ratnagiri Jail, beg to lay before Your Excellency the following few lines for favourable consideration.
2. According to the Jail Committee’s recommendations, some 700 prisoners who have served out more than 10 years of their sentences have been released by Your Excellency’s Government. Among these, a prisoner by name Mr. V.N. Joshi, who was sentenced to transportation for life in the Jackson murder case itself, has also been released. My husband was transported for life for a less heinous crime than that of Mr. Joshi. The latter was actually concerned in the murder of the late Mr. Jackson, while my husband was not. My husband has also, like Mr. Joshi, completed more than 11 ½ of his Jail life. Besides, his Jail conduct has also been exemplary. Therefore if Mr. Joshi was entitled for release, under the Jail Committees recommendations, my husband was more so. I therefore fervently appeal to Your Excellency to take these facts into consideration and like Mr. Joshi, release him.
Savarkar Page 62