Veer Savarkar- A profile in courage

The Trial

With the Jackson case comming to a conclusion, the Government now turned  it's attention to the remaining members of the Abhinav Bharat, charging them with conspiracy to wage war against the British Government and comitting offenses under the Explosives Act.   With the first charge not having any grounds, the Government had to drop it and pursue only the cases under Section 121-A of IPC.   

For starters Savarkar contended that having been illegally arrested on the soil of France,  he did not accept the court's jurisdiction. Also with his case pending before the International Tribunal, at Hague, he could not take part in any court proceedings until the tribunal gave the judgement. 

Now how exactly did his case go before the Hague Tribunal?  

When we look back at the Marseilles episode, Savarkar had jumped ship, hoping that Madame Cama and Aiyyar would be there to receive him. Unfortunately a delay on the way, ensured Savarkar was arrested and bought back on the ship. However Madame Cama, Shyamji Krishna Varma and Aiyar now began to pressurize the French Government to provide Savarkar a fair trial. Cama sent a letter to Barrister Baptista, to ensure sufficient pressure was put on  the British Government to extradite Savarkar to France.

The Daily Mail's  Paris edition in France, had a small news item mentioning Savarkar's escapade, which was picked up by the Socialist leader Monsieur Jean Jaures. Also Karl Marx's grandson Jean Languet, wrote strongly in his paper "Humanite" on Savarkar's arrest as follows

"This abominable violation of the right to asylum was effected in absolute secrecy.  We would have been ignorant of the incident, had a telegram not been published in Daily Mail yesterday."

Similiarly Guy Aldred took up cudgels for Savarkar in England, while the German media saw this as an excellent opportunity to snub Britian. Jaures and other Socialist leaders put pressure on the French Government, to take cognizance of the matter, who in turn requested the British to put the trial on hold, till full reports of the case were received. Meanwhile in India, some of the other nation's embassies too began to take stock of the matter. The Spanish embassy felt that th French police  should have handed over Savarkar to their superior officer, than the British which was quite a blunder.  The Paragauayan ambassador also stated, that the French police who arrested Savarkar had no knowledge of the law, and hence their act could not be viewed as that of the French Government.

There was another twist to the story, with the French and English media, claiming that Savarkar's case had to be decided by the treaties between England and France signed in 1876 and 1896.  The Daily Mail, ripped apart the British Government's hypocritical, two faced stand, asking if some foreign country were to ask for Garibaldi seeking asylum in Britian, would a local British cop hand him over to them. In very simple terms,  local authorities do not have the power to surrender a fugitive to another foreign Government. If this was the case, the right to asylum would be subject to the whims and fancies of a lower level cop, instead of the law.

At a session of the International Socialist Congress in Copenhagen on September 6, 1910, the British Labor leader, Keir Hardie, moved a resolution stating that a person seeking refuge in a foreign nation, had the right to asylum, which was sacred, and only the French Government has the authority to handle Savarkar's case. With mounting pressure, the French and British Governments signed an agreement to refer his case to the International Tribune at Hague. While Paul Cambon represented France, Edward Gray was on the side of Britian, and M.Beernaert, the former Premier of Belgium, headed the Tribunal.  Though Savarkar had to be present before the Tribunal to plead his case, it was not done, making the entire proceedings as suspect. Starting on February 14, 1911, the proceedings lasted just one week, and the Tribunal gave it's award.  It stated that while the French police acted incompetently in handing over Savarkar to the British police, the British had no obligation to return him back to France, because of lower level mistakes.  Savarkar was literally thrown to the wolves by the Tribunal.

The European media slammed the Tribunal, with the Daily News stating that the right to asylum had been reduced to narrow technicalities.  So some Russian prince could be captured by Russian agents, in collusion with the police, without knowledge of British Government, and they could get away with it. Shyamji Krishna Varma, slammed the Award saying "The decision has shattered all faith in maintenance of rights of political refugees, and nations who proudly speak of their love for liberty, have no compunctions in violating it for political considerations".   It mattered little, as Savarkar had to now face the fifty years of imprisonment that was pronounced as punishment to him earlier.

Savarkar was taken to Nashik,  where Barrister Baptista tried meeting him on instructions of Madame Cama. However inspite of seeking permission from the  Police Comissioner and Home Department, and sending an application to Montgomery, the first Magistrate at Nashik, it was all in vain. Basically under the new ordinance, no advocate could meet Savarkar, as he had not asked for it, and Madame Cama had no locus standi here.  Savarkar's solicitors Dewan, Daftary and Perreira, sent another application, stating they had received the papers from his solictor in London, Mr. Vaughan. When Savarkar got full details of all the proceedings, he advised his co accused, to fully lay the blame on him, so that their sentences could get mitigated. Once again he was putting himself on the line for the sake of his associates.

Around this time, Mai went all the way to Nashik to see him. She had to travel on horseback from Trimbakeswar to Nashik along with her brother to meet her husband in prison. Even worse, fearing the wrath of the British, none of her friends gave her shelter, and she had to spend all the night in heavy rain at a temple in Nashik. She finally met her husband, and they spent around 45 minutes together.

The preliminary hearing began before the first class magistrate Montgomery, who completed it and referred the case to Sessions Court. By then, the Government had instituted a Special Tribunal consisting of Chief Justice Sir Basil Scott, Narayanrao Chandravakar and Heaton. The trial began on September 5, 1910, Savarkar was now placed in the Dongri prison.

Though Savarkar's trial was a huge sensation, many were barred from attending the proceedings. The High Court was barricaded, and only reporters from "Times of India", "Induprakash" were allowed. To accomodate the large number of accused, a large dock was constructed with benches to sit on.

In his late twenties, wearing a shirt and trousers, Savarkar had an imperial presence about him, that made all his co accused break out into applause, when he arrived. As he entered the dock, the others accused welcomed him, among them his younger brother Narayan Rao, whom he could not immediately recognize. When the court suggested Savarkar could sit comfortably with the judges, he politely decline, preferring to sit among the accussed.

While Attorney General Mr.Jardin, Mr Veldon and Mr Nicholson led the prosecution, the accused were represented by Barrister Gadgil, Mr. Rangnekar, Barrister Chitre and Barrister Baptista. With the defense seeking adjournment to study the papers, the case hearing was once again postponed to September 26. The defense request to submit an application to both France and England, was rejected, as was a plea to try all the accused and charges separately. The charge of waging war against the Emperor was withdrawn, and the witnesses were cross examined one by one. When the court asked if Savarkar had any questions , this was his reply

"It is my rightful demand that France should provide me protection.. I had gone there in the hope of getting asylum. But the British police forcibly bought me back, and hence legally the court has no jurisdiction over me".

The court however continued the proceedings, acknowleding the fact that Savarkar's arrest at Marseilles, was indeed illegal, but it did not apply to the Indian courts. Parker the Scotland Yard official who accompanied Savarkar on the Morea, testified to the fact, that he asked Sikhs to revolt during Guru Gobind Singh Jayanti as also the pistols used in the Jackson assasination.

Ganu Vaidya sentenced to life in the Jackson murder case, was the key witness, turned approver. He came out with the full details of the Abhinav Bharat organization, including where the arms and ammunition were purchased from, the bomb making process and distribution. Police inspector Ballal from Nashik, claimed that he found a book on Mazinni in the Savarkar's house, along with books like Science of War and Military Engineering. Inspector Zarapkar, deposed that in his search at Dhule, two Browning pistols, cartridges, bullets were found. After the prosecution, the Chief Justice asked the accused to make any statement, to which most stated their earlier statements were false. And when it was Savarkar's turn, this is what he said

"I am completely innocent.. I took part in court proceedings in London, because those courts are not founded on brute force. However the situation in Indian courts is different.. I do not recognize the jurisdiction of this court. Hence I decline to make any statement"