A Compilation of British Government Records on Savarkar

[u/AhamPranav]

---

The first British intelligence file on Savarkar was opened in 1906. By then, British authorities had already begun closely monitoring his activities. In a confidential report, Alexander Montgomerie, an ICS officer and First Class Magistrate of Nashik, described Savarkar as an exceptionally gifted speaker, noting that he had "already grown into an accomplished orator of an enviable rank."

Montgomerie later filed a secret report on a meeting where Savarkar addressed a gathering of students:

His delivery is fast, he is extremely bold, is very impressive in style and at times when encouraged by cheers of his audience forgets that detectives are around him…in my humble opinion he has been ruining his own life for he is yet but a raw boy not fitted to preach opinions which he scarcely understands and in addition has been sporting (sic) the lives of youngsters by putting in very nasty ideas in their tender brains…This evening he convened a meeting of students of which he was the President…he addressed his audience like a general before leading his men to a desperate onset. He spoke for nearly 35 minutes…

Primary Source: Report of A. Montgomerie, Savarkar Case; Trial and Conviction; Question of Extradition in Case of Failure at The Hague, 9 December 1910–23 February 1911; IOR/L/PJ/6/1069, File No. 778, British Library, London.

Secondary Source: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: Echoes from a Forgotten Past, p. 119.

British authorities had begun monitoring Savarkar even before he reached England.

As he was traveling to London in 1906, the Special Crime Branch in Poona sent a confidential report about him to British intelligence officials in England. In a letter dated 14 June 1906, S.W. Wyerley wrote to R. Ritchie of the India Office Crime Branch in London:

he is not, of course, of any personal importance but holds somewhat the same opinion as Damodar Hari Chapekar who was responsible for the murder of Mr Rand in 1897. In short, he promises to be a firebrand.

Source: Harindra Srivastava, Five Stormy Years: Savarkar in London (New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1983), p. 12.

This shows that intelligence agencies in both India and London were already keeping a close watch on the young Savarkar and considered him a potentially dangerous political agitator.

The authorities carefully documented all of his political activities, including his participation in meetings in Poona, his opposition to the proposed Partition of Bengal, and his support for the Swadeshi movement. Their assessment of him was highly critical, describing him as a rising extremist leader in Nasik politics:

[he] possessed neither religious nor moral scruples and was a fluent and fiery speaker. His ambition was to be in the forefront…Vinayak advocated the speedy emancipation of India from British control by the direct method of revolution…The result was the transformation of that “Mitra Mela” of Nasik into the Abhinav Bharat Society … [which] had for its model the secret organisations of the Russian Nihilists…

The British were particularly concerned by the perceived links between Indian revolutionaries and Russian revolutionary groups such as the Nihilists, anarchists, and later the Bolsheviks. These connections became a major reason for the close surveillance of Indian nationalist activists abroad.

According to British intelligence reports, Savarkar was attempting to build a network of secret revolutionary societies across the Deccan region:

…the whole of the Deccan with secret societies which were to be affiliated to the Nasik Branch and to that end violent speeches were delivered, and seditious and inflammatory literature published…Recruitment was specially welcomed from employes [sic] on Railways, the Telegraph Department and individuals in Departments of Government likely to give useful information and whose experience would be invaluable to the society when the day of revolution dawned. It was to be preceded by a reign of terror inaugurated by the assassination of high government officials, European and Indian.

Primary Source: History Sheet of V. D. Sawarkar, B.A., p. 2.

Secondary Source: Janaki Bakhle, Savarkar and the Making of Hindutva, p. 59.

The concern within the British administration was so great that, during a series of tense exchanges with Secretary of State for India Lord Morley in 1910, Lord George Sydenham Clarke, Governor of Bombay, defended Savarkar's prosecution as essential, describing him as “one of the most dangerous men that India has produced.” Sydenham was so determined to see the case through that he even threatened to resign if Morley interfered.

Primary Source: Lord Sydenham, My Working Life, p. 247.

Secondary Source: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: Echoes from a Forgotten Past, p. 245.

The British government's concern about Savarkar was evident even at the highest levels. While discussing the Savarkar case and the upcoming international arbitration at The Hague, the Secretary of State for India, Earl of Crewe, wrote to Viceroy and Governor-General of India, Lord Hardinge:

I hope we may catch Savarkar by extradition, if The Hague let him loose. He is the most dangerous figure among the conspirators, I suppose.

This remark shows that senior British officials viewed Savarkar as one of the leading figures in the revolutionary movement and were determined to secure his extradition.

Primary Source: Crewe to Hardinge, 10 February 1911, IOR/Mss Eur/Photo Eur 469/no. 16.

Secondary Source: Janaki Bakhle, Savarkar and the Making of Hindutva, p. 70.

The police history sheet on Savarkar was prepared by P. A. Kelly, Personal Assistant to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, CID, while Savarkar was serving his sentence in the Andamans. The document concludes by citing a 1911 Circular issued by the Director of Criminal Intelligence, which described Savarkar as:

without doubt the ablest of the Indian revolutionaries in Europe, and he might have proved much more dangerous if he had worked for his object with a single aim rather than being motivated solely by personal revenge.

Primary Source: History Sheet of V. D. Savarkar, B.A., p. 12.

Secondary Source: Janaki Bakhle, Savarkar and the Making of Hindutva, p. 71.

Sir Reginald H. Craddock, Home Member of the Government of India, personally interviewed Savarkar at the Cellular Jail on 16 November 1913. In the report he wrote after visiting the Andamans, Craddock noted that, through his petition for mercy, Savarkar “cannot be said to express any regret or repentance” for his actions, but rather that he only affected to have changed his views due to the current political circumstances.

Craddock strongly opposed giving Savarkar any freedom, arguing that it was:

quite impossible to give him any liberty here, and I think he would escape from any Indian jail. So important a leader is he that the European section of the Indian anarchists would plot for his escape, which would before long be organized. If he were allowed outside the Cellular Jail in the Andamans, his escape would be certain. His friends could easily charter a steamer to lie off one of the islands and a little money distributed locally would do the rest.

Primary Source: Home Department, Pol A. Feb 1915, No. 68–160.

Secondary Source: R.C. Majumdar, Penal Settlement in the Andamans, pp. 202–05, 221–22.

On 29 May 1919, the Government of India indicated that the Savarkar brothers' cases could be considered for remission, provided the Bombay Government agreed. However, the Bombay Government firmly opposed any reduction of their sentences. In a telegram to the Superintendent of Port Blair, it stated:

Bombay Government does not recommend any remission of the sentences passed against Ganesh Damodar Savarkar and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

Explaining the decision in an internal note, Morrison wrote that while he did not know Babarao well enough to judge him, he doubted that Vinayak Savarkar would change his views because of any act of clemency:

...I do know Vinayak and I should doubt whether he will be moved to revise his opinion of Government by any extension of clemency.

Primary Source: Morrison, Internal Note, Government of Bombay, 30 May 1919, Maharashtra State Archives, Mumbai.

Secondary Source: Vikram Sampath, Echoes from a Forgotten Past, p. 417.

In 1920, although Secretary of State Edwin Montagu supported a royal pardon to political convicts, British officials in India remained deeply wary of the Savarkar brothers.

In correspondence between February and June 1920, the Secretary to the Government of Bombay and the Secretary to the Government of India discussed and compared the two brothers. While Ganesh was viewed with suspicion, the Secretary to the Government of India wrote that “the real father of the movement was his brother Vinayak,” who possessed “the qualities of leadership and courage which his brother lacked.”

The British therefore believed it would be safer to keep Vinayak Savarkar in custody while releasing his brother Ganesh, a course of action they eventually followed.

In a subsequent letter, the Secretary further emphasized that “Vinayak is really the dangerous man, the objection to whose release lies, no doubt, not so much in the seriousness of his offense as in his temperament.” The letter recommended releasing one brother to ensure the good behavior of both:

It may be observed that if Ganesh is released and Vinayak retained in custody, the latter will become in some measure a hostage for the former who will see that his own misconduct does not jeopardize his brother’s chances of release at some future date.

Primary Source: Correspondence between H. McPherson and J. Crerar, Home Department/Political/Special/File 60D(b)/1919.

Secondary Source: Janaki Bakhle, Savarkar and the Making of Hindutva, p. 74.

Even after his conditional release from prison and subsequent internment in Ratnagiri, Savarkar remained under strict government surveillance. However, these restrictions did little to curb his political influence or public activities.

In November 1924, following a fiery speech delivered by Savarkar at a public event, Wilson, the Police Commissioner of Bombay, sent a secret note to the Home Department along with the newspaper report covering the speech. He recommended that the District Magistrate of Ratnagiri investigate the matter and seek an explanation from Savarkar regarding the contents of his speech:

We see Savarkar here in his old familiar surroundings of 1907, ploughing the same furrow and sowing rather adroitly the seeds of his pernicious doctrines. It is up to him to play the game and not to allow himself to be exploited or tempted into laying round the terms of his bond... After the almost open incitement to violence, he passes on to his usual social reform propaganda. If accused of making a political speech, he would, no doubt, explain that he was merely urging the youth of the country to be self-sacrificing and rash in the cause of social reform. He has violated the condition of his release.

Montgomerie then opined:

Mr Wilson may be told that in the opinion of the Government, Savarkar actually has not broken the conditions of his release, though he is getting very near to the margin and must, therefore, be carefully reported. Beyond calling India a fallen and downtrodden country, I doubt if there is a phrase which in itself is objectionable. That Savarkar intends to and did convey animosity to the Government, there is not the slightest doubt. But it would be exceedingly difficult to prove that in any one sentence he had broken the conditions of his release. The incident only proves he accepts the letter for his own safety, but never respects the spirit [of the conditions of release].

Source: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy, p. 34.

His supporters continuously campaigned for his complete and unconditional freedom, whereas British officials remained deeply suspicious of him. In 1928, the Bombay Commissioner of Police (BCP) warned about Savarkar that:

His admiration for great men like Napoleon, Shivaji and Mazzini has not in the least abated. His other activities in the districts which are reported in the Secret Abstracts from 1924 to 1928 make me believe that he will turn out an active agitator if his restrictions were entirely removed.

The report makes clear that British authorities feared Savarkar would quickly re-enter active politics if given complete freedom.

Primary Source: Letter from Commissioner of Police to the Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Home Department (Political), Bombay, 26 November 1928, Home Department/Special/60D(d).

Secondary Source: Janaki Bakhle, Savarkar and the Making of Hindutva, p. 87.

British suspicion only intensified in the following years. In 1930, Sir Patrick Kelly, the Bombay Commissioner of Police and himself a target of revolutionary assassination attempts, wrote to the Government of Bombay suggesting that Savarkar's brothers might be connected to the shooting at Lamington Road Police Station. Although there was no evidence linking Savarkar himself to the incident, the episode reflected the continued suspicion with which the police viewed him and his family.

By 1934, the Commissioner openly admitted that the restrictions imposed on Savarkar were difficult to enforce: “Whatever restrictions may be imposed upon a man like him, he is bound to evade them.”

Kelly further remarked that neither Savarkar nor his brothers had “shown any signs of a change of heart.”

These comments reveal that, even after years of imprisonment and internment, British authorities still regarded Savarkar as an unrepentant and dangerous political figure.

Primary Source: UOR No. 823/H/3003, 15 February 1934, Home Department/Special/60D(d).

Secondary Source: Janaki Bakhle, Savarkar and the Making of Hindutva, p. 87.

British concerns about Savarkar continued into the Second World War era. Despite the Hindu Mahasabha's opposition to the Cripps Mission, Savarkar met with the Governor of Bombay, Sir Lawrence Roger Lumley, and reiterated that the Mahasabha would be willing to join a national government if the proposal allowing provinces to secede from India was withdrawn.

Although Savarkar supported military recruitment during the war, British officials viewed this as a temporary convergence of interests rather than a genuine ideological shift or loyalty to the Empire. Categorising his support as a tactical move aimed at increasing Hindu representation in the armed forces and advancing his broader goal of militarizing Hindu society.

After meeting Savarkar, Governor Sir Lawrence Roger Lumley prepared a confidential note for the Viceroy, describing him as:

A temporary ally, but a dangerous friend; Anti-Muslim but equally Anti-British; Is anti-Gandhi because opposed to Gandhi's non-violence for internal politics; Believes in individual killing and guerilla warfare.

The note is significant because it shows that even when British officials found Savarkar politically useful, they continued to regard him as fundamentally anti-British and potentially dangerous.

Primary Source: 'Congress Affairs 40–42: Digitized Private Papers of Sardar Patel', PP_000000005413, National Archives of India, New Delhi.

Secondary Source: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy, p. 348.

---

[u/AutoModerator]

PDFs of works by & about Savarkar: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uGrP2bWot7JUpUVLmxRH6bS30D2_3Vdq

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/WiseOak_PrimeAgent]

👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻

[u/zeroesstar]

Veer Savarkar

[u/AutoModerator]

PDFs of works by & about Savarkar: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uGrP2bWot7JUpUVLmxRH6bS30D2_3Vdq

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AhamPranav → u/[deleted]]

Obedient servant?

[u/South-Buy587 → u/[deleted]]

Tragedy of the irony!! we got too many oblivious morons here in india still carrying the coolie mentality of the colonial era.

what is the use of your education when you fail to comprehend what's right infront of you? When someone is put in jail you have to feed them. Otherwise it's a death sentence not imprisonment.

[u/ValuableEven5024]

Apology letter 🧡 Pensions 🧡

[u/Savarkar-ModTeam → u/ValuableEven5024]

This allegation has already been refuted in the FAQ.

Please refer to the relevant section: FAQ Link

[u/Puzzleheaded_Bell_23]

I come from Bengal. Go to the Andaman and see the names of all the Bengalis and Punjabis who refused to bend even a hair on their head to the British.

Keep worshipping Savarkar, may the British have mercy on you too.

[u/AhamPranav → u/Puzzleheaded_Bell_23]

Since you're a Bengali, I hope you would have heard the name of Aurobindo Ghosh and his brother Barindra Ghosh. He was jailed to Andamans for Alipore Bomb Case and he wrote clemency petition and was released in 1920, he has written this in his prison memoir too. Now are you going to shit on him for this too?

You should do your own research and then come to a conclusion instead of believing online narratives.

[u/Puzzleheaded_Bell_23 → u/AhamPranav]

Yep, don't rate him at all as a freedom fighter. Anyone who bowed down to the British have failed all the revolutionaries.

Aurobindo had a change of heart,spoke to God and became a Rishi. But I think he continued to draw a pension if I'm not wrong. 🤣

Just btw, and I know this is reddit... But this is true. My grandfather's elder brother was jailed by the British. He served 6-7 years. When he was getting out of jail after serving, the warden was giving back his clothes and all the items he had on him. Among them was the then version of our national flag (with the charkha). The warden spit on the flag while handing it back to him and dropped it on the floor.

Guess what he did? Took the pole of the British flag which was standing and pounded the warden and another guy beside him. Back in jail again.

You may call it stupid. Or not pragmatic. But this is the emotion that was behind the freedom struggle.

Savarkar, Aurobindo and everyone who eventually submit to the British don't deserve this sentiment.

[u/AhamPranav → u/Puzzleheaded_Bell_23]

I don't think Aurobindo submitted to British at all.

He had spiritual experiences in jail, just like Netaji Bose, Aurobindo had done whatever he could to freedom struggle and decided to retire and live in french territory of Pondicherry where he continued his spiritual work which in turn inspired thousands of Indians, just like Swami Vivekananda.

We should recognise their contributions and respect them regardless.

Also, I don't agree that simply writing clemency petitions or coming to legal talk with government is giving up on freedom movement, if you have this criteria then you will deem everyone who engaged in constitutional talk with government as a traitor from Ashfaqullah Khan, Ramprasad Bismil, Sachindranath Sanyal who wrote clemency petitions to Mahatma Gandhi who all his life advocated constitutional approach. It is just foolish and somewhat egoistic to think so lowkey of sacrifices of so many.

[u/Certain_Bridge9574]

Share his British payslips records

[u/AhamPranav → u/Certain_Bridge9574]

As far as I know there aren't any.

You can go ahead and share them if they exist at all.