Can't Say If Savarkar Is Called 'Mafiveer' Or 'British Agent' For Filing Mercy Petitions : Grandnephew Tells Pune Court
He said he cannot say whether it is an indisputable historical fact that Savarkar was an agent of the British or if it was a controversial opinion.
Satyaki Savarkar, in his latest deposition before a special MP/MLA court in Pune, stated that he was not really sure why his granduncle and right-wing ideologue Vinayak Savarkar is being called a 'Mafiveer' or 'British Agent' by some sections, and since it is a topic of debate, he has not filed any defamation case against anyone calling him with these terms.
Satyaki is being cross-examined in the criminal defamation complaint that he has filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for allegedly defaming Savarkar by delivering a speech in London. Gandhi's counsel advocate Milind Pawar is cross-examining Satyaki before Special Judge Amol Shinde.
On Tuesday (July 7), Satyaki told the special court that he is not aware why historians call Savarkar a 'Mafiveer' or 'British Agent' by relying on historical events or just because of political opposition.
"It is true to say that Savarkar was blamed as Mafiveer, Agent of British in spite of his huge contribution in freedom movement. But these points may be issue of debate. Therefore, I have not filed any complaint against anybody. I don't know that, these debated points are called to mercy petition (Mafinama or Mafipatra) by some historians. I don't know that, whether the allegations of Mafiveer is drawn from difference of opinions about the definition of historical events. I cannot say whether the allegation of being a British Agent is made as a critique based on Savarkar's political stance or his relationship with British rule," Satyaki said.
In his deposition running into nearly six pages, Satyaki stated he his unsure if historians labelled his granduncle as 'Mafiveer' and 'British Agent' sarcastically or on the basis of his 'repeated' mercy petitions.
"I cannot say the word Agent is used as historical and political in regard with difference of opinion. I cannot say that, Savarkar is sarcastically called as Mafiveer, because he filed mercy petitions repeatedly. I cannot say that, Mafiveer means I was wrong, I have done some wrong, pardon me for the wrong done. I cannot say that, to pardon, mercy means don't impose harsh actions, a request to pardon and to remit the sentence is requested. I cannot say that, it does not mean that, merely filing mercy petition, Savarkar did not agree with the sentence. I cannot say that, Savarkar has shown his readiness to abandon violent path through the mercy petitions. I cannot say that, many correspondence were there to British Government to release Savarkar. If Savarkar had compromised with British Government, he would have been appointed as Prime Minister of India in 1946. I cannot say that the conclusion Savarkar was an agent of the British is an indisputable historical fact rather, it is a controversial political or historical opinion," Satyaki said.
In his further testimony, Satyaki said that he was not aware if the allegations made against Savarkar by historians were based on his 'co-operation' with the then British Government. He said that Savarkar's role cannot be said to be different from other revolutionists, just because he filed mercy petitioners and got some concession in his punishment. He, however, accepted the fact that Savarkar sought financial assistance from the British.
"It is true to say that, there are entries in history that, while residing at Ratnagiri, Savarkar had made correspondence to British Government to get financial assistance. (Satyaki voluntarily added) Savarkar while residing at Ratnagiri sent petitions to British Government as per rules made by British Government to get sustenance allowance. Such type of petitions were allowed by British Government. Even Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Sharadchandra Bose used to receive such sustenance allowance. The Mumbai University had withdrawn the B.A. degree of Savarkar and British Government denied the certification of law practice of Savarkar. I don't know that some historians called Savarkar as British's Agent on the basis of those financial correspondence entries," Satyaki told the court.
Satyaki while agreeing that the Indian National Congress in Kakinada in 1923 passed a resolution for the release of Savarkar, said he was unsure if the right-wing ideologue was released because of such a resolution.
Background:
The defamation complaint asserts that Gandhi has repeatedly defamed Savarkar on various occasions over the years. One specific incident highlighted was on March 5, 2023, when Gandhi addressed the Overseas Congress in the United Kingdom.
The complainant, Satyaki Savarkar, has claimed that Gandhi intentionally made wild allegations against Savarkar, knowing them to be untrue, with the intention of harming Savarkar's reputation and causing mental agony to the complainant and his family. He states that the defamatory speech was delivered in England, but its impact was felt in Pune as it was published and circulated throughout India.
Satyaki, in his complaint, has submitted several news reports and a YouTube link to a video of Gandhi's speech in London as evidence. He has claimed that Gandhi falsely accused Savarkar of writing a book in which he described beating up a Muslim person, which Savarkar never wrote and such an incident never happened.
Satyaki argued that Gandhi made these false, malicious, and wild allegations with the specific objective of defaming Savarkar and harming his reputation.
The criminal defamation application filed by Satyaki demands maximum punishment for Gandhi under Section 500 (Punishment for defamation) of the IPC and seeks imposition of maximum compensation as per Section 357 (Order to pay compensation) of the CrPC.
Case Title: Satyaki Savarkar vs Rahul Gandhi
Previously -