Savarkar Would Have Been India's First Prime Minister Had He Compromised With British: Grandnephew Tells Pune Court
Narsi Benwal
14 July 2026 8:19 PM IST
Continuing his deposition before a special MP/MLA Court in Pune, Satyaki Savarkar on Tuesday said that his granduncle and right-wing ideologue Vinayak Savarkar, would have been appointed as a Prime Minister of India, had he co-operated with the then British regime.
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 14), Satyaki told the court that had his granduncle co-operated with the British regime or had compromised with his beliefs, the Britishers would have rewarded him with an appointment as the Prime Minister of the country in 1946.
"If Savarkar had compromised with the British in the year 1946, he would have been appointed as Prime Minister of India, this is my personal opinion. It is not true to say that, I have no historical documentary proof to support this personal opinion. Savarkar had not compromised at all with the British; instead, the British government had seized all his landed and residential properties. They also revoked his Barrister's degree. He had been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 27 years and detention. This means that he was not a British agent. He was not close to the British," Satyaki told the court.
Any ruler gives an important position to a person close to him, Satyaki said, while claiming that independent India's first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru worked in favour of the British Government.
"Jawaharlal Nehru said 'Hitler and Japan must go to hell. I shall fight them to the end and this is my policy. I shall also fight Subhash Chandra Bose and his party along with Japan if he comes to India. Bose acted very wrongly though in a good faith.' It is proved from this that, Nehru was against Subhash Chandra Bose and he implemented policies favourable to the British Government," Satyaki claimed.
Notably, Satyaki also said that whatever he has deposed till now, he has only voiced his opinion on the issues asked by advocate Pawar. His lawyer too objected to Pawar's questions claiming that 'irrelevant questions' were being asked to his client (Satyaki), however, the court said that all the objections would be considered at the time of final hearing.
Further, Satyaki claimed that there was no 'authentic evidence' to show that the British Government granted monthly 'sustenance allowance' to Savarkar. But he added that Mahatma Gandhi had indeed written letters seeking such monthly allowance from the British, though he later agreed that he had not filed any such letter on record.
To counter Satyaki's claim about Gandhiji asking for monthly allowance, Pawar brought on record, two letters - one written by the Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Home Department, to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of India on in June 1930, which spoke about the British government's decision to pay Rs 100 as a sustenance allowance to Gandhiji.
Further another letter was brought on record - one written by Gandhiji himself in May 1930, opposing the decision of the British government to pay Rs 100 monthly allowance to him. In this letter, Gandhiji, urged the British government to not to make any allowance payments and instead only supply him some newspapers and his routine food.
In his deposition, Satyaki further said, "Many revolutionists have made laudatory remarks about Savarkar, among whom Madam Cama, Martyr Bhagat Singh, and Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose are prominent. After Independence also, Indira Gandhi, Yashwantrao Chavan, and Sharad Pawar have made laudatory remarks about him. I do not know that there are differences of opinion among historians regarding Savarkar."
The cross-examination will further continue on July 30.
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 -
