Bhagat Singh and Savarkar, Two Petitions that Tell Us the Difference Between Hind and Hindutva

Share this:

The Indian revolutionary, who coined the slogan ‘Inquilab Zindabad’, demanded that the British send a military detachment to execute him by firing squad; the Hindu nationalist promised to give up the fight for freedom if released – and kept his word.

bhagat singh savarkar

Note: This article was first published on March 23, 2016, and is being republished today to mark Bhagat Singh’s death anniversary.

Eighty-five years ago, on March 23, 1931, Shaheed Bhagat Singh and his two comrades-in-arms, Shaheed Rajguru and Shaheed Sukhdev were hanged in Lahore by the British colonial government. At the time of his martyrdom, Bhagat Singh was barely 23 years old. Despite the fact that he had his whole life ahead of him, he refused to seek clemency from the British as some well-wishers and family members wanted him to do. In his last petition and testament, he demanded that the British be true to the charge they laid against him of waging war against the colonial state and that he be executed by firing squad and not by hanging. The document also lays out his vision for an India whose working people are free from exploitation by either British or Indian “parasites”.

At a time when the Bharatiya Janata Party national executive has decided to make nationalism its rallying cry, it is useful to compare the patriotic attitude and vision of Bhagat Singh with that of the Sangh parivar’s icon, V.D. Savarkar, author and originator of the concept of ‘Hindutva’, which the BJP swears by.

Sent to the notorious Cellular Jail in the Andamans in 1911 for his revolutionary activity, Savarkar first petitioned the British for early release within months of beginning his 50 year sentence. Then again in 1913 and several times till he was finally transferred to a mainland prison in 1921 before his final release in 1924. The burden of his petitions: let me go and I will give up the fight for independence and be loyal to the colonial government.

Savarkar’s defenders insist his promises were a tactical ploy; but his critics say they were not, and that he stayed true to his promise after leaving the Andamans by staying away from the freedom struggle and actually helping the British with his divisive theory of ‘Hindutva’, which was another form of the Muslim League’s Two Nation theory.

Reproduced below are Shaheed Bhagat Singh’s last petition and the petition V.D. Savarkar filed in 1913.

Shaheed Bhagat Singh’s Last Petition
Lahore Jail, 1931
bhagat singh jail

To: The Punjab Governor

Sir, With due respect we beg to bring to your kind notice the following:That we were sentenced to death on 7th October 1930 by a British Court, L.C.C Tribunal, constituted under the Sp. Lahore Conspiracy Case Ordinance, promulgated by the H.E. The Viceroy, the Head of the British Government of India, and that the main charge against us was that of having waged war against H.M. King George, the King of England.

The above-mentioned finding of the Court pre-supposed two things:

Firstly, that there exists a state of war between the British Nation and the Indian Nation and, secondly, that we had actually participated in that war and were therefore war prisoners.

The second pre-supposition seems to be a little bit flattering, but nevertheless it is too tempting to resist the desire of acquiescing in it.

As regards the first, we are constrained to go into some detail. Apparently there seems to be no such war as the phrase indicates.

Nevertheless, please allow us to accept the validity of the pre-supposition taking it at its face value. But in order to be correctly understood we must explain it further.

Let us declare that the state of war does exist and shall exist so long as the Indian toiling masses and the natural resources are being exploited by a handful of parasites.

They may be purely British capitalist or mixed British and Indian or even purely Indian. They may be carrying on their insidious exploitation through mixed or even on purely Indian bureaucratic apparatus. All these things make no difference.

No matter, if your government tries and succeeds in winning over the leaders of the upper strata of the Indian society through petty concessions and compromises and thereby cause a temporary demoralisation in the main body of the forces.

No matter, if once again the vanguard of the Indian movement, the Revolutionary Party, finds itself deserted in the thick of the war.

No matter if the leaders to whom personally we are much indebted for the sympathy and feelings they expressed for us, but nevertheless we cannot overlook the fact that they did become so callous as to ignore and not to make a mention in the peace negotiation of even the homeless, friendless and penniless of female workers who are alleged to be belonging to the vanguard and whom the leaders consider to be enemies of their utopian non-violent cult which has already become a thing of the past; the heroines who had ungrudgingly sacrificed or offered for sacrifice their husbands, brothers, and all that were nearest and dearest to them, including themselves, whom your government has declared to be outlaws.

No matter, it your agents stoop so low as to fabricate baseless calumnies against their spotless characters to damage their and their party’s reputation.

The war shall continue.

It may assume different shapes at different times. It may become now open, now hidden, now purely agitational, now fierce life and death struggle.

The choice of the course, whether bloody or comparatively peaceful, which it should adopt rests with you. Choose whichever you like. But that war shall be incessantly waged without taking into consideration the petty (illegible) and the meaningless ethical ideologies.

It shall be waged ever with new vigour, greater audacity and unflinching determination till the Socialist Republic is established and the present social order is completely replaced by a new social order, based on social prosperity and thus every sort of exploitation is put an end to and the humanity is ushered into the era of genuine and permanent peace.

In the very near future the final battle shall be fought and final settlement arrived at.

The days of capitalist and imperialist exploitation are numbered. The war neither began with us nor is it going to end with our lives. It is the inevitable consequence of the historic events and the existing environments.

Our humble sacrifices shall be only a link in the chain that has very accurately been beautified by the unparalleled sacrifice of [Jatin] Das and most tragic but noblest sacrifice of Comrade Bhagawati Charan and the glorious death of our dear warrior [Chandrashekhar] Azad.

As to the question of our fates, please allow us to say that when you have decided to put us to death, you will certainly do it.

You have got the power in your hands and the power is the greatest justification in this world.

We know that the maxim “Might is right” serves as your guiding motto. The whole of our trial was just a proof of that.

We wanted to point out that according to the verdict of your court we had waged war and were therefore war prisoners. And we claim to be treated as such, i.e., we claim to be shot dead instead of to be hanged.

It rests with you to prove that you really meant what your court has said.

We request and hope that you will very kindly order the military department to send its detachment to perform our execution.


Translated by the Shaheed Bhagat Singh Research Committee (shahidbhagatsingh.org)

V.D. Savarkar’s Petition
Cellular Jail, Andamans, 1913

To: The Home Member of the Government of India

I beg to submit the following points for your kind consideration:(1) When I came here in 1911 June, I was along with the rest of the convicts of my party taken to the office of the Chief Commissioner. There I was classed as “D” meaning dangerous prisoner; the rest of the convicts were not classed as “D”. Then I had to pass full 6 months in solitary confinement. The other convicts had not. During that time I was put on the coir pounding though my hands were bleeding. Then I was put on the oil-mill – the hardest labour in the jail. Although my conduct during all the time was exceptionally good still at the end of these six months I was not sent out of the jail; though the other convicts who came with me were. From that time to this day I have tried to keep my behaviour as good as possible.(2) When I petitioned for promotion I was told I was a special class prisoner and so could not be promoted. When any of us asked for better food or any special treatment we were told “You are only ordinary convicts and must eat what the rest do”. Thus Sir, Your Honour would see that only for special disadvantages we are classed as special prisoners.

(3) When the majority of the casemen were sent outside I requested for my release. But, although I had been cased (caned?) hardly twice or thrice and some of those who were released, for a dozen and more times, still I was not released with them because I was their casemen. But when after all, the order for my release was given and when just then some of the political prisoners outside were brought into the troubles I was locked in with them because I was their casemen.

(4) If I was in Indian jails I would have by this time earned much remission, could have sent more letters home, got visits. If I was a transportee pure and simple I would have by this time been released, from this jail and would have been looking forward for ticket-leave, etc. But as it is, I have neither the advantages of the Indian jail nor of this convict colony regulation; though had to undergo the disadvanatges of both.

(5) Therefore will your honour be pleased to put an end to this anomalous situation in which I have been placed, by either sending me to Indian jails or by treating me as a transportee just like any other prisoner. I am not asking for any preferential treatment, though I believe as a political prisoner even that could have been expected in any civilized administration in the Independent nations of the world; but only for the concessions and favour that are shown even to the most depraved of convicts and habitual criminals? This present plan of shutting me up in this jail permanently makes me quite hopeless of any possibility of sustaining life and hope. For those who are term convicts the thing is different, but Sir, I have 50 years staring me in the face! How can I pull up moral energy enough to pass them in close confinement when even those concessions which the vilest of convicts can claim to smoothen their life are denied to me? Either please to send me to Indian jail for there I would earn (a) remission; (b) would have a visit from my people come every four months for those who had unfortunately been in jail know what a blessing it is to have a sight of one’s nearest and dearest every now and then! (c) and above all a moral – though not a legal – right of being entitled to release in 14 years; (d) also more letters and other little advantages. Or if I cannot be sent to India I should be released and sent outside with a hope, like any other convicts, to visits after 5 years, getting my ticket leave and calling over my family here. If this is granted then only one grievance remains and that is that I should be held responsible only for my own faults and not of others. It is a pity that I have to ask for this – it is such a fundamental right of every human being! For as there are on the one hand, some 20 political prisoners – young, active and restless, and on the other the regulations of a convict colony, by the very nature of them reducing the liberties of thought and expression to lowest minimum possible; it is but inevitable that every now and then some one of them will be found to have contravened a regulation or two and if all be held responsible for that, as now it is actually done – very little chance of being left outside remains for me.

In the end may I remind your honour to be so good as to go through the petition for clemency, that I had sent in 1911, and to sanction it for being forwarded to the Indian Government?

The latest development of the Indian politics and the conciliating policy of the government have thrown open the constitutional line once more.

Now no man having the good of India and Humanity at heart will blindly step on the thorny paths which in the excited and hopeless situation of India in 1906-1907 beguiled us from the path of peace and progress.

Therefore if the government in their manifold beneficence and mercy release me, I for one cannot but be the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English government which is the foremost condition of that progress.

As long as we are in jails there cannot be real happiness and joy in hundreds and thousands of homes of His Majesty’s loyal subjects in India, for blood is thicker than water; but if we be released the people will instinctively raise a shout of joy and gratitude to the government, who knows how to forgive and correct, more than how to chastise and avenge.

Moreover my conversion to the constitutional line would bring back all those misled young men in India and abroad who were once looking up to me as their guide. I am ready to serve the Government in any capacity they like, for as my conversion is conscientious so I hope my future conduct would be. By keeping me in jail nothing can be got in comparison to what would be otherwise.

The Mighty alone can afford to be merciful and therefore where else can the prodigal son return but to the parental doors of the Government?

Hoping your Honour will kindly take into notion these points.


(From R.C. Majumdar, Penal Settlements in the Andamans, Publications Division, 1975)

Share this:

  • onetwothree

    A question:
    Bhagat singh’s letter is the reflection of his grandeur.
    Talking about Savarkar, was that his only petition or letter?
    Author wants to prove a point of ridiculing Hindutva concept but he doesn’t clearly make his point as these letters are of different subjects and cannot be compared merely by putting beside each other. Savarkar is not talking about Hindutva in the letter at all…
    If author wants to compare two revolutionary then he made his point that Bhagat singh was a better revolutionary. But The comparition of concept of Hind and Hindutva doesn’t come out in the article!
    Sadly this is just another example of media people putting a fancy or provocation headline without a real argument to prove it. If author wants to just attract audience then he was successful.

    Ceci dit, I want to thank the author for bringing Bhagat singh’s letter in the common media.

    • Prem Panwar

      It’s great insult of this country having installed in the temple of democracy the statue of a person with such a dubious background .

      • Narendera

        The greatest insult of this country was done by communist LEADERS like DANGE who approached to STALIN to invade INDIA . —— Communists never never participated in QUIT INDIA movement . they assisted BRITISH

  • Shrikant Barve

    Both are great freedom fighters of India.

  • Shrikant Barve

    ने मजसी ने परत मातृभूमीला, सागरा, प्राण तळमळला

    भूमातेच्या चरणतला तुज धूता, मी नित्य पाहीला होता

    मज वदलासी अन्य देशी चल जाऊ, सृष्टिची विविधता पाहू

    तइं जननीहृद् विरहशंकीतहि झाले, परि तुवां वचन तिज दिधले

    मार्गज्ञ स्वये मीच पृष्ठि वाहीन, त्वरि तया परत आणीन

    विश्र्वसलो या तव वचनी मी, जगद्नुभवयोगे बनुनी मी

    तव अधिक शक्त उद्धरणी मी, येईन त्वरे, कथुन सोडीले तिजला

    सागरा, प्राण तळमळला …

    शुक पंजरी वा हिरण शिरावा पाशी, ही फसगत झाली तैसी

    भूविरह कसा सतत साहू या पुढती, दश दिशा तमोमय होती

    गुणसुमने मी वेचियली या भावे, की तिने सुगंधा घ्यावे

    जरि उद्धरणी, व्यय न तिच्या हो साचा, हा व्यर्थ भार विद्येचा

    ती आम्रवृक्षवत्सलता रे, नवकुसुमयुता त्या सुलता रे

    तो बाल गुलाब ही आता रे, फुलबाग मला, हाय, पारखा झाला

    सागरा, प्राण तळमळला …

    नभि नक्षत्रे बहुत, एक परी प्यारा मज भरत भूमिचा तारा

    प्रसाद इथे भव्य, परी मज भारी आईची झोपडी प्यारी

    तिजवीण नको राज्य, मज प्रियसाचा वनवास तिच्या जरि वनीचा

    भुलविणे व्यर्थ हे आता रे, बहुजिवलग गमते चित्ता रे

    तुज सरित्पते जी सरिता रे, तद्विरहाची शपथ घालितो तुजला

    सागरा, प्राण तळमळला …

    या फेनमिषें हससि निर्दया कैसा, का वचन भंगिसी ऐसा

    त्वत्स्वामित्वा सांप्रत जी मिरवीते, भिऊनि का आंग्ल भूमी ते

    मन्मातेला अबल म्हणुनि फसवीसी, मज विवासना ते देती

    तरि आंग्लभूमि भयभीता रे, अबला न माझी ही माता रे

    कथिल हे अगस्तिस आता रे, जो आचमनी एक क्षणी तुज प्याला

    सागरा, प्राण तळमळला …

  • Atul Dwivedi

    and bhakts and our feku PM worship savarkar

  • Avante Garde

    For too long many sections of the media and scholars (mostly from Delhi) have sought to bring down the value and respect the VD Savarkar holds for those who have read and pondered over his actions, both as a young man from a family devoted to struggle, Cellur Jail, his slow entry into Hindu Mahasahba, his wonder and anger as he saw the Congress bartering away more and more to the Muslim League in the run to formal handing over of power to Indians, and also his works for ghar wapasi then, and his writings. Pls look up videos of his speech and books, before any sweeping judgements are made. That said, he wasnt flawless either. But neither can other leaders of 1947 stand up to this level of perfection.

    • shree g

      As per rules, prisoners were released from the Cellular Jail after six months. They were free to live with their families in the colonies on the Andaman Island. Before Savarkar, no one was continuously confined to the Cellular Jail for more than three years. This rule was not applied to Savarkar. He was kept in that hell-hole for a whopping eleven years.

      The most hardened Pathan warder was appointed to keep watch on him. The badge around his neck had the letter ‘D’ which signified the most dangerous prisoners. He was sent to a corner cell which the jailer Barrie could watch comfortably from his bungalow. Savarkar had to suffer solitary confinement for the first six months. He was yoked to the oil-mill for the first time on August 16, 1911.

      In December 1911, to coincide with the coronation of King George V, several political prisoners were released or had their punishments remitted. For Savarkar, there was neither release nor remission.

      Again in 1920, all but some thirty political prisoners were released. Those released had been imprisoned with or after Savarkar. Nevertheless, to describe in Savarkar’s words, “We remained as we were, not a day’s remission was given!”

      Savarkar refused to work on June 8, 1914 for which he was given the punishment of standing in handcuffs for eight days. He again refused work on June 16, 1914 for which he was shackled to chains for four months. He was punished with cross-bar as a severe punishment for refusing yet again on June 18. Prisoners who were ill were given milk, but Savarkar was given half-baked chapati or water and rice.

      Savarkar faced such severe punishments at least 20-22 times. Even though he was promoted to Class II in the Jail on November 2, 1916, he was neither allowed to speak with his brother nor did he get any reprieve from any physical task. As per rules, prisoners were allowed to meet relatives after five years. However, Tatyarao (Savarkar’s nickname) and Mai (his wife) first met on May 30, 1919 – after eight years. At that time, the jail authorities did not allow the trunk containing his favorite food items and kerchiefs inside and forfeited it.

      It is clear that compared with the other revolutionaries, the British Government treated Savarkar maliciously. Hem Chandra Das and Barindra Kumar Ghosh, accused in the Alipore bomb case, were brought to the Andamans in 1908. The British pardoned and released them in 1920. Like Savarkar, Sachindranath Sanyal who was accused in the Lahore Conspiracy also submitted to the government that “if allowed to agitate in the interest of the nation, why should we choose the revolutionary path?” He was released, but not Savarkar. To say that Savarkar was given mild punishments compared to other prisoners flies in the face of truth.

      For one who organised his co-prisoners, taught the illiterate among them to read and write, organised their strikes, refused to carry out prison tasks, organised Shuddhi (purification of converted Hindu prisoners) campaigns, propagated Hindi, sent out information about the prison conditions, contemplated on the ten principal Upanishads over a period of one year, etched five thousand lines of lofty verse on the prison walls when denied paper or pencil and then committed them to memory, who composed tranquil lines even while on his death-bed, the accusation that prison hardships had broken Savarkar’s morale is downright mean, to put it mildly.

  • Hindusthani

    It was the bravery of Bhagat Singh (and many other freedom fighters) who went proudly to his death that brought freedom to India. Why should we not honor him and disown the man who begged for his own personal safety and for his divisive ideology that benefits only some sections of the Indian community.

  • Jeyaram

    No nationalism in your statement

  • Ajay

    People can think of whatever they want to think -Same way many freedom fighters across the word have use whatever possible legal tactics to continue their work. Almost everyone including Shivaji, Bhagwan Shri Ram, or Shir Krishna used tactical positioning or posturing to achieve their goals. Its a strategic weapon to use any means possible to achieve their goals. Like Gandhi chose ahimsa, and Bhagat Singh – Gorrila War and Bose used proper War to achieve their objective – Savarkar used his writings.

    Bhagat Singh believed that his death would create big unrest and might sway public opinion – thus chose to go for hanging – to get his objective – little he knew that Gandhi and Nehru would not even let his death do any damage to British empire despite raising huge rage in part of north India. So despite using his life also Shaheed Bhagat Singh plan was failed because of intervention of Gandhi and Congress for whatever reasons.

    I have never been a supporter of Gandhi – rather I dislike almost 90% things about his ways, But can I deny the IMPACT Mahatma Gandhi had on Indian Masses and making Freedom Movement a mass movement? No way. His contribution along with people like Savarkar, Tilak, Bose, Patel and Nehru can not be ignored in making masses to understand the importance of freedom.

    Anyways my comment is to be supportive of freedom fight with means possible with a person. People who disagree because they don’t like the name sawarkar, please keep doing that. but without reading, homeowrk and logic kindly avoid commenting/replying to my comment. Thanks

  • RG

    Bhagat Singh is a legend!

    V.D. Sarvarkar is a man; I dont know enough about him to speak intelligently about his contribution to the freedom struggle, but honestly… 6 months in solitary confinement would break most men. Nothing cowardly about it.

    • Prateek Agrawal

      & what about death sentence? would that not break a man? A man who gives up his “so called mission” in the face of an adversity does not need to be worshipped at least if not condemned!

  • si91

    Savarkar was acquitted in the Gandhi assassination case.

  • NG – Will troll escapists

    Lol! Actions speak louder than words!

  • Krishna Murty Somayajula

    I am sorry BUT Wiki is what you, I and Any of us write (if you get my point) .. Any info in Wikipedia is what is uploaded by ‘contributors’ and thus cannot be treated as Gospel. Lets quote any other and more definitive authorities or sources which have been verified and authenticated / corroborated..

  • Prateek Agrawal

    good! Expose these sanghis! good job “the wire”!

  • Gandhar Joshi

    What I don’t understand is that why the writer is pitting two great freedom fighters against each other? What credibility do you (the esteemed writer) have to discredit anyone who worked for the freedom of our great country. Yes, I do understand that Shaheed Bhagat Singh showed more bravery than Veer Savarkar but do think that even Shaheed Bhagat Singh would have accepted this polarising article?
    Inquialab zindabad
    Vande mataram!

  • aniruddha mukherjee

    Do you mean to say that when a JAWAN in the battlefield gets trapped at the hand of the opposite side a compromise is a better option☺

  • Govind Maheshwari

    It is called guerilla tactic, remain alive today so that you can fight back tomorrow. Do you really know what hardships Veer Savarkar faced in Cellular jail? And if British had given him death sentence instead of 50 years imprisonment, what option he would have had? In fact it was Bhagat Singh who got inspired by Savarkar’s bravery and published his third edition of book on 1857 War of Indian Independence and it was Bhagat Singh who met Savarkar before killing Saunders. And do you really know Bhagat Singh was left-leaning, but was a nationalist and never officially joined Communist Party of India, he joined Hindustan Socialist Republican Association which was headed by Ram Prasad Bismil, a staunch Hindu Nationalist who supported reconversion of muslims to Hinduism. Bhagat Singh’s grandfather was a staunch Hindu who pledged Bhagat Singh for the nation.