Friday, November 30, 2012

Chasing my tail for a title . . . !



“What are setbacks in life but really God’s way of guiding us through life, preventing wrong decisions, until we see the light at the end of the tunnel?”

-         Anurupa Cinar


Hi, Everyone! I can’t really say that any part of writing my novel was easy. But finding the title reached nightmare proportions! I was chasing my tail for a title for ever.

It all seemed so easy to begin with. Even before I started writing, I felt the name I Love my India was perfect for my novel.

Wasn’t the novel all about love for India, after all? Didn’t I just love the song I Love my India from Subhash Ghai’s Pardes?

So it was settled. It was as I started mentioning the title to people around me, that I noticed that there were no “yea, way to go!” coming my way re the title. And some even outright suggested I change it.

Never! I thought to myself. I pinned my ears back and dug my heels in and became as stubborn as the proverbial mule.

But when my publishing consultant threw up her hands in despair and made protesting noises re the title, I was forced to reconsider.

I was leaning toward O Freedom . . . ! To me that title expressed a deep yearning like Savarkar’s. I should mention that by this time, the novel was written and the cover design was fixed in my mind for months. So there was not a lot of flexibility.

There was a book Freedom written the year before, so I scrapped this title and after much cogitating came up with The Burning Soul. I checked online and—yoo-hoo . . . !—it was there for the taking.

There, I told myself, it wasn’t too-o-o-o bad. I could live with that title. And so a few months went by happily as I prepared the final draft—or rather what I so naively believed was the final draft! I actually changed it so many, many times later on.

Then I got a very rude shock! John Connolly came out with a bestseller: The Burning Soul . . . !! It was a ghastly moment. I have already written so much about my attachment to names, so you can sympathize with me. I sunk my head in my hands in utter despair.

But there was no choice. I had to change the name of my dream—again! This time I came up with several names. Here are some of them:

I Will Not Be Silenced….

Who Dare Vanquish Me?

Inviolate Am I

Not Doomed to Hell!

Savarkar: To Hell and Back

Back From Hell, Everytime!

Surviving Hell---and back

Ground to Dust

Immolated

The Burning Beacon

The Beacon

Honor to My Motherland

Is this Freedom?

Beyond Freedom

O, Freedom, Death is to live without you!

Justice Must Prevail!

Truth Shall Not Be Hidden

Truth Unveiled

Freedom, Our Birthright

Then I sent the whole lot to everyone I could think of for an opinion poll. From there I was back to O Freedom . . . ! as my novel’s title!

What can I say? La-la land is a wonderful place to be in while it lasts!!

I dwelt in mine until I received my manuscript back from the publisher, with my title changed . . . ! To “Something Mother India”!!

I threw not one but twenty fits, I can tell you. That title just wouldn’t do. I was really at the end of my rope here.

What was I going to do?

The situation was now beyond head-clutching. I just sat on the couch and gazed at the above names (in distaste, I may add) and then . . .

Like a bolt from the blue, the name Burning for Freedom struck my consciousness. I grasped at it with eager hands. Was it really going to be this simple, after all? Quickly I went to the amazon website and checked if anyone had staked their claim to this title already. No. Oh what joy . . . !

That’s it! Burning for Freedom it was going to be. It seemed so perfect in every way—from the cover, double play on the word burning, from the content—from every conceivable way.

Why had I not come up with it all this while? I really couldn’t say. But such things have happened before.

What are setbacks in life but really God’s way of guiding me—in my fumbling, bumbling way—through life, preventing me from wrong decisions, until I see the light at the end of the tunnel?

Anurupa

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

A Young Voice of America Joins Mine . . .

 

“I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do.”

- Edward Everett Hale

 

Hi, Everyone! I have mentioned a few times before how much discouragement I have received re my stance to expose the truth of Gandhi through my novel (and my blog too.) One particular persistent voice still echoes in my head.

“Why bother? You are only one voice. Indians won’t buy your book and Americans won’t like what you are doing,” said the voice.

Of course, since I believe that one must do what one must without expectation of gain, and even one lonely voice is better than no voice at all, I did not let this constant chipping at my confidence hold me back.

And today I shall tell you a little anecdote that gives me great hope.

I grew up with Gandhism rammed down my throat in Indian schools. The same, I am sure, goes on in India even now. But what I find unacceptable is that it should creep into schools here in the U.S. Why should the erroneous image of Gandhi be perpetrated so mindlessly?

In the Middle-school of my town, a teacher was making one such reference to the goodness of Gandhi and his principles of nonviolence that won India her freedom. This time one hand rose up in protest!

Sara Gyulakian, an intrepid thirteen-year-old, spoke out: “No, that is not true! Do read this book, Burning for Freedom.”

How this gladdens my heart! In a world where adults are afraid to give voice to opinions that are not held by the public in general, here was a teenager not afraid to speak out.

I am not one voice anymore, a young voice of America speaks with me.

One ripple of hope has stirred the air . . .


Anurupa

Monday, November 26, 2012

Savarkar and Ho Chi Minh

 
Two great leaders of one mind:

“O Goddess of Freedom, Life is to die for you,
Death is to live without you!”
-         V. D. Savarkar


“Nothing is more precious than independence and liberty.”
-         Ho Chi Minh


Hi, Everyone! To give another example of the esteem Savarkar was held in, read this excerpt from The Last Valley: Dien Bien Phu and the French Defeat in Vietnam.[1]

“Ho Chi Minh’s bedroom and study are still as they were on the day he died. The books near his bedside include one on New Zealand Verse, another on the Indian nationalist leader Veer Savarkar, another on the history of Vietnam, another on Marxism and several other titles I could not read clearly. These books were written in English, German, French, Russian and Vietnamese. He read all these languages, and spoke many of them. No party hack, however sophisticated, could have put such an eclectic collection of books together after his death. It had to be his.”

Ho Chi Minh, President of North Vietnam from 1954 until his death, led the Vietnamese nationalist movement for more than three decades. Upon his death his “house on stilts” where he died was preserved as is. There is a study beyond his bedroom which is lined with bookshelves too. So the books he had on the desk next to his bed must have a special significance to him.
Savarkar’s book is one of them according to Martin Windrow and there is no reason to doubt his word!

I did try to verify this fact independently, though. I did find a photo of the desk. Now the books are covered by a glass frame, I believe.

If anyone has connections in Hanoi, Vietnam, please do try to get a closer photo of Savarkar’s book.

Anurupa



[1] By Martin Windrow, Da Capo Press, 2004.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Excerpts of Savarkar’s interview by an American journalist



“O Goddess of Freedom . . .
Here is The Bounteous One, our very own Motherland,
Why oh, why did you push her away?
Oh why did your Motherly love of old wither away?
Oh so anguished is my soul!
For she is now but a slave to others,
Why oh why did you abandon her so,
Answer me, I pray!”

-         V. D. Savarkar, Jayostute
(translation by Anurupa Cinar)


Hi, Everyone! Here are some rare excerpts of an interview of Savarkar with an American journalist. The exact date is not known, but the year is 1943, judging by the content.

The interview is entirely from the perspective of an American. But point to note is that here is proof indeed that Savarkar had become a force to be considered in a very short time. Specific comments to highlight this are in red.

The journalist makes some very puzzling comments re Savarkar’s appearance. Savarkar, of course, must have worn his dhoti which may have appeared like a nightgown to American eyes. But why should it have been dirty? Why were the glasses specked? Why the unshaven cheeks? From all reports, Savarkar wore pristine clothes and was immaculately turned out.

·        Was it the journalist’s imagination? Was Savarkar prone to the 5 o’clock shadow? Or had he just returned from a hectic tour and had no time to tidy himself?

I don’t know.

There was no ostentation in Savarkar’s room. It was austere in the extreme—maybe even dull and dreary. Perhaps that colored Treanor’s opinion.

Anyway, here are the interview excerpts:

"Would you wish that I should confess to you everything?" asked old man Savarkar.

I hadn’t meant to ask an awkward question. I thought perhaps since he'd been con­victed and served time it was all a matter of record. He had already admitted they wanted to hang him and that he had gotten off with 50 years.

What I was curious to know was whether the old man, now so respectable, had actually thrown the bombs which killed the high government officials in England. That was when he said:

"Would you wish that I should confess to you everything?"

It was some other fel­lows and he wasn't saying who. It's not important now, anyway. That was way back at the beginning of the cen­tury when Savarkar was sowing his wild oats as a terrorist.

It was before my time. It’s like storybook stuff when bombs had fuses that revolu­tionaries lit with a match. That was Savarkar's time as a revolutionary in London and later in India.

Now he's in good odor de­spite the fact that some of his fellow terrorists threw a bomb at a viceroy. Those were the days.

Savarkar is quite a sight to western eyes. He's a leading politician at the mo­ment, head of the Hindu Mahasabha . . .

Savarkar was not specially dressed for the occa­sion of this interview. He looked at his worst. His sunken cheeks were unshaven, his perfectly round, metal-rimmed eyeglasses were specked, and he was dressed in a soiled length of cloth which looked like a nightgown and was insecurely fastened in front with silver studs, some of them missing.

But he didn't appear to give damn. He is interested in ideas. I didn't tell him that in America people are apt to consider political ideas dull and he apparently doesn't suspect it. When he talked over his plans he seemed to see a great American political audience with a voracious appetite for Indian politics.

His voice would become like a phonograph record and he would go on and on, braiding and unbraiding a tired look­ing handkerchief while be carried on about the Hindu Mahasabha.

I suppose he's a little of a fanatic to our taste. But he has a certain power of personality and is definitely a figure of some importance on the Indian political scene today, particularly now that many of the leading Hindus are de­tained along with the Mahatma.

To savarkar it must be rather odd to be almost the only one not detained.

As a consequence of his terrorist activities, he was sen­tenced to 50 years in all. The first 14 he served in solitary confinement on the Andaman Islands, when the "old war," as he called it, broke out, and one thing led to another and he was transferred to the mainland. He spent another 14 years interned in a village and six years ago was set free.

How he managed it I don't know, but despite all that con­finement he was enough in tune with the spirit of the times to get into the political whirl and come to the top of a strong minority party which exerts a considerable influence today. He's a real story. I for­got to mention that his ter­rorist party was active in California 40 years ago, trying to line up the Sikhs in Central California.

I got him on the subject of Gandhi and the fast. As is everyone, he was respectful to the Mahatma, but he wasn't respectful to the so called weapon of the fast. I judge he thinks fasters—al­ways excepting Gandhi, who is in a special category even to his political opponents—be fed through the nose with milk. At least he used that expression several times.

"If a fast is so effective," he asked, "why doesn't Churchill fast against Hitler? What would Hitler say?"

I couldn't think for the moment what Hitler would say. But Mr. Savarkar is sure it would be something rude.

Then we fell to talk­ing about America's interest in India. As an old terrorist who did 14 years solitary confine­ment, he did not gush the usual sentimentality that America should offer some influence because her heart is pure. I am tired, as a matter of fact, of Indians who want us to help them because our heart is pure.

"The world is run by self-interest, not the Bible," he said. "What is your self-interest in India?"

He offered that our self-interest was as a fighting base, now and in the future. He fore­sees a long fighting future of 50 years before we get the world settled and thinks we would be smart to have a little Indian good will.

“Why not oblige India?" he asked. "You will need her someday."

And That's it!
Toodle-oo!
Anurupa


 

Friday, November 23, 2012

Savarkar’s Constitution for India

 

“The living owe it to those who no longer can speak to tell their story for them.”
Czestaw Mitosz, The Issa Valley: A Novel


Anti-propagandists and detractors have been writing so fast and furiously saying that Savarkar was “communal,” anti-Muslim, and what not that this erroneous, unjust accusation has come to be an accepted fact.

Anyone who will take the trouble to read Savarkar’s words in their original form will see the truth for themselves.

I am presenting below the main points of Savarkar’s guideline for India’s proposed Constitution. You can judge for yourself how very democratic his ideas were. He truly believed in equal rights for all.

Savarkar’s Proposed Guidelines for the
National Constitution of Hindustan

(A) Hindustan from the Indus to the Seas will and must remain as an organic nation and integral centralized state.

(B) The residuary powers shall be vested in the Central Government.

(C) All citizens shall have equal rights and obligations irrespective of caste or creed, race or religion—provided they avow and owe an exclusive and devoted allegiance to the Hindustani State.

(D) The fundamental rights of conscience, of worship, of association etc. will be enjoyed by all citizens alike; whatever restrictions will be imposed on them in the interest of the public peace and order or national emergency will not be based on any religious or racial considerations alone but on common national ground.

(E) “One man, one vote” will be the general rule irrespective of creed, caste, race, or religion.

(F) Representation in the Legislature etc. shall be in proportion to the population of the majority and minorities.

(G) Services shall go by merit alone.

(H) All minorities shall be given effective safeguards to protect their language, religion, culture etc. but none of them shall be allowed to create “a state within a state” or to encroach upon the legitimate rights of the majority.

(I) All minorities may have separate schools to train their children in their own tongue, religion, or culture, and can receive government help also for these, but always in proportion to the taxes they pay into the common exchequer.

(J) In case the constitution is not based on joint electorates and on the unalloyed national principle of one man one vote but is based on the communal basis, then those minorities who wish to have separate electorates or reserve seats will be allowed to have them, but always in proportion to their population and provided that it does not deprive the majority also of an equal right in proportion to its population too.

Mr. J. D. Joglekar has given an interesting “Vignette” in his Veer Savarkar: Father of Hindu Nationalism:

“I started reading books on nationalism in 1942. In the next four years I read considerable literature on that subject. I also read Savarkar’s Hindutva a few times. Therein he has written, “It may be that at some future time the word ‘Hindu’ may come to indicate a citizen of Hindustan and nothing else.’ This clearly shows that Savarkar was ready to include Muslims and Christians in the family of the Hindus. In his concept of nationalism, loyalty to land and secularism had primacy.

In 1946, Savarkar was staying in a hotel in Poona for some much needed rest and change. I met him there. While discussing the above point I said to  him, ‘I do not understand why Hindu Sanghatanists are dubbed communalists?’

          ‘I write for people. I cannot read for them. If my reading would have helped them to understand what I say, I would have done that,’ he said.”

Anurupa

Thursday, November 22, 2012

And More Wagging of a Malicious Tongue . . .

 

"Upon my tongues continual slanders ride,
Which in every language I pronounce,
Stuffing the ears of men with false reports.”

-  William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part 2
 

Hi, Everyone! I found a write-up on this link I am giving below (I have pasted the contents at the end of this post:


It begins with the following words:

“Recommended, particularly for those who call him, inaccurately, “Veer” Savarkar.”

Since I have absolutely decided I shall not remain quiet anymore, I dashed off a comment. Unfortunately, it was not posted by the moderator of the website. I did write to the contact person of “longreads” too but received no answer.

So I am posting my answer here:

“I, Anurupa Cinar, am writing this as one who very correctly describes Savarkar as one of the greatest freedom fighters of India. I say this with the authority of four years of intensive research on Savarkar, Gandhi, and the Freedom Movement of India. I have presented my research conclusions in the form of a novel "Burning for Freedom", released in June 2012.

What I have not been able to address there, I am presenting to everyone as a series of blog posts on my blog, www.anurupacinar.blogspot.com. The topic I am currently writing on there is, Gandhi Facts: Gandhi Revealed

To get back to the issue of Savarkar's petitions. Savarkar himself has written in many places, has advised other freedom fighters, too, that any petition or pledge made to the British, the enemy of Mother India's freedom, is not worth the paper it is written on. Sign it, get free, and continue to work as free Indians for the cause of India, so he has always avowed. Of course, there are petitions he made to the British, but when he was free after making them, he continued to work for freedom of India.

He made these petitions, but unlike Gandhi, he never, ever avowed allegiance or loyalty to the British. Visit my blog for Gandhi’s loyalty to the British.

Any true Indian would be washed over by shame before bringing up Savarkar’s petitions in “free” and “democratic” India.

Before any mention is made of Savarkar's petitions in free India, let us first see how his rights, and the rights of thousands of other Hindus, were trampled upon ruthlessly by the "democratic" Government of "free"  India! Savarkar was taken from his home in the early hours of the morning on February 5, 1948, with a trumped-up charge of “preventive measures” under the Bombay Security Act. He was not allowed to see anyone, not even a lawyer, until March 23, 1948!

Instead of imprisoning the actual culprits killing the Brahmins, Hindu Mahasabhaites, and RSSmembers, the Government went after the victims of these riots!

Savarkar’s petitions in “free,” “democratic” India reflect only upon the Government’s Reign of Terror.

For answers visit www.savarkar.org to read of what actually happened, and do read my novel “Burning for Freedom.” It is an eye-opener!

Anurupa Cinar


I do hope more voices will join mine.

Anurupa

The Text of the Post:

“Inamdar mentions how anxious Savarkar was about his fate. On February 22, while in detention at the Arthur Road Prison in Bombay, Savarkar gave a written undertaking to the Commissioner of Police: “I shall refrain from taking part in any communal or political public activity for any period the government may require in case I am released on that condition” (Exhibit D/104 in the case). This is not the conduct of a man innocent of the crime.

No appeal was filed against his acquittal. Yet another undertaking was given to Chief Justice M.C. Chagla and Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar in the Bombay High Court on July 13, 1950, while he was in detention. “He would not take any part whatever in political activity and would remain in his house” for a year. These were part of a sordid series of abject, demeaning apologies.

The first was on July 4, 1911, within six months of his entry in the Cellular Jail in the Andamans, where Advani wanted to build a memorial to him. The second and third were in October and November 1913 to Sir Reginald Craddock, Home Member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council. “I am ready to serve the government in any capacity they like…Where else can the prodigal son return but to the paternal doors of the government,” this “nationalist hero” wrote.

The fourth and fifth were submitted in 1914 and 1917. The sixth came on March 30, 1920. Its text was published in full in Frontline (see the writer’s article “Savarkar’s mercy petition”, Frontline; April 8, 2005). The seventh was submitted in 1924 ( Frontline, April 7, 1995). The ones of 1948 and 1950 were the eighth and ninth. Which other political figure had such a disgraceful record of abasement before the British during the Raj?

Gandhi’s murder was also one in a series—Curzon Wylie’s in London in 1909, A.T.M. Jackson, Collector of Nashik, in 1910; and the attempted murder of Acting Governor of Bombay Ernest Hotson in 1931. In each case Savarkar used others as his pawns.

Those who laud him ignore this long and consistent record from 1911 to 1950 because they value his doctrine.”

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

The Wagging of a Malicious Tongue . . .

 

"Upon my tongues continual slanders ride,
Which in every language I pronounce,
Stuffing the ears of men with false reports.”

-  William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part 2
 


Hi, Everyone! From the very beginning of my research, A. G. Noorani came to my notice as a very particular Savarkar-basher. I do not know, nor intend to find out, why.

I am a very picky reader. I will read books which express views opposed to mine, but I have no respect for writers whose intent is malicious, who ridicule others, or who use coarse and vulgar language in expressing their opinions.

A. G. Noorani, in my opinion, falls in the bracket of one whose “intent is malicious.” There are no other words to describe his constant diatribe denouncing Savarkar. He throws together many words that give the illusion of being convincing arguments but upon reading have no substance.

The only reason I am mentioning him here is because he is at it again. He has an article published in Frontline where he is once again indulging in naming Savarkar as a co-conspirator in Gandhi’s assassination. After four years of my silence, I feel enough is enough. If we don’t speak out, people will only have the word of the detractors of Savarkar to follow.

That is why I wrote a letter to the editor of Frontline. The letter did get published though in a very much watered-down version. I am going to give here my letter in its totality.

“To,

Mr. R. Vijaya Sankar

Editor, Frontline

Subject:     Essay:   Savarkar and Gandhi’s Murder, by A. G. Noorani, Volume 29 - Issue 19, Sep. 22-Oct. 05, 2012

Dear Sir,

Every year or so Frontline and A. G. Noorani take it upon themselves to begin the Savarkar-bashing by rehashing the unsubstantiated, inconclusive, and irrelevant points re Savarkar’s alleged involvement in Gandhi’s murder.

Now, I, on the other hand have some pointed and very much relevant questions of you.

1)    Why did Morarji Desai not show the same diligence in the prevention of the Mahatma’s murder as he did in its investigation afterwards?

Indeed, why did not Sardar Patel appoint one man in charge of the investigation prior to Gandhi’s murder? Why was Nehru silent?


2)    Why did Morarji not take any action upon Dr. Jain informing him of the conspiracy to murder Gandhi? Dr. Jain claims he gave Morarji the names, but even if had not, could he not have been imprisoned (like the 20, 000 others who rotted there after Gandhi’s murder) and perhaps tortured to give that information, just like so many were tortured to cough up evidence against Savarkar?

Do read this article:


3)    Why was Nagarwala struggling ineffectually with mere instincts, when Delhi police had concrete knowledge, just like Morarji, that editors of Hindurashtra were involved in the conspiracy? A simple phone call would have given the names Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte.

And over and above all of this, even if nothing was known, a simple search of incoming people would have prevented a gun being taken into the prayer grounds.

·        Why was this simple preventive action not taken?

·        Why was the murder of the Mahatma which could have been so easily prevented, not prevented?

·        Why was no Government official, minister, or policeman held responsible for this incredible, hard-to-swallow, utter incompetence?

It is time for Frontline and A. G. Noorani to put aside the vociferous yapping on Savarkar’s “moral” responsibility and time to talk of the Government’s culpability in the murder of the Mahatma, the Father of the Indian Nation.

We want answers to these questions.

Anurupa Cinar

Author Burning for Freedom

www.anurupacinar.com”

Tomorrow I shall post another comment I posted (but which never got past the website moderator) on the longreads website where the Frontline-Noorani duo are continuing their Savarkar bashing.

Anurupa

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Savarkar: Framed by a picture . . .



“A picture is worth a thousand words—that just makes it a thousand times more efficient at innuendo, insinuation, and implication.”

-         Anurupa Cinar

 

Hi, Everyone! Today I am going to give some excerpts from an affidavit submitted by Savarkar on May 18, 1948.

·        The stark words reveal the fact that Savarkar was allowed to meet his lawyer only after three-months plus of incarceration.

They also reveal another concern that Savarkar had—a group photograph taken with others suspected in being involved in the conspiracy to murder Gandhi.

For the entire document click here:


“I, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, do hereby swear and state on solemn affirmation as under:-

1.   That on 5th February, 1948, I was arrested, in my house “Savarkar Sadan” at Dadar, Bombay by the Bombay Police. I am, since then, under detention in the Arthur Road Prison, Bombay. . . .

4.   . . . I was remanded to Police custody. I was then taken to the Arthur Road Prison. The Bombay Police repeated the remand application from time to time and they were granted. The present remand expires on the 18th of May, 1948.

5.   That on the 11th of May, 1948, I was taken from the Arthur Road Prison, Bombay, to the C.I.D. Office by the Bombay Police Officers. I was then made to sit in a chair and Godse and others who are suspected to be concerned in the murder of Mahatma Gandhi were placed by my sides. We were then all photographed in a group. I disclaim any association with them of any of them at any time.

6.   That I apprehend that the same photograph may possibly be used to concoct evidence against me.

7.   That after I was photographed, as stated above, I got an opportunity, for the first time to see my advocate Mr. S.V. Deodhar on 14th May, 1948. . . . ”

How true was Savarkar’s concern is amply proved by the fact that this particular photo (and another taken on the first day of the trial) are used by several people on blogs, websites, books, or any place where they would like to finger Savarkar as a conspirator in Gandhi’s murder.

I give a typical comment re it below:

“There is a picture of Savarkar in that link which is very telling. All these people were accused of plotting to kill Mahatma Gandhi.”

Really, what does the picture actually tell? Only that Savarkar was charged in the Gandhi-murder Case. Unfortunately, the picture cannot speak and say that he was acquitted.

Sometimes the photo is accompanied by comments like these (or a variation thereof):

“Among those who sat in the dock he alone seemed to be well cast for the role he was playing.”

Sometimes there is an offending oval circling Savarkar’s face.

Yes, this picture has been a very efficient tool in the Savarkar-bashing trend. It is very difficult to combat an imagery produced by a picture.

Which is why I say:

“A picture is worth a thousand words—that just makes it a thousand times more efficient at innuendo, insinuation, and implication.”

Anurupa

Monday, November 19, 2012

Nehru’s Machiavellian Move, Part II

 

“If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared”
- Niccolo Machiavelli
 
Hi, Everyone! Do please forgive the glitches in the format of the post, for some reason I cannot iron them out right now.
 
Gandhi was murdered on January 30, 1948, and five days later, police came to Savarkar’s home at dawn and whisked him off to jail.

    The charge?
There was none!
Instead an order was passed under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947, and Savarkar was held in isolation, in jail without access to a lawyer. Below is the excerpt of the order:
"AND WHEREAS, I, JEHANGIR SOHRAB BHARUCHA, I.P., Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, am satisfied that the person known as Mr. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Bar.-at-Law, is acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the peace of Greater Bombay.
NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the said Act, I hereby direct that the said Mr. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Bar.-at-Law, be detained."[1]
Note the words in bold. At a time when Savarkar’s home had been invaded by a maddened crowd, his brother severally injured by rioters; when people were rioting against the Brahmans, Hindu Mahasabhaites and RSS members; when the police were victimizing them and throwing them in jail for no reason—Savarkar, instead of getting protection, got jail time.

Freedom in India did not bring democracy—apparently only exchanged one tyrannical ruler for another!
Nehru had no qualms at throwing Savarkar in jail—a sixty-four-year-old Savarkar who was in extremely poor health.

This is how free India treated a fifty-year veteran of her freedom movement.

This is how free India treated a freedom fighter who suffered gross injustice in the legal system of the British Raj.

This is how free India treated a freedom fighter who suffered fourteen years hard labor in the worst of the British Raj jails.
Did Nehru for one second imagine what it must have been for Savarkar—who spent ten years in solitary isolation in the monstrous Cellular Jail—to back to solitary isolation in free India, stripped of all rights, when he had not even committed a crime?
In 1960, Nehru confessed to his friend Leonard Mosley one reason for accepting partition.
"The truth is that we were tired men, and we were getting on in years, too. Few of us could stand the prospect of going to prison again—and if we had stood out for a united India as we wished it, prison obviously awaited us."[2]
Here we have a man
—Jawaharlal Nehru—who confesses to partitioning of India, inflicting indescribable horror and pain on India and Indians, just because he is afraid of facing jail, so heartlessly flinging Savarkar and so many others in jail . . . !

But then again, perhaps it is to be expected of such a man!
What comparison can there be in the kind of jail experience Nehru, the favorite of the British, experienced versus the horrors and indignity suffered by Savarkar?
I shall give you one comment on Nehru’s experience:
"On 31 October he [Nehru] too was arrested; he was subsequently tried and sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment. Churchill, who was shocked at the severity of the sentence, had to be assured that Nehru would in fact receive specially considerate treatment." [3]
Yet Nehru feared being imprisoned.

What must Savarkar have gone through?

Did Nehru care?
Does anyone care?
 
Anurupa
 
Attributions for the quotes:
 
[2] History of the Freedom Movement of India, Vol. III, R. C. Majumdar, page 796.

[3] Transfer of Power, V. P. Menon, page 101.