October
25, 1910—that was the day that the Savarkar Case, as it came to be known, was
submitted for arbitration in the Hague court. This date is extremely important
for it marks the supreme success of Savarkar. That one man—and one belonging to
a subject nation, having no rights whatsoever, at that—should have, by his
daring, dynamic brilliance brought two super-powers to their metaphoric knees is incredible!
Britain
and France, two powerful imperialistic powers, who routinely crushed the rights
of their subject nations, had terrible punishments and transportations meted
out to the people of their colonies, were now in the ignoble position of
opposing each other over the violation of the rights of one “native” man in the
international court in Hague, no less.
It
was a novel situation for the arbitrators of the Hague, too. In the days of
undoubted “white supremacy,” they were arbitrating over the rights of a “native”
man who by virtue of belonging to a subject nation had no rights!
No
wonder this case is still cited and a case study in books on international law
even today.
In
Britain’s case, they had additional egg on their face, for Britain was a
staunch supporter of political refugees—of other countries, of course! Savarkar
ripped that mask off Britain’s face, certainly! Britain, a country who gave
asylum to political refugees, who refused to extradite them, and was considered
a champion of political refugees, now lay exposed by their treatment of
Savarkar and his case.
In
Savarkar’s case they had to go to extremes—concocting a warrant, bending the
British law to execute it, breaking international law of jurisdiction to keep
him in their possession, trying him unjustly in a murder case, thus
disqualifying him for the status of political prisoner—to keep him their
prisoner and away from inciting the Indians to fight for their freedom.
But
of course, the arbitration in the Hague was just a sop to quiet the international
uproar the Savarkar Case had aroused. Many people (then and now) were confused
as to the issue of the arbitration. This arbitration was not for deciding
Savarkar’s right to asylum in France, or even for deciding if he is a political
prisoner. The sole purpose of this arbitration was to decide if Savarkar was to
be returned to France. And there were many loopholes to it:
- In 1910 “International law” was no more than words. No actual law existed then.
- No country could be compelled to follow the dictates of the Award given by the court of Hague.
- India, as a subject nation, was not even touched by any “international law” that existed then. Not to forget, Government of India had already exercised this freedom by refusing to give up Savarkar and going ahead with his trials without waiting for the Hague Award.
- There was no international law to protect the rights of the prisoner kidnapped on foreign soil, as Savarkar was—either then or now!
But
there was a law recognized everywhere: law of jurisdiction. And this is the law
that Britain broke. By taking Savarkar off French soil, Britain trampled on
French jurisdiction. This should have been the Ace in the case that France
submitted to the Hague, but their case fails to make the point.
Having
studied the Savarkar Case, it seemed to me the arbitration was a masterpiece of
evasion and turning a blind eye. I have put this in a nutshell in this video:
To
know the particulars of Savarkar’s Marseilles escape watch this video:
Or
click here for an interactive PDF or PPT slideshow.
Read
here my translation of the L'Humanite articles that spoke out vocifererously in favor of Savarkar.
Read here what Guy Aldred has to say about the Savarkar Case in his Savarkar Special
issue of the Herald of the Revolt.
Read the Savarkar Case documents here. (Translation of the French Case to be released in February 2014.)
Salute
to Savarkar!
Anurupa
