The general meeting, consisting of representatives of all communities of India, and the bulk of the Indian residents in Great Britain, desires to express the horror and indignation with which they in common with the whole of the people of India view the terrible crime committed by an Indian youth last Thursday, which resulted in the deplorable death of Sir Curzon Wyllie and also of Dr Lalkaka. 106
Going into an oratorical flourish, Bhownagari said that there could be no sane man, woman or child within the confines of that hall or throughout the length and breadth of British India who did not regard this catastrophe as a national disaster. He lamented that in this fallen moment, the misguided youth Dhingra had given a death blow, albeit temporarily he hoped, to the amazing success with which Indians had been negotiating their demands with the British government and especially Lord Morley.
After his speech, something dramatic happened. Theodore Morrison, a member of the India Council, led a shy young Indian youth to the dais. He was seemingly in grief and shame, dressed in a grey, lounger suit and wearing gold-rimmed glasses. He was introduced as Dhingra’s younger brother who lived in London. Morrison claimed that the younger Dhingra had visited his office earlier that morning and conveyed his family’s extreme consternation at Madan Lal’s renegade behaviour. He asked Morrison what he could do in his capacity to show his repugnance to his brother’s act. He was told by Morrison that it was his duty to come to Caxton Hall that evening and publicly express his sentiments and also disassociate himself and his family from the crime. As the Dublin Daily Express reports: ‘The dramatic suddenness of this incident created a considerable sensation in the hall and many were moved to tears.’ The young man was not allowed to speak a word and it was Morrison who did all the talking while the former just hung his head nervously. He was guided back to his seat and the meeting proceeded. A new resolution was moved:
That this meeting considers it due to the British public to assure them that they deplore with feelings of humiliation, an act of heinous character, committed in the metropolis of the British Empire, and beg that they realize that this is the act of a fanatic or madman, which had aroused the deepest indignation of all the people of India. 107
When the meeting was deciding to unanimously adopt the resolution and condemn Dhingra for his lunatic act, a young man leapt on his feet and screamed defiantly: ‘No! Not unanimously!’ The congregation was stunned into silence. They turned to see who had made this audacious assertion. It was Vinayak coming out in support of his friend and protégé, Madan Lal Dhingra, even as the latter’s family and friends were publicly dissociating themselves with him. Cries of ‘Turn him out’, ‘Pull him down,’ were made by the shocked leaders as people rushed towards Vinayak who stood there calmly with his arms folded and head held high. ‘It is all right,’ he muttered confidently even as a well-built Eurasian, Edward Parker, 108 sprang on Vinayak and struck him in the right eye. His spectacles broke and he suffered a broken nose. Blood all over his face, Vinayak leapt on to a chair and in a loud ringing voice announced that he was against the resolution and that he would oppose it till the last drop of his blood. M.P.T. Acharya had a stick in his hand and ‘instinctively struck him (Parker) on his head’. 109 The assailants however pulled Vinayak down and he was eventually thrown out. V.V.S. Aiyar, M.P.T. Acharya and Gyanchand Verma who were also present in the hall followed Vinayak out. Surendranath Banerjea walked out in protest against what he termed a cowardly act against an unarmed Vinayak, and the Aga Khan too did not quite relish the manner in which the sombre evening had turned out.
Vinayak and his associates rushed back to their Sinclair Road residence and the same night, he wrote an elaborate letter to The Times that was published.
Sir,
In all fairness to me, will you kindly insert the following lines in the next issue of your valuable paper? In reference to the unfortunate incident, which happened in the meeting held at Caxton Hall this evening in order to express horror at the murder of Sir Curzon Wyllie, it is to be feared that my attitude would be open to misinterpretation.
The fact is that when the President put the resolution before the meeting and asked those in favour of the same to raise their hands, he acknowledged the right, in accordance with the invariable practice in all public meetings, of everyone who was present to vote according to their choice. The resolution was explained by those who proposed and seconded it, so as to presume the criminality of the man who is accused of having committed the murder. It seemed to me an encroachment upon the assumption of the authority of Law and Courts to declare a man, who is still under trial, to be a criminal. So it seemed to me more just and appropriate to omit the word ‘crime’ and ‘criminal’ from the resolution. As the proceedings had advanced too far to effect this, I simply voted against the resolution as it stood and wanted to bring to the notice of the President the fact that the resolution could not be declared as passed unanimously. I was perfectly within my rights as a voter and the only proper way for the President was to count the votes against and for, and declare the result. But some excited spirits forgot themselves, so much as to shout ‘eject him’, etc. and even went so far, as to threaten me with physical force. I stood perfectly calm, simply asserting my right and without giving the least provocation. In a minute or two, one man, Mr Parker by name, reached to the place where I was standing and attacked me while I was actually in the act of explaining the meaning of my opposition in clear terms, though they were drowned into the city of the excited few.
The man who committed this unprovoked assault upon one who simply insisted upon either being heard or ejected will soon be brought before the courts. Meanwhile I hasten to write this letter to you to explain my conduct at the meeting and prevent any misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
Thanking you in anticipation,
I am,
Yours faithfully,
V.D. Savarkar.
140 Sinclair Road, July 5.
The contents of his letter and the meticulous legal position that Vinayak articulated was referenced by several other leading London newspapers. Even Parker who had punched Vinayak in the face wrote a rejoinder in The Times on 8 July alluding to the greatness of the British Empire and all his ancestors who had established English rule in India. His contention was that Indians in Britain were enjoying the hospitality of the ‘noble British people’ and hence someone who objected to the resolution at the Caxton Hall meeting was not worthy of his consideration. He also alleged that Vinayak’s associates stood on a chair and struck him with a stick. This was the reason, he explained, why he ‘planted a truly British blow between the eyes of Savarkar’, 110 and that he was not at all sorry for what he did.
Newspapers also mentioned excitedly that the decision of the benchers of the Gray’s Inn was impending. The Daily Dispatch, termed Vinayak as ‘a fervent nationalist . . . an extremely brilliant scholar . . . a political theorist . . . deeply versed in all the literature of political liberty . . . awaiting the decision of the House of Lords to whom he has appealed’ 111 against the postponement of his call at the Bar. The Bolton Evening News too mentioned: ‘Mr Savarkar occupies a rather prominent position in the community of Indian students in this country, and in fairness to the attitude, which he assumed at the meeting, allowance must be made for the point of view that a man in his position was bound to take.’ 112 It spoke about the considerable attention and excitement that the decision regarding his call at the Bar was eliciting among legal circles. It was during the Easter term that his application to be called ‘was defeated in a large meeting of benchers by a majority of only three votes’ out of twenty-four and that his renewed application ‘backed by a strong array of counsel’ was being considered at a special meeting the following week. But an obvious outcome of the Caxton Hall altercation was that the benchers of Gray’s Inn resolved at a meeting held on 14 July that Vinayak was not eligible for a call at the Bar. 113
Scotland Yard found an excuse in the assassination to connect the inmates of India Hou
se with the act. The London Police went to every one of them to unearth the conspirators. They wanted M.P.T. Acharya and other Indians to leave London. 114 Detectives used Syed Haidar Raza to influence Acharya to leave for America, but he flatly refused. Many Indian revolutionaries had been shipped off to America simply on the suspicion that they might give cause to some sensation to the press. 115
Meanwhile, Dhingra’s trial recommenced on 10 July. Sir Edward Henry, the commissioner of police, Sir Charles Mathews, the director of public prosecution, and others were present. Twenty-five-year-old Dhingra with ‘dark olive complexion, with thick black hair . . . large gold rimmed glasses . . . dressed in a black and gray double-breasted suit’ was brought in by the police. 116 The prosecution brought more witnesses before the court, including Dr Thomas Neville who had conducted a post-mortem of Curzon Wyllie’s body. He had found a bullet entrance wound on the right eye and an exit wound at the neck, two more wounds on the left eye, and the back of the neck, one below the left ear and another over the left eyebrow. The bullets were found in the head and the cause of instantaneous death was ascertained as brain injury. 117 Throughout the proceedings, Dhingra stood leaning on the dock rail, ‘his right hand behind his back, the left hanging idly by his side’. 118 Tindal Atkinson was present to represent Dhingra’s family that once again said that they ‘view this crime with the greatest abhorrence, and they wish to repudiate in the most emphatic way the slightest sympathy with the views or motives which have led up to the crime’. Atkinson also mentioned on behalf of Dhingra’s father and the rest of his family ‘that there are no more loyal subjects of the Empire than they are’. 119
The judge then asked Dhingra if he wished to make any statements regarding the prosecution’s case, to which he nonchalantly replied that he concurs with all the witnesses. He did not want to call any evidences in his favour but however wished to read his statement. The historic statement of Madan Lal Dhingra was as follows:
I do not want to say anything in defence of myself, but simply to prove the justice of my deed. As for myself, no English law court has got any authority to arrest and detain me in prison, or pass sentence of death on me. That is the reason I did not have any counsel to defend me.
And I maintain that if it is patriotic in an Englishman to fight against the Germans if they were to occupy this country, it is much more justifiable and patriotic in my case to fight against the English. I hold the English people responsible for the murder of 80 millions of Indian people in the last fifty years, and they are also responsible for taking away £100,000,000 every year from India to this country. I also hold them responsible for the hanging and deportation of my patriotic countrymen, who did just the same as the English people here are advising their countrymen to do. And the Englishman who goes out to India and gets, say, £100 a month, that simply means that he passes a sentence of death on a thousand of my poor countrymen, because these thousand people could easily live on this £100, which the Englishman spends mostly on his frivolities and pleasures.
Just as the Germans have no right to occupy this country, so the English people have no right to occupy India, and it is perfectly justifiable on our part to kill the Englishman who is polluting our sacred land. I am surprised at the terrible hypocrisy, the farce, and the mockery of the English people. They pose as the champions of oppressed humanity—the peoples of the Congo and the people of Russia—when there is terrible oppression and horrible atrocities committed in India; for example, the killing of two millions of people every year and the outraging of our women. In case this country is occupied by Germans, and the Englishman, not bearing to see the Germans walking with the insolence of conquerors in the streets of London, goes and kills one or two Germans, and that Englishman is held as a patriot by the people of this country, then certainly I am prepared to work for the emancipation of my Motherland.
Whatever else I have to say is in the paper before the Court. I make this statement, not because I wish to plead for mercy or anything of that kind. I wish that English people should sentence me to death, for in that case the vengeance of my countrymen will be all the more keen. I put forward this statement to show the justice of my cause to the outside world, and especially to our sympathizers in America and Germany. 120
The Court was stunned and the room fell silent. When asked if he still wanted recourse to legal aid, an irritated Dhingra said:
I have told you over and over again that I do not acknowledge the authority of the Court. You can do whatever you like. I do not mind at all. You can pass sentence of death on me. I do not care. You white people are all-powerful now, but, remember, it shall have our turn in the time to come, when we can do what we like.
The judge pronounced Dhingra guilty of the crime on 17 August and sentenced him to death by hanging. He was committed to the sessions trial held at Old Bailey, to be conducted by Chief Justice Lord Alverston. Even as he was being led away by the police, Dhingra addressed the judge and said: ‘Thank you, my Lord. I don’t care. I am proud to have the honour of laying down my life for the cause of my motherland.’ 121
Dhingra was lodged at Brixton Jail where Vinayak came to meet him on 22 July. While his entire family had disowned him, Vinayak stood firmly beside Dhingra. The two had an emotional meeting with tears streaming down their cheeks. ‘I have come to have the darshan (meeting) of a great patriot and martyr,’ 122 Vinayak is said to have told Dhingra, to which the latter fell to his feet with tears of joy and gratitude. During their next meeting a few days later, Dhingra conveyed two wishes: that he should get a small mirror so that he may be sure that he was going to the gallows with the same cheerful face and that he be cremated in strict accordance with Hindu rites and that no non-Hindu should be allowed to touch his body. He also decreed that his clothes and belongings be sold and the money thus obtained be utilized for the nationalist cause.
As disturbed as Vinayak was with the execution of Dhingra looming large, he resolved to commit himself to another duty towards his friend. He was determined to get Dhingra’s voice published in the press so that he did not go down in history as the violent and misguided lunatic that the Indian community and his own family had portrayed him as. This was a dangerous and a seemingly impossible task. But Vinayak was adamant. There was a second statement that Dhingra wanted to read out in court but the police had confiscated it and prevented him from doing so. Vinayak and his associates managed to get a copy of this suppressed statement. The best tribute, they thought they could pay Dhingra, was to get this second statement published. Several British leaders, such as Hyndman, who were sympathetic to the Indian cause but did not approve of Dhingra’s means, admitted that his indictment of the British government was stinging and true. The statement thus needed to be read and understood by a wide cross section of British people. Vinayak got copies of the statement printed and Gyanchand Verma rushed to Paris to post them to various American and Irish newspapers. The British intelligence reports contend that the style of writing was so like Vinayak’s that it could have well been written by him. Vinayak approached David Garnett, a friend who worked with the Daily News in London, and asked him if he had the courage to publish the statement that no other London newspaper dared to. Garnett took the piece to his boss, Robert Lynd, who agreed to publish the ‘scoop’ as an exclusive for the morning edition of 16 August 1909—a day prior to Dhingra’s execution. The editor’s note had the following preface to Dhingra’s final statement that was titled as ‘Challenge’: 123
A copy has been placed in our hands of the statement, which Dhingra drew up before the murder, intending it to be read as if it had been subsequently drawn up. To this document, the prisoner referred in the course of the trial, but it was not given to the public. We may add that a copy has been, for some time, in the possession of certain of Dhingra’s compatriots. The statement is as follows:
CHALLENGE
I admit, the other day, I attempted to shed English blood as a humble revenge for the inhuman hangings and deportations of patriot
ic Indian youths. In this attempt I have consulted none but my own conscience; I have conspired with none but my own duty.
I believe that a nation held in bondage with the help of foreign bayonets is in perpetual state of war. Since open battle is rendered impossible to a disarmed race, I attacked by surprise; since guns were denied to me, I drew forth my pistol and fired.
As a Hindu, I feel that a wrong done to my country is an insult to God. Poor in health and intellect, a son like myself has nothing to offer to the Mother but his own blood, and so I have sacrificed the same on her altar. Her cause is the cause of Shri Rama. Her services are the services of Shri Krishna. This War of Independence will continue between India and England so long as the Hindu and the English races last (if this present unnatural relation does not cease).
The only lesson required in India at present is to learn how to die and the only way to teach it is by dying ourselves. Therefore I die and glory to my martyrdom.
My only prayer to God is: may I be reborn of the same Mother and may I re-die in the same sacred cause till the cause is successful and she stands free for the good of humanity and the glory of God.
Vande Mataram!
Decades later, when Lloyd George explained to Winston Churchill his admiration for Dhingra’s patriotism, it is said that Churchill exclaimed: ‘Dhingra’s last words are the finest ever made in the name of patriotism’ and even compared him with Plutarch’s immortal heroes. 124
On the destined morning of 17 August, large crowds had gathered outside Pentonville Jail. Quite significantly, the ‘crowd comprised hardly a handful of Indians’. 125 As the clock struck nine, Dhingra embraced death with cheer and the confidence that his martyrdom would inspire thousands of young men like him back home. In a vile move, the British turned down the petition for handing over the dead body for cremation and decided to bury it inside the jail as per usual practice, despite Dhingra’s last wish. Gyanchand Verma, however, performed the obsequies as per Hindu traditions and even shaved his head. It was only on 13 December 1976 that Dhingra’s mortal remains were repatriated by the Indian government led by Indira Gandhi, brought to his hometown Amritsar, where a memorial was built in his honour. 126
Savarkar Page 24
