Unsent Letter

I cannot sleep at night. And that is when the trouble begins. My ghosts come to pay me a visit. They make me miserable. They mock me, harass me and leave me terrified. Sleep is like a displeased mistress. She comes, but only at dawn. She takes off just when I am enjoying her to the fullest. And then another day begins. I hate nights. ‘Cos I can’t sleep at nights.

Would my life have been any better if you would have been here, Mom? Would I have been able to sleep peacefully at nights with you by my bedside, Mom? Would you have read stories to me till I fell asleep, Mom? Would you have waited anxiously for me till I came home from school, Mom? Would things have been for the better with you around, Mom?

They say I was two when you left. Aunt Sue told me you were a kind soul who doted upon me. There was nothing of more importance to you than your family. You loved us. But then everyone have their own hates and lies. You left us, Mom. You didn’t think twice before going away. Just a note on the kitchen table. “John, I am going. You know where. Tell Andy that I love him very much. Take good care of him. Bye.” That’s it? A marriage of four years, a son of two. Aunt Sue still doesn’t believe that you eloped with “that man.” Dad was dejected and disconsolate that day, says Aunt Sue. He shut himself up in our home for a week. He saw nobody.

And finally when he did come out, he was a different man. He was like, nothing had ever happened. Aunt Sue and Uncle Ritchie were dazed at this transformation. He told them both that he would try to find a new job in a different city and so could they please take care of poor Andy? Aunt Sue and Uncle Ritchie agreed. Of course, Dad would be sending enough money for taking Andy’s care. And so Dad went away too. And so it was Aunt Sue, Uncle Ritchie, their three-year daughter, Jillian and me.

Dad used to visit us, maybe, once every six months or so. He would bring toys and gifts for me and Jillian. He did not stay with us; he preferred to stay at our old home. He used to stay for two, sometimes three days. He hardly met anyone. And then he used to come to us, say goodbye and leave. I never had a Dad. My Dad was just some kind of weirdo who came to see me every six months, hardly talk to me or even touch me, and then go away.

I loved Aunt Sue and Uncle Ritchie. Jillian was more than a sister; she was my best friend. I envied her. She had a loving mother and a doting father. I was their son too, but not quite. We both went to the same school. I know she hated her friends when they laughed at my “story.” But that was okay; I didn’t mind them. I was just getting used to it.

Uncle Ritchie died when I was fourteen. It was a gruesome accident. They had to search for seven hours until they could restore his body. Aunt Sue took it all bravely. She knew she couldn’t break down with two teenagers in her care. She was up and running after four days of mourning. But she could never be her old self. Her life was dented. It could never be repaired. She was a good parent but not a keen and observant one. Jillian started doing drugs. I had my own troubles. Aunt Sue couldn’t take this any more. She lost her sanity. She was moved to a sanatorium. All she could remember was me. She chatted away happily with me whenever I went to see her. She talked about you too, Mom. Her sister; who had gone wrong, horribly wrong. And then she used to lose it. She used to shudder violently and had to be held down by two nurses. I hated going to meet her. For her own good. I used to send her flowers. Daffodils. She loved daffodils.

I was seventeen. I had somehow convinced Jillian of her error. She had come clean after three weeks in a rehab. She promised she would do some good to her life. But life had other plans for her. She married a guy whom she loved. After two years of bliss, the guy left her. Jillian was depressed. She had given life a chance and life had derided her. She said goodbye to life after struggling for another year.

I was twenty one. Aunt Sue had wished to see me. The doctor at the sanatorium contacted me. I went to see her. She was waiting eagerly to meet me. As soon as she saw me, her face lit up. We chatted for almost an hour. And then she said, “Andy, yesterday Ritchie and Jillian had come to see me. Ritchie asked me to come with him. Jillian was looking so peaceful in that gorgeous white gown of hers. She was looking stunning. Did she get married Andy? I am tired Andrew. I need to be with my husband and daughter. Would you please let me go?” I couldn’t say a word. She was looking at me with eyes pleading. She had never mentioned Jillian all these years. She could not even remember anything about Uncle Ritchie and Jillian. I couldn’t believe anything she was saying. But all I said was yes. Her eyes brightened. She said, “Thank you, Andrew. You have been an angel. I love you.” I still cannot forget the look on her face. She placed her hand over mine, pressed it ever so gently, got up and walked away. I could only stare at her dumbly.

The next day in the morning, I got a call from the sanatorium that Aunt Sue had left the world in her sleep the previous night. We had a quite little funeral. I did not cry for her. I knew she was happy; wherever she might be. Dad came for the funeral. We drove home in utter silence. I hadn’t seen him in the last four years. He had married ten years back. His visits had become less frequent and more irregular after that. We reached home. He asked me to come with him. I declined. I wouldn’t stay with strangers. “Andy, there’s something I need to tell you. I am responsible for all this.” “What do you mean?” I had asked. “Your mother loved you. She went away. Because she could not endure it any longer. I wasn’t faithful to her. But she put a blind eye to it. For your sake. For the sake of our happy family. She did not elope with anybody, Andy. She just left us. What she did was completely justified. I am sorry Andy. I spoiled it all. Please forgive me if you can, son.” He left. Without another word. I sat there as if stunned by lightning. My father had ruined my life! But how could your running away be justified, Mom? What about me? I was a child of two years. How could you leave me?

I am thirty now. I survive with the knowledge that I have been living an unfair life for the past thirty years. I have no friends, Mom. I have no family. I am the owner of one of the world’s largest communication system companies. I have a palatial home with an army of forty five security guards and a hundred and fifty seven servants at my beck and call. I have a bedroom designed by the world’s best designers and a bed fit for a monarch. I have all the money in the world, Mom. And everyday, I fervently wish that it would all go away.

Yes, Mom. I wish that it would all go away. In return, can I get back the last twenty-eight years of my life? Is it too much that I’m asking for, Mom? Can we all just start life once more? Can we ask Dad to be considerate of your feelings and responsive to your love? Can we ask you to be a bit more tolerant? Can we ask Uncle Ritchie to be a bit more careful while driving? Can we ask Jillian to be a bit more patient? Can we ask Aunt Sue to be a bit more involved with her daughter’s life? And finally, Mom, can we ask the ghosts of my past to go away and not bother me anymore? I cannot sleep at night.

Lovingly yours,

Andy.          

Chronology of Veer Sawarkar's Life

Vinayak Damodar Sawarkar

28 May 1883 - Born in Bhagur, a tiny village in Dist. Nasik, Maharashtra
1892 - Lost his mother Radhabai
1898 - Took an oath before the family deity to conduct armed revolt against British Rule
09 Sep 1898 - Lost his father Damodarpant

01 Jan 1900 - Founded Mitra Mela, a secret revolutionary society
01 Mar 1901 - Married Yamuna (Mai)

19 Dec 1901 - Passed Matriculation examination

24 Jan 1902 - Joined Fergusson College, Pune

May 1904 - Founded Abhinav Bharat - A revolutionary organisation

Nov 1905 - Organised the first public bonfire of foreign clothes in Pune

Dec 1905 - Passed B.A. examination

June 1906 - Left for London
10 May 1907 - Celebrated Golden Jubilee of Indian War of Independence 1857 in London

June 1907 - Wrote the book “Joseph Mazzini” which was later published by Babarao Savarkar
1908 - Wrote 'Indian War of Independence 1857'. It was secretly published in Holland

May 1909 - Passed Bar-at-Law examination, but granting of permission to practice was denied
01 July 1909 - Madanlal Dhingra shot dead Curzon Wyllie in London

24 Oct 1909 - Vijayadashmi celebrated under the Chairmanship of Gandhi at India House, London

13 Mar 1910 - Arrested on arrival in London from Paris

08 Jul 1910 - Epic escape through the port hole of SS Morea while being taken to India
24 Dec 1910 - Awarded Transportation for Life

31 Jan 1911 - Awarded Transportation for Life for the second time, the only person in the history of the British Empire to have received it twice

04 Jul 1911 - Entered the Cellular Jail, Andamans

April 1919 - Yesuvahini, the wife of his elder brother passed away

21 May 1921 - Both brothers brought back to the Indian mainland
1921-1923 - Lodged at Alipore and Ratnagiri Jails

06 Jan 1924 - Released from Yerawada Prison and interned in Ratnagiri on condition that he would not participate in politics
07 Jan 1925 - Daughter Prabhat was born

10 Jan 1925 - A new weekly “Shraddhanand” launched in memory of Swami Shraddhanandji of Arya Samaj

Mar 1925 - Dr. Hedgewar, who was to found the RSS later, met Savarkar

01 Mar 1927 - Gandhi called on Savarkar at Ratnagiri

17 Mar 1928 - Son Vishwas was born

16 Nov 1930 - First interdining organized as a part of social reform campaign

Feb 1931 - Instrumental in establishment of Patitpavan Mandir open to all Hindus

25 Feb 1931 - Presided over Bombay Presidency Untouchability Eradication Conference

26 Apr 1931 - Chairman of the Somvanshi Mahar Parishad in the premises of Patitpavan Mandir

17 Sep 1931 - Arranged programmes such as keertan by a person belonging to the bhangi caste, interdining of 75 ladies as a part of social reform campaign
22 Sep 1931 - Prince of Nepal, Hem Bahadur Samsher Singh called on Savarkar

10 May 1937 - Unconditional release from internment at Ratnagiri

10 Dec 1937 - Elected as President of Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha at its 19th Session at Karnavati (Ahmedabad) and continued to be re-elected President for the next seven years

15 Apr 1938 - Elected as President of Marathi Sahitya Sammelan

01 Feb 1939 - Started unarmed resistance against the Nizam of Bhaganagar (Hyderabad)

22 Jun 1941 - Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose called on Savarkar

25 Dec 1941 - Bhagalpur struggle

May 1943 - Public felicitations on the occasion of 61st birth anniversary

14 Aug 1943 - University of Nagpur conferred Honorary D.Litt. on Savarkar

05 Nov 1943 - Elected president of Marathi Natya Sammelan at Sangli

16 Mar 1945 - Elder brother Babarao passed away

19 Apr 1945 - Presided over All India Princely States Hindu Sabha Conference at Baroda (Gujarat)

08 May 1945 - Daughter Prabhat married at Pune

Apr 1946 - Bombay Government lifted ban on Savarkar’s literature

15 Aug 1947 - Hoisted both Bhagwa and Tricolour Flags on Savarkar Sadanto celebrate India's independence

05 Feb 1948 - Arrested under the Preventive Detention Act after Gandhi's murder

10 Feb 1949 - Acquitted in Gandhi Murder Trial

19 Oct 1949 - Youngest brother Dr. Narayanrao Savarkar passed away

Dec 1949 - Inaugurated Calcutta session of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

04 Apr 1950 - Was arrested and detained in Belgaum jail on the eve of arrival of Pakistani Prime Minister Liaquat Ali in Delhi

May 1952 - Public function held at Pune to announce the dissolution of Abhinav Bharat, the revolutionary society having achieved its aim of freeing India

Feb 1955 - Presided over Silver Jubilee celebrations of Patitpavan Mandir at Ratnagiri

23 Jul 1955 - Was the Chief Speaker at Lokmanya Tilak Centenary Celebrations in Pune

10 Nov 1957 - Main speaker at the Centenary Celebrations of the Indian War of Independence 1857 held in New Delhi

28 May 1958 - Accorded a civic reception by Greater Bombay Municipal Corporation on the occasion of his Diamond Jubilee

08 Oct 1959 - University of Pune conferred honorary D. Litt. at his residence

24 Dec 1960 - Mrityunjay Divas celebration - a day set down for the release of Savarkar after completing the sentences of two Transportation for Life

15 Apr 1962 - Sri Prakash, Governor of Bombay called upon Savarkar at his residence to pay his respects

29 May 1963 - Hospitalized for a fracture in the leg

08 Nov 1963 - Savarkar’s wife Yamuna passed away

Sep 1965 - Taken seriously ill

01 Feb 1966 - Takes a decision to fast unto death

26 Feb 1966 - 10.30 a.m., at the age of 83, Savarkar left his mortal coil

27 Feb 1966 - Cremation at the electric crematorium, the final salute given by 2500 uniformed swayamsevaks of the RSS and millions of admirers across the country

Early Impressions of the British of Veer Sawarkar

Letter from Sir Richmond to R Ritchie dated 14th June 1906

L/P&S/7/317/2432 - Letter from Sir Richmond to R Ritchie dated 14th June 1906

V D Savarkar is a brahmin youth aged about 22. He was educated at the Fergusson College, Poona where he graduated. While in the college he attended a mass meeting of students under the presidency of N C Kelkar, (editor of Maratta) who addressed the meeting, advising students to support the "Swadeshi" movement after which the meeting was thrown open for discussion. It was at this meeting that Savarkar first came under notice as a fiery and unbridled speaker. It is reported that at this meeting Savarkar urged his countrymen to dispose everything that is English, and to abstain from purchasing foreign goods. He suggested that all students should burn their clothes made of English & Foreign cloth on Dasara day at Lakdipool.

For this breach of college discipline Savarkar was fined Rs 10. The fine was subscribed by the other students and handed over to Savarkar.

Since leaving college he has gone to Nasik, where he is taking a active part in the "Swadeshi" movement. At a meeting held at Nasik regarding the Bengal Government's student circular, Savarkar informed the audience that he was of the opinion that the movement was distinctly in the interests of civilisation and was not directed against the Government, and that they should not cease to participate in it and that no harm could befall those interesting themselves in the movement. At another meeting held at Nasik, Savarkar is reported to have made a rabid speech. But the details of this speech have not been furnished. The police have been requested by the District Magistrate to keep an eye on him.

Savarkar is apparently looked upon as Sine Qua Non (an essential or condition) by students, and recently he has been invited by them to establish in Poona a society for the political emancipation of India. Savarkar responded to the invitation and convened a meeting for the purpose at which he and others spoke. Savarkar wound up his address by dallying on the subject of youth and vigour, scoffed at the experience of old age, which he compared to faded flowers not fit for garlanding the goddess of nation, and thus led up to Shivaji and Ramdas and latter's advice as given in a stanza of which the first 3 lines may be translated as follows, "Collect many men, make their thoughts one, and fall together.”

The fourth line of the stanza was omitted by Savarkar but its very omission produced the desired effect. It runs in the "Mlenchhas." Savarkar excuses himself and said the assembly would understand what he intended to say but could not say it openly, as he was aware of the presence of detectives, a fact of which he was glad as if they helped in the work about to be taken up so much the better for the country.

Savarkar's quotation was taken up by repeated cries of "Bande Mataram," "Shri Shivaji Maharaj Ki Jai," "Shri Ramdas Ki Jai," etc. Savarkar continued that they had lost everything but that they should not shed tears, it behooved them to shed blood to regain what they had lost. Tears, he said, were woman's lot, work for men. He ended up by saying what they had lost was their religion and this is what they had to establish.

Savarkar is reported to be developing into a popular agitator and is proceeding to England to lay before the people there the grievances of his fellow countrymen. His expenses are to be defrayed out of the Shivaji scholarship started by S K Varma (Actually, Barrister Sardarsingh Rana (born 12 April 1870, in Katharia in Saurashtra) had announced three traveling fellowships of Rs. 2000 each. These fellowships were named after Maharana Pratap, Chhatrapati Shivaji and Akbar. Savarkar received the Shivaji fellowship on the recommendation of Lokmanya Tilak and Kaal editor Shivrampant Paranjpe) now residing in London.

The exact date of his departure is not known (on 09 June 1909, Savarkar embarked on S.S. Persia and reached London on 24 June 1906) but he is being entertained by those who sympathise with his cause as if he were on the point of leaving the country.
--------------------------------------
Remarks by W L Warner.
All we can do is to make his acquaintance and take notes, but not shadow him in any way. 3/6/06.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Ritchie

Mr Savarkar called on me today, by appointment, about obtaining an order for the House of Commons to hear the debate on the Indian Budget on the 20th July - a small man with an intelligent face and a nervous manner. He is staying with S K Varma at the India House and has entered Grays Inn to study for the Bar. Sir W Lee Warner saw him in my room and we agree in thinking that there is no objection to his being given the order he asks for.

W H C Wyllie. 18/7/06.

Abhinav Bharat, Sawarkar's vision and its gradual denigration

Vinayak Damodar Sawarkar, or Veer Sawarkar, formed the "Abhinav Bharat" in 1905 while at Pune's Fergusson College. It drew its name and inspiration from Mazzini's "Young Italy" and also also influenced by Thomas Frost’s Secret Societies of the European Revolution (1776-1876), a book dealing mostly with the Russian nihilists. Sawarkar’s "Abhinav Bharat" believed in revolutionary violence and was, indeed, responsible for the assassination of several British officers. It was disbanded in 1952.
The "new" Abhinav Bharat was formed by a man named Sameer Kulkarni (or, probably by Colonel Prasad Purohit). The details of this "new" Abhinav Bharat's involvement in terrorist activities, specifically in the Malegaon Bomb Blast Case can be read in detail in Christophe Jaffrelot's excellent article.
I only intend to lay before you, readers, the high ideals that the original Abhinav Bharat had. It's oath is a testimony to this. Now many people will take pride in the way of the "revolutonaries" and others will say that their path was destructive and reckless. We, too feel that Mahatma Gandhi's Non-Cooperation Movement which believed in Ahimsa (or non-violence) was responsible for getting Indians freedom from the Raj, but many would disagree. Nonetheless, revolutionaries like Sawarkar, Bhagat Singh and Bose will always command respect from Indians.
The oath of Abhinav Bharat-

BANDE MATARAM

In the name of God,
In the name of Bharat Mata,
In the name of all the Martyrs that have shed their blood for Bharat Mata,
By the Love, innate in all men and women, that I bear to the land of my birth,
wherein the sacred ashes of my forefathers, and which is the cradle of my
children,
By the tears of Hindi Mothers for their children whom the Foreigner has enslaved, imprisoned, tortured, and killed,

I, …
Convinced that without Absolute Political Independence or Swarajya my country can never rise to the exalted position among the nations of the earth which is Her due,
And Convinced also that that Swarajya can never be attained except by the waging of a bloody and relentless war against the Foreigner,
Solemnly and sincerely Swear that I shall from this moment do everything in
my power to fight for Independence and place the Lotus Crown of Swaraj
on the head of my Mother;
And with this object, I join the Abhinav Bharat, the revolutionary Society of all
Hindusthan, and swear that I shall ever be true and faithful to this my
solemn Oath, and that I shall obey the orders of this body;
If I betray the whole or any part of this solemn Oath, or if I betray this body or
any other body working with a similar object,

May I be doomed to the fate of a perjurer! 

Inside the mind of a revolutionary

Bhagat Singh's Statement Before the Lahore High Court Bench

[Through this brilliant statement Bhagat Singh demolished the basis of the Sessions Court judgement and emphasised the importance of motive. The motive of action, he argued, should be the main consideration while judging the offence of an accused.]

MY LORDS,
We are neither lawyers nor masters of English language, nor holders of degrees. Therefore, please do not expect any oratorial speech from us. We therefore pray that instead of going into the language mistakes of our statement Your Lordships will try to understand the real sense of it.
Leaving other points to our lawyers, I will confine myself to one point only. The point is very important in this case. The point is as to what were our intentions and to what extent we are guilty. This is a very complicated question and no one will be able to express before you that height to mental elevation which inspired us to think and act in a particular manner. We want that this should be kept in mind while assessing our intentions our offence. According to the famous jurist Solomon, one should not be punished for his criminal offence if his aim is not against law.
We had submitted a written statement in the Sessions Court. That statement explains our aim and, as such, explains our intentions also. But the leaned judge dismissed it with one stroke of pen, saying that "generally the operation of law is not affected by how or why one committed the offence. In this country the aim of the offence is very rarely mentioned in legal commentaries."
My Lords, our contention is that under the circumstances the learned judge ought to have judged us either by the result of our action or on the basis of the psychological part of our statement. But he did not take any of these factors into consideration.
The point to be considered is that the two bombs we threw in the Assembly did not harm anybody physically or economically. As such the punishment awarded to us is not only very harsh but revengeful also. Moreover, the motive knowing his psychology. And no one can do justice to anybody without taking his motive into consideration. If we ignore the motive, the biggest general of the words will appear like ordinary murderers; revenue officers will look like thieves and cheats. Even judges will be accused of murder. This way the entire social system and the civilisation will be reduced to murders, thefts and cheating. If we ignore the motive, the government will have no right to expect sacrifice from its people and its officials. Ignore the motive and every religious preacher will be dubbed as a preacher of falsehoods, and every prophet will be charged of misguiding crores of simple and ignorant people.
If we set aside the motive, then Jesus Christ will appear to be a man responsible for creating disturbances, breaking peace and preaching revolt, and will be considered to be a "dangerous personality" in the language of the law. But we worship him. He commands great respect in our hearts and his image creates vibrations of spiritualism amongst us. Why? Because the inspiration behind his actions was that of a high ideal. The rulers of that age could not recognise that high idealism. They only saw his outward actions. Nineteen centuries have passed since then. Have we not progressed during this period? Shall we repeat that mistake again? It that be so, then we shall have to admit that all the sacrifices of the mankind and all the efforts of the great martyrs were useless and it would appear as if we are still at the same place where we stood twenty centuries back.
From the legal point of view also, the question of motive is of special importance. Take the example of General Dyer. He resorted to firing and killed hundreds of innocent and unarmed people. But the military court did not order him to be shot. It gave him lakhs of rupees as award. Take another example. Shri Kharag Bahadur Singh, a young Gurkha, Killed a Marwari in Calcutta. If the motive be set aside, then Kharag Bahadur Singh ought to have been hanged. But he was awarded a mild sentence of a few years only. He was even released much before the expiry of his sentence. Was there any loophole in the law that he escaped capital punishment? Or, was the charge of murder not proved against him? Like us, he also accepted the full responsibility of his action, but he escaped death. He is free today. I ask Your Lordship, why was he not awarded capital punishment? His action was well calculated and well planned. From the motive end, his action was more serious and fatal than ours. He was awarded a mild punishment because his intentions were good. He was awarded a mild punishment because his intentions were good. He saved the society from a dirty leach who had sucked the life-blood of so many pretty young girls. Kharag Singh was given a mild punishment just to uphold the formalities of the law.
This principle (that the law does not take motive into consideration - ed.) is quite absurd. This is against the basic principles of the law which declares that "the law is for man and not man for the law". As such, why the same norms are not being applied to us also? It is quite clear that while convicting Kharag Singh his motive was kept in mind, otherwise a murderer can never escape the hangman's noose. Are we being deprived of the ordinary advantage of the law because our offence is against the government, or because our action has a political importance?
My Lords, under these circumstances, please permit us to assert that a government which seeks shelter behind such mean methods has no right to exist. If it is exists, it is for the time being only, and that too with the blood of thousands of people on its head. If the law does not see the motive there can be no justice, nor can there be stable peace.
Mixing of arsenic (poison) in the flour will not be considered to be a crime, provided its purpose is to kill rats. But if the purpose is to kill a man, it becomes a crime of murder. Therefore, such laws which do not stand the test of reason and which are against the principle of justice should be abolished. Because of such unjust laws, many great intellectuals had to adopt the path of revolt.
The facts regarding our case are very simple. We threw two bombs in the legislative Assembly on April 8, 1929. As a result of the explosion, a few persons received minor scratches. There was pandemonium in the chamber, hundreds of visitors and members of the Assembly ran out. Only my friend B.K. Dutt and I remained seated in the visitors gallery and offered ourselves for arrest. We were tried for attempt to murder, and convicted for life. As mentioned above, as a result of the bomb explosion, only four or five persons were slightly injured and one bench got damaged. We offered ourselves for arrest without any resistance. The Sessions Judge admitted that we could have very easily escaped, had we had any intention like that. We accepted our offence and gave a statement explaining our position. We are not afraid of punishment. But we do not want that we should be wrongly understood. The judge remover a few paragraphs from our statement. This we consider to be harmful for our real position.
A proper study of the full text of our statement will make it clear that, according to us, our country is passing through a delicate phase. We saw the coming catastrophe and thought it proper to give a timely warning with a loud voice, and we gave the warning in the manner we thought proper. We may be wrong. Our line of thinking and that of the learned judge may be different, but that does not bean that we be deprived of the permission to express our ideas, and wrong things be propagated in our name.
In our statement we explained in detail what we mean by "Long Live Revolution" and "Down With Imperialism". That formed the crux of our ideas. That portion was removed from our statement. Generally a wrong meaning is attributed to the word revolution. That is not our understanding. Bombs and pistols do not make revolution. That is not our understanding. Bombs and pistols do not make revolution. The sword of revolution is sharpened on the whetting-stone of ideas. This is what we wanted to emphasise. By revolution we mean the end of the miseries of capitalist wars. It was not proper to pronounce judgement without understanding our aims and objects and the process of achieving them. To associate wrong ideas with our names is out and out injustice.
It was very necessary to give the timely warning that the unrest of the people is increasing and that the malady may take a serious turn, if not treated in time and properly. If our warning is not heeded, no human power will be able to stop it. We took this step to give proper direction to the storm. We are serious students of history. We believe that, had the ruling powers acted correctly at the proper time, there would have been no bloody revolutions in France and Russia. Several big power of the world tried to check the storm of ideas and were sunk in the atmosphere of bloodshed. The ruling people cannot change the flow of the current. We wanted to give the first warning. Had we aimed at killing some important personalities, we would have failed in the attainment of our aim.
My Lords, this was the aim and the spirit behind our action, and the result of the action corroborates our statement. There is one more point which needs elucidation, and that is regarding the strength of the bombs. Had we had no idea of the strength of the bombs, there would have been no question of our throwing them in the presence of our respected national leader like Pandit Motilal Nehru, Shri Kelkar, Shri Jayaker and Shri Jinnah. How could we have risked the lives of our leaders? After all we are not mad and, had we been so, we would have certainly been sent to the lunatic asylum, instead of being put in jail. We had full knowledge about the strength of the bombs and that is why we acted with so much confidence. It was very easy to have thrown the bombs on the occupied benches, but it was difficult to have thrown them on unoccupied seats. Had we not of saner mind or had we been mentally unbalanced, the bombs would have fallen on occupied benches and not in empty places. Therefore I would say that we should be rewarded for the courage we showed in carefully selecting the empty places. Under these conditions, My Lords, we think we have not been understood, My Lords, we think we have not been understood properly. We have not come before you to get our sentences reduced. We have come here to clarify our position. We want that we should not be given any unjust treatment, nor should any unjust opinion be pronounced about us. The question of punishment is of secondary importance before us.

Indianised English

Hello People,
Received a mail from my good mate, Pranav. It was an article on www.cnngo.com written by Daniel DMello. Thought of sharing it with you all. Here it goes,

"10 classic Indianisms: 'Doing the needful' and more

How to fix grammatically insane phrases found in common Indian English

We are a unique species, aren’t we? Not humans. Indians, I mean. No other race speaks or spells like we do.

Take greetings for example.

A friendly clerk asking me for my name is apt to start a conversation with, “What is your good name?” As if I hold that sort of information close to my heart and only divulge my evil pseudonym. Bizarre.

I call these Indianisms.

Which got me thinking about a compilation, a greatest hits of the most hilarious Indianisms out there. And here they are. The most common ones, and my favorites among them.

1. 'Passing out'

When you complete your studies at an educational institution, you graduate from that institution.

You do not "pass out" from that institution.

To "pass out" refers to losing consciousness, like after you get too drunk, though I’m not sure how we managed to connect graduating and intoxication.

Oh wait … of course, poor grades throughout the year could lead to a sudden elation on hearing you’ve passed all of your exams, which could lead to you actually "passing out," but this is rare at best.

2. 'Kindly revert'

One common mistake we make is using the word revert to mean reply or respond.

Revert means "to return to a former state."

I can’t help thinking of a sarcastic answer every time this comes up.

“Please revert at the earliest.”

3. 'Years back'

“Sure, I’ll set my biological clock to regress evolutionarily to my original primitive hydrocarbon state at 1 p.m. today."

If it happened in the past, it happened years ago, not "years back."

Given how common this phrase is, I’m guessing the first person who switched "ago" for "back" probably did it years back. See what I mean?

And speaking of "back," asking someone to use the backside entrance sounds so wrong.

“So when did you buy this car?”

“Oh, years back.”

“Cool, can you open the backside? I’d like to get a load in.”

4. 'Doing the needful'

Try to avoid using the phrase "do the needful." It went out of style decades ago, about the time the British left.

Using it today indicates you are a dinosaur, a dinosaur with bad grammar.

You may use the phrase humorously, to poke fun at such archaic speech, or other dinosaurs.

“Will you do the needful?”

“Of course, and I’ll send you a telegram to let you know it's done too.”

5. 'Discuss about'

“What shall we discuss about today?”

“Let’s discuss about politics. We need a fault-ridden topic to mirror our bad grammar.”

You don't "discuss about" something; you just discuss things.

The word "discuss" means to "talk about". There is no reason to insert the word "about" after "discuss."

That would be like saying "talk about about." Which "brings about" me to my next peeve.

6. 'Order for'

"Hey, let’s order for a pizza."

"Sure, and why not raid a library while we’re about it.”

When you order something, you "order" it, you do not "order for" it.

Who knows when or why we began placing random prepositions after verbs?

7. 'Do one thing'

Perhaps somewhere in our history someone lost a little faith in the "doing" word and added "for" to make sure their order would reach them. They must have been pretty hungry

When someone approaches you with a query, and your reply begins with the phrase "do one thing," you're doing it wrong.

"Do one thing" is a phrase that does not make sense.

It is an Indianism. It is only understood in India. It is not proper English. It is irritating.

There are better ways to begin a reply. And worst of all, any person who starts a sentence with "do one thing" invariably ends up giving you at least five things to do.

“My computer keeps getting hung.”

“Do one thing. Clear your history. Delete your cookies. Defrag your hardrive. Run a virus check. Restart your computer... .”

8. 'Out of station'

“Sorry I can’t talk right now, I’m out of station.”

“What a coincidence, Vijay, I’m in a station right now.”

Another blast from the past, this one, and also, extremely outdated.

What's wrong with "out of town" or "not in Mumbai" or my favorite "I'm not here"?

9. The big sleep

"I’m going to bed now, sleep is coming."

"OK, say hi to it for me."

While a fan of anthropomorphism, I do have my limits. "Sleep is coming" is taking things a bit too far.

Your life isn’t a poem. You don’t have to give body cycles their own personalities.

10. 'Prepone'

“Let’s prepone the meeting from 11 a.m. to 10 a.m.”

Because the opposite of postpone just has to be prepone, right?

"Prepone" is probably the most famous Indianism of all time; one that I’m proud of, and that I actually support as a new entry to all English dictionaries.

Because it makes sense. Because it fills a gap. Because we need it. We’re Indians, damn it. Students of chaos theory.

We don’t have the time to say silly things like "could you please bring the meeting forward."

Prepone it is.

There are many more pure grammatical "gems" in what we call Indian English. Perhaps in time I’ll list some more. And perhaps in the near future, we’ll get better at English.

Till then, kindly adjust. 

A lesser-known Satyagrahi

Satyagraha, Gandhi-style, is in vogue! Every Tom, Dick and Hazare wants to emulate the Mahatma. Is it wow or is it not? That is for the civil society to decide. 

A few days ago, a news channel showed a piece on two Satyagrahis, Anna Hazare, the diminutive social activist from Ralegan-Siddhi in Maharashtra, who after giving sleepless nights to politicians of the state is out to give the politicos in Delhi (New) a piece of his mind and a lesser known activist called Irom Sharmila.

For the uninformed, Irom Chanu Sharmila (also known as the Iron Lady of Manipur) has been fasting for not ten days or ten weeks or even ten months but for the past ten years! Believe it or faint! She is asking the Government to repeal the draconian Armed Forces Special Protection Act (AFSPA) from her state.

Now you may ask what the f*** is this AFSPA?

The Act was passed on September 11, 1958 by the Parliament of India which conferred special powers to the armed forces in “disturbed areas” like the state of J&K and the north-eastern states. The state administration can call for Central help in cases of emergency situations like militancy. The Centre can send in the Armed Forces whose presence is legitimized by the AFSPA. With the AFSPA in place, the Armed Forces can take over from the local law-enforcement agencies like the police force.

Under the Act, an officer of the Armed Forces can, in short, kill any person he sees as a potential threat, arrest any person without a warrant and search any person’s home or other premises without a search warrant. It also gives the officers of the Armed Forces immunity for their actions. They cannot be dragged to a court of law for the actions committed while serving in a place where the AFSPA is in force. As common sense suggests, it creates autocratic tyrants out of officers of the Armed Forces, since they are always on the edge in emergency situations. Violence has, in fact, increased since the Act was enforced. There have been protests against the Act wherein civilians have blamed the Armed Forces for wrongfully killing, abducting perfectly harmless civilians in the name of curbing militancy and rebellious tendencies.

On 2 November 2000, ten civilians were (allegedly) shot and killed by the Assam Rifles in Malom, a small town in the Imphal valley in Manipur. Out of the dead was a 62 year old woman and 18 year old Sinam Chandramani, a 1988 National Child Bravery Award winner; hardly candidates with militant tendencies. This came to be known as the “Malom Massacre.” This is when Sharmila, the daughter of a Grade 4 veterinary worker began to fast in protest of the killings. Her satyagraha is against the law which she wants to be repealed. In 2004, the Government had set up the Jeevan Reddy Commission, which recommended that the Act be repealed. But the Government failed to act upon the recommendations of the Committee’s report arguing that it would be nigh impossible for the Armed Forces to function in “disturbed areas” without the Act.

There have been gross violations of human rights by the Armed Forces in areas where the AFSPA is in force, a fact to which many government officials agree.

Irom Chanu Sharmila has become an icon of public resistance for people who know about her fight. She may be a heroine in her land, but in this part of the country, where we still struggle to remember the names of all the north eastern states (and their capitals), hardly anybody knows about her or the law she is fighting against. An interesting fact is that only three days into her huger strike, she was arrested by the police and charged with “attempt to commit suicide.” One wonders why the Government did not arrest Anna Hazare on the same pretext.

Despite the odds, Irom Sharmila continues her struggle. Time the Government paid heed to her demands and we as Indians understood what the lady stands for.

Jai Hind!