283 / 822
FREEDOM MOVEMENT
Eternal India
encyclopedia
In November 1945 the British Govern-
ment decided to try three captured INA sol-
diers in public on the charge of
“waging war
against the King
It decided to hold the trials
in Delhi’s Red Fort. A Hindu, a Muslim and
a Sikh — P.K.Sehgal, Shah Nawaz Khan and
Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon — were picked.
While writing an introduction to a book on the
INA trial Jawaharlal Nehru reminisced about
another trial that had been held in the Red Fort
eighty years ago,
"the trial of the last of a great
line. That trial put a final end to a chapter of
India’s history.
”
He was referring to the trial of Bahadur
Shah Zafar, the last Mughal King who was a
king only in name. His jurisdiction was con-
fined to the four walls of the Red Fort and he
received a monthly pension of Rs. One lakh
from the British. He was proclaimed Emperor
by rebellious sepoys and officers from Meerut
who forced their way into the Red Fort on May
11,1857 and made him give them his support
and blessings. After the failure of the Revolt
the aged 84-year old
“Emperor"
was put on
trial in the Red Fort for “aiding and abetting
the crime of mutiny and rebellion against the
state.”
Bahadur Shah’s defence was that he
could not be held responsible for whatever
the rebels did during the mutiny as these
acts were committed not under his orders
but of their own free will. He stated that his
signatures on various firmans were ob-
tained under duress.
After a trial lasting 21 days Bahadur Shah
was found guilty of all the charges and sen-
tenced to be transported for life to Rangoon.
He left Delhi in October 1858 and died in
Rangoon in 1862.
Surendranath Banerjea
Surendranath Baneijea was one of the first
Indians to be admitted to the Indian Civil
Service, the so-called “steel frame” of British
administration. He graduated from Calcutta
University in 1868 and proceeded to England
along with Romesh Chandra Dutt and Bihari
Lai Gupta to compete for the Indian Civil
Service. He passed the competitive examina-
tion in 1869. There was some controversy
over his exact age because of which he was
disqualified. However the court in London
settled the issue in his favour. He returned to
India in 1871 and was posted to Sylhet as
Assistant Magistrate. Mr. Sutherland, the
District Magistrate, took advantage of his
failure to correct a false report prepared by a
NOTABLE TRIALS
subordinate to have him dismissed — a pun-
ishment far more severe than English mem-
bers of the ICS received for similar oversights.
Surendranath went to London to appeal to the
India Office. When this was denied he ap-
peared for the bar examinations but was re-
fused again. He returned to Calcutta con-
vinced that
“the personal wrong done to me
was an illustration of the impotency of our
people
” and determined to spends his life
“redressing our wrongs and protecting our
rights, personal and collective. ”
In April 1883 Surendranath Baneijea wrote
a leading article in the English newspaper he
was editing,
The Bengalee,
based on a report
in the
Brahmo Public Opinion
that one of the
judges of the Calcutta High Court, Justice
Norris, had ordered a Hindu litigant to pro-
duce his household deity in court.
In his article Surendranath Banerjea wrote
:
“We have now amongst us a judge who, if he
does not actually recall to mind the days of
Jeffreys and Scroggs, has certainly done
enough within the short time that he has filled
the High Court bench to show how unworthy
he is of his high office
...."
The article concluded:
"It does seem to us
that some public steps should be taken to put
a quietus to the wild eccentricities of this
young man and raw dispenser of justice. ”
Surendranath was served with a notice for
contempt. In his affidavit, though admitting
that the report on which he had written the
article was inaccurate and expressing his re-
gret over his observations which he withdrew
unreservedly, Surendranath maintained that
they were made bona fide without any motive
other than to promote public good.
Surendranath Banerjea was jailed for two
months. Public reaction was immediate. Shops
were closed and business suspended in Cal-
cutta on the day of his imprisonment. Protest
meetings were held.
The trial generated a wave of political
consciousness in India. Twice president of the
Indian National Congress (1895 and 1902),
Surendranath Banerjea left it in 1918 to head
the All-India Liberal Foundation when the
younger elements in the Congress threatened
to obstruct the introduction of the Montagu-
Chelmsford Reforms. His persistence in pur-
suing his course surmounting difficulties
earned him the nickname of “Surrender-not”
Banerjea.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak
Bal Gangadhar Tilak was tried on three
occasions, in 1897,1908 and 1916 for sedition.
He was tried in 1897 for publishing an article
in
Kesari,
his Marathi weekly. He was
sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment.
In 1908 he was again brought to trial for
sedition following the publication of editorials
in
Kesari
commenting on a bomb explosion in
Muzzaffarpur (Bihar) by Bengali terrorists in
which two British women were killed.
Tilak was detained in jail after his arrest.
A bail petition was moved on his behalf by
M. A. Jinnah who argued that Tilak was under
treatment for diabetes and that the English
translation of the Marathi articles in
Kesari,
on which the charges had been based, were
full of errors. However, bail was refused. As
the paper was published from Poona the trial
should have been held in that city. But the
venue was shifted to Bombay since the Gov-
ernment feared public demonstrations. Tilak
conducted his own defence. He argued that
the English translation of more than a dozen
words used in the editorials was misleading
and gave the correct translation. Tilak said:
“The charge is based not upon the original
Marathi but upon the translation. It should
have been based upon the original Marathi
articles and then the translations ought to
have been put in. ”
Tilak submitted that it was his duty as a
public worker and a journalist to indulge in
healthy criticism of the administration. The
jury composed of six Europeans, two Parsis
and one Jew returned a verdict of guilty.
Before being sentenced to six years transpor-
tation to Mandalay in Burma, he was asked by
Justice Davar whether he had anything to say
in his defence. He then uttered the words
which are enshrined on a tablet in the central
room of the Bombay High Court:
“All I wish
to say is that in spite of the verdict of the jury,
I maintain that I am innocent. There are
higher powers that rule the destiny of things
and it may be the will of Providence that the
cause I represent may prosper more by my
suffering than by my remaining free. ”
Tilak’s third trial took place in 1916 on his
release after serving his six-year term in
Mandalay. He was prosecuted for sedition but
no jail sentence was imposed.
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
Vinayak
Damodar
Savarkar
created
landmarks in legal history. He was sentenced
to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment.