đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș ole-birk-laursen-anarchist-anti-imperialism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:07:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchist Anti-Imperialism Author: Ole Birk Laursen Date: 15 February 2018 Language: en Topics: anti-imperialism, Guy Aldred, India, national liberation Source: Retrieved on 31st March 2021 from https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/sTsJf2vMbcsMK4ZCi5fQ/full Notes: Published in The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, pp. 286â303
This article examines the British anarchist Guy Aldredâs involvement in
the Indian revolutionary movement from 1909 to 1914 in order to reflect
on solidarities and antagonisms between anarchism and anti-colonial
movements in the early twentieth century. Drawing on Aldredâs writings,
court material and intelligence reports, it explores, first, his
decision to print the suppressed Indian nationalist periodical The
Indian Sociologist in August 1909 and, second, his involvement in
Vinayak Damodar Savarkarâs disputed arrest and deportation, which was
brought to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in October
1910. In spite of recent attempts by historians to bring the Indian
revolutionary movement into much closer conjunction with anarchism than
previously assumed, Aldredâs engagement with the Indian freedom struggle
has escaped sustained historical attention. Addressing this silence, the
article argues that Aldredâs anti-imperialism was rooted in his
anarchist visions of freedom, including freedom of the press, and
reveals a more unusual concern with the question of colonialism than
shown by almost any other British anarchist in the early twentieth
century. At the same time, it cautions that Aldred was blind to the
problems of Indian nationalism, especially the Hindu variety espoused by
Savarkar, which leaves his anarchist anti-imperialism much compromised.
---
In November 2015, the benchers of the Honourable Society of the Inner
Temple decided to reinstate the former Indian lawyer and nationalist
Shyamaji Krishnavarma âin recognition of the fact that the cause of
Indian home rule, for which he fought, was not incompatible with
membership of the bar and that by modern standards he did not receive an
entirely fair hearingâ.[1] As an advocate of non-parliamentarian
anti-colonial nationalism, Krishnavarma was the founder of the Indian
revolutionary movement in Britain; in the space of six months in 1905,
he set up scholarships for Indian students to study in Britain, the
penny monthly The Indian Sociologist, the Indian Home Rule Society and
India House, a hostel for Indian students in London.[2] Throughout its
five-year existence, India House became a centre for numerous Indian
nationalists such as Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Virendranath
Chattopadhyaya, V. V. S. Aiyar, M. P. T. Acharya, Lala Har Dayal and
Madan Lal Dhingra. Leading socialists Henry Mayers Hyndman, a long-time
supporter of the Indian nationalists in Britain, and Keir Hardie, the
Labour MP, as well as anarchists Thomas Keell, editor and printer of the
Freedom Groupâs monthly publication Freedom, and Guy A. Aldred, editor
and printer of the publication The Herald of Revolt, also passed through
the hostel.[3]
In February and March 1909, Krishnavarma published a number of letters
in The Times newspaper, in which he defended the killing of British
officials and innocent bystanders because âthose who habitually live and
associate with wrongdoers or robbers [and Indian Nationalists regard all
Englishmen in India as robbers] do so at their own
perilâ.[4]Furthermore, a public quarrel in The Times with Chattopadhyaya
over leadership of the exiled Indians and revolutionary methods
attracted unwanted attention from the Inner Temple, which subsequently
decided to disbar Krishnavarma on 30 April 1909.[5] As another
consequence of his public defence of political assassination,
Krishnavarma found himself in need of a new printer for The Indian
Sociologist. In April 1909, he asked Thomas Keell whether he would take
on this printing. But Keellâs estimate was too high so Krishnavarma
instead approached Twentieth Century Press, which also printed the
Social Democratic Federationâs paper Justice, edited by Henry Mayers
Hyndman.
However, the contract eventually went to Arthur Fletcher Horsley, whom
Krishnavarma had also contacted three years earlier but was otherwise
not connected to the Indians in London, and he printed the May, June and
July issues.[6]
In the July 1909 issue of The Indian Sociologist, Krishnavarma repeated
his defence of political murder, writing that
[a]t the risk of alienating the sympathies and good opinion of almost
all our old friends and acquaintances in England and some of our past
helpmates in India, we repeat that political assassination is not
murder, and that the rightful employment of physical force connotes
âforce used defensively against force used aggressivelyâ as aptly
expressed by the late Auberon Herbert in his Herbert Spencer Lecture at
Oxford in 1906.[7]
When former India House-resident Madan Lal Dhingra assassinated
political aide-de-camp Sir William Hutt Curzon Wyllie on the front steps
of the Imperial Institute at an âAt Homeâ event organised by the
National Indian Association on 1 July 1909, Krishnavarmaâs premonitory
defence of political assassination natu-rally brought The Indian
Sociologist and the India House group even further into the spotlight of
the Special Branch of the Department of Criminal Intelligence at
Scotland Yard. While Krishnavarma edited the publication from Paris,
where he had resided since June 1907 and could therefore not be
prosecuted, Horsley was immediately arrested and charged with printing
seditious material. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four months
in prison.[8]
Upon hearing that the government had suppressed The Indian Sociologist
and charged Horsley with sedition, Aldred contacted Krishnavarma in late
July 1909 and offered to print the periodical with the Bakunin Press,
which he had set up with Charles Lahr in 1907. Krishnavarma responded
that âI approve of your idea of reprinting portions of the prosecuted
numbers of my paper and the reprinted portions with any remarks you may
make thereon may be circulated along with The Indian Sociologist without
mention that it is a supplementâ.[9] Aldred printed the August 1909
issue, in which Krishnavarma reiterated that âpolitical assassination is
not murderâ and, defending Dhingra, wrote âI frankly admit I approve of
the deed, and regard its author as a martyr in the cause of Indian
independenceâ.[10] As had happened to Horsley, Aldred was arrested on 25
August 1909 and appeared at the Bow Street Police Court two days later,
charged with âhaving unlawfully printed, published and caused to be
printed and published, a certain scandalous and seditious libel in the
form of a printed publication called the âIndian Sociologistâ dated
August 1909â.[11] At the trial on 7 September 1909, Aldred was found
guilty and sentenced to 12 monthsâ imprisonment as a first-class
misdemeanant.[12]
In the wake of Dhingraâs assassination of Curzon Wyllie, the Department
of Criminal Intelligence increased surveillance of India House and tried
to pin the murder on Vinayak Savarkar, the leader of the Indian
nationalists in London.
Vinayakâs brother Ganesh had been arrested in India in early June 1909
for publishing seditious literature, and was tried under Sections 121,
121A and 124A of the Indian Penal Code. On 8 June 1909, Ganesh Savarkar
was found guilty and sentenced to transportation for life. The
Department of Criminal Intelligence believed that the murder of Curzon
Wyllie had been orchestrated by Vinayak Savarkar to avenge his brotherâs
deportation.[12] To avoid arrest, Savarkar fled to Paris in January 1910
and joined the exiled revolutionaries in the Paris Indian Society. On 22
February 1910, acting on a warrant issued from the Bombay High Court on
8 February, the Bow Street Police Court issued a warrant for Savarkarâs
arrest under Sections 121, 121A and 124A of the Indian Penal Code,
charged with sedition and waging war against the king, collecting of
arms and abetment of murder, as well as his involvement in the Nasik
Conspiracy Case, which all came within the Fugitive Offendersâ Act of
1881.[13] Despite warnings from his compatriots in Paris, Savarkar
returned to London on 13 March 1910, and he was immediately arrested
upon his arrival at Victoria Station.[14]
Temporarily held in Brixton Prison, it was decided that, because he was
to be tried under the Indian Penal Code, he should stand trial in India.
Savarkar embarked the SS Morea, a P&O mail ship, on 1 July 1910, and, as
the ship lay outside Marseilles a week later, he managed to escape
through a porthole and swim onto French territory, where he approached a
policeman and claimed asylum. However, the policeman returned him to the
British authorities on the Morea, and the vessel with Savarkar on board
reached Bombay on 22 July 1910.[15] The Indian nationalists and their
allies immediately claimed that Savarkarâs return to the British
authorities was in violation of French asylum laws as well as
international laws, and they took the case to the Permanent Court of
Arbitration at The Hague on 25 October 1910.[16] Meanwhile, Aldred was
released from prison on 2 July 1910âtwo months of his sentence being
remittedâand immediately set up the Savarkar Release Committee.[17]
Throughout the next four years, Aldred advocated Savarkarâs case in his
paper The Herald of Revolt and became increasingly involved in the
Indian revolutionary struggle for independence, striking up long-lasting
friendships with some of the Indian nationalists.[18]
Drawing on essays from The Indian Sociologist, The Herald of Revolt and
Aldredâs autobiographical writings as well as court material and
intelligence reports, this article examines Aldredâs involvement with
the Indian revolutionary movement from 1909 to 1914 and explores, first,
his decision to print The Indian Sociologist and, second, his
involvement with the Savarkar case in the light of his anarchist
principle of freedom. Aldred had contributed two pieces on the Denshawai
incident in Egypt to Justice in 1906, an essay on French colonialism in
Algeria to The Voice of Labour in 1907 and took a general interest in
the colonial question, writing several pieces on Ireland and South
Africa in The Herald of Revolt as well.[19] However, between 1909 and
1914, he published 18 essays on British imperialism in India and it was
through his engagement with the Indian nationalists that he most clearly
articulated what I term âanarchist anti-imperialismâ. This involved a
praxis of actively defending the Indiansâ right to free speech, grounded
in his anarchist belief in freedom and duty to act, rather than adopting
a position of solidarity. In fact, I suggest that Aldredâs anarchist
vision of freedom is central to his engagement with the Indian
nationalists and reveals a more unusual concern with the question of
Indian anti-colonialism than shown by almost any other British anarchist
in the early twentieth century. In other words, it says much about the
limitations of British anarchistsâ understanding of anti-colonial
struggles as they often rejected such aspirations because of their
nationalist character. This was exem-plified, paradoxically, by Aldredâs
partner Rose Witcop, who dismissed the Indian nationalistsâ struggles as
âmerely the efforts of rising intellectuals to a dangerous establishment
of Nationalism and a bourgeois republicâ.[20] Whereas anarchists in
Britain, in principle, were sympathetic to anti-colonial independence
struggles, Aldredâs involvement with the Indian nationalists suggests
rather a praxis of anarchist anti-imperialism. This was based on his
belief that, whether or not their values corresponded, socialists had a
duty to support anti-colonial nationalist struggles for
self-determination to fight common enemies. In other words, the
nationalist character of Indian anti-colonialism, for Aldred, was less
important than the anti-imperial principle of freedom for oppressed
peoples. However, in adopting this praxis and engagement with the Indian
nationalists, he was almost blind to the problems of Indian nationalism,
especially the Hindu variety espoused by Savarkar and Har Dayal.
Ultimately, I suggest in the epilogue, this myopia leaves Aldredâs
anarchist anti-imperialism much compromised.
What is more, I caution that, while Aldred sympathised with the Indian
struggle for freedom, only a few of the Indian revolutionaries, such as
Har Dayal and Acharya, embraced anarchist ideologies and remained
friends with Aldred.[21] Krishnavarma, on the other hand, emphatically
stated that, âas the goal of the Indian Nationalists is to form a
National Government in the place of the present alien despotism, the
words âanarchyâ and âanarchistsâ cannot possibly have any application in
the present caseâ.[22] Indeed, while Krishnavarma was inspired by the
libertarianism of Herbert Spencer and Auberon Herbert in his
articulation of anti-colonialism and violent resistance, the Indian
nationalists had little direct contact with British anarchists, let
alone other prominent exiled anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin, Rudolf
Rocker or Errico Malatesta, who were all living in exile in Britain in
the early twentieth century. An examination of Aldredâs involvement with
the Indian nationalists, in other words, opens a window onto the Indian
revolutionary movement in Britain and illuminates the anarchistsâ
ambivalence towards the cause of independence.
In pursuing these arguments, this article enters into critical dialogue
with recent scholarly attempts to bring the history of Indian
anti-colonialism into much closer conjunction with anarchism than
previously assumed.[23] While I applaud such much-needed efforts to
decolonise anarchist socialism, there is as also reason to challenge the
British anarchistsâ relation to the colonial question and bring to light
histories of antagonism and incompatibility. In other words, an
assessment of Aldredâs anarchist anti-imperialism sheds light on the
fraught relationship between anarchism and anti-colonialism in early
twentieth-century Britain. To investigate this thoroughly, after a brief
biographical outline of Aldredâs early years, the article proceeds to
discuss his position on the British left as a non-aligned
anarchist-communist and staunch defender of the freedom of the press,
before examining his involvement with the Indian nationalists.
Born on 5 November 1886, Aldred was raised by his mother in Clerkenwell,
London. They lived with her parents, and Aldredâs grandfather Charles
Holds-worth, a bookbinder who had supported Dadabhai Naorojiâs
nationalist efforts in the late nineteenth century, exerted a
particularly potent influence on him, stimulating his interest in
India.[24] Brought up as an evangelical Christian, his first publication
âThe Last Days: Peace or Warâ (1902) was in the cause of Christian
pacifist opposition to the Boer War. However, by 1904 he had abandoned
religion, but retained his mission to preach, often through letters to
the press. In November 1904, he began writing for the Agnostic Journal,
a free-thought weekly edited by William Stewart Ross. At the journalâs
offices in Farringdon Road, he met the Scottish radical journalist John
Morrison Davidson and was introduced to the lives of Charles Bradlaugh,
a vocal supporter of the Indian National Congress, and Richard Carlile,
a defender of freedom of the press.[25] Carlile, in particular, had a
profound impact on Aldredâs anarchist vision of freedom. However,
according to Aldredâs autobiography No Traitorâs Gait, it was after
hearing Daniel de Leon speak at Clerkenwell Green in 1904 that he became
interested in politics, and he joined the Social Democratic Federation
(SDF) in March 1905.[26]
Henry Mayers Hyndman had established the SDF in 1881 and, until it
merged with other socialist groups to form the British Socialist Party
in 1911, it was âthe major British representative of
Marxismâ.[27]Although he was a supporter of the moderate Indian
nationalist Dadabhai Naoroji and the Indian National Congress, Hyndman
often advocated more radical methods against the British in India. He
opened Krishnavarmaâs India House on 1 July 1905, remarking that
âloyalty to Great Britain means treachery to Indiaâ, and frequently
addressed the question of colonialism in the SDFâs paper Justice.[28]
Aldred applied his journalistic talents to writing for Justice and the
Social Democrat, but resigned from the party in September 1906 following
disagreements over the SDFâs support of Socialist Sunday Schools.[29]
However, it is likely that Aldred first became aware of the Indian
nationalists in London through Hyndman.
By the end of 1906, Aldred gravitated towards anti-parliamentary
commun-ism and approached the Freedom Group, established by Peter
Kropotkin in 1886. In addition to publishing Freedom, members John
Turner, Alfred Marsh and Thomas Keell produced the syndicalist weekly
The Voice of Labour from January 1907. Aldred contributed to all 30
issues of this publication under his own name or as Ajax Junior, and his
involvement with the Freedom Group brought him into the spotlight of the
Department of Criminal Intelligence.[30] At a benefit meeting for The
Voice of Labour at the Workersâ Friend Club in Jubilee Street in
February 1907, he met Rose Witcop, the sister of Milly Witcop, Rudolf
Rockerâs partner. Aldred formed an open relationship with Rose, which,
as Maia Ramnath has noted, later sealed the friendship with Har Dayal,
who shared similar beliefs in free love.[31] As a critic of orthodox
Marxism as well as what he saw as Kropotkinâs theoretical anarchism,
Aldred split with the Freedom Group in favour of direct action and, in
need of a political propaganda organ, set up the Bakunin Press with
Charles Lahr. Aldredâs rejection of both Marxism and anarchism, as
promulgated through groups and organisations, has made it difficult to
place him within any political tradition in Britain. However, I suggest
that his attempt to âbridge the gap between Marxism and anarchismâ, to
paraphrase Ruth Kinna, and articulate a non-aligned position on the
British left allowed him to engage with the question of Indian
nationalism on his own terms.[32] It is from this position âas an
activist and Bakunistâ, as Kinna has argued, that Aldred developed the
two outstanding themes of his socialism: âduty and freedomâ.[33]
Aldredâs commitment to freedom included freedom of the press, and he
mod-elled himself as an advocate of the free press in the tradition of
Richard Carlile, the âsingle-eyed prophet of liberty ⊠who had the
honour of vindicating the freedom of the Pressâ.[34] Whereas Kropotkin
called William Godwin âthe father of English Anarchismâ, Aldred ranked
him as inferior to Carlile, who was âpractical Anarchist in his outlook
on social ordinancesâalmost Communist in his recognition of the
class-war existent in societyâ.[35] It is this link between anarchism
and freedom of the press that lies behind the logic of printing The
Indian Sociologist, but Aldred also extended that freedom to include
freedom from British imperialism. In fact, in the foreword to No
Traitorâs Gait, he wrote that âa kind of common completeness links
Savarkar and myself with [Richard] Carlile. We are the corner stones
that the builders of the temple have despised and rejected.â[36]
Rejecting what he saw as theoretical Marxism and anarchism and, in the
process, alienating many friends on the British left, Aldred earned the
nick-name âthe guy they all dreadâ. Against the theoreticians, Aldred
instead engaged in direct action and developed a form of socialism that
was both practical and anti-imperialist.[37] According to one biographer
of Savarkar, in March 1909 Aldred brought V. I. Lenin to India House,
where three to four meetings occurred between Savarkar and Lenin, and
Dhingra was present at one of them.[38] However, there are no other
records of such meetings taking place, but the Department of Criminal
Intelligence reported that many Indians frequented Tom Keellâs offices
during April.[39] While Keell and Aldred were no longer working
together, the Indians may have heard of Aldredâs press through Keell,
and by the summer of 1909 the exchanges between the anarchists and the
Indian nationalists in Britain were more frequent than before, leading
to Aldredâs printing and publication of the August 1909 issue of The
Indian Sociologist.
That issue contained the usual four pages written by Krishnavarma and
four pages added by Aldred. Krishnavarma wrote that âthe name of Madan
Lal Dhingra [sic], will go down to posterity, as that of one who
sacrificed his life, by remaining faithful to the altar of his idealsâ
and, proclaiming Dhingra a âmartyr in the cause of Indian Independenceâ,
he proposed to set up four new scholarships named after him.[40]
Moreover, responding to Madame Daniel Lesueurâs accusations of âIndian
anarchismâ in the French publication Le Temps, Krishnavarma quoted from
Robert Hunter and Charles Morrisâs definition of âAnarchismâ in The
Encyclopaedic Dictionary (1896) and reiterated that
the phrase, âLes Anarchist Hindousâ, as applied to Indian patriots, has
no meaning, since the word anarchy, as generally understood in Europe
and America, means absence of government, or âa social theory, which
would do away with all authority, except that sanctioned by conviction,
and which is intended to secure individual liberty against the
encroachments of the Stateâ.[41]
As the Indian nationalists wanted to establish a national government,
the label âanarchistâ, he repeated, had no meaning in this context.
However, despite Krishnavarmaâs rejection of the label âanarchistâ, he
was happy to receive any support in the struggle for Indian
independence, suggesting that the Indian revolutionary movement was less
ideologically coherent, but more willing to embrace Machiavellian
tactics in attempts to overthrow the British Empire.
Conversely, Aldred prioritised his anarchist principles of freedom over
the anti-anarchism of the Indians based on alignment with anti-British
anti-imperialism. Stating his non-aligned position on the British left,
he declared that, as an âAnarchist Communist ⊠I stand for the overthrow
by industrial-political anti-constitutional action of class society, and
for the inauguration of a social era in which the government of persons
shall have given place to the administration of thingsâ. And
Krishnavarma and the Indian nationalists, he continued, âare so little
in agreement with such an idealâ.[42] Nevertheless, this ideological
discrepancy did not deter Aldred from supporting the Indians, and he
proceeded to offer a scathing indictment of British imperialism in
India, linking the fate of Dhingra to the British working class:
he is not a time-serving executioner, but a Nationalist patriot, who,
though his ideals are not their ideals, is worthy of the admiration of
the workers, at home, who have as little to gain from the lick-spittling
crew of Imperialist blood-sucking Capitalist parasites at home, as what
the Nationalists have in India.[43]
At the same time, he cautioned that âthis does not mean that
[Krishnavarmaâs] propaganda will secure to the Indian workers the full
produce of their labour, but it does mean that his propaganda is a
menace to the security of British imperialism. To be logical and
thorough that propaganda must involve political terrorism, industrial
boycott and assassinationâ.[44] In other words, although he denounced
anarchist propaganda through action and terrorism, Aldred displayed an
awareness of different practices of propaganda to be deployed in
different situations.
But it was his anarchist defence of written propaganda that led him to
print The Indian Sociologist: âI have undertaken the printing and
publication of [Krishnavarmaâs] paper in defence of a Free Pressâ, he
wrote.[45] Drawing on a range of thinkers such as Helvetius,
Montesquieu, Voltaire, Machiavelli, Milton and Beccaria and comparing
the suppression of The Indian Sociologist and British imperialism in
India to the Denshawai incident, the Paris Commune and the Chicago
Martyrs, Aldred proceeded to challenge the accusations of sedition as
unconstitutional: âAs sedition must involve the conspiring against the
entire Constitutionâ, he argued in defence of his belief that the state
had corrupted the constitution and as evidence of his radical idea that
the people are the constitution, âit follows that to be guilty of
seditious libel, the Indian Sociologist must militate against the
interests of the working class in England, no less than against the
interests of the governing classâ.[46] The charge of sedition, in
Aldredâs mind, illuminated the class struggle that bourgeois
constitutionalism was designed to conceal. However, more in the
anarchist tradition of defiance and transgression, Aldred was also aware
that, by printing and publishing The Indian Sociologist, he risked being
prosecuted for sedition.[47] âIn the event of my being prosecuted to
conviction of seditionâ, he wrote further, âthe Bakunin Press will
continue to print and to issue the Indian Sociologist until that freedom
is secured.â Signalling Aldredâs solitary position among the British
anarchists, he remarked that âvolunteers are needed for that fightâ.[48]
No volunteers emerged, though, and Georges Pagnier in Paris printed the
next issue of The Indian Sociologist.[49]
As predicted, Aldred was arrested and stood trial at the Central
Criminal Court of England and Wales on 7 September 1909, where he was
found guilty and sentenced to 12 months in prison. While waiting to
serve his time, he was still seen in the company of Nitisen Dwarkadas,
V. V. S. Aiyar and Sukh Sagar Dutt, among others.[50] Aldred later wrote
in his autobiography that âI was deserted by the entire Socialist and
Anarchist movement. No Hindu would identify himself with meâ, but he did
receive some support.[51] For instance, Rudolf Rocker actually backed
his case in Der Arbeiter Fraynd and the Indian nationalists, of course,
were appreciative of his support.[52] Har Dayal noted in the Paris-based
publication Bande Mataram that
[w]e wish to express our sincere appreciation of the bravery and love of
humanity dis-played by our brother, Mr. Aldred, who has been imprisoned
in London for printing âThe Indian Sociologistâ. Such men are the salt
of the earth. Young Indians should profit by example of this righteous
man who is suffering for the sake of human progress.[53]
Importantly, it also attracted the interest of the so-called âAnarchist
Baronâ Walter Strickland, who was a close ally of Krishnavarma and
regular contributor to The Indian Sociologist. Strickland donated ÂŁ10 to
Aldredâs Savarkar Release Committee, initiating a long friendship
between them, and he became a regular contributor to The Herald of
Revolt, in which he discussed Savarkarâs case and the Indian struggle
for.[54] When Strickland died in 1938 he left a fortune to Aldred, which
allowed him to continue publishing his later periodical The Word.[55]
Aldredâs defence of freedom of the press on behalf of the Indian
nationalists in Britain, I suggest, reveals a praxis of anarchist
anti-imperialism that was central to his understanding of freedom but
also, in this epistemology, ideologically flawed as he, in doing so,
implicitly supported other oppressions internally in the Indian struggle
for independence. This became even clearer when Aldred involved himself
in the agitation for Savarkarâs release.
While Aldred was in prison, the events of the Savarkar case unfolded. On
21 December 1909, A. M. T. Jackson, the tax collector of Nasik, was shot
dead by Anant Laxman Kanhere, allegedly with a Browning pistol procured
by Savarkar in London. In addition to charges of abetment of murder,
Savarkar faced allegations of sedition made in speeches in 1906.[56]
Meanwhile, his spectacular escape and re-arrest in France postponed the
trial, and the ensuing case between Britain and France ended up at the
Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague on 25 October 1910 to decide
if Savarkar should, âin conformity with the rules of international law,
be restored or not be restored by His Britannic Majestyâs Government to
the Government of the French Republicâ.[57] Given concern that the
arbitration at The Hague might interfere with the Bombay magistrateâs
case against Savarkar, the proceedings went ahead and, on 24 December
1910, Savarkar was sentenced to transportation for life for his
involvement in the Nasik conspiracy and, on 3 February 1911, he received
another sentence of transportation for life for âabetment of
murderâ.[58]
Upon his release in early July 1910, Aldred set up the Savarkar Release
Committee and published a leaflet âTo the English Proletariatâ, in which
he claimed that âThe English proceedingsâat the Bow Street Police Court,
the Divisional Court and the Court of Appealâwere characterised by the
usual illegalityâ.[59]
On 24 February 1911, the Permanent Court of Arbitration decided that
âthe Government of His Britannic Majesty is not required to restore the
said VINAYAK DAMODAR SAVARKAR to the Government of the French
Republicâ.[60] In the next issue of The Herald of Revolt, Aldred
immediately blamed the French prime minister Aristide Briand for
surrendering Savarkar and âvolunta-rily betray[ing] the Sovereignty of
Franceâ and argued that, because Savarkar was transported on the SS
Morea, a private vessel, his entry into French waters constituted an
âinvasion of Franceâ or, at least, âan infringement of the right of
asylumâ.[61] In typical polemical fashion, Aldred proceeded to challenge
the legality of Savarkarâs return to the British authorities and the
sedition charges brought against him.
What is more, trying to garner support for the case, he remarked that
â[h]ad the French and English proletariat also known the secret history
of the nego-tiations that had passed, the storms of indignant protest
would never have been silenced by the promise of arbitrationâ.[62] As
Aldred covered the case closely in The Herald of Revolt in the next two
years, his paper reproduced a clip-ping from the Swiss-based
International Pro-India Committeeâs organ Der Wanderer, possibly with
assistance from Krishnavarma who was on the board of the organisation,
making reference to Aldredâs article âThe Savarkar Infamyâ in The
Freewoman.[63] Moreover, his paper carried several stories of how
anarchist publications such as Le Société Nouvelle in Belgium and Le
Libertaire in France had taken up Savarkarâs case, challenging British
anarchists to do the same.[64]
Aldredâs frustration with the silence of anarchists in Britain became
more pronounced in the summer of 1912. In April 1912, in the midst of
the Italo-Turkish war, Enrico Ennio Bellelli spread rumours that the
well-known anarchist Errico Malatesta was a spy for the Turkish. In
response, Malatesta argued that, among the Italian anarchist diaspora in
Britain, many had long considered Bellelli a spy for the British.
Bellelli initially withdrew his accusations, but instead took Malatesta
to court for criminal libel.[65] Malatesta appeared at the Central
Criminal Court of England and Wales on 14 May 1912, where he was found
guilty and sentenced to three months in prison and recommended for
deportation under the Aliens Act.[66]
The Malatesta Release Committee was immediately set up to protest the
sentence and stop the deportation order. Jack Tanner was the initial
secretary and treasurer, but Aldred soon replaced him in that role. The
committee successfully roused public opinion and organised a
demonstration at Trafalgar Square on 9 June 1912, the day before
Malatestaâs appeal hearing, with speakers such as James MacDonald, Guy
Bowman, James Tochatti, Guy Aldred and Tom Mann. Malatestaâs appeal was
rejected the next day. However, on 18 June, Home Secretary Reginald
McKenna decided not to make an expulsion order against Malatesta, but
his prison sentence was not remitted.[67] The committee continued to
agitate for Malatestaâs release and, in July 1912, Silvio Corio of the
committee approached Krishnavarma, asked for financial help and
mentioned Aldred as a friend of Malatesta. Krishnavarma donated ÂŁ1 to
the Malatesta Fund, but made it clear that he did not know Malatesta
personally.
Nevertheless, the donation prompted Aldred to remark that:
seeing that our Anarchist friends have appealed to Mr. Krishnavarma to
help Malatestaâs cause, surely they will now see the common decency of
joining in the outcry against the treatment meted out to Savarkar, Mr.
Krishnavarmaâs compatriot. Up to now they have preserved a sullen
silence in this case.[68]
Despite Aldredâs challenge to the anarchists in Britain to take up
Savarkarâs case, he failed to attract any considerable support and the
Savarkar Release Committee amassed only a few pounds altogether.
In a last effort to garner support, Aldred published a âSavarkar Issueâ
of The Herald of Revolt in October 1912. He repeated many of the claims
from previous issues of his paper and remarked that âSavarkarâs
immediate release must be insisted upon with the same fervour, the same
unwavering determination as that with which we demanded Malatestaâs
salvation from an Italian dungeonâ.[69] The issue also contained pieces
by Strickland and Henry Sara as well as an excerpt from Savarkarâs
banned history The Indian War of Independence of 1857 (1909), which had
been prepared during Savarkarâs tenure at India House and was used as
evidence of sedition in the court case. As before, the special issue did
not have any significant impact on the anarchist communities in Britain.
It was, however, proscribed in India under section 19 of the Sea Customs
Act of 1878.[70] The âSavarkar Issueâ was Aldredâs last involvement with
the Savarkar case, and he now planned for the cessation of The Herald of
Revolt to be succeeded by The Spur.
In the last issue of The Herald of Revolt, however, Aldred returned to
his support of the Indian nationalists. After Savarkarâs transportation
to the Andaman Islands in 1911, the Indian revolutionary movement abroad
largely shifted from Europe to North America, where India House alumnus
Har Dayal became involved with the San Francisco branch of the
Industrial Workers of the World and was one of the co-founders of the
Ghadar Party in late May 1913. Despite his relocation to the US, Har
Dayal stayed in contact with Aldred and subscribed to The Herald of
Revolt.[71] On 25 March 1914, Har Dayal was arrested on charges of being
âan anarchistâ and thereby liable for deportation. However, he was
released on bail two days later and fled to Swit-zerland, where he
joined Chempakaraman Pillai, Strickland, Krishnavarma and others in the
International Pro-India Committee.[72] Aldred was probably unaware of
Har Dayalâs escape because in the May 1914 issue of The Herald of Revolt
he urged that, âunless a strong international demand for his release
goes up from the working class, he is liable to share the same fate
meted out to Savarkar in 1910â.[73] Aldredâs defence of Har Dayal was
his last sustained involvement with the Indian nationalists for a while
and he instead turned his attention to anti-militarism, opposition to
conscription and the impending war. As a consequence of campaigning
against conscription, he was imprisoned and interned several times
during the war and, as Rose Witcop assumed the responsibility of
publishing The Spur, attention to the Indian nationalist struggle for
independence waned.[74]
Aldredâs involvement with the Indian nationalists was unique in the
early twentieth century and reveals a more unusual concern with the
question of Indian anti-colonialism than shown by almost any other
British anarchist in that era.
Moreover, it represents a unique praxis of anarchist anti-imperialism
based on the principles of freedom and duty to act, despite its
nationalist character, rather than a position of solidarity with
anti-colonial movements. While Aldred stayed in touch with both Har
Dayal and Acharya, especially after Acharya had turned to anarchism, it
is his involvement with Har Dayal and Savarkar that reveals the most
about his anarchist anti-imperialism.[75]
At an India House meeting in October 1908, Har Dayal espoused
anti-Muslim sentiments, arguing that he was working for a âHindu Indiaâ,
which caused some protest. Savarkar, for instance, protested that such
remarks were âdangerous to the National movementâ.[76] However, Savarkar
would later repeat the same exclusionist Hindu nationalist claims and
fully develop this ideology in his pamphlet Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?
(1923).[77] Such forms of nationalism were difficult to reconcile with
the internationalist principles of the mainstream anarchist movement.
For all his good intentions and challenges to the anarchists in Britain,
in other words, Aldredâs support of Har Dayal and Savarkar, in
particular, reveals tensions arising from his praxis that, ultimately,
made him unable to detach anarchist anti-imperialism from nationalist
anti-anarchism. And yet, while Aldred was not a typical anarchist, his
repeated appeals to the wider anarchist community in Britain suggest
that his story has wider importance for our understanding of the history
of anarchism as well as the historiography of the Indian revolutionary
movement in Britain. As a final testament to the contradiction in
Aldredâs anarchist vision, in the wake of Savarkarâs involvement in the
Gandhi murder trial in 1950, he published a special double number of his
paper The Word Quarterly, in which he asserted that âI was concerned
about Veer Savarkar whom I deemed to be a greater patriot than Gandhi; a
true martyr for Indian Freedomâ.[78]
174, BL.
Aldred, Guy A. âAlgeria.â The Voice of Labour 1 (16 Feb. 1907): 38.
Aldred, Guy A. âAuthorâs Trial for Sedition (1909).â Affixed to Dogmas
Discarded. London: Bakunin Press, 1913.
Aldred, Guy A. âBriand Surrenders Savarkar.â The Herald of Revolt 1, no.
4 (1911): 9.
Aldred, Guy A. âGandhi, Pacifism, and India.â The Word Quarterly 1, no.
1 (1950): 4.
Aldred, Guy A. âIreland.â The Herald of Revolt 4, no. 2 (1914): 26â27.
Aldred, Guy A. âJailed till Christmas, 1960.â The Herald of Revolt 2,
no. 11 (1912): 119â120.
Aldred, Guy A. âMalatesta Fund.â The Herald of Revolt 2, no. 7 (1912):
78.
Aldred, Guy A. No Traitorâs Gait: The Autobiography of Guy A. Aldred.
Glasgow: Strickland Press, 1955â1963.
Aldred, Guy A. âOur Indian Exposures.â The Herald of Revolt 2, no. 2
(1912): 18.
Aldred, Guy A. âOur Savarkar Protest.â The Herald of Revolt 2, no. 7
(1912): 83.
Aldred, Guy A. âProscribed in India.â The Herald of Revolt 3, no. 1
(1913): 7.
Aldred, Guy A. Richard Carlile: His Battle for the Free Press. London:
Bakunin Press, 1912.
Aldred, Guy A. âThe Savarkar Case.â The Herald of Revolt 1, no. 9
(1911): 51.
Aldred, Guy A. âThe Savarkar Conspiracy.â The Herald of Revolt 2, no. 10
(1912): 101.
Aldred, Guy A. âThe Savarkar Infamy.â The Freewoman 2, no. 32 (1912):
113â114.
Aldred, Guy A. âSedition!â The Indian Sociologist 5, no. 8 (1909): 31.
Aldred, Guy A. âSir E. Grey and the Denshawai Incident.â Justice 23 (15
Sept. 1906): 2â3.
Aldred, Guy A. Socialism and Parliament, Part 1. Glasgow: Guy A. Aldred,
1934.
Aldred, Guy A. âThe South African Conquest.â The Herald of Revolt 3, no.
9â10 (1913): 127, 139.
Aldred, Guy A. âStop This Infamy!â The Herald of Revolt 4, no. 5 (1914):
45â47.
Aldred, Guy A. âThe Truth about the Denshawai Incident.â Justice 23 (11
Aug. 1906): 3.
Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Portraits. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1988.
Bakhle, Janaki. âSavarkar (1883â1966), Sedition and Surveillance: The
Rule of Law in a Colonial Situation.â Social History 35, no. 1 (2010):
51â75.
Banerjee, Sikata. Make Me a Man! Masculinity, Hinduism, and Nationalism
in India. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005.
Brown, Emily C. Har Dayal: Hindu Revolutionary and Rationalist. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press, 1975.
Caldwell, John Taylor. Come Dungeons Dark: The Life and Times of Guy
Aldred, Glasgow Anarchist. Barr: Luath Press, 1988.
Chattopadhyaya, Virendranath. âIndian Anarchism in England.â The Times,
1 March 1909.
Crick, Martin. The History of the Social-Democratic Federation. Keele:
Ryburn, 1994.
Di Paola, Pietro. The Knights Errant of Anarchy: London and the Italian
Anarchist Diaspora (1880â1917). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,
2013.
Fischer-TinĂ©, Harald. âIndian Nationalism and the âWorld Forcesâ:
Transnational and Diasporic Dimensions of the Indian Freedom Movement on
the Eve of the First World War.â Journal of Global History 2, no. 3
(2007): 325â344.
Fischer-Tiné, Harald. Shyamji Krishnavarma: Sanskrit, Sociology and
Anti-Imperialism. New Delhi: Routledge India, 2015.
Franks, Benjamin. Rebel Alliances: The Means and Ends of Contemporary
British Anarchisms. Edinburgh: AK Press, 2006.
Frost, Ginger. ââLove is Always Freeâ: Anarchism, Free Unions, and
Utopianism in Edwardian England.â Anarchist Studies 17, no. 1 (2009):
73â94.
Government of Bombay. Source Material for a History of the Freedom
Movement in India (Collected from Bombay Government Records). Vol. II,
1885â1920. Bombay: Printed at the Govt. Press, 1957.
Har Dayal, Lala. âGuy Alfred Aldred.â Bande Mataram 1, no. 2 (Oct.
1909): 4.
Hunter, Robert, and Charles Morris. The Encyclopaedic Dictionary: A New,
Original and Exhaustive Work of Reference to All English Works, Their
Origin, Development, Orthography, Pronunciation, Meaning and Legitimate
or Customary Use. Philadelphia, PA: Syndicate Publishing, 1896.
Krishnavarma, Shyamaji. âAnarchy DefinedâNo Anarchists in India.â The
Indian Sociologist 4, no. 9 (Sept. 1908): 34.
Krishnavarma, Shyamaji. âA Brief Statement of Our Case.â The Indian
Sociologist 5, no. 7 (July 1909): 25.
Krishnavarma, Shyamaji. âIndian Anarchism.â The Times, 10 March 1909.
Krishnavarma, Shyamaji. âIndian Anarchism in England.â The Times, 20
Feb. 1909.
Krishnavarma, Shyamaji. âIndian Martyrdom in England.â The Indian
Sociologist 5, no. 8 (Aug. 1909): 29.
Krishnavarma, Shyamaji. âMartyr Dhingra Scholarships.â The Indian
Sociologist 5, no. 9 (Sept. 1909): 37.
Krishnavarma, Shyamaji. âNo Anarchists among Indian Nationalists.â The
Indian Sociologist 5, no. 8 (Aug. 1909): 35.
Kinna, Ruth. âGuy Aldred: Bridging the Gap between Marxism and
Anarchism.â Journal of Political Ideologies 16, no. 1 (2011): 97â114.
Kinna, Ruth. âGuy Aldred: Rebel with a Cause.â Berfrois (Oct. 2011).
Laursen, Ole Birk. ââThe Bomb Plot of Zurichâ: Indian Nationalism,
Italian Anarchism and the First World War.â In Anarchism 1914â1918:
Internationalism, Militarism and War, edited by Ruth Kinna and Matthew
Adams, 135â154. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2017.
Laursen, Ole Birk. âThe Indian Nationalist Press in London, 1865â1914.â
In The Foreign Political Press in Nineteenth-Century London: Politics
from a Distance, edited by Constance Bantman and Ana Claudia Suriani da
Silva, 175â191. London: Bloomsbury, 2017.
Meltzer, Albert. The Anarchists in London, 1935â1945. Sanday, Orkney:
Cienfuegos Press, 1976.
Meltzer, Albert. I Couldnât Paint Golden Angels: Sixty Year of
Commonplace Life and Anarchist Agitation. Edinburgh: AK Press, 1996.
âMr Hyndman on Complete Indian Emancipation.â The Indian Sociologist
(Aug. 1905): 31.
Noorani, A. G. Savarkar and Hindutva: The Godse Connection. New Delhi:
LeftWord Books, 2002.
Oberoi, Harjot. âGhadar Movement and Its Anarchist Genealogy.â Economic
and Political Weekly 44, no. 50 (2009): 40â46.
âOpening of âIndia Houseâ.â The Indian Sociologist (Aug. 1905): 31.
Owen, Nicholas. âThe Soft Heart of the British Empire: Indian Radicals
in Edwardian London.â Past & Present 220 (Aug. 2013): 143â184.
Padmanabhan, R. A. V. V. S. Aiyar. New Delhi: National Book Trust,
India, 1980.
Ramnath, Maia. Decolonizing Anarchism: An Antiauthoritarian History of
Indiaâs Liberation Struggle. Edinburgh: AK Press, 2011.
Ramnath, Maia. Haj to Utopia: How the Ghadar Movement Charted Global
Radicalism and Tried to Overthrow the British Empire. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2011.
âSavarkar! The Hindu Patriot.â The Herald of Revolt 2, no. 7 (1912): 83.
Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? New Delhi: Central
Hindu Yuvak Sabha, 1938 [1923].
Simons, May Wood. Report of Socialist Party Delegation and Proceedings
of the International Socialist Congress at Copenhagen. Chicago: H. G.
Adair, 1910.
Shah, A. M. âThe Indian Sociologist, 1905â1914, 1920â1922.â Economic and
Political Weekly 41, no. 31 (2006): 3435â3439.
Sohi, Seema. Echoes of Mutiny: Race, Surveillance and Indian
Anticolonialism in North America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Srivastava, Harindra. Five Stormy Years: Savarkar in London, June
1906âJune 1911. New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1983.
Subramanyam, C. S. M. P. T. Acharya: His Life and Times: Revolutionary
Trends in the Early Anti-Imperialist Movements in South India and
Abroad. Madras: Institute of South Indian Studies, 1995.
Tickell, Alex. âScholarship Terrorists: The India House Hostel and the
âStudent Problemâ in Edwardian London.â In South Asian Resistances in
Britain, 1858â1947, edited by Rehana Ahmed and Sumita Mukherjee, 3â18.
London: Continuum, 2012.
Walter, Nicolas. âGuy A. Aldred (1886â1963).â The Raven 1, no. 1 (1986):
77â91.
[1] Inner Temple press statement, âShyamji Krishna Varmaâ, 9 Nov. 2015.
[2] Krishnavarma was a millionaire and had made a fortune from
investments in cotton mills in India and the stock exchanges in Paris
and Geneva, enabling him to bankroll these initiatives. See
Fischer-TinĂ©, Shyamji Krishnavarma, 56â57.
[3] For more on India House, see Fischer-TinĂ©, âIndian Nationalismâ;
Owen, âThe Soft Heart of the British Empireâ; Tickell, âScholarship
Terroristsâ.
[4] Krishnavarma, âIndian Anarchism in Englandâ, 6, square brackets in
original.
[5] Chattopadhyaya, âIndian Anarchism in England,â 6; Krishnavarma,
âIndian Anarchismâ, 10; Bench Table Orders (BEN), 1/24/33, 14 Jan
1908â14 Dec 1911, Inner Temple Archives.
[6] Weekly Report of the Director of Criminal Intelligence, 24 April
1909 and 8 June 1909, India Office Records hereafter (IOR), British
Library (hereafter BL); see also Shah, âThe Indian Sociologistâ;
Laursen, âThe Indian Nationalist Pressâ.
[7] Krishnavarma, âA Brief Statement â, 25.
[8] July 1909, trial of HORSLEY, Arthur Fletcher (printer),
(t19090719-54), Old Bailey Proceedings Online,
, version 7.2, 10 March 2016.
[9] Aldred, âAuthorâs Trial for Seditionâ, 25.
[10] Krishnavarma, âIndian Martyrdom in Englandâ, 29.
[11] âSEDITION: Guy Alfred Aldred: subversive publications and
activitiesâ, HO 144/22508,The National Archives, Kew (hereafter TNA),
12. September 1909, trial of ALDRED, Guy Alfred (22, publisher)
(t19090907-44), Old Bailey Proceedings Online,
, version 7.2, 11 March 2016.
[12] Government of Bombay, Source Material, 437â40; Weekly Report of the
Director of Criminal Intelligence, 17 July 1909 and 31 July 1909, IOR,
BL.
[13] For more on the sedition charges against Savarkar, see Bakhle,
âSavarkar (1883â1966)â.
[14] Padmanabhan, V. V. S. Aiyar, 73.
[15] File 3823, IOR/L/PJ/6/1039, BL.
[16] For instance, the International Socialist Congress held in
Copenhagen in August 1910 passed a âResolution on Right of Asylumâ in
protest at Savarkarâs arrest on French soil.
Simons, Report of Socialist Party Delegation.
[17] âSEDITION: Guy Alfred Aldred: subversive publications and
activitiesâ, HO 144/22508, TNA.
[18] A Home Office file on Aldred notes that â[s]ince 1909 Aldred has
been prominently associated with the Indian Revolutionary party in
Londonâ. âGuy A. Aldredâ, KV 2/792, TNA.
[19] Aldred, âTruth about the Denshawai Incidentâ, 3; Aldred, âSir E.
Grey and the Denshawai Incidentâ, 2â3; Aldred, âAlgeriaâ, 38; Aldred,
âIrelandâ, 26ïżœïżœïżœ27; Aldred, âThe South African Conquestâ, 127, 139.
[20] Aldred, No Traitorâs Gait, 423.
[21] Avrich, Anarchist Portraits, 153.
[22] Krishnavarma, âAnarchy Definedâ, 34.
[23] Laursen, âBomb Plot of ZĂŒrichâ; Ramnath, Haj to Utopia; Ramnath,
Decolonizing Anarchism; Sohi, Echoes of Mutiny; Oberoi, âGhadar
Movementâ.
[24] Aldred, No Traitorâs Gait, 36.
[25] Walter, âGuy A. Aldred (1886â1963)â, 77â79.
[26] Aldred, No Traitorâs Gait, 111â12.
[27] Crick, History, 8, 13.
[28] âOpening of âIndia Houseââ, 31; âMr Hyndmanâ, 31.
[29] Caldwell, Come Dungeons Dark, 41.
[30] Ibid., 43; Weekly Report of the Director of Criminal Intelligence,
15 Sept. 1909, IOR, BL.
[31] Caldwell, Come Dungeons Dark, 54â55; Ramnath, Decolonizing
Anarchism, 108; see also Frost, âLove is Always Freeâ, 73â94.
[32] Kinna, âGuy Aldred: Bridging the Gapâ, 110.
[33] Kinna, âGuy Aldred: Rebelâ,
http://www.berfrois.com/2011/09/ruth-kinna-on-guy-aldred/
.
[34] Aldred, Richard Carlile, 6, 11.
[35] Aldred, Socialism and Parliament, 51; Aldred, Richard Carlile, 6.
[36] Aldred, No Traitorâs Gait, 1.
[37] Meltzer, I Couldnât Paint, 59; Walter, âGuy A. Aldred (1886â1963)â,
82.
[38] Srivastava, Five Stormy Years, 141.
[39] Weekly Report of the Director of Criminal Intelligence, 24 April
1909, IOR, BL.
[40] Krishnavarma, âIndian Martyrdom in Englandâ, 29; these scholarships
were awarded the next month, see Krishnavarma, âMartyr Dhingra
Scholarshipsâ, 37.
[41] Krishnavarma, âNo Anarchistsâ, 35; Hunter and Morris, The
Encyclopaedic Dictionary, 203.
[42] Aldred, âSedition!â, 31.
[43] Ibid., 32.
[44] Ibid., 34.
[45] Ibid., 31.
[46] Ibid., 34.
[47] For more on anarchism, âpropaganda by the wordâ and freedom of the
press, see Franks, Rebel Alliances, 300â314.
[48] Aldred, âSedition!â, 31.
[49] The Indian Sociologist, Sept. 1909, 40.
[50] Weekly Report of the Director of Criminal Intelligence, 4 Oct.
1909, IOR, BL.
[51] Aldred, No Traitorâs Gait, 423â24.
[52] Weekly Report of the Director of Criminal Intelligence, 30 Aug.
1910, IOR, BL.
[53] Har Dayal, âGuy Alfred Aldredâ, 4.
[54] For Stricklandâs donation, see âSavarkar! The Hindu Patriotâ, 83.
[55] Walter, âGuy A. Aldred (1886â1963)â, 90; Fischer-TinĂ©, Shyamji
Krishnavarma, 76â77.
[56] Government of Bombay, Source Material, 442.
[57] âAgreement between the United Kingdom and France, Referring to
Arbitration the Case of Vinayak Damodar Savarkarâ, 25 Oct. 1910,
http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/index.php?id=7283
.
[58] Government of Bombay, Source Material, 456â63.
[59] Excerpt reprinted in Aldred, âThe Savarkar Caseâ, 51.
[60] âArrest and Return of Savarkar, France v. Great Britainâ, 24 Feb.
1911,
http://www. haguejusticeportal.net/index.php?id=7283
.
[61] Aldred, âBriand Surrenders Savarkarâ, 9, italics in original.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Aldred, âOur Savarkar Protestâ, 83; Aldred, âThe Savarkar Infamy,â
113â14; Der Wanderer: VolkstĂŒmliche Zeitschrift fĂŒr Kulturelle und
HumanitÀre Bestrebungen was the official organ of the International
Pro-India Committee, formed in ZĂŒrich in June 1912 by Chempakaraman
Pillai with Krishnavarma and Strickland on board, until it was replaced
by the paper Pro India: Monatsschrift des Internationalen Komitees Pro
India in 1914.
[64] Aldred, âOur Indian Exposuresâ, 18; Aldred, âJailed till Christmas,
1960â, 119â20.
[65] Di Paola, Knights Errant of Anarchy, 146.
[66] Trial of MALATESTA, Errico (59, publisher) (t19120514-46), Old
Bailey Proceedings Online,
, version 7.2, 09 April 2016.
[67] Di Paola, Knights Errant of Anarchy, 146â51.
[68] Aldred, âMalatesta Fundâ, 78.
[69] Aldred, âThe Savarkar Conspiracyâ, 101.
[70] Aldred, âProscribed in Indiaâ, 7; âList of publications proscribed
under section 19 of the Sea Customs Act of 1878, file 6050,
IOR/L/PJ/6/1624, BL.
[71] See âLetter from Har Dayal to Van Wyck Brooksâ, 6 March 1914, South
Asian Amer-ican Digital Archive,
https://www.saada.org/item/20111127-479
for Har Dayalâs sub-scription, see The Herald of Revolt, 4, 1 (Jan.
1914): 19.
[72] Brown, Har Dayal, 171; Sohi, Echoes of Mutiny, 96â100.
[73] Aldred, âStop This Infamy!â, 45â47.
[74] Walter, âGuy A. Aldred (1886â1963)â, 84â85.
[75]
M. P. T. Acharyaâs turn to anarchism remains underexplored, but see
Meltzer, The Anarchists in London; Subramanyam, M. P. T.
Acharya; file 7997/23, IOR/L/PJ/12/
[76] See, for instance, Weekly Report of the Director of Criminal
Intelligence, 10 Oct. 1908, IOR, BL; for more on Har Dayal and Hindu
nationalism, see Brown, Har Dayal, 230â32.
[77] See, for instance, Weekly Report of the Director of Criminal
Intelligence, 23 Jan. 1909 and 20 April 1909, IOR, BL; Savarkar,
Hindutva; for more on Savarkar and Hindu nationalism, see Banerjee, Make
Me a Man!, 50â74; Noorani, Savarkar and Hindutva, 48â60.
[78] Aldred, âGandhi, Pacifism, and Indiaâ, 4.