Savarkar

Savarkar's views on history and the Revolution itself are interesting parts to note. For him, it was important to point out that the Revolutionary of 1857 was not an unplanned mutiny of criminals against the British empire, but a movement of nationals fighting for a cause. Savarkar argues that English authors who are writing about these events are "wicked", "partial", and "prejudiced". It is true that English writers would try to not pit blame against their own country, but instead the "rebellious" India that their British empire supposedly has control over. With the articles about India and the rebellion that were written in British newspapers, surely the emphasis was the disobedience of the Indian people. In history, Savarkar believes that the events of the rebellion are not properly stated, and the information is skewed. And in order to fix this delusion, one must speak to those who were actually involved, and state the truth of history and the events as they actually occurred.

Oftentimes people mix up words or statements in order to benefit themselves. They believe that lying would be better than just coming out with the truth. In the case of the Rebellion of 1857, British writers or authority figures probably thought it better to taint the name of the Indian people, and not of their own. I guess I am trying to point out that by hiding your mistakes, you are only bringing about more negativity. With the British Empire's inability to even properly describe the events of the 1857 Rebellion, it would only lead to more and more debate about their rule in India. Those like Gandhi and V.D. Savarkar would not remain silenced, and in fact, would speak out more against the British and India's inability to attain freedom from them.