मेरा आजीवन कारावास / माझी जन्मठेप (स्वातंत्र्यवीर सावरकर - काले पानी का ऐतिहासिक संस्मरण)

knew no other word before than the King. Hence they interpreted the news in the light of that term. The King of France had to fall back; the king of America angry—that was the terminology they employed. And when any one of us told them that there was no king of France or America, their question was, "Who fought the war then." Their idea of warfare they had derived from what little they knew of legendary lore, from the stories they had heard from the Mahabharata for instance. The war or the battle was to them nothing better than a combat or a duel between two rival princes. The King of Russia was weak, he was not strong of thews and sinews; the King of Germany was a giant in strength and hence he Would crack the King of Russia like a betel-nut. That their surmise and hope. So whenever they wanted to weigh and balance victory and defeat between the parties, they measured their strength by the personal prowess of their kings. How does the King of Belgium or any other king fight? That was the typical question they asked. Is he a line rider? Does he know horsemanship? The manner in which they described the Kaiser of Germany was very amusing. He was, they told us, a finely built man, almost possessing the physical strength and form of our Bhima. He shattered with the blows of his fisticuff the gates of fortresses. Once he held the King of France by his neck like a cat and hurled him down. Who was taller—the Czar of Russia or the Emperor of Germany?—I remember clearly one prisoner putting the question to me. I told him that the Russians, as a rule, were taller and broader than the Germans. And his face showed bewilderment, for he doubtful, how, in these circumstances, Germany could heat Russia? I wanted to drive this notion about the king from the mind of my listeners. I wanted them to grasp what was the State and the politics of the State. What was the Republican form of the State, and what a constitutional monarchy? I told them broadly how the people were governed; who made laws for them; who declared war or peace; and who made treaties. I further explained to them, in the simplest terms possible, what was a representative government and a legislature, and the relation between them, and a monarch or a president of a Republic. I further told them the difference between the monarch and the president and how France and America were Republican States. I enjoined upon them to remember these facts well before I would give them the news that they wanted. Within one year, most of them gave correct answers on these points. They could understand the difference between international and national politics, and the relation between the two, as also the geographical importance of these states dotted all over the world. And the more they knew, the more I gave them to know. And during these years they showed extreme eagerness to know everything about the war. For the knowledge of geography, maps, and politics had made the news so vivid and interesting to them. They became so enamoured of it, that before long, they would themselves locate the news on the map and ask me to enlighten them upon it. The temptation for news made them procure from outside newspapers for themselves and read them. This work I did for them during the duration of the war. While I was busy teaching them the geography of the world and widening their knowledge of it, I was particular to teach them more about the geography and the map of India, of its political conditions, and its situation in the world around us. The prisoners felt at first a strange fascination for Germany. They had lisped the word English too often to like it. For he, the prisoner felt, never treated him well, and Germany, he concluded, if it beat England, was sure to set him free. Hence he did not like any one denouncing