Salute to Martyrdom :

Bhagat Singh's Sacrifice has become more and more meaningful

Prabha Shankar Mishra

Bhagat Singh, the great revolutionary leader of clear vision and political philosophy who laid down his life while seeking emancipation for his countrymen is always be the source of inspiration for those who are continuously fighting for the formation of classless, exploitation free society. Young Bhagat Singh actively took part in the non-cooperation movement. He was then an admirer of Gandhi and believed that one day India would indeed gain freedom under Gandhi's leadership and guidance. But when Gandhi called off the movement following the Chauri Chaura riot in 1922, Bhagat Singh was shocked by his decision. He became disenchanted with Gandhism and started pondering other methods for achieving the freedom. Gradually he veered towards the tenets of armed revolutionary struggle. Bhagat Singh was serious student of history. His special sphere of study was socialism. He was highly impressed by the Russian Revolutionary movement from its beginning in the early 19th century to the October Revolution of 1917. It is generally believed that very few in India could be compared to him in the knowledge of this special subject of revolution. The economic experiment in Russia under the Bolshevik regime also generated deep interest in him. He read literature of politico-economic nature and had no interest in novels of high society life, or those merely confined to love or other human passions. The pre-eminence of Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagat Singh in Indian freedom struggle and their distinctly different views and approaches have spawned several controversies and even conspiracy theories. Most of these stem from Gandhi and his congress' alleged failure to prevent Bhagat Singh's execution despite enjoying substantial clout with the Britishers and their regime. Bhagat Singh personally respected Gandhi and observed him as a noble man and a philanthropist. Whereas Gandhi too was an admirer of Bhagat Singh and publically applauded his patriotism on many occasion. But the Mahatma in fact wrote to the Viceroy pleading with him to commute the death sentence with him to Singh and his accomplices. He is popularly remembered for his many activities, writings and mass appeal gesture among youths. But his two daring acts - avenging the death of Lala Lajpat Rai by killing the British police official, J.P. Sounders and throwing a bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly are the most noteworthy deeds. The second was an attempt to stir the nation to act more boldly against imperialism, which, however, silenced the brilliant mind of this devoted revolutionary. The trial and hanging of Bhagat Singh, along with his comrades Sukhdev and Rajguru, on March 23, 1931, had shocked the nation. Within the Congress, however, there were differences of opinion. They ranged from a total disapproval of the methods of the revolutionaries, as in the case of Mahatma Gandhi, to an appreciation of their patriotism and commitment to freedom by Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose. Nehru was all praise for the Naujawan Bharat Sabha and expected that it would "grow in strength to take a leading part in forming a national India". Recognising the popularity of Bhagat Singh, Nehru stated: "He was a clean fighter who faced his enemy in the open field. He was a young boy full of burning zeal for the country. He was like a spark which became a flame in a short time and spread from one end of the country to the other dispelling the prevailing darkness everywhere." Subhas Chandra Bose recognised Bhagat Singh as a symbol of awakening among the youth. But Gandhji's attitude was entirely different. Committed to non-violence, he could not approve of the methods of the revolutionaries. Holding that the revolutionaries have retarded the progress of the country, he considered them as "deluded patriots", "men past reason" and "enemies of the country". He believed that a "revolutionary's sacrifice, nobility and love are not only waste of effort, but being ignorant and misguided and misjudged, do, and have done, more harm to the country than any other activity". But even within the Congress there were many who thought otherwise. Many prominent Congress leaders, such as Motilal Nehru, Purushotamdas Tandon, Shiv Prasad Gupta and Shaukat Ali, helped the revolutionaries politically and financially. The division within the Congress was clearly manifested in the Lahore session, in which Mahatma Gandhi moved a resolution deploring the attempt to blow up the Viceregal Special (train) at Delhi. The resolution did not have a smooth passage in the session.

When put to vote, it was passed only with a narrow majority of 81, with 904 voting in favour and 823 against. VIOLENCE OR NON-VIOLENCE Let us, first of all, take up the question of violence and non-violence. We think that the use of these terms in itself, is a grave injustice to either party, for they express the ideals of neither of them correctly. Violence is physical force applied for committing injustice, and that is certainly not what the revolutionaries stand for. On the other hand, what generally goes by the name of non-violence is in reality the theory of soul force, as applied to the attainment of personal and national rights through courting, suffering and hoping thus to finally convert your opponent to your point of view. When a revolutionary believes certain things to be his right he asks for them, pleads for them, argues for them, wills to attain them with all the soul-force at his command, stands the greatest amount of suffering for them, is always prepared to make the highest sacrifice for their attainment, and also back his efforts with all the physical force he is capable of. You may coin what other word you like to describe his methods but you cannot call it violence, because that would constitute an outrage on the dictionary meaning of that word. Satyagraha is insistence upon truth. Why press, for the acceptance of truth, by soul-force alone? Why not add physical force also to it? While the revolutionaries stand for winning independence by all the forces, physical as-well as moral, at their command, the advocates of soul-force would like to ban the use of physical force. The question really, therefore, is not whether you will have violence, but whether you will have soul- force plus physical force or soul-force alone. OUR IDEAL THE REVOLUTIONARIES believe that the deliverance of their country will come through revolution. The revolution, they are constantly working and hoping for, will not only express itself in the form of an armed conflict between the foreign government and its supporters and the people, it will also usher in a new social order. The revolution will ring the death knell of capitalism and class distinctions and privileges. It will bring joy and prosperity to the starving millions who are seething today under the terrible yoke of both foreign and Indian exploitation. It will bring the nation into its own. It will give birth to a new state - a new social order. Above all, it will establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and will for ever banish social parasites from the seat of political power. DO THE MASSES BELIEVE IN NON-VIOLENCE Bhagat Singh thinks that on the basis of his experience during his latest tour in the country, he is right in believing that the large masses of Indian humanity are yet untouched by the spirit of violence and that non-violence has come to stay as a political weapon. Let him not delude himself on the experiences of his latest tour in the country. Though it is true that the average leader confines his tours to places where only the mail train can conveniently land him while Gandhi has extended his tour limit to where a motorcar can take him, the practice of staying only with the richest people in the places visited, of spending most of his time on being complemented by his devotees in private and public, and of granting Darshan now and then to the illiterate masses whom he claims to understand so well, disqualifies him from claiming to know the mind of the masses. No man can claim to know a people's mind by seeing them from the public platform and giving them Darshan and Updesh. He can at the most claim to have told the masses what he thinks about things. Has Gandhi, during recent years, mixed in the social life of the masses? Has he sat with the peasant round the evening fire and tried to know what he things? Has he passed a single evening in the company of a factory labourer and shared with him his vows? We have, and therefore we claim to know what the masses think. We assure Gandhi that the average Indian, like the average human being, understands little of the fine theological niceties about Ahimsa and loving one's enemy. The way of the world is like this. You have a friend: you love him, sometimes so much that you even die for him. You have an enemy: you shun him, you fight against him and, if possible, kill him. The gospel of the revolutionaries is simple and straight. It is what has been since the days of Adam and Eve, and no man has any difficulty about understanding it. We affirm that the masses of India are solidly with us because we know it from personal experience. The day is not far off when they will flock in their thousands to work the will of the Revolution.

On 23 March 1931, Bhagat Singh and two of his associates were hanged at the Lahore Central Jail. This was the culmination of the notorious Conspiracy Case in which they were accused of hurling a bomb in the Legislative Assembly of India. The trial of Bhagat Singh and his associates was held under the special Law, which permitted the trial in absentia. The British treated Bhagat Singh as a terrorist but the Indians regard him as a martyr. During discussion of the Bill in the Assembly, Mr. Jinnah strongly opposed it and made a stirring speech on 12 and 14 September 1929. Mr. Jinnah quoted a number of British and foreign precedents and said: I say that no judge who has got an iota of a judicial mind or a sense of justice can even be a party to a trial of that character and pass sentence of death without a shudder and a pang of conscience. This is the farce which you propose to enact under this procedure. I say this, that if ever there was a conscientious judge and he was strong enough, if he had a judicial mind, and if he had any independence, let me tell you, that in spite of the provision of yours, he would say, "True, the law has to be administered; I am obliged to make the order that the trial shall proceed ex-parte; but I realize and I feel that it will be a travesty of justice and I cannot be a party to it; and I shall therefore, adjourn this case until further orders." Mr. J.N. Dixit, former Foreign Minister of India writes: Mr. Jinnah made the most forthright statement in his defence of Bhagat Singh from amongst the leading politicians of the time. It is relevant to remember that where principles of law and norms of justice were threatened, Jinnah's voice was that of a fearless leaders. The present day political - social and economic condition of our country is fully under the cruel clutch of capitalist and imperialist forces. To improve the miserable condition of toiling masses and realize them the freedom in true sense, we must organize and mobilize the people to wage fierce war against these imperialist and capitalist forces. (Writer is columnist and an active member of a Jan Sangathan working in eastern Uttar Pradesh)