Original Photographs of Bhagat Singh
Family’s Photographs
Photo gallary of Bhagat Singh and Compatriots and their families
Few quotes from jail note book of Shaheed Bhagat Singh
Letters, Writting & Statements
S. Ajit Singh’s Autobiography
Bhagat Singh - an Intimate view by Com. Ajay Ghosh
Notes taken in Jail by Bhagat Singh
Jail Note Book of Martyr Bhgat Singh
Books Read by Bhagat Singh ( NEW)
First Biography Published in May 1931
Bhagat Singh Transcendence to Revolutionism
Important Document written by Revolutionary Bhagat Singh

Revisiting Bhagat Singh

Revisiting Bhagat Singh: Ideology and Politics


Datta Desai



“Revolution is made by labouring intellectuals and hardworking activists. Unfortunately, the intellectual side of the Indian Revolution has always remained weak. As a result, the essential elements of the revolution as well as the effects of work accomplished have not been sufficiently addressed. Therefore, it is necessary for a revolutionary to consider studying and reflection a sacred duty.” 1                           

                                                                                          -- Sardar Bhagat Singh


The need to liberate Bhagat Singh from stereotypical images continues to haunt Indian revolutionary movement even in his Birth Centenary Year. Though the image of Bhagat Singh as a rightist nationalist (a revivalist Deshbhakta) has been successfully negated to a great extent, there are certain other images, which need to be discussed. Consider, for example, an otherwise well researched and objectively written book on Indian Freedom struggle ‘Defining Death’ in which the authors Maya Gupta and A. K. Gupta make the following statements:  

“It is fashionable to depict terrorist heroes like Bhagat Singh, as Marxist.”2

“The terrorists of the mid-twenties, despite their earnestness, could ideologically only become at the most utopian socialists, not scientific socialists or Marxists.”3

“Terrorist leaders like Bhagat Singh and his comrades were undaunted heroes; no doubt they did stir the nation through their heroic sacrifice. This stirring of the nation was also their sole objective, irrespective of the halo of socialism added to it later on.”4

This raises certain questions not only regarding various interpretations, but also about the reality as such. Do the historical facts really prove that Bhagat Singh was a terrorist? Is it justifiable to assume that it was not possible for young ‘revolutionaries’ (the term used not in Marxist sense but in a conventional way) to evolve into a Marxist in a rapidly changing socio-political scenario? When all over the world, including India, bands of political activists were veering towards communism why should it be presumed that only Bhagat Singh and his comrades were not in a position to do so? Was the thought of socialism a halo, which was ‘added’ later on, or was it – and is still being – discovered later on? What do Bhagat Singh’s own writings (including his Jail Note-book), his journey as a political activist of about a decade, the memoirs of his contemporaries and the subsequent studies reveal?

            Through this paper I would like to emphasize that a closer, objective and historical look at Bhagat Singh’s writings and work sufficiently reveals his being a Marxist both in spirit and method. He does not put forward any formulae or quotations in his writings (though they are there amply in his Jail Note-book!) but tries to directly apply Marxist methodology, and there is, also, an attempt to integrate ideas and thoughts from various non-Marxist thinkers as well. We do get a glimpse of his world-outlook which deals with colonialism & imperialism, classes & class struggle, revolution & socialism, an outlook which goes beyond the politico-economic understanding largely prevalent in those days, even in the communist movement.

             His endeavour to grasp the complexity of various socio-political issues including religion & society, atheism & secularism, etc., and their relation to untouchability and caste, shows a more comprehensive understanding which goes beyond a binary or simplistic division of ‘communal-secular’, an understanding not of a liberal-rationalist or a mechanical materialist, but that of a Marxist.

            Bhagat Singh also exemplified a potentially rallying point for the large sections from all the streams of our freedom struggle – nationalist, militant/armed insurrectionary, social reformers and communists, and also with the nationalist core of revivalist (revivalist, not communalist) stream.

Notwithstanding – and of course without ignoring – the contradictions in the thought and practice of Bhagat Singh and his comrades, we need to explore the possibilities that existed in their thought and practice which could help building on his legacy for developing a more comprehensive programme for Indian Revolution.

To substantiate and discuss the above mentioned issues let us take a cursory glance at Bhagat Singh’s writings and political life.


A Terrorist, or a Communist?


Bhagat Singh, as described by himself in ‘Why I Am An Atheist’ and in ‘The Letter To Young Revolutionaries,’ passed through the phases of being a Gandhian Nationalist to a Romantic Revolutionary, and then after coming under the influence of Terro-(or Anarcho-)Communism for a short period, finally became a convinced Marxist, a follower of Scientific Socialism. Taking a cue from this, it is assumed that he became a Marxist after 1928 or in the last two years of his life when he was in the prison. But one must note that underlying the transition from one political phase to another or underlying these breaks, we can discern a consistency and continuity in his ideological development.

Bhagat Singh as a revolutionary activist – and also as a young intellectual – was searching for an ideology and a world-view for human emancipation. This journey began right from his school days and gathered momentum after joining the National College, Lahore. Bhagat Singh had apparently read a good number of files containing newspaper clippings about Sardar Ajitsingh, Lala Lajpatrai and also major political events, and  at least 50 books and booklets, which were written by radicals like Sardar Ajitsingh, Soofi Amba Prasad and Lala Hardayal, on socio-political issues when he was in the Fourth Standard,.5 Lala Hardayal, better known as one of the founders of Ghadar Party, was the first person in India to write a full-fledged article on Karl Marx (‘Karl Marx: A Modern Rishi’ in Modern Review published in March 1912).

At the age of fourteen (1921), in a letter addressed to his Grandfather from DAV School, Lahore, Bhagat Singh wrote enthusiastically in reverse script about the preparations being made by the Railway men to go on strike. This sympathy and concern about the workers was transformed into a more scientific understanding about the working class in the next 10 years (not at the end of 10 years!), as he went on reading a lot of Marxist literature from Dwarkadas library, Lahore (as recollected by the then librarian himself) and as he studied Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Lenin, Bukharin, Trotsky, and other Marxist thinkers, as well as a lot of other literature which offered criticism on various issues like economy, law and justice, state, civics and politics, democracy, religion, philosophy and ideologies, literature, history of the class societies including feudal and capitalist systems till the last moment of his life in the prison.

This ideological development led him to become, in 1928, one of the leading persons to reconstitute the HRA (Hindustan Republican Association /Army) as HSRA (Hindustan Socialist Republican Association /Army) and this change did not occur at the spur of the moment or as some emotional or utopian outburst, but was a well-thought out strategic step. And finally, he led the action of throwing harmless bombs in Constituent Assembly to register the protest against the anti-worker Trade Dispute Bill, and Public Safety Bill which was primarily directed against the Marxist/ Communist political activists coming in India from abroad. He also wrote and proclaimed on several occasions “Proletariat as the Vanguard of Revolution” and “the necessity of Dictatorship of the Proletariat for establishing a Socialist Society.” Who would do this besides a Marxist?

            Jitendranath Sanyal, one of the Bhagat Singh’s comrades, who was imprisoned for writing a biography of Bhagat Singh in 1931, in his statement before the Court had said – “Sardar Bhagat Singh, I knew was neither a terrorist nor an anarchist; therefore to discharge my duty towards my late friend I thought of presenting his true and historical picture. In this I wanted to show that he was a communist and an internationalist and that people had misunderstood him.”6

In the biography Sanyal had written - “Bhagat Singh, deeply concerned about abolishing the all-pervading poverty, had reached the thought that for India’s total independence, not merely political but people’s economic independence is also necessary. Therefore, the functioning of Naujawan Bharat Sabha was designed on communist lines. Its real object was to organise workers and peasants…”7

            He further writes, “Bhagat Singh started to live like a communist, from the time he began his reading of communist literature,”8 and emphasizes that “Being a true communist, his outlook on each and every matter remained internationalist. Like all other revolutionaries he also had risen above regional sectarianism, but had gone one step ahead of them. His humanism had left the nationalism long behind, there was not an iota of geographical or linguistic sectarianism in him.”9

This ideological evolution of Bhagat Singh is reflected in various facets of his thought and practice.


Religion, Society And Politics          


As stated in “Why I am an Atheist?” a boy from a Sikh family with Arya Samajist background who regularly did his prayers and chanting of Gayatri Mantra twice a day, turned into a complete atheist by 1926. His atheism was not merely an act of negating   religion mechanically. If we go through his various writings on “Kooka Revolt”, “Anarchism”, “Religion and our Freedom Struggle”, “Communal Riots & the Solution”, “The problem of Untouchability”, “Different thoughts of New leader” and scattered statements in various other articles and documents, we can get a glimpse of the mind of an intellectual who is trying to grasp the complexity of religion, society & politics in the then existing Indian context with a Marxist understanding which was rare even among the stalwarts of our  freedom struggle including those from the Left in that decade.

In the post Chourichoura period, in 1923-24 the Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha were revived, in 1925 RSS was formed, and the Nation had witnessed rise of communal riots. The Communist Party of India, in Prof. Irfan Habib’s words “… perhaps the first political party of any significance”, in its Kanpur Conference of 1925 had passed a resolution to exclude persons belonging to communal organization from becoming CPI’s member.10 CPIs first open call to the Indian people was through its ‘Manifesto on the Hindu-Muslim Problem’ (15th May, 1926). Bhagat Singh was the leading person in ensuring that the Naujawan Bharat Sabha (formed in Kanpur in 1926) “would have nothing to do with communal bodies or other parties which disseminate communal ideas” and “considering religion as matter of personal belief.” As Jitendranath Sanyal had mentioned: “He began practicing this immediately by removing the external symbols of religion like cutting his hair short and removing his beard.”11

Bhagat Singh shows a remarkable understanding about the difference between nationalism based on religious revivalism as well as religion as source of nationalist inspirations, on the one hand and communalism, on the other. This understanding can be seen through a number of examples.

Take for example his articles on Kooka Vidroh (Kooka Rebel) written in 1928. Though the Namdhari sect had acquired a communal sectarian character in Bhagat Singh’s days, he points out how the founder Sant Guru Ramsingh was a true rebel, a radical social reformer and a patriot fighting to overthrow the foreign yoke and that this apparently religious movement was anti -imperialist at its core. Bhagat Singh brings out the fact that the non-cooperation movement undertaken by Gandhiji in 1920, was taken up half a century earlier in 1872 by Sant Ramsingh and how the movement carried a stronger political programme than Gandhiji (Boycott on courts, peoples panchayats, boycott on Govt. education, total boycott on Govt. Administration including Railway, Post &Telegraph, wearing simple and swadeshi clothes, etc.) 12

Bhagat Singh also shows an objective and sympathetic attitude towards the viewpoint of the earlier revolutionaries who could not overcome the need to hold on to the religious beliefs, mysticism or irrational spiritualism. The reason was the lack of scientific grasp of the true political character of their own ‘revolutionary’ work, the sacrifice and strains of keeping themselves away from kith & kin, comforts of life, temptations, and also the ‘absence’ of alternative philosophical-moral world-view based on modern human universal values and revolutionary ideology like scientific socialism & Marxism, etc., This analysis was based on his own personal life experience and also on a firm Marxist understanding. He says, “from my personal experience I can safely assert that in the secret work when a man constantly leads a risky life, ‘without hope & without fear, ‘always prepared to die unknown, unhonoured and unsung’, then he cannot but fight the personal temptations and desires with the help of this sort of mysticism which is by no means demoralising.”13

He analyses the concept of God and religion, not only his well-known article ‘Why I Am An Atheist’ (1930) but also prior to that in one of his articles written on ‘Anarchism’ (1928). In these writings, his emphasis is on the exploitative and iniquitous character of these concepts and the social institutions based on them, and how religion becomes an instrument in the hands of feudal and capitalist vested interests and the ruling classes. He also touches the other side of this problem. The origins and the need of God and religion for the human beings and the society lies in their lack of scientific understanding of the nature, environment and society, and the lack of power to control their own life, society and destiny. He discusses how God and religion become useful myths to the people living in hardships and for the man in distress. This entire treatment of God and religion given by young Bhagat Singh shows a remarkable resemblance with the oft-quoted famous paragraph of ‘young’ Marx. One may wonder14 whether Bhagat Singh had read this famous passage from Marx, and indeed in his jail notebook, we do find this passage noted down by Bhagat Singh15         

He is very critical where revivalism becomes an obstacle in raising people’s consciousness based on scientific revolutionary thought and modern values, e.g. after the Chourichoura incidence and the withdrawal of non-cooperation movement, while in National College, Bhagat Singh had participated in Gurudwara Reform movement as it mainly represented the peasants and other people who were opposed to the domination of feudal and a colonial powers over and through Gurudwara. However he also withdrew himself from it when he sensed the movement assuming kind of a communal character. In his article ‘Different Thoughts of New Leaders’ (1928) he squarely criticises the ‘Back to Vedas’ approach and the revivalist philosophy of Sadhu Wasvani. He lays bear the anti-Bolshevik /anti-class ideological core of Sadhu Wasvani’s arguments. While comparing and admiring both Netaji Subhash Babu and Pt Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhagat Singh acknowledges their greatness, yet he also critises the nationalists limitations of Netaji Subhash who advocates merely political change. Bhagat Singh then advises the youth of Punjab to follow Nehru’s ideology as it was based on modern, socialist values and advocated revolutionary changes in the present social system.16

He clearly disapproves of ‘conciliating the various conflicting religions as all the nationalists try to do.’17 His article on “Religion and our Freedom Struggle” (1928) throws light on another facet of his thinking. In this article, he develops a critique of the communal political forces trying to take cover under various religions, the “free for all” (or Sarva Dharma Sam Bhav) approach of the Congress which allows the priests of different religions to recite “Mantras” and Ayats” on the platform, the communalism hidden in the ideologies based on Varnashram Dharma, (Hindu), the sikh communal attitude of Raj Karega Khalsa and also in Koranic tradition. He refers to Leo Tolstoy’s book ‘Essay & Letters’ and uses his approach to understand the three major components of religion – Essentials of Religion, Philosophy of Religion & Rituals of Religion and at the end concludes that  “…if we add superstitions and blind beliefs to the second and the third aspect (Philosophy & Rituals) of Religion, then we better do away with the concept of Religion. It be abolished right now. However, if religion consists of the first and second aspects (Essentials and Philosophy) and if independent thinking is added to them, then we can welcome religion”18

Yet in another article “Communal Riots and the Solution,” we can see his analytical clarity about the causes and the solution of communal riots based on a class point of view. He does not spare Hindu, Sikh or Muslim communalists either, and the ‘hand in glove’ relations of the communal political leaders and newspapers. He also draws attention to the economic causes, including deprivation, which provokes people for riots. He further links the problem of communalism with imperialism by pointing out the lack of development in India as the main reason and that so long as the British Rule, a foreign domination, continues, India’s development will remain retarded and, therefore, overthrowing the foreign rule becomes necessary to solve the problem of communalism.

In the same article he says “To stop people fighting with one another, it is essential to develop class consciousness” and he advocates people’s unity transcending the divisions of religion, colour, community, nationality etc., to unite to break the shackles of colonialism and attain economic independence. He cites the example of Soviet Russia and also an incidence from Calcutta where in a riot-charged atmosphere the industrial workers of both Hindu and Muslim communities joined hands to resist the riot as examples of class-consciousness overcoming the social divides. He also expresses hope in the young generation, which was then showing a growing despise towards communal riots. Finally, he refers to the stand taken by Ghadar Party on secularism in these words – “The martyrs of 1914-15 had separated religion from politics. They believed that religion is an individual’s personal matter; no one else should interfere in it. Nor should religion be mixed with politics, because it does not allow the chemistry to work them together. This is the reason why the movement like Ghadar could remain united and unanimous, and the Sikh embraced the gallows & the Hindu-Muslims also did not flinch.” He also welcomes the leaders who had come forward to separate the religion from politics and calls it an effective solution to solve the problem of communalism19

In his article on “The problem of Untouchabiltiy” (1928) he makes a scathing attack on the philosophy (karmvipak) of Hinduism, which provides a rationale to a most heinous system of untouchability and caste hierarchy20 and links the fight against untouchability to revolutionary politics, which shows a concrete understanding of the linkages of religion with caste system in India. To the other hand, in his first published article in 1924 – at the age of 17 years – “The Problem of Language and Script of Punjab” while discussing various aspects of the relation of language, literature, society and social change etc., he deals with the problem of how Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi languages have been divided on communal lines by Hindu, Muslims and Sikh communalists respectively. This division being the main obstacle of Punjab’s language problem, the challenge before us is to rise above these communal divisions.

People’s unity rising above communal divides and secularism was what Bhagat Singh cherished for all his life. As described by Prof. Bipanchandra “More than any contemporary leader, with the exception of Gandhiji, he understood the danger that communalism posed to Indian Society and Indian Nationalism.” He considered it “as big an enemy as colonialism” and he also insisted that, “people must free themselves from the mental bondage of religion and superstition.”

 The deep commitment of Bhagat Singh and his comrades towards secularism is evident from one of the most important turning points in the history of our freedom struggle and it shows the nature of a complex relationship these revolutionaries had with the Nationalist leaders. Lala Lajpat Rai who turned to communal politics in the post-non-cooperation movement was contesting assembly election in 1924. He had to face the secular wrath of his own Manasputra. Bhagat Singh and his comrades issued a leaflet titled “The Lost Leader” based on Browning’s poem with sentences like “Just for a handful of silver he left us” and “Lion of Punjab has turned chickened heart” was how Lalaji described. “Yeh aur koi nahi, unake apane nalayak bete hai” was Lala’s reaction, with a reply “Yes, they have lost a leader but found a soldier.” 21 It was this very group of revolutionaries who laid down their lives, for the cause Lalaji upheld, by attacking British officers, in order to stir the Indian people gone in shock and inaction after Lalaji’s death.

            These clear politico-ideological stands and the high moral-philosophical level of his understanding which Bhagat Singh showed at every small or big incidence and action stems from his Marxist thinking and his commitment to Scientific Socialism. His denial to pray before God in the Jail in 1927 when it was insisted by British officials and his denial to read Gutka from Guruvani in the last moments of his life are the reflection of the high moral-philosophical principles which stand above the religious morality.


On the Question of Untouchability and Caste


The Indian National Congress, due to the efforts of Maharshi V.R. Shinde had passed a resolution against untouchability in 1917 (Calcutta). Gandhiji was also opposed to untouchability. However, in these years Gandhiji still continued to uphold the Chaturvrnya, albeit with different rationale, and the Congress had not taken any radical steps against the caste system.

The decade after i.e.1920 onwards witnessed the rise of Dr.Ambedkar under whose leadership the question of caste abolition and emancipation of Dalits gained a mass political character and made an immense impact on Indian Freedom struggle. Barrister Jinnah’s article published in 1923 to transfer the Dalit population to Hindu-Muslim missionary institutions had sparked off a fierce debate. The anti-caste movement was gaining momentum in a good number of states.                    

The document ‘Thesis on India & the World Revolution’ submitted to Comintern by Virendranath, Suhani and Khankoje in July 1921 had made a mention that ‘Indian society was divided not only vertically along class lines, but also horizontally along lines of religion and caste’22 and then at the end of that decade, i.e., in 1930, the CPI had passed a resolution against untouchability. In this context Bhagat Singh’s views about caste and related issues need to be considered. Bhagat Singh, who had picked up the thought of social reform and of opposing the practice of untouchability from the Aryasamaji background of his grandfather, and who in the last moments of his life asked for a roti prepared by the scavenger (untouchable) in the Lahore prison (the famous Bebe ki roti), had made a significant progress in developing his thoughts about caste and untouchability on a scientific, Marxist foundation.

            In his article on “The problem of Untouchability” he attacks the religious– philosophical-spiritual rationale of untouchability. He also criticises the orthodox social elements as well as the leaders like M. M. Malviya getting publicly garlanded by a scavenger and then purifying himself by taking bath with the clothes.

He invokes the principle of equality and demands to abolish the ideas and of discrimination based on birth or social division of labour. He criticises the hierarchical system that treats inhumanly the very sections that render the most essential, most basic services to the society. Finally, he suggests that unless the untouchables – the backbone of this country – organise themselves, the problem of untouchability will find no solution. He not only welcomes demand for equal rights to the untouchables but also upholds the idea of demanding equal opportunities and equal treatment in all walks of life, extra & special rights to overcome the division and inequality. He invokes the tradition of great contributions and sacrifices made by the untouchables in our history, and appeals them to rise and revolt, against the system as they are the ‘real proletariat.’ He cautions them not to be lured by the bureaucracy, as it is the capitalist bureaucracy which is the cause of their poverty and slavery and also warns them that the gradual reforms will not bring any benefit to the masses and they should unite to unleash a revolution from the social movement and also to be part of political and economic revolution.23

He approaches the problem of untouchability from the class point of view, but not in a reductionist or merely economistic manner. His understanding of the organic links of caste, class, religion, capitalism and imperialism, though in a very rudimentary form, exhibits a non-conventional, revolutionary content. Bhagat Singh, in his another brief write-up24, while criticising the wasteful expenditure on Kalanagar event in Mumbai, demands that real skills (Hunnar) lie in the hands of the artisans who need to be given financial help and training. He suggests that, “instead of opening Hindu Sabhas and Congress Mandals, let opening of training schools all over India be given top priority which will save us from unemployment, dependence and deprivation.” 25

As mentioned elsewhere in this article, Bhagat Singh in the Draft Revolutionary Programme mentions ‘the need for organising artisans.’ Gandhiji approached the problem of crores of artisans suffering under colonialism by using Charkha as a symbol and by propagating Swayampurna Gram-vyavastha (Self-sufficient Village System) as the remedy, whereas Bhagat Singh approaches this problem differently and emphasizes the need to organize and empower the artisan classes.

            Though he doesn’t develop a full-fledged or detailed critique of the caste system, he shows a remarkable sense about the need to abolish the evils like untouchabality and the Varnashram system as the worst form of deprivation, discrimination, exploitation, inhumanness and inequality in India, and simultaneously he emphasises the need to strengthen the skills and self-reliance of the productive class like artisans.


Mass work and Relation with the Communist Movement


Since his age of 13years, he organized a group in his village, participated in non-cooperation movement by leaving school while studying in 9th Std., organized grand reception for Jatha against the stiff opposition of his relative Landlord who had joined hands with the British Officials, organized NauJawan Bharat Sabha as an open wing of the revolutionaries to do political work among the youth and the peasants and workers, and worked as its secretary, worked for Kirti Group which was formed by Ghadar revolutionaries who had returned from Moscow trained in communist theory in the Eastern University, and he also wrote for Kirti, a Punjabi Journal started by Santokh Sing and then run by Sohan Singh Josh (who later joined CPI). Bhagat Singh, while in Kanpur, was in touch with the early communists like Satyabhakta, Radha Mohan Gokulji, Shaukat Usmani. Bhagat Singh had also met Muzzafar Ahmad, one of the founders of communist movement in India, in 1924 in Lahore.

By 1928, not only Bhagat Singh, even Sukhdev and Bhagawati Charan Vohra (who was also one of the brains behind this revolutionary party and drafted important documents like the Manifesto of NauJawan Bharat Sabha, and HSRA Manifesto) in Punjab, Bejoykumar Sinha, Shiv Verma and Jaidev Kapoor in UP were getting more and more convinced about the need to adopt a socialist agenda for their revolutionary organisation. So in a special meeting of HRA (September, 1928), after long deliberations, they consciously reconstituted the HRA as HSRA. This was not an ornamental change but a very well thought out Strategy, the flowering of which can be seen in the document drafted by Bhagat Singh titled “A Letter To Young Political Activists” and “Draft Revolutionary Programme”. Apart from NauJawan Bharat Sabha, Lahore Students Union, Bal Students Union, Bal Bharat Sabha were also formed as part of the mass work of this group. Seeing Bhagat Singh’s increasing impact on the youth and people in general, the police arrested him in 1927 by implicating him in 1926 Dussehra bomb case which, it was suspected, was the handiwork of some agents of police themselves.

 The thoughts and ideas expressed by Bhagat Singh about Vishwa Prem and Internationalism, Capitalism and Imperialism, Indian Bourgeoisie collaborating with Foreign Capitalists in exploiting the peasants-workers and the toiling masses of India, the Basic Tenets of a Socialist Society, the Concept of Revolution, etc. are some of the important pointers to his theoretical understanding based on Marxist outlook.

One may say that these ideas were not fully worked out and they were in a formative stage, and hence may appear to be ‘that of an amateur’ compared to the positions/conceptual framework developed by the Indian Communist Movement in a collective manner over a much longer period and with the guidance from the International Communist Movement. However, seen in an historical context, it will not be justified to criticise his thoughts and ideas as lagging far behind in content and quality compared to the ideas and thoughts of the individuals and groups who formed the communist party in the same decade. On the other hand, he needs to be acknowledged as one of the pioneering and leading persons of that decade who were moving in the direction of building the theoretical/ideological foundation of the Indian Revolutionary/Communist Movement.

In 1928, the Workers and Peasants Party, which was a part of the CPI, played an active role in expanding and mobilising NauJawan Bharat Sabha 26 with the help of Bhagat Singh and his comrades.

The All India Conference of the Workers and Peasants Parties held in Calcutta on Dec. 21-24, 1928, in which all the existing provincial organizations (delegates from Bombay, Punjab, UP, and Bengal) participated, was also attended by Bhagat Singh in secret27 Bhagat Singh and his comrades themselves under trial in Lahore conspiracy case also expressed their solidarity with Meerut conspiracy case prisoners.28 We find a marked similarity in the strategy adopted by the revolutionaries in both the cases in converting the Court into a platform to broadcast and propagate the Marxist/Communist ideas.

While the Meerut trial was going on the CPI came out its Draft Platform of Action, which was widely circulated at the Karachi session of the Indian National Congress in March, 1931, which, Com. B.T.Randive described as “Never before India see such a revolutionary document directly addressed to the problems of all sections of the Indian people & the immediate needs of revolution struggle for the overthrow of British rule….” 29

Similarly, one must take a note of the fact that the documents ‘A Letter to the Young Revolutionaries’ and ‘Draft Revolutionary Programme’ were drafted by Bhagat Singh in his last months in the Jail and were published in May-July, 1931.

So practically, Bhagat Singh and HSRA were a part of the Communist Movement in India since almost its inception. The reasons for Bhagat Singh and his comrades not becoming the formal members of the Communist Party do not seem to be very clear—may be as the CPI itself was in a formative stage and took some shape only in the early 30s 30 that they did not join, or may be that they still differed on certain aspects (as sounded by Durgabhabhi later).

Bhagat Singh -- it can be emphatically said -- was fully convinced about the need of a Communist Party to take forward the revolution, which was reasserted in the Draft Revolution Programme, where he mentions that the Party will be known as Communist Party. In late 20’s they were trying to shape a revolutionary organization, HSRA, as the elementary form of Communist organization. From this document and the jail note book and some other writings it was clear that ultimately HSRA was also to take the path of mass mobilization of workers, youth, peasants, students and other potentially revolutionary sections of Indian Society. It is an oft-repeated and known fact that most of the HSRA comrades, who survived the British onslaught and imprisonment, later joined the Communist Party.

The critique of Congress and Gandhiji by Bhagat Singh and his comrades was very close to that done by the communists. ‘Philosophy of Bomb’ drafted by Vohra and finalised by Bhagat Singh is a rebuttal to the bitter criticism hurled at the revolutionaries by Gandhiji. The document acknowledges the contribution of Congress and Gandhiji for their work about mass-mobilisation and mass awareness, but sharply criticises the compromising character of the politics and the class-character of the Congress leadership and Gandhiji’s proximity to the upper class sections, his method of addressing and mobilising peasants and workers for nationalists goals, but not touching the class issues of these sections, and places the debate on ‘violence’ in the context of two differing world-views: one that of Gandhiji, which was based on achieving freedom within the present social system, which meant a politics of compromise with the forces of imperialism, coupled with a moral-spiritual (i.e. idealist) philosophical world-view, and the other one, that of Bhagat Singh and his comrades, of achieving national freedom as part of the politics aimed at a revolutionary transformation of the present social system and based on the materialist-scientific philosophical world-view.

 On the one hand, the critique is quite close to the critique done by communists, but on other hand it also asserts -- “this year the Congress has accepted the position which the revolutionaries were propagating for the last 25 years. We hope Congress will support /advocate their methods also by the next year.” This refers to the demand of ‘Total Independence.’ Though the Congress did not adopt the methods of revolutionaries, the militant and revolutionary streams became more and more active in the national struggle whether it be the Chittgong Revolt of 1932 or establishing parallel Governments/ people-controlled areas like Ballia, Solapur, Satara and other growing militant/armed actions in 1942. Neither Congress could disown them, nor could Gandhiji withdraw the movement in 1942 as he did in 1922. All such armed/insurrectionary nationalist movements after Bhagat Singh and HSRA were secular, democratic and broadly left in character.

             Whereas in the period between 1928-31, the CPI underwent the phase of isolation from the main current of the anti-colonial movement due to the sectarianism under the influence of the Comintern31 Bhagat Singh and his comrades were the ones who did not adopt a sectarian approach towards the Congress and the main current of the freedom struggle, on the other hand they continuously strived to base their anti-imperialism on class issues and strengthen and spread the influence of the revolutionary (in its Marxist sense) current. The Draft Revolutionary Programme put forward by Bhagat Singh in 1931 was broadly similar to the programme of CPI in terms of its socio-economic and political tasks, and the strategy formulated therein included some steps like  ‘utilising the Congress platform’ along with ‘working in and establishing Trade Unions’, ‘to work in all social and voluntary organisations (including co-operative societies)’ and establishing ‘Committees of Artisans.’32


Contradictions and Beyond


Though the contradictions of the HSRA and, in a way that of Bhagat Singh, pointed by Prof. Bipin Chandra, are broadly correct, some ground exists which can explain the concrete and objective reasons of these contradictions, and there are sufficient indications to show that a process existed where the efforts of HSRA and Bhagat Singh would have culminated in overcoming these contradictions. The contradictions pointed out by Prof. Bipin Chandra were as follows:

            “Basically, their failure can be expressed in a series of contradictions between their ideology and their work. While in theory they were committed to socialism, in practice they could not go beyond nationalism. While in theory they desired mass action and mass struggle, in practice they could not rise above terrorist or individual action. While in theory they wanted to base their movement on the masses – the peasants and workers – in practice they could only appeal to the lower middle class or petty bourgeois youth. While in theory they wanted to create and lead a mass movement, in practice they remained a small band of heroic youth.” 33

The political atmosphere in the 30’s became somewhat gloomy, as the Gandhi-Irwin Pact made no significant gains, the Second Round Table Conference ended in failure, differences between Muslim League and Congress, and between Gandhi and Dr. Ambedkar widened. The communist movement was yet to pick up after the Meerut Case or also could not continue the unity with Dr. Ambedkar, which was forged for a brief period at the time of the Trade Union strike in Bombay. However, due to the efforts of all these streams -- including the constitutionalists -- the public awakening was rising, in which Bhgatsingh became the shining symbol of defying death, non-compromising anti-imperialism and indomitable hope. He and his comrades left indelible imprint on the development of our freedom struggle and were amongst them who decisively shaped its future course.

            It was no wonder his contribution was acknowledged by all the national leaders, but a tribute given after four years of his death, which came from the most unlikely but most authoritative source needs a special mention. The then Director of Intelligence Bureau, Sir Horace Williamson, in his study ‘India and Communism’ wrote, “Bhagat Singh made no mistake. The prisoners’ dock became a political forum and the countryside rang with his heroics. His photograph was on sale in every city and township and for a time rivalled in popularity even that of Mr. Gandhi himself.”34

            In a colonial situation, the problem of socio-political contradictions has to be understood in its entirety and in all its complexity. The contradictions mentioned above did not emanate from the ‘subjective’ factor alone, i.e. due to the shortcomings of the HSRA and Bhagat Singh, but were also the result of ‘objective’ factor, i.e. the socio-political contradictions then existing in India, which reflected in different forms in the ideologies and politics of all the streams in our freedom struggle, including the tallest figures like Gandhiji. The presence of such ‘tall’ and ‘objective’ contradictions also must have had a significant impact on the political initiatives of the groups like HSRA.

The Indian National Congress being a multi-class, non-revolutionary party, and not ready to take strong action to lift up the confidence of the people; the working class, under the leadership of the Communist and Workers & Peasants Parties, was no doubt putting up a struggle with the available strength, but was not in a position to take up the struggle to arouse the people on a massive and national scale; Bhagat Singh and others, though convinced that mass movement is necessary, had neither necessary mass base nor a widely spread organisation nor the time to wait for building such a movement or organization, in such a situation it became imperative to take some political action to arouse the nation -- in both the cases, viz., Lala Lajpatrai’s death and the introduction of the anti-people and anti-worker Bills in the Constituent Assembly.

As Com. Ajaykumar Ghosh, one of Bhagat Singh’s very close comrades, who later became the general secretary of CPI, had wrote in 1945 -- “.... the revolutionary minded youth...was drawn towards terrorism (as) the outcome of the general political situation then prevailing..” which was “frustrating”, “Terrorism, armed action against the enemies of the people, we were convinced, was indispensable to rouse the nation...” and the ultimate aim of these actions was that -- “When the stagnant calm was broken by a series of hammer blows delivered by us at selected points and on suitable occasions, against the most hated officials of the government, and mass movement unleashed, we would link ourselves with that movement, act as its armed detachment and give it a socialist direction.”35

Finally, it cannot be denied that Bhagat Singh was a rebel against the foreign despotic rule over the country, not one who took to arms in order to subvert democratic government working according to the rule of law and will of the people. In this context, his article on ‘Anarchism’ needs a mention. While discussing the political movements in Europe and Russia, he draws our attention to the fact that the revolutionaries who were trying to bring about a political change through peaceful means were compelled to resort to anti-state ‘terrorist’ actions as it was the state repression that made it impossible to conduct any peaceful and open political activities.36

 In his ‘A Letter to the Young Revolutionaries’ he makes his ideological position distinctly clear, where he says - “Apparently I have acted like a terrorist. But I am not a terrorist. I am a revolutionary who bears much concrete and specific ideas of a long-term programme...”37 and then he states, “We want a socialist revolution, for which the indispensable foundation is a political revolution. That is what we want. The political revolution means the transfer of the state (or to put it bluntly, the power) from the hands of the British to the hands of the Indians, and that too, those Indians who are at one with us as to the final goal. To be more precise, it is necessary that the power be transferred to the revolutionary party through the efforts of the common people. After that, to proceed in right earnest is to organize the reconstruction of the whole society on the socialist basis....”38

When the HSRA was thinking of turning to mass actions, the political developments pushed them, as a matter of practical expediency, to undertake “Action for Propaganda” (armed action by a small group) to awaken the masses from slumber. At that particular moment this kind of action carried more weight with Bhagat Singh and his comrades. They, however, also adopted various forms of struggle such as hunger strike and satyagraha, which generally ‘terrorists’ do not resort to!  When Bhagat Singh puts it in a nutshell that “Use of force justifiable when resorted to as a matter of terrible necessity; non-violence as policy indispensable for all mass movements,”39 his views need to be bracketed with the classical Marxist understanding which has always held that as the ruling classes do not allow – and have never allowed in the history – a peaceful revolutionary transition, the revolutionaries have to build a ‘physical force or armed wing’ which can resist the violence unleashed by the ruling classes and their state. Bhagat Singh (and Vora) in ‘Philosophy of Bomb’ differentiate between ‘violence’ and ‘force’, the former being used by the ruling classes, the oppressors or the state to perpetuate exploitation and their rule, while the later being the resistance put up by the exploited or oppressed people and insist that what they were resorting to was ‘force’ and not ‘violence’. He lays special emphasis on the point that ‘the role of the armed wing is to assist the revolutionary (communist) party in its political work and that it should not function independently.’ 40 Now one may contest this line of political thought, not on the grounds that Bhagat Singh was a ‘terrorist’, but by accepting that he was a Marxist! 


On Class, Imperialism and Revolution


Much has been written and discussed about these aspects of Bhagat Singh’s ideology and politics till now and, as such, do not need a detailed discussion here. However, a brief mention of some of the points here may help our discussion.

Bhagat Singh’s patriotism was neither based on mere ‘anti-British-ism’ or anti-colonialism, nor on crude anti-imperialism. His anti-imperialism was not only more radical than that of Lokmanya Tilak, Dadabhai Nauroji and Gandhiji, but also was soundly grounded in the Leninist understanding of imperialism. This understanding is revealed through the famous slogan ‘Down with Imperialism’ as well as various writings, formulations and the tactics put forward by him – and, of course, the HSRA – in the fight against the colonial state.

In his article on Vishwa Prem (1924), while discussing the very concept, he declares that he is a staunch supporter of Universal Brotherhood, but he raises a pertinent question as to so long as any individual or any nation is in the state of slavery and domination, so long as there is inequality in the form of black-white, civilized-uncivilized, rulers-ruled, rich-poor, touchable-untouchable, and so long as there is oppression and annihilation of communities and nations, can the person or the nation claim to achieve real Universal Brotherhood? He refuses to believe in ‘imagined’ world-peace propagated by the Idealists in a world pervaded by inequality and exploitation. He then goes on to add that Universal Brotherhood for him is nothing else but ‘world wide equality in the true sense (communism)’, and that a war must be declared against the perpetuators of all the above mentioned problems as well as against the imperial centres of powers, and he cites George Washington, Mazzini, French revolutionaries, Lenin, etc., as the true examples of persons propagating Universal Brotherhood.41 He grasps ‘imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism’ a mention of which we find in the Leninist definition of imperialism noted down in his jail note-book42 and the understanding exuberates through the various political declarations, manifestoes and court statements of HSRA-Bhagat Singh. They considered ‘the defeat of imperialism essential not only for India’s independence but also to end the wars, destruction and exploitation imposed upon the world by the imperialist system and for the emancipation of the peoples of the world but also for an ever-lasting world peace.’ He upholds the principle of internationalism (again, the famous ‘Internationale’ finds a place in his note-book!) and also talks of a world federation of the peoples of the world based on socialism as against world imperialist system.

As Prof. Chamanlal very aptly puts it in his Introduction43, all the actions of HSRA, viz., killing Saunders to avenge the ‘National Insult’ of Lala Lajpat Rai’s murder, getting arrested after throwing harmless bombs in the Constituent Assembly, using the weapon of hunger-strike in the jail, converting the Court into a political platform, and finally, approaching the death sentence as planned, denote a very well thought out strategy against the mighty imperialist power, which was left with no choice but to act the way this tiny but intelligent revolutionary group wanted it to. Though the imperial power could successfully liquidate the leading revolutionaries and HSRA physically, the imperial power itself was defeated morally, politically, intellectually and ideologically. The revolutionaries could do this successfully because of their correct assessment of the character and power of the British State, based on their concrete understanding of imperialism, the historically determined national-political situation and their own historical role to make the most effective political intervention in the given context, of course, under the constraints and with the limitations discussed above.

Bhagat Singh was keen to understand the capitalism as a system to be overthrown to bring about a revolutionary change. Interestingly, in his jail note–book, we can notice some statistics relating to the economies of Australia, U.S.A., U.K. and India44 jotted down, whereby his effort to understand the existing inequalities, the distribution of wealth among the various classes, the exploitation of the working class and the destruction caused by the capitalism in these societies, etc., becomes evident. Also we find the definition of ‘Value’ from Marx’s ‘Capital’45 in this note–book which throws some light on his attempt to understand the capitalism. However, the point here is not to assess the ‘homework’ done by him, rather, to draw our attention to certain historical facts as regards the tools this young revolutionary was trying to wield to understand and analyse the Indian social system.

It is sometimes pointed out – and it is true – that Bhagat Singh-HSRA could not embark upon the task of analyzing the Indian society with its industrial and rural-agrarian system, the concrete and complex class-caste structure and the stage of the national development and the revolution, etc. But, when the Indian communist movement as a whole had to put in a couple of decades to draw up even the preliminary sketches of these aspects, the expectation that a small and short-lived group like HSRA would handle this task is unrealistic. However, at every possible occasion Bhagat Singh draws the attention of the Indian people, especially the youth, the peasantry, the toiling and oppressed masses, the intelligentsia and the political sections to the realities of the existing capitalist system in India. For example, in one of the messages sent out from the jail, Bhagat Singh says that ‘the peasantry has to free itself from the clutches of not only the foreign rule but also from the rule of the landlords and capitalists.’ In the letter written to the Governor of Punjab, he had written —“… that the war is going on and will continue so long as the powerful persons perpetuate their monopoly over wealth-generating resources of the Indian people and the toiling masses; it makes no difference whether the powerful persons are only British capitalists, or British and Indian capitalists collaborating with each other to continue the exploitation, or whether they are purely Indian capitalists sucking the blood of the poor people…”46 He emphasized that ‘for  revolution the struggle against the external forces like imperialist - capitalists and colonialists as well as against the internal forces like the Indian capitalists, feudal landlords, moneylenders and traders was essential.’

As regards the concept of Revolution, HSRA-Bhagat Singh must be acknowledged as the most effective force, which was instrumental in putting an end decisively to the tradition of identifying this word with the revivalist, communal or merely armed insurrectionary streams and placing it firmly on the foundation of a Marxist understanding ideologically and on a secular, democratic and left plank politically.

They also, time and again, made it clear that “revolution is not a cult of bomb or pistol”, “by revolution we mean that the present order of the things based on manifest injustice must change...” and “Revolution for us means the ultimate establishment of an order of society where no barriers would exist, and where the sovereignty of the proletariat would be accepted, and consequently, through a world federation the humanity would redeem itself from the bondage of capitalism and from the perils of the imperialist wars.” The two more slogans –‘Long Live Revolution’ and ‘Long Live Proletariat’–popularized by the HSRA-Bhagat Singh, were not hollow words but they carried a full ideological meaning as discussed above.


Open Mind and Scientific Outlook


Bhagat Singh’s world outlook is not rigid or ideologically regimented and is very open and scientific in its true sense.

            He calls himself a ‘realist’ and he declares that “...I am a materialist and my interpretation of the phenomenon will be causal”47 while demarcating his position from mysticism, spiritualism, etc. His views on philosophy are also worth noting. In a couple of places he quotes approvingly one of his comrades saying ‘Philosophy is the outcome of human weakness or limitation of knowledge’ and in his jail note-book we find Marx’s famous quotation “Philosophers have interpreted the world differently, the point however, is to change it.”48 He is not only critical about mysticism, spiritualism and Idealist philosophies, but also about ‘Philosophy’ per se which reaffirms his Marxist grounding and also his modern, dynamic and scientific mind.

When he said, “criticism and independent thinking are the two indispensable qualities of a revolutionary,” he reiterated his insistence on adopting scientific and critical attitude towards all things, including himself, under the sun from a collection of poems to the existing social system.

On the question of language, though himself a Sanskrit-lover, his view is that only the mother tongues of common man, and not Sanskrit or Arabic, can be the language for social transaction. He also deals perceptively with the problem of the script and language for Punjab and discusses the inter-linkages of the development of a language with the development of literature, the process of social change and other factors affecting the language and literature in any society.49 (Essay written at the age of 17 years!)

In letters written to Sukhdev, his thoughts reveal a resilient and scientific mind on various basic moral-philosophical issues like martyrdom and suicide, life and death, sacrifice and love which need greater appreciation. In one of his letters, he says - ‘while he is not against the personal love, he would rather be happy when all men and women lift themselves up to the level of Universal Love.’50

His scientific sense and modesty about the role and place of the revolutionaries in social history is revealed in his another letter written to Sukhdev, where he asks –“... Do you think, had we not entered the (political) field, no revolutionary work would have taken place? If you think so you are committing a blunder. It is true that we have succeeded to a great extent in changing the (political) atmosphere, however, we were only the product of the necessity of the time.” Then he goes on to explain that even the founder of communism Karl Marx was not the one who really invented this concept, because he also was the product of the Industrial Revolution in Europe and although he contributed significantly in giving a particular direction to the wheel of the time and that “It is not me (and you too) that have given birth to the thoughts of socialism and communism in this country...no doubt we have given our meager contribution in spreading these thoughts...”51

In the Draft Revolutionary Programme, he proposes a ‘Women’s Committee’ along with other important committees and suggests that ‘though there is no discrimination on the basis of men and women, such a committee is needed for the party…which can take up the responsibility of its members, and ‘will develop women revolutionaries and recruit active (women) members for actual work,’ however, his words that ‘there is not much possibility of women members participating in direct action’ may spark a debate today!

            Though Bhagat Singh differed with other ideologies on a number of issues, he is not ideologically sectarian whether in his writings or in his practice, e.g. his writings about nationalists, anarchists, nihilists, etc., reveal deep sympathy and respect for them, with the understanding that as they are anti-establishment, trying to bring about a change, they are on ‘this side of the barricade.’ Though he himself had matured enough and made scientific socialism his creed and wherever necessary made a critique of ‘Utopianism’, he never had a contemptuous attitude about utopias or utopians. For example, he wrote, when he was to live only for a few more months --“ ... utopias play undoubtedly a very important role in social progress. Without St. Simon, Fourier, and Robert Owen and their theories there would have been no scientific Marxian socialism.”52

This outlook manifested in his life, work, thought and politics at every step and every moment. That is why though his world-view was a Marxist Revolutionary one, his appeal was not confined to any one stream; on the other hand, it cut across all the streams. This appeal was – and is – no doubt, at one level, because of his truly heroic life, but at another level, it is due to the spirit and outlook present in his thought, social values and political practice that exuberates an ‘Indian-ness’ in the application of Marxist Revolutionary thinking (at times, may be in a rudimentary form) and a ‘non-sectarian’ approach. In this there existed the necessary preliminary foundation to internalize and integrate the relevant issues from revivalist nationalism to internationalism, from nationalism to socialism, from caste abolition and communalism to anti-imperialism, from armed actions to non-violence, from anti-colonialism to class issues that were being thrown up from the various political streams of our freedom struggle.

Therein lies the strength of his being a real Marxist, a patriot par excellence, a visionary integrating the peculiar Indian problems of social reforms in the revolutionary outlook, an uncompromising fighter against imperialism, and a symbol of inspiration and hope for the people of the sub-continent, and therefore, deserves all the more, the honour of being saluted as Shaheed-E-Aazam and reminds us that this indicated the possibility of uniting Indian people from all streams, not eclectically but on a revolutionary plank. This possibility is still open today only it needs to be explored in a much advanced and complex contemporary world.                                                                            



Notes & References

p.286/ Bhagat Singhke Sampoorna Dastavej/ Ed.  Prof. Chamanlal/ Aadhar Prakashan/2005

p177(Notes & Ref: 1) /Defining Death by Maya Gupta & A K Gupta /Tulika/2001

3 ibid/p164

4 ibid/ p165

5 p132/Yugdrashta Bhagat Singh Aur Unake Mrityunjay Purakhe/ Virendra Sindhu /Rajpal & Sons, Delhi/2004

6 p.11/Amar Shaheed Sardar Bhagat Singh/ Jitendranath Sanyal/ NBT/2006.

7 p.35/ibid

8 p.68/ibid

9 p.70/ibid 

10 p 92/History of the Communist Movement in India: 1920-33/CPI(M)-Leftword/2005

11 p.37/Amar Shaheed Sardar Bhagat Singh/ Jitendranath Sanyal/ NBT/2006

12 p.73-74/ Bhagat Singhke Sampoorna Dastavej/ Ed. Prof. Chamanlal/ Aadhar Prakashan/2005 

13 p 25/ Why I Am An Atheist/NBT/2006

14 As noted by Prof. Bipin Chandra in his preface to the book ‘Why I Am An Atheist’/p. xiv /NBT/2006

15 p 388-389/ Bhagat Singhke Sampoorna Dastavej/ Ed. Prof. Chamanlal/ Aadhar Prakashan/2005  

16 p 167- 172/ ibid

17 p25/ Why I Am An Atheist/NBT/2006

18 p 148-151/ Bhagat Singhke Sampoorna Dastavej/ Ed. Prof. Chamanlal/ Aadhar Prakashan/2005

19 p 152-155/ ibid

20 p 156/ibid

21 Bhagat Singh Aur Swatantrata Sangram/Dr. Raghvirsingh/ P 56/ Radha Publication /1990

22 p.55/History of the Communist Movement in India: 1920-1933/ CPI-(M)-LeftWord/2005

23 P156-160/ Bhagat Singhke Sampoorna Dastavej/ Ed. Prof. Chamanlal/ Aadhar Prakashan/2005 

24 p86/ ibid

25 p.86/ibid

26 p 127/History of the Communist Movement in India: 1920-1933/ CPI-(M)-LeftWord/2005

27 p 133/ibid

28 p186/ ibid

29 p 200/ ibid

30 p 94/ ibid

31 p.201-202/ ibid

32 p.285-287/ Bhagat Singhke Sampoorna Dastavej/ Ed. Prof. Chamanlal/ Aadhar Prakashan/2005 

33 p.  /Nationalism and Colonialism in Modern India/ Orient Longman/1989 

34 As quoted in “the Trial of Bhagat Singh”/p.256/A.G.Noorani/OUP/2007

35 Ajoykumar Ghosh

36 p.137/ Bhagat Singhke Sampoorna Dastavej/ Ed. Prof. Chamanlal/ Aadhar Prakashan/2005 

37 p.279/ibid

38 p.276/ ibid

39 p.6/Why I Am An Atheist/NBT/2006

40 p.280/ Bhagat Singhke Sampoorna Dastavej/ Ed.  Prof. Chamanlal/ Aadhar Prakashan/2005

41 p.47-51/ ibid

42 p.405/ibid

43 p.21/ibid

44 p.386, 392-393, 398, 403-404, 432, 474-475/ibid

45 p.415/ibid

46 p.230/ibid

47 p.24/Why I Am An Atheist/NBT/2006

48 p .462/ Bhagat Singhke Sampoorna Dastavej/ Ed.  Prof. Chamanlal/ Aadhar Prakashan/2005

49 p.39-46/ ibid

50 p.178/ ibid

51 p.224-25/ ibid

52 p.26/Why I Am An Atheist/NBT/2006


*Paper presented in the National Seminar on ‘Bhagat Singh and Beyond: Rethinking Radicalism in Indian Society, Culture and Politics’ organised by the Dept. of Civics and Politics, University of Mumbai on 28-29 March, 2007.


*Datta Desai, Academy of Political and Social Studies, Akshay, 216, Narayan Peth, PUNE 411 030.                                  Ph.  020 - 24456694 / Mob. 9422005776

© 2006 www.Shahidbhagatsingh.org. All Rights Reserved

Designed & Hosted By: Futura Internet Services