Revisiting Bhagat Singh
Revisiting Bhagat Singh: Ideology and
Politics
Datta Desai
--0--
“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
1
p.286/ Bhagat
Singhke Sampoorna Dastavej/ Ed. Prof. Chamanlal/ Aadhar Prakashan/2005
2
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
|