FUNDAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE

However, the significance of Bhagat Singh lies not in his choice of violence as an alternative method, as many including Gandhiji sought to underline, or in his idealistic heroism for which he is rightly and universally admired; it lies in his attempt to foreground before the nation a revolutionary philosophy and a course of action different from the one that was then being pursued by the Indian National Congress.

Bhagat Singh was a materialist, deeply influenced by Marxism, or whatever of it he could then gain access to. He was also an atheist; his rationale for being so is explained in a cogently argued pamphlet entitled "Why I Am An Atheist." Central to his political creed were democracy and socialism, which he believed were necessary for the well being of the poor and the marginalised. He envisioned an egalitarian system in which there was "no exploitation of man by man and nation by nation." His philosophy, therefore, was to bring about a qualitative change in the "existing social relations and create new human beings who were superior in moral and material terms." Although an admirer of Gandhi for the manner in which he managed to mobilise the masses, he was critical of Gandhian philosophy and its efficacy to usher in a fundamental transformation of society. His view that Gandhian politics would lead to the replacement of one set of exploiters by another, has proved to be prophetic.

Much before Bhagat Singh and his comrades took recourse to the bomb, violence—either as a means to arouse the conscience of the people or as retribution—had already become a mode of expression of anti-imperialist sentiments. The brave and patriotic young men and women, disgusted with the policy of mendicancy followed by the Indian National Congress, had chosen the path of armed resistance, eliminating those officials who were particularly unjust and oppressive.

However, the initial attempts in this direction, though heroic and idealistic, did not go beyond individual acts of murder and, as such, did not develop as a viable and popular form of struggle. The mass mobilisation strategy of Gandhiji, embodied in the non-violent non-cooperation movement of 1920-21, led to the marginalisation of this tendency. The withdrawal of the non-cooperation movement, as a result of the violence at Chauri Chaura, however, foregrouded the search for an alternative path. The second phase of the revolutionary nationalist movement with which Bhagat Singh was associated, was a result of this very quest.

COMMITMENT TO SOCIALISM

The second phase was qualitatively different from the first in both ideological vision and programmatic clarity. Most of the revolutionaries of this period were imbued with a political perspective influenced by Marxism and were committed to the establishment of a socialist society. The manifesto of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, which was the main organisation of the revolutionaries during this period and of which Bhagat Singh was the leading light, stated:

"Foreign domination and economic exploitation have unmanned the vast majority of the people who constitute the workers and peasants of India. The position of the Indian proletariat is, today, extremely critical. It has double danger to face. It has to bear the onslaught of foreign capitalism on the one hand and the treacherous attack of Indian capital on the other. The latter is showing a progressive tendency to join forces with the former... Indian capital is preparing to betray the masses into the hands of foreign capital and receive, as a price of this betrayal, a little share in the government of the country. The hope of the proletariat is, therefore, now centered on socialism, which alone can lead to the establishment of complete independence and the removal of all social distinctions and privileges."

The revolutionary nationalist movement thus came to be imbued with a socialist perspective, in the making of which Bhagat Singh played a central role. He was a voracious reader who did not leave out any available radical literature, and discussed them with his comrades. Accepting Marxism as his political creed, he defined socialism to mean the abolition of capitalism and class domination. In his last message on March 3, 1931, he declared that the struggle in India would continue so long as "a handful of exploiters go on exploiting the labour of common people for their own ends. It matters little whether these exploiters are purely British capitalists, or British and Indians in alliance, or even purely Indians." It is unfortunate that Bhagat Singh’s book entitled The Ideal of Socialism, which was smuggled out of the jail along with three other manuscripts, has not survived. Otherwise, it would have given a much fuller account of his ideas on socialism.

CHAMPION OF SECULARISM

Bhagat Singh maintained that religion was a matter of personal belief and should not be brought into politics. He was opposed to communal politics from which he tried to distance the organisations he was associated with. The Naujawan Bharat Sabha, for instance, did not admit as its members those belonging to religious communal organisations. The rules of the Sabha, drafted by Bhagat Singh, emphasised its opposition to communalism as well as its resolve to create the spirit of general tolerance among the public.

In other words, Bhagat Singh was a champion of secularism which he appears to have held as central to his political practice, as any nexus between religion and politics was likely to endanger the pluralistic ethos of Indian society. Combined with that was his belief in atheism which he arrived at rationally and upheld till the end of his life. Emancipation from the bondage of religion and superstition was, in his reckoning, crucial for revolutionary practice and therefore he tried to instil rational thinking in the minds of all his comrades. Explaining his belief in atheism, he said:

DIFFERING OPINIONS ON GANDHI’S ROLE

Bhagat Singh is popularly remembered for his two daring acts—for avenging the death of Lala Lajpat Rai by killing a British police official Saunders, and for throwing a bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly. The second was an attempt to "make the deaf hear" and thus to stir the nation to act more boldly against imperialism which, however, silenced the brilliant mind of this committed revolutionary. Along with his comrades, Sukhdev and Rajguru, he was hanged on March 23, 1931, despite nationwide protest. Gandhiji was blamed for not doing enough to save the lives of these patriotic young men.

Opinions sharply differ on this question. In a recent book, Martyr Bhagat Singh, Kuldip Nayar has tried to dispel this impression by invoking the statements of Gandhiji himself. Gandhiji had said that he would have gladly surrendered his life to the Viceroy to save Bhagat Singh and others. After the execution, Gandhiji had claimed that he had pleaded with the Viceroy and brought all the persuasion at his command to bear on him. The memoirs of Lord Irwin, however, raise some doubt. He reveals that Gandhi asked him:

"Would Your Excellency see any objection to my saying that I tried for the young man’s life? I said I saw none, if he would also add that from my point of view he did not know what other course I could have taken. He thought for a moment, then finally agreed and on that basis went to Karachi... and I was told that he was roughly received. But when he had opportunity, he spoke in the sense agreed between us."

The fact remains that a more decisive intervention of Gandhiji, at a time when the government was eager to effect a pact with the Congress, would have possibly forced the Viceroy to commute the death sentence. Whether Bhagat Singh’s revolutionary philosophy had anything to do with the reluctance of Gandhiji to assert himself more forcefully, would remain one of the unsolved riddles of history. After all Gandhiji had dissociated himself with the move to raise a memorial to Bhagat Singh.

MISPLACED COMPARISON

Kuldip Nayar also calls attention to the distinction between terrorists and revolutionaries. In a letter addressed to him, the assassins of General Vaidya who had planned the Blue Star operation, had sought to compare themselves with Bhagat Singh. The comparison is totally misplaced, because to Bhagat Singh violence was not an end in itself, but only a means for achieving a political goal. He had expressed his humanistic concern in no uncertain terms: "We attach great sanctity to human life, we regard man’s life as sacred... We would sooner lay down our lives in the service of humanity than injure any one." Therein lies the difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary.