To Make the Deaf Hear- Ideology and Programme of Bhagat Singh and His Comrades, by Irfan Habib

 

Historian or a Police ‘Writer’?

The number of public intellectuals who pretend to write scholarly books, but launch into invective against the current ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, often from the Preface itself, are a legion. I have already reviewed books written by Graham Turner, David Hardiman, A.G. Noorani, Audrey Truschke, and Giles Tillotson. We can add to this list the name of Irfan Habib, academic, and historian of awesome repute.

Speaking of Bhagat Singh and his comrades, the author writes: The revolutionaries were feeling “the impact of the Bolshevik revolution more and more and this led to a widening of horizons in their outlook” (page xii). For the revolutionaries, “national liberation meant political freedom as well as end to economic exploitation. Their vision of nation building was qualitatively different from the mainstream Congress model and was far removed from the right reactionary programme of the present day BJP and its cohorts, who leave no opportunity to appropriate their martyrdom” (page xii).

By extension of the author’s arguments, the only individuals who ought to celebrate the life of Bhagat Singh and his comrades, are the Late A.B. Bardhan (I hope there are a few among the public who remember this grave, and humourless gentleman), and D. Raja of the Soviet-inspired Communist Party of India (CPI). This party is in such dire straits, that when Kanhaiya Kumar (the wunderkind from JNU) on the eve of the 2019 elections defected from the CPI to the Congress Party (after losing the 2014 elections as a CPI candidate from Begusarai), D. Raja famously said, “Kanhaiya Kumar has removed himself from the party”, thereby admitting that the CPI did not even have adequate party gendarme to depose members gone renegade. So what exactly does the author desire? That Bhagat Singh should be erased from public memory even as the CPI defaces itself?

The author should realize that, Bhagat Singh is remembered and celebrated across all ideological divides, because of his patriotism, his idealism, and his spirit of sacrifice, values that are eternal to the soul of a country. To quote Nehru:

“Bhagat Singh did not become popular because of his act of terrorism, but because he seemed to vindicate, for the moment, the honour of Lala Lajpat Rai, and through him of the nation. He became a symbol, the act was forgotten, the symbol remained, and within a few months each town and village of the Punjab, and to a lesser extent in the rest of northern India, resounded with his name.” (This passage is quoted twice in the book on pages 59, and 92 in a case of poor editing.)

(It might interest readers in Bangalore to know that on the road leading from the Mysore Lancers’ Haifa Memorial to R.T. Nagar, in a square on the edge of a low income colony, a statue of Bhagat Singh has been installed. The last time this Reviewer visited the site, the statue was enclosed in a glass/transparent plastic casing, to keep it clean of the bird droppings that blot other statues in the city. This site, situated so distant from Bhagat Singh’s native state of Punjab, is an offering of lasting gratitude of the citizens of India to their hero.)  

The other great short coming of this book are the citations. The author extensively cites the Police Files from the National Archives. In doing so, he fails in the elementary task of envisioning the revolutionary spirit. Instead he articulates the police version. Revolution is reimagined as a violation of ‘law and order’, and in the process, the historian is reduced to a ‘Writer’ in a colonial police station. Let me illustrate:

(1)   The assassination of Saunders, by Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev is termed as a “murder” on Pages 34, 76 and 91. See also Page 7 “for the murder of several hated British officers”.

(2)   “In a rather stormy meeting on September 21, 1929, the Gandhians were defeated and the executive committee of the Chittagong congress came under the control of persons sympathetic to terrorist methods” (emphasis added) (page 95).

(3)   Consider this sentence on Page 42: The [Naujawan Bharat] Sabha also had a definite political programme and soon these “social objects of the Sabha” became “merely a cloak for the dissemination of revolutionary ideas.” The quotes in this sentence come from the Police File! At least in this instance the police files unlike the authors own observations are more progressive, and do not talk of ‘terrorism’ or ‘murder’, but of ‘revolution’.

(4)   On page 87, the author once more writes: “During 1920-22 no major terrorist activities were planned.” (emphasis added)

Revolutionaries and Gandhi.

While Nehru and Bose, both prominent Congress members had tremendous sympathies for the revolutionaries, Gandhi was unrelenting in his opposition to the revolutionaries. While the revolutionaries halted their activities in the interest of the Non-Cooperation Movement, Gandhi did not reciprocate in acknowledging the contributions of the revolutionaries. Let us quote Gandhi:  “[a] revolutionary’s sacrifice, nobility and love are not only a waste of effort, but being ignorant and misguided, do and have done more harm to the country than any other activity. For, the revolutionaries have retarded the progress of the country” (page 88).

The Gandhi-Irwin pact led to the release of all political prisoners, except the revolutionaries. Gandhi actively kept the case of the revolutionaries outside the scope of his pact. In fact Gandhi appealed to the Viceroy for the expeditious hanging of the “boys” “before” the Karachi session of the Congress, “than after it” (page 70).

As a result Bhagat Singh and his associates were hanged on March 23, 1931. Gandhi arrived on March 25, 1931 for the Karachi session.

On page 83, the author narrates an entirely different version of this story. I quote:

“The Gandhi-Irwin pact was signed on March 5, 1931. As a result of this pact all political prisoners, except those accused of violent crimes, were released. But Gandhi had now realized that the executions will have an adverse effect on the Karachi session, due to begin in the end of March 1931. He therefore suggested to the Viceroy to postpone the executions till the session was over. But Irwin opposed the idea saying that postponement is beyond his power. ---”

While the repetition is itself a sign of poor editing, the two versions contradict one another, leaving the Reader wondering about the facts of the matter.

Indian Revolutionaries and their Overseas Counterparts.

While the idealism of the Indian revolutionaries was truly inspiring, in hindsight, there was a touching naiveté about their heroism. This feeling is amplified when viewed in the context of their youth. Bhagat Singh was just 23, when he was executed by the remorseless authorities of the colonial government. One cannot but be saddened by the turn of events, specially because they had been spectacularly ineffective in the pursuit of their aims. For instance:

(1)   At Muzzafarpur, Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chakki intended to assassinate a certain Kingsford, who had ordered young men to be flogged. Instead they threw a bomb at two innocent British ladies who were in the same coloured carriage as Mr. Kingsford, killing them.

(2)   In 1909, Madan Lal Dhingra assassinated Curzon Wyllie in London. Weeks before this, he had planned to assassinate Lord Curzon, and the former Lieut. Governor of East Bengal, a certain Fuller, but arrived late for the meeting that the two were to attend, and could not act. Some historians feel that he had indeed mistaken Curzon Wyllie for Lord Curzon, the latter, a much hated, and more deserving victim.

(3)   In December 1912, a bomb was thrown at Lord Hardinge, killing an Indian attendant.

(4)   An uprising of Indian soldiers was planned for 21^st February 1915, but the plan leaked and most of the revolutionaries involved were arrested.

(5)   In 1928, the revolutionaries intended to assassinate a certain James Scott, who had ordered the lathi-charge that killed Lala Lajpat Rai. Instead, in a case of mistaken identity, they killed Scott’s deputy, a certain John Saunders.

Compare this record with the assassinations carried out by the Anarchists in Europe.

(1)   Sadi Carnot, President of France, 1894.

(2)   Antonio Canovas, Prime Minister of Spain, 1897.

(3)   Empress Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary, 1898.

(4)   King Umberto of Italy, 1900.

(5)   William McKinley, President of the USA, 1901.

(6)   King Carlos I of Portugal, 1908.

(7)   Pyotr Stolylin, Prime Minister of the Russian Empire, 1911.

If only the Indian revolutionaries had been half as successful as their European counterparts, and assassinated a few Viceroys in succession, instead of expendable low level functionaries, the Empire would have been shaken by its roots. In the event, sadly, Gandhi for once, had been proved right in his judgment.

Conclusion.

To return to this book. The book is badly written, and poorly edited. What is worse, it is ill conceived. Given the awesome reputation that goes with this author’s name, I can only hope that this book is not reflective of his larger body of work. But I am not wasting my time to find the truth. Those who revel in abusing the political party incumbent in the current Government, can find adequate material free of charge in the popular press. They need not waste money buying this, or other companion books, that I have cited in the opening paragraph of this Review.