se ec
ec
SAGE was founded in 1965 by Sara Miller McCune to support
the dissemination of usable knowledge by publishing innovative
and high-quality research and teaching content. Today, we
publish over 900 journals, including those of more than 400
learned societies, more than 800 new books per year, and a
growing range of library products including archives, data, case
studies, reports, and video. SAGE remains majority-owned by
our founder, and after Sara’s lifetime will become owned by
a charitable trust that secures our continued independence.
Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne
Inquilab
Inquilab
Bhagat Singh on
Religion and Revolution
Edited by
S Irfan Habib
Copyright © S Irfan Habib, 2018
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilised in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, ­recording, or by any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
First published in 2018 by
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
B1/I-1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044, India
www.sagepub.in
YODA Press
268 AC Vasant Kunj
New Delhi 110070
www.yodapress.co.in
SAGE Publications Inc
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320, USA
SAGE Publications Ltd
1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP, United Kingdom
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd
3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub
Singapore 049483
Published by Vivek Mehra for SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd, typeset in 9.5/13.5 pts
ITC Stone Serif by Zaza Eunice, Hosur, Tamil Nadu, India and printed at Chaman
Enterprises, New Delhi.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Name: Habib, S Irfan, editor of compilation.
Title: Inquilab: Bhagat Singh on religion and revolution/edited by
S Irfan Habib.
Other titles: Bhagat Singh on religion and revolution
Description: First edition. | New Delhi: SAGE Publications India Pvt:
Thousand Oaks, California SAGE Publications Inc, [2018] | Includes
bibliographical references.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018036151 (print) | LCCN 2018038166 (ebook) |
ISBN 9789352808397 (Web PDF) | ISBN 9789352808380 (ePub 2.0) |
ISBN 9789352808373 (pbk.: alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Singh, Bhagat, 1907–1931—Political and social views. |
India—Politics and government—1919–1947. | Religion and politics—India. |
Revolutions. | India—History—Autonomy and independence movements.
Classification: LCC DS481.S55 (ebook) | LCC DS481.S55 A25 2018 (print) | DDC
954.03/58—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018036151
ISBN: 978-93-528-0837-3 (PB)
SAGE YODA Team: Arpita Das, Ishita Gupta, Tanya Singh, Amrita Dutta and Sandhya Gola
n and
ndson Amaa the
ra
g
y
m
to
d
rry
Dedicate
g that they ca
in
p
o
h
,
n
o
ti
rd.
his genera
legacy forwa
revolutionary
Thank you for choosing a SAGE product!
If you have any comment, observation or feedback,
I would like to personally hear from you.
Please write to me at contactceo@sagepub.in
Vivek Mehra, Managing Director and CEO, SAGE India.
Bulk Sales
SAGE India offers special discounts
for purchase of books in bulk.
We also make available special imprints
and excerpts from our books on demand.
For orders and enquiries, write to us at
Marketing Department
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
B1/I-1, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, Post Bag 7
New Delhi 110044, India
E-mail us at marketing@sagepub.in
Subscribe to our mailing list
Write to marketing@sagepub.in
This book is also available as an e-book.
CONTENTS
Prefaceix
Introductionxi
Part I: On Diverse Social and Political Issues: Some
Incisive Comments
1. Universal Brotherhood, November 1924
3
2. Religion and Our Freedom Struggle, May 1928
8
3. Communal Riots and Their Solution, June 1928
13
4. The Problem of Untouchability, June 1928
18
5. Students and Politics, July 1928
24
Part II: Naujawan Bharat Sabha and the Evaluation
of National Leadership
6. Manifesto of Naujawan Bharat Sabha,
Punjab, Lahore, April 1928
29
7. Varied Views of the New Political Leaders,
July 1928
37
8. Lala Lajpat Rai and the Youth, August 1928
42
Part III: Revolutionary Ideas
9. Why I Am an Atheist, October 1930
49
10. Introduction to The Dreamland,
15 January 1931
64
11. To Young Political Workers
72
12. What Is Revolution? Letter to Modern Review,
24 December 1929
83
13. The Real Meaning of Violence
85
14. Statement in the Sessions Court, 6 June 1929
91
15. Statement Filed in the Lahore High Court
98
16. Letter to Sukhdev Against Suicide
103
Part IV: Some Reflections on the International
Revolutionary Movement
17. What Is Anarchism? Part One, May 1928
111
18. What Is Anarchism? Part Two, June 1928
116
19. What Is Anarchism? Part Three, August 1928
121
20. Russian Nihilist Revolutionaries, August 1928
126
Part V: Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
Inquilab
About the Editor193
viii
PREFACE
It is my pleasure and privilege to write a preface for a book, which
is different from all others I have done before. It is not merely
an academic exercise but an emotional and socio-political one.
My own association with Bhagat Singh and his comrades goes
back to forty years. It began merely as a young researcher’s quest
to explore the fresh and obscure dimensions of their revolutionary struggle, but Bhagat Singh has since remained a passionate
­ideological presence in my life.
It is a socio-political one because Bhagat Singh was committed
to Inquilab or revolution but it was not merely a political revolution he aimed at. He wanted a social revolution to break the
age old discriminatory practices. However, most of the eulogies
have ignored his social programme, projecting him merely as an
ardent anti-colonialist and nationalist, which is not inaccurate,
but incomplete. Bhagat Singh going to the gallows as a nationalist
is not something exclusive to him alone, two others were hanged
with him and many more were hanged before him as nationalists. He is different because he left behind an intellectual legacy, a
huge collection of political and social writings on burning issues
of even contemporary importance like caste, communalism, language, and politics.
This book Inquilab: Bhagat Singh on Religion and Revolution is a collection of some of his writings which will further establish him
as a political thinker. It is significant to read what Bhagat Singh
wrote in the 1920s, particularly in the midst of seething university campuses and the spread of exclusivist politics today.
New Delhi
18 May 2018
S Irfan Habib
INTRODUCTION
Revolution (Inquilab) is not a culture of bomb and
pistol. Our meaning of revolution is to change the present
conditions, which are based on manifest injustice.
—Bhagat Singh
This book is not just another one on Bhagat Singh, which will
celebrate him as a martyr, as most of them have done all these
years. We need to establish here that Bhagat Singh was more than
that, he was a prolific writer, an insightful thinker and a sensitive young nationalist who left behind a rich intellectual legacy
to ponder about. During the past few years we have had a good
collection of his writings in Hindi but a more exhaustive collection in English was not around. Some of his important English
writings are available, which we have included here as well, but
several of them brought in here are not available to English readership. This book attempts to fill that serious void.
There is no doubt that Bhagat Singh is one of the most celebrated
martyrs of the Indian freedom struggle. He has left behind a legacy
that everyone wants to appropriate, yet most do not wish to look
beyond the romantic image of a gun-toting young nationalist.
Perhaps the reason is that this is the image that was created in the
official colonial records, an image we inherited and conveniently
accepted as truth. Colonial records told the common masses that
revolutionary activities were dastardly crimes, committed for
the gratification of money and blood lust. In fact, this is clearly
reflected in the contemporary consciousness, particularly that of
the youth, who visualise Bhagat Singh as someone who terrorised
the British through his violent deeds. His daring spirit is lauded,
turning him into an icon. His posters are sold on pavements,
stickers with his photo dot car windscreens. It may be heartening to see that Bhagat Singh is still loved and venerated but the
question we need to ask is: do we have any clue about his politics and ideas? Even his early faith in violence and terrorism was
qualitatively different from the contemporary terrorist violence.
He soon transcended even that to espouse a revolutionary vision
to transform independent India into a secular, socialist, and egalitarian society. He conceded in his writings that he may have
pursued terrorist methods in the beginning of his revolutionary
career but soon realised the significance of mass mobilisation and
importance of the youth, workers and peasants. He declared in
one of his last messages from prison, included here in the book
‘that I am not a terrorist and I never was, except perhaps in the
beginning of my revolutionary career. And I am convinced that
we cannot gain anything through these methods.’
Inquilab
He is undoubtedly an icon who is venerated across South Asia.
Just a few days ago, even Pakistan called Bhagat Singh a shared
hero between the two countries. During my few visits to Pakistan,
I always found huge popular support among the people there,
who lauded him for his ultimate sacrifice and for the ideals he
espoused. What is refreshing now is the acknowledgement of this
fact from a high government official, who categorically declared
that ‘Bhagat Singh was the Independence movement hero of both
India and Pakistan. The people of the country have the right to
know about his (Singh) and his comrades’ great struggle to get
freedom from the British Raj.’1
Bhagat Singh is probably the only one after Mahatma Gandhi
who evokes such unbounded awe and respect. This could happen
because his appeal as a martyr cuts across political ideologies. I
only wish that the same was true for his intellectual legacy as
well. Most of us just lap him up as a martyr, but very few celebrate
1
xii
The Hindustan Times, 25 March 2018.
his political and social vision. I don’t mean to undermine the
sacrifice of Bhagat Singh or any martyr for that matter, but will
add that he was not just a shaheed. We do great injustice to his
memory when we extol him only as a martyr. Bhagat Singh left
behind a corpus of political writings underlining his vision for an
independent India. This little book is a collection of his writings,
mostly those which bring him out as a serious chronicler of his
times, commenting on several topical issues.
Bhagat Singh was a keen observer of everything happening
around him, not letting anything of consequence pass without
a comment. He had a short life but with an advantage that he
began to read and write very early. He also had an advantage of
being born in a family of committed nationalists. His uncle Ajit
Singh was involved with the peasantry, founded the Bharat Mata
Society and spent most of his life in exile, fighting against imperialism. His other uncle Swaran Singh spent many years in prison
and died young due to tuberculosis. Bhagat Singh’s father Sardar
Kishan Singh was an active Congressman who also spent time
in British jail. Given this background Bhagat Singh evolved early
as a political being, maturing fast into a serious revolutionary
thinker and commentator.
Kama Maclean, A Revolutionary History of Interwar India: Violence, Image,
Voice and Text, London, 2015, p. 74.
2
Introduction
This somehow explains why Bhagat Singh evokes such boundless
approbation from people who already have a surfeit of heroes.
When most senior leaders of the country had only one immediate
goal—the attainment of freedom, Bhagat Singh, hardly out of his
teens, had the prescience to look beyond the immediate. He was
no ordinary revolutionary who simply had a passion to die or kill
for the cause of freedom. His vision was to establish a classless
society and his short life was dedicated to the pursuit of this ideal.
Of course a political revolution—removing the British—was the
first step to effecting any kind of social programme, but removing
the British has been popularly presumed to be the sole aim of
Bhagat Singh’s politics.2
xiii
This book of Bhagat Singh’s writings is not exhaustive but is surely
representative of his mature intellectual evolution and his sensitivity to most of the complex issues which remain pertinent even
now. We have also included here manifestoes, statements, pamphlets and other such writings, which had the stamp of Bhagat
Singh’s ideological approval. In the end, we have incorporated
some insightful excerpts from his prison diary, which can be seen
as the culmination of Bhagat Singh’s intellectual evolution.
Inquilab
As I have pointed out before, Bhagat Singh began writing early in
life. One of the articles used here was published in 1924, when he
was just 17 years old, and it was on Universal Brotherhood, not a
very easy subject to write on at such a young age. It is rare to find
a young man conceiving an idea of universal brotherhood and
articulating it in a detailed article. He imagined a world in 1924
where ‘All of us being one and none is the other. It will really be
a comforting time when the world will have no strangers.’3All
those who are busy othering and creating strangers out of their
own fellow citizens need to grapple with Bhagat Singh’s views,
instead of merely glorifying him as a martyr. He goes further to
say something which should be remembered by all in India and
Pakistan, if at all we accept him as our shared hero. He emphatically exclaimed that ‘As long as the words like black and white,
civilised and uncivilised, ruler and the ruled, rich and poor, touchable and untouchable, etc., are in vogue where is the scope for
universal brotherhood? This can only be preached by free people.
The slave India cannot refer to it.’ He goes further to appeal that,
‘We will have to campaign for equality and equity. Will have to
punish those who oppose the creation of such a world.’ Perhaps
he was the only one among the heroes of our freedom struggle
who had this vision at such a young age.
xiv
This appeared in a Hindi magazine Matwala, published from Calcutta in
two parts on 15 November 1924 and 22 November 1924. Bhagat Singh
used the pseudonym Balwant Singh to write this article. He used several
pseudonyms to dupe the colonial bureaucracy.
3
Bhagat Singh institutionalised his thinking when he founded
the Naujawan Bharat Sabha in 1926 in Lahore, which was also a
public platform for the otherwise secret group of revolutionaries.
He saw to it that the Sabha remains above petty religious politics of the times. It is all the more important because the 1920s
saw the emergence of the RSS and the spread of Muslim communalism as well, leading to intense polarisation. But here was a
group of young men who were thinking differently. They asked
the member before enrolment ‘to sign a pledge that he would
place the interests of his country above those of his community’.
Bhagat Singh helped to draft its manifesto, included here in the
book, where he categorically proclaimed that ‘Religious superstitions and bigotry are a great hindrance in our progress. They have
proved an obstacle in our way and we must do away with them.
The thing that cannot bear free thought must perish.’4 Even Lala
Lajpat Rai, the eminent pillar of extremist nationalism in India
could not escape the scathing criticism of the Sabha when he
joined hands with the Hindu Mahasabha leaders. Rai was dubbed
a traitor by Kedar Nath Sehgal in a pamphlet ‘An Appeal to Young
Punjab’ while Lajpat Rai responded by calling Bhagat Singh a
Russian agent who wanted to make him into a Lenin.5
4
5
Manifesto of The Naujawan Bharat Sabha, Lahore, April 1928.
S Irfan Habib, To Make the Deaf Hear, New Delhi, 2007, p. 112.
Introduction
This collection of writings will also help understand the evolution of Bhagat Singh as an intellectual and the trajectories of this
process. We have included here a three part article that he wrote
for Kirti on Anarchism and also one on the Russian Nihilist movement, which provides an international perspective to Bhagat
Singh’s understanding of revolutionary struggles. One of his close
comrades, Shiv Varma, reminisced later that Bhagat Singh was,
for some time, influenced by the anarchist thinker Bakunin, and
according to him, Sohan Singh Josh and Lala Chabil Das helped
him to move away from anarchism to socialism. Josh was a
communist leader and editor of Kirti while Chabil Das was the
principal of National College, Lahore where Bhagat Singh was
xv
a student.6 Both of them seriously engaged with Bhagat Singh
and his other comrades, discussing and debating several topical
issues and also guiding them about what books to read. They were
lucky to have two good sources of books in Lahore; one was the
Dwarkadas Library, founded by Lala Lajpat Rai and another was
a bookshop called Ramkrishna and sons, which had resources
to procure banned books from England. Both these sources provided them good access to Marxist and other revolutionary literature that was not easily available otherwise. Rajaram Shastri, the
librarian of Dwarkadas Library, once told Shiv Varma that Bhagat
Singh did not just read books, he almost devoured them, yet his
yearning to seek knowledge always remained unsatiated.7 By 1928
Bhagat Singh was convinced that the time had come to commit
themselves to socialism and even change the name of the revolutionary group from Hindustan Republican Association (HRA)
to Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA). He also
turned quite prolific as a columnist, writing frequently on diverse
issues in Kirti and other papers. We have included here some of
these insightful journalistic writings of Bhagat Singh, many of
which were till now available only in Hindi.
Inquilab
These articles establish the profundity of his ideas and their
contemporaneousness in the present times. In an article titled
‘Religion and Our Freedom Struggle’ published in Kirti in May
1928, Bhagat Singh grappled with the role of religion in politics,
an issue that haunts us even today. He talked of Tolstoy’s division of religion into three parts: essentials of religion, philosophy
of religion and rituals of religion. He concluded that if religion
means blind faith by mixing rituals with philosophy than it
should be blown away immediately but if we can combine essentials with some philosophy than religion may be a meaningful
idea. Expressing his anguish in the second article, Bhagat Singh
held some of the political leaders and the press responsible for
xvi
Shiv Varma in his foreword to Jagmohan Singh and Chamanlal, eds,
Bhagat Singh aur unke sathiyon ke dastawez, New Delhi, 1987, p. 33.
7
Ibid. pp. 33–34.
6
inciting communalism. He believed that, ‘There were a few sincere leaders, but their voice is easily swept away by the rising wave
of communalism. In terms of political leadership, India had gone
totally bankrupt.’ He goes further and bluntly says that, ‘There
were riots at several places simply because the local press behaved
irresponsibly and indulged in rabble-rousing through their articles.’ He categorically spelt out the duties of journalists and then
also accused them of dereliction of this duty, saying:
The real duty of the newspapers is to educate, to cleanse
the minds of people, to save them from narrow sectarian
divisiveness, and to eradicate communal feelings to promote
the idea of common nationalism. Instead, their main objective
seems to be spreading ignorance, preaching and propagating
sectarianism and chauvinism, communalising people’s minds
leading to the destruction of our composite culture and
shared heritage.
Not much seems to have changed since Bhagat Singh wrote these
lines. This categorical indictment of the press from an iconic
nationalist like Bhagat Singh should be read by those in the media
today who are busy dividing people in the name of nationalism,
religion and culture.
Bhagat Singh also wrote on untouchability, which looks so relevant even now when we live in the midst of atrocities against
Dalits every other day. One can observe the empathy here for the
fellow human beings and a hard-hitting condemnation of those
who instituted and kept these hateful practices alive. He begins
by saying that:
Introduction
Our country is unique where six crore citizens are called
untouchables and their mere touch defiles the upper castes.
Gods get enraged if they enter the temples. It is shameful that
such things are being practised in the twentieth century. We
claim to be a spiritual country but hesitate to accept equality
of all human beings while materialist Europe is talking of
revolution since centuries.
xvii
He goes further to say that, ‘We are chagrined about discrimination against Indians in foreign lands, and whine that the English
do not give us equal rights in India. Given our conduct do we
really have any right to complain about such matters?’ It needed
moral courage and clarity of thought to take such a stand amidst
the ongoing freedom struggle and colonial oppression.
Bhagat Singh’s ideological commitment was reflected even in his
revolutionary action when he and B K Dutt bombed the Assembly
on 8 April 1929 against the passing of anti-people bills. The Trade
Disputes and Public Safety Bills were brought by the colonial government to suppress the struggle being waged against the establishment by workers and revolutionaries. Bhagat Singh, while
commenting on these bills said:
There is no place for justice in British imperialism. They do
not want to give even a breathing space to the slaves and
instead, want to suppress them. They want to rob them and
kill them. More and more oppressive laws will be passed
and the dissenting voices will be put down. Let us see what
happens. Only sacrifice can save us from this suppression.
The eyes of Indian and British members of the Assembly will
have to be opened.8
Inquilab
Bhagat Singh matured further while in prison during the two
years he spent there before being hanged on 23 March 1931. We
have included excerpts from his prison diary, which will tell us
clearly about his diverse reading habits ranging from literature,
science, politics, history to economics. The prison diary also
reveals the trajectory of his political evolution which was inspired
by the writing of authors including Karl Marx, F. Engels, Bertrand
Russell, T. Paine, Upton Sinclair, V I Lenin, William Wordsworth,
Tennyson, Rabindra Nath Tagore, Bukharin, Trotsky, among
others.
We have also included here one of the most profound articles by
Bhagat Singh called ‘Why I am an Atheist’ which was also written
8
xviii
Mukti, July 1972, Delhi, p. 39.
while he was in jail. The article was tinged with a strong rebuttal
of blind faith and a zealous defence of reason. Before dealing with
his own views about religion, Bhagat Singh first deals with the
religiosity of his predecessors. He points out that in the absence
of a scientific understanding of their own political activity, they
needed irrational religious beliefs and mysticism to sustain them
spiritually, to fight against personal temptation, to overcome
depression, to be able to sacrifice their physical comforts, and
even life. For this a person requires deep sources of inspiration.
This requirement was, in the case of early revolutionaries, met by
mysticism and religion.9
He made it clear that the revolutionaries now need no religious
inspiration as they have an advanced revolutionary ideology,
based on reason instead of blind faith. About God, Bhagat Singh
writes:
He (God) was to serve as a father, mother, sister and brother,
friend and helper…so that when man be in great distress
having been betrayed and deserted by all friends, he may
find consolation in the idea that an ever true friend was still
there to help him, to support him and that He was Almighty
and could do anything. Really that was useful to a society in
the primitive age. The idea of God is helpful to man in distress.
Bhagat Singh was convinced that religion is a tool in the hands of
exploiters who keep the masses in constant fear of God for their
own interests.10 The revolutionaries of the HSRA realised that all
moral ideals and religions were useless for an empty stomach and
for the hungry, the only food was God. Bhagat Singh aptly quoted
Horace Greeley in his prison diary saying ‘Morality and religion
are but words to him who fishes in gutters for the means of sustaining life, and crouches behind barrels in the street for shelter
from the cutting blasts of a winter night.’
Introduction
The People, Lahore, 27 September 1931.
Interview with Manmathnath Gupta, close associate of Bhagat Singh,
who died a few years ago.
9
10
xix
This scientific approach of Bhagat Singh and other HSRA leaders
matured with the passage of time. The majority of them came
close to the ideals of socialism or even communism, which
believed in mass action instead of individual acts of terrorism.
Bhagat Singh was more explicit about the struggle he had in mind
in one of his last messages of 3 March 1931 saying:
…the struggle in India would continue so long as a handful of
exploiters go on exploiting the labour of the 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.
Bhagat Singh also cannot be conveniently reduced to being just
a raw nationalist, with no reference to his ideas and politics so as
to somehow fit him into the current right wing politics of nationalism and slogans. Bhagat Singh’s nationalism was deeply rooted
in his sharp critique of the caste system, untouchability and communalism; all three remain serious threats even now.11 His collection of writings here will also help us grasp the deeper nuances of
his intellectual persona, which has been on the margins all these
years. All those millions around the world who venerate Bhagat
Singh need to comprehend the revolutionary vision and nationalism he stood for. Even in the midst of a nationalist struggle, he
could see the irrelevance of nationalism for those who lived on
the margins of Indian society, deprived of rights and dignity.12
Inquilab
This volume may lead us to appreciate more fully his alternative
framework of governance, where social and economic justice, and
not terrorism or violence, would reign supreme. His commitment
to socialism, as it comes out in most of these writings, may not
appear very attractive in this changing era of globalisation, yet
his concern for the socio-economically deprived sections continues to command attention. Moreover, his passionate desire to
xx
S Irfan Habib, ed., Indian Nationalism: The Essential Writings, New Delhi,
2017, p. 29.
12
Ibid., p. 30.
11
rise above narrow caste and religious considerations was never as
­crucial as it is today.
I thank my friend and publisher Arpita Das for prompting me to
compile this collection of Bhagat Singh’s significant writings. I am
also grateful to Shri Malvinderjit Singh Waraich, Mr D N Gupta,
Satyam and of course the online resources available through shahidbhagatsingh.org for facilitating access to many of the works
included here. We also thank our friend Sudhanva Deshpande
of LeftWord Books for allowing us to use excerpts from The Jail
Notebook published by them. I hope and expect that this collection will further establish Bhagat Singh as an intellectual and a
revolutionary thinker.
New Delhi
S Irfan Habib
8 May 2018
Introduction
xxi
Part
I
On Diverse
Social and
Political
Issues: Some
Incisive
Comments
1. Universal Brotherhood, November 1924
2. Religion and Our Freedom Struggle, May 1928
3. Communal Riots and Their Solution, June 1928
4. The Problem of Untouchability, June 1928
5. Students and Politics, July 1928
Inquilab
Bhagat Singh was a voracious reader and also a prolific writer on
most of the political, social and international matters of his time.
In his short life spent as a revolutionary activist and thinker, he did
not have the comfort of accessing books and writing at ease. He
was always on the run, trying to escape the attention of the colonial
administration and yet thinking and writing on diverse issues. In
this section we have put together most of those articles where
Bhagat Singh makes sharp and incisive comments on societal
matters including issues like universal brotherhood, communalism,
untouchability, religion and politics as well as the role of students in
politics. One of the articles here is on universal brotherhood, which
is a complex subject even for a mature intellectual but Bhagat Singh
had the maturity to reflect upon such a subject in 1924, when he was
barely seventeen years old. Other essays were written in 1928 when
he had matured as a political thinker and was ready to argue for
a change in the revolutionary struggle’s strategies and objectives.
It was in September 1928 that he debated with his comrades in
the ruins of Ferozshah Kotla in Delhi and convinced them to include
socialism as one of their main objectives and even change the name
of the group from Hindustan Republican Association to Hindustan
Socialist Republican Association. All other essays in this section were
written from May to August 1928, preceding the major meeting of
September 1928. All of them together form a major critique of the
contemporary Indian political and social life, providing close insights
into Bhagat Singh’s intellectual development.
2
Chapter
1
UNIVERSAL
BROTHERHOOD*
Vasudeva Kutumbakam! It is beyond human capability to conceive the greatness of the great poet of poets who gave us this
beautiful idea.
Visvabandhuta! For me the greatest meaning of this word is equality and nothing else. How lofty is this thought! All of us being one
and none is the other. It will really be a comforting time when
the world will have no strangers; it will be a great moment in the
world when we will be able to reach that pleasant state, which
will be the pinnacle of world progress. Once that happens then
imagine how the world will look? Just try to imagine that!
Then the world would be so powerful that nothing whatsoever
would be able to shatter its peace. None will need to cry for bread
when hungry. World trade would flourish spectacularly but France
and Germany will not go to war for trade. America and Japan
would be there but without any complex of belonging to the East
or the West. The blacks and the whites will be there but the latter
won’t be able to burn the former or the Red Indians alive. There
would be peace without penal codes. There would be Britishers
and Indians all right but not as rulers and the ruled. Even without
invoking Mahatma Tolstoy’s ‘Resist not the Evil’ we would not see
evil anywhere. That would mean complete freedom. Just try and
imagine those moments!
* This is one of the earliest writings of Bhagat Singh published in a Hindi
weekly Matwala from Calcutta. It was published in two parts on 15 and
22 November 1924. Bhagat Singh wrote this with a pseudonym Balwant
Singh.
Given the present condition who can imagine the time when
people will shun evil on their own and not due to someone’s
fear. We would reject the fabled heaven and declare that nothing like heaven exists! Can such a time ever come? This is a big
problem—a complex problem, which cannot be explained easily.
However, I want to raise another question: Are people seriously
interested in bringing about that sort of time? Are those people
who invoke universal brotherhood or cosmopolitanism all the
time really keen to bring that about? Merely saying yes won’t
work. It is not a resolution of the Indian National Congress. The
question needs serious consideration. Are people ready to make
sacrifices for that? We will have to sacrifice the real present for
that imagined future. We will have to create chaos to achieve that
imagined peace. We will have to sacrifice everything for that fairy
tale. We will have to spread utter chaos to achieve that peaceful state. To achieve that persecution-free world, we will have to
indulge in persecution. For that happy world, no, no, for the mere
hope of that world, we will have to die. Are people ready for that?
Inquilab
We will have to campaign for equality and equity. We will have
to punish those who oppose the creation of such a world. We will
have to create chaos in place of those states/empires, who, blind
with power, are responsible for inflicting pain and suffering on
crores of people. Are people ready for that?
4
We will have to prepare the world to welcome such an ideal. We
will have to destroy all other crops to sow this seed in our fields.
The thorny bushes will have to be uprooted to douse the fire. The
stones and stubs will have to be crushed to bits. We will have to
work tirelessly. We will have to uplift those who are in dumps.
The wretched need to be shown the way to progress. The spurious
power centres will be forced to stand with us. The arrogant will
be taught to be humble. The weak will be empowered; the slaves
would be set free; the illiterate would be educated; the hopeless
will be given hope; the hungry will get food; the homeless will
get homes; the atheists will be turned into believers; and all those
with blind faith will be given freedom of thought. Will the people
do all this? Hey, all those screaming for World Brotherhood! Are
you ready for all this? If not, then just give up this hypocrisy
today. We will have to sacrifice you at the altar of the goddess
of Universal Brotherhood because you are fabulists. If you are
ready, then come to the field of action and go through the test.
Merely imagining the scary sight of the field of action forces you
to hide in the corners of your homes. If you are really interested,
then come on. The first task will be to uplift the fallen India. We
will have to break the chains of slavery. We will have to eliminate oppression. We will have to destroy subjugation as it lures
humanity away, through corrupt means, from the path of justice.
If despite the fact that you accept the above-stated truth, you
want to stay away due to fear of prison or death, then give up this
hypocrisy today!
If you do not want to join because revolution will lead to anarchy
and bloodshed then you are a weakling and coward, just leave
this pretence.
If there is chaos, let it be. It will at least bring freedom. The weak
will be crushed in this struggle. It will stop their whining forever.
The weak will disappear and the strong will unite and be friends.
They will love each other, leading to Universal Brotherhood.
Yes, the weak will have to be crushed once and forever. They are
the culprits of the world. They have spread utter chaos. Everyone
needs to be powerful to survive.
No enslaved community can ever imagine to be part of such a
lofty ideal. Mere mention of it by a slave will make it irrelevant.
A weak, degraded, humble and downtrodden man cannot claim
that he does not fight against these evils because of his faith in
universal brotherhood. Who will care to heed this cowardly statement? Yes, if you are powerful, capable of humbling the high
and mighty, kings, emperors and so forth, and then you say that
because you believe in world brotherhood therefore don’t do
Chapter 1 • Universal Brotherhood
Hey! Who is seriously interested in Universal Brotherhood? Who
is there to sacrifice their happiness for the whole world?
5
such things then your statement will carry weight and people will
listen to you. Vasudeva Kutumbakam will gain importance then.
Today, you are slaves. Your statement appears to be hypocrisy.
It is a farce. Do you want to preach this principle? If yes, you
will have to follow that man who said, ‘He who loveth Humanity
loveth God… God is love and love is God’, who mounted the
gallows for sedition. Are you ready to bravely preach the doctrine of universal brotherhood like him? When you will become a
true preacher of this doctrine you will have to jump into the field
of action (Karmakshetra) like that true son of the mother, Guru
Gobind Singh. Like that great believer in the concept that all are
sons of one father you will have to remain unmoved while replying to their mother about the sacrifices of her four sons for their
community? Will you be able to keep your cool seeing your most
beloved ones, whom you would like to keep before your eyes all
the while, being sacrificed and tortured before you? Will you be
able to jump into the fire before your loved ones and bid adieu to
the world smilingly? If yes, then take the test. But if there is any
doubt, for God’s sake, leave the hypocrisy!
As long as the words like black and white, civilised and uncivilised,
ruler and the ruled, rich and poor, touchable and untouchable, etc.,
are in vogue where is the scope for universal brotherhood? This can
only be preached by free people. The slave India cannot refer to it.
Inquilab
Then how will this doctrine be preached? You will have to
empower yourself. For empowering yourself you will have to
expend, whatever power is with you, you will have to run from
pillar to post all your life like Rana Pratap. Then and then alone
will you pass the test.
6
Don’t you see the real preacher of universal brotherhood was
Mazzini who remained in self-incarceration in one place for
twenty years. Lenin was the supporter of this doctrine; he suffered
untold miseries. George Washington, America’s liberator was its
supporter. The revolutionary leaders of the French revolution,
who shed so much blood, believed in it. The idealist Brutus, who
killed his most loved friend Caesar with his own hands for his
country and then committed suicide, believed in it. Garibaldi,
who fought incessantly for his cause, was its supporter.
The believer in this doctrine is that brave man whom we are not
ashamed to label as terrorist, anarchist, etc., Veer Savarkar. The
brave man Macswinny, who killed himself by observing a fast
for seventy-five days, and who used to say, ‘It is the love of the
country that inspires us and not the hate of the enemy and the
desire for full satisfaction for the past’ was a believer in this. Tilak,
the writer of Gita Rahasya was a worshipper of this goddess. And
would you like to see some such persons? The Mahatma, that thin,
lean fellow in a langot who on hearing a sentence passed against
him could, with heavenly smile, say that the sentence was lighter
than it should have been and the treatment meted out to him was
more than what he could expect, and whose delicate words make
no effect on your stony hearts, believed in that doctrine.
The killer of Ravana and Bali gave the proof of his universal
brotherhood by eating the used ber of the Bhil woman. Krishna,
the man who made the cousins fight, and who quelled injustice
from the world, gave proof of his belief in this doctrine by eating
the dry rice of Sudama.
If you are really interested in preaching peace, happiness and universal brotherhood, then learn to react against insult and indignity. Be
prepared to die to undo the bondage of your motherland. Be ready
to go and suffer transportation for life in the Andamans. Be ready to
die so that Mother India may live. Then and then alone our country
will be free and we will be empowered and be able to preach universal brotherhood and force the world to walk on the path of peace.
Chapter 1 • Universal Brotherhood
You people talk of universal brotherhood. First learn to stand on
your feet. Be able to stand with your head erect among the free
peoples of the world. Your hypocrisy has no meaning as long as
disgraceful happenings like those of the Kamagatamaru ship,
the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy, take place and you are addressed
as damn black men and your women are insulted and you don’t
react. What peace, what happiness and what universal brotherhood are you talking about?
7
Chapter
2
RELIGION AND
OUR FREEDOM
STRUGGLE*
A Punjab political conference was convened in Amritsar during
11–13 April and a conference of the youth was organised at the
same time. There was intense conflict and debate on two or three
points. The question of religion was one of them. Though the
question of religion should not have arisen but a resolution was
moved against sectarian organisations, and against misuse of religion by those who were following those divisive organisations
because they wanted to protect themselves. This question would
have remained buried for some time, but the way it came to the
fore led to an open debate, and it was followed by a debate about
the solution of the problem.
When Maulana Zafar Ali used the word Khuda-Khuda five or
six times in the subject committee of the provincial conference,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru suggested not to do so whilst speaking
on (a public) stage. He added, ‘If you are the preacher of religion
then I am the preacher of irreligion.’ After that the Naujawan
Bharat Sabha convened a conference on the same subject. Many
individuals delivered lectures; some in the name of religion and
others fearing a clash on this question made several types of kind
suggestions. What was repeatedly said and upon which Bhai
Amar Singh Jhabal laid maximum emphasis was that the question
of religion should not even be touched. It was very good advice. If
* In April 1928 there was a political conference in Amritsar as well as a
conference of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha. The event saw intense debate
on the issue of religion and politics between Bhagat Singh and his comrades. This article published in Kirti, May 1928 reflected on the same issue.
the religion of a person does not interfere with the people before
him/her then where is the need for somebody to speak against it?
But the question that remains is what does past experience tell us?
Chapter 2 • Religion and Our Freedom Struggle
The same question of religion had arisen during previous movements also, when everybody was given complete liberty; it is said
that even on the Congress stage Koranic verses and (Vedic) mantras were recited. In those days no person lagging behind in religion was deemed good. So fundamentalism began to rise. And the
evil result of this is not hidden from anybody. Now the nationalist or freedom-loving people have come to grasp the reality of religion and they find it a hurdle. Is it not true that if religion is kept
within the boundaries of one’s home, it creates prejudice in the
minds of the people? Does it not hamper the process of achieving
complete independence? Now the followers of complete independence label religion as a kind of mental slavery. And they say that
to tell a child that God is omnipotent and man is nothing is to
make the child weak forever. It is to destroy the mental potential and self-confidence of the child altogether. However, even
if we decided not to debate the issue or consider the two main
questions before us, even then we notice that religion is the pre-­
eminent hurdle in our path. For example, we want the equality
of the people, that there should be no division between who has
more money and who has none, or between the touchable and
non-touchable. But Sanatan Dharma is in favour of this inequality. Even now, in the twentieth century, the Maulvi and Pandit
after accepting flowers from a Dalit bathes himself with his clothes
on, and denies these people the sacred cotton thread. If we pledge
not to say anything against such religion then we should keep
sitting at home quietly; otherwise it would mean opposing religion. People even say that these evils should be discarded and set
right. Sure enough Swami Dayanand eradicated untouchability
but even he could not go beyond the four Varnas. The practice
of untouchability continues unabated. If Sikhs said while they
were standing inside the Gurdwara that only true Sikhs should
rule, and on coming out talked aloud in favour of Panchayati Raj,
then what would it amount to? Religion says that the people who
don’t have faith in Islam should be killed with a sword, and what
9
will happen here if we proclaim that all religious beliefs are equal?
We know a clash between people could be instigated with the
loud recitation of Koranic verses and Vedic mantras. The question
is then, why should we not do away with all this once and for all?
We can see the mountain of religion standing in our path.
Suppose a struggle for independence starts in India. The armies
are standing facing each other fully armed and about to start
firing. And if at that time, like (what happened with) Mohammad
Ghauri, as is said, cows, pigs, the Vedas, the Koran and all such
things were placed in our way then what would happen? If we are
true to our religion then we would pack up and go home. Being
true to religion, the Hindu or Sikh would not fire at a cow; the
Mussalman would not fire at a pig. The true-to-religion people
would lie down before the idols of gods like they did in Somnath
in thousands, and those who are not true to religion would finish
their job, then what would be the outcome? We have to think
against religion itself.
If we consider the arguments of those who are in favour of religion, they say the world will be annihilated. Sins would increase.
All right, then let us consider this also. The Russian Mahatma
Tolstoy, while debating on religion, had written in his essays and
letters that there are three parts to it:
1. Essentials of Religion, such as speak the truth, do not steal,
help the poor, and live with love.
2. Philosophy of Religion, i.e., the philosophy of birth, death,
rebirth, the artificial world. In this a person thinks about
his choices and tries to comprehend them.
Inquilab
3. Rituals of Religion, i.e., the traditions, etc.
10
What this means is that all religions are the same in the first place.
They all exhort us to speak the truth, not tell lies and live harmoniously. Some people have called this individual religion. There
can be no clash over this, and such ideal thoughts should be there
in every person. Next comes the matter of philosophy. We have to
say that philosophy is the outcome of human weakness. There is
no clash in it. When we are unable to understand something, then
we try to apply our mind to it to draw conclusions. Philosophy
is a very essential thing, because without it no progress is possible. But peace is also important. Our forefathers have said that
there is rebirth after death but Christians and Muslims don’t agree
with that. All right, so that is their view. Let’s have a calm discussion about it. We should listen to others’ views too. But generally,
when a debate ensues on such controversial matters, then Arya
Samajis and Muslims start fighting. Both parties abandon their
wisdom and ability to think as if they have left them behind at
home. They think that in the Veda guru God had written it in a
particular way and therefore it is true. Muslims say that Khuda
has written it in the Koran in a particular way and that is true. In
effect, they abandon their ability to think. If a philosophy does
not carry any value beyond personal opinion, and if no separate
group is created from those adhering to one or the other philosophy, then where is the basis of any complaint against it?
Chapter 2 • Religion and Our Freedom Struggle
Now arises the third issue. As per the rituals on the day of Sarasvati
worship, it is necessary to take the Sarasvati idol in a procession
with a band. But there is a mosque on Harry Road that lies on
the procession route. Islam says no bands can play in front of a
mosque. Now what should be done? As per the civil rights of a
citizen there can be a band playing in the streets, but the religion
disallows it. Cow sacrifice is imperative in Islam and the other
religion prescribes cow worship. Now what should be done?
Cutting a branch of a Peepal tree makes such a difference, then
what should be done? And these small differences in beliefs ultimately spread far and wide and become a source for the creation
of different organisations, and the result (of that) is evident. Thus,
if religion is the name of mixing the second (philosophy) and
the third (ritual) aspects with blind faith, then there is no need
for religion. It should be avoided from this very moment. If religion, on the other hand, can blend with open-mindedness, then
there can be no objection to it and it should be welcomed. But
the different organisations and their partisan food habits need
to be changed, and the words ‘touchables’ and ‘untouchables’
11
Inquilab
need to be eliminated. Until we become united by leaving aside
our ­narrow-mindedness we cannot cooperate. Thus by moving
ahead as per the path laid out above, we could move towards
freedom. The meaning of our freedom is not only to liberate ourselves from the clutches of the English but also complete independence, when all people live together harmoniously, liberated
from mental slavery.
12
Chapter
3
COMMUNAL
RIOTS AND THEIR
SOLUTION*
India, at present, is in a very pitiable condition. The followers of
one religion have become sworn enemies of those of the other.
These days, being a follower of one religion is to be the enemy
of the other; if one doesn’t agree with this view, then one merely
has to look at the latest incident of riots in Lahore: how Muslims
murdered innocent Sikhs and Hindus and how Sikhs also did not
leave any stone unturned in murdering Muslims vengefully. This
was not done because the other was guilty, but because the other
was a Hindu, a Sikh or a Muslim. Being a Sikh or Hindu was sufficient reason for Muslims to kill him. Similarly, it seemed enough
for a Hindu or a Sikh to kill a Muslim for his being Muslim alone.
Only God can save India in such a situation. Indeed, under such
circumstances, the future of India looks very dark.
These religions have left the country in a lurch. And we don’t
know when these communal riots will leave Bharat alone. These
riots have hurled notoriety upon the clean image of India, and
we have seen that every blind faith-filled person starts drifting
with the flow. There is hardly any Hindu, Sikh or Muslim who
keeps his mind cool. On the contrary, all these people having
blind faith in one or the other religion pick up batons, swords
and daggers to smash the heads of others. And after doing so,
some kiss the noose while others are lodged in jails. And with
the bloodshed of these religious people, the English also start
* The sudden withdrawal of non-cooperation in 1922 led to a spate of
communal riots for the next few years. This prompted Bhagat Singh to
write this stinging piece in Kirti, June 1928.
suppressing them mercilessly which in turn, makes the former
even more determined.
Inquilab
On the face of it, communal leaders and newspapers are behind
all these riots. Today, the leaders in India have come to that blind
end where it is better to keep quiet. The same leaders who had
wielded the responsibility of liberating the country and those who
were crying out ‘common nationality’ and ‘Swaraj-Swaraj’, the
same have remained hidden with their heads between their knees
or begun drifting in the same flow. There is no dearth of leaders hiding their heads. But too many leaders have also joined the
communal wave. Look at any corner and hundreds would come
out from under it. There was a time when the leaders who wanted
a common welfare plan were very few, and the wave of religion
was so strong that they felt unable to prevent the accompanying
bloodshed. The leaders in India have become politically bankrupt.
14
The second factor which added fuel to fire were the newspapers.
The profession of journalism which was once regarded as a very
noble one, now it has become evil. These people arouse public
sentiment by writing bold headlines in the newspapers against
one or the other and compel people to start fighting with one
another. Not limited to just one or two places, riots started in
many locations just because of the fact that local newspapers had
written articles that stoked passions. Very few writers maintained
their cool in such situations. The actual duty of newspapers is
to educate, to liberate people from narrow-mindedness, eradicate fundamentalism, to help in creating a sense of fraternity
among people, and build a common nationalism in India, but
these papers behaved in a manner entirely antithetical to their
duties. Their sole motive was to spread hysteria, preach narrow-­
mindedness, fundamentalism, instigate clashes and destroy the
common heritage of India. That is why one is so pained to see
the present condition of the country and one wonders what will
happen to our country.
The people who remember the enthusiasm of the period of
non-cooperation feel like crying on seeing this present condition
We need to inculcate class consciousness to prevent people from
fighting. The poor workers and peasants should be clearly told
that their foremost enemies are the capitalists and they should
keep aloof from their maneuverings, and not be instigated by
them. People all over the world have similar rights, whether
they belong to any race, caste or creed. Your welfare lies in
becoming united and trying to snatch the power from the government to take it in your hands. You would lose nothing by
Chapter 3 • Communal Riots and Their Solution
of the country. Those were the days when freedom seemed very
near but now Swaraj has become just a dream. And this was the
third advantage that has been achieved by party partisanship. The
same bureaucracy which saw a great danger to its existence and
seemed it would perish within days, has strengthened its roots so
much that it is not a simple task now to shake it off. If we wish
to know the moot reason for these riots, we will find that it is
an economic one. During the period of non-cooperation leaders
and journalists had sacrificed a lot. Their economic condition had
deteriorated. After the non-cooperation movement became weak,
the leaders of the movement also became irrelevant. The business
of many communal leaders thus came to an end. Any activity
that starts in this world has at its base the question of livelihood.
It is the foremost principle among the three basic principles of
Marx. Because of this principle Tableeque, Takzeem and reformist
organisations developed and this marked the beginnings of the
state we now find ourselves in. Any improvement in the matter
of these riots is only possible if there is an improvement in the
economic conditions of India. Bharat’s economic condition is so
bad that someone can pay the other (a bribe) of four annas in
order to get him defamed. When suffering from hunger and strife
everybody is prepared to shun all principles. One is ready to do
anything when confronted with the question of life or death. But
it is very difficult to have economic improvement in such a state
of affairs as the present. Because the government is an alien one
and it doesn’t let the conditions of the Indians improve. We must,
therefore, change it at any cost and till it is changed we should
not rest.
15
doing so, instead, one day you would be liberated from your
shackles and achieve economic freedom. The people who are
well-versed with Russian history know that in the days of the
Czar the condition of Russia was even worse than India’s present condition; there were so many communities in the country
and they were all fighting among themselves. And when worker’s rule got established in Russia, the position changed altogether. Now no riots occur there, and everybody is considered a
human being first and not a religious entity. During the period
of the Czar, the financial condition of the people of Russia was
very bad. This was the main reason behind the riots. But now
the economic condition of the Russians has improved and class
consciousness has become prevalent among them, so they don’t
have any riots.
Riots are always replete with disheartening news but during the
riots in Calcutta one good thing happened as well. The workers
didn’t take any part in the riots and the trade unions even tried to
pacify the violent mob. These people had become class conscious
and knew to look out for their class interests. Class consciousness
is the main tool which can help in preventing riots.
Inquilab
The happy news has come to us that Indian youths are shunning
fanaticism, which preaches that one should fight another; the
youth have learnt to see a person as a human being and Indian
first before anything else. It shows that the future of India is
very bright and people should not dread these riots, rather they
should create an atmosphere in which there would be no possibility of riots.
16
The martyrs of 1914–15 had separated religion from politics.
They felt that religious people had their own obligations and no
one could interfere with that. They also felt that religion should
not intrude on politics because it does not allow people to work
jointly for a common cause. This is why they could stick together
during the Ghadar movement, and Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims all
sacrificed everything in that movement. Some Indian leaders have
now emerged at the forefront who also wish to separate religion
from politics. It is a very apt solution to avert all the clashes (that
have been happening) and we too approve of this. If religion is
separated from politics, then all of us can jointly initiate political
activities, even though in matters of religion we might have many
differences with each other. We feel that the true well-­wishers
of India would follow these principles and save India from the
­suicidal path it is on at present.
Chapter 3 • Communal Riots and Their Solution
17
Chapter
THE PROBLEM OF
4 UNTOUCHABILITY*
Our country is in a really bad shape; here the strangest questions are asked but the foremost among them concerns the
Untouchables, who account for 6 crores in a population of 30
crores. For instance, would contact with an untouchable mean
defilement of an upper caste? Would the Gods in the temples not
get angry by the entry of untouchables there? Would the drinking
water of a well not get polluted if untouchables drew their water
from the same well? That these questions are being asked in the
twentieth century, is a matter which makes us hang our heads in
shame. We Indians boast of our spiritualism, but then, we avoid
accepting every human being as a fellow being just like ourselves.
Western people on the other hand, who bear the reputation of
being money-minded, have unequivocally affirmed their faith in
the principle of equality. This they did during the revolutions in
America and France and above all in Russia; these days Russia is
committed to the extension of this principle to all aspects of life
and to ending discriminations in any form whatsoever, thereby
fulfilling the ideals of the May Day declaration. But we Indians
who never tire of boasting about our gods and godliness are, even
now seriously debating whether to permit untouchables to wear
the sacred thread or the janeu, and whether untouchables should
be permitted to read the Vedas/Shastras. We often complain about
our maltreatment in other countries, and particularly when we
are maltreated by the whites, but do we have any moral right to
voice such a protest?
* Bhagat Singh wrote this in Kirti, June 1928 issue under the pseudonym
Vidrohi.
In 1926, a Sindhi Muslim gentleman, Mr Nur Mohammad,
member of the Bombay Legislative Council aptly remarked:
If Hindu society refuses to allow other human beings, fellow
creatures at that, to attend public schools, and if…the
president of the local board representing so many lakhs of
people in this house, refuses to allow his fellows and brothers,
the elementary human right of having water to drink, what
right have they to ask for more rights from the bureaucracy?
Before we accuse people coming from other lands, we should
see how we ourselves behave towards our own people….
How can we ask for greater political rights when we ourselves
deny elementary rights to human beings.
How true! But since this was said by a Muslim, Hindus lost no
time in alleging that the Muslim’s real intention was to convert
the untouchables to Islam and thus assimilate them into their
own brotherhood. But then, it (also) amounted to an open admission of the harsh truth—that if you (the Hindus) treat them (the
untouchables) worse than your cattle, they will desert you, join
other religions where they hope to enjoy more rights, where they
are treated as fellow beings. Would it not be pointless then to
blame the Christians and Muslims, that they were undermining
Hinduism? How fair and true! Yet the Hindus tremble in anger on
hearing this plain truth.
Chapter 4 • The Problem of Untouchability
In any case, it has shaken Hindus from their complacency in the
matter. Orthodox Brahmins too have started giving the matter
another thought, joined also by some self-proclaimed reformers.
At Patna a gala Hindu meet was held. Lala Lajpat Rai, known for
his longstanding sympathy for the untouchables, was presiding.
After considerable heated exchanges as to whether untouchables
are eligible to wear the sacred thread, the janeu, and whether they
could read the Vedas and Shastras, a number of social reformers
lost their temper. But Lalaji was able to persuade them to compromise on these two matters and thereby saved the prestige of
Hinduism; otherwise, what would have been the consequences?
Just imagine how shameful it is! Even a dog can sit in our lap, it
19
Inquilab
can also move freely in the kitchen but if a fellow human touches
you, your dharma is endangered! So much so, even a reputed
social reformer like Pandit Malviyaji, known for his soft corner
for the untouchables, first agrees to be publicly garlanded by a
sweeper, but then considers himself to be polluted till he bathes
and washes those clothes. How ironical! In the temples meant for
worshipping God, who lives in us all, if a poor man enters, it gets
defiled and God gets annoyed. When this is the state of affairs
within the Hindu fold, is it fitting for us to quarrel and fight in
the name of the brotherhood? Above all, this kind of approach
to the question amounts to an ingratitude of the highest degree;
those who provide us comfort by performing menial jobs for us,
we shun them. We could worship even animals but would not
tolerate fellow humans to sit beside us.
20
In the context of our advance towards national liberation, the
problem of communal representation (seats in the legislatures
allotted in proportion to Hindu, Sikh and Muslim population)
may not have been beneficial in any other manner, but at least
it means that Hindus/Muslims/Sikhs are all striving hard to
maximise their own respective quota of seats by attracting the
maximum number of untouchables to their own respective
folds. Accordingly, Muslims started providing them equal rights
after converting them to Islam. This naturally hurt the Hindus.
Bitterness mounted, riots too broke out. By and by, Sikhs too
woke up lest they be left behind in this race. They too started
administering Amrit; tension mounted between Sikhs and Hindus
over the removal of janeu or hair shaving. All in all, all three are
trying to outdo each other, resulting in widespread disturbances.
Christians sitting on the fence are quietly consolidating their
hold. Be as it may, this turmoil is certainly helping us to move
towards the weakening of the hold of untouchability. As for the
untouchables, when they discovered that all this great turmoil was
on their account and Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, all were trying
to profit at their cost, they also started thinking, ‘Why should we
not organise on our own?’ No one is sure whether they are doing
so as a result of official prompting or on their own but it is certain
that government had a hand in prompting this line of thought.
‘Adi Dharma Mandal’ and the like are the end result of this trend.
Here, the basic question arises, how precisely can we solve this
tangle? The answer is quite obvious; above all, it needs to be settled for good, that all humans are equal without distinctions of
birth or vocation. In other words, the idea that since someone is
born in a poor sweeper’s family, he shall continue cleaning toilets
all his life and thus be deprived of all chances of progress in life, is
utter nonsense. Historically speaking, when our Aryan ancestors
nurtured these practices of discrimination towards this stratum
of society, shunning all human contact with them by labelling
them as menials, and assigning all the degrading jobs to them,
they also naturally started worrying about a revolt against this
system. ‘All this is the result of your past sins; What can be done
about it? Bear it silently!’ and with such kinds of sleeping pills,
they were able to buy peace for quite some time. All the same
they were guilty of a great sin, since it amounted to the negation
of core human values like self-esteem and self-reliance, a grossly
cruel conduct, by all accounts. This is the moment of atonement.
Chapter 4 • The Problem of Untouchability
In a broader social perspective, untouchability had a pernicious
side-effect; people in general got used to hating the jobs which
were otherwise vital for life. We treated the weavers who provided
us cloth as untouchable. In UP water carriers were also considered
untouchables. All this caused tremendous damage to our progress
by undermining the dignity of labour, especially manual labour.
We have thus to accept it once and for all, that in order to move
forward we have to give up either considering or calling them
untouchables. Everything else shall fall in place by itself. In this
regard, a strategy adopted by the Naujawan Bharat Sabha and the
Youth Conference is most apt—to seek the forgiveness of those
brethren whom we have been calling untouchables by treating
them as our fellow beings without making them go through the
conversion ceremonies of Sikhism, Islam or Hinduism, and by
accepting food/water from their hands. On the other hand, quarrelling among ourselves in the race to win them over, without
restoring to them their human dignity, is futile.
21
Inquilab
22
However, the moment we went to the villages with our message
of human equality and brotherhood, government agents started
inciting the Jat community saying that this would embolden
the ‘menials’ into refusing to serve them. This was sufficient to
provoke the Jats to oppose our efforts in the right direction. But
the upper castes should also realise that their own status in life
cannot change for the better as long they persist in considering
these people inferior, calling them menials, and keeping them
under their heels. It is argued that they are unclean. The harsh
truth is that they are poor; remove their poverty and they shall be
clean. Don’t we find that the poor even among the upper castes
are no less unclean? Besides doing unclean jobs is not bad; for
example, mothers perform all the unclean duties for their children. Do they become unclean? However, ultimately the problem cannot be satisfactorily solved unless and until untouchable
communities themselves unite and organise. We regard their
recent uniting based on their distinct identity, and also demanding representation equal to Muslims in legislatures, being equal
to them in numbers, a move in the right direction. Either reject
communal representation altogether, else give these people too
their due share! In principle, Councils and Assemblies are dutybound to ensure full and free access for all these communities to
schools, colleges, wells and roads, that too not only on paper but
by actually accompanying them to the wells, and the schools and
getting them admitted there. But can these legislatures, where a
lot of hue and cry is raised even over a bill to ban child marriages
on the grounds that it shall be a threat to their religion, dare to
bring the untouchables to their level on their own? No, never;
that is why we plead that they (the untouchables) must persist
in pressing for their own distinct representation in legislatures in
proportion to their numerical strength. We mince no words in
proclaiming: ‘Arise! So-called untouchables, the real sustainers of
life, awake and reflect over your past, you were the backbone of
Guru Gobind Singh’s army. Shivaji was able to achieve all he did
with your participation and it made him forever shine in history.
Your sacrifices are worthy of being engraved in golden letters. The
way in which you sustain us and add to our comforts ought to
make us feel grateful to you. It is we who fail to appreciate you.’
Chapter 4 • The Problem of Untouchability
The Land Alienation Act (banning transfer of land to non-­
agriculturist communities, defined as per caste) does not permit
you to buy land even if you manage to raise the necessary funds.
The way you are being oppressed had prompted Miss Mayo of
USA to label you ‘less than man’. As a matter of fact, without
your own efforts, you shall not be able to move ahead. ‘Those
who would be free must themselves strike the first blow.’ It must
be kept in mind that everyone belonging to the privileged class
strives to enjoy his own rights, but would try his utmost to keep
oppressing those below him, and keeping the underprivileged
under his heel. Thus, might is held to be right. Waste no time and
unite to stand on your own feet and challenge the existing order
of society. Let it then be seen who dares to deny your due. Do not
be at the mercy of others and have no illusions about them. Be
on guard so as not to fall into the trap of officialdom, because far
from being your ally it seeks to make you dance to its own tunes.
The capitalist bureaucratic combine is in fact responsible for your
oppression and poverty. Hence, always shun it. Be on guard about
its tricks. This is then the way out. You are the real working class.
Workers unite—you have nothing to lose but your chains. Arise
and rebel against the existing order. Gradualism and reformism
shall be of no use to you. Start a revolution from a social agitation
and gird up your loins for political and economic revolution. You
and you alone are the pillars of the nations and its core strength.
Awake, O sleeping lions! Rebel, raise the banner of revolt.
23
Chapter
5
STUDENTS AND
POLITICS*
We are hearing a wide clamouring that students should not take
part in political work. Punjab Government has an uncommon
view about this. When students seek admission in the colleges
they are made to accept and sign off on an undertaking that they
will not take part in political activities. It is our bad luck that
Manohar Lal, elected by the people, is now Education Minister
and is issuing circulars to schools and colleges that no student or
teacher should take part in political activity. A few days ago, the
students’ union celebrated Students Day in Lahore; there too Sir
Abdul Qadir and Mrs Prof. Ishwar Chander Nanda emphasised
that students should not take part in politics. Punjab is called
politically backward in politics. What is the reason? Has Punjab
offered small sacrifices? Has Punjab suffered any less? Even then,
the reason is very clear: that the people of our education department are really stupid. It becomes crystal clear after going through
the proceedings of the Punjab Council. The reason for this is that
our education is useless and worthless and students do not have
any interest in the matters of their country leaving aside world
affairs. They do not have any knowledge in this regard. When
they complete their studies, only a few among them go further,
but even they talk with such immaturity that one can do nothing
but feel regret for them. The youth who have to hold the reins
of the country in the future, are at present being made mentally
backward, and what the future holds for us, we should realise
today itself. We concede that the basic duty of the student is to
* Kirti, July 1928. Bhagat Singh wrote this as a response to some suggestions that students should keep away from politics.
study, so he should not let his attention waver in that regard.
But is it not part of the education that the youth should know
what the conditions are in their country and be enabled to think
of solutions for their improvement? If not, then we consider the
education they are receiving which will only equip them for clerical jobs worthless. What is the need for such an education? Some
clever people say such things. ‘Boy, you must read about politics
and surely think about it also, but you should not involve yourself practically in that because after becoming more capable you
could be more useful for the country.’ Such things seem to be
very nice, but these are also very superficial. An incident makes
this evident: once a student was reading a book named Appeal to
the Young written by Peter Kropotkin. A professor asked him, what
is this book on? And it looks like a Bengali name. The student
laughed. The name of Prince Kropotkin is very popular. He was a
scholar in the subject of Economics. A professor should know of
him. But the boy laughed at the professor’s ignorance and said,
‘He was a Russian, Sir.’ ‘Russian?’ The professor became furious
and said, ‘You are a Bolshevik, because you read political books.’
Just see the calibre of this professor. Now what could these students learn from such professors? What can these students learn
from them in such a situation?
Chapter 5 • Students and Politics
The next issue is that what is ‘practical politics’? Welcoming and
listening to the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and
Subhash Chandra Bose amounts to practical politics and what
can be said of welcoming an official commission or the Viceroy?
Is that not the other aspect of politics itself? Everything related to
governments and the administration of the country could be considered as being a matter of politics. Then is this not also a politics? It would be said that the government is pleased by the first
and gets annoyed by the second. Then it becomes a question of
what the government likes or is annoyed by. Should students be
taught the lesson of sycophancy from the moment they are born?
In our view, till the foreign exploiters rule India, they are traitors,
they are not human beings, but animals, slaves of their greed.
Then how can we assume that students can learn a lesson of loyalty? Everybody acknowledges that at this juncture, India needs
25
persons who can serve the nation and sacrifice everything for the
nation and should dedicate their lives in the cause of the nation
like a person possessed. But can we find such people among the
elderly? Could such sensible persons be among those involved
in family affairs? Only young people can come forward (for this
cause) because they are not involved in such entanglements. And
before they become involved (in the cause) students and young
people can think about such things only if they have some practical knowledge of such things. They should not merely have
crammed learning like arithmetic and geography to pass examinations. Was it not politics for the British students to go to fight
against the Germans after abandoning their colleges? Where were
our preachers then? They would have told them to go and study.
Inquilab
Today the students of National College Ahmedabad who are
helping the people of Bardouli Satyagrah, should they remain
half-­witted? We would like to see how many students of their calibre and ability Punjab University can create. Young people and
students have liberated their countries; will the youth of India
be able to save the future of their country by remaining aloof?
Our youth cannot forget the cruelty hurled upon the students in
1919. They understand very well that there is no alternative to
revolution. They should study, but at the same time they should
acquire the knowledge of politics too, and when the need arises
they should jump into the fray and sacrifice their lives for the
nation. They should sacrifice their lives for a cause, otherwise it
does not seem possible to keep the nation alive.
26
Part
II
Naujawan
Bharat Sabha
and the
Evaluation
of National
Leadership
6. Manifesto of Naujawan Bharat Sabha, Punjab,
Lahore, April 1928
7. Varied Views of the New Political Leaders,
July 1928
8. Lala Lajpat Rai and the Youth, August 1928
The Naujawan Bharat Sabha was an open platform of the
revolutionaries founded by Bhagat Singh and his associates in
1926 in Lahore. It was actively involved in political mobilisation of
the youth, workers and peasants along the ideology spelt out in the
manifestoes and other writings included in this section. The Sabha
stood above all petty religious politics of the times, with strong
commitment to secularism. It was a commendable task as the
1920s was a decade which saw the expansion of communalisms
of all hues. The Sabha regarded communal amity as an important
part of the political programme but unlike the Congress, it did not
believe in invoking religion based slogans like Allaho Akbar, Sat Sri
Akal and Bande Mataram as a means of demonstrating its secular
faith. On the contrary, it raised two slogans, Inquilab Zindabad and
Hindustan Zindabad, hailing the revolution and the country.
Bhagat Singh helped to draft its manifesto, included here in this
section where he spoke about their motto ‘Revolution by the masses
and for the masses’, in other words, Swaraj for the 90%; Swaraj not
only attained by the masses but also for the masses.
Bhagat Singh and his Sabha also critically commented on the
Congress leadership of the time. He wrote about the young leaders
like Subhash Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru in 1928 and compared
their profile, finding the former a reformist and an emotional Bengali
and the latter a revolutionary and rationalist. At that moment he
urged the youth to follow Nehru as the future leader.
Inquilab
We have also included here an article, which looks at Lala Lajpat
Rai and his politics critically. Bhagat Singh did avenge the insult and
death of a senior leader but also publicly disagreed with the politics
of Lala Lajpat Rai, particularly his collaboration with the Hindu
Mahasabha.
28
Chapter
6
MANIFESTO
OF NAUJAWAN
BHARAT SABHA,
PUNJAB, LAHORE*
Young Comrades,
Our country is passing through chaos. There is mutual distrust
and despair prevailing everywhere. The great leaders have lost
faith in the cause and most of them do not enjoy the confidence
of the masses anymore. There is no programme or enthusiasm
among the ‘champions’ of Indian independence. There is chaos
everywhere. But chaos is inevitable and a necessary phase in the
course of making of a nation. It is during such critical periods
that the sincerity of the workers is tested, their character built,
real programme formed, and then, with a new spirit, new hopes,
new faith and enthusiasm, the work is started. Hence there is
nothing to be disgusted of. We are, however, very fortunate to
find ourselves on the threshold of a new era. We no more hear
the news of reaching chaos that used to be sung vastly in praise
of the British bureaucracy. The historic question ‘Would you be
governed by sword or pen,’ no more lies unanswered. Those who
put that question to us have themselves answered it. In the words
of Lord Birkenhead, ‘With the sword we won India and with the
sword we shall retain it.’ Thanks to this candour everything is
clear now. After remembering Jallianwala and Manawala outrages
* This manifesto was written by Bhagat Singh and Bhagwaticharan Vohra
for the Naujawan Bharat Sabha conference held in Lahore during 11–13
April 1928.
it looks absurd to quote that ‘A good government cannot be a
substitute for self-government.’ It is self-evident.
Inquilab
A word about the blessings of the British rule in India. Is it necessary to quote the whole volumes of Romesh Chandra Dutt,
William Digby and Dadabhai Naoroji in evidence to prove the
decline and ruin of Indian industries? Does it require any authorities to prove that India, with the richest soil and mines, is today
one of the poorest, that India which could be proud of so glorious
a civilisation, is today the most backward country with only 5%
literacy? Do the people not know that India has to pay the largest
toll of human life with the highest child death rate in the world?
Epidemics like plague, cholera, influenza and such other diseases
are becoming common day by day. Is it not disgraceful for us to
hear again and again that we are not fit for self-government? Is
it not really degrading for us, with Guru Govind Singh, Shivaji
and Hari Singh as our heroes, to be told that we are incapable of
defending ourselves? Alas, we have done little to prove the contrary. Did we not see our trade and commerce being crushed in its
very infancy in the first effort of Guru Nanak Steamship Company
started by Baba Gurdit Singh in 1914; the inhuman treatment
meted out to them, far away in Canada, on the way, and, finally,
the bloody reception of those despairing, broken-hearted passengers with volleys of shots at Bajbaj, and what not? Did we not see
all this? In India, where for the honour of one Dropadi, the great
Mahabharat was fought, dozens of them were ravaged in 99. They
were spat at in their naked faces. Did we not see all this? Yet, we are
content with the existing order of affairs. Is this life worth living?
30
Does it require any revelation now to make us realise that we are
enslaved and must be free? Shall we wait for an uncertain sage
to make us feel that we are an oppressed people? Shall we expectantly wait for divine help or some miracle to deliver us from
bondage? Do we not know the fundamental principles of liberty?
‘Those who want to be free, must themselves strike the blow.’
Young men, awake, arise; we have slept too long!
We have appealed to the young only. Because the young bear
the most inhuman tortures smilingly and face death without
hesitation. Because the whole history of human progress is written with the blood of young men and women. And because
the reforms are ever made by the vigour, courage, self-sacrifice
and emotional conviction of the young men who do not know
enough to be afraid and who feel much more than they think.
Was it not the young men of Japan who come forth in hundreds
to throw themselves in the ditches to make a dry path to Port
Arthur? And Japan is today one of the foremost nations in the
world. Was it not the young Polish people who fought again and
again and failed, but fought again heroically throughout the last
century? And today we see a free Poland. Who freed Italy from
the Austrian yoke? Young Italy.
While, we Indians, what are we doing? A branch of peepal tree
is cut and religious feelings of the Hindus are injured. A corner
of a paper idol, tazia, of the idol-breaker Mohammedans is
broken, and ‘Allah’ gets enraged, who cannot be satisfied with
anything less than the blood of the infidel Hindus. Man ought
to be attached more importance than animals and, yet, here
in India, they break each other’s heads in the name of ‘sacred
animals’.
There are many others among us who hide their lethargy under
the garb of internationalism. Asked to serve their country they
reply: ‘Oh Sirs, we are cosmopolitans and believe in universal
brotherhood. Let us not quarrel with the British. They are our
Chapter 6 • Manifesto of Naujawan Bharat Sabha, Punjab, Lahore
Do you know the wonders worked by the Young Turks? Do you
not daily read what the young Chinese are doing? Was it not the
young Russians who sacrificed their lives for Russia’s emancipation? Throughout the last century hundreds and thousands of
them were exiled to Siberia for the mere distribution of socialist
pamphlets or, like Dostoyevsky, for merely belonging to (a) socialist debating society. Again and again they faced the storm of
oppression. But they did not lose courage. It was they, the young
only, who fought. And everywhere the young can fight without
hope, without fear and without hesitation. And we find today in
the great Russia, the emancipation of the world.
31
brothers.’ A good idea, a beautiful phrase. But they miss its implication. The doctrine of universal brotherhood demands that the
exploitation of man by man and nation by nation must be rendered impossible. Equal opportunity to all without any sort of distinction. But British rule in India is a direct negation of all these,
and we shall have nothing to do with it.
A word about social service here. Many good men think that
social service (in the narrow sense, as it is used and understood in
our country) is the panacea to all our ills and the best method of
serving the country. Thus we find many ardent youth contending
themselves with distributing grain among the poor and nursing
the sick all their life. These men are noble and self-denying but
they cannot understand that charity cannot solve the problem
of hunger and disease in India and, for that matter, in any other
country.
Inquilab
Religious superstitions and bigotry are a great hindrance in our
progress. They have proved an obstacle in our way and we must
do away with them. ‘The thing that cannot bear free thought
must perish.’ There are many other such weaknesses which we are
to overcome. The conservativeness and orthodoxy of the Hindus,
extra-territorialism and fanaticism of the Mohammedans and
narrow-mindedness of all the communities in general are always
exploited by the foreign enemy. Young men with revolutionary
zeal from all communities are required for the task.
32
Having achieved nothing, we are not prepared to sacrifice anything for any achievement; our leaders are fighting amongst
themselves to decide what will be the share of each community
in the hoped achievement. Simply to conceal their cowardice and
lack of spirit of self-sacrifice, they are creating a false issue and
screening the real one. These arm-chair politicians have their eyes
set on the handful of bones that may be thrown to them, as they
hope, by the mighty rulers. That is extremely humiliating. Those
who come forth to fight the battle of liberty cannot sit and decide
first that after so much sacrifice, so much achievement must be
certain and so much share must be divided. Such people never
make any sort of sacrifice. We want people who may be prepared
to fight without hope, without fear and without hesitation, and
who may be willing to die un-honoured, unwept and unsung.
Without that spirit we will not be able to fight the great two-fold
battle that lies before us—two-fold because of the internal foe, on
the one hand, and a foreign enemy, on the other. Our real battle
is against our own disabilities which are exploited by the enemy
and some of our own people for their selfish motives.
While trying to solve the above problem that faces our country,
we will also have to prepare the masses to fight the greater battle
that lies before us. Our political struggle began just after the Great
War of Independence of 1857. It has passed through different
phases. Along with the advent of the 20th century the British
bureaucracy has adopted quite a new policy towards India. They
are drawing our bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie into their fold
by adopting the policy of concessions. Their cause is being made
common. The progressive investment of British capital in India
will inevitably lead to that end. In the very near future we will
find that this class and their great leaders have thrown in their
lot with the foreign rulers. Some roundtable conference or any
such body will end in a compromise between the two. They will
no more be lions and cubs. Even without any conciliation the
expected Great War of the entire people will surely thin the ranks
of the so-called champions of Indian independence.
Chapter 6 • Manifesto of Naujawan Bharat Sabha, Punjab, Lahore
Young Punjabis, the youth of other provinces are working tremendously in their respective spheres. The organisation and awakening displayed by young Bengal on 3 February should serve as an
example to us. Our Punjab, despite the greatest amount of sacrifice and suffering to its credit, is described as a politically backward province. Why? Because, although it belongs to the martial
race, we are lacking in organisation and discipline; we who are
proud of the ancient University of Taxila, today stand badly in
need of culture. And culture requires fine literature which cannot
be prepared without a common and well-developed language.
Alas, we have got none.
33
The future programme of preparing the country will begin with
the motto: ‘Revolution by the masses and for the masses.’ In other
words, Swaraj for the 90%: Swaraj not only attained by the masses
but also for the masses. This is a very difficult task. Though our
leaders have offered many suggestions, none had the courage to
put forward and carry out successfully any concrete scheme of
awakening the masses. Without going into details, we can safely
assert that to achieve our object, thousands of our most brilliant
young men, like Russian youth, will have to pass their precious
lives in villages and make the people understand what Indian revolution would really mean. They must be made to realise that the
revolution which is to come will mean more than a change of
masters. It will, above all, mean the birth of new order of things,
a new state. This is not the work of a day or a year. Decades of
matchless self-sacrifice will prepare the masses for the accomplishment of that great work and only the revolutionary young
men will be able to do that. A revolutionary does not necessarily
mean a man of bombs and revolvers.
Inquilab
The task before the young is hard and their resources are scanty. A
great many obstacles are likely to block their way. But the earnestness of the few who are sincere can overcome them all. The young
must come forth. They must see the hard and difficult path that
lies before them, the great tasks they have to perform. They must
remember in the heart of hearts that ‘success is but a chance; sacrifice a law’. Their lives might be the lives of constant failure, even
more wretched than those which Guru Govind Singh had to face
throughout his life. Even then they must not repent and say, ‘Oh,
it was all an illusion.’
34
Young men, do not get disheartened when you find such a great
battle to fight single-handed, with none to help you. You must
realise your own latent strength. Rely on yourselves and success is yours. Remember the words of the great mother of James
Garfield which she spoke to her son while sending him away,
penniless, helpless and resource-less, to seek his fortune: ‘Nine
times out of ten the best thing that can happen to a young man
is to be thrown overboard to swim or sink for himself.’ Glory to
the mother who said these words and glory to those who will rely
on them. Mazzini, that oracle of Italian regeneration, once said:
‘All great national movements begin with unknown men of the
people without influence, except for the faith and the will that
counts neither time nor difficulties.’ Let the boat of life weigh
another time. Let it set sail in the Great Ocean, and then:
Anchor is in no stagnant shallow.
Trust the wide and wonderous sea,
Where the tides are fresh for ever,
And the mighty currents free.
There perchance, O young Columbus,
Your new world of truth may be.
Let young men think independently, calmly, serenely and
patiently. Let them adopt the cause of Indian independence as
the sole aim of their lives. Let them stand on their own feet. They
must organise themselves free from any influence and refuse to
be exploited any more by the hypocrites and insincere people
who have nothing in common with them and who always desert
the cause at the critical juncture. In all seriousness and sincerity,
Chapter 6 • Manifesto of Naujawan Bharat Sabha, Punjab, Lahore
Do not hesitate, let not the theory of incarnation haunt your
mind and break your courage. Everybody can become great if he
strives. Do not forget your own martyrs. Kartar Singh was a young
man. Yet, in his teens, when he came forth to serve his country,
he ascended the scaffold smiling and echoing ‘Bande Mataram’.
Bhai Balmukund and Awadh Bihari were both quite young when
they gave their lives for the cause. They were from among you.
You must try to become as sincere patriots and ardent lovers of
liberty as they were. Do not lose patience and sense at one time,
and hope at another. Try to make stability and determination
second nature to yourselves.
35
let them make the triple motto of ‘service, suffering, sacrifice’
their sole guide. Let them remember that ‘the making of a nation
requires self-sacrifice of thousands of obscure men and women
who care more for the idea of their country than for their own
comfort and interest, than own lives and the lives of those who
they love’.
Bande Mataram
Printed & published by B.C. Vohra, B.A., Propaganda Secretary,
Inquilab
Naujawan Bharat Sabha, Lahore.
36
Chapter
7
VARIED VIEWS
OF THE NEW
POLITICAL LEADERS*
There was a lot of disappointment after the failure of the NonCooperation Movement. The Hindu-Muslim riots made the situation worse. But a nation cannot keep quiet once its conscience has
been stirred. Soon it awakens and strikes a mighty blow. Today,
Hindustan is on the boil once again. It is not obvious on the surface, but a strong foundation is being laid. Many new leaders with
modern thoughts are emerging. This time, the true patriots are
favouring young activists. Many politicians are being left behind
despite being veterans. The most important young leaders in the
present scenario are Bengal’s Subhash Chandra Bose and Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru. These two leaders are making their presence
felt and are participating in the movements of the youth in a big
way. Both are wise and true patriots. Still there are considerable
differences between the views of the two leaders. One is called the
worshipper of ancient Indian culture while the other is called a
staunch disciple of the West. One is called soft-hearted and emotional, while the other is considered a hard-boiled revolutionary.
In this article, we will present their varied views so that the public
can understand the differences and choose for themselves.
Before explaining their varied views, however, it is necessary to
mention another person who is a freedom-lover like these two
and is an important figure in youth movements. This is Sadhu
Vasvani. Even though he is not as famous as some other Congress
* Kirti, July 1928.
Inquilab
38
workers, and he does not have a special place in the country’s
political scenario, the young men of the country who have to hold
its reins in the future, are influenced by him and the movement
he started, ‘Bhagat Yuva Sangh’, which is quite popular among
them. His thoughts are entirely different. His motto is ‘Back to
the Vedas’. The slogan was first raised by the Arya Samajis. The
idea behind this motto is that God has poured all his wisdom
into the Vedas. There can be no development beyond it. Hence,
the world has never developed beyond nor will develop beyond
it. Vasvani and Co. hold this belief. He says, ‘Our political leaders have either followed Mazzini and Voltaire as their mentors or
learnt lessons from Lenin and Tolstoy. However, people should
know that our ancient holy men are much better mentors than
them.’ He believes that there was a time when our civilisation had
reached its zenith and today rather than going ahead we need to
go back to that time. He is a poet and his thoughts are evident in
his poetry. Along with that, he is a great preacher of religion. He
wants to propagate ‘Power’ Religion. He says, ‘This time we are in
dire need of power.’ He doesn’t use the word ‘Shakti’ just for India,
but he alludes to Goddess Shakti and believes in attaining that
divine presence. Like an emotional poet, he says, ‘For in solitude I
have communicated with her, our admired Bharat Mata, and my
aching head has heard voices saying…the day of freedom is not
far off.’ Also ‘…sometimes indeed a strange feeling visits me and
I say to myself, holy, holy is Hindustan. For still is she under the
protection of her mighty Rishis and their beauty is around us, but
we behold it not.’ This is the lament of the poet as he cries out like
a madman: ‘Our Mother is great. Very powerful. Who can defeat
her?’ He also writes emotionally, ‘Our national movement must
become a purifying mass movement, if it is to fulfil its destiny
without falling into class war, one of the dangers of Bolshevism.’
He thinks that we have done our duty by saying ‘Go to villages, to
the poor, give them free drugs.’ He is a mystical poet. His poems
do not have specific message, but they move us. He doesn’t suggest any programme other than raising one’s voice for ancient tradition. He cannot offer something fresh to the youth (of India).
He wants to fill their hearts with emotion. He is very popular
among the youth. And this popularity is increasing day by day.
We have tried here to provide a summary of his archaic views. In
spite of not having a direct impact on the political field, his views
have affected it, primarily because the youth, who have to hold
the reins of the country tomorrow, are influenced by them.
Now, let’s talk about the views of Subhash Chandra Bose and
Jawaharlal Nehru. Subhash Chandra Bose has been made the
chairperson of many conferences in the last two or three months
and he has placed his views before the people. The government
believes him to be a votary of the coup and had kept him imprisoned under the Bengal Ordinance. When he was released, he
became the leader of the extremist group. He believes India’s goal
must be complete freedom and he propagated this view in his
address as the Chairperson of the Maharashtra Conference.
However, there are considerable difference between the views
held by the two leaders. This difference may have been detected
in their speeches at Amritsar and Madras. But it became evident
in the Bombay Conference. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was its chairman and Bose gave a speech there. He is an emotional Bengali.
He began his speech by saying that India had a special message
for the world, and that India will educate the world. Then he says
like a romantic, ‘Look at the Taj Mahal in the full-moon night and
then think about the greatness of that heart which could conceive it. One Bengali novelist has written that it is the crystallised
form of our tears.’ Even he suggests that we go back to the Vedas.
In his speech at Poona on ‘nationalism’ he said that the internationalists claim that nationalism is a unifying ideal but that is a
mistake. Hindustani nationalism is not such a thing. Neither is
Chapter 7 • Varied Views of the New Political Leaders
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru is the son of the leader of the Swaraj
Party, Pandit Motilal Nehru. He is a barrister. He is very learned.
He has been to Russia also. He, too, is a leader of the radical group
and it was due to his efforts and those of his friends that they
were able to steer the resolution of Poorna Swaraj in the Madras
Conference. He stressed upon it in the Amritsar Conference as
well.
39
it centralising, nor influenced by personal selfishness, and nor is
it tortuous because its motto is ‘Satyam Shivam Sundaram’, i.e.,
truthful, well-wishing and beautiful. This is the same mysticism
and sheer sentimentalism; clearly even he has a lot of belief in the
ancient past. He believes in the greatness of that historic period.
He thinks that the concept of Panchayati Raj is ancient. He claims
that ‘Panchayati Raj and Self Governance’ is an old concept in
Hindustan. Even communism is not a new thing for Hindustan,
he says. Anyway, the main thing that he focused on that day was
that Hindustan has a special message for the world.
But Jawaharlal Nehru holds a different view. He says, ‘Every youth
must rebel. Not only in the political sphere, but in social, economic and religious spheres also. I have not much use for any
man who comes and tells me that such and such thing is said
in the Koran. Everything unreasonable must be discarded even if
they find authority in the Vedas and Koran.’ This is the thought of
a revolutionary (although) Subhash too seems to favour a change
in government. One believes that it’s good to preserve old things
and the other pleads for a revolt against them. One is called a sentimentalist and the other a revolutionary. Panditji says:
Inquilab
To those who still fondly cherish old ideas and are striving
to bring back the conditions which prevailed in Arabia 1300
years ago or in the Vedic age in India, I say, that it is incon­
ceivable that you can bring back the hoary past. The world of
reality will not retrace its steps; the world of imagination may
remain stationary.
40
Subhash favours complete independence because he says that the
English are from the West and we are from the East. Nehru says
that we have to change the entire social system by establishing
our government. For that, it is important to obtain complete independence. Subhash sympathises with the workers and he wants to
improve their situation. Nehru wants to change the system itself
by a revolution. Subhash is sentimental, for the heart. He is giving
a lot to the young men, but for the heart. The other is a revolutionary who is giving a lot to the heart as well as the head. ‘They
should aim at Swaraj for the masses based on Socialism. That was
a revolutionary change which they could not bring about without revolutionary methods…. Mere reform or gradual reform of
the existing machinery could not achieve the real proper Swaraj
for the general masses.’ This is a true reflection of their views.
Subhash wants to concentrate his attention on national politics
as long as it is required to save and develop Hindustan in world
politics. But Pandit Nehru has stepped out of the narrow ideal of
nationalism into the vast arena (of internationalism).
Chapter 7 • Varied Views of the New Political Leaders
Now that we know their views, the question is which view should
be followed? One Punjabi newspaper while applauding Subhash
said that revolutionaries like Nehru die by banging their heads
into the wall. It should be remembered that Punjab is already
a sentimental state. Punjabis get excited as quickly as they are
disheartened. Today perhaps Subhash is not giving us any food
for thought. The need of the hour is that Punjabi youths should
ponder over these revolutionary thoughts and make up their
minds. Punjab needs food for thought and this can be provided
only by Pandit Nehru. This does not mean that we should be blind
followers. But as far as views are concerned, it is time for Punjabi
youths to follow him, so that they may know the true meaning
of Inquilab, the need for Inquilab in Hindustan, and the place of
Inquilab in the world. The youth should firm up their views so
that even when they feel dejected, sorrowful or defeated, they do
not digress (from their path) and are able to face the world all by
themselves. It is only by doing this that the masses can fulfil their
dream of Inquilab.
41
Chapter
8
LALA LAJPAT
RAI AND
THE YOUTH*
Lala Lajpat Rai learnt his lessons on patriotism from the great
Mazzini. He was a great admirer of the youth and used to say,
‘Only youngsters take the burden of great works, their words have
some magic. They prepare the people for the freedom struggle
in no time.’ When a person says that he idolises Mazzini, and
does exactly the opposite, it is baffling. Why talk about 1907–8?
It is enough to present a contemporary example. In the last elections of the Council, Lalaji left the Congress and said some things
which were not worthy of him. Some sentimental youths raised
their voice against what he said. In revenge, Lalaji in his speeches
declared these youngsters to be very dangerous and having an
eye on revolution and as wanting a leader like Lenin. He does
not have the strength to become Lenin. In addition, he said that
if these youngsters were to be given jobs which had only fifty
rupees as remuneration, then they would think themselves to be
on top of the world. What is meant by this? Were Lenin’s followers such youths who would leave their principles for fifty rupees?
Is Lenin of this standing? Otherwise why were these things being
said? With these words Lalaji is trying to degrade revolutionaries
in the eyes of the public and also incite the government to take
rigorous steps against them. Everyone has the right to criticise
somebody’s unethical deeds or thoughts if genuinely felt, but this
amounts to knowingly defaming someone by misinterpreting his
thoughts, be it Lala Lajpat Rai or some unknown youngster. After
the elections, there were many such occasions, but it’s not necessary to mention them.
* Kirti, August 1928.
Lalaji has now written his second article. In fact, it is an account
of ‘Country League’, which we have dealt with in our last issue,
but youths have been referred to here as well. Lalaji proposes that
the public should steer clear of the violent views of today’s youth.
They are supporters of the revolutionary movement. Their propaganda about property is dangerous as it can lead to class struggle.
In the end, he has said that this has begun under the influence of
some mischievous foreign groups. These outside elements want
to split our freedom struggle and so they are dangerous. It is also
believed that with such propaganda, property-owners would join
the government.
First and foremost, I would like to say that no outside force is
misguiding us. The youngsters are not speaking under anyone’s
influence; instead this is the feeling in the country itself. Lalaji
is a prominent person. He travels in first or second class. Does
he know about those who travel in the third class? How would
he know about the person who has to bear kicks in third-class
bogies? He passes through villages with his friends in motor cars.
How is he going to know what ordeals thousands of people have
to endure? Should we describe the condition of thousands of
Chapter 8 • Lala Lajpat Rai and the Youth
After calling these youngsters wayward, under foreign influence,
mischievous and greedy, in the end he says that he has full faith
in Jawaharlal Nehru. If he (Nehru) is doing or saying something,
then it is with complete understanding and honesty: very well!
There is no doubt about the honesty of Jawaharlal Nehru who
had visited Russia and was quite influenced by the ideals there.
He is not speaking under the influence of those foreign ideals,
instead he is doing so with complete honesty, but these poor fellows who cannot go outside the country, they have fallen under
foreign influence. Good! Very good! The reality is that Jawaharlal
Nehru is now a public figure. His name is being proposed for the
Presidentship of the Congress, and it is hoped that soon he will
become the President. Writing against him would mean inviting trouble, but who cares for some unknown youngsters? These
efforts hardly befit Lalaji. Anyway, let him do what he wants to.
Now I would like to answer some of his questions.
43
Inquilab
44
famished Indians to the writer of Unhappy India? Is there any need
for a foreigner to tell us to find a way to procure food when we
are witness to crores of people toiling day in and day out and still
unable to eat two square meals? We see farmers labouring all year
through and yet eating frugal meals and remaining in debt. Won’t
we suffer then? Don’t we feel like revolting? Even then, do we
need someone to come and tell us to change the system? When
we see daily the hardworking dying of hunger, and the idle enjoying luxuries, does it not make us realise the flaws in our economic
and social systems? When we see crimes increasing d
­ ay-by-day
and the condition of the public deteriorating, do we need outsiders to make us understand that a revolution is needed? Are we
not enraged to see the plight of crores of people who are being
segregated as untouchables? Crores of people can bring a lot of
development in the world, they can do social service but today,
we consider them a burden. Are movements not required just for
their amelioration, to make them human beings in the real sense
and to improve their lot? Is it not required to bring them to that
level where they can have food the way we have? Isn’t a revolution in the social and economic system required to achieve this?
Are the youths of Punjab and India incapable of feeling anything?
Are they not alive? Is there no humanity in their hearts? If yes,
then why is it being said that they have been incited by foreigners.
Yes, we accept that the Russian Revolution has presented an altogether new set of ideas to the world. We accept that the Russian
thinkers have presented such thoughts to the world after lifelong
suffering and sacrifice, which perhaps, we ourselves cannot even
envisage. Should they not be given due credit for that? Does a
similarity in ideas amount to incitement? If so, then Lalaji has
been incited by Mazzini to misguide the youth of the nation and
to engage them in the service of the country. We must ask ourselves that in present times, should the world learn a lesson from
the French Revolution and make it a principle or should it learn
from the Russian Revolution which is full of new ideas in a new
environment? Does Lalaji want a revolution against British Rule
and pass on the reins of the government to the hands of the rich?
And let crores of people suffer under much worse conditions than
Chapter 8 • Lala Lajpat Rai and the Youth
they are living in now, and after a number of decades tread this
path again and then fight against our own lords? It is sheer foolishness. Lalaji had raised his voice for the union of villages after
listening to Das. Lala ji is not free to go to the villages. How could
he know what is the opinion of the people? People ask how are we
benefited by Inquilab? Why should we lose our food now when
even after that revolution people have to toil for a square meal
and even then the state machinery and the Lords would oppress
them? Why should we opt for such a predicament? Suppose, a
revolution does happen, then who should be, according to Lalaji,
the ruler? Maharaja Vardhaman or Maharaja Patiala and property holders? Are millions of American and French labourers not
dying? Why should we land in trouble after knowing everything?
Lalaji says that because of our communist ideas, the rich would
align with the government? Very good! Which party is he in?
How many rich men have become revolutionaries? Those who
fear losing their wealth due to the revolution, they become its
opponents inevitably. In such a situation it is improper to abandon your principles for servility and thus harm your work. The
rich should consider which situation favours them. The English
will soon drain their wealth and transfer it to the hands of the
rich in their own country. Thence the rich (of India) will join
the crores of labourers toiling today. They will see injustice in
the social system. If they join the communist revolution today,
then it will surely put a check on unjustified luxuries but they
will be happy in the near future when there will be shared happiness in the world. But the workers’ movement cannot stop for
them, not even wait. The youngsters should not be afraid. In the
beginning, there will be many difficulties, but those should be
faced with courage. Lalaji and other such capitalistic leaders are
leaving the field bit by bit, just the way earlier there was Surendra
Nath Banerjee and now it is Sapru and Chintamani’s turn. In the
end, the labour movement will win. Hail Communists! Let the
Revolutionary caravan march on!
45
Part
III
Revolutionary
Ideas
9. Why I Am an Atheist, October 1930
10. Introduction to The Dreamland, 15 January
1931
11. To Young Political Workers
12. What Is Revolution? Letter to Modern Review,
24 December 1929
13. The Real Meaning of Violence
14. Statement in the Sessions Court, 6 June 1929
15. Statement Filed in the Lahore High Court
16. Letter to Sukhdev Against Suicide
This section is an important one and thus carries the maximum
number of pieces written by Bhagat Singh. The articles, letters
and statements included here will be indicators of Bhagat Singh’s
growing maturity as a political and revolutionary thinker and all of
them were written from prison. We are familiar with the profound
prison writings in India and the world; Bhagat Singh as a young man
in his early twenties also did his most perceptive writing behind bars.
His most sagacious and detailed article is ‘Why I Am an Atheist’,
which begins this section. It is tinged with a strong rebuttal of blind
faith and a zealous defence of reason. Before dealing with his own
views about religion, Bhagat Singh first deals with the religiosity of
his predecessors. He points out that in the absence of a scientific
understanding of their own political activity; they needed irrational
religious beliefs and mysticism to sustain them spiritually, to fight
against personal temptation, to overcome depression, to be able
to sacrifice their physical comforts, and even life. It is not just a
harangue against God but a philosophical engagement on the
place of reason and critical imagination in our lives.
Inquilab
Here we also see Bhagat Singh explaining the two most important
expressions in their lives called revolution and violence.
48
Chapter
9
WHY I AM
AN ATHEIST*
A new question has cropped up. Is it due to vanity that I do not
believe in the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent and
omniscient God? I had never imagined that I would ever have
to confront such a question. But conversation with some friends
has given me a hint that certain friends, if I am not claiming too
much in thinking them to be so, are inclined to conclude from
the brief contact they have had with me, that it was too much on
my part to deny the existence of God and that there was a certain
amount of vanity that fuelled my disbelief. Well, the problem is
a serious one. I do not boast to be above these human traits. I am
a man and nothing more. None can claim to be more. I also have
this weakness in me. Vanity does form a part of my nature. I was
called an autocrat by my comrades. Even my friend Mr B.K. Dutt
sometimes called me so. On certain occasions I was decried as a
despot. Some friends do complain, and very seriously too, that I
involuntarily thrust my opinions upon others and get my proposals accepted. That this is true up to a certain extent, I do not deny.
This may amount to egotism. There is vanity in me in as much
as our cult as opposed to other popular creeds is concerned. But
that is not personal. It may be, it is only legitimate pride in our
cult and does not amount to vanity. Vanity or to be more precise
‘Ahankar’ is the excess of undue pride in oneself. Whether it is
* This article was written by Bhagat Singh in prison on 5–6 October 1930.
It was first published in an English paper of Lahore called The People,
27 September 1931. This paper was founded by Lala Lajpat Rai. The article
remained obscure till Professor Bipan Chandra edited and published it in
the eighties.
Inquilab
such an undue pride that has led me to atheism or whether it is
after very careful study of the subject and after much consideration that I have come to dis-believe in God, is a question that I
intend to discuss here. Let me first make it clear that egotism and
vanity are two different things.
50
In the first place, I have altogether failed to comprehend how
undue pride or vainglory could ever stand in the way of a man’s
belief in God. I can refuse to recognise the greatness of a really
great man provided I have also achieved a certain amount of popularity without deserving it or without having possessed the qualities really essential or indispensable for the same purpose. That
much is conceivable. But how can a man believing in God cease
to believe due to his personal vanity? There are only two ways.
The man should either begin to think himself a rival of God or
he may begin to believe that he is God. In neither case can he
become a genuine atheist. In the first case, he does not even deny
the existence of his rival. In the second case as well, he admits
the existence of a conscious being behind the screen guiding
all the movements of nature. It is of no importance to us whether
he thinks himself to be that supreme being or whether he thinks
the supreme conscious being to be somebody apart from himself.
The fundamental is there. His belief is there. He is by no means an
atheist. Well, here I am. I neither belong to the first category nor
to the second. I deny the very existence of that Almighty Supreme
Being. Why I deny it shall be dealt with later on. Here I want to
clear one thing, that it is not vanity that has led me to adopt the
doctrines of atheism. I am neither a rival nor an incarnation nor
the Supreme Being Himself. One point is decided, that it is not
vanity that has led me to this way of thinking. Let me examine
the facts to disprove this allegation. According to these friends of
mine I have grown vainglorious perhaps due to the undue popularity gained during the trials—both the Delhi Bomb and Lahore
conspiracy cases. Well, let us see if their premises are correct. My
atheism is not of such recent origin.
I had stopped believing in God when I was an obscure young
man, of whose existence my above-mentioned friends were not
even aware. At least a college student cannot cherish any sort of
undue pride which may lead him to atheism. Though a favourite with some professors and disliked by certain others, I was
never an industrious or a studious boy. I never had any chance of
indulging in such feelings as vanity. I was rather a boy with a very
shy nature, who had certain pessimistic ideas about his future
career. And in those days, I was not a perfect atheist. My grandfather under whose influence I was brought up is an orthodox Arya
Samaji. An Arya Samaji is anything but an atheist. After finishing
my primary education, I joined the DAV School of Lahore and
stayed in its boarding house for one full year. There, apart from
morning and evening prayers, I used to recite the Gayatri Mantra
for hours and hours. I was a perfect devotee in those days. Later,
I began to live with my father. He is a liberal in as much as the
orthodoxy of religions is concerned. It was through his teachings
that I aspired to devote my life to the cause of freedom. But he
is not an atheist. He is a firm believer. He used to encourage me
to offer prayers daily. So, this is how I was brought up. In the
non-cooperation days I joined the National College. It was there
that I began to think liberally and discuss and criticise all religious
problems, even about God. But even then, I was a devout believer.
By that time, I had begun to keep my hair unshorn, unclipped
and long but I could never believe in the mythology and doctrines of Sikhism or any other religion. But I had firm faith in
God’s existence.
Chapter 9 • Why I Am an Atheist
Later still I joined the revolutionary party. The first leader with
whom I came in contact, though not convinced, could not dare
to deny the existence of God. On my persistent inquiries about
God, he used to say, ‘Pray whenever you want to.’ Now this is
atheism with less courage required for the adoption of that creed.
The second leader with whom I came in contact was a firm
believer. Let me mention his name; respected comrade Sachindra
Nath Sanyal, now undergoing life transportation in connection
with the Karachi Conspiracy case. From the very first page of his
famous and only book, Bandi Jivan (or Incarcerated Life), the Glory
of God is sung vehemently. On the last page of the second part
of that beautiful book his mystic—because of vedantism—praises
51
Inquilab
showered upon God form a very conspicuous part of his thoughts.
‘The Revolutionary Leaflet’ distributed throughout India on 28
January 1925, was, according to the prosecution story, the result
of his intellectual labour. Now, as is inevitable in a secret work,
the prominent leader expresses his own views which are very dear
to his person and the rest of the workers have to acquiesce to
them, despite differences which they might have. In that leaflet
one full paragraph was devoted to praising the Almighty and His
rejoicings and doings. That is all mysticism. What I wanted to
point out was that the idea of disbelief had not even germinated
in the revolutionary party. The famous Kakori martyrs, all four
of them, passed their last day in prayers. Ram Prasad Bismil was
an orthodox Arya Samaji. Despite his wide studies in the field of
Socialism and Communism, Rajen Lahiri could not suppress his
desire to recite hymns from the Upanishads and the Gita. I saw
only one man among them who never prayed and used to say,
‘Philosophy is the outcome of human weakness or limitation of
knowledge.’ He is also undergoing a sentence of transportation
for life. But he also never dared to deny the existence of God.
52
Up to that period I was only a romantic idealist revolutionary. Till then, we were to follow. Now came the time to shoulder the whole responsibility. Due to the inevitable reaction, for
some time the very existence of the Party seemed impossible.
Enthusiastic comrades, nay leaders, began to jeer at us. For some
time, I was afraid that some day I also might be convinced of the
futility of our own programme. That was a turning point in my
revolutionary career. ‘Study’ was the cry that reverberated in the
corridors of my mind. Study to enable yourself to face the arguments advanced by the opposition. Study to arm yourself with
arguments in favour of your cult. I began to study. My previous
faith and convictions underwent a remarkable modification. The
romance of the violent methods alone, which was so prominent
amongst our predecessors, was replaced by serious ideas. No more
mysticism, no more blind faith. Realism became our cult. Use of
force justifiable when resorted to as a matter of terrible necessity:
non-violence as policy indispensable for all mass movements. So
much about methods. The most important thing was the clear
conception of the ideal for which we were to fight. As there were
no important activities in the field of action, I got ample opportunity to study various ideals of the world of revolution. I studied
Bakunin, the anarchist leader, something of Marx, the father of
Communism and much of Lenin, Trotsky and others, the men
who had successfully carried out a revolution in their country.
They were all atheists. Bakunin’s God and State, though only fragmentary, is an interesting study of the subject. Later I came across
a book entitled Common Sense by Nirlamba Swami. It was only a
sort of mystic atheism. This subject became of utmost interest to
me. By the end of 1926 I was convinced about the baselessness
of the theory of existence of an Almighty Supreme Being who
created, guided and controlled the universe. I became open about
this disbelief of mine. I began discussions on the subject with my
friends. I had become a pronounced atheist. But what it meant
will presently be discussed.
Chapter 9 • Why I Am an Atheist
In May 1927 I was arrested at Lahore. The arrest was a surprise.
I was quite unaware of the fact that the police wanted me. All
of a sudden while passing through a garden I found myself surrounded by the police. To my own surprise, I was very calm at
that time. I did not feel any sensation, neither did I experience
any excitement. I was taken into police custody. Next day I was
taken to the Railway Police lock-up where I was to stay for an
entire month. After many days of conversation with the police
officials, I guessed that they had some information regarding my
connection with the Kakori Party and my other activities in connection with the revolutionary movement. They told me that I
had been to Lucknow while the trial was going on there, that
I had negotiated a certain scheme about their rescue, that after
obtaining their approval, we had procured some bombs, that by
way of testing them one of the bombs was thrown amid the crowd
on the occasion of Dussehra in 1926. They further informed me,
in my interest, that if I could give any statement throwing some
light on the activities of the revolutionary party, I would not be
imprisoned but on the contrary set free and rewarded even without being produced as an approver in the Court. I laughed at the
proposal. It was all humbug. People holding ideas like ours do not
53
Inquilab
54
throw bombs on their own innocent people. One fine morning
Mr Newman, the then Senior Superintendent of CID, came to me.
And after much sympathetic talk with me, imparted the extremely
sad news that if I did not give any statement as demanded by
them, they would be forced to send me up for trial for conspiracy to wage war in connection with the Kakori Case and for the
brutal murders in connection with the Dussehra Bomb outrage.
And he further informed me that they had enough evidence to
get me convicted and hanged. In those days I believed, though
I was quite innocent, that the police could do whatever they
desired. That very day certain police officials began to persuade
me to offer my prayers to God regularly twice a day. Now I was
an atheist. I wanted to settle for myself whether it was in the
days of peace and enjoyment alone that I could boast of being an
atheist or whether during such hard times as well I could stick to
those principles of mine. After great consideration I decided that
I could not lead myself to believe in and pray to God. No, I never
did. That was the real test and I came out successful. Never for a
moment did I desire to save my neck at the cost of other things.
So, I was a staunch disbeliever, and have been ever since. It was
not an easy job to stand that test. ‘Belief’ softens hardships, even
makes them pleasant. In God man can find very strong consolation and support. Without Him, man has to depend upon himself. To stand on one’s own legs amid storms and hurricanes is not
child’s play. At such testing moments, vanity, if any, evaporates,
and man cannot dare to defy general beliefs. If he does, then we
must conclude that he has some other strength than mere vanity.
This is exactly the situation now. The judgement (in my case) is
already well known. It will be pronounced within a week. What
consolation can there be, apart from the idea that I am going
to sacrifice my life for a cause? A God-believing Hindu might be
expecting to be reborn as a king; a Muslim or a Christian might
dream of the luxuries to be enjoyed in paradise and the reward he
will get for his sufferings and sacrifices. But what am I to expect?
I know the moment (is nigh when) the rope is tightened around
my neck and the rafters removed from under my feet. That will
be the final moment. That will be the last moment. I, or to be
more precise, my soul, as interpreted in metaphysical terminology, shall be finished there. Nothing further. A short life of struggle with no such magnificent end shall in itself be the reward if I
have the courage to take it in that light. That is all. With no selfish
motive, or desire to be awarded here or hereafter, (in fact) quite
disinterestedly have I devoted my life to the cause of independence, because I could not do otherwise. The day we find a great
number of men and women with this psychology who cannot
devote themselves to anything else than the service of mankind
and emancipation of the suffering humanity, that day shall inaugurate the era of liberty. Not to become a king, nor to gain any
other rewards here, or in the next birth or after death in paradise, shall they be inspired to challenge the oppressors, exploiters,
and tyrants, but to cast off the yoke of serfdom from the neck
of humanity and to establish liberty and peace shall they tread
this—to their individual selves perilous and to their noble selves
the only glorious imaginable—path. Is the pride in their noble
cause to be misinterpreted as vanity? Who dares to utter such an
abominable epithet? To him, I say either he is a fool or a knave.
Let us forgive him for he cannot realise the depth, the emotion,
the sentiment and the noble feelings that surge in that heart. His
heart is dead as a mere lump of flesh, his eyes are weak, the evils
of other interests having been cast over them. Self-reliance always
runs the risk of being mistaken for vanity. It is sad and miserable
but there is no help.
Chapter 9 • Why I Am an Atheist
You go and oppose the prevailing faith, you go and criticise a
hero, a great man, who is generally believed to be above criticism
because he is thought to be infallible; the strength of your argument shall force the multitude to decry you as vainglorious. This
is due to mental stagnation. Criticism and independent thinking
are the two indispensable qualities of a revolutionary. Because
Mahatamaji is great, therefore none should criticise him. Because
he has risen above, therefore everything he says—it may be in
the field of Politics or Religion, Economics or Ethics—is right.
Whether you are convinced or not you must say, ‘Yes, that’s true.’
This mentality does not lead towards progress. It is rather, too
obviously, reactionary.
55
Because our forefathers had faith in some Supreme Being, the
Almighty God, therefore any man who dares to challenge the
validity of that faith, or the very existence of that Supreme Being,
he must be called an apostate, a renegade. If his arguments are
too sound to be refuted by counter-arguments and his spirit too
strong to be cowed down by the threat of the misfortunes that
may befall him by the wrath of the Almighty, he shall be decried
as vainglorious, and his spirit denounced as vanity. Then why
waste time on this vain discussion? Why try to argue out the
whole thing? This question is being presented before the public
for the first time and is being handled in this matter-of-fact way
for the first time, hence such a lengthy discussion.
Inquilab
As for the first question, I think I have made it clear that it is not
vanity that has led me to atheism. Whether my argument has
proved convincing or not has to be judged by my readers, not
me. I know in the present circumstances, my faith in God would
have made my life easier, my burden lighter, and my disbelief
has turned all the circumstances too dry and the situation may
assume too harsh a shape. A little bit of mysticism can make it
poetical. But I do not want the help of any intoxication to meet
my fate. I am a realist. I have been trying to overpower the instinct
in me with the help of reason. I have not always been successful
in achieving this end. But man’s duty is to try and endeavour,
success depends upon chance and environments.
56
As for the second question that if it was not vanity, then there
ought to be some reason to disbelieve the old and still prevailing
faith in the existence of God. Yes. I come to that now. Reason,
there is. According to me, any man who has got some power of
reasoning at his command always tries to make sense of his environments. Where direct proof is lacking, philosophy occupies the
important place. As I have already stated, a certain revolutionary friend used to say that Philosophy is the outcome of human
weakness. When our ancestors had leisure enough to try to solve
the mystery of this world, its past, present and the future, its
whys and wherefores, having fallen terribly short of direct proofs,
they tried to solve the problem in their own way. Hence, we find
the wide differences in the fundamentals of various religious
creeds, which sometimes assume very antagonistic and conflicting shapes. Not only are there differences between the Oriental
and Occidental philosophies, there are even differences between
various schools of thoughts in each hemisphere. Among Oriental
religions, Islam is not at all compatible with Hindu faith. In India
alone, Buddhism and Jainism are sometimes quite separate from
Brahmanism, in which there are again conflicting beliefs between
sects such as the Arya Samaj and Sanatan Dharma. Charwak is
still another independent thinker of the past ages. He challenged
the authority of God in the old times. All these creeds differ from
each other on the fundamental question. And everybody considers himself to be in the right. There lies the misfortune. Instead of
using the experiments and expressions of the ancient Savants and
thinkers as a basis for our future struggle against ignorance and
to try to find a solution to this mysterious problem, we are lazy as
we have proved to be, raise the hue and cry of faith, unflinching
and unwavering faith to their own versions and thus are guilty for
causing the stagnation in human progress.
Chapter 9 • Why I Am an Atheist
Any man who stands for progress has to criticise, disbelieve and
challenge every item of the old faith. Item by item, he has to
reason out every nook and corner of the prevailing faith. If after
considerable reasoning, one is led to believe in any theory or philosophy, his faith is welcomed. His reasoning can be mistaken,
wrong, misled and sometimes fallacious. But he is liable to correction because reason is the guiding star of his life. But mere
faith and blind faith is dangerous: it dulls the brain and makes a
person reactionary. An individual who claims to be a realist has
to challenge all of ancient faith. If it does not stand the onslaught
of reason it crumbles. Then the first thing for him is to shatter it
and clear a space for the emergence of a new philosophy. This is
the negative side. After this is done begins the positive work in
which, sometimes, some material of the old faith may be used
for the purpose of reconstruction. As far as I am concerned, let
me admit at the very outset that I have not been able to do much
study of this point. I had a great desire to study Oriental philosophy but I could not get the opportunity. But so far as the
57
negative study is under discussion, I think I am convinced about
­questioning the soundness of the old faith. I am convinced about
the non-­existence of a conscious Supreme Being who is guiding
and directing the movements of nature. We believe in nature
and the whole progressive movement aims at the domination of
human over nature for his service. There is no conscious power
behind it to direct. This is what our philosophy is.
As for the negative side, we ask a few questions of the ‘believers’:
Inquilab
If, as you believe, there is an almighty, omnipresent, omniscient
and omnipotent God—who created the earth or world, please let
me know why did he create it? This world of woes and miseries,
a veritable, eternal combination of numberless tragedies: not a
single soul being perfectly satisfied.
58
Pray, don’t say that it is His Law: If he is bound by any law, he is
not omnipotent. He is another slave like ourselves. Please don’t
say that it is his enjoyment. Nero burnt one Rome. He killed a very
limited number of people. He created very few tragedies, all for
his perfect enjoyment. And what is his place in history? By what
names do the historians mention him? Every venomous epithet is
showered upon him. Pages are blackened with invective diatribes
condemning Nero, the tyrant, the heartless, the wicked. One
Changez Khan sacrificed a few thousand lives to seek pleasure and
we hate the very name. Then how are you going to justify your
almighty, eternal Nero, who has been, and is still causing endless
tragedies every day, every hour and every minute? How do you
think to support his misdoings which surpass those of Changez
every single moment? I say why did he create this world—a veritable hell, a place of constant and bitter unrest? Why did the
Almighty create man when he had the power not to do it? What
is the justification for all this? Do you say to award the innocent
sufferers hereafter and to punish the wrong-doers as well? Well,
well: How far shall you justify a man who might dare to inflict
wounds upon your body to apply a very soft and soothing liniment upon it afterwards? How far were the supporters and organisers of the Gladiator Institution justified in throwing men before
half-starved furious lions to be cared for and well looked after if
they could survive and could manage to escape being killed by
the wild beasts? That is why I ask, why did the conscious Supreme
Being create this world and man in it? To seek pleasure? Where
then is the difference between him and Nero?
You Mohammedans and Christians: Hindu Philosophy shall still
linger on to offer another argument. I ask you what is your answer
to the above-mentioned question? You don’t believe in previous
birth. Like Hindus you cannot advance the argument of previous
misdoings of the apparently quite innocent sufferers? I ask you
why did the omnipotent labour for six days to create the world
through word and each day to say that all was well. Call him
today. Show him the past history. Make him study the present
situation. Let us see if he dares to say, ‘All is well.’
From the point of view of the most famous jurists, punishment
inflicted upon a wrongdoer can be justified only from three or
four ends. They are retributive, reformative and deterrent. The
Chapter 9 • Why I Am an Atheist
From the dungeons of prisons, from the stores of starvation consuming millions upon millions of human beings in slums and
huts, from the exploited labourers, patiently, even apathetically,
witnessing their own blood being sucked by Capitalist vampires,
and the wastage of human energy that will make a person with
the least common sense shiver with horror, and from the preference of throwing the surplus of production in oceans rather than
distribute it among the needy producers, to the palaces of kings
built upon the foundation laid with human bones…let him see
all this and let him say ‘All is well’. Why and wherefore? That is
my question. You are silent. All right then, I proceed. Well, you
Hindus, you say all the present sufferers belong to the class of
sinners of the previous births. Good. You say the present oppressors were saintly people in their previous births, hence they enjoy
power. Let me admit that your ancestors were very shrewd people,
they tried to construct theories strong enough to hammer down
all efforts of reason and disbelief. But let us analyse how far this
argument can really stand.
59
Inquilab
60
retributive theory is now being condemned by all advanced
thinkers. The deterrent theory has also met the same fate. The
reformative theory is the only one which is essential and indispensable for human progress. It aims at returning the offender as
a most competent and peace-loving citizen to society. But what
is the nature of punishment inflicted by God upon humans who
are considered offenders. You say he sends them to be born as
a cow, a cat, a tree, herb or a beast. You enumerate 84,00,000
such punishments. I ask you what is its reformative effect upon
the human being? How many people have you met who say that
they were born as a donkey in their previous birth for having
committed any sin? None. Don’t quote your Puranas. I have no
scope to touch your mythologies. Moreover, do you know that
the greatest sin in this world is to be poor? Poverty is a sin, it is
a punishment. I ask you how far would you appreciate a criminologist, a jurist or a legislator who proposes such measures of
punishment which shall inevitably force man to commit more
offences? Had your God not thought of this or did he also have
to learn these things by experience, but at the cost of untold suffering to be borne by humanity? What do you think shall be the
fate of a man who has been born in a poor and illiterate family
of say a chamar or a sweeper. He is poor hence he cannot study.
He is hated and shunned by his fellow human beings who think
themselves to be his superiors having been born in say a higher
caste. His ignorance, his poverty and the treatment meted out to
him shall harden his heart towards society. Suppose he commits
a sin, who shall bear the consequences? God, the man in question, or the learned ones of the society? What about the punishment of those people who were deliberately kept ignorant by
the haughty and egotistical Brahmins, and who had to pay the
penalty of lead being poured in their ears for having heard a few
sentences of your Sacred Books of learning, the Vedas? If they
committed any offence, who was responsible for them and who
should have borne the brunt? My dear friends, these theories are
the inventions of the privileged ones; they justify their usurped
power, riches and superiority by the help of these theories. Yes,
it was perhaps Upton Sinclair, who wrote in some place that just
make a man a believer in immortality and then rob him of all his
riches and possessions; he shall help you even in that ungrudgingly. The nexus between religious preachers and possessors of
power brought forth jails, gallows, knouts and these theories.
Do you ask me how I explain the origin of this world and origin
of man? Alright I shall tell you. Charles Darwin has tried to
throw some light on the subject. Study him. Read Soham Swam’s
Common Sense. It shall answer your question to some extent.
This is a phenomenon of nature. The accidental mixture of different substances in the shape of nebulae produced this earth.
When? Consult history. The same process produced animals and
Chapter 9 • Why I Am an Atheist
I ask why your omnipotent God does not stop every person when
he is committing any sin or offence? He can do it quite easily.
Why did he not kill warlords or kill the fury of war in them and
thus avoid the catastrophe hurled down on the head of humanity by the Great War? Why does he not produce a sentiment in
the minds of the British people to liberate India? Why does he
not infuse altruistic enthusiasm in the hearts of all capitalists to
forgo their rights of personal possessions of means of production
and thus redeem the whole labouring community, nay the whole
human society from the bondage of Capitalism. You want to
reason out the practicability of socialist theory, I leave it for your
Almighty to enforce it. People recognise the merits of socialism
in as much as general welfare is concerned. They oppose it under
the pretext of it being impracticable. Let the Almighty step in
and arrange everything in an orderly fashion. Now don’t try to
advance roundabout arguments, they are out of order. Let me tell
you, British rule is here not because God wills it but because they
possess power and we do not dare to oppose them. It is not with
the help of God that they are keeping us under their subjection
but with that of guns and rifles, bombs and bullets, police and
militia, and it is because of our apathy that they are successfully
committing the most deplorable sin against society—the outrageous exploitation of one nation by another. Where is God? What
is he doing? Is he enjoying all these woes of the human race? A
Nero; a Changez: down with him.
61
in the long run man. Read Darwin’s Origin of Species. And all the
later progress is due to man’s constant conflict with nature and
his efforts to override it. This is the briefest possible explanation
of this phenomenon.
Your other argument may be just to ask why a child is born blind
or lame if not due to his deeds committed in the previous birth?
This problem has been explained away by biologists as a mere
biological phenomenon. According to them the whole burden
rests upon the shoulders of the parents whose deeds, may be conscious or ignorant, previous to the birth of the child, led to its
mutilation.
Inquilab
Naturally you may ask another question though it is quite childish in essence. If no God existed, how did the people come to
believe in him? My answer is clear and brief. As they came to
believe in ghosts and evil spirits; the only difference is that belief
in God is almost universal and the philosophy well developed.
Unlike certain radicals, I would not attribute its origin to the ingenuity of exploiters who wanted to keep people under their subjection by preaching the existence of a Supreme Being and then
claiming authority and sanction from him for their privileged
positions. Though I agree with them on the essential point that
all faiths, religions, creeds and such other institutions became in
turn mere supporters of tyrannical and exploiting institutions,
men and classes. Rebellion against the king is always a sin according to every religion.
62
As regards the origin of God, my own idea is that having realised
the limitations of man, his weaknesses and shortcomings having
been taken into consideration, God was brought into imaginary
existence to encourage man to face boldly all the trying circumstances, to meet all dangers manfully and to check and restrain
his outbursts in prosperity and affluence. God, both with his
private laws and parental generosity, was imagined and painted
in even greater detail. He was to serve as a deterrent when his
fury and private laws were evoked so that man may not become
a danger to society. He was to serve as a father, mother, sister and
brother, friend and helper when his parental qualifications were
explained. So that when a person was in great distress, having
been betrayed and deserted by all friends, he may find consolation in the idea that an ever true friend was still there to help
him, to support him and that He was the Almighty and could do
anything. This was certainly useful to society in the primitive age.
The idea of God is helpful to man in distress.
Society has to fight this belief as well as idol worship and the
narrow conception of religion. Similarly, when man tries to stand
on his own two legs and becomes a realist, he shall have to throw
faith aside and face manfully all the distress and trouble in which
circumstances may land him. That is exactly my state of affairs.
It is not my vanity, my friends. It is my mode of thinking that
has made me an atheist. I don’t know whether in my case belief
in God and offering of daily prayers which I consider to be the
most selfish and degraded act on the part of man, whether these
prayers can prove to be helpful or whether they shall make my
case worse still. I have read of atheists facing all troubles quite
boldly, so am I trying to stand like a man with head held high to
the last, even at the gallows.
Let us see how I carry on. One friend asked me to pray. When
informed of my atheism, he said, ‘During your last days you will
begin to believe.’ I said, No, dear Sir, it shall not be. I will consider
that an act of degradation and demoralisation on my part. For
selfish motives I am not going to pray. Readers and friends, Is this
‘vanity’? If it is, I stand by it.
Chapter 9 • Why I Am an Atheist
63
Chapter
10
INTRODUCTION
TO THE
DREAMLAND*
My noble friend, L. Ram Saran Das, has asked me to write an
introduction to his poetical work, The Dreamland. I am neither a
poet nor a litterateur, neither am I a journalist nor a critic. Hence,
by no stretch of imagination can I find the justification for the
request. But the circumstances in which I am placed do not allow
any opportunity to discuss the question with the author and go
back and forth on it; therefore I am not left with any alternative
but to comply with the desire of my friend.
As I am not a poet I am not going to discuss it from that point of
view. I have absolutely no knowledge of metre, and do not even
know whether judged from the metrical standard it would prove
correct. Not being a litterateur, I am not going to discuss it with a
view of assigning to it its right place in national literature.
I, being a political worker, can at best discuss it from that point of
view. But here too, one factor makes my work practically impossible or at least very difficult. As a rule, the introduction is always
written by a man who is at one with the author on the contents
of the work. Here, however, the case is quite different. I do not
see eye to eye with my friend on all matters. He was aware of the
fact that I differed from him on many vital points. Therefore, my
* The Dreamland was a book of English poems written by Lala Ramsaran
Das, who was an old revolutionary and also an associate of Bhagat Singh’s
uncle Ajit Singh. He had spent life term in prison but was implicated
again in the Lahore Conspiracy Case and imprisoned for five years. He
requested Bhagat Singh to write an introduction to the book which the
latter very hesitatingly agreed to do. This was written on 15 January 1931.
writing is not going to be an introduction at all. It can at the most
amount to a criticism, and its place will be at the end and not the
beginning of the book.
In the political field The Dreamland occupies a very important
place. In the prevailing circumstances it is filling a very important
gap in the movement. As a matter of fact, all the political movements of our country that have hitherto played an important role
in our modern history, have lacked the ideal that they aimed to
achieve. The revolutionary movement is no exception. In spite of
all my efforts, I could not find any revolutionary party that had
clear ideas as to what they were fighting for, with the exception
of the Ghadar Party which, having been inspired by the American
form of government, clearly stated that they wanted to replace
the existing government with a Republican form of government.
All other parties consisted of men who had but one idea, i.e.,
to fight against the alien rulers. That idea is quite laudable but
cannot be termed a revolutionary idea. We must make it clear that
revolution does not merely mean an upheaval or a sanguinary
strife. Revolution necessarily implies a programme of systematic
reconstruction of society on a new and better basis, after the complete destruction of the existing state of affairs (i.e., regime).
But, L. Ram Saran Das is the first revolutionary recruited formally
in the Punjab by a Bengali absconder in 1908. Since then he was
in touch with revolutionary movements and finally joined the
Ghadar Party; he, however, retained his old ideas regarding the
ideal of their movement. It (the book) has another interesting fact
to add to its beauty and value. L. Ram Saran Das was sentenced
Chapter 10 • Introduction to The Dreamland
In the political field the liberals wanted some reform under the
present government, while the extremists demanded a bit more
and were prepared to employ radical means for the same purpose. Among the revolutionaries, they had always been in favour
of extreme methods with one idea, i.e., of overthrowing foreign
domination. No doubt there had been some who were in favour
of extracting some reforms through those means. All these movements cannot rightly be designated as revolutionary movements.
65
to death in 1895, and the sentence was later commuted to life
transportation. Today, sitting in the condemned cells myself, I
can let the readers know authoritatively that life imprisonment
is a far harder lot than death. L. Ram Saran Das had to serve 14
years in prison. It was in some southern jail that he wrote these
verses. The psyche and mental struggle of the author at the time
has left its indelible impression on the poetry, making it all the
more beautiful and interesting. He had been struggling hard with
depression before he decided to write. In those days many of his
comrades had been let off on undertakings, and the temptation
was very strong for everyone and for him too (to do the same).
Further, the sweet and painful memories of his wife and children
had added to his longing for liberty. Struggling hard against the
demoralising effect of these factors he directed his attention to
writing this work. Hence, we find the sudden outburst in the
opening paragraph:
‘Wife, children, friends that surround me
Inquilab
Were poisonous snakes all around.’
66
He discusses philosophy in the beginning. This philosophy is the
backbone of all the revolutionary movements of Bengal as well
as the Punjab. I differ from him on this point very intensely. His
interpretation of the universe is teleological and metaphysical,
while I am a materialist and my interpretation of the phenomenon would be causal. Nevertheless, it is by no means out of place
or out of date. The general ideas that are prevalent in our country
are more in accordance with those expressed by him. To fight his
depression, he resorted to prayers, as is evident from the fact that
the entire opening section of the book is devoted to God, His
praise, His definition. Belief in God is the outcome of mysticism
which is the natural consequence of depression. That this world
is ‘Maya’ or ‘Mithya’, a dream or fiction, is clear mysticism which
has been given rise to and developed by Hindu sages of old, such
as Shankaracharya and others. But in the materialist philosophy
this mode of thinking has absolutely no place. This mysticism of
the author, however, is by no means ignoble or deplorable. It has
its own beauty and charm. The ideas are encouraging. Just have
a look:
‘Be a foundation-stone obscure,
And on thy breast cheerfully bear
The architecture vast and huge,
In suffering find true refuge.
Envy not the plastered top-stone,
On which all worldly praise is thrown.’ And so on.
From my personal experience I can safely assert that in the secret
work, when a man constantly leads a life fraught with risk, ‘without hope and without fear’, ‘always prepared to die unknown,
unhonoured and unsung’, then, he cannot but fight personal
temptations and desires by this sort of mysticism which is by no
means demoralising. The next thing he deals with is the mentality of a revolutionary. L. Ram Saran Das was the member of
the revolutionary party, which was held responsible for many a
violent deed. But this by no means proves that revolutionaries
are bloodthirsty monsters, seeking pleasure in destruction. Read
further:
But in thy heart be always mild
Hiss if need be, but do not bite,
Love in thy heart and outside fight.’ And so on.
Destruction is not only essential but indispensable for construction. The revolutionaries must adopt it as a necessary part of their
programme, and the philosophy of violence and non-violence
is beautifully described in the above lines. Lenin said to Gorky
once that he could not hear music, which upset his whole nervous system, and that he used to feel the desire to pat the heads
Chapter 10 • Introduction to The Dreamland
‘If need be, outwardly be wild,
67
of artists. ‘But,’ he added, ‘this is not the time to pat heads. The
hands descend now to smash skulls, though our ultimate aim is
the elimination of all sorts of violence.’ This is truly how revolutionaries feel when they have to resort to violent means as a
terrible necessity.
Next the author deals with the problem concerning various conflicting religions. He tries to reconcile them (with each other) just
as all nationalists try to do. His method of dealing with the question is lengthy and circuitous, though on my part I would have
dismissed it with one line by Karl Marx: ‘Religion is the opiate of
the masses.’
Last comes the most important part of his poetry where he deals
with the society of the future, which we all long to create. But I
would like to clarify one thing at the very outset. The Dreamland is
a veritable utopia. The author has very candidly admitted it in the
title. He does not pretend to have written a scientific thesis on the
subject. The title makes it clear enough. But undoubtedly, utopias
play 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. L. Ram Saran Das’s utopia
occupies the same place. When workers realise the importance of
structuring the philosophy of their movement and of framing a
scientific outlook of the movement, then this book will be very
useful to them.
I have noted that the mode of expression is a crude one. The ideas
of the existing society have in no way left him untouched while
dealing with his utopia.
Inquilab
‘Giving of alms to those who need.’
68
In the future society, i.e., the Communist society that we want
to build, we are not going to establish charitable institutions,
indeed there shall be no needy and poor, and no alms-giving and
alms-taking. In spite of this discrepancy, the question has been
dealt with in a very beautiful way.
The general outline discussed by him is the very same as that of
scientific socialism. But there are things which one has to oppose
or contradict, or to be more precise, to amend. For instance, in a
footnote under stanza 47, he writes that public servants have to
work in farms, or say, factories for four hours daily to earn their
living. But this is again utopian and impractical. It is rather the
outcome of the revulsion felt for the existing order where public
servants are paid unduly high salaries. As a matter of fact, even
the Bolshevists were compelled to recognise that mental work is
as productive as manual labour. And in the society of the future
when the relations of various elements will have been adjusted on
the basis of equality, the producers as well as the distributors shall
be considered equally important. You cannot expect a sailor to
halt his ship and land every 24 hours to do his four hours of daily
labour to earn his livelihood; or a scientist to leave his laboratory
and his experiment to do his quota in the field. Both of them are
doing very productive labour. The only difference is that socialist
society expects that those doing cerebral labour shall no longer be
regarded as superior to manual workers.
L. Ram Saran Das’ idea about free education is really worth considering, and the socialist government has adopted a somewhat
similar course in Russia.
While dealing with the militia he discusses war as well. In my
opinion, war as an institution shall only occupy a few pages in
Chapter 10 • Introduction to The Dreamland
His discussion about crime is really the most advanced. Crime is
the most serious social problem which needs tactful handling.
He has been in jail for the better part of his life. He has practical
experience (on the matter). At one place he employs the typical jail terms: ‘light labour, medium labour and hard labour’, etc.
Like all other socialists he suggests that instead of retribution, i.e.,
retaliation, the reformative approach should form the basis of
punishment. Not to punish but to reclaim should be the guiding
principle of the administration of justice. Jails should be reformatories and not veritable hells. In this connection, the readers
should study the Russian prison system.
69
the Encyclopaedia in the society of the future, and war materials
shall adorn galleries in museums, because in that society there
shall be no conflicting or diverse interests that cause war. At the
most we can say that war shall have to be retained as an institution for the transitional period. We can easily understand this
if we examine the example of present-day Russia. There is the
dictatorship of the proletariat at present. They want to establish
a socialist society. Meanwhile, they have to maintain an army to
defend themselves against capitalist society. But war-aims would
be different. Imperialist designs shall no more motivate our
dreamland citizens to wage wars. There shall be no more war trophies. The revolutionary armies shall march to other lands not to
rule or loot the people, but to pull the parasitic rulers down from
their thrones and stop their bloodsucking exploitation and thus
to liberate the toiling masses. Primitive national or racial hatred
shall no longer goad our men to fight.
A world-federation is the most popular and immediate object of
all free-thinking people, and the author has elaborated on this
subject with care, and his criticism of the so-called League of
Nations is beautiful.
Inquilab
In a footnote under stanza 571(572) the author touches, though
briefly, on the question of methods. He says: ‘Such a kingdom
cannot be brought about by physical violent revolutions. It cannot
be forced upon society from without. It must grow from within….
This can be brought about by the gradual process of Evolution,
by educating the masses on the lines mentioned above’, and so
on. This statement does not in itself contain any discrepancy. It
is quite correct, but having not been fully explained, is liable to
create some misunderstanding, or worse still, confusion. Does it
mean that L. Ram Saran Das has realised the futility of the cult of
force? Has he become an orthodox believer in non-violence? No,
it does not mean that.
70
Let me explain what the above-cited statement really means. The
revolutionaries know better than anybody else that socialist society cannot be brought about by violent means, but that it should
grow and evolve from within. The author suggests education as
the only weapon to be employed. But, it is clear to everyone that
the present government here, or, as a matter of fact, all capitalist
governments are not only not going to help any such effort, but
on the contrary, suppress it mercilessly. Then, what will his ‘evolution’ achieve? We the revolutionaries are striving to take power
in our hands to organise a revolutionary government which
should employ all its resources for mass education, as is being
done in Russia today. After capturing power, peaceful methods
shall be employed for constructive work, force shall be employed
to crush any obstacles. If that is what the author means, then we
are at one. And I am confident that it is exactly what he means.
I have discussed the book at great length. I have rather criticised
it. But, I am not going to ask for any alteration in it, because it
has its historical value. These were the ideas of the revolutionaries
of 1914–15.
I strongly recommend this book to young men in particular, but
with a caveat. Please do not read it to follow it blindly and to take
for granted what is written in it. Read it, criticise it, think over it,
and try to formulate your own ideas with its help.
Chapter 10 • Introduction to The Dreamland
71
Chapter
11
TO YOUNG
POLITICAL
WORKERS*
Dear Comrades,
Our movement is passing through a very important phase at present. After a year’s fierce struggle some definite proposals regarding constitutional reforms have been formulated by the Round
Table Conference and Congress leaders have been invited to
give this…think it desirable in the present circumstances to call
off their movement. Whether they decide in favour or against
is a matter of little importance to us. The present movement is
bound to end in some sort of compromise. The compromise may
be effected sooner or later. And compromise is not so ignoble
and deplorable as we generally think. It is rather an indispensable factor in political strategy. Any nation that rises against its
oppressors is bound to fail in the beginning, and to gain partial
reforms during the medieval period of its struggle through compromises. And it is only in the last stage—having fully organised
all the forces and resources of the nation—that it can possibly
strike the final blow in which it might succeed to shatter the ruler’s government. But even then, it might fail, which makes some
sort of compromise inevitable. This can be best illustrated by the
Russian example.
* This was an agenda of the revolutionary struggle which was sent out by
Bhagat Singh on 2 February 1931, just a few days before he was hanged.
It was published in parts in the Lahore newspaper The People, 29 July 1931
and also in Abhyuday of Allahabad on 8 May 1931. Here we publish the
complete text.
In 1905, a revolutionary movement broke out in Russia. All the
leaders were very hopeful. Lenin had returned from the foreign
countries where he had taken refuge. He was conducting the
struggle. People came to tell him that a dozen landlords had been
killed and a score of their mansions were burnt. Lenin responded
by telling them to return and kill 1,200 landlords and burn as
many of their palaces. In his opinion, if the revolution failed,
that would still have meant something. After the Duma was introduced, the same Lenin advocated participation in the Duma. This
is what happened in 1907. In 1906 he was opposed to the participation in the first Duma which had been granted more scope of
work than this second one whose rights had been curtailed. This
was due to the changed circumstances. Reaction was gaining the
upper hand and Lenin wanted to use the floor of the Duma as a
platform to discuss socialist ideas.
Again after the 1917 revolution, when the Bolsheviks were forced
to sign the Brest Litovsk Treaty, everyone except Lenin was opposed
to it. But Lenin said: ‘Peace’. ‘Peace and again peace: peace at any
cost—even at the cost of many of the Russian provinces to be
yielded to German War Lords’. When some anti-Bolshevik people
condemned Lenin for this treaty, he declared frankly that the
Bolsheviks were not in a position to face the German onslaught
and they preferred the treaty to the complete annihilation of the
Bolshevik Government.
Chapter 11 • To Young Political Workers
The thing that I wanted to point out was that compromise is an
essential weapon which has to be wielded every now and then
as the struggle develops. But the thing that we must keep always
before us is the idea of the movement. We must always maintain clarity about the aim we are fighting to achieve. That helps
us verify the success and failures of our movements and we can
easily formulate the future programme (accordingly). Tilak’s
policy, quite apart from the ideal, i.e., his strategy, was the best.
You are fighting to get sixteen annas from your enemy, you get
only one anna. Pocket it and fight for the rest. What we note in
the moderates is their ideal. They set out to achieve one anna and
can’t get even that. The revolutionaries must always keep in mind
73
that they are striving for a complete revolution. Complete mastery of power (must be) in their hands. Compromises are dreaded
because conservatives try to disband the revolutionary forces after
the compromise. We must be very careful at such junctures to
avoid any sort of confusion of the real issues, especially the goal.
The British Labour leaders betrayed their real struggle and have
been reduced to mere hypocrite imperialists. In my opinion the
diehard conservatives are better to us than these polished imperialist Labour leaders. With regard to tactics and strategy, one
should study the life-work of Lenin. His definite views on the
subject of compromise will be found in ‘Left Wing’ Communism.
I have said that the present movement, i.e., the present struggle,
is bound to end in some sort of compromise or complete failure.
Inquilab
I say that, because in my opinion, this time the real revolutionary forces have not been invited into the arena. This is a struggle
dependent upon the middle-class shopkeepers and a few capitalists. Both these, and particularly the latter, can never dare to risk
its property or possessions in any struggle. The real revolutionary armies are in the villages the factories, they are the peasantry
and the workers. But our bourgeois leaders do not and cannot
dare to tackle them. The sleeping lion once awakened from its
slumber shall become irrepressible even after our leaders have
achieved what they had aimed for. After his first experience with
the Ahmedabad labourers in 1920, Mahatma Gandhi declared:
‘We must not tamper with the labourers. It is dangerous to make
political use of the factory proletariat’ (The Times, May 1921).
Since then, they never dared to approach them. There remains
the peasantry. The Bardoli resolution of 1922 clearly defines the
horror the leaders felt when they saw the gigantic peasant class
rising to shake off not only the domination of an alien nation but
also the yoke of the landlords.
74
It is there that our leaders prefer a surrender to the British than
to the peasantry. Leave alone Pandit Jawaharlal. Can you point
out any effort to organise the peasants or the labourers? No, they
will not run the risk. There they lack. That is why I say they never
meant a complete revolution. Through economic and administrative pressure they hoped to get a few more reforms, a few more
concessions for the Indian capitalists. That is why I say that this
movement is doomed to die, perhaps after some sort of compromise or even without. The young workers who in all sincerity
raise the cry ‘Long Live Revolution’, are not well organised and
strong enough to carry the movement themselves. As a matter of
fact, even our great leaders, with the exception of perhaps Pandit
Motilal Nehru, do not dare to take any responsibility on their
shoulders, that is why every now and then they surrender unconditionally before Gandhi. In spite of their differences, they never
oppose him seriously and the resolutions have to be carried for
the Mahatma.
In these circumstances, let me warn the sincere young workers
who are committed to a revolution that harder times are coming.
Let them beware lest they should get confused or disheartened.
After the experience of the two struggles by the Great Gandhi, we
are in a better position to form a clear idea of our present position
and the future programme.
With these things clear before us, i.e., our immediate and ultimate object having been clearly stated, we can now proceed with
Chapter 11 • To Young Political Workers
Now allow me to state the case in the simplest manner. You cry
‘Long Live Revolution’. Let me assume that you really mean it.
According to our definition of the term, as stated in our statement in the Assembly Bomb Case, revolution means the complete overthrow of the existing social order and its replacement
with the socialist order. For that purpose, our immediate aim is
the achievement of power. As a matter of fact, the state, the government machinery is just a weapon in the hands of the ruling
class to further and safeguard its interest. We want to snatch it,
and handle it, to utilise it for the consummation of our ideal,
i.e., social reconstruction on a new, i.e., Marxist, basis. In order
to do this, we are fighting to handle the government machinery.
All along we have to educate the masses and create a favourable
atmosphere for our social programme. In the struggles we can
best train and educate them.
75
the examination of the present situation. We must always be very
candid and quite business-like while analysing any situation.
We know that since a hue and cry was raised about the Indians’
participation and share in the responsibility of the Indian government, the Minto-Morley Reforms were introduced, which formed
the Viceroy’s council with consultation rights only. During the
Great War, when Indian help was needed the most, promises
about self-government were made and the existing reforms were
introduced. Limited legislative powers have been entrusted to the
Assembly but (implementation is) subject to the goodwill of the
Viceroy. This is the third stage.
Now reforms are being discussed and are to be introduced in the
near future. How can our young men judge them? This is a question. I do not know by what standard the Congress leaders are
going to judge them. But for us, the revolutionaries, we can have
the following criteria:
1. Extent of responsibility transferred to the shoulders of the
Indians.
2. Form of the Government institutions that are going to
be introduced and the extent of the right of participation
given to the masses.
Inquilab
3. Future prospects and safeguards.
76
These might require a little further elucidation. In the first
place, we can easily judge the extent of responsibility given to
our people by the control our representatives will have on the
executive. Up till now, the executive was never made responsible to the Legislative Assembly and the Viceroy had the veto
power, which rendered all the efforts of the elected members
futile. Thanks to the efforts of the Swaraj Party, the Viceroy was
forced every now and then to use these extraordinary powers
to shamelessly trample underfoot the solemn decisions of the
national representatives. It is already too well known to need
further discussion.
Now in the first place we must see the method of the executive
formation: whether the executive is to be elected by the members of a popular assembly or imposed from above as before, and
further, whether it shall be responsible to the house or shall absolutely defy it as in the past.
As regards the second item, we can judge it through the scope
of franchise. The property qualifications making a man eligible
to vote should be altogether abolished and universal suffrage be
introduced instead. Every adult, both male and female, should
have the right to vote. At present we can simply see how far the
franchise has been extended.
I may make here a mention about provincial autonomy. But
from whatever I have heard, I can only say that the Governor
imposed from above, equipped with extraordinary powers,
higher and above the legislative, shall prove to be no less than
a despot. It would be better to call it ‘provincial tyranny’ instead
of ‘autonomy’. This is a strange kind of democratisation of state
institutions.
The third item is quite clear. During the last two years British
politicians have been trying to undo Montague’s promise for
another dole of reforms to be bestowed every 10 years till the
British Treasury exhausts itself.
We can see what they have decided about the future.
Having discussed the present situation, let us proceed to discuss
the future programme and the line of action we ought to adopt.
As I have already stated, for any revolutionary party a definite
programme is very essential. For, you must know that revolution
means action. It means a change brought about deliberately by
Chapter 11 • To Young Political Workers
Let me make it clear that we do not analyse these things to rejoice
over any achievement, but to form a clear idea about our situation, so that we may enlighten the masses and prepare them for
further struggle. For us, compromise never means surrender, but a
step forward and some rest. That is all and nothing else.
77
organised and systematic work, as opposed to sudden and unorganised or spontaneous change or breakdown. And for the formulation of a programme, one must necessarily study:
1. The goal.
2. The premises from where were to start, i.e., the existing
conditions.
3. The course of action, i.e., the means and methods.
Inquilab
Unless one has a clear notion about these three factors, one
cannot discuss anything about the programme.
78
We have discussed the present situation to some extent. The goal
has also been slightly touched upon. We want a socialist revolution, the indispensable preliminary to which is political revolution. That is what we want. Political revolution does not mean
the transfer of state (or more crudely, power) from the hands of
the British to the Indian, but to those Indians who are at one with
us as to the final goal, or to be more precise, the power to be transferred to the revolutionary party through popular support. After
that, to proceed in right earnest is to organise the reconstruction
of the whole society on the socialist basis. If you do not mean
this revolution, then please have mercy. Stop shouting ‘Long Live
Revolution’. The term ‘revolution’ is too sacred, at least to us, to
be so lightly used or misused. But if you say you are for national
revolution and the aim of your struggle is an Indian republic of
the type of the United State of America, then I ask you to please let
me know on what forces you rely to bring about that revolution.
The only forces on which you can rely to bring about any revolution, whether national or the socialist, are the peasantry and the
labour. Congress leaders do not dare to organise those forces. You
have seen it in this movement. They know it better than anybody
else that without these forces they are absolutely helpless. When
they passed the resolution of complete independence, that really
meant a revolution, they did not mean it. They had to do it under
pressure of the younger element, and then they wanted to use it
as a threat to achieve their hearts’ desire, Dominion Status. You
can easily judge it by studying the resolutions of the last three
sessions of the Congress. I mean Madras, Calcutta and Lahore.
In Calcutta, they passed a resolution asking for Dominion Status
within 12 months, otherwise they would be forced to adopt complete independence as their object, and in all solemnity waited for
some such gift till midnight after 31 December 1929. Then they
found themselves ‘honour bound’ to adopt the Independence resolution, otherwise they did not mean it.
When you have formulated this clear-cut idea about your goals
you can proceed in right earnest to organise your forces for such
an action. Now there are two different phases through which you
shall have to pass. First, the preparation; second, the action.
After the present movement ends, you will find disgust and some
disappointment among the sincere revolutionary workers. But you
need not worry. Leave sentimentalism aside. Be prepared to face
facts. Revolution is a very difficult task. It is beyond the power of
any man to make a revolution. Neither can it be brought about on
Chapter 11 • To Young Political Workers
But even then Mahatmaji made no secret of the fact that the door
(for compromise) was open. That was the real spirit. At the very
outset they knew that their movement could not but end in some
compromise. It is this half-heartedness that we hate, not the compromise at a particular stage in the struggle. Anyway, we were discussing the forces on which you can depend for a revolution. But
if you say that you will approach the peasants and labourers to
enlist their active support, let me tell you that they are not going
to be fooled by any sentimental talk. They ask you quite candidly: what are they going to gain by your revolution for which
you demand their sacrifices, what difference does it make to them
whether Lord Reading is the head of the Indian government or
Sir Purshotamdas Thakordas? What difference for a peasant if Sir
Tej Bahadur Sapru replaces Lord Irwin! It is useless to appeal to
his national sentiment. You can’t ‘use’ him for your purpose; you
shall have to be serious in your intent and make him understand
that the revolution is going to be his and for his good. The revolution of the proletariat and for the proletariat.
79
any appointed date. It is brought about by special environments,
social and economic. The function of an organised party is to
utilise any such opportunity offered by these circumstances. And
to prepare the masses and organise the forces for revolution is a
very difficult task. And that requires a very great sacrifice on the
part of the revolutionary workers. Let me make it clear that if you
are a businessman or an established worldly or family man, please
don’t play with fire. As a leader you are of no use to the party. We
have already very many such leaders who spare some evening
hours for delivering speeches. They are useless. We require, to use
the term so dear to Lenin, ‘professional revolutionaries’. Full-time
workers who have no other ambitions or life-work except the revolution. The greater the number of such workers organised into a
party, the great the chances of your success.
To proceed systematically, what you need the most is a party
with workers of the type discussed above with clear-cut ideas and
keen perception and ability of initiative and quick decisions. The
party shall have iron discipline and it need not necessarily be an
underground party, rather the contrary. Though the policy of voluntarily going to jail should altogether be abandoned. That will
create a number of workers who shall be forced to lead an underground life. They should carry on the work with the same zeal.
And it is this group of workers that shall produce worthy leaders
for the real opportunity.
Inquilab
The party requires workers who can be recruited only through
the youth movement. Hence, it is the youth movement which we
feel is the starting point of our programme. The youth movement
should organise study circles, class lectures and publication of
leaflets, pamphlets, books and periodicals. This is the best recruiting and training ground for political workers.
80
Those young men who may have developed mature ideas and
may be ready to devote their life to the cause, can be transferred to
the party. Party workers shall always guide and control the work
of the youth movement. The party should start with the work of
mass propaganda. This is very essential. One of the fundamental
causes of the failure of the efforts of the Ghadar Party (1914–15)
was the ignorance, apathy and sometimes active opposition of the
masses. And apart from that, it is essential for gaining the active
sympathy of and organising the peasants and workers. The name
of party or rather[…]a communist party. This party of political
workers, bound by strict discipline, should handle all other movements. It shall have to organise the peasants’ and workers’ parties,
labour unions, and may even venture to capture the Congress
and kindred political bodies. And in order to create political consciousness, not only of national politics but class politics as well,
the party should organise a big publishing campaign. Subjects on
all proletens [original transcription not clear] enlightening the
masses of the socialist theory shall be within easy reach and distributed widely. The writings should be simple and clear.
There are certain people in the labour movement who enlist
some absurd ideas about the economic liberty of the peasants
and workers without political freedom. They are demagogues or
­muddle-headed people. Such ideas are unimaginable and preposterous. We mean the economic liberty of the masses, and for that
very purpose we are striving to win political power. No doubt
in the beginning, we shall have to fight for the little economic
demands and privileges of these classes. But these struggles are
the best means for educating them for a final struggle to conquer
political power.
Chapter 11 • To Young Political Workers
Apart from these, there shall necessarily be organised a military
department. This is very important. At times its need is felt very
badly. But at that time, you cannot start and formulate such a
group with substantial means to act effectively. Perhaps this is the
topic that needs careful explanation. There is very great probability of my (views) being misunderstood on this subject. Apparently,
I have acted like a terrorist. But I am not a terrorist. I am a revolutionary who has got such definite ideas of a lengthy programme
as are being discussed here. My ‘comrades-in-arms’ might accuse
me, like Ram Prasad Bismil, for having been subjected to a certain sort of reaction in the condemned cell, but this is not true.
I have got the same ideas, same convictions, same zeal and same
81
Inquilab
spirit as I used to have outside, perhaps—nay, ­decidedly—better.
Hence, I warn my readers to be careful while reading my words.
They should not try to read anything between the lines. Let me
announce with all the strength at my command, that I am not a
terrorist and I never was, except perhaps in the beginning of my
revolutionary career. And I am convinced that we cannot gain
anything through those methods. One can easily judge it from
the history of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association. All
our activities were directed towards one aim, i.e., identifying ourselves with the great movement as its military wing. If anybody
has misunderstood me, let him amend his ideas. I do not mean
that bombs and pistols are useless, rather the contrary. But I mean
to say that mere bomb-throwing is not only useless but sometimes
harmful. The military department of the party should always keep
ready all the war-material it can command for any emergency. It
should back the political work of the party. It cannot and should
not work independently.
82
On these lines indicated above, the party should proceed with its
work. Through periodical meetings and conferences, they should
go on educating and enlightening their workers on all topics.
If you start the work on these lines, you shall have to be very
sober. The programme requires at least 20 years for its fulfilment.
Cast aside the youthful dreams of a revolution within 10 years
or Gandhi’s utopian promises of Swaraj in One Year. It requires
neither emotion nor death, instead a life of constant struggle, suffering and sacrifice. Crush your individuality first. Shake off the
dreams of personal comfort. Then start to work. Inch by inch you
shall have to proceed. It needs courage, perseverance and very
strong determination. No difficulties and no hardships shall discourage you. No failure and betrayals shall dishearten you. No
travails (!) imposed upon you shall snuff out the revolutionary
will in you. Through the ordeal of sufferings and sacrifice you
shall come out victorious. And these individual victories shall be
the valuable assets of the revolution.
LONG LIVE REVOLUTION
Chapter
12
WHAT IS
REVOLUTION?
LETTER TO MODERN
REVIEW*
Bhagat Singh’s Reply to
Shri Ramanand Chatterji
The Editor
You have in the December 1929 issue of your esteemed magazine, written a note under the
caption ‘Long Live Revolution’ and have pointed out the meaninglessness of this phrase. It would
be impertinent on our part to try to refute or contradict the statement of such an old, experienced
and renowned journalist as your noble self, for whom every enlightened Indian has profound
admiration. Still we feel it our duty to explain what we desire to convey by the said phrase, as in a
way it fell to our lot to give these ‘cries’ publicity in this country at this stage.
We are not the originators of this cry. The same cry had been used in Russian revolutionary
movement. Upton Sinclair, the well-known socialist writer, has in his recent novels Boston and
Oil, used this cry through some of the anarchist revolutionary characters. The phrase never meant
that sanguinary strife should (for)ever continue, or that nothing should ever be stationary even
for a short while. By long usage, this cry achieves a significance which may not be quite justifiable
* The editor of Modern Review and senior journalist Ramanand Chatterjee
wrote derisively about revolution in his journal, particularly after the glorification of Jatin Das in the wake of his martyrdom. Bhagat Singh and
B K Dutt responded to it explaining the true meaning of revolution which
was published in The Tribune on 24 December 1929.
Chapter 12 • What Is Revolution? Letter to Modern Review
Modern Review
83
from the grammatical or the etymological point of view but, nevertheless, we cannot abstract from
it the association of ideas connected with that. All such shouts denote a general sense which is partly
acquired and partly inherent in them. For instance when we shout, ‘long live Jatin das’, we cannot
and do not mean thereby that Das should physically be alive, (what) we mean by that shout is
that the noble idea of his life, the indomitable spirit which enabled that great martyr to bear such
untold suffering and to make the extreme sacrifice for that ideal, should ever live. By raising this
cry we wish that we may show the same unfailing courage in pursuance of our ideal. It is that
spirit that we allude to.
Similarly one should not interpret the word revolution in its literal sense.
Various meanings and significances are attributed to this word, according to the interests of
those who use or misuse it. For the established agencies of exploitation, it conjures up a feeling of
blood-stained horror. To the revolutionaries, it is sacred phrase. We tried to (make) clear in
our statement before the sessions judge, Delhi, in our trial in the assembly bomb case, what we
mean by the word ‘Revolution’. We stated therein that revolution did not necessarily involve
sanguinary strife. It was not a cult of bomb and pistol. They may sometimes be mere means for
its achievement.
No doubt they play a prominent part in some movements, but they do not for that very reason
become one and the same thing. A rebellion is not a revolution. It may ultimately lead to that end.
The sense in which the word revolution is used in that phrase, is the spirit, the longing for a change
for the better. People generally get accustomed to the established order of things and begin to
tremble at the very idea of a change.
Inquilab
It is this lethargical [sic] spirit that needs to be replaced by the revolutionary spirit. Otherwise
degeneration gains the upper hand and the whole humanity is led astray by reactionary forces.
Such a state of affairs leads to stagnation and paralysis in human progress. The spirit of revolution should always permeate the soul of humanity so that reactionary forces may not accumulate
to check its eternal onward march. Old order should change, always and ever, yielding place to
new, so that one ‘good’ order may not corrupt the world. It is in this sense that we raise the shout
‘Long Live Revolution’.
84
Yours sincerely
Bhagat Singh
Chapter
13
THE REAL
MEANING OF
VIOLENCE*
For the last seven or eight years some words have created wide
fluttering in our political circles and one word among them has
had a widespread effect and been wrongly understood: that is the
word violence. Till now nobody has tried seriously to grasp its real
meaning. That is why this word has always been used wrongly.
Our nation being unable to understand its true meaning is staggering on the path by calling day night and night day. When one
utters the word ‘violence’ it feels like a bad word. When one hears
it, it sounds replete with cruelty, repression and injustice. When
the word ‘violence’ is added to an activity, the latter becomes
degenerate and appears worth abandoning. In such circumstances
if a gentleman or an honest person wants to keep away from it,
that is natural. Violence and repression refer to using force unjustifiably. In both these words, one catches the whiff of the use of
force, no doubt, but there is a limit to the use of force. And when
the user passes that limit then some people call it violence. And
in Hindi they start using the word Ahimsa as its opposite. That is
why a serious misunderstanding has crept in in its use. The use of
force is inclusive in violence, and persons with an abnormal mind
have started calling it violence when such force has been implemented. If somebody is to be prevented from doing something, it
is sufficient to tell him that this activity is evil and detestful. And
one among such words is the word ‘violence’.
Under the direction of the Congress thousands of people took an
oath of peace. It was right too because violence means repression
* This was published in Kirti, May 1928.
Inquilab
and cruelty. Who should have an objection against committing
such an evil deed. But in fact, people have been misled by the
implication that the use of force is violence; in reality, many
people who were in favour of using force could not become supporters of violence and they too quietly took an oath to remain
in favour of peace. That is why words like non-violence have
raised much hue and cry. Numerous activities which were till
now thought to be good deeds became detestable within a wink
of the eye. Bravery, courage, martyrdom, sacrifice, military duty,
using arms, the bravery to crush repressive people, etc., qualities
in which use of force was inherent, were deemed to be detestable
and unjust because all these were related to the use of force. Such
a distorted and misleading interpretation of the word ‘violence’
affected the rational minds of the people so much that hammering a stone idol or holding a baton were included in the sphere of
violence. Should one then break stone with one’s hands?
86
A strange emotion arises in a person when he hears a particular word. And after comprehending its current implication he
refrains from dwelling further on its meaning. If some unknown
person comes and he is termed sinful and detestable by someone
else already present there then automatically the listener will get
influenced. A judgement is made of him and no further enquiry
about his behaviour is sought afterwards. The same could be said
about the use of the words. The same stress is put on such words
in the Vedas and Puranas so that words which are uttered should
be used in the proper context. This is because due to the wrong
use of words even gods clashed with each other causing substantial damage. The same thing is happening with us for the last
seven years. The just or unjust use of force is termed as violence
invariably and it is considered detestable. If some dacoit enters
somebody’s house wielding an axe that is considered violence.
And if the residents of the house kill the dacoit by using a dagger
then that too is considered violence. This means when force is
used to save one’s family, that too is considered violence. Ravana
kidnapped Sita, which is looked upon as violence. Rama went and
killed Ravana to get back Sita and that too was considered violence. The repressive people of Italy, America, Ireland, etc., were
also looked upon as violent people and the people who killed
them with the sword to save the native people from the clutches
of these alien bandits were also considered violent. Garibaldi,
Washington, Aemut and De Valera were also included in the same
list. Could this be said to be just? The thief who kills a child to
snatch the jewellery is also detestable and the justice-loving king
who orders the hanging of the stone-hearted thief is also considered detestable. Krishna is then as sinful as Kansa. Brave Bhima is
as guilty as Dushashan who unclothed his wife, Draupadi. What
an injustice it is! Some simple people described a just task as
detestable only because force was used in it. When a snake bites a
man and the man kills it, both are equated. It is the habit of the
snake to bite but the man killed him knowingly so he should be
more detestable than the snake. All limits were crossed and the
armed people sacrificing their lives in the battlefield for the liberation of their country were also considered to be sinners. Shivaji,
Maharana Pratap and Ranjit Singh were all termed as sinners and
those revered personalities became the victims of hatred.
Chapter 13 • The Real Meaning of Violence
All the countries of the world have armies. Every country is
increasing its armed power every moment. And here in our India
citizens are considered sinners if they carry arms in their hands.
Don’t handle the lathi, the people preaching it started patting the
coward people upon seeing a lathi. The bravery that was responsible for keeping the nation in high spirts started decaying and the
enemies who were afraid of power started feeling comfortable.
Some people could not see such a thing and they started condemning it. But it is very surprising that they themselves became
victims of it and it became very difficult to oppose such a view
with solid arguments. And the simple reason was that in revenge
the revolutionaries started saying that they would unleash violence. Just like a person doing a good job being described as bad
by others, being unable to respond to the criticism logically, starts
saying that yes I would commit this crime. The same became
the position of these revolutionaries. Even the president of the
Madras Congress said that if we are in favour of peace today that
does not mean that this position would prevail forever. It is possible that we should prepare for violence tomorrow itself.
87
Inquilab
It is sad that the word ‘violence’ is detestable. Its qualities could
not find favour with people since it was not presented in its true
form. Even the people who considered it right to use force did not
like to be called violent. The wrong meanings ascribed to the word
‘violence’ has caused great damage. The main root cause of this
misconception is the faulty description of the word itself. Because
violence and repression are done with the use of force, so with the
use of force both good and evil deeds are undertaken. Thus, the
use of power does not seem to be right. Repression too is an evil
deed which too is committed by the use of force. Somebody sets
someone’s house on fire secretly—he is a person who lights a fire.
And so is the cook. But a cook cannot be called guilty just as the
act of lighting a fire cannot itself be called bad. Similarly, when a
brave person with patriotic feelings steps forward with the help
of arms to liberate his motherland and avenge the deeds of his
rival, who has repressed innocent citizens, and who is hanged,
the brave patriot, no doubt, uses force to kill his rival, but he
cannot be said to be unleashing violence at that moment. These
deeds cannot be called violent but in fact noble. That violence
can be described as evil which tends to suppress innocent people
for some vested interests with the use of force only. But when
force is used for some good purpose or for the welfare of some
people, then it is good and it cannot be called violence. It is very
clear therefore that the use of force does not become violence if
the intention of the person using such force is good. If he has
used the force for some good work, then he cannot be considered
guilty of unleashing violence. But if he has used the force for his
vested interests and to cause pain to some other person then it is
no doubt violence, and he should be called violent.
88
Violence is always detestable. It is the use of such force with which
somebody is caused to suffer without being guilty. But where it is
used to prevent the malice of bad people, there it is not violence
but a good deed because that is the only way to ensure the welfare
of society and the world. To hurt somebody is a violence but to
annihilate a cruel person amounts to a good deed. When the cruel
Kansa handling a sword enters the house of innocent Devaki, he
commits detestable violence. But when Krishna holds the sword
Chapter 13 • The Real Meaning of Violence
in his hand to liberate the people from Kansa’s cruel clutches and
kills him, then it is not violence but a good deed. Both use swords,
both use arms, and in both cases force is used. But one deed is
cruel and the other is good. The first deed would amount to violence and the second one a compassionate deed. If we view it
according to our current philosophy both deeds are considered
to be violent and detestable. The person causing others to suffer
is a violent person and the one who liberates others with force is
also violent. If this continued to be so in our country then how
would we appreciate the good deed as against an evil one, and
how would it be possible for us to differentiate an evil deed from
a good one. If we could understand that repression of poor people
is called violence and to prevent it is deemed to be a good deed
then all misconceptions would vanish. When a thief, dacoit or
murderer makes use of arms then they may be said to be hurling
violence upon others. It means that ‘force being aggressively used
becomes violence.’ But when the house owner finds a chance to
kill that evil person, or some just ruler orders him to be hanged
for his guilt then that is a noble deed. It is also described in the
Hindu religious scriptures thus: The person, killing a sinner, murderer or someone guilty, is a brave man and not a sinner or guilty,
but is a respectable, brave and courageous person. Even according to ancient law as well as current law, the use of force to save
oneself is never considered a crime and cannot be termed as violence, and it has never been called a violent action. Even in the
Indian Penal Code it has not been termed as violence. Violence
deserves conviction, but the use of force for self-defence is considered legitimate. The same can be said of politics. Austria could
rule Italy with the use of the force and with the sword without
its rule being accepted which was therefore an act of violence on
the part of Austria, something that was detestable and needed
to be prevented. But when Garibaldi and Mazzini picked up the
sword to end Austrian rule and dethroned the cruel ruler, then
this act of theirs was not detestable but deserving of worship. The
same thing can then be said about our Independence struggle of
1857. Because it was not violence as per the explanation we have
described above.
89
Inquilab
To consider this essay as motivating an armed revolution is
completely wrong and useless. Today we are not saying any­
thing in favour of armed revolution or against it. The opposition
or ­support to armed struggle is based on the laws of different
­countries. The people who consider armed revolution as easier or
more difficult today, they should not deem it an unjust action by
terming it as a violent action. That is why we have tried to analyse
the word ‘violence’.
90
Chapter
14 IN THESTATEMENT
SESSIONS
COURT*
We stand charged with certain serious offences, and at this stage
it is but right that we must explain our conduct.
In this connection, the following questions arise:
1. Were the bombs thrown into Chamber, and, if so, why?
2. Is the charge, as framed by the Lower Court, correct or
otherwise?
To the first half of the first question, our reply is in the affirmative, but since some of the so-called ‘eye witnesses’ have perjured themselves and since we are not denying our liability to
that extent, let our statement about them be judged for what it
is worth. By way of an illustration, we may point out that the
evidence of Sergeant Terry regarding the seizure of the pistol from
one of us is a deliberate falsehood, for neither of us had the pistol
at the time we gave ourselves up. Other witnesses, too, who have
deposed to having seen bombs being thrown by us have not scrupled to tell lies. This fact had its own moral for those who aim at
judicial purity and fair play. At the same time, we acknowledge
the fairness of the Public Prosecutor and the judicial attitude of
the Court so far.
* This is the statement of Bhagat Singh and B K Dutt in the sessions court
on 6 June 1929. The statement was drafted by Bhagat Singh as a policy
document and read out by Asaf Ali in the court.
Viceroy’s Views Endorsed
In our reply to the next half of the first question, we are constrained to go into some detail to offer a full and frank explanation of our motive and the circumstances leading up to what has
now become a historic event.
When we were told by some of the police officers, who visited us
in jail, that Lord Irwin, in his address to the joint session of the
two houses described the event as an attack directed against no
individual but against an institution itself, we readily recognised
that the true significance of the incident had been correctly
appreciated. We are next to none in our love for humanity. Far
from having any malice against any individual, we hold human
life sacred beyond words.
We are neither perpetrators of dastardly outrages, and, therefore,
a disgrace to the country, as the pseudo-socialist Dewan Chaman
Lal is reported to have described us, nor are we ‘lunatics’ as The
Tribune of Lahore and some others would have it believed.
Practical Protest
Inquilab
We humbly claim to be no more than serious students of the
history and conditions of our country and her aspirations. We
despise hypocrisy. Our practical protest was against the institution, which since its birth, has eminently helped to display not
only its worthlessness but its far-reaching power for mischief. The
more we have pondered, the more deeply we have been convinced
that it exists only to demonstrate to the world India’s humiliation
and helplessness, and it symbolises the overriding domination of
an irresponsible and autocratic rule. Time and again the national
demand has been pressed by the people’s representatives only to
find the waste paper basket as its final destination.
92
Attack on Institution
Solemn resolutions passed by the House have been contemptuously trampled underfoot on the floor of the so-called Indian
Parliament. Resolutions regarding the repeal of the repressive
and arbitrary measures have been treated with sublime contempt,
and the government measures and proposals, rejected as unacceptable by the elected members of the legislatures, have been
restored by a mere stroke of the pen. In short, we have utterly
failed to find any justification for the existence of an institution
which, despite all its pomp and splendour, organised with the
hard-earned money of the sweating millions of India, is only a
hollow show and mischievous make-belief. Alike, have we failed
to comprehend the mentality of the public leaders who help the
government to squander public time and money on such a manifestly stage-managed exhibition of India’s helpless subjection.
No Hope for Labour
Bomb Needed
Consequently, bearing in mind the words of the late Mr. S.R. Das,
once Law Member of the Governor-General’s Executive Council,
Chapter 14 • Statement in the Sessions Court
We have been ruminating upon all these matters, as also upon
the wholesale arrests of the leaders of the labour movement when
the introduction of the Trade Disputes Bill brought us into the
Assembly to watch its progress. The course of the debate only
served to confirm our conviction that the labouring millions of
India had nothing to expect from an institution that stood as
a menacing monument to the strangling of the exploiters and
the serfdom of the helpless labourers. Finally, the insult of what
we consider an inhuman and barbarous measure was hurled on
the devoted heads of the representatives of the entire country,
and the starving and struggling millions were deprived of their
primary right and the sole means of improving their economic
welfare. None who has felt like us for the dumb-driven drudges
of labourers could possibly witness this spectacle with equanimity. None whose heart bleeds for them, who have given their lifeblood in silence to the building up of the economic structure,
could repress the cry which this ruthless blow had wrung out of
our hearts.
93
which appeared in the famous letter he had addressed to his son,
to the effect that the ‘Bomb was necessary to awaken England
from her dreams’, we dropped the bomb on the floor of the
Assembly Chamber to register our protest on behalf of those who
had no other means left to give expression to their heart-rending
agony. Our sole purpose was ‘to make the deaf hear’ and to give
the heedless a timely warning. Others have as keenly felt as we
have done, and from under the seeming stillness of the sea of
Indian humanity, a veritable storm is about to break out. We have
only hoisted the ‘danger-signal’ to warn those who are speeding
along without heeding the grave dangers ahead. We have only
marked the end of an era of Utopian non-violence, of whose futility the rising generation has been convinced beyond the shadow
of doubt.
Ideal Explained
We have used the expression Utopian non-violence, in the foregoing paragraph, which requires some explanation. Force when
aggressively applied is ‘violence’ and is, therefore, morally unjustifiable, but when it is used in the furtherance of a legitimate
cause, it has its moral justification. The elimination of force at all
costs is Utopian, and the new movement which has arisen in the
country, and of that dawn we have given a warning, is inspired by
the ideals which guided Guru Gobind Singh and Shivaji, Kamal
Pasha and Riza Khan, Washington and Garibaldi, Lafayette and
Lenin.
Inquilab
As both the alien government and the Indian public leaders
appeared to have shut their eyes to the existence of this movement, we felt it is our duty to sound a warning where it could
not go unheard. We have so far dealt with the motive behind the
incident in question, and now we must define the extent of our
intention.
94
No Personal Grudge
We bore no personal grudge or malice against anyone of those
who received slight injuries or against any other person in the
Assembly. On the contrary, we repeat that we hold human life
sacred beyond words, and would sooner lay down our own lives
in the service of humanity than injure anyone else. Unlike the
mercenary soldiers of the imperialist armies who are disciplined
to kill without compunction, we respect, and, in so far as it lies
in our power, we attempt to save human life. And still we admit
to having deliberately thrown the bombs into the Assembly
Chamber. Facts speak for themselves and our intention would be
judged from the result of the action without bringing in Utopian
hypothetical circumstances and presumptions.
No Miracle
Again, had they been loaded with some other high explosive,
with a charge of destructive pellets or darts, they would have sufficed to wipe out a majority of the Members of the Legislative
Assembly. Still again we could have flung them into the official
box which was occupied by some notable persons. And finally we
could have ambushed Sir John Simon whose luckless Commission
was loathed by all responsible people and who was sitting in the
President’s gallery at the time. All these things, however, were
beyond our intention and bombs did no more than they were
Chapter 14 • Statement in the Sessions Court
Despite the evidence of the government expert, the bombs that
were thrown in the Assembly Chamber resulted in slight damage
to an empty bench and some slight abrasions in less than half
a dozen cases. While government scientists and experts have
ascribed this result to a miracle, we see nothing but a precisely
scientific process in this incident. Firstly, the two bombs exploded
in vacant spaces within the wooden barriers of the desks and
benches; secondly, even those who were within feet of the explosion, for instance, Mr. P. Rau, Mr. Shanker Rao and Sir George
Schuster were either not hurt or only slightly scratched. Bombs
of the capacity deposed to by the government expert (though his
estimate, being imaginary, is exaggerated), loaded with an effective charge of potassium chlorate and sensitive (explosive) picrate,
would have smashed the barriers and laid many low within some
yards of the explosion.
95
designed to do, and the miracle consisted in no more than the
deliberate aim which landed them in safe places. We then deliberately offered ourselves to bear the penalty for what we had
done and to let the imperialist exploiters know that by crushing
individuals, they cannot kill ideas. By crushing two insignificant
units, a nation cannot be crushed. We wanted to emphasise the
historical lesson that lettres de cachets and Bastilles could not
crush the revolutionary movement in France. Gallows and the
Siberian mines could not extinguish the Russian Revolution.
Bloody Sunday, and Black and Tans failed to strangle the movement of Irish freedom.
Can ordinances and Safety Bills snuff out the flames of freedom
in India? Conspiracy cases, trumped up or discovered, and the
incarceration of all young men who cherish the vision of a great
ideal, cannot check the march of revolution. But a timely warning, if not unheeded, can help to prevent loss of life and general
sufferings.
Inquilab
We took it upon ourselves to provide this warning and our duty
is done.
96
‘Revolution’ does not necessarily involve sanguinary strife nor is
there any place in it for individual vendetta. It is not the cult
of the bomb and the pistol. By ‘Revolution’ we mean that the
present order of things, which is based on manifest injustice,
must change. Producers or labourers, in spite of being the most
necessary element of society, are robbed by their exploiters of
their labour and deprived of their elementary rights. The peasant
who grows corn for all, starves with his family; the weaver who
supplies the world market with textile fabrics, has not enough
to cover his own and his children’s bodies; masons, smiths and
carpenters who raise magnificent palaces, live like pariahs in the
slums. The capitalists and exploiters, the parasites of society,
squander millions on their whims. These terrible inequalities and
the forced disparity of chances are bound to lead to chaos. This
state of affairs cannot last long, and it is obvious, that the present
order of society in merry-making is on the brink of a volcano.
The whole edifice of this civilisation, if not saved in time, shall
crumble. A radical change, therefore, is necessary and it is the
duty of those who realise it to reorganise society on the socialistic
basis. Unless this thing is done and the exploitation of man by
man and of nations by nations is brought to an end, sufferings
and carnage with which humanity is threatened today cannot be
prevented. All talk of ending war and ushering in an era of universal peace is undisguised hypocrisy.
By ‘Revolution’, we mean the ultimate establishment of an order
of society which may not be threatened by such breakdown, and
in which the sovereignty of the proletariat should be recognised
and a world federation should redeem humanity from the bondage of capitalism and misery of imperial wars.
This is our ideal, and with this ideology as our inspiration, we
have given a fair and loud enough warning.
For these ideals, and for this faith, we shall welcome any suffering
to which we may be condemned. At the altar of this revolution
we have brought our youth as incense, for no sacrifice is too great
for so magnificent a cause. We are content, we await the advent
of Revolution.
Long Live the Revolution
Chapter 14 • Statement in the Sessions Court
If, however, it goes unheeded and the present system of government continues to be an impediment in the way of the natural
forces that are swelling up, a grim struggle will ensue involving
the overthrow of all obstacles, and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat to pave the way for the consummation
of the ideal of revolution. Revolution is an inalienable right of
mankind. Freedom is an imperishable birthright of all. Labour is
the real sustainer of society. The sovereignty of the people is the
ultimate destiny of the workers.
97
Chapter
15
STATEMENT
FILED IN THE
LAHORE HIGH COURT*
My Lords,
We are neither lawyers nor masters of English language, nor holders of degrees. Therefore, please do not expect any oratorial speech
from us. We therefore pray that instead of going into the language
mistakes of our statement Your Lordships will try to understand
the real sense of it. Leaving other points to our lawyers, I will confine myself to one point only. The point is very important in this
case. The point is that what were our intentions and to what
extent we are guilty. This is a very complicated question and no
one will be able to express before you that height of mental elevation which inspired us to think and act in a particular manner.
We want that this should be kept in mind while assessing our
intentions and our offence. According to the famous jurist
Solomon, one should not be punished for his criminal offence if
his aim is not against law. We had submitted a written statement
in the Sessions Court. That statement explains our aim and, as
such, explains our intentions also. But the learned judge dismissed it with one stroke of the pen, saying that ‘generally the
operation of law is not affected by how or why one committed
the offence. In this country the aim of the offence is very rarely
mentioned in legal commentaries.’ My Lords, our contention is
that under the circumstances the learned judge ought to have
* This statement by Bhagat Singh on 13 January 1930, emphasised on the
motive of the accused while judging the offence.
Chapter 15 • Statement Filed in the Lahore High Court
judged us either by the result of our action or on the basis of the
psychological part of our statement. But he did not take any of
these factors into consideration. The point to be considered is
that the two bombs we threw in the Assembly did not harm anybody physically or economically. As such the punishment
awarded to us is not only very harsh but revengeful also. Moreover,
the motive of the offence of an accused cannot be found out
without knowing his psychology. And no one can do justice to
anybody without taking his motive into consideration. If we
ignore the motive, the biggest generals of the world will appear
like ordinary murderers; revenue officers will look like thieves and
cheats. Even judges will be accused of murder. This way the entire
social system and the civilisation will be reduced to murders,
thefts and cheating. If we ignore the motive, the government will
have no right to expect sacrifice from its people and its officials.
Ignore the motive and every religious preacher will be dubbed as
a preacher of falsehoods, and every prophet will be charged of
misguiding crores of simple and ignorant people. If we set aside
the motive, then Jesus Christ will appear to be a man responsible
for creating disturbances, breaking peace and preaching revolt,
and will be considered to be a ‘dangerous personality’ in the language of the law. But we worship him. He commands great respect
in our hearts and his image creates vibrations of spiritualism
amongst us. Why? Because the inspiration behind his actions was
that of a high ideal. The rulers of that age could not recognise that
high idealism. They only saw his outward actions. Nineteen centuries have passed since then. Have we not progressed during this
period? Shall we repeat that mistake again? If that be so, then we
shall have to admit that all the sacrifices of mankind and all the
efforts of the great martyrs were useless and it would appear as if
we are still at the same place where we stood twenty centuries
back. From the legal point of view also, the question of motive is
of special importance. Take the example of General Dyer. He
resorted to firing and killed hundreds of innocent and unarmed
people. But the military court did not order him to be shot. It
gave him lakhs of rupees as award. Take another example. Shri
Kharag Bahadur Singh, a young Gurkha, killed a Marwari in
99
Inquilab
100
Calcutta. If the motive be set aside, then Kharag Bahadur Singh
ought to have been hanged. But he was awarded a mild sentence
of a few years only. He was even released much before the expiry
of his sentence. Was there any loophole in the law that he escaped
capital punishment? Or, was the charge of murder not proved
against him? Like us, he also accepted full responsibility of his
action, but he escaped death. He is free today. I ask Your Lordship,
why was he not awarded capital punishment? His action was well
calculated and well planned. From the motive end, his action was
more serious and fatal than ours. He was awarded a mild punishment because his intentions were good. He saved the society from
a dirty leech who had sucked the life-blood of so many pretty
young girls. Kharag Singh was given a mild punishment just to
uphold the formalities of the law. This principle [that the law
does not take motive into consideration] is quite absurd. This is
against the basic principles of the law which declares that ‘the law
is for man and not man for the law’. As such, why are the same
norms not being applied to us also? It is quite clear that while
convicting Kharag Singh his motive was kept in mind, otherwise
a murderer can never escape the hangman’s noose. Are we being
deprived of the ordinary advantage of the law because our offence
is against the government, or because our action has a political
importance? My Lords, under these circumstances, please permit
us to assert that a government which seeks shelter behind such
base methods has no right to exist. If it exists, it is for the time
being only, and that too with the blood of thousands of people on
its head. If the law does not consider the motive, there can be no
justice nor can there be stable peace. Mixing of arsenic (poison) in
the flour will not be considered to be a crime, provided its purpose is to kill rats. But if the purpose is to kill a man, it becomes a
crime of murder. Therefore, such laws which do not stand the test
of reason and which are against the principle of justice, should be
abolished. Because of such unjust laws, many great intellectuals
had to adopt the path of revolt. The facts regarding our case are
very simple. We threw two bombs in the legislative Assembly on
8 April 1929. As a result of the explosion, a few persons received
minor scratches. There was pandemonium in the chamber,
Chapter 15 • Statement Filed in the Lahore High Court
hundreds of visitors and members of the Assembly ran out. Only
my friend B.K. Dutt and myself remained seated in the visitors’
gallery and offered ourselves for arrest. We were tried for attempt
to murder, and convicted for life. As mentioned above, as a result
of the bomb explosion, only four or five persons were slightly
injured and one bench got damaged. We offered ourselves for
arrest without any resistance. The Sessions Judge admitted that
we could have very easily escaped, had we had any intention like
that. We admitted our offence and gave a statement explaining
our position. We are not afraid of punishment. But we do not
want that we should be wrongly understood. The judge expunged
a few paragraphs from our written statement. This we consider to
be harmful for our real position. A proper study of the full text of
our statement will make it clear that, according to us, our country
is passing through a crucial phase. We saw the coming catastrophe and thought it proper to give a timely warning with a loud
voice, and we gave the warning in the manner we thought proper.
We may be wrong. Our line of thinking and that of the learned
judge may be different, but that does not mean that we be
deprived of the liberty to express our ideas, and wrong things be
propagated in our name. In our statement we explained in detail
what we mean by ‘Long Live Revolution’ and ‘Down with
Imperialism’. That formed the crux of our ideas. That portion was
removed from our statement. Generally, a wrong meaning is
attributed to the word revolution. That is not our understanding.
Bombs and pistols do not make revolution. The sword of revolution is sharpened on the whetting-stone of ideas. This is what we
wanted to emphasise. By revolution we mean the end of the miseries of capitalist wars. It was not proper to pronounce judgement
without understanding our aims and objects and the process of
achieving them. To associate wrong ideas with our names is out
and out injustice. It was very necessary to give the timely warning
that the unrest of the people is increasing and that the malady
may take a serious turn, if not treated in time and properly. If our
warning is not heeded, no human power will be able to stop it.
We took this step to give proper direction to the storm. We are
serious students of history. We believe that, had the ruling powers
101
Inquilab
acted correctly at the proper time, there would have been no
bloody revolutions in France and Russia. Several big powers of the
world tried to check the storm of ideas and were sunk in the atmosphere of bloodshed. The ruling people cannot change the flow of
the current. We wanted to give the first warning. Had we aimed at
killing some important personalities, we would have failed in the
attainment of our aim. My Lords, this was the aim and the spirit
behind our action, and the result of the action corroborates our
contention. There is one more point which needs elucidation and
that is regarding the strength of the bombs: Had we no idea of the
strength of the bombs, there would have been no question of our
throwing them in the presence of our respected national leaders
like Pandit Motilal Nehru, Shri Kelkar, Shri Jayaker and Shri
Jinnah. How could we have risked the lives of our leaders? After
all we are not mad and had we been so, we would have certainly
been sent to the lunatic asylum instead of being put in jail. We
had full knowledge about the strength of the bombs and that is
why we acted with so much confidence. It was very easy to have
thrown the bombs on the occupied benches, but it was difficult to
have thrown them on unoccupied seats. Had we not been of saner
mind or had we been mentally unbalanced, the bombs would
have fallen on occupied benches and not in empty spaces.
Therefore, I would say that we should be rewarded for the courage
we showed in carefully selecting the empty places. Under these
conditions, My Lords, we think we have not been understood
properly. We have not come before you to get our sentences
reduced. We have come here to clarify our position. We want that
we should not be given any unjust treatment, nor should any
unjust verdict be pronounced about us. The question of punishment is of secondary importance before us.
102
16
LETTER TO
SUKHDEV
AGAINST SUICIDE*
DEAR BROTHER,
I have gone through your letter attentively and many times. I realise that the changed situation
has affected us differently. The things you hated outside have now become essential to you. In the
same way, the things I used to support strongly are of no significance to me anymore. For example, I believed in personal love, but now this feeling has ceased to occupy any particular position in
my heart and mind. While outside, you were strongly opposed to it but now a drastic change and
radicalisation is apparent in your ideas about it. You experience it as an extremely essential part of
human existence and you have found a particular kind of happiness in the experience.
You say you fail to understand how suffering alone can serve the country. Such a question from
a person like you is really perplexing, because how much thoughtfully we loved the motto of the
Naujawan Bharat Sabha: ‘to suffer and sacrifice through service’. I believe that you served as
* This letter was written by Bhagat Singh in response to Sukhdev’s letter,
which is sadly not available. It was in the midst of huge excitement and
sadness, after Jatin Das’s martyrdom on 13 September 1929 that Bhagat
Singh wrote this to Sukhdev, who was contemplating suicide.
Chapter 16 • Letter to Sukhdev Against Suicide
You may still recollect that one day I had discussed suicide with you. That time I told you that
in some situations suicide may be justifiable, but you contested my point. I vividly remember the
time and place of our conversation. We talked about this in the Shahanshahi Kutia one evening.
You said in jest that such a cowardly act can never be justified. You said that acts of this kind were
horrible and heinous, but I see that you have now made an about-turn on this subject. Now you
find it not only proper in certain situations but also necessary, even essential. My opinion is what
you had held earlier, that suicide is a heinous crime. It is an act of complete cowardice. Leave alone
revolutionaries, no individual can ever justify such an act.
103
much as was possible. Now is the time when you should suffer for what you did. Another point is
that this is exactly the moment when you have to lead the entire people.
Man acts only when he is sure of the justness of his action, as we threw the bomb in the Legislative
Assembly. After the action, it is the time for bearing the consequences of that act. Do you think
that had we tried to avoid the punishment by pleading for mercy, we would have been more
justified? No, this would have had an adverse effect on the masses. We are now quite successful in
our endeavour.
At the time of our imprisonment, the condition for the political prisoners of our party were very
miserable. We tried to improve that. I tell you quite seriously that we believed we would die very
shortly. Neither were we aware of the technique of forced feeding nor did we ever think of it. We
were ready to die. Do you mean to say that we were intending to commit suicide? No. Striving
and sacrificing one’s life for a superior ideal can never be called suicide. We are envious of the
death of our Comrade Yatindra Nath Das. Will you call it suicide? Ultimately, our sufferings
bore fruit. A big movement started in the whole of the country. We were successful in our aim.
Death in the struggles of this kind is an ideal death.
Inquilab
Apart from this, the comrades among us, who believe that they will be awarded death, should
await that day patiently when the sentence will be announced and they will be hanged. This
death will also be beautiful, but committing suicide, to cut short the life just to avoid some pain, is
cowardice. I want to tell you that obstacles make a man perfect. Neither you nor I, rather none of
us, have suffered any pain so far. That part of our life has started only now.
104
You will recollect that we have talked several times about realism in Russian literature, which is
nowhere visible in our own. We highly appreciate the situations of pain in their stories, but we do
not feel that spirit of suffering within ourselves. We also admire their passion and the extraordinary height of their characters, but we never bother to find out the reason. I will say that only the
reference to their resolve to bear pain has produced the intensity, the suffering of pain, and this has
given great depth and height to their characters and literature. We become pitiable and ridiculous
when we imbibe an unreasoned mysticism in our life without any natural or substantial basis.
People like us, who are proud to be revolutionary in every sense, should always be prepared to
bear all the difficulties, anxieties, pain and suffering which we invite upon ourselves by the struggles
initiated by us and for which we call ourselves revolutionary.
I want to tell you that in jail, and in jail alone, can a person get an occasion to study empirically
the great social subjects of crime and sin. I have read some literature on this and prison is the
proper place for self-study of all these topics. The best parts of the self-study for one is to suffer
oneself.
You know that the suffering of political prisoners in the jails of Russia caused, in the main, the
revolution in the prison-administration after the overthrow of Czardom. Is India not in need of
such persons who are fully aware of this problem and have personal experience of these things?
It will not suffice to say that someone else would do it, or that many other people are there to do
it. Thus, men who find it quite dishonourable and hateful to leave revolutionary responsibilities to
others should start their struggle against the existing system with total devotion. They should violate these rules but they should also keep in mind the propriety, because unnecessary and improper
attempts can never be considered just. Such agitations will shorten the process of revolution. All the
arguments which you gave to keep yourself aloof from all such a movement, are incomprehensible
to me. Some of our friends are either fools or ignorant. They find your behaviour quite strange
and incomprehensible. (They themselves say they cannot comprehend it because you are above
and very far from their understanding.)
You write further that it cannot be expected of a man that he will have the same thinking after
going through 14 long years of suffering in prison, which he had before, because jail life will crush
all his ideas. May I ask you whether the situation outside the jail was any bit more favourable to
our ideas? Even then, could we have left it because of our failures? Do you mean to imply that
had we not entered the field, no revolutionary work would have taken place at all? If this be your
contention, then you are mistaken, though it is right that we also proved helpful to an extent in
changing the environment. But, we are only a product of the need of our times.
Chapter 16 • Letter to Sukhdev Against Suicide
In fact, if you feel that jail life is really humiliating, why don’t you try to improve it by agitating?
Perhaps, you will say that this struggle would be futile, but this is precisely the argument which is
usually used as a cover by weak people to avoid participation in every movement. This is the reply
which we kept on hearing outside the jail from the people who were anxious to escape from getting
entangled in revolutionary movements. Shall I now hear the same argument from you? What
could our party of a handful of people do in comparison to the vastness of its aims and ideals?
Shall we infer from this that we erred gravely in starting our work altogether? No, inferences of
this kind will be improper. This only shows the inner weakness of the man who thinks like this.
105
I shall even say that Marx, the father of communism, did not actually originate this idea. The
Industrial Revolution of Europe itself produced men of this kind. Marx was one among them.
Of course, Marx was also instrumental to an extent in gearing up the wheels of his time in a
particular way.
I (and you too) did not give birth to the ideas of socialism and communism in this country; this
is the consequence of the effects of our time and situations upon ourselves. Of course, we did a bit
to propagate these ideas, and therefore I say that since we have already taken a tough task upon
ourselves, we should continue to advance it. The people will not be guided by our committing
suicide to escape the difficulties; on the contrary, this will be quite a reactionary step.
We continued our work despite the testing environment of disappointments, pressures and violence
ordained by jail rules. While we worked, we were made the target of many kinds of difficulties.
Even men who were proud to proclaim themselves to be great revolutionaries, deserted us. Were
these conditions not testing in the extreme? Then, what was the reason and the logic of continuing
our agitation and efforts?
Does this simple argument not by itself give added strength to our ideas? And, don’t we have
instances of our revolutionary comrades who suffered for their convictions in jails and are still
working after coming out from jails? Had Bakunin argued like you, he would have committed
suicide right in the beginning. Today, you find many revolutionaries occupying responsible posts
in the Russian state who had passed the greater part of their lives in prison, completing their
sentences. Man must try hard to stick to his beliefs. No one can say what future has in store.
Inquilab
Do you remember that when we were discussing that some concentrated and effective poison
should also be kept in our bomb factories, you opposed it very vehemently? The very idea was
repugnant to you. You had no faith in it. So, what has happened now? Here, even the difficult
and complex conditions do not obtain. I feel revulsion even in discussing this question. You hated
even that attitude of mind which permits suicide. You will kindly excuse me for saying that
had you acted according to this belief right at the time of your imprisonment (that is, you had
committed suicide by taking poison), you would have served the revolutionary cause, but at this
moment, even the thought of such an act is harmful to our cause.
106
There is just one more point which I will like to draw your attention to. We do not believe in
God, hell and heaven, punishment and rewards, that is in any Godly accounting of human life.
Therefore, we must think of life and death on materialist lines. When I was brought here from
Delhi for the purpose of identification, some intelligence officers talked to me about this, in my
father’s presence. They said that since I did not try to save my life by divulging secrets, it proved
the presence of an acute agony in my life. They argued that a death of this kind will be something
like suicide. But I had replied that a man with beliefs and ideals like mine, could never think of
dying uselessly. We want to get the maximum value for our lives. We want to serve humanity
as much as possible. Particularly a man like me, whose life is nowhere sad or worried, can never
think of suicide even, leave alone attempting it. I want to tell you the same thing now.
Chapter 16 • Letter to Sukhdev Against Suicide
I hope you will permit me to tell you what I think about myself. I am certain of capital punishment for me. I do not expect even a bit of moderation or amnesty. Even if there is amnesty,
it will not be for all, and even that amnesty will be for others only, not for us; it will be extremely
restricted and burdened with various conditions. For us, neither can there be any amnesty nor will
it ever happen. Even then, I wish that release calls for us should be made collectively and globally.
Along with that, I also wish that when the movement reaches its climax, we should be hanged. It
is my wish that if at any time any honourable and fair compromise is possible, an issue like our
case may never obstruct it. When the fate of the country is being decided, the fate of individuals
should be forgotten. As revolutionaries, we are fully aware of all the past experiences. Therefore,
we do not believe that there can be any sudden change in the attitude of our rulers, particularly
in the British race. Such a surprising change is impossible without revolution. A revolution can
be achieved only through sustained striving, sufferings and sacrifices. And it shall be achieved. As
far as my attitude is concerned, I can welcome facilities and amnesty for all only when its effect
is permanent and some indelible impressions are made on the hearts of the people of the country
through our hanging. Only this much and nothing more.
107
Part
IV
Some
Reflections
on the
International
Revolutionary
Movement
17. What Is Anarchism? Part One, May 1928
18. What Is Anarchism? Part Two, June 1928
19. What Is Anarchism? Part Three, August 1928
20. Russian Nihilist Revolutionaries, August
1928
Inquilab
Some of the articles included in this section establish the fact
that Bhagat Singh had a mature understanding of revolutionary
struggles and ideological developments beyond India. He had an
international perspective with a commitment to anti-colonial fights
in other parts of the world. He began a series of articles on the
international revolutionary movements in Kirti in May 1928 which
continued till August 1928. We have included here a three part
article on Anarchism and one on the Russian Nihilism. This also
shows that Bhagat Singh did have some interests in the writings
and philosophy of Bakunin before he matured as a socialist thinker.
110
Chapter
17
WHAT IS
ANARCHISM?
PART ONE*
The world is in great turmoil today. Master brains are very busy
and concerned about establishing peace in the world. However,
the peace which they intend to bring upon this world would be
a permanent peace and not a temporary one. To achieve it many
great people have sacrificed their lives and are still moving on the
same path. We are slaves today, our vision is imperfect and our
brain trite. Our heart has gone weak and it is getting weaker still.
Leave aside world peace, we cannot even do anything for the welfare of our own country, and in fact are not doing anything for it.
We are indeed unlucky. Our retrogressive thinking is destroying
us. We keep ourselves entangled in futile discussions about God
and heaven, and remain busy in talking about the soul and God.
We are quick to dub Europe as capitalist and don’t think about
their great ideas or pay any attention to them. We love divinity
and remain aloof from the world. Should we not talk about this
world now? We are in such a bad state that our mind tends to
weep bitterly while looking at the world; yet despite all this some
matters are improving in the twentieth century. The youth is
getting attracted to European ideals and young people who wish
to make progress, they should study the great thoughts of the
modern world. Today which type of voices are being raised against
the cruelty in society, and what type of ideas are being floated to
achieve lasting peace, without knowing these things thoroughly, the
knowledge of the people remains imperfect. Today we are hearing
* Kirti, May, 1928.
Inquilab
too much about Communism and Socialism but the highest ideal
among them is considered to be Anarchism. This essay is about
the same Anarchism. People are very afraid of the term Anarchist.
When somebody comes out with a bomb or a pistol to achieve
one’s own freedom, the ruling class or their stooges immediately
start crying Anarchist! Anarchist! and start making the people
afraid of him. The Anarchist is thought to be a very dangerous
person, who does not have an iota of sympathy in his heart and
who is bloodthirsty: who gets pleasure out of devastation and
destruction. The word ‘Anarchist’ has been so defamed that revolutionaries in India have been termed Anarchists to create hatred
against them. Dr Bhupender Nath Dutt has described this thing in
the first part of his Bengali book, Unpublished Political History; he
says that the government might have cried Anarchist, Anarchist
to defame us, but actually that group was of revolutionaries, and
Anarchism is a very high ideal about which simple persons like us
were not even able to think, they were not even revolutionaries
rather rebels, they were simply rebels. We were saying that the
word ‘Anarchist’ has been so degraded, like the selfish, capitalists
have degraded the words Bolshevik, Communist, Socialist, etc. In
the same way, this word was also degraded, though Anarchists are
very good people at heart and they also seek the welfare of the
world. Even having a difference of opinion with them we cannot
doubt their sincerity, love for the people and their truthfulness.
112
The word Anarchist is derived from the Greek language which
means an = not, archer = rule, meaning thereby the negation of
any rule of government. In fact, man has striven to achieve more
and more freedom since time immemorial, and at some point
the complete freedom which is in consonance with Anarchist
thought had also emerged. For example, an ancient Greek philosopher had opined ‘We wish neither to belong to the governing class nor to be governed.’ If we don’t try to analyse some
ancient books to get at some net result, even then we have to
agree that this idea was floated in the beginning of the nineteenth
century by a French philosopher Proudhon and was presented
to the people and preached openly. That is why he is called the
Father of Anarchism. He started preaching it and after that a
First comes God and religion. Now voices against both these
ghosts are being raised in India also, but in Europe the war against
them has been going on for a century. It started in an age when
people had very meagre knowledge and they were afraid of even
very small things, they were even afraid of celestial bodies. There
was no self-confidence in them and they started calling themselves a mere mist of dust. God is the result of peoples’ ignorance,
which is why the notion of their existence should be ignored
and it is important that right from childhood such things are
thought: ‘God is everything; man is nothing.’ ‘Whatever is there
it is God’s, man is nothing’. He is ‘a mist of dust’, and with this
Chapter 17 • What Is Anarchism? Part One
Russian named Bakunin did a great deal for its successful spread,
then many Anarchists like Johann Most and Prince Kropotkin
also became well known. Nowadays Mrs Emma Goldman and
Alexander Berkman are its vocal preachers. About Anarchism,
Mrs Goldman has written: ‘Anarchism—the philosophy of a
new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law;
the theory that all forms of Government rest on violence, and
are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.’ This
clearly states that Anarchists don’t like any form of Government.
It is correct but listening to it we become fearful. Many types of
fears are raised in our minds so that after the end of British rule,
while making our own government, we should continue to see
ghosts and be fearful even afterwards also. This always remains
the intention of our rulers; in such an eventuality how can we
think just for a moment even that such a time could come when
we would be happy and free even without a Government. But our
own weakness is responsible for this. The ideal or its meaning is
never at fault. According to Anarchism, ideal freedom which is
imagined, that is the real freedom, according to which neither a
ghost of God or religion should dominate the heart, nor the governmental chains enslaving us. What this means is that they want
to erase three great things from this world, (1) Church, (2) State,
(3) Private property. This subject is very interesting and lengthy,
and too much could be written about it, but we can’t afford to
do so now because there is not much space, so we will talk only
about its main tenets.
113
Inquilab
114
idea dominating one’s mind, the self-confidence of human beings
gets eviscerated. One starts thinking that one is very weak. He
continues to be fearful for no reason. Till this fearfulness exists,
there can be no real happiness and peace. In India for the very
first time Mahatma Buddha had negated the existence of God. He
never believed in God. Even today there are so many saints who
don’t have any faith in God. Bengal’s Sohmo Swami was among
their forerunners; there is also one Niralamba Swami. Sohmo
Swami’s one book on common sense is published in English. He
has very clearly written against the existence of God and has tried
to prove it. But those people were not called Anarchists. They are
just enjoying their life in the name of Tyag and Yoga. During the
age of science, the existence of God is being questioned, which
would destroy the concept of religion also. In practice, the eminent Anarchist Bakonin had written substantively against God in
his book God and State. He had placed before him the Bible and
said that God had created Man just like Himself. He did a great
service to man but also warned him about tasting the fruit of the
Forbidden Tree. In fact (says Bakunin), God had created Adam
and Eve just for his enjoyment, but he wanted that they should
remain his slaves forever and never try to raise their heads against
him. That is why he gave them all the fine things of life but didn’t
give them wisdom. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the
first free thinker and the emancipator of the world, who taught
Adam and Eve to rebel and instigated them to eat the Forbidden
Fruit. Then God became very angry like some selfish person and
started cursing the world created by Himself. The question then
arises why did God create this world in the first place? Just to
have some fun? Was he then not being more cruel than the tyrant
Nero of Rome? Is it all his creation? What is the need for such a
playful God then? This discussion is getting lengthy. We should,
therefore, conclude it here and say only this that till now the
selfish and the capitalists have been using religion for their own
benefit. History stands witness to it. Be patient and keep cursing
your destiny. Such philosophy has caused so much destruction
which everyone is aware of.
People say if we negate the existence of God then what would
become of this world, the sins would simply overpower the world.
There would be chaos everywhere. But the Anarchists say that if
this happens man will become so great that without the greed of
heaven or the fear of hell he would shed evil deeds and would
start doing pious things. The fact is that Shri Krishna of India
had preached that one should work without seeking results. The
Gita is considered a world-renowned book but even in that Shri
Krishna had to teach Arjun that after death he would go directly
to heaven and if he wins he would enjoy being king. But today
when we look at the sacrifices of the Anarchists we feel like bowing
our head to them. Our readers have already heard about Sacko
and Venziti. They neither feel like making God happy nor do they
wish to enjoy bliss in heaven, and nor do they wish to enjoy the
happiness of the next life. They happily lay down their lives at
the altar of duty. They say when once man is completely liberated
his conduct would become really praiseworthy; well, this subject
also is a matter of a lengthy debate.
Chapter 17 • What Is Anarchism? Part One
115
Chapter
18
WHAT IS
ANARCHISM?
PART TWO*
The next thing which they want to destroy is the State. In fact,
if we wish to reach at the roots of Government, we would find
two outcomes of it. Some people think that people living in the
jungles got wiser and started living together and as such the evolution of the State or government took place. Some others believe
people had to get together due to the fear of jungle animals. They
had to become close-knit for different necessities and became
organised. Then the groups clashed amongst themselves following which the fear of a powerful enemy started getting stronger
and they established their rule jointly. This necessity is called the
Utilitarian Theory, or we may keep both these things together.
We can ask the proponents of the evolution theory why is it that
now this evolution is being halted. Only Anarchism comes after
the Panchayati Raj, and to the others we may say that now there
is no need for the ruler-ship. About it we have already debated.
If we don’t consider such things too much then we have to agree
that people actually had a bargain, which was termed as the
Social Contract by the great revolutionary Rousseau of France.
The bargain was that man will sacrifice a certain part of his liberty,
a certain part of his income, in return for which he would get
security and peace. But it needs to be examined whether the bargain continued to be fair. After government was established, State
and Church entered into a conspiracy, and they propounded the
theory of Divine Rights of Kings. People continued to be afraid
* Kirti, June 1928.
of God and the kings continued to unleash cruelty upon them.
The examples of the Czar (Russia) and Louis (France) make this
evident. But that conspiracy was not to last long, and this is why
Pope Gregory and King Henry went their separate ways. The Pope
instigated people against King Henry and Henry exposed the religion. He incited people against the Pope. The basic thing was that
selfish people fought among themselves and their pretentions
broke down: then people rose up and killed the cruel Louis. The
whole world was in turmoil. The establishment of Panchayati Raj
came into being but even then complete freedom did not materialise. Whence an Austrian autocrat was suppressing his subjects,
in America even under Panchayati Raj, slaves were being mistreated while the people of France were trying to stand erect but
stumbling again. Even today there is a Panchayati Raj in France
but people are not completely free. That is why the Anarchists say
that they don’t need any government.
Chapter 18 • What Is Anarchism? Part Two
In all other respects they are similar to Communists but there
are a couple of differences between them. Karl Marx’s famous
comrade Engels also writes about their Communism that their
ideal is the same: Communism also looks forward to a period in
the evolution of the society when the State will become superfluous and no longer having any function to perform, it will wither
away. In fact, they want that there should be no government
and people should live as a community. Italy’s famous statesman
Machiavelli said that there should be some sort of government,
whether Panchayati Raj or a Monarchy. He was of the opinion
that there should be a government and that it should rule with
an iron hand. But Anarchists say iron hand or soft hand, we don’t
need any Panchayati Raj or any other sort of thing: They say:
‘Undermine the whole concept of a State, and then and then only
will we have liberty worth having.’ There seems to be nothing
wrong in this; we also see when the law goes on hardening, dishonesty starts escalating. It is a common complaint that previously people used to give and take thousands of rupees by way
of borrowing and none would have treated anybody dishonestly,
but now inspite of having reduced the process to paperwork with
many witnesses and registry, etc., there is more dishonesty. But
117
Anarchists think there is only one remedy to every ill, that one
should have one’s every need fulfilled according to one’s will and
even then no sins or cruelties should occur there.
Crime is nothing but misdirected energy. So long as every
institution of to-day, Economic, Political, Social and Moral
conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels, so
long as most people are made to do the things they loathe to
do, living a life they don’t want to live, crime will be inevitable
and all the laws or the statutes can only increase but never
do away with crime.
Inquilab
(A.R.) Lord in his book Principles of Politics writes about human
nature, that ants can live together, animals can live in groups
but people can’t. Man is by nature cruel, greedy, pitiless and lazy.
Listening to these things Emma Goldman became enraged and
she wrote in her book named Anarchism and other Essays: ‘Every
fool from king to policeman, from the flat headed person to the
visionless dabbler in science presumes to speak authoritatively of
human nature’. Which means that anyone can wake up one day
and have an opinion on human behaviour. She says the more
foolish a person, the more they consider their opinion to be valuable. Despite having complete freedom in their lives, people can
continue to find faults with it. She further says that had anybody
given complete freedom to anybody then everybody would continue to find fault with them. She says that there should be small
Panchayats and work should be done with full freedom.
118
The third greatest and most necessary thing is private property.
In fact, the world is being run by the quest for finding food for
the belly. For this purpose, ideas of patience and contentment,
etc., and sermons around them have been created and everything
is being done to this end. Till now the mode of livelihood was
the property, but now Anarchists, Communists, Socialists have
risen against it. Goldman says, ‘Property is robbery’ (Proudhon)
but without risk or danger to the robber’. Anarchists believe that
the idea of creating property makes man greedy and then he
continues to become stone-hearted. Mercy and sympathy vanish
from his heart. The State is needed to make the property secure.
Following this what they want to do, how the work would continue, is a very wide question. In this essay I have explained that
Anarchists are against God and religion to begin with because
they feel this is the root of mental slavery. And then they are
against the State because it is the root of physical slavery. They
say that motivating people with the temptation of heaven, fear
of hell or with the iron hand of law is the wrong approach and
it is also an insult to a superior being like a human. The third
point is that a human being should acquire knowledge freely and
work at his sweet will and live life peacefully. People presume this
might mean that we would be living in the same manner as in the
Chapter 18 • What Is Anarchism? Part Two
And then greed develops with it and the end result is imperialism
and wars. Heavy bloodshed takes place and heavy losses occur. If
everything existed on a cooperative basis then there would be no
greed. Everybody would start working jointly. There would be no
fear of dacoity and no need for police, jail, courts or army. People
feeding on sinful deeds would start working. Such work over even
a short time would increase production. People would be able to
get educated very easily and the result would be complete peace
and prosperity. They agree, therefore, that it is very necessary to
eradicate ignorance from the world. Property is the main issue
and to describe it would need a separate essay. The question actually arises from the procurement of food. Karl Manning had very
aptly stated: ‘Ask for work, and if they do not give you work ask
for bread, and if they do not give you work or bread, then take
bread.’ Nobody has the right to eat cake when others are languishing for crumbs of bread. On this issue the Anarchists have
opined that if a person is born in a poor family then why should
he remain uncared for all his life? And one who was born in a rich
family, why should he have the right to eat food without earning it. And the talk of ‘money begets money’ should also cease.
Because of these things they (the Anarchists) talk of equal opportunities for all and they bust the illusion of the sanctity of private
property. According to them, wealth which is acquired through
evil means is needed to be kept safe with law and this gives rise to
a need for the State. In fact, all this is at the root of all evils, all the
evil would be removed by eliminating it.
119
forests in ancient times but they are wrong. At that time there was
ignorance and people were not able to travel far and wide. But
now we can have complete knowledge and live happily and freely
by creating relations with all. There should be no greed of money
and the question of money should also be done away with.
Inquilab
In the next essay we will discuss some more issues and different
ideas about the philosophy and history of Anarchism, and the reasons for its disrepute and the violent backlash it has experienced.
120
Chapter
19
WHAT IS
ANARCHISM?
PART THREE*
In the last two articles I wrote general facts about anarchism. On
an important subject like this—which has emerged only recently
as compared to age-old ideologies and traditions—such a short
article cannot fulfil the curiosity of the reader. Many doubts
remain unresolved. Nevertheless, I am presenting the basic ideology, so that the reader will get an overview. In a similar vein,
I shall also write about communism, socialism and nihilism so
that the people of India get to know about the ideologies prevalent in the world. But before I write on any other topic, I want to
say some important and interesting things about anarchism. In
other words what have the anarchists done so far? How were they
maligned?
I have previously written about their ideas. I shall now talk about
what all they did to implement these ideas. How would they use
force against extremely strong governments and how hard would
they fight in these encounters?
When suppression and exploitation exceed their limit and peaceful work is crushed, the doers start working secretly. They get
ready for retribution in the face of suppression. At a time when
poor workers were being exploited in Europe, Mikhail Bakunin,
an officer in a Russian arsenal, was sent to Poland to crush a rebellion. On seeing how mercilessly the rebels were being suppressed,
* Kirti, July 1928.
he had a change of heart. He became a revolutionary. Ultimately,
he started leaning towards anarchism. He quit his job in 1834
and travelled to Paris via Berlin and Switzerland. He continued
working on his ideas and spreading them amongst the workers
till 1864.
Later, Bakunin captured the National Labour Congress and
between 1860 and 1870 kept strengthening the group. On 4
September 1870, the Third French Republic was proclaimed,
many rebellions broke out against the capitalist government in
France. He participated in the rebellion that broke out in Lyon.
His group dominated initially but ultimately lost and came
back.
Inquilab
In 1873, a rebellion broke out in Spain. Bakunin went there as
well. Ultimately, he lost there too. When he returned from Spain,
a rebellion had broken out in Italy. He led from the front and after
initial resistance Garibaldi too joined him. However, he lost after
a few days of fighting. His entire life was thus a struggle. As old
age caught up with him, he relinquished his position for the sake
of younger leadership. He passed away in July 1876.
122
Later, four of his disciples prepared themselves to carry forward
his legacy. The first, Carlo Caffiers came from an affluent Italian
family. Mala Temta was a learned physician. But he abandoned
everything for the revolution. Paul Brasi too was a renowned
physician. Then there was Peter Kropotkin from Russia. It was
often joked that he should have been the next czar. He opined
that merely talking about ideas and ideologies had virtually no
effect. They themselves were tired of this approach and had little
impact on the public. He thus advocated a practical approach. He
said, ‘A single deed makes more propaganda in a few days than
a thousand pamphlets. The Government defends itself. It rages
pitilessly, but by this it only causes further deeds to be committed
by one or more persons and drives the insurgents to heroism.
One deed brings forth another, opponents join the mutiny, the
Government splits into factions, harshness intensifies the conflict, concessions come too late, the revolution breaks out.’
Peter Kropotkin was one of Russia’s epochal men. He was captured and kept in Peter Pal Fort. But he escaped that high security
prison and started propagating his ideas in Europe.
18 March 1876. He started the day by celebrating the anniversary
of the establishment of the rule of labourers in Bern, France. Later,
he led a procession of labourers and fought with the police. The
attempt by the forces to uproot the red flags resulted in a riot in
which many soldiers got severely injured. In the end, all of them
were arrested and got imprisonment ranging from 10 to 40 days.
The month of April also saw several peasant uprisings in Italy.
Many of Kropotkin’s comrades got arrested but were later released.
He was convinced about this practical approach of propaganda.
He would say, ‘Neither money nor organisations nor literature
was needed any longer for (for their propaganda work). One
human being in revolt with a torch or dynamite was enough to
instruct the world.’
On 15 December 1883, a notorious police officer called Ulback
was killed in Villiread Flodsorfe. On 23 June 1884, Ruset was sent
to the gallows for committing this crime. The very next day, a
police officer was killed in retaliation. The Austrian Government
was vengeful. The police in Vienna arrested several people and
two were hanged.
Lyon saw a lot of strikes. One of them called Fornier shot his
bourgeois master dead. He was felicitated and bestowed a pistol.
By 1888, the situation had become extremely chaotic. While the
silk labourers were starving, the newspaper owners and the other
Chapter 19 • What Is Anarchism? Part Three
1868 witnessed an increase in such activities. An assassination
attempt was made on the King of Italy, Humbert, when he was
visiting Berlin along with his daughter. An ordinary young man
killed King William. Three weeks later Doctor Karl Novling shot at
the king. Meetings of labourers were being suppressed mercilessly
in Germany in those days. Later, it was decided to intimidate the
corrupt capitalist class, the government, and the police by whatever means possible.
123
rich—all friends of the bourgeois—were having a gala time. A
bomb was thrown in the gathering. The bourgeois was shocked.
60 anarchists got arrested. Only three were later exonerated. The
hunt for the bomber continued relentlessly. Ultimately, he was
arrested and hanged. This pattern however continued. Killings
followed the strikes. The anarchists were blamed for these (killings) and instilled a lot of fear in the people.
Johann Most, a German anarchist travelled to the United States
of America in 1882. A great orator, he greatly influenced the
Americans. Chicago and other cities saw many strikes in 1886. An
anarchist named Spies was lecturing the labourers in a paper mill.
The owner tried to stop him, a fight broke out. The police were
called and they shot at people on arrival. Six persons were killed,
and several others injured. Spies was enraged. He composed and
published a memo asking the labourers to come forward and take
revenge. The next day, on 4 May, a protest meeting was organised
in the Haymarket Square. The city Mayor too attended it. Unable
to find anything objectionable in the talks, he left the meeting.
Later, the police arrived, started beating the assembled people and
ordered the meeting to be called off.
Inquilab
Just then somebody threw a bomb into the ranks of the police.
Several policemen were killed. A lot of people were arrested and
sent to the gallows. While leaving one of them remarked, ‘I
repeat, I am an enemy of the present system. I want to end this
system and want us to be in the system. You may laugh at me
that I shall no longer be able to set off another bomb. But let me
tell you, that your oppression has compelled the labourers to set
off bombs. Make no mistake! My hanging will make many more
of such men. I detest you and want to end your rule. Send me to
the gallows!’
124
Anyhow, several such happenings took place. But few of them
stand out. The American President was shot at and then there was
a strike in the steel company. The labourers were being oppressed.
An anarchist named, Alexander shot at and injured the owner
Henry C. Frick. He was jailed for life. The way of anarchists took
root in USA as well.
The situation in Europe was bleak too. Anarchists were constantly
at loggerheads with the Government and the police. One day an
anarchist called Valent threw a bomb in the Assembly. He was
obstructed by a woman in his deed. As a result, the bomb did not
cause major damage apart from injuring a few deputies. To make
his point clear, he said aloud, ‘It takes a loud voice to make the
deaf hear. You will punish me, but I have no fear. Because I have
caused you anguish. You all, who oppress the poor, starve the
hardworking, I have hurt you. It’s your turn now.’
Many appeals were made for him. The most grievously injured
member of the Assembly too pleaded clemency for Valent. But
the jury headed by Cornett paid no heed to all these appeals.
He was sentenced to death. Later, an Italian boy stabbed Cornett
with a knife bearing Valent’s name.
Chapter 19 • What Is Anarchism? Part Three
Spain also saw a lot of bombing activity and finally an Italian
killed the Prime Minister. The King of Greece and Queen of
Austria were similarly attacked. In the year 1900, Gaetano Bresci
assassinated King Umberto I of Italy. The anarchists kept playing
with their lives for the sake of the poor and the downtrodden.
The last of their martyrs, Sako and Valzetti were hanged only last
year. How courageously they embraced the gallows, everyone is
aware. So this is the short history of anarchism. Next, I shall write
about communism.
125
Chapter
20
RUSSIAN
NIHILIST
REVOLUTIONARIES*
There was a great novelist in Russia named Ivan Turgenev. He
wrote a book Father and Children in 1862. The publication of the
book led to a hue and cry because it propounded the new ideas
of a new generation. He was the first to use the word ‘Nihilist’,
which means one who does not acknowledge anything. But in
fact, these people were against the old and evil rites, rituals and
traditions of the people. They were fed up with the mental slavery
of the people of the country. And they rebelled against it. They
not only said it but showed how it could be practically done.
Turgenev said that the hero of his novel was a real personality
and not an imaginary character; in fact, there was a man with
such ideas and thoughts, and they were being practically propagated. Turgenev writes that one day while he was basking in the
sun, he thought of the idea about the novel and he wrote it. Its
hero is (Yevgeny) Bazarov and is a sort of atheist, an opponent of
old thought. He was not used to talking big. He was very straightforward, and he said out loud whatever was in his mind. For this
reason, he appears a bit rude. He is against poetry and doesn’t like
music either. But he believes in liberty and he is a staunch supporter of people’s freedom. He tries to fight all which had become
the mentality of those times.
The real Nihilist is somewhat different from this person. The hero
of the novel was a tiny extension of the real by way of imagination. The character of the real Nihilist developed in a different way. ‘The Nihilism of 1861, a philosophical system especially
* Kirti, August 1928.
dealing with what Mr Herbert Spencer would call religious, governmental and social Fetishism.’
Russian revolutionary prince Kropotkin had described the 1861
Nihilism in these words, which mean that in those times Nihilism
was merely a philosophy which was concerned with and spoke
up against religious orthodoxy, social injustice and fundamentalism, the suppression by government, and the blind faith which
got developed about these things. In fact it was as if the youth
jumped into the fray feeling frustrated by such notions. They
said that they would destroy all the notions of the past. What
would come next, and what would be in store in the future—
without answering it precisely they were sure that they would
create a better world. Nihilism was destructive because it wanted
wholesale destruction, but with the zeal to rebuild. The propaganda about these things continued to develop and the youth
started moving away from old notions. They wanted ‘to liberate
the people from the chains of traditions and the autocracy of the
Czar’. In those days their propaganda was against all these things.
The position changed; it was a time when the slaves had just been
liberated. But those poor people were not provided sufficient land
holdings from which they could earn their livelihood with hard
labour and could save themselves from the onslaught of hunger.
The cruelty heaped upon them knew no bounds. The youth was
deprived of good books. There were societies which purchased all
the books from publishers and would distribute them free or even
at cost price. All these books had been passed by government
Chapter 20 • Russian Nihilist Revolutionaries
If they did get a bit of land, the tax on that was so high that people
started dying of hunger and in 1867 there was a big catastrophe.
The government system at that time was so bad that it is beyond
description. People were oppressed so much, tortured so much,
that they were fed up. Persecuted by administrative suppression,
even senior government officials had become revolutionaries.
(Valerian) Ossinsky and Keith Kovesky who were hanged in 1880
were government officials earlier. Similarly, even senior officers
and judges had become revolutionaries.
127
censors, but when the government found that they were being
used for propaganda, they decided to ban the publishers and distributors, and started heaping every type of cruelty upon them.
From 1861 to 1870 every means was used to improve the lot of
the people and to bring the government on the right path but it
was all in vain.
In such circumstances many people gave up doing anything waiting for a time when conditions would improve somewhat. How
would they improve, however, nobody knew. The people had
faith in God but the hearts of the youth were on fire. They had
lost faith in God and it was very difficult for them to sit idle.
Prince Kropotkin writes in his essay:
There are periods when some generations are permeated
with the noblest feelings of altruism and self-sacrifice;
when life becomes utterly impossible morally and physically,
impossible for the man or the woman who feels that he or
she is not doing his duty, and so was with the youth of Russia.
In 1871, many boys and girls migrated to Western Europe and
started studying there, mostly in Switzerland. They were allowed
to return to their native land, and they brought with them the
concept of Communism. On their return they started propagating the new ideas so violently that the Czar had them all arrested
and transported to Siberia. Then their activities started secretly.
Inquilab
At that time three parties were active whose leaders were (Nikolai)
Chernyshevsky, (Nikolai) Ishutin and (Sergey) Nechayev. First the
call was raised to be ‘with the people’ and that every effort should
be made for their upliftment. But now a new slogan was raised,
‘Be the peoples’ vanguard’. With this, there emerged such vast
examples of sacrifice that remain unparalleled even today. But
first of all, why was such a slogan raised? Prince Kropotkin writes:
128
Until recently the Russian farmer has regarded the man who
wears loose clothing, who neither ploughs nor hammers,
whose hands are not scarred by the effort of yielding a
hammer, and who doesn’t work his own fields as an enemy.
But we wanted their sympathy and faith. That is why it was
necessary to stay with them and work hard alongside them.
Today we are engaged in lofty discussions of making India free,
but how many people are there who are ready to sacrifice like
these people? How many are there who could leave the towns and
be ready to go to villages to live like peasants? A peculiar scene
had emerged there:
Youngmen left their classrooms, their regiments and their
desks, learned the smith’s trade or the cobbler’s, or the
ploughman’s and went to work among the villagers. Highborn
and wealthy ladies betook themselves to the factories, worked
fifteen and sixteen hours a day at the machine, slept in dog
holes with peasants, went barefoot as our working women
go, bringing water from the river for the home.
Chapter 20 • Russian Nihilist Revolutionaries
They were devoted to only one aim, that they had to make the
workers aware of their plight and also suggest the remedy for
it. How great the sacrifice! Women worked very hard on this
front. The grandmother of the Russian revolution Mrs Catherine
(Breshkovsky) was a very rich and beautiful lady, she too was collaborating with them. She ruined her beauty by pouring acid on
her face and became ugly so that she would not become the focus
of the attention of workers and could become a part of them. How
many people are there in India today who could dare to do such
thing! In Russia young boys and girls would run away from their
homes and engage in such activities. How many young men are
there in India who could run like fanatics to do all this? We can
find very wise people here and there. Everybody is in a hurry to
lead his life comfortably. Then how can there be any hope that
India’s condition will improve? In the Russian youth has spent
the last decades of the past century only in advocating such ideas.
There are many interesting anecdotes of the girls who were brought
from their homes. Sonia was a daughter of a priest. In her school,
revolutionary women were helping teachers in taking classes.
Listening to what they had to say, Sonia too became interested in
her country’s service. One day she ran away from home, but her
father found her and brought her back. Again, the party arranged
129
Inquilab
to take away her from her house. A young man was prepared to
act as her lover. He went to her house and persuaded her father
that he wanted to marry Sonia. This is a very interesting anecdote
which had been published in the book Heroes and Heroines of Russia
from which readers can comprehend how the revolutionaries were
acting in Russia. First, these activities were undertaken openly. The
government started suppressing the revolutionaries and arrested
thousands of them and deported them to Siberia. Thousands of
people were arrested without warrants. For a few years they were
huddled in dingy cells of the jails. After sometime they were tried
in courts and some of them were imprisoned. One among thousands of cases is infamous by the name of the Trial of the Hundred
Ninety Three. According to the government more than one thousand people were arrested at a time and dumped in the dingy, dark
and damp cells for four or five years. Out of them 300 were imprisoned for even longer. Eleven of them died of TB, four of them slit
their throats, and several others tried to commit suicide. Finally,
193 were tried in court; the court was so cruel that it awarded
them all 10 years of imprisonment with very little evidence, only
because they were preachers. 90 of them were acquitted. Others
were imprisoned for seven to ten years and after that transportation for life in Siberia. In one case a woman was imprisoned for 10
years only for the crime handing over a Communist pamphlet to a
worker. After this, revolutionary activities began to be undertaken
more secretly and with greater caution; feelings of vengeance too
prevailed. Generally, some secret agent would give information
about someone that would get him transported to Siberia, and in
lieu of it (the agent) would get a handsome reward from the State.
This is how the lives of many young men were jeopardised. This is
when they decided to kill such agents also.
130
It is said that on 16 April 1879, the Czar was shot at by Karakazoff;
this was the action of the Nihilists and the next year when a
police youth Berezowski shot at the Czar in Paris, that too was the
action of this party. But the fact is that as Kropotkin had written,
during those early actions, the Czar was the safest. When people
were fed up they decided to opt for direct action. Previously they
always tried to save the Czar. Once some young men reached
Saint Petersburg to kill the Czar, but members of the party forbade them to do so. But afterwards the activities became more
intense. In 1879, an undertrial prisoner was beaten up because
he had not got up to wish a police officer and other prisoners
were also beaten for supporting him; all of them were severely
beaten under the orders of General Trepov. As a result of this, a
brave girl named Vera Zasulich shot at General Trepov. He survived the attack but the girl was tried in court and acquitted. The
police tried to arrest her again, but her party colleagues snatched
her away from their hands. When the revolutionaries saw that
nobody came to their support and there was no law for their protection, they started having their own security. The police would
cordon off the houses of the people early in the morning and
would even search women by making them strip. People were
very unhappy and there were murmurs that such a thing would
not happen in other countries. That such excesses should stop.
Odessa and (Ivan) Kovalsky were the first to initiate the struggle.
They started fights with the police, whose cruelty increased even
more, and then a fight of vengeance emerged. The use of force
for safety started being considered valid then. First, five agents
and three officers were killed. And in retaliation 17 youths were
hanged. When this was avenged, there were more hangings, and
thus it continued.
Chapter 20 • Russian Nihilist Revolutionaries
Till 1879 the meaning of Nihilism again was taken to be throwing
bombs and firing pistols. On 14 April 1879, Soloviev shot at the
Czar but he was saved. The same year the Czar’s winter palace was
blown up with dynamite but he was saved again. Next year when
he was going to Moscow from Petersburg, his train was blown up
and several coaches were destroyed in the explosion, but the Czar
still remained safe. On 13 March 1881, the Czar was returning
from the inspection parade of his special regiment and horses,
and a bomb was thrown at him. The car blew up but the Czar
was still safe. The Czar knelt down to look at his dead servant
and exclaimed, ‘Thank God I am saved’. Immediately afterwards
a young man named Grintzky came forth and hurled a bomb at
the Czar saying, ‘Czar, it is too early to thank God’. The bomb
exploded and the Czar was killed. Thousands of people were
131
arrested. Many were hanged. Five persons were hanged publicly.
A great personality among them was a woman named Sophia
Perovskaya. The party was thus suppressed. Then more parties
arose but the history of the Nihilist party ended here.
People were wrong about the Nihilists and condemned them as
Anarchists. An English daily published a cartoon in which two
Nihilists were shown handling bombs and dynamites in the debris
of destroyed things. One of them asks, ‘Well, brother! Was there
anything left intact?’ The other says, ‘The globe is still there.’ The
first says, ‘Take this dynamite and blow it up also.’ This was a very
distorted description. Oscar Wilde had written a play on Vera the
Nihilist. He tried his best to project the Nihilists in a good light
but there were many errors in the play. Another book called Career
of a Nihilist was also published about them. This book is worth
reading and gives the true account of Nihilists. In Hindi too there
are two books, The Bolshevik Activities and Secrets of Nihilists. The
first was written by Kakori martyr Sri Ram Prasad Bismil, in which
he illustrates a very painful picture of the Nihilists. They are
described as people who only like destruction, which is wrong.
The Nihilists were people engaged in public service and lovers of
the masses with an urge for sacrifice. They were great.
Unjust System
Inquilab
People who actually construct palaces they live in thatched huts.
People who create comfortable and beautiful things they sleep
on dirty and worn out sheets. Why should this continue forever?
If the same thing happened in the past, then why should it not
change in the future? If we think that the condition of us Indians
should be better than now then really there should be a change.
We should transform it.
132
Part
V
Insightful
Excerpts
from His Jail
Notebook
The Jail Notebook of Bhagat Singh is one of the most important
sources to understand his intellectual and literary preferences. It
is also the culmination of his development as a mature political
and social thinker at an age when most young men cannot even
think coherently. This precious document, with its maturity and
political sagacity, goes to endorse Bhagat Singh’s statement that
‘Revolution is not a culture of bomb and pistol. Our meaning of
revolution is to change the present conditions, which are based on
manifest injustice’.
Inquilab
Bhagat Singh was in prison for two years from 8 April 1929 to
23 March 1931. This Jail Notebook unravels before us the wide range
of literature he read and also helps us to comprehend the roots of
his philosophical development. Like other prison notebooks this is not
autobiographical at all but only gives a record of his reading habits
and the literature he read before his execution. The Jail Notebook
of Bhagat Singh also establishes the fact that he accepted Marxism
as his political ideology after a serious engagement with diverse
philosophies, thinkers as well as poets. Some of the prominent
ones he read are Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Bertrand Russell,
Thomas Paine, Upton Sinclair, V I Lenin, William Wordsworth, Alfred
Tennyson, Rabindra Nath Tagore, Bukharin, Leon Trotsky, among
others.
134
We in India did not have much clue to the Jail Notebook till a few
decades ago. It was first referred to by an Indian historian G Deol
in an article he wrote for a magazine called People’s Path in 1968.
He talked about a diary of two hundred pages, which was based
on the notes Bhagat Singh took while reading material on capita­
lism, socialism, Marxism, religion, philosophy and the revolutionary
struggles all over the world. Deol found this diary with Kulbir Singh,
Bhagat Singh’s brother, which was also consulted by the Russian
scholar Mitrokhin in 1977 in Faridabad. It was after this consultation
that he wrote his 1981 article published in his book Lenin and India.
Maybe it was Mitrokhin who took a copy of the notebook to Russia.
It is strange that the diary was not shared with the people of India
for so long.
My first encounter with the Jail notebook took place in 1978–79,
when I got its typed copy through someone who had been in
Moscow, which I used in my earlier work on Bhagat Singh. This
happened, maybe a little before National Archives and the Nehru
Memorial Museum and Library formally acquired copies in their
collection. Merely sifting through the notebook gave me goose
bumps as a young researcher; for the next 2–3 years I tried to
comprehend the man who managed to procure and read this huge
corpus of diverse material—both prose and poetry—and also make
serious comments on the margins.
However, Bhupinder Hooja serialised it first in 1993 with a title A
Martyr’s Notebook in his journal Indian Book Chronicle, brought
out from Jaipur. This was the first attempt to make the notebook
available to readers. It was later edited and annotated by Hooja in
1994 and further improved and updated by Sudhanva Deshpande
of LeftWord Books in 2007. Most of the notebook is written in
English, interspersed with some Urdu couplets. It also has signatures
of Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt.
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
This notebook should be read along with other jail writings of Bhagat
Singh, most of which are included here in this collection, particularly
his iconic essay ‘Why I Am an Atheist’, his introduction to The
Dreamland and his last letter to the ‘Young Political Workers’. Both
the texts look politically more mature than the previous writings and
thus the impact of his wide reading, as reflected in the notebook, is
clearly discernible.
135
Bough,
Here with a loaf of Bread beneath the
e—
vers
of
A Flask of Wine, a Book
lderness—
and Thou Beside me singing in the Wi
And Wilderness is Paradise now!
State
The State presupposes a public power
body of its members.
Umar Khayyam
te
of coercion separated from the aggrega
(Engels) p. 116
Origin of State
tribes—a regular mode of existing by
... Degeneration of the old feuds between
es
for the purpose of acquiring cattle, slav
systematic plundering on land and sea
,
sure
trea
est
ised and respected as the high
and treasures. .. In short, wealth is pra
bery
sed in order to justify the forcible rob
and the old gentile institutions are abu
: an institution that not only secured the
of wealth. Only one thing was missing
viduals against the communistic tradition
newly acquired property of private indi
ed the formerly so despised private
of the gens, that not only declared as sacr
of this sacred property as the highest
property and represented the protection
stamped the gradually developing new
purpose of human society, but that also
l
tly increasing wealth with the universa
forms of acquiring property of constan
sanction of the society. An institution
PAGE 12
sion
only to the newly rising divi into
that lent the character of perpetuity not
essing classes to exploit and rule the non
classes, but also to the right of the poss
possessing classes.
te arose.
And this institution was found. The Sta
pp. 129–130
vernment
Definition of a Good Go
self-government."
stitute for
Inquilab
"Good government can never be a sub
The Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (1836–1908), British liberal
statesman who served as Prime Minister between 1905 and 1908.
1
136
an1
Henry Campbell Bannerm
form of Government, whatever it may
"We are convinced that there is only one
rol is in the hands of the people".
2
be called, namely, where the ultimate cont
"Earl of Balfour"
Religion
retius. I regard it as a disease born of
"My own view of religion is that of Luc
y
the human race. I cannot, however, den
fear, and as source of untold misery to
fix
civilisation. It helped in-early days to
that it has made some contributions to
care
such
with
ses
eclip
n priest to chronicle
the calendar and it caused the Egyptia
them. These two services, I am prepared
ict
that in time they became able to pred
other.”
3
to acknowledge, but I do not know of any
trand Russell
Ber
PAGE 13
Benevolent De4spotism
tish Government a “benevolent despoMontague-Chelsmford called the Bri
ald,5 the Imperialist leader of the
tism” and according to Ramsay Macdon
s to govern a country by a ‘benevolent
British Labour Party, “in all attempt
n. They become subjects who obey, not
despotism’, the governed are crushed dow
art, their spiritual expression go.”
citizens who act. Their literature, their
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
Probably Arthur James, 1st Earl of Balfour (1848–1930) British Stateman &
Prime Minister (1902–1905).
3
Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russel (1872–1972), well-known
British philosopher and pacifist spokesman. Awarded Nobel Prize for Literature
(1950).
4
The Montague-Chelmsford Report (1918) for constitutional reforms in India led
to dyarchy under the Government of India Act, 1919. Edwin Samuel Montague
(1879–1924) was the Secretary of State in the India Office (1917–22), while Lord
Chelmsford—Frederick John (Napier Thesiger, 3rd Lord and 1st Viscount (1868–
1933)—was the Viceroy of India (1916–20) during a hectic period of political
strife.
5
James Ramsay Macdonald (1866–1937), British politician and labour leader who
helped form the British Labour Party (1900) and led its Parliamentary wing in
the House of Commons (1911–14, and again from 1923 and in 1929). Was Prime
Minister twice (from January to November 1924, and from 1929–35). Author of
several books on socialism and allied themes, which came out between 1905
and 1921.
2
137
Govt. of India
retary of State for India, said in the
Rt. Hon’ble Edwin S. Montague, Sec
,
ernment of India is too wooden, too iron
House of Commons in 1917: "The Gov
ian
Ind
The
s.
any use for modern purpose
two metallic, too antediluvian, to be of
Government is indefensible."
British Rule in India
6
as it is carried on in India is the lowest
Dr. Ruthford’s words: “British Rule
one
ent in the world—the exploitation of
and most immoral system of governm
nation by another.”
Liberty & English People
selves. They hate all acts of injustice,
“The English people love liberty for them
ple
mit. They are such liberty-loving peo
except those which they themselves com
they
t
‘Shame’ to the Belgians. Bu
that they interfere in the Congo and cry,
ia.”
forget their heels are on the neck of Ind
h Author
An Iris
Mob Retaliation
... Let us therefore, examine how men
manner.
PAGE 14
came by the idea of punishing in this
live under, and retaliate the punishThey learn it from the Governments they
ch
old. The heads stuck upon spikes, whi
ment they have been accustomed to beh
e
scen
the
, differed nothing in the horror of
remained for years upon Temple Bar
lish
at Paris; yet this was done by the Eng
from those carried about upon spikes
t is
wha
man
a
to
ing
that it signifies noth
Government. It may perhaps be said
ures
tort
er
eith
it
ifies much to the living;
done to him after he is dead; but it sign
to
and in either case, it instructs them how
their feelings or hardens their hearts,
ds.
punish when power falls into their han
Inquilab
h Governments humanity. It is their
Lay then the axe to the root, and teac
mankind ... The effect of these cruel
sanguinary punishments which corrupt
destroy tenderness or excite revenge, and
spectacles exhibited to the populace is to
6
138
Identity not clear.
by the base and false idea of governing
become precedents.
men by terror instead of reason, they
ine)7
(Rights of Man, p. 32, T. Pa
PAGE 15
Monarch and Monarchy
inst despotic principles of government,
It was not against Louis XVI but aga
es had not their origin in him, but in the
that the Nation revolted. The principl
back, and they were become too deeply
original establishment, many centuries
stable of parasites and plunderers too
rooted to be removed, and the Augean
thing short of a complete revolution.
abominably filthy to be cleaned by any
g, the whole heart and soul should go
When it becomes necessary to do a thin
Monarch and the Monarchy were
into the measure, or not attempt it... . The
against the person or principales of the
distinct and separate things; and it was
the Revolution has been carried.
former, that the revolt commenced and
(p. 19)8
Natural and Civil Rights
PAGE 16
Thomas Paine, English author and publicist (1737–1809) known for his significant contributions to the American War of Independence and the French
Revolution.
8
From Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man. Source not indicated in Notebook,
however.
9
Ibid.
7
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
worse than he was before, but to have
Man did not enter into society to become
ts are the foundation of all his civil rights.
those rights better secured. His natural righ
ertain to man in right of his existence
Natural rights are those which app
(intellectual—mental etc.)
man in right of his being a member of
Civil rights are those that appertain to
society.
(p. 44)9
139
King’s Salary
a year, paid out of the public taxes of
It is inhuman to talk of a million sterling
to
vidual, whilst thousands who are forced
any country, for the support of an indi
does
t
Gov
ery.
mis
t and struggling with
contribute thereto, are pining with wan
and palaces,10 between poverty and
not consist in a contract between prisons
y of his mite and increase the worthlesspomp; it is not instituted to rob the need
ness of the wretched.
p. 204
h"
"Give me Liberty or Deat
Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace—
It is in vain, Sir, to extenuate the matter.
begun. The next gale that sweeps from
but there is no peace. The war is actually
unding arms. Our brethren are already
the North ... to our ears the clash of reso
at is it that gentlemen wish? What
in the field. Why stand we here idle? Wh
ce so sweet as to be purchased at the
would they have? Is life so a dear or pea
almighty God! I know not what course
price of chains and slavery? Forbid it,
erty or death".
11
others may take. As for me, give me "lib
Patrick Henry
Right of Labour
labour does not need revelation from
"Whoever produces anything by weary
t to the thing produced."
12
heaven to teach him that he has a righ
Robert G. Ingersoll
PAGE 17
ld have their heads cut off, but we have
"We consider it horrible that people shou
long death which is inflicted upon a
not been taught to see the horror of lifenny."
whole population by poverty and tyra
Twain13
Mark
Underlined in the original.
Patrick Henry (1736–90), American politician, orator and legislator.
12
U.S. lawyer, public speaker and author (1832–99).
13
Pen-name of Samuel Langhorne Clemens (1835–1910), American novelist
and radical humorist. Source of this quote unclear.
Inquilab
10
140
11
Anarchists
insurrection are also represented; and if
".. .The Anarchists and the apostles of
mere unchaining of furies, I would say,
some of the things seem to the reader the
ist, let him not blame even the writer—
let him not blame the faithful antholog
d in the existence of conditions which
let him blame himself, who has acquiesce
of madness and despair."
have driven his fellowmen to extremes
14
Preface 19
Upton Sinclair,
Cry for Justice
The Old Labourer
ent) was struggling against age, against
"... He (the old labourer out of employm
sed
re weight of society, law and order pres
nature, against circumstances; the enti
ect and liberty .... He knocked at the
upon him to force him to lose his self-resp
only—not in law and order, but in
doors of the farms and found good in man
15
individual man alone."
d Jefferies (80)
Richar
PAGE 18
Poor Labourers
From Children of the Dead
End by Patrick Macgill
Upton Sinclair (1878–1968), U.S. journalist, novelist and radical, author of
over 90 books. The following several quotes appear to be from this work.
15
English naturalist and novelist (1848–87).
16
Patrick Macgill (1889–1963), Irish journalist, poet, novelist.
14
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
were outcasts of the world. A blind
"... And we, the men who braved this task
shaped the fabric of our existence. We
fate, a vast merciless mechanism, cut and
useful, rejected when we were not needed,
were men despised when we were most
upon us heavily. We were the men sent
and forgotten when our troubles weighed
it of all its primeval horrors and batter
out to fight the spirit of the wastes, rob
n
nces. Where we were working, a new tow
down the barriers of its world-old defe
us
of
springing up, and then, if one
would spring up some day; it was already
a
ress,’ he would be taken up and tried as
walked there, ‘a man with no fixed add
16
loiterer and vagrant."
C. J., 48
141
Morality
ns
to him who fishes in gutters for the mea
"Morality and religion are but words
the
from
ter
shel
for
et
barrels in the stre
of sustaining life, and crouches behind
17
cutting blasts of a winter night."
race Greeley, 128
Ho
Hunger
er
should suffer from cold and hunger und
"It is desirable for a ruler that no man
y
inar
ord
no
has
he
dard of morals when
his rule. Man cannot maintain his stan
means of living."
century, p. 135.
nk of Japan, 14th
Konko Hoshi, Buddhist Mo
Freedom
Men!—Whose boast it is that ye
Come of fathers, brave and free,
If there breathe on earth a slave,
Are ye truly free and brave?
If you do not feel the chain
When it works a brother’s pain,
Are ye not base slaves indeed,
Slaves unworthy to be freed?
Is true Freedom but to break
Fetters for our own dear sake,
And, with leathern hearts, forget
That we owe mankind a debt?
No! True Freedom is to share
All the chains our brothers wear,
And, with heart and hand, to be
Earnest to make others free!
Inquilab
They are slaves who fear to speak
For the fallen and the weak;
17
142
American journalist and statesman (1811–72).
PAGE 19
They are slaves who will not choose
Hatred, scoffing and abuse,
Rather than in silence shrink
From the truth they needs must think;
They are slaves who dare not be
In the right with two or three.
18
189
James Russell Lowell, p.
PAGE 20
Full many a gem of purest ray serene
r;
The dark unfathomed caves ocean bea
en,
unse
h
blus
to
n
bor
is
Full many a flower
19
air.
rt
dese
the
And waste its sweetness on
Invention
hanical inventions
Hitherto it is questionable if all the mec
ened the day’s toil of any human being.
yet made have lightJ. S. Mill,
20
199
Alms
g and repulsive than he who gives alms.
"There is no one on earth more disgustin
he who accepts them."
21
Even as there is no one so miserable as
xim Gorky, p. 204
Ma
Those corpses of youngmen,
ets—
Those martyrs that hang from the gibb
James Russell Lowell (1819–91), American poet essayist and editor of Atlantic
Monthly. Wrote several memorial odes after the Civil War; was also American
minister in Spain (1877–80) and England (1880–85).
19
From “Elegy written in a Country Churchyard” by English poet Thomas
Gray (1716–71).
20
J.S. Mill (1808–73), essayist and philosopher, founder of the Utilitarian
Society and author of several books on philosophy, political economy and
reform.
21
Maxim Gorky (1888–1936), Russian writer; author of several books, including Mother, pen-name of Alexey Maximovich Penshkov.
18
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
Liberty
143
Those hearts pierced by the grey lead,
elsewhere
Cold and motionless as they seem, live
With unslaughtered vitality.
They live in other youngmen, O kings!
y to defy you!
They live in other brothers again read
They were purified by death —
they were taught and exalted!
PAGE 21
,
Not a grave for the murder’d for freedom
to bear seed.
but grows seed for freedom, in its turn
and the
Which the winds carry afar and re-sow,
.
rains and the snows nourish
s of tyrant let loose
Not a disembodied spirit can the weapon
spering, counselling, cautioning.
22
But it stalks invincibly over the earth, whi
8, Walt Whitman
p. 26
Free Thought
"If there is anything that cannot bear
free thought, let it crack."
Windell Phillips,
23
271
State
le
in that revolution. Undermine the who
"Away with the State! I’will take part
all
only
the
be
to
and spiritual kinship
conception of a state, declare free choice
you will have the commencement of a
and
important conditions of any union,
liberty that is worth something."
Ibsen,24 273
Henrick
Walt Whitman (1819–92) had a humble start with little education and
worked his way through to win recognition late in life. Now acknowledged as
a great and popular poet. From his masterpiece, Leaves of Grass.
23
Wendell Phillips (1811–84), American orator and reformer; also active in the
anti-slavery movement.
24
Henrik Johan Ibsen (1828–1906), Norwegian playwright acknowledged as a
founder of modern prose drama.
Inquilab
22
144
Oppression
"Surely oppression maketh a wise man
mad."
p. 27825
PAGE 22
Martyrs
an attempt, at the cost of his own life, to
The man who flings his whole life into
en, is a saint compared to the active
protest against the wrongs of his fellow-m
r
injustice, even if his protest destroys othe
and passive up-holders of cruelty and
at
e
ston
out sin in society cast the first
lives besides his own. Let him who is with
such an one.
p. 28726
Lower Class
While there is a lower class, I am in it.
of it.
While there is a criminal element, I am
.
While there is a soul in jail, I am not free
Engene B. Debs, 144
27
28
ier: 1772–1837)
ur
Fo
s
rle
ha
(C
all
st
ain
One ag
ism, in which portions of the whole
Ecclesiastes, Chapter 7, Verse 7.
From an essay by Emma Goldmann (1869–1940), Lithuanian-born American
anarchist.
27
Eugene Victor Debs (1855–1926), American socialist leader. On 16 June
1918, Debs made an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio, protesting World War
I, and was arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917. He was convicted, sentenced to serve ten years in prison and disenfranchised for life. Debs made this
memorable statement at his sentencing hearing.
28
Francois Marie Charles Fourier (1772–1837), French socialist writer. Quote
probably from The Cry for Justice.
25
26
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
mechan
The present social order is a ridiculous
le. We see each class in society desire,
who
the
inst
aga
ng
are in conflict and acti
r classes, placing in every way individfrom interest, the misfortune of the othe
The lawyer wishes litigation and suits,
ual interest in opposition to public good.
n desires sickness. (The latter would be
particularly among the rich; the physicia
as would the former if all quarrels were
ruined if everybody died without disease,
145
ts a war, which will carry off half of his
settled by arbitration.) The soldier wan
undertaker wants burials; monopolist
comrades and secure him promotion; the
,
or treble the price of grain; the architect
and forestallers want famine, to double
dred
hun
a
n
dow
n
ation, that will bur
the carpenter, the mason want conflagr
of business.
es
houses to give activity to their branch
p. 202
PAGE 23
New Gospel
dling; it never forgives the
or swin
"Society can overlook murder, adultery
preaching of a new gospel."
p. 327, Frederic Harrison
29
Tree of Liberty
time to time with the blood of patriots
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
30
and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
mas Jefferson, 332
Tho
Chicago Martyrs
t,
sly, if his error had been ten times as grea
Say, then, that the man erred grievou
...
an recollection by his sacrifice
it ought to have been wiped from hum
manner of making a protest was utterly
Granted freely that their idea of the best
went not the best way to work. But
wrong and impossible, granted that they
against the social order as they found
what was it that drove them into attack
,
that stood with them were not bad men
it? They and thousands of other men
nor
sh,
selfi
d hearted, nor criminal, nor
nor depraved, nor blood thirsty, nor har
.
complaint so bitter and deep seated . .
crazy. Then what was it that evoked a
that men do not band themselves
No one ever contemplated the simple fact
belief that they have something to protest
together to make a protest without the
Frederic Harrison (1831–1923), Professor of jurisprudence and international
law to the Inns of Court (1877–89). Author of many books on historical, political and literary subjects.
30
Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), a great liberal and the third President of the
United States of America. From a letter to W.S. Smith, 13 November 1787.
Inquilab
29
146
about, and that, in any organised state
thing for grave inquiry.
of society, a widespread protest is some33331
Charles Edward Russell,
PAGE 24
Will of Revolutionary
not at all about me, because idols are
"I also wish my friends to speak little or
is very bad for the future of the human
created when men are praised, and this
committed, ought to be studied, praised
race. . . Acts alone, no matter by whom
see
er that they may be initiated when they
or blamed. Let them be praised in ord
be censured when they are regarded
to contribute to the common weal; let them
that they may not be repeated.
as injurious to the general well-being, so
r or remote, nor for any reason
I desire that on no occasion, whether nea
e
political or religious character be mad
whatsoever, shall demonstrations of a
e devoted to the dead would be better
before my remains, as I consider the tim
t
of the living, most of whom stand in grea
employed in improving the conditions
32
need of this."
nscisco Ferrer
Charity
young man... To stay in his own set
"Come follow me", said Jesus to the rich
, would have been comparatively
and invest his fortune in work of charity
in every age. Charity takes the
easy. Philanthropy has been fashionable
re, the philanthropic rich man is a
­insurrectionary edge off poverty. Therefo
is made to feel their gratitude, to him all
benefactor to his fellow magnates, and
imacy of alms-giving as a plaster for
doors of fashion swing. He denied the legit
From Upton Sinclair, The Cry for Justice.
Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia (1859–1909), Catalan free thinker, anarchist and
educationist. He was arrested, charged and executed without any proof in a
trial which was widely condemned as judicial murder.
31
32
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
Will of Fra
909
Spanish educator 1859–1
lona riots
Executed after the Barce
enemies.
l
rica
cle
by a plot of his
147
e or justice—he
lanthropy as a substitut
the deep-lying sore in social tissue.... Phi
would have none of it. . .
PAGE 25
that gives and softens him that takes.
Charity is twice cursed—it hardens him
oitation, because it makes them willing
It does more harm to the poor than expl
s
ch is moral suicide. The only thing Jesu
to be exploited. It breeds slavishness whi
would permit a swollen fortune to
s
paganda, in order that swollen fortune
do was to give itself to revolutionary pro
33
might be forever after impossible . . .
.A., p. 353
Bouck White, Clergyman,
born 1874. U.S
Fight for Freedom
Inquilab
The power of armies is a visible thing
space;
Formal, and circumscribed in time and
trace
But who the limits of that power shall
g
brin
can
t
ligh
Which a brave people into
ng.
bati
Or hide, at will,—for freedom com
chase,
By just revenge inflamed? No foot may
No eye can follow, to a fatal place
wing
That power that spirit whether on the
wind
the
like
ing
Like the strong wind, or sleep
r
yea
to
r
Within its awful caves—from yea
r;
nea
Spring this indigenous produce far and
No craft this subtle element can bind,
Rising like water from the soil, to find
In every nook a lip that it may cheer.
148
W. Wordsworth
PAGE 26
34
Bouck White (1874–1951), American socialist and author. Quoted by Upton
Sinclair, The Cry of Justice.
34
William Wordsworth (1750–1850), popular English poet among the early
Romantics and also a poet of nature; radical and pro-republican in his youth.
33
The Charge of the Light
Brigade
Half a league half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
‘Forward the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!’ He said;
Into the valley of Death,
Rode the six hundred.
‘Forward the Light Brigade!’
Was there a man dismayed?
Not, though the soldiers knew
Some one had blundered;
Cannon to the right of them,
Cannon to the left of them,
Cannon in front of them,
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell,
Rode the six hundred.
Flashed all their sabres bare,
Flashed as they turned in air
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
Their’s not to make reply,
Their’s not to reason why.
Their’s but to do and die;
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
149
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wondered:
PAGE 27
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right through the line they broke,
Cossacks and Russians
Reeled from the sabre stroke
Shattered and sundered.
Cannon to the right of them.
Cannon to the left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell
They that had fought so well
Came through the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honour, the charge made!
Honour, the Light Brigade!
Noble six hundred.
Lord Tennyson
35
Inquilab
Dilde tu is mizaaj kaa Parvardigaar de
aar de36
Jo gham ki gharhi ko bhi khushi se guz
Lord Alfred Tennyson (1809–92), English poet. Several generations of Indian
students grew up reading Tennyson, and this poem in particular.
35
Give me a (stout) heart of such temperament, O Protector That it may pass
the hour of sorrow also as a happy hour.
36
150
ke phoolon se
Sajaa kar mayyiat-e-umeed naakaami
dil mein37
Kisi hamdard ne rakh di mere toote hue
Jaanaanaan
Chherh naa ai farishte tu zikre ghameanaa38
Kyon yaad dilaate ho bhulaa huaa afsa
The bier of (my) hope, bedecked with the flowers of failure—Some
­fellow-sufferer (friend) has placed it in my broken heart!
38
Do not start O’ Angel with the sad tale of the dear beloved Why must you
remind (me) of that forgotten episode (tale)?
37
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
PAGE 28
151
Birth-right
We’re the sons of sires that baffled
Crowned and mirtes (?) tyranny;
They defied the field and scaffold
For their birth-rights—so will we!
T. Campbell
39
Glory of the Cause
Ah! not for idle hatred, not
For honour, fame, nor self applause
But for the glory of the cause,
You did, what will not be forgot.
Arthur Clogh
40
Immortality of Soul
believing in immortality, there is
For you know if you can once get a man
can take everything in the world he
nothing more left for you to desire; you
se—and he will bear it with perfect
owns—you can skin him alive if you plea
41
good humour.
clair, 403 C.J.
Upton Sin
God’s Tyrants?
of uncommon devotion to religion.
A tyrant must put on the appearance
treatment from a ruler whom they conSubjects are less apprehensive of illegal
r hand, they do less easily move against
sider god-fearing and pious. On the othe
his side.42
him, believing that he has the gods on
GE 29
PA
Thomas Campbell (1777–1844), Scottish poet. Earlier editions of the
Notebook misread the ‘T’ as ‘J’ and identified this as Joseph Campbell (1879–
1944) whose lyrics and ballads were based on Irish legends and folklore.
40
Arthur Hugh Clough (1819–61) English poet. A pupil of Thomas Arnold at
Rugby, a Fellow of Oriel. Principal of University Hall, London and an examiner in Education Office.
41
Cry for Justice.
42
From Aristotle.
Inquilab
39
152
Soldiers and Thought
‘If my soldiers were to begin to reflect,
ranks."
not one of them would remain in the
43
2
Frederick the Great, 56
The Noblest Fallen
ied
The noblest have fallen. They were bur
e.
plac
rted
dese
a
obscurely in
No tears fell over them.
ve.
Strange hands carried them to the gra
e tell
No cross, no enclosure, and no tomb ston
their glorious names.
Grass grows over them, a feeble blade
bending low keeps the secret.
The sole witness were the surging waves,
which furiously beat against the shore,
But even they the mighty waves could
home.
not carry farewell greetings to the distant
V. N. Figner
44
Prison
The Prisoner of Chillon
PAGE 30
45
Frederick of Prussia (1712–86), administrator, military genius and a man of
culture, who gave nationhood to Prussia.
44
Vera Nikolaevna Figner (1852–1942) Russian revolutionist and martyr. ‘One
of the first women to declare war on Tsarism’ (E. Yaroslavsky in her obituary
note). Her memoirs were published in 7 volumes.
45
This poem by Lord Byron published in 1816 describes the imprisonment of
a patriot Francois de Bonnivard (1496–1570) in the castle of Chillon on the
Lake of Geneva. Lines 245–258/IV of the long Poem.
43
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
There were no stars, no earth, no time,
e,
No check, no change, no good, no crim
th,
But silence, and a stirless brea
Which neither was of Life nor death.
153
After Conviction
follow upon his sentence, the mind of
During the moments which immediately
es that of a man on the point of death.
the condemned in many respects resembl
clings to what he is about to leave, but
Quiet, and as if inspired, he no longer
cious of the fact that what is coming is
firmly looks in front of him, fully cons
inevitable.
V.N. Figner
The Prisoner
;
It is suffocating under the low, dirty roof
;
My strength grows weaker year by year
r,
floo
y
ston
They oppress me; this
This iron chained table,
This bed-stead, this chair, chained
To the walls, like boards of the grave,
In this eternal, dumb, deep silence
One can only consider oneself a corpse.
Naked walls, prison thoughts,
How dark and sad you are,
How heavy to be a prisoner inactive,
And dream of years of freedom.
marne kaa shauq,
Tujhe zabaah karne ki khushi, mujhe
aad ki hai47
Meri bhi marzi wohi hai, jo mere sayy
Inquilab
46
Morozov
PAGE 31
Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854–1946), professional revolutionary,
writer, poet and scientist. Met Karl Marx in London in 1880 and was handed
the Communist Manifesto for translation into Russian. Studied and wrote about
sciences (28 volumes on Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy)
while in prison for nearly 25 years—(1875–78 and 1881 to 1905). Also wrote
poetry and fiction.
47
You delight in slaughter, I have a craving for death. I have the same wish as
has my executioner!
46
154
N.A. Morozov
,
Everything here is so silent, lifeless, pale
e;
trac
no
ing
leav
,
The years pass fruitless
The weeks and days drag on heavily,
e.
Bringing only dull boredom in their suit
Morozov
inement;
Our thoughts grow dull from long conf
es;
bon
our
in
ss
vine
There is a feeling of hea
pain,
g
urin
tort
The minutes seem eternal from
In this cell, four steps wide.
Entirely for our fellowmen we must live,
,
Our entire selves for them we must give
fate!
ill
inst
aga
And for their sakes struggle
Morozov
Came to Set me Free
The Prisoner of Chillon
PAGE 32
48
d with a mission!
And from on high we have been honoure
higher knowledge.
We passed a severe school, but acquired
Thanks to exile, prison, and a bitter lot,
and freedom!
We know and value the world of truth
g49
Prisoner of Schlusselbur
XIV, Lines 370–78.
Schlusselburg, a town on marshy ground in Leningrad area, where river Neva
issues from Lake Ladogo. On an island opposite is a fortress built by the army
of Peter the Great in 1702, after its capture. Schlusselburg was the ‘key’ to the
sea, according to Peter the Great. The fortress was later converted into a prison
48
49
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
At last men came to set me free;
I ask’d not why and reck’d not where,
It was at length the same to me,
Fetter’d or fetterless to be;
I learn’d to love despair.
And thus when they appeared at last,
And all my bonds aside were cast,
These heavy walls to me had grown
A hermitage—and all my own.
155
Death and Suffering of a
Child
ciously neither bad nor good actions.
‘A child was born. He committed cons
l he died in terrible agony. Why?
He fell ill, suffered much and long, unti
the philosopher.’
Wherefore? It is the eternal riddle for
lutionary
Frame of Mind of a Revo
life of Jesus, who has borne, in
has ever been under the influence of the
"He who
idering and death; he who has once cons
the name of an ideal, humiliation, suff
will
,—
love
sted
prototype of a disintere
ered Him as an ideal and his life as the
lutionary who has been sentenced and
understand the frame of mind of the revo
on behalf of popular freedom."
thrown into a living tomb for his work
a N. Figner
Ver
Rights
t
don’t let any one give them to you. A righ
Don’t ask for rights. Take them. And
than
e
ething the matter with it. It’s mor
that is handed to you for nothing has som 50
likely, it is only a wrong turned inside out.
PAGE 33
No Enemies?
Inquilab
You have no enemies, you say?
Alas! my friend, the boast is poor;
He who has mingled in the fray
Of Duty, that the brave endure,
e,
Must have made foes! If you have non
Small is the work that you have done.
You’ve hit no traitor on the hip,
You’ve dashed no cup from perjured lip,
You’ve never turned wrong to right,
You’ve been a coward in the fight.
156
Charles Mackay, 747
51
whose inmates included Marshal Dolgoruki, Tsar Ivan VI, many Decembrists
(revolutionaries), the anarchist Bakunin, Polish patriot Lukasovislag, and
Lenin’s brother, who was hanged there.
50
Source not given. Torn sheet.
51
Charles Mackay (1814–89), British poet and journalist. Edited Cavalier Songs
and Ballads of England from 1642 to 1684.
Child Labour
No fledgling feeds the father bird,
No chicken feeds the hen;
No kitten mouses for the cat —
This glory is for men
We are the wisest, strongest Race—
Loud may our praise be sung!
The only animal alive
That lives upon its young!
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
PAGE 34
52
se!!
No Classes! No Compromi a time, and the time may be
ing
com
is
e
the Socialist movement ther
PAGE 35
Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860–1935), American novelist, writer, lecturer and
social reformer. Source illegible; bottom part of page is torn.
53
In all likelihood, this is George D. Herron (1862–1925), who was at one time
a Christian Socialist minister, a founder of the Rand School of Social Science,
and member of the Socialist Party (USA).
52
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
Under
itions or adjusted wages will no longer
even now at hand, when improved cond
labour; yes when these will be but an
be thought to be an answer to the cry of
not for better wages, improved capitalinsult to the common intelligence. It is
fits that the Socialist movement is in
ist conditions or a share of capitalist pro
wages and profits, and for the end of
the world; it is here for the abolition of
ormed political institutions, boards of
capitalism and the private capitalist. Ref
philanthropies and privileges that are
arbitration between capital and labour,
e can much longer answer the question
but the capitalists’ gifts—none of thes
Parliaments of the nation tremble.
that is making the temples, thrones and
who is down and the man who builds on
There can be no peace between the man
end
n between classes; there can only be an
his back. There can be no reconciliatio
of
talk
to
l there is first justice, and idle
of classes. It is idle to talk of goodwill unti
The
ld possess the work of his own hands.
justice until the man who makes the wor
t
ered with nothing save the whole produc
cry of the world’s workers can be answ
53
of their work.
George D. Herron
157
Wastes of Capitalism
54
Theodore Hertzka (1886) Every
Economic estimate about Australia by
last for 50 years. Workers’ workable
family = 5-roomed 40 ft. sq. House to
age: 16–50. So we have 5,000,000.
le
t to produce food for 22,000,000 peop
Labour of 615,000 workers is sufficien
= 12.3% of labour.
’
ries need only 315,000 = 6.33% workers
Including labour cost of transport, luxu
labour.
ng
available labour is enough for supporti
That amounts to this-that 20% of the
itali
is exploited and wasted due to cap st
the whole of the continent. The rest 80%
order of society.
PAGE 36
lshievist Regime
Czarist Regime and the Bo ths of their rule, the Bolsheviks
Hunt tells that in the first fourteen mon
Frazier
and speculation.
executed 4,500 men, mostly for stealing
55
minister of Czar, caused the execution of
After the 1905 Revolution, Stolypin,
56
32,773 men within twelve months.
p. 390, Brass Check
PAGE 37
l Institutions
Permanency of the Socia
ion that the social institutions in which
“It is one of the illusions of each generat
ural’, unchangeable and permanent. Yet
it lives are, in some peculiar sense, ‘nat
institutions have been successively arising,
for countless thousands of years, social
dually superseded by others better
developing, decaying and becoming gra
question, then, is not whether our present
adapted to contemporary needs... The
it will be transformed?
civilisation will be transformed, but how
Theodor Hertzka (1845–1924), Hungarian-Austrian economist and journalist, author of Freeland: A Social Anticipation.
55
Pyotr Arkodyevich Stolypin (1862–1911) was Chairman of the Council of
Ministers and Minister for the Interior from 1906 to 1911 under the Czar.
56
Source uncertain.
Inquilab
54
158
made to pass gradually and peacefully
It may, by considerate adaptation, be
tance instead of adaptation, it may
into a new form. Or, if there is angry resis
d up a new civilisation from the lower
crash, leaving mankind painfully to buil
, in which not only the abuses but also
level of a stage of social chaos and disorder
s of the previous order will have been
the material, intellectual and moral gain
57
lost.”
of Cap. Civilisation
P.I. Decay
PAGE 38
cialism
58
Capitalism and Commer
anese students:
y of Jap
Rabindra Nath’s address to an assembl
Source uncertain.
Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941) poet, philosopher and educationist;
founded Shantiniketan (1901) as a forerunner of Vishwa-Bharati. Awarded
Nobel Prize for Literature (1913). Visited Japan and the United States in
1916–17.
57
58
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
how scrupulously honest and true
You had your own industry in Japan;
their grace and strength, their
it was, you can see by its products - by
can hardly be observed. But the
conscientiousness in details where they
your land from that part of the
tidal wave of falsehood has swept over
esty is followed merely as the
world where business is business and hon
when you see the trade advertisebest policy. Have you never felt shame
n with lies and exaggerations,
ments, not only plastering the whole tow
peasants do their honest labour,
but invading the green fields, where the
e light of the morning? ... This
and to hilltops which greet the first pur
decorations is a terrible menace
commercialism with its barbarity of ugly
the ideal of power over the perfecto all humanity, because it is setting up
exult in its naked shamelessness.
tion. It is making the cult of self-seeking
ordantly loud. It is carrying its
Its movements are violent, its noise is disc
into distortion . . . the humanity
own damnation because it is trampling
turning out money at the cost of
upon which it stands. It is strenuously
present civilisation of Europe is to
happiness . . . The vital ambition of the
l.
have the exclusive possession of the devi
159
Capitalist Society
is that everyone desires to obtain indi"The foremost truth of political economy
ible."
59
vidual wealth with as little sacrifice as poss
Nassau Senior
PAGE 40
Karl Marx on Religion
make man. Religion, indeed, is the
Man makes religion; religion does not
man who either has not yet found him
self-consciousness and the self-feeling of
an
not
is
himself once more. But man
self, or else (have found himself) has lost
ere outside the world. Man is the world
abstract being squatting down somewh
society, produces religion, produces a
of men, the state, society. This State, this
the
they are a perverted world. Religion is
perverted world consciousness, because
ular
pop
a
in
c
logi
clopaedic compend, its
generalised theory of this world, its ency
efore, a direct campaign against the
form ... The fight against religion is, ther
world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
PAGE 41
(Continued from last page)
, the feelings of a heartless world, just as
Religion is the sight of oppressed creature
It is the opium of the people.
it is the spirit of unspiritual conditions.
l it has been deprived of illusory happiThe people can not be really happy unti
and that the people should shake itself
ness by the abolition of religion. The dem
the demand that it should abandon a
free of illusion as to its own condition is
condition which needs illusion.
e
the criticism of weapons. Physical forc
The weapon of criticism cannot replace
e
forc
l
sica
phy
a
mes
but theory, too, beco
must be overthrown by physical force;
ses.
as soon as it takes possession of the mas
PAGE 42
A Revolution not Utopian of mankind, is not a utopion
n
ical revolution, the general emancipatio
Inquilab
A rad
is the idea of a partial, an exclusively
dream for Germany; what is Utopian
the pillars of the house standing.
political, revolution, which would leave
59
160
Nassau William Senior (1790–1864), English economist.
"Great are great because
We are on knees
60
Let us Rise!"
PAGE 43
61
e
Herbert Spencer on Stat equity and conceived in sin, it is
er it be true or not that man was born in
"Wheth
of aggression and by aggression."
certainly true that Government was born
Man and Mankind
"I am a man,
"
and all that affects mankind concerns me.
Roman Dramatist
62
wed
England’s Condition Revie , so long as goods be not in
Friar of Wat
PAGE 44
At several places in the Notebook such as this, Bhagat Singh writes quotations or captions in the margins or diagonally across the page. All such
instances are not noted here. In many cases it has not been possible to ascertain the source of the quote.
61
Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), English philosopher who applied evolutionary theory to philosophy. Works include The Principles of Psychology (1855)
and First Principles (1862).
62
Other details not given.
63
A few words are not clear. Source torn out except the words: Friar of Wat
Taylor’s Rebel.
60
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
in England
"Good people, things will never go well
and gentlemen. By what right are
common, and so long as there be villains
we? On what grounds have they
they, whom we call lords, greater folk then
age? If we all come of the same father
deserved it? Why do they hold us in serf
they say or prove that they are greater
and mother, Adam and Eve, how can
they make us gain for them by our toil
or are better than we? If it be not that
clothed in velvet and are warm in their
what they spend in their pride. They are
with rags. They have wine and spices and
furs and ermines, while we are covered
and water to drink! They have leisure
their bread; and we oatcake, and straw,
it
ur, rain and wind in the fields, and yet
and fine houses; we have pain and labo
e." . . .
63
is of our toil that these man hold their stat
Taylor’s Rebel
161
Revolution and Classes
nary, and talk of Equality. All classes,
All classes striving for power are revolutio
an
tive and are convinced that equality is
when they get into power, are conserva
,
said
has
te
Com
as
the working class, for
iridescent dream. All classes but one—
the
es
titut
king, a class at all, but cons
"The working class is not properly spea
king class, the fusion of all useful people,
body of society. "But the day of the wor
has not even yet arrived."
rton64
rs"
"World History for Worke
Sir Henry Maine has said:
p. 47 by Alfred Ba
PAGE 45
65
passed to its present owners by the mis"That most of the land of England has
."
r criminals were punished by hanging
take of lawyers—mistakes that in lesse
"The law convicts the man or woman
mon,
Who steals the goose from of the Com
e
But lets the greater felon loos
se."
Who steals the Common from the goo
PAGE 46
Democracy
Inquilab
rete
political and legal equality. But in conc
Democracy is theoretically a system of
tics
poli
in
even
not
e can be no equality,
and practical operation it is false, for ther
ing inequality in economic power. So
glar
and before the law, so long as there is
’ jobs and the press and the schools of
long as the ruling class owns the workers
so
lding and expression of public opinion;
the country and all organs for the mou
d
lic functionaries and disposes of unlimite
long as it monopolise(s) all trained pub
and
s
clas
ng
ruli
the
laws are made by
funds to influence elections, so long as the
162
Other details not available.
Perhaps Sir Henry James Sumner Maine (1822–88) English historian and
comparative jurist. Also legal member of Council in India from 1863 to 1869
and Vice-Chancellor, Calcutta University.
64
65
of the class; so long as lawyers are private
the courts are presided over by members
est bidder, and litigation is technical
practitioners who sell their skill to the high
.
lity before the law be a hollow mockery
and costly, so long will the nominal equa
keep
to
ry of democracy operates
In a capitalist regime, the whole machine
ugh the suffering of the working class
the ruling class minority in power thro
feels itself endangered by democratic
majority, and when the bourgeois govt.
hed without compunction.
institutions, such institutions are often crus
in
p. 58, From Marx to Len
66
(by Morris Hillquit )
ts and a share in all politica67l rights for
Democracy does not secure "equal righ
may belong". (Kautsky ) It only
everybody, to whatever class or party he
existing economic inequalities. ...
allows free political and legal play for the
ific
general, abstract democracy but spec68
Democracy under capitalism is thus not
is.
rgeo
s it—democracy for the bou
bourgeois democracy, ... or as Lenin term
PAGE 47
ed
Term "Revolution" defin
Morris Hillquit (1869–1933), socialist lawyer from New York.
Karl Johann Kautsky (1854–1938), German politician who influenced
the adoption of Marxist principles in Erfurt Programme (1891) for Social
Democrats. Opposed Lenin and Bolsheviks in the Second International.
68
Source and reference torn.
69
Bhagat Singh had first attributed this quote to Eduard Bernstein, but then
crossed it out and written Kautsky’s name. It is unclear where this quote is from.
66
67
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
the
be treated in the police interpretation of
"The conception of revolution is not to
se
choo
ld
party would be mad that wou
term, in the sense of an armed rising. A
so long as it has at its disposal different,
the method of insurrection on principle
r
In that sense, social democracy was neve
less costly, and safer methods of action.
n
whe
that
es
gnis
reco
in the sense that it
revolutionary on principle. It is so only
loy it for any purpose other than the
it attains political power, it can not emp
n which the present system rests."
69
abolition of the mode of production upo
Karl Kautsky
163
out United States
Some facts and figures ab
5 men can produce bread for 1000
1 man can produce cotton cloth for 250
1 man can produce woollens for 300
1000
1 man can produce boots and shoes for
15,000,000 are living [in] abject poverty
working efficiency.
3,000,000 child labourers.
Iron Heel (p. 78)
70
who can not even maintain their
Re: England
71
Pre-war estimates
um)
Total Production of England (per ann
Gains through foreign investments
/
1/9th part of the population took away 2
t
Res
the
of
2/9th part of the population 1/3
i.e.
Novel (published in 1908) by Jack (John) Griffith London (1876–1916),
American novelist who, growing up in poverty, became a socialist essayist,
journalist and author of several books.
71
Source of the data not indicated.
Inquilab
70
164
£2000,000,000
£200,000,000
£2200,000,000
£1100,000,000
£1100,000,000
£300,000,000
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
PAGE 48
165
Internationale
72
Arise, ye prisoners of starvation!
Arise ye wretched on earth,
To justice thunders condemnation,
A better world’s in birth.
No more traditions chains shall bind us.
Arise, ye slaves! no more in thrall!
The earth shall rise on new foundations,
We have been naught, we be all.
[Refrain]
It is the final conflict,
Let each stand in his place,
The Internationale Party
Shall be the human race.
Behold them seated in their glory,
The kings of mine and rail and soil!
What would you read in all their story
But how they plundered toil?
Fruits of people’s work are buried
In the strong coffers of a few;
In voting for their restitution,
The men will ask only their due.
[Same Refrain]
PAGE 49
Inquilab
Toilers from shops and fields united,
The party we of all who work;
The earth belongs to us, the people,
No room here for the shirk,
How many on our flesh have fattened?
But if the noisome birds of prey,
Shall vanish from our sky some morning
The blessed sunlight still will stay.
[Same Refrain again]
A revolutionary song, first sung in France in 1871, and since then a popular
song of workers and communists. Adopted as a ‘national anthem’ by several
Communist countries.
72
166
Marseillaise
73
Ye sons of toil, awake to glory!
Hark, hark, what myriads bid you rise;
ry,
Your children, wives and grand sires hoa
Behold their tears and hear their cries!
,
Shall hateful tyrants mischief breeding
d—
ban
ian
ruff
With hireling hosts, a
Affright and desolate the land
While peace and liberty lie bleeding?
[Chorus]
To arms, To arms! Ye brave!
The avenging sword unsheathe
,
March on, march on, all hearts resolved
On Victory or death.
Oh liberty! Can man resign thee,
Once having felt thy generous flame?
,
Can dungeons bolts and bars confine thee
Or whips thy noble spirit tame?
Too long the world has wept bewailing,
That falsehood, daggers tyrants wield;
73
The French National Anthem, composed by Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle,
French Captain of Engineers, and a musical amateur, on 24 April 1792, in
response to a call by the Mayor of Strasbourg for a patriotic song. It was
adopted and sung with enthusiasm by troops on their march from Marseille
to Paris.
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
With luxury and pride unsounded,
The vile insatiate despots dare,
ded
Their thirst for gold and power unboun
air;
To meet and vend the light and
us,
Like beasts of burden would they load
Like gods would bid their slaves adore,
But man is man and who is more?
Then shall they longer last and goad us?
[The same Chorus again]
167
But freedom is our sword and shield,
And all their arts are unavailing?
[Same Chorus again]
PAGE 50
Growth of Opportunism
that reared opportunism within the
It was the possibility of acting within law
Internationale.
labour parties of the period of Second
vide Collapse of II Int.N.
Lenin
Illegal Work
the counter-revolutionary Social
"In a country where the bourgeosie, or
l
Party must learn to coordinate its lega
Democracy is in power, the Communist
e
ctiv
effe
the
er
k must always be und
work with illegal work, and the legal wor
74
control of the illegal party."
Bukharin
use
Betrayal of II Int.N.’s Ca
e
labour were adjusted to such peace tim
The vast organisation of socialism and
of
tion
por
e
ber of the leaders and larg
activities, and when the crisis came, a num
inev
this
es to the new situation.. . . It is
the masses were unable to adopt themselv
for the betrayal of II International.
itable development that accounts largely
Hillquit)
rris
Marx to Lenin, p. 140 (Mo
"75 (1906)
"The Cynic’s Word Book
Ambrose Pierce writes:
ch the future is preparing in answer to
"Grape shot – (n.) – An argument whi
the demands of American Socialism."
PAGE 51
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Bukharin (1888–1938), Soviet leader, a leading
Marxist theorist after Lenin. Executed during the Stalinist purges of the
Communist Party.
75
Also known as The Devil’s Dictionary, this satirical book by Ambrose Pierce
has inspired dozens of imitations. Pierce (1842–1914) was an American journalist, short-story writer and satirist.
Inquilab
74
168
Slavery
Religion a supporter of the established
order:
Presbyterian Church resolved that:
In 1835, the General Assembly of the
New Testaments, and is not condemned
"Slavery is recognised in both Old and
by the authority of God".
ed the following in 1835:
The Charleston Baptist Association issu
Capitalism Supported
Henry Van Dyke writes in "Essay in
Application" (1905):
world. He distributes to every man
"The Bible teaches that God owns the
ormably to the general laws."
according to His own Good pleasure, conf
PAGE 52
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
time of their slaves has been distinctly
"The right of masters to dispose of the
of
who is surely at liberty to vest the right
recognised by the Creator of all things,
He pleases."
property over any object whomsoever.
of
inity, a professor in Methodist College
The Revd. ED, Simon, Doctor of Div
Virginia wrote:
ly assert the right of property in slaves,
"Extracts from Holy Writ unequivocal
right. The right to buy and sell is clearly
together with the usual incidents to that
we consult the Jewish policy instituted
stated. Upon the whole, then, whether
and practice of mankind in all ages,
by God Himself, or the uniform opinion
and the moral law, we are brought to
or the injunctions of the New Testament
. Having established the point that the
the conclusion that slavery is not immoral
into bondage, the right to detain their
first African slaves were legally bought
sable consequence. Thus we see that the
children in bondage follows as an indispen
ded in right."
slavery that exists in America was foun
169
States
Statistics about United
Army was 50,000 strong
It is now 300,000 strong.
Plutocracy owns 67 billions of wealth.
pations, only 9/10% belong to
Out of the total persons engaged in occu
Plutocracy
Yet they own 70% of the total wealth.
29% belong to Middle Class They own
Out of persons engaged in occupations
25% of the total wealth = 24 billions
ons belong to the Proletariat and they
Remaining 70% of the men in occupati
only (have)
4% of the total wealth i.e. 4 billions.
76
According to Lucian Saniel, in 1900:
ons
Out of total people engaged in occupati
ats
tocr
Plu
to
= 250,251 belonged
ddle Class
Out of total people = 8,429,845 to Mi
letariat
Pro
to
Out of total people = 20,395,137
Rifles
You say you will have majority in the
(Iron Heel)
77
Parliament and State offices, but
know where you can get plenty of
"How many rifles have you got? Do you
ical mixtures are better than mechanilead? When it comes to powder, the chem
cal mixtures. You take my word."
Iron Heel p. 198
Inquilab
PAGE 53
170
76
77
Further details not known.
Novel by Jack London.
78
Power. . .
ting of the plutocrats and charged them
A socialist leader had addressed a mee
r
thrown the whole responsibility on thei
of mismanaging the society and thereby
g
erin
suff
the
ts
ron
s and misery that conf
shoulders, the responsibility for the woe
r. Wickson) rose and addressed him as
humanity. Afterwards a capitalist (M
follows:
h
words to waste on you. When you reac
"This, then, is our answer. We have no
show
will
we
,
palaces and purpled ease
out your vaunted strong hands for our
s
shrapnel and in whine of machine gun
you what strength is. In roar of shell and
our
d you revolutionists down under
will our answer be couched. We will grin
s. The world is ours. We are its lords and
heel, and we shall walk upon your face
e
labour, it has always been in the dirt sinc
ours it shall remain. As for the host of
long
so
ain
rem
l
ht. And in the dirt it shal
history began, and I read history arig
r us, have the power.
as I and mine, and those that come afte
ping majority on election day," Mr.
"What if you do get a majority, a swee
se we refuse to turn the Government over
Wickson broke in to demand. "Suppo
ballot box?"
to you after you have captured it at the
PAGE 54
78
Rest of the heading partly torn, illegible.
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
but
ds—Power. Not God, not mammon
There is the word. It is the king of wor
tingles with it. Power."
Power. Pour it over your tongue till it
leader) said quietly. "It is the only
"I am answered." Earnest (the socialist
is what we of the working class preach.
answer that could be given. Power. It
t,
experience, that no appeal for the righ
We know, and well we know by bitter
s
you. Your hearts are hard as your heel
for justice, for humanity can ever touch
er.
pow
ched
prea
the poor. So we have
with which you tread upon the faces of
y
day, will we take your government awa
By the Power of our ballots, on election
from you . . ."
171
replied. "And we shall give you an
"That also, have we considered," Earnest
e proclaimed the king of words. Very
answer in terms of lead. Power, you hav
that we sweep to victory at the ballot
good! Power, it shall be. And in the day
government we have constitutionally
box, and you refuse to turn over to us the
in
and what we are going to do about it—
and peacefully captured, and you dem
ne
whi
in roar of shell and shrapnel, in
that day, I say, we shall answer you; and
hed.
of machine guns shall our answer be couc
you have read history aright. It is true
"You can not escape us. It is true that
lly
history, been in the dirt. And it is equa
that labour has, from the beginning of
er,
those that come after you, have pow
true that so long as you and yours and
agree with you. I agree with all that you
that labour shall remain in the dirt. I
it always has been the arbiter. It is a
have said. Power will be the arbiter, as
gged down the old feudal nobility, so
struggle of classes. Just as your class dra
working class. If you will read your
shall it be dragged down by my class, the
do your history, you will see that this end
biology and your sociology as clearly as
matter whether it is in one year, ten or
I have described is inevitable. It does not
d down. And it shall be done by power.
a thousand—your class shall be dragge
word over, till our minds are all atingle
We of the labour host have conned that
79
with it. Power. It is a kingly word."
by Jack London
Iron Heel (p. 88)
PAGE 55
Figures80
England:
= 1,135,000
1922—Number of unemployment (?)
millions i.e. 1,250,000 to 1,500,000.
1926—it has oscillated to 1 ¼ and 1 ½
bour Leaders
Betrayal of the English La d class struggles of the miners,
rs 1911 to 1913 were times of unparallele
Inquilab
The yea
erally. In August 1911, a national,
railwaymen, and transport workers gen
on the railways. The vague shadow
in other words a general, strike broke out
e days. The leaders exerted all their
of revolution hovered over Britain in thos
172
This long extract of an argument from Jack London’s novel can perhaps give
some indication of Bhagat Singh’s mind and his philosophy of revolution.
80
Source not given.
79
nt. Their motive was "Patriotism"; the
strength in order to paralyse the moveme
Agadir incident, which threatened to lead
affair was occurring at the time of the
wn today, the Premier summoned the
to a war with Germany. As is well kno
ercalled them to the salvation of the fath
workers’ leaders to a secret council, and
isie,
rgeo
r power, strengthening the bou
land. And leaders did all that lay in thei
erialist slaughter.
and thus preparing the way for the imp
p. 3
y
Where is Britain. . .? Trotsk
PAGE 56
Betrayal
’,
rn within bounds, after ‘Black Friday
Only after 1920, did the movement retu
ers
lead
t
spor
waymen’s and tran
when the Triple alliance of miners’, rail
betrayed the general strike. (p. 3)
volution is
For Reform a Threat of Re
N
­ ecessary
Social Solidarity:
the annihilation of a privileged class
... It would seem that once we stand for
e, we have therein the basic content of
which has no desire to pass from the scen
81
desires to "evoke" the consciousness of
the class struggle. But no, Macdonald
arity of the working class is the expressocial solidarity. With whom? The solid
with the bourgeoisie.
sion of its internal welding in the struggle
d
preaches, is the solidarity of the exploite
The social solidarity which Macdonald
maintenance of exploitation.
with the exploiters, in other words, the
James Ramsay MacDonald (1866–1937) British statesman and Prime
Minister (1924, 1929–35).
81
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
by such means (reform) a revolution
. . .The British bourgeoisie reckoned that
,
that even for the introduction of reforms
could be avoided. It follows, therefore,
of
fficient, and that an actual threat
the principles of gradualness alone is insu
revolution is necessary. (p. 29)
173
Revolution a Calamity
ald, "taught us a great lesson. It
"The revolution in Russia", says Macdon
calamity and nothing more."
showed that revolution is a ruin and a
PAGE 57
the British democracy led to the
“Revolution leads only to calamity! But
of
ch the calamities of revolution cannot,
imperialist war, ... with the ruin of whi
in addition to this, what deaf ears and
course, be compared in the very least. But
w
the face of a revolution which overthre
shameless face are necessary in order, in
a
life
new
a
k the church, awakened to
Tzarism, nobility and bourgeoisie, shoo
a
of nations, to declare that revolution is
nation of 130 millions, a whole family
calamity and nothing more."
p. 64
Peaceful?
yield power and property on the order
When and where did the ruling class ever
a class as the British bourgeoisie, which
of a peaceful vote—and especially such
y?
has behind it centuries of world rapacit
p. 66
Aim of Socialism—Peace
of socialism is to eliminate force, first of all
It is absolutely unchallenged that the aim
s.
afterwards in other more concealed form
in its most crude and bloody forms, and
y
tsk
Tro
?"
ing
Go
Britain
p. 80 "Where is
ion:
Aim of the World Revolut
1. To overthrow capitalism.
of humanity.
2. To control the nature for the service
This is how Bukharin defined it.
Man and Machinery
Inquilab
The United States Bureau of Labour
174
PAGE 58
tells:
king with a machine in 1 hr.
a man wor
12 lbs package of pins can be made by
34 minutes.
minutes, if man
The same would take 140 hours and 55
but without machine.
(Ratio—1.34: 140.55 minutes)
works with tools only,
234 hrs. 25 min.
100 pairs of shoes by machine work take
utes.
By hand it will take 1,831 hrs. 40 min
Labour cost on machine is $ 69.55
Labour cost by hand is $ 457.92
e by machine
500 yards of gingham checks are mad
hand labour, it takes 5,844 hours.
labour in 73 hours. By
machine labour in 39 hrs.
100 lbs. of sewing cotton can be made by
By hand it takes 2,895 hours.
Re: Agriculture
a day (12 hrs)
A good man with a scythe can reap 1 acre
utes
A machine does the same work in 20 min
The Wealth of U.S.A. and
Its Population
1850–1912
Per capita T. Population
$308 = 23,191,876
In 1850 total wealth was $7,135,780,000
$514 = 31,443,321
1860 $16,159,616,000 $780 = 38,558,371
1870 $30,068,518,000 $870 = 50,155,783
1880 $43,642,000,000 $1,036 = 62,947,714
1890 $65,037,091,000 $1,165 = 75,994,575
1900 $88,517,307,000 $1,318 = 82,466,551
1904 $107,104,202,000
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
of wheat in half an hour.
Six men with flials can thresh 60 liters
as much.
One machine thresher can do 12 times
our, aided by the use of machinery . . .
"The increased effectiveness of man-lab
2,244% in the case of barley..."
varies from 150% in the case of rye, to
PAGE 59
175
$1,965
1912 $187,139,071,000
Due to the use of machinery.
The machine is social in nature, as the
= 95,400,503
tool was individual.
men" says Emerson.
"Give us worse cotton, but give us better
s of infants, and let the cotton trade take
"Deliver me those rickety perishing soul
its chance."
p. 8182
,
hine. The machine must serve mankind
The man cannot be sacrificed to the mac
.
s, menacing, in the Industrial Regime
yet the danger to the human race lurk
erty & Riches, p. 81
Pov
Scott Nearing
PAGE 60
83
Man and Mach84inery
y" writes:
C. Nanford Henderson, in his "Payda
itive of all institutions, organised and
"This institution of industry, the most prim
f
the tyranny of things, has become itsel
developed in order to free mankind from
es
slav
e into the conditions of slaves—
the greater tyranny, degrading a multitud
weary hours, a senseless glut of things and
doomed to produce, through long and
very things they have produced."
then forced to suffer for the lack of the
Pov. Riches, p. 87
Man is not for Machinery
man has produced and called a
The combination of steel and fire, which
r the master of man. Neither the
machine, must be ever the servant, neve
rule the human race.
machine nor the machine owner may
p. 88
Inquilab
82
176
This is from Thomas Carlyle’s (1795–1881), Past and Present, Book 4, ‘The One
Institution’ (1843). The previous editions of Bhagat Singh’s Notebooks have
identified this, incorrectly, as a quotation from Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–82).
83
Scott Nearing (1883–1983), American economist, conservationist, peace
activist, and writer. Poverty and Riches was published in 1916.
84
Identity not clear.
Imperialism
development in which monopolies and
Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of
erating influence, the export of capital has
financial capital have attained a prepond
al trusts have begun the partition of the
acquired great importance, the internation
have completed the division of the entire
world, and the biggest capitalist countries
terrestrial globe among themselves.
Lenin
PAGE 61
Dictatorship
.
ctly upon force, and not bound by any laws
Dictatorship is an authority relying dire
letariat is an authority maintained
The revolutionary dictatorship of the pro
and against the bourgeoisie, and not
by the proletariat by means of force over
bound by any laws.
o,85 p. 18 Lenin
Prol. Rev
hip
Revolutionary Dictators
population imposes its will upon the
the
of
on
secti
ion is an act in which one
Bourgeois Democracy
a great historical advance in compariBourgeois democracy, while constituting
, and can not but remain, a very limited,
son with feudalism, nevertheless remains
e for the rich and a trap and a delusion
a very hypocritical, institution, a paradis
for the exploited and for the poor.
in p. 28
Len
PAGE 62
The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (1918), by Lenin.
Friedrich Engels on the Paris Commune, quoted by Lenin in The Proletarian
Revolution. The subsequent quotations, till Engels’ letter to Babel, are all from this work.
85
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
Revolut
r such exceedingly authoritarian means.
other by rifles, bayonets, guns, and othe
ily compelled to maintain its rule by
And the party which has won is necessar
in the reactionaries. If the Commune of
means of that fear which its arms inspire
le as against the bourgeoisie, would it
Paris had not relied upon the armed peop
,
our hours? Are we not, on the contrary
have maintained itself more than twenty-f
?
little
too
ority
having employed this auth
86
justified in reproaching the Commune for
els
Eng
F.
86
177
d State
Exploitation of Labour an
an
also the representative state of today is
"Not only the ancient and feudal, but
r by capital."
instrument of exploitation of wage-labou
Engels
Dictatorship
itution which is to be made use of in rev"Since the state is only a temporary inst
opponents, it is perfectly absurd to talk
olution, in order forcibly to suppress the
it
proletariat still needs the state, it needs
about a free popular state; so long as the
it
n
whe
and
er to suppress its opponents,
not in the interest of freedom, but in ord
state, as such, ceases to exist."
becomes possible to speak of freedom, the
28th 1875
bel March
Engels in his letter to Ba
The Impatient Idealists
ve
some impatience, a man will hardly pro
The impatient idealist—and without
intppo
hatred by the oppositions and disa
effective—is almost sure to be led into
ur to bring happiness to the world. 87
ments which he encounters in his endeavo
Russell
Bertrand
PAGE 63
Leader
Carlyle, "could it have found a man
"No time need have gone to ruin" writes
gh; wisdom to discern truly what the
great enough, a man wise and good enou
t road thither; these are the salvation of
time wanted, valour to lead it on the righ
any time."
Arbitrariness
the title "Proletariat Dictatorship" and
Kautsky88 had written a booklet with
riving the bourgeoisie people from the
had deplored the act of Bolsheviks in dep
arian Revolution": (pp. 77)
right of vote. Lenin writes in his "Prolet
Inquilab
87
178
Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), British philosopher and peace activist, author
of numerous books.
88
Karl Kautsky (1854–1938), leading social democratic theoretician. Author of
numerous works, among which The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (1918) is the
most pertinent in the context of Bhagat Singh’s readings of Lenin.
of meanest subserviency to the bourArbitrariness! Only think what a depth
en
y, is contained in such a reproach. Wh
geoisie, and of the most idiotic pedantr
st
itali
cap
of
sts
juri
ary
t part, even reaction
thoroughly bourgeois and, for the mos
up
g
win
dra
been
almost say, centuries,
countries, have in the course of, we may
dreds of volumes of various codes and
rules and regulations and writing up hun
oppress the workers, to bind hand and
laws, and of interpretations of them to
and one hindrances and obstacles
foot the poor men, and to place a hundred
s of the people—when this is done, the
in the way of the simple and toiling mas
can see no ‘arbitrariness’! It is all Law
bourgeois Liberals and Mr. Kautsky
and written down, how the poor man is
and Order! It has all been thought out
thousands and thousands of bourgeois
to be kept down and squeezed. There are
laws that the worker and average
lawyers and officials able to interpret the
barbed wire entanglements. This, of
peasant can never break through their
course, is not a dictatorship of the filthy
course, is not any arbitrariness. This, of
king the blood of the people. Oh, it is
or profit-seeking exploiters who are drin
cy’, which is becoming purer and purer
nothing of the kind! It is ‘pure democra
PAGE 64
(Lenin
Party
n is possible unless there is a party able
But it has become clear that no revolutio
89
October, 1917).
to lead the revolution, (p. 15, Lessons of
The Lessons of October was written in 1924 as a preface to Trotsky’s—whose
name Bhagat Singh sometimes spells ‘Trotzky’—writings of 1917. Except for
some intervening quotes from The Communist Manifesto, all the subsequent
quotes, till Bhagat Singh’s notes on sociology, are from this work.
89
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
,
oited masses, for the first time in history
everyday. But when the toiling and expl
con
e
hav
tier,
r brothers across the fron
separated by Imperialist War from thei
the
to the workers of political construction,
structed their Soviets, have summoned
es
ress and to stupefy, and begun themselv
classes which the bourgeois used to opp
un, in the midst of raging battles, in the
to build up a new proletarian State, beg
amental principles of ‘a State without
fire of Civil War, to lay down the fund
bourgeoisie, the entire band of blood
exploiters’, then all the scoundrels of the
to’, scream about arbitrariness!”
suckers, with Kautsky, singing ‘obliger
) pp. 77–78
179
e to a proletarian revolution.
A party is the instrument indispensabl
(p. 17, ibid. by Trotsky).
90
PAGE 65
working man) so many bourgeois
Law, morality, religion are to him (the
just as many bourgeois interests.
91
prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush
l Marx, Manifesto
Kar
92
PAGE 67
PAGE 69
Aim of Communists
r views and aim. They openly declare
"The Communists disdain to conceal thei
the forcible overthrow of all existing
that their ends can be attained only by
tremble at a Communist revolution. The
social conditions. Let the ruling classes
r chains. They have a world to win.
proletarians have nothing to lose but thei
Workingmen of all countries, unite!"
lution
Aim of Communist Revo
in the revolution by the working class,
"We have seen above, that the first step
of ruling class, to win the battle of
is to raise the proletariat to the position
ital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all
democracy to wrest, by degrees, all cap
nof the State, i.e. of the proletariat orga
instruments of production in the hands
as
the total of productive forces as rapidly
ised as the ruling class, and to increase
possible."
“Communist Manifesto”
PAGE 70
s of Karl Marx
To point out the mistake
belonged to what Germans called the
. . . And it certainly looks as if Trotsky
cent as Bismarck of any ideology at
school of "real politics" and was as inno
The upper half of this page is blank, except the (slanting) signature of B.K.
Dutta with the date 12.7.30 written twice. The quotation from Karl Marx is
given below the signature.
91
From The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 1848. The
subsequent quotations are also from this work.
92
Pages 66 and 68 are missing. Page no. 67 has B.K. Dutta’s signature, with the
following text below it.
Inquilab
90
180
y
note that even Trotsky is not revolutionar
all. And it is, therefore, rather curious to
ake; but feels obliged to devote a page or
enough to say that Marx had made a mist
that the sacred books meant something
so to the task of exegesis—that is, proving
quite different from what they said.
s of October 1917
Preface to the Lesson
Susan Lawrence
by Trotsky, Preface by A.
Voice of the People
d, in the main, by indifference of the
The Governments we know have all rule
a minority, of this or that fraction of the
people; they have always been Govts. of
when the giant wakes, he will have his
country which is politically conscious. But
is whether he will wake in time.
way, and all that matters to the world
face
Pre
PAGE 71
Autograph of Mr. B.K. Dutta taken on 12th July ‘30, in Cell No. 137 Central
Jail Lahore four days, before his final departure from this Jail.
Bhagat Singh
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
181
, 1917, "that when events take a
"It so often happens," wrote Lenin in July
not adapt itself for some time to the
sudden turn, even an advanced party can
erday’s watchwords, watchwords which,
new conditions. It goes on repeating yest
me empty of meaning and which have
under the new circumstances, have beco
portion as the change of in events has
lost meaning ‘unexpectedly’, just in pro
been ‘unexpected’."
of October, p. 17
Lessons
Tactics and Strategy
of conducting isolated operations; stratIn politics as in war, tactics means the art
actual seizure of power.
egy means the art of victory, that is the
p. 18
Propaganda and Action
when the party of the Proletariat passes
And it is an extremely sudden change,
organisation and agitation, to an actual
from preparation, from propaganda and
tion against the bourgeoisie. Those in the
struggle for power and an actual insurrec
compromising, or cowardly ... oppose the
party who are irresolute, or sceptical, or
uments to justify their opposition, and
insurrection, they look for theoretical arg
their opponents of yesterday.
they find them, all ready made, among
Trotsky, 19
PAGE 173
Theory of Divine Rights
of Kings
93
Inquilab
[Patriarchal Theory]
kers were thus propounding these
In this very age when great many thin
, there were other theorists, who tried to
principles of ‘Sovereignty of the People’
families, the patriarchal authority of the
prove that kingdom(s) being enlarged
primogenitary descent to the represenhead of a household was transferred by
proved to have reigned over any nation.
tative of the first sovereign who could be
182
In all likelihood, these are not quotations, but Bhagat Singh’s own
observations.
93
rest on an indefeasible right, and the king
Monarchy was therefore presumed to
gs!"
s was known as "Divine Rights of Kin
was held responsible to God alone! Thi
ory!"
This was known as the "Patriarchal The
d
written in 1642–1650–1651, he combine
Thomas Hobbes: In his various works
rine
doct
of the sovereign, with the rival
the doctrine of the unlimited authority
bes’ defence of absolutism—passive
of an original compact of the people. Hob
rather than theological. He regarded
obedience—was secular and rationalistic
whole) as the great end of government.
the happiness of the community (as a
al!
Man an unsociable anim
state!
Perpetual danger forces them to form
y
ing to him a man’s impulses are naturall
Hobbes’ philosophy is cynical. Accord
g
sure and he cannot aim at anythin
directed to his own preservation and plea
is unsociable by nature! He says "in the
but their gratification. Therefore man
his fellows; and the life of everyone is in
natural state every man is at war with
short."94 It is the fear of this sort of
danger, solitary, poor, unsafe brutish and
the
n. Since mere pact wouldn’t do, hence
life that impelled them to political unio
er the govt.”
establishment of “supreme common pow
ual
by conquest or "institution" viz. by mut
Society is founded by "acquisition" i.e.
ed
once the sovereign authority is establish
contract or compact. In the latter case
t perish. He should be destroyed.
all must obey. Anybody rebelling mus
While the second part of the quote is from Leviathan, the first is Bhagat
Singh’s (or someone else’s) paraphrasing. The Leviathan itself does not contain
these words. Indeed, it is interesting that Hobbes hardly ever uses the terms
‘natural state’ or ‘state of nature’.
94
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
on” and “institution”
“Conquest” or “acquisiti
s
the only basis of all state
183
e Sovereign!
Unlimited Authority of th
Inquilab
icature and Executive—one and all to
He gives the rights of Legislature, Jud
‘the sovereign power must be unlimited,
the sovereign. To be effective, he writes,
power may indeed give rise to mischief,
irreclaimable and indivisible. Unlimited
95
war or anarchism
but the worst of these is not so bad as civil
PAGE 174
Page 173 ends here. Page 174 has a line on top, totally illegible, which is
presumably a continuation of this line.
95
184
ir
democracy do not differ in their power. The
In his opinion, monarchy aristocracy or
rity rests on the obedience of the public or
achievement towards general plan and secu
‘Monarchy’! ‘Limited Monarchy’ is the
people they command. Anyhow he prefers
the sovereign must regulate ecclesiastical as
best in his opinion. But he prefers [?] that
rines are conducive to peace.
well as civil affairs and determine what doct
on
of sovereignty, while retaining the ficti
Thus he holds a clear and valid doctrine
g or Sovereign.
of a social contract to generate the Kin
Spinoza (1677)
96
“Unsociability of man!”
rded men as originally having equal
In his work Tractatus Politicus, 1677, rega
re was a State of War. Men, led by
rights over all things; hence the state of natu
to establish Civil Government. As man
their reasons, freely combined their forces
authority thus estabished the absolute
had absolute power, hence the Sovereign
g
wer” are identical. Hence the sovereign bein
power. In his opinion, “Right” and “Po
ipso facto. Hence he favours absolutism.
rested with the “power” had all the “rights”
Puffendorf
97
Benedictus de Spinoza or Baruch de Spinoza (1632–77), Dutch philosopher of Jewish origin, one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy and, by virtue of his magnum opus Ethics, one of the definitive ethicists.
Considered to have laid the groundwork for the 18th-century Enlightenment.
97
Baron Samuel von Pufendorf (1632–94), German jurist, political philosopher, economist, statesman, and historian. Wrote commentaries and revisions
of the theories of Thomas Hobbes and Hugo Grotius. Bhagat Singh mis-spells
his name, with ‘ff’.
96
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
his opinion man is a sociable animal,
“Law of Nature and Nations” 1672. In
peaceful life.
naturally inclined towards family and
inflict on another leads upto Civil
Experience of injuries that one man can
by a unanimous mutual covenant of a
Government, which is constituted (1):
Wealth, (2) by the resolution of the
number of men to institute a Common
ed in authority, (3) by a covenant
majority that certain ruler shall be plac
r
that the former shall rule and the latte
between the Government and the subjects
shall obey lawful commands!
PAGE 175
185
Locke
0 "No man has a natural right to
Two Treatises of Civil Government-169
govern."
e of freedom and equality in respect
He portrays the state of nature—a stat
by natural law or reason, which
of jurisdiction and dominion, limited only
in life, health, liberty and possessions,
prohibits men from harming one another
raint or reparation being in everyman’s
the punishment requisite by way of rest
hands.
State of Nature
h
on without a common superior on eart
"Men living together according to reas
properly the State of Nature!"
with authority to judge between them is
Private Property
perty in his own person and in the
"Every man has a natural right of pro
as a
the material of nature. As much land
product of his own labour exercised on
can use the product of, so much is his
man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and
property.
ty
Property and Civil Socie
to "civil society"!
nt
cede
ante
is
y"
pert
to him "pro
According
Origin of Civil Society
dangers and fears, and therefore, they
But it appears men were in some sort of
ur of civil liberty. In short, necessity,
renounced their natural liberty in favo
into society.
convenience, and inclination urged men
Definition of Civil Society
have a common established Law and
Those who are united into one body, and
to decide controversies between them and
judicature to appeal to, with authority
punish offenders, are in a civil society.
Inquilab
Consent
186
ent. Consent
Conquest is not an “original” of governm
origin of any lawful government.
was, and could be the sole
ly arbitrary over the lives, liberties and
The legislature assembly is not absolute
the joint power which the separate
property of the people, for it possesses only
it
the Society, and which they resigned to
members had prior to the formation of
for particular and limited purposes.
Law
rain but to preserve or enlarge
"The end of Law is not the abolish or rest
freedom."
Legislative
er for certain ends, the people may
The legislative being only a fiduciary pow
t reposed in it.
remove or alter it, when it violates the trus
Ultimate Sovereignty of
the People!
supreme power or ultimate sovereignty,
Thus the community always retains the
ent is dissolved.
but does not assume it until the governm
PAGE 176
Legislative and Executive
lute monarch, there is no civil governWhere both powers are vested in an abso
.
authority between him and his subjects
ment, for there is no common judge with
in free societies are Democracy, oligarThe forms of different commonwealths
mixed forms.
chy, or elective Monarchies together with
“Right of Revolution”!
il its part of
ernment ceases to fulf
"A Revolution is justifiable when the gov
ts."
contract—the protection of personal righ
98
Rousseau
98
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
t
welfare to private interests, it is expedien
To prevent the sacrifice of the general
g
should be in different hands, latter bein
that the legislative and executive powers
subordinate to the former.
The following are Bhagat Singh’s notes from Rousseau’s Social Contract.
187
Equality
ther nor poor enough to be forced to sell
No one should be rich enough to buy ano
for tyranny.
himself. Great inequalities pave the way
ty
Property and Civil Socie
piece of land, thought of saying “this is
The first man who, having enclosed a
to believe him, was the true founder of
mine,” and found people simple enough,
Civil Society.
have been spared to the race, if some one
What wars, crimes, and horrors would
that the earth belonged to no one, & its
had exposed this imposture, and declared
fruits to all.
PAGE 177
"The man who meditates is a depraved
animal"
Civil Law
and the insecurity of all, the rich craftily
Pointing to the oppression of the weak
ch all should be guaranteed their possesdevised rules of justice and peace, by whi
to enforce the Laws.
sions, and established a Supreme ruler
and of the Laws, which gave new
This must have been the origin of Society
the rich, finally destroyed natural liberty,
chains to the weak and new strength to
, fixed for ever the law of property
and, for the profit of a few ambitious men
pation into an irrevocable right, and
and of inequality, converted a clever usur
orward to labour, servitude and misery.
subjected the whole human race hence-f
Re: Inequalities
e
law that a handful of people should gorg
But it is manifestly opposed to natural
life.
of
e lack the necessities
superfluities while the famished multitud
PAGE 178
Inquilab
Fate of his Writings
188
d in 1762, the former burnt in Paris,
Emile and Social Contract, both publishe
both being publically burnt in Genoa,
Rousseau narrowly escaping arrest, then
ter response.
his native place whence he expected grea
to that of the People
Sovereignty of Monarch
contralisation; but while in
u retains the French ideas of unity and
Roussea
sovereignty) was confounded with the
the seventeenth century, the State (or
it in the 18th Century to be identified
monarchy. Rousseau’s influence caused
with the people.
Pact
By pact men exchange natural liberty
for civil liberty and moral liberty.
Right of First Occupancy
Right of Property:
s: (a) that the land is uninhabited;
Its justification depends on these condition
required for his subsistence; (c) that he
(b) that a man occupies only the area
monial, but by labour and cultivation.
takes possession of it not by an empty cere
PAGE 179
Religion
Rousseau places even religion under the
tyranny of the sovereign.
Introductory Note
Man is born free, and everywhere he is
in chains.
very by Force
Shaking off the Yoke of Sla to obey and does obey, it does
say that so long as a people is compelled
I should
the yoke and does shake it off, it does
well; but that, so soon as it can shake off
by
by virtue of the same right (i.e. force)
better; for, if men recover their freedom
no
was
e
ther
or
it,
g
justified in resumin
which it was taken away, either they are
justification for depriving them of it.
PAGE 180
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
it
they are and laws as they can be made,
I wish to enquire whether, taking men as
..
.
ain rule of administration in civil affairs
is possible to establish some just and cert
I
ce or a legislator that I write on politics.
... I shall be asked whether I am a prin
ht
oug
t
wha
ng
ld not waste time in sayi
reply that I am not. If I were one, I shou
t."
to be done; I should do it or remain silen
189
Force
only a usurpation, and lasts only so long
"Power which is acquired by violence is
ails over that of those who obey; so that
as the force of him who commands prev
r turn and shake off the yoke, they do
if the latter become the strongest in thei
other who had imposed it on them. The
so with as much right and justice as the
authority, then unmakes it; it is the law
same law (of force) which has made the
99
of the strongest."
erot, Encyclopaedia
Did
Slaves lose everything in their bonds, even
"Authority"
100
the desire to escape from them;
t
The Right of the Stronges to force, the precept is good but
d
yiel
the powers that be. If that means,
"Obey
violated.101
superfluous; I reply that it will never be
Right of Slavery
on condition that their property also
“Do subjects, then, give up their persons
for them?”
shall be taken? I do not see what is left
t
his subjects civil peace. Be it so; but wha
“It will be said that the despot secures to
his ambitions bring upon them, together
do they gain by that, if the wars which
s of his administration, harass them
with his insatiable greed and the vexation102
more than their own dissensions would?
PAGE 181
Denis Diderot (1713–84), French philosopher and Chief Editor of
Encyclopedie. He also wrote the first French ‘bourgeois’ drama, Le Neveu de
Rameau. He was anti-clerical and was imprisoned because of his works like
Lettres sur les Aveugeles (1749).
100
Rousseau, Social Contract, chapter 2, ‘The First Societies’.
101
Rousseau, Social Contract, chapter 3, ‘The Right of the Strongest’.
102
Rousseau, Social Contract, chapter 4, ‘Slavery’.
Inquilab
99
190
ing is to say what is absurd and
To say that a man gives himself for noth
inconcievable."
, or by man to a nation, such a speech
Whether addressed by a man to a man
make an agreement with you wholly at
as this will always be equally foolish: "I
and I shall observe it as long as I please,
your expense and wholly for my benefit,
I please."
while you also shall observe it as long as
Equality
State, bring the two extremes as near
If then you wish to give stability to the
nor beggars. These two conditions,
together as possible; tolerate neither rich
s
l to the general welfare; from the one clas
naturally inseparable, are equally fata
een
betw
ays
alw
is
orters of tyranny; it
spring tyrants, from the other, the supp
ied on; the one buys the other sells.
carr
is
these that the traffic in public liberty
PAGE 182
p. 176
183
GE
PA
Part V • Insightful Excerpts from His Jail Notebook
ly causes scarcity. Riots and civil wars
Hail lays waste a few cantons, but it rare
do not produce the real misfortunes of
greatly startle the chief men; but they
is being disputed who shall tyrannise over
nations, which may be abated, while it
mitions that their real prosperity or cala
them. It is from their permanent cond
er the yoke, it is then that everything
ities spring; when all is left crushed und
roying them at their leisure, "Where
perishes; it is then that the chief men, dest
they make a solitude, they call it peace."
191
French Revolution
America
103
t effect on the French situation (1776).
American war of Independence had grea
Taxes
of the name “The King,” framed the
Court or ministry acting under the use
sent them to the Parliament to be
edicts of taxes at their own discretion and
by the Parliament, they were not
registered; for until they were registered
operative.104
s authority went no further than to show
The court insisted that the Parliament’
right of determining whether the reasons
reasons against it, reserving to itself the
t
nce thereof, either to withdraw the edic
were well or ill founded and, in conseque
y.
orit
auth
enregistered as a matter of
as a matter of choice, or to order it to be
ted for having the right of rejection.
The Parliament, on the other hand, insis
It is not clear which book, if any, on the French Revolution had reached
Bhagat Singh’s hands. It is however apparent from his notes that he was more
interested in the conflict between the authority of the King or the old regime
on one hand and the new ‘popular’ forces which appeared on the scene to challenge that authority. Also, Bhagat Singh did not seem to have much time at his
disposal for a more serious or indepth study of all the events. His notes seem
to be cursory but factual. Perhaps he was conscious that time was running out.
104
Parlement was a body of the King’s counselors, not an elected body as today.
Under pressure from the nobles and in a mood of appeasement, King Louis
XVI had restored the ‘dormant’ parlement in 1776.
Inquilab
103
192
ABOUT THE EDITOR
S Irfan Habib is an Indian historian of science, a widely
­published author, and a public intellectual. He was the Abul Kalam
Azad Chair at the National Institute of Educational Planning and
Administration (NIEPA), New Delhi. Before joining NIEPA, he was
a scientist at the National Institute of Science, Technology and
Development Studies (NISTADS), New Delhi.