THE ASIAN INDEPENDENT UK-
Dr. Ramjilal, Social Scientist, Former Principal, Dyal Singh College, Karnal (Haryana, India)
Email: [email protected]
The Trio–three great socialist revolutionaries of India, Sukhdev (full name: Sukhdev Thapar—born 15 May 1907—Martyrdom Day 23 March 1931—Ludhiana, Punjab), Bhagat Singh (born 28 September 1907—Martyrdom Day 23 March 1931—Village Banga—now Pakistan), and Rajguru (born 24 August 1908—Martyrdom Day 23 March 1931—full name: Shivraj Hari Rajguru—birthplace Kheda village, Maharashtra—Marathi) were hanged on 23 March 1931. All were less than 25 years old. Amar Shaheed Sukhdev was a great socialist thinker, secular and nationalist revolutionary. He is a glorious golden page of the Indian socialist revolutionary movement.
Extension
Sukhdev Thapar (15 May 1907 – 23 March 1931) was a great freedom fighter, revolutionary, great patriot, thinker, expert organiser, firebrand speaker, excellent debater, supreme self-sacrificer, and fantastically intelligent young man. Several revolutionary activities and conspiracies of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, such as the Kakori conspiracy, the Central Assembly Bomb conspiracy, and above all, the Lahore conspiracy, were hatched by him along with his comrades. He had many pseudonyms – – “villager”, “peasant/gawar”, “swami”, and “Dayal” – like other revolutionaries and his own comrades, like Bhagat Singh
Early Life and Education:
On 15 May 1907, the famous revolutionary Sukhdev was born in Naughara Mohalla* of Ludhiana, a famous city of Punjab, to Smt. Ralli Devi and Shri Ramlal Thapar (an Arya Samaji). Sukhdev’s father died when he was three years old. N.N. Vohra, former Governor of Jammu and Kashmir and presently Chairman, Tribune Trust, Chandigarh, wrote to me that Sukhdev was ‘my maternal uncle, my mother’s cousin, whom he had brought up, as his mother had died very early’. Since his parents died at a very early age, he was raised in Lyallpur (now in Pakistan) under the care of his maternal uncle Lala AChint Ram Thapar (N.N. Vohra’s maternal grandfather). Lala Achint Ram was a member of the Indian National Congress and a staunch opponent of British imperialism. He was a leading civil society activist and participated actively in various movements, including farmers’ movements, social reform of the “untouchables”, and campaigns for Hindu-Muslim unity. Sukhdev received his early education at Shri Sanatan Dharma School, Lyallpur (now Pakistan), and for higher studies, he got admission in National College, Lahore.
(*On the Indian Culture website of the Government of India, Sukhdev’s birthplace is shown as Naughara village, Ludhiana.) This mistake should be corrected by writing Naughara Mohalla, Ludhiana, instead.
(https://indianculture.gov.
Impacts on Sukhdev’s thinking and personality:
The contemporary social, economic, political, educational, national and international conditions have a deep impact on the thinking and behaviour of every individual. The death of his parents in his childhood did not have much effect on his thinking, because he was brought up in a very good manner.
During the First World War (1914–1918), the British government stated that the war was being fought for freedom. During the war, the forceful collection of war funds from the public; unprecedented inflation; unemployment; hunger; debt on the public; epidemics; unbalanced monsoons; economic recession; and the ever-increasing influence of the revolutionary movement of the Gadar Party on the Punjabi youths and the Pan-Islamic Movement in Turkey caused discontent among the Indias as well.
The government implemented the Anarchical and Revolutionary Criminals Act 1919 (Rowlatt Acts) to suppress discontent. The slogan ‘No appeal, no argument, no lawyer’ spread in India like wildfire against these’ black laws’. These laws were opposed in Punjab. 13 April is celebrated as Vaisakhi Day every year in Punjab. As a result, on 13 April 1919, about 20,000 people gathered peacefully at Jallianwala Bagh to celebrate Vaisakhi and protest against the Rowlatt Acts. To suppress and teach a lesson to the Indians on the basis of a well-planned scheme, Brigadier General Reginald (Edward Dyer) went to the gathering place with a contingent of soldiers at 5:15 pm and ordered them to open fire without warning. The contingent fired about 1650 bullets, and the firing continued till the bullets ran out. According to Dr Smith, civil surgeon of Amritsar, 1800 people were killed and humiliated in about 15 minutes. The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was the first example of bloody barbarism, cruelty and inhuman massacre in the 20th century after the People’s Revolution of 1857. As a result of the planned massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, public anger was at its peak all over India, and after this, there was a new turn in the mass movement, the revolutionary movement, the struggles of farmers and workers, and the national movement. In other words, British imperialism moved towards decline.
Impacts of his maternal uncle Lala Achint Ram Thapar—A Freedom Fighter
Lala Achint Ram was a famous freedom fighter. He was arrested and imprisoned for mobilising the public against the Rowlatt Acts. After this, in 1921, he was again arrested and put in jail for participating in the non-cooperation movement. According to N.N. Vohra, Lala Achint Ram was jailed for 19 years for participating in the freedom movement. It has a great impact on the mind of Sukhdev.
Impacts at Lahore: National College, Lahore–Meeting Young Revolutionaries
After completing his matriculation in 1922, Sukhdev took admission in National College, Lahore. National College, Lahore, was established in 1921 by Lala Lajpat Rai. From its very inception, this college became a nursery of activities of nationalists and revolutionaries. At that time, Lahore was the main centre of the national movement and revolutionary activities in northwestern India. In this college, under the guidance and inspiration of teachers like Principal Chhabildas and Vidya Lankar, Sukhdev became a member of the Congress-backed Satyagraha League. This was his initial step towards activities in the national movement. While studying in Lahore, Sukhdev met young revolutionaries—Bhagat Singh, Yashpal, Ganpat Rai, Bhagwati CharanVohra, and others.
Impacts of Socialist literature
Sukhdev’s thinking was permanently influenced by literature on socialism, revolutionary movements in Western countries, Marxism, nationalism, and books like Terence J. MacSwiney’s ‘Principles of Freedom’, Marx’s ‘Civil War in France’, and Bukharin’s ‘Historical Materialism’, and others. Sukhdev also worked in the Urdu newspaper ‘Bande Mataram’, but his interest in writing was almost negligible. This is the reason why he wrote five letters, including one letter to Mahatma Gandhi, one letter to his uncle, and three letters to his colleagues. Being one of the main strategists of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA), he was totally against terrorist and anarchist activities. The main objective of HSRA was to establish a socialist republic in India. According to Sukhdev, ‘HSRA and revolutionaries stand for the establishment of a socialist republic… The struggle will continue until the goal is achieved.’ It is clear that he was against the alliance of capitalism and imperialism. According to Sukhdev’s friend Shiv Verma, ‘After Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev was well equipped with socialist literature.’ The influence of the Communist Manifesto 1848, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and Lenin is clearly visible in Sukhdev’s thinking. He was not only a nationalist but also a staunch socialist.
(Sukhdev Thapar: The Shadowed Intellectual of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association
(https://m.thewire.in/article/
https://www.newsclick.in/
As a leader of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha
He was also a member of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha founded by Bhagat Singh in 1926. He was a good debater. His fluent, passionate and fiery speeches brought a new consciousness and awareness among the youth of the then-undivided Punjab. There was an unprecedented increase in the youth members of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha. As a result, the spark of the freedom struggle flared up in undivided Punjab
As a founder of Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA)
A secret meeting was held on 8–9 September 1928 at the Feroz Shah Kotla grounds in Delhi. In this meeting, Sukhdev and Bhagat Singh proposed to change the name of the Hindustan Republican Association (HRA)/Hindustan Republican Army (HRA) to the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA) and to add the word socialism. After the long and healthy deliberations, this proposal was approved by other revolutionaries present in the meeting—Shiv Verma, Bijoy Kumar Sinha, Surendra Pandey, and other comrades. Sukhdev was a strong intellectual, a die-hard committed socialist, and a skilled organiser. This is the reason why he was entrusted with the responsibility of the secretary of the Punjab unit of this newly formed organisation (HSRA). Linking it with the socialist terminology makes it clear that the thinking of the revolutionaries had been coloured by the socialist-Marxist revolutionary ideology. Since Sukhdev was the secretary of the Punjab unit of this newly formed organisation, he played the most important and decisive role in formulating and implementing the policies, movement strategies, and plans of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA).
The main objective of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association was to attain independence from British imperialism and the establishment of the ‘socialist republic of the United States of India’, having ‘universal suffrage’ under the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ and the abolition of ‘parasites from the ‘seat of power’ where there is ‘no exploitation of man by man’. Giving special emphasis to strengthening the organisational structure of HSRA to create awareness among the public, to protest, and to gain public sympathy and support, he said that on this basis, a direct confrontation can be done with the government. The revolutionaries can make any sacrifice, including their life, for their revolutionary mission because they are not afraid of death.
Sukhdev inked, “Our idea was that our actions should fulfil the wishes of the public and should be in response to those grievances not redressed by the government so that they might attract public sympathy and support. With this in view, we wanted to infuse revolutionary ideas and tactics in the public, and the expression of such ideas looks more glorified from the mouth of the ones whose hands are on the gallows for the cause. Our idea was that by coming into direct conflict with the government, we would be able to frame a definite programme for our organisation.” In short, like Lenin, he believed that revolution could be brought about only by trained professional revolutionaries armed with revolutionary ideology,and strong determination
Although there was a fundamental difference in the thoughts of the revolutionaries and Mahatma Gandhi, despite this, the revolutionaries respected Mahatma Gandhi. Sukhdev addressed Mahatma Gandhi in a letter as the ‘Most Respected Mahatma ji’. He writes:
Most respected Mahatma ji,
‘’Recent reports suggest that after the failure of the peace talks, you have repeatedly appealed to the revolutionaries to stop their activities and give one last chance to your Non-Violent Movement. The Congress is bound by its Lahore Resolution that we will continue the struggle until complete independence is achieved. According to it, peace and compromise are merely temporary truces so that we may have an opportunity to organize ourselves better for the next struggle. As the name of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Party itself suggests, the goal of the revolutionaries is the socialist republic established in India. Until the revolutionaries achieve their goal, their principles are not fulfilled; they are determined to continue the struggle. The revolutionary is also adept at changing his strategy in changing circumstances and environments… The revolutionary struggle has been taking different forms at different times. Sometimes it comes out openly, sometimes it hides, sometimes it takes the form of a khadi agitator and sometimes it is a struggle for life and death.’’
(https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/
Revenge for Lala Lajpat Rai’s death: Murder of John Saunders, 17 December 1928
The Simon Commission was announced on 8 November 1927. On 30 October 1928, when the Simon Commission reached Lahore Railway Station, the slogans of ‘Simon Commission Go Back’ were echoing in the sky by the huge crowd of non-violent and peaceful protesters opposing it. Lala Lajpat Rai was leading this demonstration. The Superintendent of Police of Lahore, James A. Stock, ordered a lathi charge to disperse the non-violent and peaceful crowd. Superintendent of Police Stock himself attacked Lala Lajpat Rai with lathis, and he was seriously injured. He died on 17 November 1928 at the age of 63. As a result, the revolutionaries – Sukhdev, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Shivram, Durga Bhabhi, Chandra Shekhar Azad, and Jai Gopal – planned to kill Lahore’s Superintendent of Police James A. Scott to take revenge for Lala Lajpat Rai’s death and send a message to the British government. On 17 December 1928, at 4:03 pm, when Assistant Superintendent of Police John Poyantz Saunders (J.P. Saunders) came out of Lahore’s Police Headquarters (mistakenly mistaking him to be James A. Scott), Rajguru and Bhagat Singh immediately shot him to death. The revolutionaries’ aim was not to kill John Saunders. Rather, their target was James A. Scott, Superintendent of Police (Lahore). It is also important to inform our readers that a month before, John Saunders was engaged to the daughter of the PA of India’s Viceroy Lord Irwin. Therefore, the British government was enraged due to John Saunders’ death, and its anger and revenge were at their peak.
(Dr.Ramjilal,https://
The Hindustan Socialist Republican Association took responsibility for the murder of JP Saunders: ‘J.P. Saunders is dead! – Lala Lajpat Rai has been avenged!!’. And notices handwritten and signed by Balraj in English in red ink were pasted on the walls of Lahore on the nights of 18-19 December 1928. This notice clearly stated, ‘All are requested to refrain from giving any kind of help to our enemy, the police, in finding our clues,’ and also warned of dire consequences. This notice of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association warned the imperialist government, ‘Beware, dictators; beware.’ This warning led to a volcano of fear, anger, discontent, and rage in the bureaucracy of Punjab and threatened mass resignations.
(https://www.marxists.org/
(Source: The Supreme Court of India Museum)
Thrilling incident in revolutionary history:
According to a pre-planned scheme, Bhagat Singh, in the guise of an officer, and revolutionary Durga Bhabhi—revolutionary Mrs Durga Devi Vohra (wife of revolutionary Bhagwati Charan Vohra – revolutionaries called her Durga Bhabhi)—in the guise of Bhagat Singh’s unreal ‘pseudo wife’, boarded a first-class train compartment with their three-year-old child (son of Durga Bhabhi) and left for Kolkata. For their safety, Rajguru worked as an orderly, and Chandrashekhar Azad reached Mathura in the guise of a sadhu. In fact, this is a thrilling incident in the revolutionary history of the freedom movement, like the scenes in films.
Justification of Murder of Saunders
Though Sukhdev was against violence, as a staunch nationalist and revolutionary, he justified the decisions of HSRA, keeping in view the exploitation, suppression and oppression of the Indian masses by British imperialism. Justifying the murder of Saunders, he said that it was necessary to fulfil the aspirations of the people and to inculcate revolutionary ideals among the people. In his last letter to his comrades on 7 October 1930, the day of the verdict in this case, he writes, “Take the example of the Saunders murder. When Lala was hit by lathis, there was unrest in the country. It was a good opportunity to draw people’s attention to the party. The murder was thus planned. It was not our plan to run away after the murder. We wanted to tell the people that it was a political murder and its perpetrators were revolutionaries. Our action was always in response to the grievances of the people. We wanted to inculcate revolutionary ideals among the people, and the expression of such ideals sounds more glorious from the mouth of a person who has been hanged for his cause.”
The Central Assembly Bombing Case: 8 April 1929 – Sukhdev as a catalyst of Bhagat Singh
Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt were well prepared to throw a bomb in the assembly. Malvinder Jeet Singh Waraich has written in his book (Bhagat Singh—The Eternal Rebel) that on 3 April 1929, Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt got their pictures clicked at the shop of photographer Ramnath of Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, in the same clothes that they were wearing to throw the bomb. On 6 April 1929, they went to collect those pictures from the shopkeeper. To hide his identity, Bhagat Singh had bought a flat hat from Lahore. The colour of Bhagat Singh’s shirt was khaki. He had earlier also got his photograph taken in the same dress, and later it was used to plant the bomb. At the assembly gate a person gave them the gate pass, and both of them entered the assembly.
The Public Safety Bill and Trade Union Bill were introduced in the Central Legislative Assembly (now old Parliament—the Samvidhan Sadan) by the Central Government. According to this bill, the government could arrest any person without any reason. This was a conspiracy to control the nationalist agitational activities. The Central Committee of HSRA prepared a plan in April 1929 to oppose the Public Safety Bill and the Trade Union Dispute Bill. According to this plan, Bhagat Singh’s name was not nominated in the meeting to throw bombs in the Central Assembly, Delhi, because according to the plan, they had to remain standing there after throwing bombs and pamphlets. The committee believed that if Bhagat Singh was selected, he would be arrested and could also be sentenced to death due to the Saunders murder case. Sukhdev was not present in the meeting when the central committee took this decision. He opposed this decision because Bhagat Singh could explain the goals of HSRA better. Shivram Verma has written in his memoirs, “Sukhdev came after three days and opposed the decision tooth and nail. He was sure no one could convey HSRA’s goal as well as Bhagat. He went to Bhagat and called him a coward, one who was afraid to die. The more Bhagat refuted Sukhdev, the harsher Sukhdev became. Finally, Bhagat told Sukhdev that he was insulting him. Sukhdev retorted, saying he was only doing his duty towards his friend. Hearing this, Bhagat told Sukhdev not to talk to him and went away.” (http://www.tribuneindia.com/
Since Bhagat Singh was his best, and he also knew that his stand would lead to the crucifixion of Bhagat Singh, in fact, it was due to the hard and very bold stand taken by Sukhdev. Shiv Verma writes, “The committee had to change its decision, and Bhagat was chosen to drop the bombs. Sukhdev left for Lahore the same evening without saying a word. According to Durga Bhabhi, when he reached Lahore the next day, his eyes were swollen. He had wept bitterly all night over his decision. Such was Sukhdev – softer than a flower and harder than a stone. People only saw his harshness, but he never complained. He always hid his feelings.
(http://www.tribuneindia.com/
When the debate on the Public Safety Bill was going on 8 April 1929 (at 12:30 P.M.), Bhagat Singh and his colleague BK Dutt detonated two low-intensity bombs and threw pamphlets in the Central Legislative Assembly. Apart from this, slogans like ‘Long live the revolution’, ‘Down with British imperialism’ and ‘Workers of the world unite’ were also raised. In reality, Bhagat Singh and BK Dutt had no intention of killing anyone. If it had been so, all the leaders present in the Assembly, including John Simon (Chairman of the Simon Commission ), Motilal Nehru, Bithal Bhai Patel, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Madan Mohan Malaviya, and others, would have been killed. This incident was a terrible challenge for the British imperial government because going to the assembly and carrying out a blast was not an easy task. Both the revolutionaries stood their ground and surrendered to the police without any fear of punishment or other consequences. What great confidence and bravery !
The Trial 7 May 1929 – 6 June 1929 – 14 years imprisonment
The trial was held in the court of Magistrate B.P. Poole on 7 May 1929. The prosecution lawyer accused the revolutionaries of declaring “war” against the British government. Batukeshwar Dutt’s lawyer was the young Congress leader Asaf Ali, while Bhagat Singh himself pleaded the case (AIR, 1930, Lahore, 226).
Rai Bahadur Suryanarayan was the lawyer for the prosecution (British imperialist government) against Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt. District Magistrate BP Poole prepared the charges and submitted the report to District Judge Leonard Middleton. In this case, on 6 June 1929, Judge Leonard Middleton sentenced Bhagat Singh and BK Dutt to 14 years imprisonment under the Arms Act and Explosives Act for throwing a bomb in the Assembly and attempting murder.
The government witnesses against Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt were Shobha Singh and Shadi Lal. Shobha Singh was honoured with many titles, like knighthood and Sardar Bahadur, by the then British government and was also nominated as a member of the Legislative Council. Shadi Lal was given immense wealth and a lot of land in Baghpat (Uttar Pradesh). The public looked upon these witnesses as traitors and despicable. This is the reason why when Shadi Lal died, the local (Muzaffarnagar and Shamli) shopkeepers refused to give a shroud to his family members. It is said that the shroud was then ordered from Delhi.
On the other hand, it is a strange coincidence that Nawab Muhammad Ahmed Khan Kasuri (Pakistan), the magistrate who signed the death warrant of Bhagat Singh in the Lahore Conspiracy Case in 1930, was also a member of the prosecution and was shot dead in 1974 at Shadman Chowk (Shadman Colony, Lahore). This place was Central Jail Lahore, and Sukhdev, Bhagat Singh, and Rajguru were hanged here.
>(Dr.Ramjilal,https://
>(https://janchowk.com/
Their main intention and mission were to use this historical event as a launching pad to spread revolutionary ideals and raise awareness among the masses against British imperialism and its suppression, oppression, and exploitation of India. This event has a significant place in the history of the Indian struggle for independence. It highlighted the growing discontent and resistance to anti-Indian British policies.
>(Dr.Ramjilal,https://
Sukhdev: A Revolutionary Thinker,
Though he played the most important role in organisations of the Naujavan Bharat Sabha and the HSRA and the revolutionary activities, including the central assembly bomb case (1929) and the assassination of Saunders (1927), yet he is not as well a sung hero in the imagination of the masses as well as historians, scholars, the press, cinema, and political and other movements like the Kisan movement 2020-2021. He is only tagged with Bhagat Singh and other revolutionaries. Justice has not been done to him; all his achievements have been veiled under the shadow of Bhagat Singh and other revolutionaries, like Chander Shekher. Here is a humble attempt to highlight why it has happened. The following are the main highlights to explain this injustice meted out to him.
Firstly, though Sukhdev was an excellent organiser and staunch revolutionary, he was the brain behind all the heroic activities and actions, yet these could not attract public imagination.
(http://www.tribuneindia.com/
(https://www.pgurus.com/
Of Sukhdev, Waraich says, “Not much has been written about him. Despite the availability of original documents pertaining to that age, no one has seriously undertaken their writing. Truth has been a casualty, and many details about the lives of revolutionaries like Sukhdev continue to be unknown. Sukhdev was, in fact, the prime accused in the Lahore Conspiracy Case. Being the Punjab chief of HSRA, he was the man behind Saunders’ murder and the assembly bomb drop plot.”
The first information report (FIR) of the Lahore Conspiracy Case, filed by Hamilton Harding, senior superintendent of police, in the court of R.S. Pandit, special magistrate, in April 1929, mentions Sukhdev as accused number 1. It describes him as Swami, alias Villager, son of Ram Lal, caste Thapar Khatri. In a list of 27 accused, Bhagat is in the 12th position, while Rajguru is in the 20th position. Sukhdev, who leads the pack. (http://www.tribuneindia.com/
Second, Sukhdev had no direct involvement in the Central Assembly bombing, the National Bank robbery, or the Saunders murder, although he was the main planner—the mastermind in the background of these important incidents. In the Lahore Conspiracy Case, the tribunal wrote in its judgement that:
“Sukhdev may be said to have been the brains of the conspiracy while Bhagat Singh was its right arm…. He was backward in taking part himself in acts of violence, but he must be held responsible for those acts (the Central Assembly bombing, the Punjab National Bank robbery, and the Saunders murder), to the execution of which his brain and organising power made an important contribution”.
Third, Bhagat Singh and some other revolutionaries also wrote articles and books; for example, Bhagat Singh wrote articles in several newspapers published from Kanpur, Lahore, Delhi and Kolkata. Apart from this, he also wrote several letters and a prison notebook, which was later published as Shaheed-e-Azam Bhagat Singh Diary, 2011. The reflection of Bhagat Singh’s thinking is clearly visible in ‘Shaheed-e-Azam Bhagat Singh Ki Jail Diary’ (2011). Earlier, Bhupendra Huja (edited) A Martyr’s Notebook (Jaipur 1994) – Bhagat Singh’s Jail Notebook was edited. Its Hindi version, Vishwanath Mishra (translation and editing), ‘Shaheed-e-Azam Ki Jail Notebook’, was published from Lucknow. Regarding Bhagat Singh’s Jail Notebook, Russian scholar L.V. Mitrokhin wrote, “It is a rare evidence of a great ideology.”
(Dr.Ramjilal,https://
(Dr.Ramjilal,https://
Sukhdev, on the other hand, wrote only five letters, although he also worked at the Vande Mataram newspaper. As already mentioned, Bhagat Singh wrote many articles in newspapers and letters to other comrades and family members, wrote his statements of his case to plead his case in the courts, and wrote a prison diary also. This original material was a great resource for Indian and foreign researchers as well as journalists to study Bhagat Singh and his contribution; through this medium, Bhagat Singh attracted people’s attention.
Fourth, according to photography theory, the photos and posters become a medium of spreading and disseminating evidence and awareness among the masses. According to Kama Macklean, photographs of Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, and others published in the newspapers have an impression on the public consciousness. She writes, ‘Images of Bhagat Singh and Chandrashekhar Azad—both handsome young men who died violently—powerfully captured the romance of revolutionary life. Their photographs underscored the tragedy of their sacrifices to their contemporaries, and they continue to do so today. Both portraits incorporated distinctive elements that are famous symbols in contemporary India—Bhagat Singh’s hat and Azad’s deliberative, moustache-twirling gesture lent their portraits an enduring recognisability and a certain rakish style. These characteristic elements were replicated enthusiastically by artists, enabling the mass dissemination of their images across a range of media, predominantly in posters. Bhagat Singh’s particularly dashing mien no doubt encouraged the replication of his portrait in the press.’ On the contrary, Sukhdev never bothered about his attire and had a simple personality.
Fifth, Maclean further points out that the press played an important role while writing the history of revolutionaries. According to her, the press referred to them as ‘Bhagat Singh and others’. We see a similar priority in Ajay Ghosh’s book, ‘Bhagat Singh and His Comrades’ (Delhi: 1979).
>( Kama Maclean,A Revolutionary History of Interwar India: Violence, Image, Voice and Text ,C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., 41 Great Russell Street, London, WC1B 3PL, 2015)
Although Sukhdev was the first to kiss the noose, Bhagat Singh was given the first place in the newspapers. Not only this, newspapers like The Tribune (Lahore) on 24 March 1931 carried the names of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and finally Sukhdev on their front page. As a result, Sukhdev was underrated, and this is the reason why he could not become as famous as Bhagat Singh.
The above discussion establishes that among these revolutionaries, Bhagat Singh became the symbol of a new national awakening, especially among the youth of the country. According to Subhash Chandra Bose, “Bhagat Singh has become the symbol of a new national awakening among the youth.” Jawaharlal Nehru also expressed similar views that Bhagat Singh’s popularity was leading to a new national awakening. He said, “He was a clean warrior who faced his enemy in the open field…” He was like a spark that, in a short time, became a flame and spread from one end of the country to the other, dispelling the darkness prevailing everywhere.” He even became a rival of Mahatma Gandhi in popularity.
The Lahore Conspiracy Case: 10 July 1929–7 October 1929
The Viceroy, Lord Irwin, declared a state of emergency on 1 May 1930, and a special tribunal consisting of three judges of the High Court was constituted under Ordinance No. 111 of 1930. It is very surprising and strange but true that GT Hamilton Harding, the senior superintendent of police in Lahore, revealed in court that he filed an FIR without knowing the details of the case against all the 27 accused under the special order of the secretary to the governor of Punjab. It is a well-established fact that the ordinance under which the special tribunal was constituted could be effective only for 6 months, and it would have lapsed on 31st October 1930; therefore, on 7th October 1930, a 300-page judgement was delivered
It is hardly known to the general public,journalists, and even scholars that Sukhdev was the main brain behind the Lahore Conspiracy Case. In April 1929, Senior Superintendent of Police Hamilton Hardy filed the first information report (FIR) enlisting 25 accused in the special court of magistrate R.S. Pandit. According to the FIR listing 25 accused, Sukhdev was in 1st place, Bhagat Singh in 12th position, and Rajguru in 20th place. The Lahore Tribunal was constituted in accordance with Ordinance number 111 of 1930. The title of the case is The Crown—Complainant vs Sukhdev and Others.
>http://www.tribuneindia.com/
A special tribunal was established after the trial began in Lahore on 10 July 1929 in connection with the murder of British police officer Saunders and Head Constable Charan Singh. The tribunal convicted Sukhdev, Bhagat Singh, and Rajguru of the murder of Saunders and Head Constable Charan Singh and sentenced them to death. The government lawyer in this case was Rai Bahadur Suryanarayan, and the lawyer for Sukh Dev, Bhagat Singh and Rajguru was Congress leader Asaf Ali.
The Government of India pressurised Justice Syed Aga Hyder Ali to hang Sukh Dev, Bhagat Singh and Rajguru. But he rejected the pressure of the government and gave up his post. This is a matter of pride for the Indians. Sukhdev, Bhagat Singh, and Rajguru were hanged by Judge JC Hilton.
Martyrdom of The Trio– 23 March 1931
But in view of the public anger, a day (11 hours) before, on 23 March 1931, at 7.30 pm, the back wall of the Lahore jail was broken, and they were hanged in the Central Jail. All three great revolutionaries—Sukhdev (full name Sukhdev Thapar, born 15 May 1907, Martyrdom Day 23 March 1931, Ludhiana, Punjab), Bhagat Singh (born 28 September 1907, Martyrdom Day 23 March 1931, Village Banga, now Pakistan, Punjab), and Rajguru (born 24 August 1908, Martyrdom Day 23 March 1931, full name Shivraj Hari Rajguru, birthplace Kheda Village, Maharashtra – Marathi)—were hanged by Judge JC Hilton. The dead bodies were taken out of the jail. On the same night, a collective pyre was made by taking the three dead bodies to the banks of the Sutlej River – Hussainiwala Border near Ferozepur – and covering them with mud. The dead bodies of the trio were burnt by pouring kerosene oil. The half-burnt dead bodies of these three martyrs were thrown into the Sutlej River. But before morning, the villagers took the half-burnt bodies out of the river and performed the last rites. The Tribune (Lahore), 24 March 1931, published this incident on the front page. The public’s ire has peaked. Bengal, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Mumbai, and Madras all had agitated crowds of people. Such confrontations between the public and the police occurred for the first time since 1857. As a result, this conflict led to 141 Indian martyrdoms, 586 injuries, and 341 arrests.
(https://samajweekly.com/
Financial and material rewards, land, honours, promotions, and letters of gratitude were all used against witnesses in the Lahore Conspiracy Case.
According to R. K. Kaushik, 457 witnesses were prepared by the police in the Lahore Conspiracy Case. The HSRA revolutionaries—Hans Raj Vohra, Jai Gopal, Phonindra Nath Ghosh, and Manmohan Banerjee—became government witnesses and gave statements against Sukhdev, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and others. After the hanging, these four were given monetary and other benefits. R. K. Kaushik writes, ‘Vohra refused to take monetary benefits. But he was sponsored by the Punjab government to study at the prestigious London School of Economics… Jai Gopal received a prize of Rs 20,000. Phonindra Nath Ghosh and Manmohan Banerjee were given 50 acres of land each in Champaran district of Bihar (their home district) in return for their services and loyalty to the British government.”
Senior government administrative and police officers and police constables were given promotions, appreciation letters and other benefits. After Sukhdev, Bhagat Singh and Rajguru were hanged, jail deputy superintendent Sahib Mohammad Akbar Khan became emotional and started crying, and tears fell from his eyes. He was suspended, and on 7 March 1931, his title of ‘Khan Sahib’ was also withdrawn. Later on, his suspension was withdrawn, and he was appointed as assistant deputy superintendent.
(https://www.tribuneindia.com/
Mahatma Gandhi: The effort to save the three martyrs was the best effort
Mahatma Gandhi and his Congress opponents are constantly spreading the propaganda that they did not make any concrete effort to save the lives of the three great revolutionaries of India. If Gandhiji had wanted, their lives could have been saved. This propaganda is a misleading and unwanted accusation to tarnish the image of Mahatma Gandhi.
Mahatma Gandhi first criticised the formation of the tribunal related to the trial on May 4, 1930. On February 11, 1931, the appeal made to save Bhagat Singh and his comrades from the death sentence was rejected by the Privy Council (London). Meetings and correspondence were held from February 17, 1931, to March 5, 1931, for the Mahatma Gandhi–Irwin Pact. On 18 February 1931, Mahatma Gandhi spoke to Governor General Lord Irwin about reducing the death sentence. Mahatma Gandhi told the Viceroy, ‘If you want to make the present environment more favourable, then you should postpone the hanging of Bhagat Singh. Irwin replied to Gandhiji, ‘It is difficult to reduce the sentence, but suspension is definitely worth considering.’ On 7 March 1931, Mahatma Gandhi said in a meeting in Delhi, ‘I cannot fully agree to hanging anyone. Certainly not for a brave person like Bhagat Singh.’ On 19 March 1931, Gandhi again appealed to Lord Irwin to reduce the sentence, which Irwin noted in the proceedings of the meeting. On 20 March 1931, Mahatma Gandhi met Lord Irwin’s Home Secretary Herbert Emerson. Gandhiji met Irwin again on 21 March 1931 and again on 22 March 1931, and urged him to commute the sentence. On 23 March 1931, Gandhiji wrote to the Viceroy: ‘A final appeal is required in the interest of peace. If there is any room left for reconsideration, I would say popular opinion demands a reduction in sentence. When no principle is at stake, it is often a duty to respect it. If there is a reduction in sentence, internal peace is most likely to be promoted. In the event of hanging, peace is undoubtedly in danger… It is worth saving the lives of these people; I would urge you to postpone this action for further review. Irwin then wrote, ‘It was significant that the priest of non-violence advocated so earnestly in favour of the supporters of his own basically opposing side.’
News Chronicle journalist Robert Bernays mentions in his book ‘The Naked Fakir’ that due to Gandhi’s arguments, Irwin ‘was thinking of suspending the sentence, but the Punjab bureaucracy suppressed him by threatening mass resignations.’ In a book published by the National Archives, Gandhiji wrote that the British government had a ‘golden opportunity’ to win the hearts of the revolutionaries, but the government failed in it. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose has written in his autobiography – ‘The Indian Struggle, 1920-42’, p. 184 – that Mahatma Gandhi tried his ‘best’ to save Bhagat Singh.
Despite his best efforts, Mahatma Gandhi could not save the lives of the trio
Why did Mahatma Gandhi fail?
The main reasons are
First, the British bureaucracy had a strong prejudice against Indians. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called it a ‘casteist’ attitude. As we have already written, since the British officer John Saunders was shot dead, the anger of the British bureaucracy was at its highest level, and the Punjab bureaucracy threatened to resign en masse, which the government could not afford.
Second, the trio did not appeal for mercy; rather, they appealed that they were war prisoners; therefore, they should be shot dead instead of hanging till death.
Third, the Gandhi-Irwin pact was strongly opposed by the British Conservative Party at home in England because thousands of prisoners were released from jails. It was called the policy of appeasement; therefore, the Labour government, which was not stable, carried on with the decision to execute the trio. The viceroy, Lord Irwin, who was reluctant to execute the trio, surrendered due to the direction of the labor government in England, which could not face the strong public opinion ignited by the conservative party. Therefore, there was a political justice instead of the legal one.
The majority of the people do not know that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a famous law luminary of India, strongly condemned the execution of the trio. He wrote an editorial in his newspaper, Janata, on 13 April 1931, about the sacrifice of the trio. He raised the question, ”Sacrifice for whom?”
While answering this question, he wrote a strong editorial:
‘‘If the government thinks that people will be impressed by its display of devotion and strict obedience to the justice goddess and therefore they will approve of this killing, it is its utter naiveté. No one believes that this sacrifice to the British justice goddess was made to keep her clean and unblemished. Even the government will not be able to convince itself based on such an understanding. Then, how will it convince others with this veil of the justice goddess? The entire world, including the government, knows that it is not the devotion to justice goddess but the fear of the Conservative Party and public opinion back home in England that drove them to making this sacrifice. They thought that the unconditional release of political prisoners like Gandhi and the signing of the pacts with Gandhi’s party has damaged the prestige of the empire. Some orthodox leaders of the Conservative Party have launched a campaign saying that the prevailing Cabinet of the Labour Party and the Viceroy who danced to its tune were responsible for it. In such a situation, if Lord Irwin showed mercy to political revolutionaries who had been convicted for assassinating an English officer, it would be like placing a burning torch in the hands of the opposition leaders. As it is, the Labour Party is not stable. In such a situation, if these Conservative leaders got an alibi that the Labour government granted clemency to the convicts who had murdered an Englishman, it would be so easy to provoke public opinion against the government. In order to avert this imminent crisis and to thwart the fire in the minds of conservative leaders from flaring further, these hangings were executed.’’
>https://www.forwardpress.in/
>Sukhdev Thapar: The intellectual-thinker-freedom fighter from Bharat! https://www.pgurus.com/
.> https://indianexpress.com/
Significance of Martyrdom: Revolutionary zeal and new consciousness
The trial of the three and their martyrdom had a profound impact on the people. The sacrifice of the three in future movements in India led to the rise of revolutionary zeal and new consciousness among the youth. Revolutionaries learnt from their martyrdom and adopted new techniques and strategies, including underground movements and armed struggle. This is evident from the establishment of ‘Azad Dastas’ to run an ‘underground guerrilla movement’ by socialists like Jai Prakash Narayan and Dr Ram Manohar Lohia. Underground activities continued even by the PC Joshi group of the Communist Party of India during the Quit India Movement in 1942. Some Gandhians also went underground to wage war against British imperialism. Their martyrdom acted as a catalyst for political activities. It increased the legitimacy of revolutionary activities against the government among the people. As a result, many organisations of students and farmers came into existence. The peasant movements, the establishment of the INA ,and the war against the British Empire, and the revolt of the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force were also greatly influenced by their sacrifice. In short, their martyrdom has created a new revolutionary zeal and wave among the masses.
On 26 December 1991, the Soviet Union was officially dissolved. As a result, the hegemony of the United States was established, and the world became unipolar. Most of the third-world states, which were dependent on the Soviet Union for finance, military, and trade, have now become dependent on the US. The United States has started implementing the policies of neoliberalism throughout the world. The tsunami of neoliberalism swept every country in the world. India was no exception to this. Neoliberalism is a synthesis of the policies of liberalisation, privatisation, and globalisation. It is not an aimless exercise. It operates with the planned objective of establishing neo-imperialism in the world. Multinational companies and capitalists control governments, their policies, and their programmes. As a result of these policies, multinational corporations, capitalists, and the wealthy class established their hegemony over the world’s political systems. It has also led to centralisation of wealth; an unprecedented gap is being created between the rich and the poor, and in the situation of increasing problems – unemployment, hunger, inflation, and others – the thinking of Sukhdev and his colleagues is that such a socialist system in which there is no exploitation of one person by another is very relevant today. Therefore, citizens need to be aware and mobilise against the corporate-communal nexus to strengthen the secular, socialist republic of India. Sukhdev gives this message.
