(Kanwal Bharti)
(English translation from original Hindi: SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)
(Asian independent) According to Bhagat Singh’s documents, a very thought-provoking article titled ‘Ek Nirvaas’ M.A. was published in ‘Kirti’ of September, 1928. Bhagat Singh and his comrades thought deeply about this article, and found it to be in line with their thoughts. Perhaps that is why this article was included in the documents of Bhagat Singh and his comrades. The editors of the document have described this article as the creation of Lala Hardayal. The title of this article is ‘Class-interest’s effect on movements’. Class-struggle has been a major principle at the centre of Bhagat Singh’s political ideology. Therefore, I have kept class-struggle at the centre in this final study of my ‘Bhagat Singh-Evaluation’. Before discussing, let us look at an excerpt from Lala Hardayal’s article, which is long but important—
‘The question arises that how did this strange situation arise? Why is it that those who farm, weave cloth, clean drains or grind flour earn several times less than those who only lecture or argue cases, who administer justice or rule, who only pray or do nothing? Has anyone ever thought that those who farm, do crafts, etc. are more important to every servant of God and society than the ‘law’ or the ‘government,’ religion or moneylenders or mere landlords (people who have become owners of land but do not work). Then why is it that a man who sits on a chair for a few hours and sends some people to jail is paid several times more than a farmer who sows wheat or a shoemaker? What good, profitable, and important work does a king or a magistrate or a moneylender do with the hardworking people? Many people cannot get their essential things even after working very hard all day. What is the reason that one person is sitting and pulling a fan while another one lying inside—be it a Hindu, Muslim or Christian—is snoring. Why is he not made to pull the fan? Those people who do not produce grains, milk, dry fruits, vegetables, but use and eat these things, are the ones who benefit from the hard work of the poor farmer. No philosophy is needed to understand this. Those people who do not produce bread, and do not spin cotton and weave cloth, and yet eat bread and wear cloth, then it only means that they take their share from the hard work of the poor toilers who produce bread and make clothes. But when we see that the toiler farmer who does farming does not even get good food like these freeloaders, then the thought comes in the heart that there is fraud, mistake, oppression somewhere in this system. But this issue cannot be resolved by reading sixteen types of philosophy of scriptures like ‘Sarva-Darshan-Sangraha’ etc. Leaving aside the question of health and life, today we want to ask a very big question that how did these two parties in the world come into existence – on one side the rich, learned, lazy and profligate; on the other side the poor, hardworking, ignorant illiterate people who create the wealth of the world? All the movements of the world, which hide this real question, are only absurd, useless and dangerous, whether they are social, religious, or fraternal, economic or political, national or international.’
Undoubtedly, the picture presented by Lala Hardayal of the poverty of the hardworking people and the freeloading rich is a distortion of the Indian social system. He raises the right question that what is the reason that the income of those who farm, weave cloth, clean drains or grind flour is many times less than those who only give lectures or argue cases, who do justice or rule, who only pray or do nothing? But Lala Hardayal finds the reason for this in capitalism. In Bhagat Singh’s view too, capitalism was the reason for this. In fact, thinkers who develop their understanding by reading Western socialist philosophers, whether they are Lala Hardayal, or Bhagat Singh and his companions, or Jawaharlal Nehru, or anyone else, cannot understand the economic inequalities present in the Indian social system until they study Brahmanism. They understand the problem, but are unable to know its cause, so its solution is also beyond their understanding. Lala Hardayal, considering capitalism as the reason for this, writes-
‘If we learn anything from the past history, then it is that the rich class loves wealth the most. They love property and personal interests more than religion and patriotism. Patriotism and religion are good things, but they have also proved ineffective in freeing the rich class from the clutches of wealth. This has been happening in the world till date and will continue to happen until the big and small rich classes are eliminated.’
But how will these big and small rich classes be eliminated? Lala Hardayal did not suggest a solution to this question. Like the socialists, Lalaji was also of the opinion that there are only two classes, rich and poor. He writes—
‘Both communities exist in the world—rich and poor. There is no love and sympathy between them. They are even unable to understand each other’s views. Ordinary people due to their lack of understanding cannot understand the thoughts and work of others and the division of castes deprives the intelligent people from understanding others. From this we see that apart from division of castes, circumstances also do not allow the rich to know the real condition of the poor. Man’s thoughts are usually based on his experience and the rich people have no experience of the condition of the poor.’
Lalaji still could not reach the root of the problem. He knew that there is no love and sympathy between the rich and the poor, but he could not know the real reason why there is no love. Actually, his principle and viewpoint was class based, whereas the problem of India is caste based. Therefore, his attention did not go towards that principle of Brahminism, which is at the root of this problem. If he had searched for the reason of the problem of rich and poor in Brahmanism, he would have found it in the caste system. Although Bhagat Singh had grasped this reason in his article on the ‘Untouchable Problem’, but only in the case of Untouchables. He has written that our ancestors, the Aryans, separated them by calling them lowly and then imposed the philosophy of past life on them, so that they could not revolt. But Bhagat Singh could not see that this philosophy has also created wealth and poverty and has made the rich insensitive towards the poor. The Shudra-Atishudra class from which the majority of India’s poor population comes, their untouchable, lowly and poor status is only due to the Varna system, in which these classes are deprived of all rights like education and independent livelihood etc. Even today, Brahmins consider this system to be the ideal and perfect system of their ancestors, and believe that their ancestors had the divine vision to see eternity. To maintain the untouchable, low and poor status of these classes for eternity, the Brahmins imposed the results of their past life’s karma on them, and by writing all kinds of fabricated and ridiculous stories and propagating those stories in Katha-Satsangs, they strengthened the belief in their minds that they are untouchable, low and poor in this life only because of the sins committed in their past life; they were also told that if they perform the deeds and duties prescribed for them in the Varna system in this life according to them, then they will be born in a high family in the next life. Under this philosophy, when someone is being Untouchable, low and poor is the result of his sins of his past life, then why would any person of a high caste express his sympathy and compassion towards him? This very philosophy made the Brahmins, Thakurs and Baniyas harsh, ruthless and cruel towards the poor and made them separatists. Separate settlements of Dalits and Shudras came into existence due to this separation, where people of the Dwij (twice born) caste do not even like to go.
The question is why did these oppressed classes not revolt? The only reason for this is not only the concept of the karma of the previous birth, but also the measures that Manu took to protect the social order. Dr. Ambedkar has written somewhere that three things are necessary for rebellion, first, the realization of injustice; second, the ability to know that someone is suffering from injustice; and third, the possession of weapons. Manu ended all these three conditions to prevent rebellion. In his legal system, he prohibited giving opportunities to Shudras to progress, prohibited giving them the right to education, and prohibited the right to keep weapons. On the other hand, to empower the Dwij to suppress the rebellion of the oppressed, he gave them all the rights to progress, to get education, to keep weapons. Thus, this was the only measure taken by Manu to protect the social order by suppressing the rebellion using power and violence. This system kept a large population untouchable, low and poor, and made the rest of the society cruel towards them.
What was the reason that the Indian social system could not be understood as deeply by Dalit thinkers like Periyar Ramasamy Nayakar and Dr. Ambedkar as by Tilak, Gandhi, Bhagat Singh and his associates, or nationalist thinkers like Lala Hardayal? There was only one reason for this, that these were not the classes that suffered from the caste system and Brahmin philosophy, but were the benefited classes. They were neither untouchables nor deprived of rights, so they could be sensitive towards the untouchables, but could not feel the pain of their social status, which would have inspired them to get to the root of the problem. In short, they came from the classes that suppressed the rebellion of the lower classes in the society.
Lala Hardayal further writes another interesting thing. As—
‘Today I want to prove that the common people of India benefited very little from the educational and political waves that arose in the last thirty years (i.e. three decades of the 19th century), because only the so-called upper-class people raised these waves. Therefore, their ideals are also colored in the color of their community. Every wave is the real essence of the people who raised it. The lower-class reformers can understand it well only by entering inside the poor farmers and labourers. They can only understand the sorrows and problems of their community. Their ideals get confined to their narrow class boundaries. They cannot go beyond this work, which separates these two communities.’
After this he writes—
‘I am writing this article only because only the farmers and labourers deserve our love. Those familiar with English literature must have read Carlyle’s famous principle many times that “I respect and love only two men, not the third one.” I go a step further and say that I look at only one man with love and respect, no one else and that is the poor worker (Kirti), who creates the wealth of the world.’
But the question is, why could these Kirti, that is, workers who create wealth in India, not organize against capitalism and why could they not revolt? Socialist thinkers do not think about this question. The answer to this question lies in the Brahmanism of India, whose other name is Manu’s social system. As said, the socialists of India believe and know that there are two classes – high and low, rich and poor, and owner and worker, although Karl Marx did not have any such dogmatism. Marx had also accepted a third ‘middle class’. According to the social status, there are many classes in the middle class as well. The truth is that Indian society has been a class society from the beginning, but feudalism and Brahmanism made it a rigid casteist society. This casteism is the obstacle in the class unity of Indian society. Jawaharlal Nehru had written about the Congress, ‘Congress is not a proletarian organization. Therefore, it cannot expel the landlords and capitalists from its organization. If the Congress is seen from the right and left perspective, then it has a right-wing edge, a leftist minority and a huge intermediate group, which is close to the left-centre. The Gandhian group is a part of this intermediate left-centre. From a political point of view, it is primarily left; from a social point of view, it has leftist tendencies, but primarily it is centre. In the case of farmers, it is in favour of the farmers.’ But this group has never been against Brahmanism in any social or political perspective, and on this basis, it has never been in favour of the legal rights of the Untouchables. Dr. Ambedkar also had an assessment about the Congress and its leaders-Gandhi-Nehru etc. He has written, ‘The members of the ruling class are always conscious of the fact that they belong to the ruling class, and their goal is to rule. Tilak could never forget that he is a Brahmin and belongs to the ruling class. The same thing can be said about Jawaharlal Nehru and his sister Vijay Lakshmi. Nehru is considered a socialist and one who does not believe in casteism, but Pattabhi Sitaramayya has written in the preface of ‘Life of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’ that Nehru was proud of being a Brahmin. Similarly, in 1940, when a proposal was put forward in the All India Women’s Conference in Delhi that caste should not be mentioned in the census, Vijay Lakshmi rejected the proposal saying that she does not see any reason why she should not be proud of her Brahmin blood. Vallabhbhai Patel also has the same opinion that he belongs to the ruling caste. These leaders (Gandhi, Nehru, Tilak, Patel etc.) were not only obsessed with the feeling that they belonged to the ruling class, but were also obsessed with the idea that people from the slave class were despised, they should remain slaves and they should never aspire to rule. Tilak had said in Sholapur that “I do not understand what people from low classes like oilman, tamboli, dhobi etc. would do by going to the Legislative Assemblies. In fact, they were neither ashamed nor repentant in expressing such low thoughts on public platforms.”
Lala Hardayal considered farmers and labourers to be the only poor class, but he had no answer to the question why this class did not develop the consciousness to know why they are poor? He says that the waves that arose, arose from the middle class, and farmers and labourers did not participate in them. But were there farmers and labourers in his ‘Gadar Party’? Were there poor, labourers and Untouchables in Bhagat Singh’s Naujawan Sabha? If any party was formed in India from farmers-labourers and lower classes, it was only Dr. Ambedkar’s ‘Independent Labour Party’, which fought against Brahmanism and capitalism in a proper manner. But it was called the party of Untouchables and the non-untouchable farmers and labourers did not support this party. Dr. Ambedkar had formed this party based on class-consciousness and class-interests. Addressing the workers of the Dalit classes in 1938, he had said that the workers of this country have two enemies, one is Brahmanism and the other is capitalism. He said that Brahmanism denies freedom, equality and fraternity, hence the working class is not able to get organised. Therefore, capitalism cannot be fought without fighting Brahmanism, because Brahmanism is an obstacle in the unity of the working class. In another meeting, which was held to demand the government to make laws to abolish the Khoti-Pratha, Inamdar-Pratha and Zamindari Pratha, Dr. Ambedkar said, ‘Peasants and workers need to know the reasons for their poverty, which they will find among the rich and the exploiters.’ In another speech, which he gave to the trade unions regarding entering politics, he said that ‘To create unity among the working class, it is necessary to tell them that their claim for the rights which they are not ready to give to other workers is wrong. The right way to create unity is that what the worker believes in social discrimination is wrong in principle and is an obstacle to the unity of the workers. In other words, if we must organize the workers in one category, then the Brahminism present in the workers will have to be rooted out.’
Lala Hardayal has divided the movement waves in his article into three parts – political, educational and religious. By political wave, he meant the politics of the Congress, which was launched to increase the seats of Indians in the Council and Assembly. Lala opposed this wave by saying that it would benefit the middle class. For example – ‘The success of these waves benefits only the middle-class people. They have never tried to make arrangements against diseases like forced labour, plague etc. Neither have they ever made proper arrangements to reduce rent, salt tax, water tax or education of the people, although these are important questions, whose solution can benefit the people. What benefit does the poor worker or farmer get from the Civil Service or the Punjab Council? He does not want respect; he does not want a position. Yes, he wants bread, health and freedom.’
Have you seen how orthodox Lala Hardayal’s thinking is? He too was suffering from the superiority complex in the same way as Tilak, who had said that what will the oilmen and the tamboli do by going to the assemblies? He is saying that what will the labourers and the farmers do by going to the civil service or the councils? Lala Hardayal wanted the son of a labourer and a farmer to also live as a labourer and a farmer. He should not play any role in the governance and administration after getting educated. He wanted that the upper castes should have the supremacy and dominance in the governance and administration, and the farmers and the labourers should not enter it. That is why Lala Hardayal could not think that if the farmers and the labourers do not go to the councils, then who will represent them there? Will the same rich, landlords and people of upper castes, who are their natural exploiters, represent the farmers and labourers in the councils? If the farmers and the working-class people do not go to the councils, how will they raise their voice? How will they make laws in their interest? If the farmers and the working-class people do not go to the civil service, do not play their role in the administration, then how will they remove the injustice done to their classes? If the people of the classes who commit injustice and exploitation remain the rulers and administrators, then there will never be any change in the society, the status quo will remain. On one hand, Lala Hardayal accuses the politics of Congress, although he is right, that it works for the interests of the middle class, and on the other hand, Lala opposes the entry of farmers and workers into politics. Was this thinking of his in the interest of farmers and workers? Lala Hardayal has expressed his opinion about the educational waves as follows –
‘A lot of our energy was spent for the educational waves and the lives of many noble men and women were sacrificed for them. But the result here too has been disappointing, because only the middle class has benefited from this. Many of our leaders opened schools and colleges in the cities on behalf of different communities, communities, and congregations, but can we ask how the idea of opening schools and colleges came up in the hearts of those patriots? And why did they not do this great work in the villages, which would have reduced the expenses and brought more benefits.
‘Educational centres of society were established only so that the children of the middle class could earn well. This is the class interest that is at work. The patriots of the South made many sacrifices for education, but for whose education? Fergusson College educated thousands of young people for the middle class. Made them capable of earning a living and progressing, but what did it do for the farmers? All the lawyers and professors who come out of this college just sit idle and enjoy themselves on the heads of the poor farmers. They are also a part of the group that sucks the blood of farmers.
‘The noise about women’s education is also an issue of the middle class. How many farm girls of farmers are getting educated in our girls’ schools? This question does not even arise in the villages, because even the men there are illiterate. This question arose from the need of educated girls for the educated youth that girls should also be educated. This made the homes of the middle class more prosperous and comfortable. The comfort and progress of those people cannot benefit the farmers and labourers. If these educational waves had been released for the betterment of the common people, then schools would have been opened in the villages first, because without primary education, awakening cannot come among the common people of any country.’
It seems that Lala Hardayal was only harping on the issue of farmers and labourers. He had no knowledge of the social reality of farmers and labourers. He does not seem to be familiar with the social reality of villages either. He was against the educational benefits of the middle class and wanted that the work of opening schools at the primary level should have been done in the villages. Certainly, educational development was necessary in the villages, which was not done even by the indigenous governments after India gained independence. The villages of India are still educationally backward. Even today, the physical condition of primary schools in villages is very poor and pathetic. Lala ji rightly raised the question that the patriots opened schools and colleges in the cities, which benefited the middle class; and they did not open schools in the villages. The reason for this was either Lala ji could not know or he deliberately did not go to that reason. That reason is casteism. It was this casteism that made those patriots of India, who were also rulers, not allow educational development to take place in the villages even after independence. Among the farmers and labourers of the villages that Lalaji talks about, none belonged to the upper caste. All of them were from the lower castes, lower class people. Why would the ruling class shoot itself in the foot by educating them and making them clerks and lawyers? The upper caste people were also against opening schools in the villages because they would have to admit Untouchables too. If they did so, the upper caste people would protest because their children would not be able to sit with Untouchable children. This was about those schools, which according to Lalaji were opened by patriots and meetings of different communities. But the upper castes also benefited from the schools opened by the government because Untouchables were not admitted there either. However, this discrimination was not from the British government, but from the upper castes. Firstly, all the teachers in those schools were Brahmins, who avoided even the shadow of Untouchables, and secondly, the upper caste Hindus of the village were against the education of Untouchables. This incident took place seven years after Lala Hardayal wrote this article, i.e. in 1935. The Bombay government had issued an order to admit Untouchable children in government schools. Happy with this, the Untouchables of Kavitha village in Gujarat decided to send their children to the village government school. Then the upper caste Hindus there ordered the Untouchables not to force their children to study in school. But the Untouchables did not care about this order and enrolled their four children in the school. The very next day the upper castes took their children out of the school. Sometime after this, the upper caste Hindus of the village, including upper caste women, attacked the houses of the untouchables. Their houses were destroyed by breaking them, and whichever Untouchable man or woman they found in the house, they were mercilessly beaten with sticks. Suffering from the terror of the Hindus, the Untouchables had to leave the village. Lalaji’s statement that thousands of
middle-class youth do nothing for the farmers after getting education and they join the group that sucks the blood of the farmers is not wrong. But if a person, despite being educated, has an anti-farmer and anti-labourer ideology, then it is not the fault of education but of his sanskaars, which his feudal environment has given him. There is no doubt that modern education has not brought any ideological change among Hindus, and especially among Brahmins and other upper castes. The greatest Brahmin and upper caste leaders of the country, such as Tilak, Nehru, Gandhi, Malviya, Chatterjee, Banerjee, Mukherjee, Hedgewar, Savarkar, etc., all had English education, but despite this none of these leaders had abandoned their conservative ideology. All of them were suffering from the sense of superiority of their upper caste, which is a disease, from which they were not freed even after getting English education. But on the contrary, the same English education opened a new world for Jothiba Phule, Dr. Ambedkar, Ramasamy Nayakar, and many other people from lower classes, and their entire transformation took place. It was these people who understood the problems of India properly and it was these people who raised the voice of the farmers and workers, because their background was not feudal and Brahminical, but from a lower-class environment.
There is no doubt that the middle class is made up of upper castes; therefore, as Dr. Ambedkar believed, this class is not capable of leading the country. ‘The idealism and independent thinking required for true leadership is possible only in the working class. The elite upper class may have idealism, but cannot have independent thinking. The middle class is opportunistic, it has neither any ideals nor independent thinking. But both idealism and independent thinking are possible in the working class. It has a hunger for a new social order. This hunger is their hope, which keeps the working class alive. This is the will to live for which he enters the struggle and stays united. Only the leadership of the working class can give freedom and a new social order to India and Indians.
It seems that Lala Hardayal was only harping on the issue of farmers and labourers. He had no knowledge of the social reality of farmers and labourers. He does not seem to be familiar with the social reality of villages either. He was against the educational benefits of the middle class and wanted that the work of opening schools at the primary level should have been done in the villages. Certainly, educational development was necessary in the villages, which was not done even by the indigenous governments after India gained independence. The villages of India are still educationally backward. Even today, the physical condition of primary schools in villages is very poor and pathetic. Lala ji rightly raised the question that the patriots opened schools and colleges in the cities, which benefited the middle class; and they did not open schools in the villages. The reason for this was either Lala ji could not know or he deliberately did not go to that reason. That reason is casteism. It was this casteism that made those patriots of India, who were also rulers, not allow educational development to take place in the villages even after independence. Among the farmers and labourers of the villages that Lalaji talks about, none belonged to the upper caste. All of them were from the lower castes, lower class people. Why would the ruling class shoot itself in the foot by educating them and making them clerks and lawyers? The upper caste people were also against opening schools in the villages because they would have to admit untouchables too. If they did so, the upper caste people would protest because their children would not be able to sit with untouchable children. This was about those schools, which according to Lalaji were opened by patriots and meetings of different communities. But the upper castes also benefited from the schools opened by the government because untouchables were not admitted there either. However, this discrimination was not from the British government, but from the upper castes. Firstly, all the teachers in those schools were Brahmins, who avoided even the shadow of untouchables, and secondly, the upper caste Hindus of the village were against the education of untouchables. This incident took place seven years after Lala Hardayal wrote this article, i.e. in 1935. The Bombay government had issued an order to admit untouchable children in government schools. Happy with this, the untouchables of Kavitha village in Gujarat decided to send their children to the village government school. Then the upper caste Hindus there ordered the untouchables not to force their children to study in school. But the untouchables did not care about this order and enrolled their four children in the school. The very next day the upper castes took their children out of the school. Sometime after this, the upper caste Hindus of the village, including upper caste women, attacked the houses of the untouchables. Their houses were destroyed by breaking them, and whichever untouchable man or woman they found in the house, they were mercilessly beaten with sticks. Suffering from the terror of the Hindus, the untouchables had to leave the village. Lalaji’s statement that thousands of middle-class youths do nothing for the farmers after getting education and they join the group that sucks the blood of the farmers is not wrong. But if a person, despite being educated, has an anti-farmer and anti-labourer ideology, then it is not the fault of education but of his sanskaars, which his feudal environment has given him. There is no doubt that modern education has not brought any ideological change among Hindus, and especially among Brahmins and other upper castes. The greatest Brahmin and upper caste leaders of the country, such as Tilak, Nehru, Gandhi, Malviya, Chatterjee, Banerjee, Mukherjee, Hedgewar, Savarkar, etc., all had English education, but despite this none of these leaders had abandoned their conservative ideology. All of them were suffering from the sense of superiority of their upper caste, which is a disease, from which they were not freed even after getting English education. But on the contrary, the same English education opened a new world for Jothiba Phule, Dr. Ambedkar, Ramasamy Nayakar, and many other people from lower classes, and their entire transformation took place. It was these people who understood the problems of India properly and it was these people who raised the voice of the farmers and workers, because their background was not feudal and Brahminical, but from a lower-class environment.
There is no doubt that the middle class is made up of upper castes; therefore, as Dr. Ambedkar believed, this class is not capable of leading the country. ‘The idealism and independent thinking required for true leadership is possible only in the working class. The elite upper class may have idealism, but cannot have independent thinking. The middle class is opportunistic, it has neither any ideals nor independent thinking. But both idealism and independent thinking are possible in the working class. It has a hunger for a new social order. This hunger is their hope, which keeps the working class alive. This is the will to live for which he enters the struggle and stays united. Only the leadership of the working class can give freedom and a new social order to India and Indians.
Dr. Ambedkar said this in 1943, although since the formation of the Independent Labor Party, he had been calling upon the socialists to form a socialist front against the Congress Party, which was a party of capitalists, landlords and Brahmins, and which had no hope of working in the interest of farmers, labourers and lower classes, but since communist and socialist politics were also in the hands of Brahmins and upper castes, they continued to associate themselves with the Congress. The result was the same, capitalists, nawabs, princes, landlords and Brahmins became the rulers of independent India. And as soon as these rulers got the reins of power, they established political democracy in India, but kept the Indian society as a Hindu society, did not allow it to become a democratic society.
