Shaheed Diwas 2017: Why no political party is worthy of Bhagat Singh's legacy

Despite their lip service to Bhagat Singh and other martyrs at various functions, no modern Indian political party is remotely worthy of Bhagat Singh's legacy. Had he been around today, most of them (including the Communists) would be imminently uncomfortable with the various ideas that the remarkable young man held. Here are some facts about Bhagat Singh that we ought to revisit on the day when the British hung him for the assassination of British police officer John Saunders, which was in retaliation to the death of Lala Lajpat Rai.

He was a staunch atheist and was against anything communal

Bhagat Singh was an avowed atheist, which led to a fellow prisoner calling him ‘vain’. At a time when religion seems to be the reason behind burning bridges in the nation and across the world, it is fitting that we revisit one of the most powerful essays ever written by an Indian. In his essay, the young revolutionary detailed the various reasons he had chosen a god-less path.

In his seminal piece 'Why I am an atheist', he wrote: “As regard the origin of God, my thought is that man created God in his imagination when he realised his weaknesses, limitations and shortcomings. In this way he got the courage to face all the trying circumstances and to meet all dangers that might occur in his life and also to restrain his outbursts in prosperity and affluence. God, with his whimsical laws and parental generosity was painted with variegated colours of imagination. He was used as a deterrent factor when his fury and his laws were repeatedly propagated so that man might not become a danger to society.”

(Read: Why I am an atheist, by Bhagat Singh)

He was also shocked by untouchability as he wondered how we could practice such a heinous ritual in the 20th century. S Irfan Habib,  wrote: "In the first piece, Bhagat Singh starts by saying that “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. They had proclaimed equality during the American and French revolutions. However, we are still debating whether the untouchable is entitled for the sacred thread or can he read the Vedas or not. 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, Bhagat Singh wondered, do we really have any right to complain about such matters?” "

He was an anarcho-communist

Inspired by the writings of Mikhail Bakunin, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, Bhagat Singh gravitated towards the idea of anarchy which must overthrow the government. He had written: “The ultimate goal of Anarchism is complete independence, according to which no one will be obsessed with God or religion, now will anybody be crazy for money or otherworldly desires. There will no chains on his body or control by the state.”

In fact, he believed that anarchy was similar to the idea of universal brotherhood without hierarchies. His communist slant must also be put in context and not treated with the same retrospective lens that we treat communism now since we have seen states like China and Russia garble the fundamentals of that particular ideology to create oppressive states (not unlike the way modern-day terrorists use religion to justify their heinous crimes).

As far as the young revolutionary’s thoughts are concerned, given his hatred for oppression, there’s no doubt in my mind that he would found the atrocities carried out in the name of communism abhorrent.

He understood the power of ideas and literature

What truly set Bhagat Singh apart from his contemporaries is the depth of his intellect for the young man understood the power literature and language had on people. When he was just 16 years old he had written an essay for a competition organised by the Punjab Hindi Sahitya Sammelan in 1923, where he won him the grand prize of Rs 50.

In a piece titled 'The Problem of Punjab’s Language and Script', he lamented the fact that Punjabi hadn’t been adopted by the denizens and that they refused to do so because of religious convictions (Hindus would prefer Hindi, Muslims would prefer Urdu, etc.).

Giving examples of how other revolutions were built by language he explained: “Perhaps Garibaldi could not have succeeded in mobilising the army with such ease if Mazzini had not invested his thirty years in his mission of cultural and literary renaissance. The revival of Irish language was attempted with the same enthusiasm along with the renaissance in Ireland. The rulers so much wanted to suppress their language for the ultimate suppression of the Irish people that even kids were punished for the crime of keeping a few verses in Gaelic. The French revolution would have been impossible without the literature of Rousseau and Voltaire. Had Tolstoy, Karl Marx and Maxim Gorky not invested years of their lives in the creation of a new literature, the Russian Revolution would not have taken place, leave alone the propagation and practice of communism.”

He went on to lament that this lack of a common literature was hurting the state . He lamented how Swami Ramtirtha had been forgotten in Punjab while his contemporary Swami Vivekananda had become a permanent institution in Bengal.

He added: “We find only one reason on bottom, and that is the total lack of literacy interest and awakening, the truth is that no country or community can progress without its literature. But language is the primary need of literature and this is absent in Punjab. In spite of releasing this handicap for long, the question of language has still remained unresolved. The main reason behind this is the unfortunate communalisation of language in our province.”

How extraordinary is it that a 16-year-old boy could understand the power of language in creating ideas and history? Read more

He knew an idea was more powerful than guns and bombs

Interestingly, despite his own act to avenge Lala Lajpat Rai, he abhorred individual acts of violence and believed they wouldn’t lead very far. He had written: “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. One can easily judge it from the history of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association. All our activities were directed towards an 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.”

He even urged students at the Punjab Students' Conference held in 1929 (under the guidance of Subhas Chandra Bose) to eschew pistols and bombs with ideas. The message that was read at the gathering read: “Today, we cannot ask the youth to take to pistols and bombs. Today, students are confronted with a far more important assignment. In the coming Lahore Session the Congress is to give call for a fierce fight for the independence of the country. The youth will have to bear a great burden in this difficult times in the history of the nation." Read more

He was the ultimate rebel

Perhaps nothing sums up Bhagat Singh’s sheer audacity than this letter which he wrote to his father when the latter had approached the tribunal saying his son was innocent. Lashing out in a critical letter, Bhagat Singh said he wasn’t entitled to take a move on his behalf. Refusing to defend himself, since he felt he did no wrong, he wrote in the letter:  "Father, I am quite perplexed. I fear I might overlook the ordinary principle of etiquette and my language may become a little but harsh while criticizing or rather censoring this move on your part. Let me be candid. I feel as though I have been stabbed at the back. Had any other person done it, I would have considered it to be nothing short of treachery. But in your case, let me say that it has been a weakness - a weakness of the worst type.

This was the time where everybody's mettle was being tested. Let me say, father, you have failed. I know you are as sincere a patriot as one can be. I know you are as sincere a patriot as one can be. I know you have devoted your life to the cause of Indian independence, but why, at this moment, have you displayed such a weakness? I cannot understand.”

Bhagat’s response to his own father shows just how strong his ideals were and how deeply entrenched rebellion was in his veins. That’s why it’s sad to see political organisations of various hues trying to appropriate Bhagat Singh because, frankly, none of them are remotely worthy of his legacy.