Indians had option to choose from ‘fake’ Mahatma and ‘genuine’ freedom fighter Bhagat Singh

3

Irfan Habib’s book on the great freedom fighter Bhagat Singh Inquilab was released on Saturday in Delhi. It raises the question as to whose path was right, Gandhi’s or Bhagat Singh’s? The path of the former was non violent, satyagrah, as opposed to the armed struggle against the British rulers by the latter.

Bhagat Singh

I have no doubt that Bhagat Singh’s path of armed struggle was right, and if we had followed that path, today India would have become a prosperous country, with its people enjoying a high standard of living, whereas the path shown by that British agent Gandhi ( see my 4 blogs on Gandhi on my blog Satyam Bruyat ) has led us to disaster.

When Neville Chamberlain, the then Prime Minister of England, came back to London from Germany in 1938 after the shameful Munich Pact (which surrendered Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia, to the Nazis), Winston Churchill, who was then in the Opposition, said in the House of Commons :”You were given a choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.”

So Indians, you were given a choice between that fake ‘Mahatma’ on the one hand, and the genuine freedom fighters Bhagat Singh, and others like him e.g. Surya Sen, Chandrashekhar Azad, Bismil, Ashfaqulla, Rajguru, Sukhdev, Khudiram Bose, etc on the other.

You were given a choice between a genuine freedom struggle, which is always an armed struggle (because no one gives up his Empire without an armed fight), in which no doubt millions of our countrymen would have perished (as happened to the Chinese when they fought against the Japanese in the 1930s and 1940s) but which would have led to real freedom for India and creation of a prosperous country in which its people were leading decent lives, or a fake freedom struggle, in which the bloodshed was avoided, but which has led to massive poverty, unemployment, child malnourishment, almost non existent healthcare and lack of good education for our masses, etc.

You chose the dishonourable path of Gandhi, thinking that you can avoid bloodshed, instead of the honourable path of Bhagat Singh and Surya Sen, but you will now have massive bloodshed in the coming years, perhaps ten times more than what you would have had to shed had you followed the path of Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen, etc.

Many people say that the violent method of freedom struggle in India against the British, as advocated and practised by Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen (Masterda), Chandrashekhar Azad, Ashfaqulla, Rajguru, Khudiram Bose, Ram Prasad Bismil, etc was wrong. They assert that it would have led to enormous bloodshed and was bound to have failed. Hence, they claim, the non violent method of Gandhi was correct.

I totally disagree. Firstly, do imperialists give up their huge empire because someone resorts to hunger strike or does salt march or sings Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram? Did the American colonies get freedom from England by non violent methods? Did Americans fight for freedom from the British by raising a continental army under George Washington or by offering them flowers and satyagrah? Did the ‘Great Liberator’ Simon Bolivar free the Latin American countries from Spanish rule with his battalions or by presenting the Spaniards lollipops and bouquets?

Did Ho Chi Minh fight the French and later the Americans by ‘presenting the other cheek ‘ and salt marches, or with guns?

India got independence not because of Gandhi but because in the Second World War Germany attacked and weakened England, which made the British appeal to the Americans for help. In return, the Americans put pressure on the British to open up India to American investments too, as they did not want a British monopoly in India. So the ‘Independence’ of 1947 was really opening up the Indian economy to US investments too. This had nothing to do with Gandhi. In fact if Gandhi had his way, India would never have got independence ( see my blog ‘ Gandhi–a British agent ‘ and my other blogs on Gandhi on my blog Satyam Bruyat).

As Thomas Jefferson said “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants. It is its natural manure.” I remember I was with a Frenchman in Paris some years back. I told him, “Why did you French surrender to the Nazis in 1940? You should have fought on. Why did you surrender Paris to the Germans?”

He replied that the French army had been defeated, and if France had not surrendered, there would have been enormous French causalities, and a lot of property, including priceless French cultural treasures, would have been destroyed.

I said that even if that had happened, Paris should never have been surrendered, but instead, should have been burnt down by Frenchmen themselves, as the Russians did to Moscow in September, 1812, instead of surrendering it to Napoleon’s army ( see Tolstoy’s ‘War and Peace’).

When the German attack on England was about to commence in 1940, the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, in a historic speech in the House of Commons on 19 May, 1940 said (quoting the Bible), “Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict, for it is better for us to perish in battle, than to look upon the outrage of our nation, and of our altar.”

Then again on 4 June he said, “We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender.”

Some people may ask, ‘with what weapons could we have fought the British? We did not have any?’

The answer is that in guerrilla war, one fights with the weapons of the enemy, by snatching them from him. And after all, Bhagat singh, Surya Sen, etc got weapons from somewhere.
Our ancestors chose the dishonourable, easy way out offered by that British agent Gandhi, instead of the difficult but genuine path shown by Bhagat Singh and Surya Sen, and we are still suffering for that, even 71 years after the independence, and will continue to suffer for many years more.

I regard the true freedom fighters of our country to be Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen ( Masterda ), and his other compatriots of the Anushilan Samiti and Jugantar, Khudiram Bose, Chandrashekhar Azad ( whose memorial in Alfred Park in Allahabad I would visit often to bow my head there), Ashfaqulla, Rajguru, Ram Prasad Bismil (whose song ‘ Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamaare dil mein hai ‘ is known to many ), etc.

In our national historiography, these real patriots are barely mentioned, they are generally relegated to a footnote, and treated as mavericks, deviants or outsiders, not freedom fighters, while that fake ‘Mahatma’ and his coterie, and that pawn of the Japanese fascists, Subhas Chandra Bose (see my blog ‘ The Japanese agent Subhas Chandra Bose ‘ on Satyam Bruyat) are depicted as the real freedom fighters.

Gandhi described Bhagat Singh and the militant Indian youth fighting against British Imperialism as ‘misguided souls.’ He often said that militant nationalism was injurious to India’s struggle for freedom. In reality, he knew that if those methods became popular among the Indian masses his own popularity would decline, and his ‘Mahatmahood’ would disappear as he would stand exposed as a British agent.

When the British sentenced Bhagat Singh to death, Gandhi made no effort to save his life. He never wrote any letter to the British Viceroy to commute his sentence, nor did he issue any public appeal for this purpose, and he never went to meet Bhagat Singh in jail when the latter was on hunger strike.

By diverting the genuine freedom struggle against the British from its revolutionary path to harmless and nonsensical channels like satyagrah, Gandhi was ensuring that British rule over India would continue.It is said that Gandhi gave us Independence in 1947. This is totally false. The independence came for the reason I have mentioned above.

Some people ask if I call the path of armed struggle the correct path why have I criticised Subhas Chandra Bose, who was also on the path of armed struggle? I have given my reasons in my blogs ‘The Japanese agent Subhas Chandra Bose’ and ‘Bengalis and Bose ‘ on my blog Satyam Bruyat.

If ‘Netaji’ was not a Japanese agent, why did he give up the fight against the British when the Japanese surrendered? He should have carried on a guerrilla war against the British, like the Chinese Red Army. If the Japanese had been victorious against the British, does anyone seriously think they would have granted independence to India ? No, they would have made India a Japanese colony, and ruthlessly exploited and looted it, as they did to parts of China which were under their occupation.

In fact Bose was being used by the Japanese, and they would have bumped him off the moment his utility for them was over, or made into another Pu Yi, a puppet ruler of India. He was no doubt a brave and personally honest man, but he had become an agent of Japanese fascist imperialism.

The path of Gandhi and his associates like Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, etc resulted in parliamentary democracy, which in India really means appeasing and appealing to caste and communal vote banks. Casteism and communalism are feudal forces that must be destroyed if India is to progress, but parliamentary democracy further entrenches them.

Thus, the path of Gandhi and his associates continues to divide India on caste and communal lines, whereas if we had adopted the path of Bhagat Singh and Surya Sen we would have become united in our struggle against poverty, unemployment and other evils, and like China emerged as an industrialised and powerful nation, with our people enjoying decent lives.

(Justice Markandey Katju is a former Supreme Court judge and ex-chairman of Press Council of India. Views expressed here are the author’s own)

Pizza Hut

3 COMMENTS

  1. There were patriots of many different colors, creeds and philosophies in our fight for freedom. There were many likes of Bhagat Singh who led violent struggle against British but there was only one who led a non-violent struggle. And it was the non-violent struggle that won the day and achieved its primary goal. Gandhi’s unique approach to fight repression, tyranny and injustices was successfully tried by Dr.Martin Luther King and Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela. The nations that achieved freedom by violence have invariably ended up by replacing old colonial tyrants with new native tyrants. Sad examples exist in Asia, Africa and South America.
    Katju sahib, has delivered judgements during his professional life under the watchful eyes of Mahatma Gandhi whose portrait hangs on the wall in every courtroom above the judge’s chair. He is there not as a British agent but as a father of our new nation. It is unfair to compare Gandhiji with Bhagat Singh. Both are our revered national heroes.

  2. Insane. Even after the fight was won without bloodshed through satyagraha, you call armed resistance is better. Who had money for that? Just a streak of foolish imagination.

  3. During 1940-41 Germans dropped two lakhs of bombs on Britain.Hitler’s direction to his army was non stop bombardment of Britain in which Britain was disastrously ruined.No personal army,no navy under British command to continue rule in Hindustan.There was the intelligence report that army & navy preparing a revolt against the British empire because of nonpayment of salaries&growth of nationalism for attainment of liberty from tyrannical foreign rule.British verywel knew that Gandhi was not a threat to their rule in India.Azad Hind army had already got defeats in various battlefields.The defeat of Japanese in 2nd world war invited distress to Azad Hind army.Japanese are highly ambitious &they would not have donated Hindustan to Subhas if they would have won the battle.Almost all countries of the world have achieved freedom by 1960.Did Gandhi’s nonviolence give them independence?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here