What do you think?
Rate this book
264 pages, Hardcover
First published October 30, 2007
When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint....Seeking root causes leads to radicalism, esp. Marxist critiques of capitalism and Leninist critiques of imperialism. The young (by age, but less so by experience) Singh recognized how reformist “political democracy� preserves colonial India’s institutional structures; it might replace some official British representation with domestic representation and a new flag (British wealth/financial/corporate influence runs deeper), but it does not sufficiently challenge the colonial legacy of divide-and-rule inequities:
When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.
-Dom Helder Camara
Democracy was theoretically a system of political and legal equality. But in concrete and practical terms, it was inadequate. There could be no equality in politics and before the law as long as there were glaring economic inequalities. So long as the ruling class controlled jobs and the press and the schools of the country and all organs of public opinion; so long as it monopolized all trained public functionaries and disposed of unlimited funds to influence elections; so long as laws were made by the ruling class; so long as lawyers, who were private practitioners, sold their expertise to the highest bidder and litigation was exclusive and costly, there would be only nominal equality before the law. So the revolutionaries believed and talked. [Emphasis added]�--Had Singh lived longer (or at least his manuscripts survived), long-term/structural strategy is where such a radical would shine, while reformists like Gandhi would be exposed for their limitations. We can consider The Doctor and the Saint: The Ambedkar - Gandhi Debate.
Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.....It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany.... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.…In directly critiquing Singh’s “revolutionary murder�, Gandhi insisted as “hard facts� that such actions demoralised the people�, have no place in “Indian tradition�, and seems to just dismiss Singh’s popularity by insisting the “efficacy of the opposite method, i.e. non-violence�.
[The revolutionaries of Bengal] had discarded what they termed ‘anarchism�, or the path of the bomb and the gun. They felt it was possible to fight for socialism through the mobilization of the masses. […]
Das did not, however, agree to teach Bhagat Singh how to make a bomb [to throw in the Assembly Hall courtroom, “away from the seated members�; “Our sole purpose was to make the deaf hear and give the heedless a timely warning”]. His party had abandoned ‘acts of individual terrorism�, as he put it, and he, for one, refused to violate the party discipline. However, Das changed his mind when he was convinced that the killing of top British officials would instil a sense of bravery in the youth and make them participate in revolutionary activities. He noted the panic that had gripped the British after a couple of killings. The old placid situation had undergone a sea-change. […]
Bhagat Singh rejected the idea [for him to escape after throwing the bomb]. He said that it was time that words were spoken. Nothing had ever remained of any revolution but what was rife in the conscience of the masses. Words alone could do that. The rulers must be put in the dock. The court should be used as a forum to propagate revolutionary patriotic ideas and to awaken the people’s fervour for freedom. The public must clearly understand and appreciate the motives of the revolutionaries.
If the motive was not considered, said Bhagat Singh, then, ‘Jesus Christ would appear to be a man responsible for creating disturbances, violating peace and preaching revolt and would be considered a dangerous personality in the language of the law. But we worship him.� […]
Bhagat Singh believed that oppression should evoke feelings of retaliation, not mere protest [a related perspective: “protest� is restricted to appealing to the current power structure. The alternative is “direct action�, to act as if you were already free and face the consequences; however, violence is still a major debate, from its morality i.e. when is it “self-defence�, to its consequences for the movement]. Violence was a catharsis for the oppressed. It was a cleansing force. It freed the subjugated from their inferiority complex, their despair. It made them fearless and restored their self-respect. It was a phase, an inevitable phase of the revolution. [The biographer sure is channeling Fanon; emphases added].