(Revolutionary) At it Again

The revolutionary who was carrying on the dialogue with the Mahatma trying to impress that the revolutionary movement was better than the non violent movement came back again with some questions which the Mahatma has answered in this article.

Text in Italics - Questions

Normal Text - Answers

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AT IT AGAIN

My revolutionary friend has returned to the charge, but I must tell him that he has not been as patient with his composition as before. He has introduced in his letter under discussion much irrelevant matter and has argued loosely. So far as I can see, he has exhausted all his argument and has nothing new to say. But should he write again, I advise him to write his letter more carefully and boil down his thoughts. I have been obliged to do that for him this time. But as he is seeking light, let him read carefully what I write, then think out his thoughts calmly and then write out clearly and briefly. If it is merely questions he has to ask, let him simply write them out without arguing to convince me. I do not pretend to know everything about the revolutionary movement, but as I have been obliged to think, observe and write a great deal, there is very little new that he can tell me. Whilst, therefore, I promise to keep an open mind, I ask him, please, to spare a busy servant of the nation and a true friend of the revolutionary the labour of reading much that he need not read. I am anxious to keep in touch with the revolutionary and I can only do so through these columns. I have a soft corner for him in my heart, for there is one thing in common between him and me—the ability to suffer. But as I humbly believe him to be mistaken and misguided, I desire to wean him from his error or in the process myself be weaned from mine.

My revolutionary friend's first question is :

“The revolutionaries have retarded the progress of the country.” Do you differ with your own view, when you wrote in connection with the Bengal Partition : ‘After the Partition people saw that petitions must be backed up by force, and that they must be capable of suffering. This spirit must be considered to be the chief result of the Partition . . . . That which the people said tremblingly and in secret began to be said and written openly. . . . People, young and old, used to run away at the sight of an English face; it no longer awed them. They did not fear even a row, or being imprisoned. Some of the ‘best sons of India’ are at present in banishment.”1 The movement which followed the Partition or more correctly which was the manifestation of the unrest of the people was the revolutionary movement, and the best sons of India you speak of are mostly revolutionaries or semi-revolutionaries. How is it that these so-called ignorant and misguided persons were able to reduce, if not remove, the cowardice of India? Would you be so intolerant as to call the revolutionaries ignorant, because they cannot understand your peculiar dogma of non-violence?

There is no difference between the view expressed in Indian Home Rule2 from which the writer has quoted and the views now expressed by me. Those who led the Partition movement, whatever and whoever they were, undoubtedly shed the fear of Englishmen. That was a distinct service to the country. But bravery and selfsacrifice need not kill. Let my friend remember that indian Home Rule, as the booklet itself states, was written in answer to the revolutionary's arguments and methods. It was an attempt to offer the revolutionary something infinitely superior to what he had, retaining the whole of the spirit of self-sacrifice and bravery that was to be found in the revolutionary. I do not call the revolutionary ignorant merely because he does not understand or appreciate my method, but because he does not even appear to me to understand the art of warfare. Every one of the warriors whom my friend quotes knew his art and had his men.

The second question is :

Was Terence MacSwiney a “spotless lamb” when he died of hungerstrike of 71 days? Please remember that he was to the last an advocate of conspiracy, bloodshed and terrorism, and maintained his ideas expressed in his famous book Principles of Freedom. If you can call MacSwiney a “spotless lamb”, will you not be ready to use the same term for Gopimohan Shaha3 ?

I am sorry to say I do not know enough of the life of MacSwiney to be able to give an opinion. But if he advocated ‘conspiracy, bloodshed and terrorism”, his method was open to the same objections that have been advanced in these pages. I never regarded him as a “spotless lamb”. I gave my humble opinion when his fast was declared, that from my standpoint it was an error. I do not justify every fast.

The third question is :

You believe in varnas. Therefore, it is self-evident that you hold the Kshatriyas to be of the same utility as any other varna. The revo- lutionaries profess to be Kshatriyas in this Nikshatriya epoch in India. Kshatat trayate iti Kshatriyah. I consider this state of India to be the greatest Kshata which India has ever met with, in other words this is the time when the need of Kshatriyas in India is the uttermost. Manu, the Prince of Hindu lawgivers prescribes four ways for the Kshatriya: “sama, dana, danda, bheda”. In this connection I reproduce a passage from Vivekananda, which I think will greatly help you to comprehend the matter full well.

“All great teachers have taught ‘Resist not evil”, have taught that the non-resisting is the highest moral ideal. We all know that if, in the present state of world, people try to carry out this doctrine, the whole social fabric would fall to pieces, society would be destroyed, the violent and the wicked will take possession of our property, and possibly take our lives also. Even one day of such non-resistance would lead to the utter dissolution of the country”. I know what you will do in this awkward position, you will try to interpret it differently, but you shall find that he left no room for such misinterpretation, because he instantly adds, “Some of you have read perhaps the Bhagavad Gita and many of you in Western countries may have felt astonished at the first chapter wherein our Shri Krishna calls Arjuna a hypocrite and coward, on account of his refusal to fight or offer resistance, because his adversaries were his friends and relatives—his refusal on the plea that non-resistance was the highest ideal of love. There is a great lesson for us all to learn, that in all things the two extremes are alike; the extreme positive and the extreme negative are always similar; when the vibrations of light are too slow we do not see them nor do we see them when they are too rapid; so also with sound, when very low in pitch we do not hear it, when very high we do not hear it either. Of like nature is the difference between resistance and non-resistance . . . We must first care to understand whether we have the power of resistance or not. Then having the power, if we renounce it and do not resist, we are doing a grand act of love; but if we cannot resist and yet at the same time make it appear and ourselves believe that we are actuated by motives of highest love, we shall be doing the exact opposite of what is morally good. Arjuna became coward at the sight of the mightly array against him, his 'love' made him forget his duty towards his country and King. That is why Shri Krishna told him that he was a hypocrite: ‘Thou talkest like a wise man, but thy actions betray thee to be a coward, therefore stand up and flight.” I want to add nothing more except a few questions. Do you think that your so-called heart-and-soul non-violent disciples can resist this alien bureaucrat government by physical force? If yes, on what ground; if not, how then does your non-violence remain the weapon of the strong? Please answer these questions in the most unmistakable terms, so that no one can make different interpretations.

Along with it I shall ask you the following questions, which directly arise from your statement. In your swaraj, is there any place for sol- diers? Will your swaraj government keep armies? If so, will they fight—I mean use physical force, when necessary, or will they offer satyagraha against their opponents?

I have room in my philosophy of life for Kshatriyas. But my definition of him I take from the Gita. He who does not run away from battle, i.e., danger, is a Kshatriya. As the world progresses, the same terms acquire new values. Manu and the other law-givers did not lay down eternal principles of conduct. They enunciated certain eternal maxims of life and laid down for their age rules of conduct more or less in accord with those maxims. I am unable to subscribe to the methods of bribery and deceit even for gaining entrance into heaven, much less for gaining India’s freedom, for heaven will not be heaven and freedom will not be freedom if either is gained through such methods.

I have not verified the quotation said to be from Vivekananda. It has neither the freshness nor the brevity that mark most of that great man’s writings. But whether it is from his writings or not, it does not satisfy me. If a large number of people carry out the doctrine of nonresistance, the present state of the world will not be what it is. Those individuals who have carried it out have not lost anything. They have not been butchered by the violent and the wicked. On the contrary, the latter have shed both their violence and wickedness in the presence of the non-violent and the good.

I have already stated my meaning of the Gita. It deals with the eternal duel between good and evil. And who does not, like Arjuna, often quail when the dividing line between good and evil is thin and when the right choice is so difficult?

I heartily endorse, however, the statement that he alone is truly non-violent who remains non-violent even though he has the ability to strike. I do, therefore, claim that my disciple (I have only one and that is myself) is quite capable of striking, very indifferently and perhaps ineffectively, I admit; but he has no desire to do so. I have had in my life many an opportunity of shooting my opponents and earning the crown of martyrdom, but I had not the heart to shoot any of them. For I did not want them to shoot me, however much they disliked my methods. I wanted them to convince me of my error as I was trying to convince them of theirs. “Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.”

Alas! In my swaraj of today there is room for soldiers. Let the revolutionary friend know that I have described the disarmament and consequent emasculation of a whole people as the blackest crime of the British. I have not the capacity for preaching universal nonviolence to the country. I preach, therefore, non-violence restricted strictly to the purpose of winning our freedom and, therefore, perhaps for preaching the regulation of international relations by non-violent means. But my incapacity must not be mistaken for that of doctrine of the non-violence. I see it with my intellect in all its effulgence. My heart grasps it. But I have not yet the attainments for preaching universal non-violence with effect. I am not advanced enough for the great task. I have yet anger within me, I have yet the dwaita bhava— duality in me. I can regulate my passions. I keep them under subjection, but before I can preach universal non-violence with effect, I must be wholly free from passions. I must be wholly incapable of sin. Let the revolutionary pray with and for me that I may soon become that. But, meanwhile, let him take with me the one step to it which I see as clearly as day-light, i.e., to win India’s freedom with strictly non-violent means. And, then, under swaraj, you and I shall have a disciplined, intelligent, educated police force that would keep order within and fight raiders from without if, by that time, I or someone else does not show a better way of ealing with either.

Young India, 7-5-1925

1 Vide “Hind Swaraj - Chapter II : The Partition of Bengal”, 22-11-1909.
2 Vide “Hind Swaraj”, 22-11-1909.
3 Slip for Gopi Nath Saha; vide “Interview to The Times of India”, 5-6-1924.

------------------------CWMG Vol 31, Art. 169, Pg. 285-----------------------------------

To ‘Revolutionary in the Making’

Someone had written a letter to Gandhiji putting his arguments explaining that revolutionary does no violence when he takes the life of his adversary and probably also intended to himself being a revolutionary in the making. The following is Gandhiji's reply to 'Revolutionary in making'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO ‘REVOLUTIONARY IN THE MAKING’

You will pardon me for not reproducing your letter. I would have gladly published it, if it was a presentable letter—not that the language of your letter is at all in bad taste or violent. On the contrary, you have attempted to present your case fairly and calmly, but theargument is loosely and unconvincingly put. What you want to say is that the revolutionary does no violence because when he takes the life of his adversary, he does so to benefit him, i.e., his soul, even as a surgeon performs a painful operation on a patient for his (the latter’s) good. You argue that the adversary has a vile body which vitiates the soul and that the sooner it is destroyed, the better for him.

Now, the analogy of the surgeon is wrong because he is concerned merely with the body. He operates on the body to benefit the body. His science ignores the soul. Who can say how many bodies have been repaired by surgeons at the expense of the soul? But the revolutionary destroys the body for the supposed benefit of the adversary’s soul. In the first instance, I do not know a single revolutionary who has ever thought of the adversary’s soul. His singleaim has been of benefit the country even though the adversary may perish, body and soul. In the second instance, since you believe in the Law of Karma, a compulsory destruction of a body merely paves the way for the creation of a tougher body for the same soul. For the manwhose body is destroyed will weave for himself a body after his own longing. That, to my mind, is the meaning of the persistence of evil and the crimes we see about us. The more we punish, the more persistent crimes become. They may change colour, but the substance is the same. The way to serve the adversary’s soul is to appeal to the soul. It defies destruction, but it is amenable to appeals tuned to the required pitch. Souls must react upon souls. And since non-violence is essentially a quality of the soul, the only effective appeal to the soul must lie through non-violence. And do we not arrogate to ourselves infallibility when we seek to punish our adversaries ? Let us remember that they regard us to be as harmful to society as we regard them. It is idle to drag in the name of Krishna. Either we believe him to be the very God or we do not. If we do, we impute to him omniscience and omnipotence. Such a one can surely destroy. But we are puny mortals ever erring and ever revising our views and opinions. We may not without coming to grief ape Krishna, the inspirer of the Gita. You should remember too that the so-called Christians of the Middle Ages thought exactly as you believe revolutionaries think. They burnt heretics for the benefit of the latter’s souls. We of today laugh at the atrocious folly of these ignorant so-called Christians of the Middle Ages. We now know that the inquisitors were wrong, their victims were totally innocent.

I am glad you are turning the wheel. Its silent revolution will bring you peace and bring the freedom you love much nearer than you imagine. Do not mind your fickle friends who have deserted you leaving behind a legacy of “bug-ridden bed born” slivers. If I were you, I would recard these slivers. You may not know carding. If you do not, you must go to the nearest man who knows it and learn the beautiful art of carding. He is an indifferent spinner who knows not how to card. You need not be afraid that the method of non-violenceis a slow long-drawn-out process. It is the swiftest the world has seen, for it is the surest. You will see that it will overtake the revolutionaries whom you imagine I have misjudged. To point out errors is not to misjudge. I am devoting so much space to them because I want their exhaustless energy to be directed in the right channel.

Young India, 30-4-1925

-----------------------------------------CWMG Vol. 30, Art. 142, Pg. 223-----------------

My Friend, The Revolutionary

One of the topics in anti gandhi propoganda is that Gandhi called Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh, Misguided Patriots and Venmous reptiles. I present an article from Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol 31, Pg. 137, Article no. 81. This article had appeared in Young India on 9th April 1925.

In this article, Mahatma Gandhi answers questions of a revolutionary. The text in italics are the questions and normal text are the answers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY FRIEND, THE REVOLUTIONARY

The revolutionary whom I endeavoured to answer some time ago, has returned to the charge and challenges me to answer certain questions that arise out of my previous answers to him. I gladly do so. He seems to me to be seeking light, even as I am, and argues fairly and without much passion. So long as he continues to reason calmly, I promise to continue the discussion. His first question is:

Do you really believe that the revolutionaries of India are less sacrificing, less noble or less lovers of their country than the Swarajists, Moderates and the Nationalists? May I challenge you to keep before the public the names of some Swarajists, Moderates of Nationalists who have embraced the death of a martyr for the sake of the motherland? Can you be bold, any, arrogant enough to deny it in the face of historical facts that the revolutionaries have sacrificed more for their country than any other party which professes of serve India? You are ready to make compromises with other parties, while you abhor our party and describe the[ir] sentiments as poison. Will you not tremble to use the same word of intolerance for the sentiments of any other party which is decidedly inferior in the eyes of God and men to us? What makes you shrink from calling them misguided patriots or venomous reptiles?

I do not regard the revolutionaries of India to be less sacrificing, less noble or less lovers of their country than the rest. But I respectfully contend that their sacrifice, nobility and love are not only a waste of effort, but being ignorant and misguided, do and have done more harm to the country than any other activity. For, the revolutionaries have retarded the progress of the country. Their reckless disregard of the lives of their opponents has brought on repression that has made those that do not take part in their warfare more cowardly than they were before. Repression does good only to those who are prepared for it. The masses are not prepared for the repression that follows in the trail of revolutionary activities and unwittingly strengthen the hands of the very Government which the revolutionaries are seeking to destroy. It is my certain conviction that had the Chauri Chaura murders not taken place the movement attempted at Bardoli would have resulted in the establishment of swaraj. Is it, therefore, any wonder that, with such opinion I call the revolutionary a misguided and therefore, dangerous patriot? I would call my son a misguided and dangerous nurse who, because of his ignorance and blind love, fought at the cost of his own life the physicians whose system of medicine no doubt did me harm but which I could not escape for want of will or ability. The result would be that I would lose a noble son and bring down upon my head the wrath of the physicians who, suspecting my complicity in the son's activities, might seek to punish me in addition to continuing their harmful course of treatment. If the son had attempted to convince the physicians of their error, or me of my weakness in submitting to the treatment, the physicians might have mended their way, or I might have rejected the treatment, or would, at least, have escaped the wrath of the physicians. I do make certain compromises with the other parties because, though I disagree with them, I do not regard their activities as positively harmful and dangerous as I regard the revolutionaries'. I have never called the revolutionaries"venom- ous reptiles". But I must refuse to fall into hysterics over their sacrifices, however great they may be, even as I must refuse to give praise to the sacrifice of my misguided son for his sacrifice in the illustration supposed by me. I feel sure that those who through insufficient reasoning or false sentiment, secretly or openly, give praise to the revolutionaries for their sacrifices, do harm to them and the cause they have at heart. The writer has asked me to quote instances of nonrevolutionary patriots who gave their lives for the country. Well, two completed cases occur to me as I write these notes. Gokhale and Tilak died for their country. They worked in almost total disregard of their health and died much earlier than they need have. There is no necessary charm about death on the gallows; often such death is easier than a life of drudgery and toil in malarious tracts. I am quite satisfied that among the Swarajists and others there are men who will any day lay down their lives if they felt convinced that their death would bring deliverance to the country. I suggest to my friend, the revolutionary, that death on the gallows serves the country only when the victim is a "spotless lamb".

"India's path is not Europe's". Do you really believe it? Do you mean to say that warfare and organization of army was not in existence in India, before she came in contact with Europe? Warfare for fair cuase—Is it against the spirit of India? Vinashaya cha dushkritam—Is it something imported from Europe? Granted that it is, will you be fanatic enough not to take from Europe what is good? Do you believe that nothing good is possible in Europe? If conspiracy, bloodshed and sacrifice for fair cause are bad for India, will they not be bad as well for Europe?

I do not deny that India had armies, warfare, etc., before she came in contact with Europe. But I do say that it never was the normal course of Indian life. The masses, unlike those of Europe were untouched by the warlike spirits. I have already said in these pages that I ascribe to the Gita, from which the writer has quoted the celebrated verse, a totally different meaning from that ordinarily given. I do not regard it as a description of, or an exhortation to, physical warfare. And, in any case, according to the verse quoted it is God the All Knowing Who descends to the earth to punish the wicked. I must be pardoned if I refuse to regard every revolutionary as an all knowing God or an avatar. I do not condemn everything European. But I condemn, for all climes and for all times, secret murders and unfair methods even for a fair cause.

"India is not Calcutta and Bombay" May I most respectfully put it before your Mahatmaship that the revolutionaries know the geography of India enough to be able to know this geographical fact easily. We hold this fact as much as we hold that a few spinners do no form the Indian nation. We are entering villages and have been successful everywhere. Can you not believe that they , the son of Shivaji, Pratap and Ranjit, can appreciate our sentiments with more readiness and depth than anything else? Don't you think that armed and conspired resistance against something satanic and ignoble is infinitely more befitting for any nation, especially Indian, than the prevalence of effortlessness and philosophical cowardice? I mean the cowardice which is pervading the length and breadth of Indian owing to the preaching of your theory of non-violence or more correctly the wrong interpretation and misuse of it. Non-violence is not the theory of the weak and helpless, it is the theory of the strong. We want to produce such men in India, who will not shrink from death—whenever it may come and in whatever form—will do the good and die. This is the spirit with which we are entering the villages. We are not entering the villages to extort votes for councils and district boards, but our object is to secure co-martyrs for the country who will die and a stone will not tell where his poor corpse lies. Do you believe like Mazzini that ideas ripen quickly, when nourished by the blood of martyrs?

It is not enough to know the geographical difference between Calcutta and the villages outside the railways. If the revolutionaries knew the organic difference between these, they would, like me, become spinners. I own that the few spinners we have, do not make India. But I claim that it is possible to make all India spin as it did before, and so far as sympathy is concerned, millions are even now in sympathy with the movement, but they never will be with the revolutionary. I dispute the claim that the revolutionaries are succeeding with the villagers. But if they are, I am sorry. I shall spare no pains to frustrate their effort. Armed conspiracies against something satanic is like matching satans against Satan. But since one Satan is one too many for me, I would not multiply him. Whether my activity is effortlessness or all efforts, remains perhaps to be seen. Meanwhile, if it has resulted in making two yards of yarn spun where only one was spinning, it is so much to the good. Cowardice, whether philosophical or otherwise, I abhor. And if I could be persuaded that revolutionary activity has dispelled cowardice, it will go a long way to soften my abhorrence of the method, however much I may still oppose it on principle. But he who runs may see that owing to the non-violent movement, the villagers have assumed a boldness to which only a few years ago they were strangers. I admit that non-violence is a weapon essentially of the strong. I also admit that often cowardice is mistaken for non-violence. My friend begs the question when he says a revolutionary is one who "does the good and dies". That is precisely what I question. In my opinion, he does the evil and dies. I do not regard killing or assassination or terrorism as good in any circumstances whatsoever. I do believe that ideas ripen quickly when nourished by the blood of martyrs. But a man who dies slowly of jungle fever in service bleeds as certainly as the one on the gallows. And if the one who dies on the gallows is not innocent of another's blood, he never had ideas that deserved to ripen.

One of your objections against the revolutionaries is that their movement, is not mass movement, consequently the mass at large will be very little benefited by the revolution, for which we are preparing. That is indirectly saying that we shall be most benefitted by it. Is it really what you mean to say? Do you believe that those persons who are ever ready to die fortheir country—those mad lovers of their country—I mean the revolutionaries of India in whom the spirit of nishkama karma reigns, will betray their motherland and secure privileges for a life—this trifling life? It is true that we will not drag the mass just now in the field of action, because we know that it is weak, but when the preparation is complete, we shall call them in the open field. We profess to understand the present Indian psychology full well, because we daily get the chance of weighing our brethren along with ourselves. We know that the mass of India is after all Indian, it is not weak by itself but there is want of efficient leaders; so when we have begot the number of leaders required by constant propaganda and preaching, and the arms, we shall not shrink from calling, and if necessary, dragging the mass in the open field to prove that they are the descendants of Shivaji, Ranjit, Pratap and Govind Singh. Besides we have been constantly preaching that the mass is not for the revolution but the revolution is for the mass. Is it sufficient to remove your prejudice in this connection?

I neither say nor imply that the revolutionary benefits if the masses do not. On the contrary, and as a rule, the revolutionary never benefits in the ordinary sense of the word. If the revolutionaries succeed in attracting, not "dragging", the masses to them, they will find that the murderous campaign is totally unnecessary. It sounds verypleasant and exciting to talk of "the descendants of Shivaji, Ranjit, Pratap and Govind Singh". But is it true? Are we all descendants of these heroes in the sense in which the writer understands it? We are their countrymen, but their descendants are the military classes. We may, in future, be able to obliterate caste, but today it persists and therefore the claim put up by the writer cannot in my opinion be sustained.

Last of all, I shall ask you to answer these questions: Was Guru Govind Singh a misguided patriot because he believed in warfare for noble cause? What will you like to say about Washington, Garibaldi and Lenin? What do you think of Kamal Pasha and De Valera? Would you like to call Shivaji and Pratap, well-meaning and sacrificing physicians who prescribed arsenic when they should have given fresh grape-juice? Will you like to call Krishna Europeanized because he believed also in the vinasha of dushkritas?

This is a hard or rather awkward question. But I dare not shirk it. In the first instance Guru Govind Singh and the others whose names are mentioned did not believe in secret murder. In the second, Effort without desire, the principal teaching of the Gita these patriots knew their work and their men, whereas the modern Indian revolutionary does not know his work. He has not the men, he has not the atmosphere, that the patriots mentioned had. Though my views are derived from my theory of life I have not put them before the nation on that ground. I have based my opposition to the revolutionaries on the sole ground of expedience. Therefore, to compare their activities with those of Guru Govind Singh or Washington or Garibaldi or Lenin would be most misleading and dangerous. But by test of the theory of non-violence, I do not hesitate to say that it is highly likely that had I lived as their contemporary and in the respective countries, I would have called everyone of them a misguided patriot, even though a successful and brave warrior. As it is, I must not judge them. I disbelieve history so far as details of acts of heroes are concerned. I accept broad facts of history and draw my own lessons or my conduct. I do not want to repeat it in so far as the broad facts contradict the highest laws of life. But I positively refuse to judge men from the scanty material furnished to us by history. De mortuis nil nisi bonum.1 Kamal Pasha and De Valera too I cannot judge. But for me, as a believer in non-violence out and out they cannot be my guides in life in so far as their faith in war is concerned. I believe in Krishna perhaps more than the writer. But my Krishna is the Lord of the universe, the creator, preserver and destroyer of us all. He may destroy because He creates. But I must not be drawn into a philosophical or religious argument with my friends. I have not the qualifications for teaching my philosophy of life. I have barely qualifications for practising the philosophy I believe. I am but a poor struggling soul yearning to be wholly good—wholly truthful and wholly non-violent in thought, word and deed, but ever failing to reach the ideal which I know to be true. I admit, and assure my revolutionary friends, it is a painful climb but the pain of it is a positive pleasure for me. Each step upward makes me feel stronger and fit for the next. But all that pain and the pleasure are for me. The revolutionaries are at liberty to reject the whole of my philosophy. To them I merely present my own experiences as co-worker in the same a cause even as I have successfully presented them to the Ali Brothers Of the dead say nothing but good. and many other friends. They can and do applaud whole-heartedly the action of Mustafa Kamal Pasha and possibly De Valera and Lenin. But they realize with me that India is not like Turkey or Ireland or Russia and that revolutionary activity is suicidal at this stage of the country's life at any rate, if not for all time in a country so vast, so hopelessly divided and with the masses so deeply sunk in pauperism and so fearfully terror-struck.

Did Gandhi do his best to save Bhagat Singh?

Bhagat Singh, Raj Guru, Sukh Dev were proven guilty of killing a police officer Saunders and were sentenced to death in Lahore Conspiracy case. They wanted to avenge the death of Lala Lajpat Rai who was injured in a lathicharge ordered by Saunders. Gandhi pleaded with the then Viceroy Lord Irwin for commutation of their death sentence even though he never approved political killings. This has to be told to put to rest the canard being spread by bollywood movie buffs that Gandhi was responsible for Bhagat Singh's execution or that he didn't do enough to save Bhagat Singh's life.

We fail to realize that Bhagat Singh in 1931 was one among many revolutionaries and he turned popular during court trial and after his martyrdom. Indian National Congress came under pressure to do something to save their lives. The British, on the other hand had no intention of commuting the sentence.They intentionally carried out the execution on the eve of Karchi session of INC as if to embarrass its leadership.

Bhagat Singh didn't wish to live long after he was sentenced to death.The trio refused to apologize and declined to file a mercy petition. Gandhi took up the issue with viceroy Lord Irwin during his negotiations post mass civil disobedience movement of 1930-31. There was nothing that Gandhi could do to save their lives. He himself was fighting with the British Indian government and failed to secure all the demands put forward during his talks with viceroy.

Go through the following essays:

1."Of means and ends" Frontline,April 2001

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1808/18080910.htm

Viceroy Lord Irwin: "As I listened to Mr. Gandhi putting the case for commutation before me, I reflected first on what significance it surely was that the apostle of non-violence should so earnestly be pleading the cause of the devotees of a creed so fundamentally opposed to his own, but I should regard it as wholly wrong to allow my judgment to be influenced by purely political considerations. I could not imagine a case in which under the law, penalty had been more directly deserved."

2."Did the Mahatma do his best to save Bhagat Singh?" by RK Bhatnagar, former press secretary to President R Venkataraman.

http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/4940

3."Half Truths and True Lies" by Sankar Ray, Hindustan Times

http://www.gandhiserve.org/news/mgnd/news200609250930.html#a6



Gandhi's final attempt on the day of execution
Letter to Viceroy,March 23,1931

DARYAGANJ, DELHI,
March 23, 1931

DEAR FRIEND,
It seems cruel to inflict this letter on you,but the interest of peace demands a final appeal.Though you were frank enough to tell me that there was little hope of your commuting the sentence of death on Bhagat Singh and two others,you said you would consider my submission of Saturday.Dr. Sapru met me yesterday and said that you were troubled over the matter and taxing your brain as to the proper course to adopt.If there is any room left for reconsideration,I invite you attention to the following.

Popular opinion rightly or wrongly demands commutation.When there is no principle at stake,it is often a duty to respect it.In the present case the chances are that,if commutation is granted,internal peace is most likely to be promoted.In the event of execution, peace is undoubtedly in danger.

Seeing that I am able to inform you that the revolutionary party has assured me that,in the event of these lives being spared,that party will stay its hands, suspension of sentence pending cessation of revolutionary murders becomes in my opinion a peremptory duty.

Political murders have been condoned before now.It is worth while saving these lives,if thereby many other innocent lives are likely to be saved and maybe even revolutionary crime lmost stamped out.Since you seem to value my influence such as it is in favour of peace,do not please unnecessarily make my position,difficult as it is,almost too difficult for future work.

Execution is an irretrievable act.If you think there is the slightest chance of error of judgment,I would urge you to suspend for further review an act that is beyond recall.

If my presence is necessary,I can come. Though I may not speak I may hear and write what I want to say.

“Charity never faileth.”
I am,
Your sincere friend,

From a Photostat: C.W. 9343,Courtesy: India Office Library. Source: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg.html

on the very day in his letter superscribed "confidential" the Viceroy wrote: 'I have again thought very carefuly over everything that you have said- and the last thing I should wish to do would be to make your task, especially at this juncture, more difficult. But I am afraid, for the reasons I sought to explain fully to you in conversation, I cannot see my way to feel that it would be right to take the action you request...."(C.W.9344)

Gandhi had no reason to speak for three revolutionaries as he never believed in their means .Being a humanist he pleaded for sparing their lives.He was not in a position to command and he himself spent more than 2000 days of his lifetime in jails of SOouth Africa and India.Even assuming that Gandhi could have saved them, the trio preferred to die and refused to seek any commutation of death sentence.

Gandhi's tribute to the martyrs, Navajivan, 29-3-1931.

Brave Bhagat Singh and his two associates have been hanged.Many attempts were made to save their lives and even some hopes were entertained, but all was in vain.Bhagat Singh did not wish to live. He refused to apologize; declined to file an appeal. If at all he would agree to live, he would do so for the sake of others; if at all he would agree to it, it would be in order that his death might not provoke anyone to indiscriminate murder.Bhagat Singh was not a devotee of non-violence, but he did not subscribe to the religion of violence; he was prepared to commit murder out of a sense of helplessness. His last letter was as follows: “I have been arrested while waging a war. For me there can be no gallows. Put me into the mouth of a cannon and blow me off.” These heroes had conquered the fear of death. Let us bow to them a thousand times for their heroism.But we shouldn't imitate their act.I am not prepared to believe that the country has benefited by their action.I can see only harm that has been done.We could have won swaraj long ago if that line of action had not been pursued and we could have waged a purely nonviolent struggle.There may well be two opinions on this conjecture of mine.However, no one can deny the fact that if the practice of seeking justice through murders is established amongst us, we shall start murdering one another for what we believe to be justice.In a land of crors of destitutes and crippled persons, this will be a terrifying situation. These poor people are bound to become victims of our atrocities. It is desirable that everyone should consider consequenes of this.Further, we want a swaraj which is theirs and for them.By making a dharma of violence, we shall be reaping the fruit of our own actions. Hence, though we praise the courage of these bravemen, we should never countenance their activities.By hanging these men,the government has demonstrated its brute nature, it has provided fresh proof of its arrogance resulting from its power by ignoring public opinion. From this hanging it may be concluded that it is not the intention of the Government to part with any real power to the people. The Government certainly had the right to hang these men. However, there are some rights which do credit to those who possess them only if they are enjoyed in name only. If a person exercises all his rights on all occasions, in the end they are destroyed. On this occasion, the Government would have brought credit to itself if it had not exercised its rights and this would have been highly useful in maintaining peace. However, it is obvious that the Government has not to date developed such discretion. It has given a clear reason for the public to get enraged. If the latter shows anger, it will lose the game which it is about to win. Some officials may even hope that the public will give vent to its anger. Whether they do so or not, ours is a straightforward path. While negotiating the settlement, Bhagat Singh’s hanging was weighing upon us. We had hoped that the government would be cautious enough to pardon Bhagat Singh and his associates to the extent of remitting the sentence of hanging. We should not break the pledge we have taken just because our hopes have not been fulfilled, but should bear this blow which has fallen upon us and honour our pledge. By doing so under even such trying circumstances, our strength to get what we desire will increase rather than decrease, while, if we break our pledge or violate the truce, we shall suffer loss of vigour, loss of strength and it will add to our present difficulties in reaching our objective. Hence our dharma is to swallow our anger, abide by the settlement and carry out our duty.

Coming to Bhagat Singh,he was a revolutionary socialist and was inspired by Bolshevik revolution.He wanted independent India to be a socialist state.On his advice the name of the revolutionary organisation HRA(Hindustan Republican Army) was changed to HSRA (Hindustan Socialist Republican Army). In his last testament dated Feb 2,1931, he advised the youth of India that revolutionary violence will not lead to India's independence

Apparently I have acted like a terrorist.But I am not a terrorist....Let me announce with all the strength at my command, that 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

Bhagat Singh said that only mass based movements can achieve freedom.He declared : the real revolutionary armies are in the villages and factories.

What amuses me is the way some people having no faith in Bhagat Singh's ideology taking up his name just to vilify Gandhi. Do they approve Bhagat Singh's words on Atheism or Marx or Lenin? If not they should stop abusing the sentiments associated with Bhagat Singh's name.