On 23rd March 1931, three Indian revolutionaries, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev Thapar and Shivram Hari Rajguru, were hanged by the British for waging a war against the colonial state.
Sukhdev was a central committee member of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army (HSRA), formed on 8 September 1928 by anti-colonial revolutionaries of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Rajputana (now Rajasthan), and its organisation in-charge in Punjab. He was the chief accused in the Lahore Conspiracy case of 1929-30, which put to trial at least a dozen HSRA revolutionaries for the murder of JP Saunders, the assistant superintendent of Lahore Police.
He was known by various aliases in the party—“villager”, “dayal”, “swami” and others. Born on 15 May 1907 in Ludhiana, Sukhdev was raised by his paternal uncle Lala Achintanram who was a well known Arya Samajist and Congress activist. He joined the National College in 1921 and came in contact with revolutionary-minded youths including Bhagat Singh, Bhagwati Charan Vohra and Yashpal. He joined the underground revolutionary organisation Hindustan Republican Association (HRA) which declared itself socialist in 1928.
Initially, Sukhdev and his friends were greatly influenced by the anarchist ideas of the father of anarchism, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Russian revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin, but it is interactions with early Indian communists such as Chhabil Das and Sohan Singh Josh that brought them closer to Marxism. They decided to form an open mass-organisation, called the Naujawan Bharat Sabha, to mobilise students and youth of Punjab to work amongst the workers and peasants. They also formed the Lahore Students Union and Bal Bharat Sabha for college and school students respectively.
In 1928, anti-Simon Commission protest demonstrations led to the death of Punjab’s famous leader, Lala Lajpat Rai, due to the injuries he suffered during a police lathi-charge. Although Sukhdev and Bhagat Singh were very critical of Rai due to his communal politics (they were even banned from entering his bungalow), HSRA decided to avenge his death as they viewed it as a national insult inflicted by the colonial bureaucracy. Sukhdev, who was already in charge of Punjab, was the mastermind of this action which was successfully executed by Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Rajguru and others.
In 1929, the HSRA revolutionaries threw two harmless bombs inside the National Legislative Assembly, in protest against the Public Safety Bill and Trade Dispute Bill and courted arrest. Sukhdev and his comrades were arrested in May that year in Lahore and, along with others, faced trial in the Lahore Conspiracy Case.
In jail, HSRA revolutionaries undertook the famous hunger strike for the rights of political prisoners, which made them immensely popular throughout India and beyond. Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were given capital punishment.
Sukhdev Thapar: A revolutionary intellectual
Both in academic historiography and the popular public imagination, Sukhdev remains a less-discussed figure. The reasons for his relative marginalisation include the fact that other martyrs such as Bhagat Singh and Azad loom large over the imagination of revolutionary movements of India. This is chiefly because of the heroic acts they accomplished. Sukhdev was not directly involved in any action which has remained in public memory.
Also, compared with comrade and friend Bhagat Singh and other revolutionaries such as Ram Prasad Bismil, Sukhdev has left behind very few writings. There are only five documents written by him which are available in the public domain.
A third reason is that academic research on Indian revolutionary movement of the colonial period is mainly centred on the figure of Bhagat Singh (and revolutionaries of Bengal), given their massive popularity. Historian Kama Maclean has ascribed this to the widespread circulation of Bhagat Singh’s famous photo, in which he wears a hat. It was taken just before Bhagat Singh and BK Dutt threw bombs in the Assembly. In her 2016 book, A Revolutionary History of Interwar India: Violence, Image, Voice and Text, she notes that even before their hanging, “the condemned trio were frequently referred to in the press as ‘Bhagat Singh and others’ or ‘Bhagat Singh and his comrades’. This, she points out, occurred to the extent that Bhagat Singh’s full name was frequently used as shorthand for the revolutionary movement at large. So in the popular public imagination of revolutionaries—which is also largely a romantic one—propagated in history textbooks and representations in cinema, Sukhdev remains an “accomplice” of Bhagat Singh. The truth is that all HSRA revolutionaries were ideologues and serious activists in their own right. Shiv Verma, a comrade of Sukhdev, writes in his memoir that “after Bhagat Singh, it was Sukhdev who was well equipped with socialist literature”.
The revolutionaries were accused by the British government and a section of Indian leaders, inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, of mindless violence and terrorism. The revolutionaries Bhagwati Charan Vohra and Bhagat Singh, and Sukhdev, had debated the issue of violence with Gandhi. In two letters from Sukhdev to his comrades, we clearly find his strong denouncement of terrorist actions and his view that they were divorced from the ideology of HSRA. Sukhdev emphasises that the primary task of revolutionaries should be to arouse public support, who then had to be initiated into a revolutionary programme. Violence was not an end in itself, rather a method of political propaganda and struggle.
In a reply to Gandhi’s call for “peace” and ceasing the armed revolutionary struggle in the wake of the Gandhi-Irwin pact, Sukhdev very clearly said that the HSRA and the revolutionaries “stand for the establishment of the socialist republic”, and will “carry on the struggle till their goal is achieved...”. As a political ideologue and strategist, Sukhdev argues with Gandhi that “…peace and compromise is but a temporary truce which only means a little rest to organise better forces on a larger scale for the next struggle”.
The impact of Marxist-Leninist thought can be clearly seen in his exposition of tactics to carry out the revolutionary struggle. In the same letter, Sukhdev writes, “Revolutionary struggle assumes different shapes at different times. It becomes sometimes open, sometimes hidden sometimes purely agitational and sometimes a fierce life-and-death struggle. In the circumstances, there must be special factors, the consideration of which may prepare the revolutionaries to call of their movement.”
He also criticises Gandhi for not providing any concrete reason for cessation of revolutionary movement and argues that “mere sentimental appeals do not and cannot count much in the revolutionary struggle”. Interestingly, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru, in their last petition to the Governor of Punjab, use these exact words to describe the state of war between the Indian masses and the imperialism-capitalism combine. These lines are clearly inspired by the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, which they originally published in February 1848.
As a political thinker and strategist, Sukhdev’s chief concern was building a robust revolutionary organisation. Shiv Verma notes in his memoir: “In reality, Bhagat was the political mentor of the Punjab party; Sukhdev was the organiser—one who built its edifice brick by brick...”
Till the very end of his life, Sukhdev was primarily concerned with building this revolutionary organisation. In two letters from jail to his comrades, he highlights why such an organisation was needed. The first reason, he said, was that the revolutionaries had been able to capture the imagination of people through their actions and now they had to be educated in the revolutionary programme. Second, because “high-class leaders had betrayed the revolutionaries”, therefore, there was urgent need for a mass political party whose objective would be to educate the masses about the meaning of revolution. Its task would be to develop a separate line of struggle, against Gandhi. He suggested the name Red Revolutionary Party for it: it would carry out revolutionary work, forming committees, and undertake propaganda through all means, legal or not.
To Sukhdev, the first step towards becoming a revolutionary was to have a “revolutionary education”. In another letter to his comrades, he writes “...success of revolutionary movement depends on how much our workers understand revolutionary ideals, tactics and struggle”. In the letter are clear influences of VI Lenin’s concept of “professional revolutionary”. He writes, “Only those people are capable of carrying out a revolutionary struggle who have ‘self-sacrificing devotion’, who are well equipped with ‘revolutionary education’ and those who understand revolutionary project as their ‘profession’”.
An in-depth study of world revolutions and revolutionary thought and a scientific analysis of Indian society and politics made Sukhdev and his comrades confident about the need of a society based on socialist principles to take India out of abject poverty, hunger, illiteracy, unemployment, feudal and imperialist oppression and exploitation. The intellectual development of Sukhdev was a classic example of ‘praxis’; his knowledge and understanding about movement and party grew out of his engagement with broader socialist literature and with his engagement as a revolutionary activist with Indian society.
The essay ‘Dharmvar Fasad Te unha de ilaj (The Religious Riots and Their Solution)’ was published in the June 1927 issue of Kirti. After the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy in 1919, the British began a huge propaganda to incite communal riots. This resulted in riots between the Hindus and Muslims in 1924 in Kohat. After this, there was considerable debate on communal riots in the national political arena. Everyone felt the need to end these, but it was the Congress leaders who made an attempt to get Hindu and Muslim leaders to sign a pact to stop the riots.
The condition of Bharatvarsha/India is indeed pitiable today. The devotees of one religion are sworn enemies of the devotees of another religion. Merely to belong to one religion is now considered enough reason to be the enemy of another religion. If we find this difficult to believe, let us look at the fresh outbreaks of violence in Lahore. How the Muslims killed innocent Sikhs and Hindus, and how even the Sikhs did their worst when the opportunity came. This butchering was not done because a particular man committed a crime, but because a particular man is a Hindu or a Sikh or a Muslim. Just the fact of a person being a Sikh or a Hindu is enough for him to be killed by a Muslim, and in the same way, merely being a Muslim is sufficient reason to take his life. If this is the situation, then may God help Hindustan!
Under these conditions the future of Hindustan seems very bleak. These ‘religions’ have ruined the country. And one has no idea how long these religious riots will plague Hindustan. These riots have Hindustan in the eyes of the world. And we have seen how everyone is carried on the tide of blind faith. It is a rare Hindu, Muslim or Sikh who can keep a cool head; the rest of them take sticks and staffs, swords and knives and kill each other. Those who escape death either go to the gallows or are thrown into jail. After so much bloodshed, these ‘religious’ folk are subjected to the baton of the English government, and only then do they come to their senses.
As far as we’ve seen, communal leaders and newspapers are behind these riots. These days the Indian leaders exhibit such a shameful conduct that it is better not to say anything. The same leaders who have taken upon themselves the challenge of winning independence for their country and who don’t tire of shouting slogans of ‘Common Nationality’ and ‘Self Rule… Self-Rule…’ are hiding themselves and are flowing on this tide of religious blindness. The number of people hiding themselves is much less. But leaders who join communal agitations can be found in hundreds when one scratches the surface. There are very few leaders who wish for the welfare of people from the bottom of their hearts. Communalism has come like such a great deluge that they are not able to stem it. It appears as if the leadership of Bharat has gone bankrupt.
The other people who have played a special role in igniting communal riots are the newspaper people.
The profession of journalism that at one point of time, was accorded a very high status has become very filthy now. These people print prominent, provocative headlines and rouse the passions of people against one another, which leads to rioting. Not just in one or two places, but in many places riots have taken place because the local papers have written very outrageous essays. Few writers have been able to maintain their sanity and keep calm on such days.
The real duty of the newspapers was to impart education, eradicate narrow-mindedness in people, put an end to communal feelings, encourage mutual understanding, and create a common Indian nationalism. But they have turned their main business to spread ignorance, preach narrowness, create prejudice, lead to rioting and destroy Indian common nationalism. This is the reason that tears of blood flow from our eyes at Bharat’s present state and the question that rises in our heart is, ‘What will become of Hindustan?’
Class-consciousness is crucial to stop people from fighting each other. The poor workers and peasants should be made to clearly understand that their real enemies are the capitalists, so they must be careful not to fall into their trap. All the poor people of the world – whatever their caste, race, religion or nation – have the same rights. It is in your interest that all discrimination on account of religion, colour, race, and nationality is eliminated and the power of the government be taken in your hands. These efforts will not harm you in any way, but will one day cut off your shackles and you will get economic freedom.
The people who are familiar with the history of Russia know that similar conditions prevailed there during the rule of the Tsar. There were several groups who kept dragging each other down. But from the day the Workers’ Revolution took place, the very map of the place changed. Now there are never any riots there. Now everyone is considered to be a ‘human being’ there, not ‘a member of a religious group’. The economic condition of the people was very pathetic during the times of the Tsar and this led to rioting. But now when the economic condition of the Russians has improved and they have developed class-consciousness, there is no news from there about any riots.
Bhagat Singh was not merely a theorist who was in forefront of every action program, on every front of the struggle. He was also the organiser who treated cadre as a true companion and lived with them. The dream of a fundamental change, for which Bhagat Singh and his generation were willing to sacrifice their lives, is still alive in the eyes of countless youth despite the path being difficult. Today, when the pseudo-nationalists in the country are teaching us lessons of nationalism and exploitation of the public is going on with the same pace, the relevance of Bhagat Singh and his ideology gains even more attention.
No one can deny Bhagat Singh’s contribution to the freedom movement and his popularity, especially among the youth. Due to this reason, even the forces, which are ideologically opposed to his ideas, are trying to appropriate his legacy. They are portraying Bhagat Singh as a symbol of only nationalism and even trying to depart his ideology from his image. At the same time, he is portrayed as a hero who only believed in armed struggle and attempts are being made to disregard his deep understanding about society, his intellect and his clarity about the kind of revolutionary change for which he was working.
Secularism was one of the foundations of the belief system of Bhagat Singh. This was reflected in his writings. He understood the danger that communalism posed to Indian society and Indian nationalism more than any other contemporary leader. He considered communalism as big an enemy as colonialism. He was of the strong opinion that religion should be separated from politics. Religion should stay away from politics because it does not allow people to work together for a common cause.
In fact, secularism mandates the state to maintain a separation from religion, which is a private matter of citizens. If we separate religion from politics, we all can stand together in the matter of politics and national cause despite having different religious beliefs. These were the important principles of the organisations in which he was working. Two of the six rules of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha (NBS) drafted by Bhagat Singh were: “To have nothing to do with communal bodies or other parties which disseminate communal ideas” and “to create the spirit of general toleration among the public considering religion as a matter of personal belief of man and to act upon the same fully.”
One of the less-discussed aspects of Bhagat Singh’s understanding of communalism is his deep understanding of the root cause of communalism. Along with other reasons, he considered economic cause as the root cause for communalism. His ideas on communalism appeared in the Punjabi magazine Kirti in June 1928 in an article, Communal Riots and Its Solution, “The root cause of communal violence is probably economic. During the time of the non-cooperation movement, leaders and reporters made huge sacrifices for the cause of the movement. As a result of these sacrifices, their economic conditions deteriorated considerably. When the non-cooperation movement lost its steam, people lost trust in its leaders, as many of the present “communal leaders” had become economically bankrupt. Whatever happens in the world, money can easily be traced as the reason for that event. This is one of the three key principles of Marxist theories. The rise of “Tablighi” (Sunni Islamic movement urging Muslims to return to primary Sunni Islam) and “Shuddhi” (which urged people to return to the Hindu fold) organisations can be attributed to this principle of Marx and this also happens to be the main reason why we have become so indescribably pathetic.”
Also watch: Difference Between Saffron Nationalism and Bhagat Singh’s Patriotism
Accordingly, he advocated for a solution, “So if there is any solution to communal riots, it can only be achieved through improvement of economic condition in India. Actually, the economic condition of a common man in India is so bad that anyone can give a quarter of a rupee to another person and offend a third person. When struggling through hunger and suffering, and given an option between doing or dying, people often keep their principles aside and why wouldn’t they? But in present circumstances, changes in economic condition are extremely difficult because the government is foreign, who is least interested in the betterment of economic conditions of people. This is the very reason why people should target and protest against the foreign government until this government changes.”
Bhagat Singh not only criticised the rising nature of communalism in Indian society but had also written on the grave issue of untouchability and caste during the years of the independence struggle. He was also conscious of the need for social justice and overthrowal of the caste system. He linked development to social justice and advocated that without equality of untouchables, a just society cannot be imagined. When there was a proposal in the Congress meeting of 1923 to divide the untouchables amongst Hindu and Muslim missionary organisations, he wrote an article, ‘The question of untouchables', which was published in Kirti in June 1928. In this article, Bhagat Singh sensitively puts forward the situation of untouchables in those times and offered solutions to some extent and concrete suggestions have been made for the progress of the working class by estimating its strengths and limitations.
He was also a critique of some leaders of the freedom movement for their hypocrisy. In this article, he quoted Noor Mohammad to expose this hypocrisy and explained the meaning of real freedom for equality, “If the Hindu society refuses to allow other human beings, fellow creatures to attend public school, and if the president of the local board representing so many lakhs of people in this house refuses to allow his fellows and brothers the elementary human right of having water to drink, what right have they to ask for more rights from the bureaucracy? Before we accuse people coming from other lands, we should see how we ourselves behave toward our own people. How can we ask for greater political rights when we ourselves deny elementary rights of human beings?”
He considered the treatment met by untouchables inhuman, writing, “Just imagine how shameful! Even a dog can sit in our lap, it can also move freely in the kitchen but if a fellow human touches you, your dharma is endangered. The temple is built to worship the God who loves everyone, but if the untouchable goes there, then the temple becomes unholy! God becomes angry! When this is the situation of within, then how does it look good to even struggle for equality with outsiders? Then there is also an extent of ungratefulness in our attitude.” He was a strong believer that deprived sections themselves have to lead their struggle against exploitation based on their own unity and self-reliance. He wrote, “Unite, be self-reliant and then challenge the whole of society. Then you will see no one will dare to deny you your rights. Don’t allow others to deceive you. Don’t expect anything from others.”
His life will continue to inspire many generations of revolutionaries to defend truth, justice, and freedom even if it costs them their lives. His sacrifice has special relevance to contemporary India, especially at a time when all kinds of communal and casteist forces are attempting to shatter the country’s unity and integrity.