What do you think?
Rate this book
Gandhi and Bhagat Singh
The aim of this study is to understand and explain why Mahatma Gandhi, the most influential political leader of his time in India, could not save Bhagat Singh, when he was negotiating a settlement of political questions with the Viceroy Lord Irwin during February-March 1931. Gandhi's critics accuse him of failing, mainly owing to his stern commitment to non-violence, while his party men and followers defend him, and attribute his failure to the events that took place beyond his reckoning.
146 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2008
23 people are currently reading
211 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
July 6, 2021
The book gives you information about circumstances; where Gandhi was said to be in dilemma of whether to save Bhagat Singh or secure his pact with Irwin but with many different references emphasizing that he did his best to stop Bhagat Singh 's execution, not to mention that he called Bhagat Singh 'a misguided youth' due to his strong belief in non-violence, it felt like a big excuse to maintain the image of Gandhi as it has always been : 'The Mahatma'.
And these lines are so accurate :
"The tragedy of Bhagat Singh and his comrades was not that they were idealists in the path of the deterministic juggernaut represented by the British Imperial system, but their schemes and programmes might have been realized had the Congress and other political parties, and the country, not chosen other paths. They were as much the victims of Congress politics as of the British Imperial system."
4 stars because author repeated himself over and over throughout the book.
And these lines are so accurate :
"The tragedy of Bhagat Singh and his comrades was not that they were idealists in the path of the deterministic juggernaut represented by the British Imperial system, but their schemes and programmes might have been realized had the Congress and other political parties, and the country, not chosen other paths. They were as much the victims of Congress politics as of the British Imperial system."
4 stars because author repeated himself over and over throughout the book.
October 25, 2021
In this concise narration on one of the contentious issues even today, Professor V.N. Datta sheds light on the facts surrounding the role of Gandhi in the episode of Bhagat Singh's trial and execution. Among all the seminal works on Bhagat Singh, this study stands out for one reason that V.N. Datta had done immense literature review by weaving through more than thirty relevant works to infer his conclusion. Was Gandhi a mute spectator in the case of Bhagat Singh? Even though time and time again historians had presented conglomerate pieces of evidence to show that Gandhi had personally requested Lord Irwin for the commutation thrice (even a day before the execution), the mudslinging on Gandhi continues even today that he had acted on his self-interest.
Sheer lack of understanding of colonial politics or the events which molded the freedom movement, ignorants take the chastising road, by projecting history as a tug of war between "my hero" and "your hero". To understand the complete picture of Gandhi’s role during the trial and execution of Bhagat Singh, one must first understand two events that played a crucial role: The Gandhi-Irwin Pact before the hanging of Bhagat Singh and the Congres Karachi Session that followed six days later. The author cites five reasons why Gandhi could not succeed in persuading Lord Irwin to revoke the death sentence and failed to obtain a reprive:
One, Gandhi did not want to sabotage his pact with Lord Irwin that had the key objectives of furthering the scheme of Constitutional Government in India through the Round Table Conference that promised federation, reservations, and financial credit. The pact had also had other significant elements such as the release of political prisoners arrested during the non-cooperation movement and the release of confiscated properties. Further, it also advocated for immediate stoppage of violent repression and a revoke of the Salt tax.
Two, the issue of saving Bhagat Singh was beyond both Irwin and Gandhi because both had to act within the framework of the British Imperial System where the Viceroy cannot pardon a prisoner, rather it was under the purview of the Secretary of State and Home Affairs Ministry, which was under the conservative government that had members like Winston Churchill and others who were belligerent towards the Indian cause.
Three, the growing left-wing faction within the Congress that had placed Gandhi in a deadlock. The author cites the Intelligence Report from the British on Gandhi’s parleys with Subash Chandra Bose, where the latter had threatened Gandhi that if British Government refused to take concrete steps for India’s constitutional advancement, then he would launch a ‘war’. This certainly had pushed Gandhi to placate the left-wing in Congress by sponsoring appeasing resolutions during the Karachi session where the Gandhi-Irwin Pact was ratified.
Four, the prevalence of a hostile British bureaucracy which outrightly demanded the execution of Bhagat Singh when it realized that the top-ranking British officials were targeted for assassination; the civil servants had further threatened to resign if commutation was accepted by Lord Irwin. Under such internal pressure, the viceroy felt helpless. The haste in which the prosecution was carried, the falsity of the trial (without cross-examining the defense witnesses), and the politically motivated procedures (emergency proclamation of an ordinance to initiate legal proceedings) to hang the three accused were thoroughly discussed in another book written by A.G.Noorani titled Trial of Bhagat Singh: The Politics of Justice.
Five, Gandhi’s commitment to non-violence that had already reflected in his stand on Madan Lal Dhingra’s revolutionary act of 1909, which happened much before he entered Indian politics. Gandhi abhorred violence and had approached Irwin in the case of Bhagat Singh only on humanitarian grounds.
This work is the epitome of academic writing in which every claim has been backed by credible citations from the author. From more than a hundred references provided, one can understand the depth of V.N. Datta’s work in analyzing history from multitudes. From the memoirs written by British officials to the personal diary of Mahadev Desai, the author had collected substantial information to derive at the conclusion that Gandhi, despite his commitment to non-violence which was the cardinal principle of his life, had put the maximum pressure on Viceroy for the commutation of the death sentence. He had even referred to the writings of Mira Ben, who was a close confidant of Gandhi and had delved into British Intelligence Reports and had also cited a letter intercepted by the CID to present the events to draw a much clearer picture of Gandhi's actions.
Amidst the present-day "my hero" and "your hero" rhetoric, the conclusion penned by V.N.Datta is food for thought. He concludes: “Though Bhagat Singh had challenged Gandhian political morality, Gandhi, despite his disapproval of Bhagat Singh’s action, regarded his sacrifice a patriotic one, and Gandhi would not mind many Bhagat Singhs dying for the freedom of India and sacrificing themselves. Didn’t Gandhi too sacrifice all he had for the country? A sacrifice never goes in vain! There is a great lesson to be learned from 'constructive destruction'. A flower must die to yield its place to the fruit and the flower must perish for the seeds to sprout again. The cycle of history carries on.”
Sheer lack of understanding of colonial politics or the events which molded the freedom movement, ignorants take the chastising road, by projecting history as a tug of war between "my hero" and "your hero". To understand the complete picture of Gandhi’s role during the trial and execution of Bhagat Singh, one must first understand two events that played a crucial role: The Gandhi-Irwin Pact before the hanging of Bhagat Singh and the Congres Karachi Session that followed six days later. The author cites five reasons why Gandhi could not succeed in persuading Lord Irwin to revoke the death sentence and failed to obtain a reprive:
One, Gandhi did not want to sabotage his pact with Lord Irwin that had the key objectives of furthering the scheme of Constitutional Government in India through the Round Table Conference that promised federation, reservations, and financial credit. The pact had also had other significant elements such as the release of political prisoners arrested during the non-cooperation movement and the release of confiscated properties. Further, it also advocated for immediate stoppage of violent repression and a revoke of the Salt tax.
Two, the issue of saving Bhagat Singh was beyond both Irwin and Gandhi because both had to act within the framework of the British Imperial System where the Viceroy cannot pardon a prisoner, rather it was under the purview of the Secretary of State and Home Affairs Ministry, which was under the conservative government that had members like Winston Churchill and others who were belligerent towards the Indian cause.
Three, the growing left-wing faction within the Congress that had placed Gandhi in a deadlock. The author cites the Intelligence Report from the British on Gandhi’s parleys with Subash Chandra Bose, where the latter had threatened Gandhi that if British Government refused to take concrete steps for India’s constitutional advancement, then he would launch a ‘war’. This certainly had pushed Gandhi to placate the left-wing in Congress by sponsoring appeasing resolutions during the Karachi session where the Gandhi-Irwin Pact was ratified.
Four, the prevalence of a hostile British bureaucracy which outrightly demanded the execution of Bhagat Singh when it realized that the top-ranking British officials were targeted for assassination; the civil servants had further threatened to resign if commutation was accepted by Lord Irwin. Under such internal pressure, the viceroy felt helpless. The haste in which the prosecution was carried, the falsity of the trial (without cross-examining the defense witnesses), and the politically motivated procedures (emergency proclamation of an ordinance to initiate legal proceedings) to hang the three accused were thoroughly discussed in another book written by A.G.Noorani titled Trial of Bhagat Singh: The Politics of Justice.
Five, Gandhi’s commitment to non-violence that had already reflected in his stand on Madan Lal Dhingra’s revolutionary act of 1909, which happened much before he entered Indian politics. Gandhi abhorred violence and had approached Irwin in the case of Bhagat Singh only on humanitarian grounds.
This work is the epitome of academic writing in which every claim has been backed by credible citations from the author. From more than a hundred references provided, one can understand the depth of V.N. Datta’s work in analyzing history from multitudes. From the memoirs written by British officials to the personal diary of Mahadev Desai, the author had collected substantial information to derive at the conclusion that Gandhi, despite his commitment to non-violence which was the cardinal principle of his life, had put the maximum pressure on Viceroy for the commutation of the death sentence. He had even referred to the writings of Mira Ben, who was a close confidant of Gandhi and had delved into British Intelligence Reports and had also cited a letter intercepted by the CID to present the events to draw a much clearer picture of Gandhi's actions.
Amidst the present-day "my hero" and "your hero" rhetoric, the conclusion penned by V.N.Datta is food for thought. He concludes: “Though Bhagat Singh had challenged Gandhian political morality, Gandhi, despite his disapproval of Bhagat Singh’s action, regarded his sacrifice a patriotic one, and Gandhi would not mind many Bhagat Singhs dying for the freedom of India and sacrificing themselves. Didn’t Gandhi too sacrifice all he had for the country? A sacrifice never goes in vain! There is a great lesson to be learned from 'constructive destruction'. A flower must die to yield its place to the fruit and the flower must perish for the seeds to sprout again. The cycle of history carries on.”
December 26, 2024
Gandhi and Bhagat Singh, the two great ingenious humans that represent the North Pole and the South Pole of the Indian freedom movement. Although these two schools of thought are ideologically opposite. But their end was always the same, i.e., an independent India. And for this, both of them gave up their lives.
During the struggle for the freedom of India, many freedom fighters left their indelible mark in the annals of Indian history. But two names remain evergreen to date, i.e., Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagat Singh.
In fact, the admirers of these two sons of Mother India are in multitudes; yet, you'll find or experience a division between them. Either someone is a Gandhi lover or a Bhagat Singh fan. Because the admirers of the latter believe that the former was responsible for his death. And the followers of Mahatma counters them that he did everything to save him.
These two trends show the black and white interpretation of the history and historical events. But it's the 'grey area' that gives us a clearer picture. And in this article we'll discuss it.
What is Gandhi and Bhagat Singh by V. N. Datta?
Gandhi and Bhagat Singh by V. N. Datta is a concisely written book that tells us whether or not Mahatma Gandhi tried to save the lives of Bhagat Singh and his comrades.
Although it gave good clarity about those times. But, for those people who haven't read a single page about the life and times of Gandhiji and Bhagat Singh, this book may have left them with more questions than answers. That's why I recommend this book only to those readers who have read about these two freedom fighters of Hindustan.
Gandhi and his ideology -
What's the ideology of Mahatma Gandhi? This is the question that requires an explanation, isn't it? To understand this we need to read what Gandhiji himself said about his ideology.
In his book, Hind Swaraj, he clearly defined his views and the methods through which he wanted to attain freedom for his beloved nation, India. In fact, he clearly said that Satyagraha, or passive resistance, was his way through which he believed that India would gain her rightful freedom. And non-violence and self-suffering are the part and parcel of his ideology.
In fact, for Gandhiji, nonviolence was the creed of his life. And throughout his life he remained stuck to this through thick and thin. And this put him in an exact opposite camp to those who believed in the Cult of Violence, like Bhagat Singh and other revolutionaries like him, as a way for India's freedom.
And because of this dogmatic view of Gandhiji towards non-violence, the fans of Bhagat Singh believe that he didn't try to save Singh's life from the gallows.
Bhagat Singh and his thoughts—
To understand Bhagat Singh, we need to understand the influences that he had on him while growing up. First of all, he was from a family of Indian freedom fighters. His father, Sardar Kishan Singh, and his uncle, Sardar Ajit Singh, were freedom fighters. In fact, his uncle was himself a revolutionary who even spent time in jails of colonial India with Lala Lajpat Rai.
Secondly, being a Punjabi from the United Punjab, India, Bhagat Singh saw the mayhem that General Dyer did at the Jallianwala Bagh in April 1919. At the time of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, he was twelve years old.
Other than this, the influence of the Ghadr Party, his own understanding of the Indian freedom movement, and, most importantly, his disappointment with the Gandhian school of thought made him realize that revolution was the only way through which Hindustan could be freed from the clutches of British imperialism.
That's why he joined the revolutionary movement. Especially the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA). And even founded the Naujawan Bharat Sabha. And he showed his valor with his comrades in 1928 when, in broad daylight in the streets of Lahore, he and Rajguru shot to death a senior British police officer, John Poyantz Saunders, or J. P. Saunders.
It was not only Saunders that they killed, but it was also a direct attack on British imperialism. By silencing him, Bhagat Singh and his comrades directly challenged the British Empire.
In fact, within a few months of this incident, in 1929, Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt threw two bombs and leaflets in the Central Assembly in Delhi. Although the bombs were of low intensity. Because it's the message that they wanted to convey. And neither of them tried to escape or showed any resistance when the police came to arrest them.
Bhagat Singh was convicted in two cases, the Central Assembly bomb case and the Second Lahore Conspiracy case. And in the latter case, the British Tribunal gave him and his comrades the capital punishment.
One thing we need to understand is the day Bhagat Singh joined the revolutionary movement of India. He signed his own death contract. He knew that sooner or later he would die. But he made sure that he would die on his terms.
Mahatma Gandhi and his attitude towards the execution of Bhagat Singh -
On March 23, 1931, in the Central Jail of Lahore at 7:30 pm, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev were hanged to death. Even at that time, people blamed Gandhiji for his death. The argument that people quote even today is that Mahatma Gandhi could have made the commutation of Bhagat Singh's death sentence a precondition for signing the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, or the Delhi Pact of 1931. But he didn't.
The Gandhi-Irwin Pact was a historical event in itself. For the first time in the history of the British Empire in India, an Indian was directly negotiating on equal terms with the Viceroy of British India, the representative of the British Crown in India.
The talks between the then Viceroy, Lord Irwin and Mahatma Gandhi started in Delhi in February 1931, and it ended on 5 March 1931. The pact was signed between these two people.
These are the important points of the Gandhi-Irwin pact -
1. The Indian National Congress would call off the Civil Disobedience movement (CDM) and participate in the next Round Table Conference to draw up a future Federal Constitution for Self-governing India with safeguards.
2. Release all the prisoners not charged with violence during the CDM.
3. Immediate stoppage of repression.
4. Restitution of confiscated property and the reinstatement of government servants.
5. Salt manufacture to be permitted on the coast and to remit taxes not already paid.
Although the commutation of Bhagat Singh and his comrades death sentence was not associated in the pact. But Mahatma Gandhi did request Viceroy Irwin for a reprieve in Bhagat Singh's case on humanitarian grounds.
As we have discussed earlier, throughout his life, Gandhiji abhorred violence. He was against capital punishment. In fact, point two of the Gandhi-Irwin agreement said those prisoners who are not charged with violence would be released. But Bhagat Singh had assassinated a British official.
Even Viceroy Irwin knew that he couldn't commute Singh's death sentence. Because the British bureaucrats in India were eyeing his blood. He killed one of their own.
But, till the last moment, Mahatma Gandhi tried to save Bhagat Singh's life. Even on 23rd March he dispatched an emergency letter to Lord Irwin asking for mercy for Singh and his comrades. But all in vain.
One most important point which we all need to understand is this: Bhagat Singh's father also tried to save his life by filing a petition. When Bhagat Singh came to know about this, he was aghast. From jail he wrote a letter to his father in which he not only censured him for saving his life. But he also said that this hurt him the most.
For Bhagat Singh, his life was not important, but the freedom of India was. In the altar of India's freedom struggle, he sacrificed himself so that the posterity would enjoy the freedom of free air, which they didn't.
In fact, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev never wrote any mercy petitions to the British. For them that would be tantamount to treachery towards their ideals. They lived like brave men throughout their lives, and they died like one.
Let me conclude with these lines,
Real revolutionaries don't beg in front of their opponents. In fact, they roar like a tiger, whether in prison or outside.
I hope you like this. Thanks for reading. Jai Hind.
During the struggle for the freedom of India, many freedom fighters left their indelible mark in the annals of Indian history. But two names remain evergreen to date, i.e., Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagat Singh.
In fact, the admirers of these two sons of Mother India are in multitudes; yet, you'll find or experience a division between them. Either someone is a Gandhi lover or a Bhagat Singh fan. Because the admirers of the latter believe that the former was responsible for his death. And the followers of Mahatma counters them that he did everything to save him.
These two trends show the black and white interpretation of the history and historical events. But it's the 'grey area' that gives us a clearer picture. And in this article we'll discuss it.
What is Gandhi and Bhagat Singh by V. N. Datta?
Gandhi and Bhagat Singh by V. N. Datta is a concisely written book that tells us whether or not Mahatma Gandhi tried to save the lives of Bhagat Singh and his comrades.
Although it gave good clarity about those times. But, for those people who haven't read a single page about the life and times of Gandhiji and Bhagat Singh, this book may have left them with more questions than answers. That's why I recommend this book only to those readers who have read about these two freedom fighters of Hindustan.
Gandhi and his ideology -
What's the ideology of Mahatma Gandhi? This is the question that requires an explanation, isn't it? To understand this we need to read what Gandhiji himself said about his ideology.
In his book, Hind Swaraj, he clearly defined his views and the methods through which he wanted to attain freedom for his beloved nation, India. In fact, he clearly said that Satyagraha, or passive resistance, was his way through which he believed that India would gain her rightful freedom. And non-violence and self-suffering are the part and parcel of his ideology.
In fact, for Gandhiji, nonviolence was the creed of his life. And throughout his life he remained stuck to this through thick and thin. And this put him in an exact opposite camp to those who believed in the Cult of Violence, like Bhagat Singh and other revolutionaries like him, as a way for India's freedom.
And because of this dogmatic view of Gandhiji towards non-violence, the fans of Bhagat Singh believe that he didn't try to save Singh's life from the gallows.
Bhagat Singh and his thoughts—
To understand Bhagat Singh, we need to understand the influences that he had on him while growing up. First of all, he was from a family of Indian freedom fighters. His father, Sardar Kishan Singh, and his uncle, Sardar Ajit Singh, were freedom fighters. In fact, his uncle was himself a revolutionary who even spent time in jails of colonial India with Lala Lajpat Rai.
Secondly, being a Punjabi from the United Punjab, India, Bhagat Singh saw the mayhem that General Dyer did at the Jallianwala Bagh in April 1919. At the time of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, he was twelve years old.
Other than this, the influence of the Ghadr Party, his own understanding of the Indian freedom movement, and, most importantly, his disappointment with the Gandhian school of thought made him realize that revolution was the only way through which Hindustan could be freed from the clutches of British imperialism.
That's why he joined the revolutionary movement. Especially the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA). And even founded the Naujawan Bharat Sabha. And he showed his valor with his comrades in 1928 when, in broad daylight in the streets of Lahore, he and Rajguru shot to death a senior British police officer, John Poyantz Saunders, or J. P. Saunders.
It was not only Saunders that they killed, but it was also a direct attack on British imperialism. By silencing him, Bhagat Singh and his comrades directly challenged the British Empire.
In fact, within a few months of this incident, in 1929, Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt threw two bombs and leaflets in the Central Assembly in Delhi. Although the bombs were of low intensity. Because it's the message that they wanted to convey. And neither of them tried to escape or showed any resistance when the police came to arrest them.
Bhagat Singh was convicted in two cases, the Central Assembly bomb case and the Second Lahore Conspiracy case. And in the latter case, the British Tribunal gave him and his comrades the capital punishment.
One thing we need to understand is the day Bhagat Singh joined the revolutionary movement of India. He signed his own death contract. He knew that sooner or later he would die. But he made sure that he would die on his terms.
Mahatma Gandhi and his attitude towards the execution of Bhagat Singh -
On March 23, 1931, in the Central Jail of Lahore at 7:30 pm, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev were hanged to death. Even at that time, people blamed Gandhiji for his death. The argument that people quote even today is that Mahatma Gandhi could have made the commutation of Bhagat Singh's death sentence a precondition for signing the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, or the Delhi Pact of 1931. But he didn't.
The Gandhi-Irwin Pact was a historical event in itself. For the first time in the history of the British Empire in India, an Indian was directly negotiating on equal terms with the Viceroy of British India, the representative of the British Crown in India.
The talks between the then Viceroy, Lord Irwin and Mahatma Gandhi started in Delhi in February 1931, and it ended on 5 March 1931. The pact was signed between these two people.
These are the important points of the Gandhi-Irwin pact -
1. The Indian National Congress would call off the Civil Disobedience movement (CDM) and participate in the next Round Table Conference to draw up a future Federal Constitution for Self-governing India with safeguards.
2. Release all the prisoners not charged with violence during the CDM.
3. Immediate stoppage of repression.
4. Restitution of confiscated property and the reinstatement of government servants.
5. Salt manufacture to be permitted on the coast and to remit taxes not already paid.
Although the commutation of Bhagat Singh and his comrades death sentence was not associated in the pact. But Mahatma Gandhi did request Viceroy Irwin for a reprieve in Bhagat Singh's case on humanitarian grounds.
As we have discussed earlier, throughout his life, Gandhiji abhorred violence. He was against capital punishment. In fact, point two of the Gandhi-Irwin agreement said those prisoners who are not charged with violence would be released. But Bhagat Singh had assassinated a British official.
Even Viceroy Irwin knew that he couldn't commute Singh's death sentence. Because the British bureaucrats in India were eyeing his blood. He killed one of their own.
But, till the last moment, Mahatma Gandhi tried to save Bhagat Singh's life. Even on 23rd March he dispatched an emergency letter to Lord Irwin asking for mercy for Singh and his comrades. But all in vain.
One most important point which we all need to understand is this: Bhagat Singh's father also tried to save his life by filing a petition. When Bhagat Singh came to know about this, he was aghast. From jail he wrote a letter to his father in which he not only censured him for saving his life. But he also said that this hurt him the most.
For Bhagat Singh, his life was not important, but the freedom of India was. In the altar of India's freedom struggle, he sacrificed himself so that the posterity would enjoy the freedom of free air, which they didn't.
In fact, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev never wrote any mercy petitions to the British. For them that would be tantamount to treachery towards their ideals. They lived like brave men throughout their lives, and they died like one.
Let me conclude with these lines,
Real revolutionaries don't beg in front of their opponents. In fact, they roar like a tiger, whether in prison or outside.
I hope you like this. Thanks for reading. Jai Hind.
January 29, 2019
Historians say that one of Gandhi's bigger failures was, his inability to prevent Bhagat Singh's death penalty.
Gandhi's stand on violence needs no introduction - He believed that wanting to use force to solve problems was a natural drive;A drive that was to be conquered to lead India into Independence.This was a choice driven by the practical constraint - of having to lead a huge diverse group of people against the empire in an organised physical struggle.The empire could easily crush the masses for good.Besides,Gandhi's worldview which was cultured by his favourite books (writings of Tolstoy, Mill ,Thoreau and the Indian religious texts) led to him developing an aversion for violent means.
Bhagat Singh to Gandhi was an immature youth who was incapable of understanding the importance of non violence.
Bhagat Singh belonged to a class of revolutionaries who were disappointed with both the moderates and the extremists.Singh and his friends were taken aback when Gandhi withdrew the
Non-Cooperation Movement following the Chauri Chaura incident.Inspired by Communist-Marxist ideologies,Bhagat Singh believed that only a violent upsurge could grant India freedom from the Colonialists.His attempt to 'make the deaf hear', by throwing a bomb at Central Assembly landed him a death penalty.
Usual accusation against Gandhi is that,he could have directed efforts to repeal the death penalty - Gandhi had good relations with the then Viceroy Lord Irwin.Critics felt that Gandhi could've talked Irwin out of the death penalty. This book uses letters and articles written by Gandhi and other historians to put forth why such an alternate history would have been impossible.
In simple words, Gandhi and Irwin reached an agreement on the condition which Bhagat Singh's punishment would be repealed - All Bhagat Singh had to do was to agree to refrain from using violent means to protest. 24 year old Bhagat Singh would,literally,rather die. Maybe it was his youthful inexperience to blame.Records cited in the book say that Bhagat Singh felt that he would contribute more to the nation by dying and becoming a symbol.
RIP Bhagat Singh.
The book repeats itself too much. What could've been a long essay, has been stretched out into chapters to fit a hundred pages. Yet,this book is worth reading.
Gandhi's stand on violence needs no introduction - He believed that wanting to use force to solve problems was a natural drive;A drive that was to be conquered to lead India into Independence.This was a choice driven by the practical constraint - of having to lead a huge diverse group of people against the empire in an organised physical struggle.The empire could easily crush the masses for good.Besides,Gandhi's worldview which was cultured by his favourite books (writings of Tolstoy, Mill ,Thoreau and the Indian religious texts) led to him developing an aversion for violent means.
Bhagat Singh to Gandhi was an immature youth who was incapable of understanding the importance of non violence.
Bhagat Singh belonged to a class of revolutionaries who were disappointed with both the moderates and the extremists.Singh and his friends were taken aback when Gandhi withdrew the
Non-Cooperation Movement following the Chauri Chaura incident.Inspired by Communist-Marxist ideologies,Bhagat Singh believed that only a violent upsurge could grant India freedom from the Colonialists.His attempt to 'make the deaf hear', by throwing a bomb at Central Assembly landed him a death penalty.
Usual accusation against Gandhi is that,he could have directed efforts to repeal the death penalty - Gandhi had good relations with the then Viceroy Lord Irwin.Critics felt that Gandhi could've talked Irwin out of the death penalty. This book uses letters and articles written by Gandhi and other historians to put forth why such an alternate history would have been impossible.
In simple words, Gandhi and Irwin reached an agreement on the condition which Bhagat Singh's punishment would be repealed - All Bhagat Singh had to do was to agree to refrain from using violent means to protest. 24 year old Bhagat Singh would,literally,rather die. Maybe it was his youthful inexperience to blame.Records cited in the book say that Bhagat Singh felt that he would contribute more to the nation by dying and becoming a symbol.
RIP Bhagat Singh.
The book repeats itself too much. What could've been a long essay, has been stretched out into chapters to fit a hundred pages. Yet,this book is worth reading.
July 11, 2018
All the events related to Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru's execution have been well connected. The detailed explanation of the Gandhi - Irwin pact is commendable. The various theories from different sources explaining why or why not was Gandhi responsible for this decision by the British Government is beautifully explained.
The first scene of the movie "The Legend of Bhagat Singh" makes more sense now.
5/5
The first scene of the movie "The Legend of Bhagat Singh" makes more sense now.
5/5
June 12, 2012
Its reality based book to make the clear picture of past politics
November 1, 2022
Mr. Datta says (this reflects the most prevalent opinion in the country) "Critics such as Subhas Bose have argued that if Gandhi had made the commutation of Bhagat Singh's death sentence a precondition for signing the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, then Bhagat Singh's life could have been saved. But how could Gandhi do so after his commitment to non-violence? Fundamental to his whole life was the doctrine of non-violence! Freedom of the country could wait for him, but he would never give up, even for a moment his faith in non-violence"
But how could Gandhi do so after his commitment to non-violence? How?? How could he recruit people to fight for brits in WWI after his commitment to non violence? Fighting in war is not violence? But that's the thing he totally can do that because he had a sick perverted definition of non violence and his definition was "Violence undertaken for the British Empire is not violence! The violence involved in recruiting men to kill the Germans, Zulus, Boers, whoever were fighting against the British Empire is acceptable to the righteous unexceptional non-violence!" That's the words of the great Mahatma himself. So it's bad when you do to the Brits, but when you do it for the Brits, it's all good.
The second part "Furthermore, the Congress too claimed to adhere to the policy of non-violence in its struggle for freedom. This explains why he did not launch a Satyagraha movement or undertake a fast for the commutation of the death sentence because resorting to such actions would have allied him to use violent means in political activity"
Do we even need to waste time on this? Gandhi did choose violent means in politics in quit India movement. Quit India was a violent movement. Indians are so fucking stupid, they would memorise that Gandhi gave the slogan "do or die" and never ever see the violent undertone in that and worship Gandhi as the non violent saint.
And he can do a fast to make india pay money to Pakistan when Pakistan was attacking indian and it was guaranteed that they would use that money to buy weapon and kill more indian but he won't fast to save an Indian? He can fast to facilitate more violence on indians but he won't fast to save an Indian from violence.
Mr. Datta repeatedly says how Gandhi couldn't support what bhagat singh did but he requested for his sentence to be commuted because he was against capital punishment.
When at the same time pandit madan mohan malviya said something so clearly which shows his intentions clearly and no one would doubt he didn't do anything to save bhagat singh. Even when he was much less powerful than Gandhi.
In his telegram to the Viceroy dated 14 February 1931, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya appealed for the commutation of Bhagat Singh's death sentence. He wrote:
I do so not only because I am opposed on grounds of humanity to infliction of death sentence upon a fellow man but also because the execution of these young men whose action was prompted not by any personal or selfish considerations but by patriotic impulses, however misguided, will give shock to public feelings. Such an act of mercy on your Excellency's part will at this juncture produce a beneficial effect on public opinion while the purpose of law and state will be fully met by a sentence of transporation for life.
Why can't Gandhi say things with this clarity? He can't. Because he was doing a charade.
In his speech in Karachi session Gandhi also reiterated that he did not make the commutation of the death sentence of Bhagat Singh and his comrades a part of his Pact with the Viceroy because the Congress Working Committee had not authorised it.
Congress committee had not authorised it?? Gandhi was a dictator in congress committee. They would have done anything Gandhi wanted, he showed that when congress working committee refused to take orders from subhas chandra bose in 1939, and even after he was elected as the president of the Congress, the working committee couldn't function because Gandhi didnt support it and he had to resign, after he was elected the president!!
And he didn't make the commutation a condition in the pact, why? What was so important in the pact that he couldn't risk failing it? Pact paved the way for congress to join the second round table conference. When no one was stopping congress to join the round table conferences, it was Gandhi who decided to Boycott it. So first you boycott it, then you decide to go and it's a victory? And for that deal you would rather let a person die? It doesn't even make sense.
Only purpose it served was getting gandhi and other leaders out of jail. So to get out of jail, he chose to let bhagat singh die. That's our Mahatma.
Now the question, can Irwin even commute the sentence? Is basically of no importance. Bhagat singh is dead he is not coming back. We are not trying to save his life. We are trying to question Gandhi's intentions. What Irwin can and can't do is unnecessary.
And! British government violated the pact in negotiations later. So what was it all worth?
But how could Gandhi do so after his commitment to non-violence? How?? How could he recruit people to fight for brits in WWI after his commitment to non violence? Fighting in war is not violence? But that's the thing he totally can do that because he had a sick perverted definition of non violence and his definition was "Violence undertaken for the British Empire is not violence! The violence involved in recruiting men to kill the Germans, Zulus, Boers, whoever were fighting against the British Empire is acceptable to the righteous unexceptional non-violence!" That's the words of the great Mahatma himself. So it's bad when you do to the Brits, but when you do it for the Brits, it's all good.
The second part "Furthermore, the Congress too claimed to adhere to the policy of non-violence in its struggle for freedom. This explains why he did not launch a Satyagraha movement or undertake a fast for the commutation of the death sentence because resorting to such actions would have allied him to use violent means in political activity"
Do we even need to waste time on this? Gandhi did choose violent means in politics in quit India movement. Quit India was a violent movement. Indians are so fucking stupid, they would memorise that Gandhi gave the slogan "do or die" and never ever see the violent undertone in that and worship Gandhi as the non violent saint.
And he can do a fast to make india pay money to Pakistan when Pakistan was attacking indian and it was guaranteed that they would use that money to buy weapon and kill more indian but he won't fast to save an Indian? He can fast to facilitate more violence on indians but he won't fast to save an Indian from violence.
Mr. Datta repeatedly says how Gandhi couldn't support what bhagat singh did but he requested for his sentence to be commuted because he was against capital punishment.
When at the same time pandit madan mohan malviya said something so clearly which shows his intentions clearly and no one would doubt he didn't do anything to save bhagat singh. Even when he was much less powerful than Gandhi.
In his telegram to the Viceroy dated 14 February 1931, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya appealed for the commutation of Bhagat Singh's death sentence. He wrote:
I do so not only because I am opposed on grounds of humanity to infliction of death sentence upon a fellow man but also because the execution of these young men whose action was prompted not by any personal or selfish considerations but by patriotic impulses, however misguided, will give shock to public feelings. Such an act of mercy on your Excellency's part will at this juncture produce a beneficial effect on public opinion while the purpose of law and state will be fully met by a sentence of transporation for life.
Why can't Gandhi say things with this clarity? He can't. Because he was doing a charade.
In his speech in Karachi session Gandhi also reiterated that he did not make the commutation of the death sentence of Bhagat Singh and his comrades a part of his Pact with the Viceroy because the Congress Working Committee had not authorised it.
Congress committee had not authorised it?? Gandhi was a dictator in congress committee. They would have done anything Gandhi wanted, he showed that when congress working committee refused to take orders from subhas chandra bose in 1939, and even after he was elected as the president of the Congress, the working committee couldn't function because Gandhi didnt support it and he had to resign, after he was elected the president!!
And he didn't make the commutation a condition in the pact, why? What was so important in the pact that he couldn't risk failing it? Pact paved the way for congress to join the second round table conference. When no one was stopping congress to join the round table conferences, it was Gandhi who decided to Boycott it. So first you boycott it, then you decide to go and it's a victory? And for that deal you would rather let a person die? It doesn't even make sense.
Only purpose it served was getting gandhi and other leaders out of jail. So to get out of jail, he chose to let bhagat singh die. That's our Mahatma.
Now the question, can Irwin even commute the sentence? Is basically of no importance. Bhagat singh is dead he is not coming back. We are not trying to save his life. We are trying to question Gandhi's intentions. What Irwin can and can't do is unnecessary.
And! British government violated the pact in negotiations later. So what was it all worth?
May 10, 2020
Bhagat Singh- a revolutionary, highly influenced by Marxism needs no introduction of words here.
The sacrifices of all three martyrs- Bharat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru for the nation is alive in the hearts of millions. 23rd march,1931- a historical date when they were hanged against the Lahore Conspiracy Case.
My heart was burning with anger and questions why Gandhiji didn't make efforts to commute the death sentence of the three? Why was he so obsessed with his weapon of non-violence? After all, these revolutionaries didn't murder any innocent, oppressed or the weaker sections. Their revolution was only self-defence, to defend the motherland from the exploitations of foreign hands.
And self-defence doesn't mean violence.
All these questions led me to meet this book "Gandhi and Bhagat" by V.N. Dutta.
The book begins with the controversy among historians and writers. Some argue that Gandhiji could have saved Bhagat Singh's life but he didn't. Some argue that Gandhiji failed in saving his life because of circumstances beyond his control.
Gandhiji anyways, never supported Singh's means of violent acts to attain Swaraj. Violence had always been against his faith of non-violence.
"One can kill Gandhi but not Gandhism".
To kill Gandhism is to kill truth & non-violence".
It is always against his ideals to associate himself with anything or anyone that promotes violence.
And for that matter, Gandhiji didn't even support capital punishment. Capital punishment snatches the opportunity of the guilty to reform. And keeping this in view, he made every possible effort to influence Lord Irwin to commute death sentence. Irwin, a man of integrity & staunch follower of Christianity could have considered the matter but it was beyond his control as he himself was bound by the orders of his government.
It, indeed, is true that Gandhiji didn't make the clause of Singh's commutation of death sentence before signing Irwin pact or as pre-conditon to sign Irwin pact because that would have been against his ethics and Congress policy. Had he done so, Bhagat Singh & his comrades might have lived till independence. But how could he associate himself with violence, it would have gone against his faith & commitment. His refusal to associate himself with the move to raise a statue in honor of Bhagat Singh's martyrdom only shows his commitment to non-violence.
It was painful to know how the eminent lawyers like Bose, Nehru and others couldn't fight for Singh's case.
However, Bhagat Singh's and his comrades' execution brought unrest and gave birth to radicalism & revolutionism. He has gained popularity as much as that of Gandhi. His ideas and mature thinking at such a tender age of 23 years only shows how deep his love for the nation was and always be.
His sacrifices and death didn't go in vain. It bloomed as a new born baby in the hearts of millions with only one slogan-
"Inquilab Zindabad!"
"Long Live the Revolution"!
I wonder why these books are out of the reach of children in schools.
Where is the curiosity to know and question the history hiding from the minds and hearts of children?
Oh, only if , they can explore the beauty of history and the nation in the deeper way.
One must read this.
The sacrifices of all three martyrs- Bharat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru for the nation is alive in the hearts of millions. 23rd march,1931- a historical date when they were hanged against the Lahore Conspiracy Case.
My heart was burning with anger and questions why Gandhiji didn't make efforts to commute the death sentence of the three? Why was he so obsessed with his weapon of non-violence? After all, these revolutionaries didn't murder any innocent, oppressed or the weaker sections. Their revolution was only self-defence, to defend the motherland from the exploitations of foreign hands.
And self-defence doesn't mean violence.
All these questions led me to meet this book "Gandhi and Bhagat" by V.N. Dutta.
The book begins with the controversy among historians and writers. Some argue that Gandhiji could have saved Bhagat Singh's life but he didn't. Some argue that Gandhiji failed in saving his life because of circumstances beyond his control.
Gandhiji anyways, never supported Singh's means of violent acts to attain Swaraj. Violence had always been against his faith of non-violence.
"One can kill Gandhi but not Gandhism".
To kill Gandhism is to kill truth & non-violence".
It is always against his ideals to associate himself with anything or anyone that promotes violence.
And for that matter, Gandhiji didn't even support capital punishment. Capital punishment snatches the opportunity of the guilty to reform. And keeping this in view, he made every possible effort to influence Lord Irwin to commute death sentence. Irwin, a man of integrity & staunch follower of Christianity could have considered the matter but it was beyond his control as he himself was bound by the orders of his government.
It, indeed, is true that Gandhiji didn't make the clause of Singh's commutation of death sentence before signing Irwin pact or as pre-conditon to sign Irwin pact because that would have been against his ethics and Congress policy. Had he done so, Bhagat Singh & his comrades might have lived till independence. But how could he associate himself with violence, it would have gone against his faith & commitment. His refusal to associate himself with the move to raise a statue in honor of Bhagat Singh's martyrdom only shows his commitment to non-violence.
It was painful to know how the eminent lawyers like Bose, Nehru and others couldn't fight for Singh's case.
However, Bhagat Singh's and his comrades' execution brought unrest and gave birth to radicalism & revolutionism. He has gained popularity as much as that of Gandhi. His ideas and mature thinking at such a tender age of 23 years only shows how deep his love for the nation was and always be.
His sacrifices and death didn't go in vain. It bloomed as a new born baby in the hearts of millions with only one slogan-
"Inquilab Zindabad!"
"Long Live the Revolution"!
I wonder why these books are out of the reach of children in schools.
Where is the curiosity to know and question the history hiding from the minds and hearts of children?
Oh, only if , they can explore the beauty of history and the nation in the deeper way.
One must read this.
October 11, 2018
A great book that clarifies the reasons due to which Gandhiji was not able to save Shaheed Bhagat Singh. The book is written with thorough research and the author aptly concludes,"Gandhi condemned violent acts. His soul rebelled against them. When it came to the adoption of violent means by an individual or political party, he refused to countenance. That is why he called Bhagat Singh a 'misguided youth', who, he thought, had done immense harm to the cause of India's struggle for independence. Both on moral and pragmatic grounds, Gandhi denounced Bhagat Singh and his comrades' action. Gandhi's critics have argued that he could have made the commutation of Bhagat Singh and his comrades' death sentence a condition for signing the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. But how could he do so since such a course would have been contrary to his own ethics and also to the policy of the Congress? Hence there was no question of his terminating his truce with the Viceroy, nor could he undertake a fast unto death for compelling the government to reduce Bhagat Singh's death sentence to life imprisonment. Possibly he could have rallied a wide public support for the abolition of capital punishment in principle. Capital punishment is still prevalent in China, the US, Britain and India. Of course, for certain heinous crimes, capital punishment is necessary but Bhagat Singh's act does not seem to fall in this category. Why did Gandhi not plead for the abolition of capital punishment in principle for all the criminals? In that case possibly Bhagat Singh and his comrades might have been sentenced to life imprisonment till they were freed on the dawn of India's independence on 15 August 1947."
December 12, 2017
Could Gandhi have saved Bhagat Singh from the gallows is a question that raises itself periodically. Professor V.N. Dutta lists the previous arguments and presents his own take on the subject. I am not thoroughly convinced by his argument but agree wholeheartedly with him when he says that Bhagat Singh's closest comrade, the fire-brand, Sukhdev, has been neglected for too long. If anybody deserves a text, it is Sukhdev.
January 16, 2020
My first book had to be a feather from the freedom struggle and this is the books I could find in my library closest. A well written account of Bhagat Singh execution revolving around the freedom struggle and Gandhi ji’s efforts for commutation of the death sentence. We must read books on our freedom struggle to value our current state of being as we often tend to take it for granted. This book deep dives into the British era and get us an experience of what it took for us to get the freedom.
June 20, 2021
A wonderful document putting the evidences and facts from different sources to establish the truth. In the end the stand taken by Lord Irwin or Mahatma is a not a matter that matter. Bhagat Singh has decided to be the martyr and the symbol of courage an valor for the generation to come. And his slogan 'Inquilab Sindabad' has become something you can read even if you are blind and hear even if you are deaf.
September 7, 2021
Find out in this book how a 23 year old , sacrificing each and everything for his nation was somehow contradicting to the ideology of non violence followed by Mahatma Gandhi. He sacrificed each and everything for the nation. The question arises, being a major political figure , Mahatma Gandhi could have saved his life? Remains a debatable question. This book will surely let you meet the fearless Bhagat Singh and his ideas for the greater vision of an independent India.
July 13, 2020
The book uncovers one of the most hotly debated topics of whether mr Gandhi tried enough to save Bhagat Singh. The book manages to stay objective in the pursuit of its subject matters and offers enough evidence to make one’s mind. Good brief read.
October 23, 2024
Book has tried to consolidate different views on the issue of Bhagat Singh Capital Punishment and the role of Gandhi. However I see too much repetitive content.
Still this book is one of those books that must be read by people who are interested in Indian freedom struggle and the personalities.
Still this book is one of those books that must be read by people who are interested in Indian freedom struggle and the personalities.
October 16, 2019
"A flower must die to yield its place to the fruit, and flower must perish for the seeds to sprout again. The cycle of history carries on."
December 19, 2020
I had always wanted to know Gandhi's stand on Bhagat Singh and the role he played in our independence. This book provided a clear picture and helped me in clearing the doubts. Thanks to the author!
April 23, 2022
I went into the book with high hopes, but I was sorely disappointed. There is no definitive answer as to whether Gandhi could save Bhagat or not. Gandhi was the most prominent personality at that time and of course he had influence. If Gandhi could save K P R Gopalan from British execution irrespective of his charge in violence, then why not Bhagat ? I believe he could save him if he sincerely wanted to. But it's still a mystery why he didn't. Like the author said, only Gandhi could answer it.
July 27, 2011
useless book
April 6, 2015
not so well-researched, and disappointing if one goes by title.
June 17, 2017
a good overview of each individual Gandhi Irwin. what led to their opinions on each topic. what were the circumstances
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews