What do you think?
Rate this book
Bhagat singh Aur Unke Sathiyon Ke Dastavez
Bhagat Singh Aur Unke Sathiyon Ke Dastavez [Paperback] [Jan 01, 2010] Jagmohan Singh and Chaman Lal ...
380 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2022
6 people are currently reading
13 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 of 1 review
November 19, 2021
"डॉ. जगमोहन सिंह शहीद भगत सिंह की छोटी बहन अमर कौर (अब दिवंगत) के बेटे। सम्प्रति पंजाब कृषि विश्वविद्यालय, लुधियाना, में कृषि इंजीनियरिंग विषय में अध्यापक और पंजाब जनतान्त्रिक अधिकार सभा के महासचिव। "
This book is where a compiler, Chaman Lal, a professor at JNU, and an author of introduction, an erstwhile revolutionary who was with Bhagat Singh and was incarcerated at Andaman after Bhagat Singh was executed by the British government, go too far in his hatred of Hindus, so far as to, not only malign everyone who is Indian, Hindu, not ashamed if it, not paying a salute to either erstwhile colonial rulers or their continental equals such as those of other European nations, and isn't abusing hinduism; but he goes further, and spits his vitriol at very respected figures, only because they do not confirm to his worship of his idols of brands outside india.
People such as him claim freedom of speech in name of democracy only for their venom spewing, but do not Grant it to Indians not ashamed of being not invaders, being rooted of ancestry of India. They malign India and Hindus in name of their flag bearing secularism, but steer clear of any criticism even of terrorism in West Asia or from across the border, and even refrain from a single word against atrocities perpetrated against women by jihadists; they know that exercise of their right to speak in thus direction would likely cost their livelihoods, if not their lives, since their supposed employment at cost of India is supplemented by the hidden amounts that depend on precisely this spewing venom against India and refraining from criticism of jihadist atrocities, whether perpetrated in France or Afghanistan.
Why he spews this venom more in this Hindi version of collected works of Bhagat Singh than he does in the English version is unclear; is he afraid of incurring wrath of a small settlement of foreigner devotees? Or was it the other compiler who wrote those venomous bits in this version?
Neither, it turns out; it's Shiv Verma!
Wonder why he hasn't hated himself for keeping that name, or had courage to change it too one he can admire himself for? Or is it the crass disdain showed by a nun wearing mangalsutra just to cheating people into thinking she's a Hindu married woman, to get confidences she'd otherwise not get, before performing occult attacks?
It takes time, reading further, to realise that this authir us speaking of various events of time, including meetings where Bhagat Singh was present, both before and after incarceration, in first person.
Who was this person? Turns out he was a contemporary of Bhagat Singh and a veteran in Marxist cadre of revolutionaries who lived well into nineties, short of millennium by less than three years.
The book has more material than many other volumes on Bhagat Singh, with material including his early letters to family, and generally more background details of the family. It also has several precious pieces written by Bhagat Singh, and published under pen names, when he was in Kanpur. Precious, not only because one gets to see his thinking, and evolution if his writing but the information he imparts is priceless too.
Does that make the poisonous diatribe against India's majority, or against great souls he spews venom against, tolerable, or compensated for? No, but if one were warned one could void reading the book, or the vitriolic parts the beginning, especially the venom by this guy.
It amazes one that Shiv Verma, supposedly a colleague who had met Bhagat Singh more than once, should seek to impose his own hatred of Hindus to cover the real Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh uses more than language and imagery, more than emotion, from Hinduism and it's pantheon, in his writings, often enough. That he grew towards a Leninist thinking was a matter of times, and also of his youth - he not only never reached his full potential of growth, and get time to evolve, but also did not know of the horrors perpetrated by those regimes.
*****
Some very interesting pieces included are an editorial and various articles, some not by Bhagat Singh, about various freedom fighters and events. Bhagat Singh at this point wrote under a pen name, Vidrohie, which translates to 'rebel'.
Most interesting life histories, beginning with that of सूफी अम्बा प्रसाद, which perplexed one- why did congress government hide all these most I treating histories of various freedom fighters, instead of having them taught in schools in curriculum?
*****
At one point, having read the first part of कूका विद्रोह, it begins to sound familiar when the British officer reports that he thought this seemingly religious movement would become trouble for the British; and so it should, even without having just finished George Eliot's translations of Strauss and Feuerbach. Thus history seems very parallel to that of occupation of Judea and Israel by Rome, and despite the lies by church after unification with Roman empire, the very fact that British were afraid of every religious movement or person in India, and Macaulay policy advised crushing down Brahmins - who were poor, as a rule, being not allowed by religion to charge for services, and dependent on what was freely offered - in every way possible, tells about fact of who was really responsible for the crucifixion, no matter how forcefully church of rome lied about it after council of Nicea and blamed jews fraudulently, just as British in their turn attempted to divide not only India but Hindus in so many pieces that India was claimed by them, and those with a slave mindset, to have no identity.
Here's another instance where the fraud perpetrated by, supposedly leftists and self labelled secular brigade in India, and elsewhere, stands exposed. They promote, and try yo own, Bhagat Singh, because he veered towards leftists thought, which at that time did attract most youth and those who were just; but, unlike the fossilized, un thinking left of subsequent decades that used a blinkered obedience and worse, Bhagat Singh was neither blind nor blinkered, and not only he gave credit where it was due, but more - he made explicit efforts to have known the work of a leader who has been, since, maligned non stop, with no evidence, and accused of requesting British government for leniency in his sentence when he was tortured in Andaman, unlike Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru who were given comparatively comfortable treatment even in jail.
"“1907 में अंग्रेजों ने विचार किया कि 1857 के गदरियों पर जीत हासिल करने की पचासवीं वर्षगाँठ मनानी चाहिए। 1857 की याद ताजा करने के लिए हिन्दुस्तान और इंग्लैंड के प्रसिद्ध अंग्रेजों के अख़बारों ने अपने-अपने विशेषांक निकाले, ड्रामे किए गए और लेक्चर दिए गए और हर तरह से इन कथित गदरियों को बुरी तरह कोसा गया। यहाँ तक कि जो कुछ भी इनके मन में आया, सब ऊल-जलूल इन्होंने गदरियों के खिलाफ कहा और कई कुफ्र किए। इन गालियों और बदनाम करनेवाली कार्रवाई के विपरीत सावरकर ने 1857 के हिन्दुस्तानी नेताओं—नाना साहिब, महारानी झाँसी, तांत्या टोपे, कुँवर सिंह, मौलवी अहमद साहिब की याद मनाने के लिए काम शुरू कर दिया, ताकि राष्ट्रीय जंग के सच्चे-सच्चे हालात बताए जाएँ। यह बड़ी बहादुरी का काम था और शुरू भी अंग्रेजी राजधानी में किया गया। आम अंग्रेज नाना साहिब और तांत्या टोपे को शैतान के वर्ग में समझते थे, इसलिए लगभग सभी हिन्दुस्तानी नेताओं ने इस आज़ादी की जंग को मनानेवाले दिन में कोई हिस्सा न लिया। लेकिन मि. सावरकर के साथ सभी नौजवान थे। हिन्दुस्तानी घर में एक बड़ी भारी यादगारी मीटिंग बुलाई गई। उपवास किए गए और कसमें ली गईं कि उन बुजुर्गों की याद में एक हफ्ते तक कोई ऐयाशी की चीज़ इस्तेमाल नहीं की जाएगी। छोटे-छोटे पैंफलेट ‘ओह शहीदो’ (Oh! Martyrs) नाम से इंग्लैंड और हिन्दुस्तान में बाँटे गए। छात्रों ने ऑक्सफोर्ड, कैम्ब्रिज और उच्चकोटि के कॉलेजों में छातियों पर बड़े-बड़े, सुन्दर-सुन्दर बैज लगाए जिन पर लिखा था, ‘1857 के शहीदों की इज्जत के लिए।’ गलियों-बाजारों में कई जगह झगड़े हो गए। एक कॉलेज में एक प्रोफेसर आपे से बाहर हो गया और हिन्दुस्तानी विद्यार्थियों ने माँग की कि वह माफी माँगे, क्योंकि उसने उन विद्यार्थियों के राष्ट्रीय नेताओं का अपमान किया है और विरोध में सारे-के-सोर विद्यार्थी कॉलेज से निकल आए। कई की छात्रवृत्तियाँ मारी गईं, कइयों ने इन्हें खुद ही छोड़ दिया। कइयों को उनके माँ-बाप ने बुलवा लिया। इंग्लिस्तान में राजनीतिक वायुमंडल बड़ा गर्म हो गया और हिन्दुस्तानी सरकार बड़ी हैरान व बेचैन हो गई।”
"(बैरिस्टर सावरकर का जीवन, पृ. 45-46, चित्रगुप्त रचित)"
And the stupidity of the three goes further.
सरदार किशन सिंह और स. अजीत सिंह"
"जो युवक लोकमान्य के प्रति विशेष रूप से आकर्षित हुए थे, उनमें कुछ पंजाबी नौजवान भी थे। ऐसे ही दो पंजाबी जवान किशन सिंह और मेरे आदरणीय चाचा स. अजीत सिंह जी थे।"
Amazing! Did none of the three, those who wrote introductions to this compilation of writings of Bhagat Singh, read what he wrote? They wrote and published false abuses against someone who was not only a great soul, great leader, but was someone whom the uncle of Bhagat Singh followed - the husband of the aunt who brought him up as her own, who he was especially, therefore, close to?
*****
"हिन्दुस्तान में महात्मा बुद्ध ने पहले भगवान के अस्तित्व से इनकार किया था। उनकी ईश्वर में आस्था नहीं थी। ... इस प्रकार वैज्ञानिक युग में ईश्वर के अस्तित्व को समाप्त किया जा रहा है जिससे धर्म का भी नामोनिशान मिट जाएगा। वास्तव में अराजकतावादियों के सिरमौर बैकुनिन ने अपनी किताब ‘गॉड एंड स्टेट’ (ईश्वर और राज्य) में ईश्वर को अच्छा लताड़ा है। उन्होंने एंजील की कहानी सामने रखी और कहा कि ईश्वर ने दुनिया बनाई और मनुष्य को अपने-जैसा बनाया। बहुत मेहरबानी की। लेकिन साथ ही यह भी कह दिया कि देखो, बुद्धि के पेड़ का फल मत खाना। असल में ईश्वर ने अपने मन-बहलाव के लिए मनुष्य और वायु को बना तो दिया मगर वह चाहता था कि वे सदा उसके गुलाम बने रहें और उसके विरुद्ध सर ऊँचा न कर सकें। इसलिए उन्हें विश्व के समस्त फल तो दिए लेकिन अक्ल नहीं दी। यह स्थिति देखकर शैतान आगे बढ़ा। But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free thinker and the emancipator of the world (यानी) दुनिया के चिर विद्रोही, प्रथम स्वतन्त्रचेता और दुनिया को स्वतन्त्र करनेवाले शैतान—आदि आगे बढ़े, आदमी को बगावत सिखाई और बुद्धि का फल खिला दिया। बस, फिर सर्वशक्तिमान, सर्वज्ञाता परमात्मा किसी निम्न दर्जे की कमीनी मानसिकता की भाँति क्रोध में आ गया और स्वनिर्मित दुनिया को स्वयं ही बद्दुआएँ देने लग पड़ा। खूब!"
Certainly makes sense against church and bible.
But the assertion about Buddha is simply copied from West, and makes no sense in Indian understanding. Buddha has been acknowledged an Avataara in mainstream tradition of India, and China acknowledged him as the new great God risen in India when the Chinese emperor had a dream-vision, resulting in his enquiry of his minister, and sending an envoy to India, before converting himself and his people. But in any case, at the very least, Buddha must be admitted a great yogi, and as such neither India nor specifically yoga imposes God in sense of West or bible or church, but certainly assures everyone of union with Divine, which is literal meaning of the very word "yoga". There aren't, as in West, assertions, imposition or demands of faith at pain of hell, but only paths trodden by others and signposts of their knowledge, offered, and freedom to tread any path, or making one of ones own.
*****
Bhagat Singh writes about rebellion, revolutionaries, and more. He writes about how success changes them from rebels to patriots, giving examples such as Washington and Wallis, and goes on yo speak of Mazzini - a favourite idol of his - and more.
He states that Shivaji would be called a dacoit if he'd failed in establishing his Maratha empire, which was how the then existing Muslim powers in India described him, but is instead recognised as a great persona.
"शिवाजी मराठा यदि राज कायम न कर पाता और ज़ालिम औरंगजेब के दाँत खट्टे न कर पाता तो वह डाकू ही कहलाता, लेकिन आज हम भी उसे महापुरुष कहते हैं। खैर!"
Bhagat Singh wasn't to know that congress, following Gandhi's policy of appeasement at all costs ( that is, cost to Hindu majority, and other smaller minorities of India, but not, of course, to anyone aligned with erstwhile foreign invaders in any way), were to almost demonise Shivaji, Maratha empire, even Marathi language and speakers thereof, and more; that governor of Bombay state ordered police to fire live rounds on marchers for a Marathi state on lines of states everywhere else being set up in India along the operative principle of organisation of states along linguistic lines, and 105 people were shot dead, so that eventually when Maharashtra and Gujarat came into existence as two separate states, Flora Fountain had a memorial next to it, memorial to the 105 martyrs, and the busy intersection known from then on as Hutaatmaa Chowk (martyr square) instead.
He wasn't to know thst matters, under a puppet prime minister and a shadow government operated from another power centre than the then PMO, a law almost was brought in and all but passed, to the effect that if any member of a minority - but not smaller minorities, only specifically two minorities that were aligned with the erstwhile foreign invaders and colonial rulers - complained against a member of majority of India, the latter would be immediately and indefinitely imprisoned, with not even benefit of habeas corpus, much less of legal counsel. This bill was taken back only due to diligent exposure by a party that was, has been and is, despite coming to power and changing image of India from ridiculed to respected, maligned, only because the party did not fall in line with others in their program of seeing majority of India enslaved to the said powerful minorities.
If Shiv Verma had been buried, he'd be turning in his grave, tortured by Bhagat Singh's words lauding Shivaji - if, that is,, he'd read what Bhagat Singh wrote!
*****
A later chapter begins with an address to youth, chiefly that of Punjab where the article was published; thereafter there is a series of articles either directly addressed to, or discussing, the highly respected senior leader of Punjab, Lala Lajpat Rai. What's very clear is the dual nature of emotion here, that of regard and remnant of a love as that of young of a family for a senior elder relative, along with objective sharp critique of his more recent actions.
Bhagat Singh criticises Lala Lajpat Rai, in his assessment of Jawaharlal Nehru and criticism of revolutionaries, pointing out that someone who had in fact visited Russia, and generally Europe, apart from living abroad - chiefly in England - extensively, being judged less influenced by thinking borrowed from foreign sources than poor revolutionary youth, who had barely enough to afford food, was incorrect, besides such criticism being unfair in general.
A major article by Bhagat Singh is given later, delineating differences between two then young leaders, Subhash Chandra Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru; there is an editorial note, presumably from the editors of this compilation, claiming time proved Bhagat Singh correct in his analysis. That isn't clear, except it indicates an incorrect inference by the editors to the effect that Subhash Chandra Bose joined Axis, a conclusion based on his sctions; this is not only factually incorrect, it's wrong from both sides factually.
Subhash Chandra Bose did use Axis to further cause of independence of India, in raising an Indian National Army, and fought with it to and into borders of India, marching from Singapore; but he was in no way of their thinking. Subhash Chandra Bose was, in fact, the only man to tell off Hitler to his face, that he was wrong in racism; and his wife, a born and brought up German young woman from Austria, found herself watched constantly by the various agencies, and knew she didn't have even privacy to speak in her own home, after he'd left.
The article states that Subhash Chandra Bose is emotional, in his love of India, with less theoretical and intellectual basis, and Jawaharlal Nehru had more to offer, an intellectual basis and more of a knowledge of the world, especially having visited Russia after revolution. In this the editors conclude Bhagat Singh correct, as faulty a conclusion as it could get. This conclusion is, again, based on a blind following of leftist powers by the said editors.
Reality is, Subhash Chandra Bose risked his own life continuously from the moment he escaped, to when he brought an army consisting purely of Indian men and women into borders of India, fighting all the way from Singapore marching into Imphal. But more relevantly, according to a reply by Attlee when on a visit to independent India, it was due to Subhash Chandra Bose whose victories had changed Indian mindset that British were forced to flee precipitously, in such haste - specifically, due to strike on navy docks inspired by Subhash Chandra Bose's victories that made British fear a rebellion, and take flight.
Jawaharlal Nehru on the other hand wasn't elected PM of India, although he was the first PM; he was selected, and imposed, by Gandhi, who asked the elected PM, Sardar Patel, to step aside. This decision proved against interests of India. Gandhi advised independent India to not protest when pakis claimed an extra million square miles of territory in East, letting pakis have it; he went on a hunger strike, fasting unto death, if India did not give 55 millions of pounds to Pakistan, despite latter having attacked almost immediately after independence, and give this in midst of the said war, even despite certainty that the money was going towards arms and ammunition to kill more Indians. Jawaharlal Nehru and congress gave in.
Worst, Jawaharlal Nehru demanded army stop short of a decisive, complete victory in Kashmir, and took the matter to U.N. security council, and promised a U.N. inspected plebiscite, which fortunately did not play in favour of the jihadist Pakistan only because U.N. security council imposed a first condition about pakis withdrawal of forces, which Pakistan was never going to do - on the contrary, sending army trained terrorists, and army soldiers dressed in pyjamas, claiming they weren't pakis at all, but only locals.
And both editors, as well as Bhagat Singh, are simply incorrect in their assessment of Jawaharlal Nehru offering more intellectually than Subhash Chandra Bose, as evident ftom his biography by a close relative and member of his family.
*******
This book is where a compiler, Chaman Lal, a professor at JNU, and an author of introduction, an erstwhile revolutionary who was with Bhagat Singh and was incarcerated at Andaman after Bhagat Singh was executed by the British government, go too far in his hatred of Hindus, so far as to, not only malign everyone who is Indian, Hindu, not ashamed if it, not paying a salute to either erstwhile colonial rulers or their continental equals such as those of other European nations, and isn't abusing hinduism; but he goes further, and spits his vitriol at very respected figures, only because they do not confirm to his worship of his idols of brands outside india.
People such as him claim freedom of speech in name of democracy only for their venom spewing, but do not Grant it to Indians not ashamed of being not invaders, being rooted of ancestry of India. They malign India and Hindus in name of their flag bearing secularism, but steer clear of any criticism even of terrorism in West Asia or from across the border, and even refrain from a single word against atrocities perpetrated against women by jihadists; they know that exercise of their right to speak in thus direction would likely cost their livelihoods, if not their lives, since their supposed employment at cost of India is supplemented by the hidden amounts that depend on precisely this spewing venom against India and refraining from criticism of jihadist atrocities, whether perpetrated in France or Afghanistan.
Why he spews this venom more in this Hindi version of collected works of Bhagat Singh than he does in the English version is unclear; is he afraid of incurring wrath of a small settlement of foreigner devotees? Or was it the other compiler who wrote those venomous bits in this version?
Neither, it turns out; it's Shiv Verma!
Wonder why he hasn't hated himself for keeping that name, or had courage to change it too one he can admire himself for? Or is it the crass disdain showed by a nun wearing mangalsutra just to cheating people into thinking she's a Hindu married woman, to get confidences she'd otherwise not get, before performing occult attacks?
It takes time, reading further, to realise that this authir us speaking of various events of time, including meetings where Bhagat Singh was present, both before and after incarceration, in first person.
Who was this person? Turns out he was a contemporary of Bhagat Singh and a veteran in Marxist cadre of revolutionaries who lived well into nineties, short of millennium by less than three years.
The book has more material than many other volumes on Bhagat Singh, with material including his early letters to family, and generally more background details of the family. It also has several precious pieces written by Bhagat Singh, and published under pen names, when he was in Kanpur. Precious, not only because one gets to see his thinking, and evolution if his writing but the information he imparts is priceless too.
Does that make the poisonous diatribe against India's majority, or against great souls he spews venom against, tolerable, or compensated for? No, but if one were warned one could void reading the book, or the vitriolic parts the beginning, especially the venom by this guy.
It amazes one that Shiv Verma, supposedly a colleague who had met Bhagat Singh more than once, should seek to impose his own hatred of Hindus to cover the real Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh uses more than language and imagery, more than emotion, from Hinduism and it's pantheon, in his writings, often enough. That he grew towards a Leninist thinking was a matter of times, and also of his youth - he not only never reached his full potential of growth, and get time to evolve, but also did not know of the horrors perpetrated by those regimes.
*****
Some very interesting pieces included are an editorial and various articles, some not by Bhagat Singh, about various freedom fighters and events. Bhagat Singh at this point wrote under a pen name, Vidrohie, which translates to 'rebel'.
Most interesting life histories, beginning with that of सूफी अम्बा प्रसाद, which perplexed one- why did congress government hide all these most I treating histories of various freedom fighters, instead of having them taught in schools in curriculum?
*****
At one point, having read the first part of कूका विद्रोह, it begins to sound familiar when the British officer reports that he thought this seemingly religious movement would become trouble for the British; and so it should, even without having just finished George Eliot's translations of Strauss and Feuerbach. Thus history seems very parallel to that of occupation of Judea and Israel by Rome, and despite the lies by church after unification with Roman empire, the very fact that British were afraid of every religious movement or person in India, and Macaulay policy advised crushing down Brahmins - who were poor, as a rule, being not allowed by religion to charge for services, and dependent on what was freely offered - in every way possible, tells about fact of who was really responsible for the crucifixion, no matter how forcefully church of rome lied about it after council of Nicea and blamed jews fraudulently, just as British in their turn attempted to divide not only India but Hindus in so many pieces that India was claimed by them, and those with a slave mindset, to have no identity.
Here's another instance where the fraud perpetrated by, supposedly leftists and self labelled secular brigade in India, and elsewhere, stands exposed. They promote, and try yo own, Bhagat Singh, because he veered towards leftists thought, which at that time did attract most youth and those who were just; but, unlike the fossilized, un thinking left of subsequent decades that used a blinkered obedience and worse, Bhagat Singh was neither blind nor blinkered, and not only he gave credit where it was due, but more - he made explicit efforts to have known the work of a leader who has been, since, maligned non stop, with no evidence, and accused of requesting British government for leniency in his sentence when he was tortured in Andaman, unlike Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru who were given comparatively comfortable treatment even in jail.
"“1907 में अंग्रेजों ने विचार किया कि 1857 के गदरियों पर जीत हासिल करने की पचासवीं वर्षगाँठ मनानी चाहिए। 1857 की याद ताजा करने के लिए हिन्दुस्तान और इंग्लैंड के प्रसिद्ध अंग्रेजों के अख़बारों ने अपने-अपने विशेषांक निकाले, ड्रामे किए गए और लेक्चर दिए गए और हर तरह से इन कथित गदरियों को बुरी तरह कोसा गया। यहाँ तक कि जो कुछ भी इनके मन में आया, सब ऊल-जलूल इन्होंने गदरियों के खिलाफ कहा और कई कुफ्र किए। इन गालियों और बदनाम करनेवाली कार्रवाई के विपरीत सावरकर ने 1857 के हिन्दुस्तानी नेताओं—नाना साहिब, महारानी झाँसी, तांत्या टोपे, कुँवर सिंह, मौलवी अहमद साहिब की याद मनाने के लिए काम शुरू कर दिया, ताकि राष्ट्रीय जंग के सच्चे-सच्चे हालात बताए जाएँ। यह बड़ी बहादुरी का काम था और शुरू भी अंग्रेजी राजधानी में किया गया। आम अंग्रेज नाना साहिब और तांत्या टोपे को शैतान के वर्ग में समझते थे, इसलिए लगभग सभी हिन्दुस्तानी नेताओं ने इस आज़ादी की जंग को मनानेवाले दिन में कोई हिस्सा न लिया। लेकिन मि. सावरकर के साथ सभी नौजवान थे। हिन्दुस्तानी घर में एक बड़ी भारी यादगारी मीटिंग बुलाई गई। उपवास किए गए और कसमें ली गईं कि उन बुजुर्गों की याद में एक हफ्ते तक कोई ऐयाशी की चीज़ इस्तेमाल नहीं की जाएगी। छोटे-छोटे पैंफलेट ‘ओह शहीदो’ (Oh! Martyrs) नाम से इंग्लैंड और हिन्दुस्तान में बाँटे गए। छात्रों ने ऑक्सफोर्ड, कैम्ब्रिज और उच्चकोटि के कॉलेजों में छातियों पर बड़े-बड़े, सुन्दर-सुन्दर बैज लगाए जिन पर लिखा था, ‘1857 के शहीदों की इज्जत के लिए।’ गलियों-बाजारों में कई जगह झगड़े हो गए। एक कॉलेज में एक प्रोफेसर आपे से बाहर हो गया और हिन्दुस्तानी विद्यार्थियों ने माँग की कि वह माफी माँगे, क्योंकि उसने उन विद्यार्थियों के राष्ट्रीय नेताओं का अपमान किया है और विरोध में सारे-के-सोर विद्यार्थी कॉलेज से निकल आए। कई की छात्रवृत्तियाँ मारी गईं, कइयों ने इन्हें खुद ही छोड़ दिया। कइयों को उनके माँ-बाप ने बुलवा लिया। इंग्लिस्तान में राजनीतिक वायुमंडल बड़ा गर्म हो गया और हिन्दुस्तानी सरकार बड़ी हैरान व बेचैन हो गई।”
"(बैरिस्टर सावरकर का जीवन, पृ. 45-46, चित्रगुप्त रचित)"
And the stupidity of the three goes further.
सरदार किशन सिंह और स. अजीत सिंह"
"जो युवक लोकमान्य के प्रति विशेष रूप से आकर्षित हुए थे, उनमें कुछ पंजाबी नौजवान भी थे। ऐसे ही दो पंजाबी जवान किशन सिंह और मेरे आदरणीय चाचा स. अजीत सिंह जी थे।"
Amazing! Did none of the three, those who wrote introductions to this compilation of writings of Bhagat Singh, read what he wrote? They wrote and published false abuses against someone who was not only a great soul, great leader, but was someone whom the uncle of Bhagat Singh followed - the husband of the aunt who brought him up as her own, who he was especially, therefore, close to?
*****
"हिन्दुस्तान में महात्मा बुद्ध ने पहले भगवान के अस्तित्व से इनकार किया था। उनकी ईश्वर में आस्था नहीं थी। ... इस प्रकार वैज्ञानिक युग में ईश्वर के अस्तित्व को समाप्त किया जा रहा है जिससे धर्म का भी नामोनिशान मिट जाएगा। वास्तव में अराजकतावादियों के सिरमौर बैकुनिन ने अपनी किताब ‘गॉड एंड स्टेट’ (ईश्वर और राज्य) में ईश्वर को अच्छा लताड़ा है। उन्होंने एंजील की कहानी सामने रखी और कहा कि ईश्वर ने दुनिया बनाई और मनुष्य को अपने-जैसा बनाया। बहुत मेहरबानी की। लेकिन साथ ही यह भी कह दिया कि देखो, बुद्धि के पेड़ का फल मत खाना। असल में ईश्वर ने अपने मन-बहलाव के लिए मनुष्य और वायु को बना तो दिया मगर वह चाहता था कि वे सदा उसके गुलाम बने रहें और उसके विरुद्ध सर ऊँचा न कर सकें। इसलिए उन्हें विश्व के समस्त फल तो दिए लेकिन अक्ल नहीं दी। यह स्थिति देखकर शैतान आगे बढ़ा। But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free thinker and the emancipator of the world (यानी) दुनिया के चिर विद्रोही, प्रथम स्वतन्त्रचेता और दुनिया को स्वतन्त्र करनेवाले शैतान—आदि आगे बढ़े, आदमी को बगावत सिखाई और बुद्धि का फल खिला दिया। बस, फिर सर्वशक्तिमान, सर्वज्ञाता परमात्मा किसी निम्न दर्जे की कमीनी मानसिकता की भाँति क्रोध में आ गया और स्वनिर्मित दुनिया को स्वयं ही बद्दुआएँ देने लग पड़ा। खूब!"
Certainly makes sense against church and bible.
But the assertion about Buddha is simply copied from West, and makes no sense in Indian understanding. Buddha has been acknowledged an Avataara in mainstream tradition of India, and China acknowledged him as the new great God risen in India when the Chinese emperor had a dream-vision, resulting in his enquiry of his minister, and sending an envoy to India, before converting himself and his people. But in any case, at the very least, Buddha must be admitted a great yogi, and as such neither India nor specifically yoga imposes God in sense of West or bible or church, but certainly assures everyone of union with Divine, which is literal meaning of the very word "yoga". There aren't, as in West, assertions, imposition or demands of faith at pain of hell, but only paths trodden by others and signposts of their knowledge, offered, and freedom to tread any path, or making one of ones own.
*****
Bhagat Singh writes about rebellion, revolutionaries, and more. He writes about how success changes them from rebels to patriots, giving examples such as Washington and Wallis, and goes on yo speak of Mazzini - a favourite idol of his - and more.
He states that Shivaji would be called a dacoit if he'd failed in establishing his Maratha empire, which was how the then existing Muslim powers in India described him, but is instead recognised as a great persona.
"शिवाजी मराठा यदि राज कायम न कर पाता और ज़ालिम औरंगजेब के दाँत खट्टे न कर पाता तो वह डाकू ही कहलाता, लेकिन आज हम भी उसे महापुरुष कहते हैं। खैर!"
Bhagat Singh wasn't to know that congress, following Gandhi's policy of appeasement at all costs ( that is, cost to Hindu majority, and other smaller minorities of India, but not, of course, to anyone aligned with erstwhile foreign invaders in any way), were to almost demonise Shivaji, Maratha empire, even Marathi language and speakers thereof, and more; that governor of Bombay state ordered police to fire live rounds on marchers for a Marathi state on lines of states everywhere else being set up in India along the operative principle of organisation of states along linguistic lines, and 105 people were shot dead, so that eventually when Maharashtra and Gujarat came into existence as two separate states, Flora Fountain had a memorial next to it, memorial to the 105 martyrs, and the busy intersection known from then on as Hutaatmaa Chowk (martyr square) instead.
He wasn't to know thst matters, under a puppet prime minister and a shadow government operated from another power centre than the then PMO, a law almost was brought in and all but passed, to the effect that if any member of a minority - but not smaller minorities, only specifically two minorities that were aligned with the erstwhile foreign invaders and colonial rulers - complained against a member of majority of India, the latter would be immediately and indefinitely imprisoned, with not even benefit of habeas corpus, much less of legal counsel. This bill was taken back only due to diligent exposure by a party that was, has been and is, despite coming to power and changing image of India from ridiculed to respected, maligned, only because the party did not fall in line with others in their program of seeing majority of India enslaved to the said powerful minorities.
If Shiv Verma had been buried, he'd be turning in his grave, tortured by Bhagat Singh's words lauding Shivaji - if, that is,, he'd read what Bhagat Singh wrote!
*****
A later chapter begins with an address to youth, chiefly that of Punjab where the article was published; thereafter there is a series of articles either directly addressed to, or discussing, the highly respected senior leader of Punjab, Lala Lajpat Rai. What's very clear is the dual nature of emotion here, that of regard and remnant of a love as that of young of a family for a senior elder relative, along with objective sharp critique of his more recent actions.
Bhagat Singh criticises Lala Lajpat Rai, in his assessment of Jawaharlal Nehru and criticism of revolutionaries, pointing out that someone who had in fact visited Russia, and generally Europe, apart from living abroad - chiefly in England - extensively, being judged less influenced by thinking borrowed from foreign sources than poor revolutionary youth, who had barely enough to afford food, was incorrect, besides such criticism being unfair in general.
A major article by Bhagat Singh is given later, delineating differences between two then young leaders, Subhash Chandra Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru; there is an editorial note, presumably from the editors of this compilation, claiming time proved Bhagat Singh correct in his analysis. That isn't clear, except it indicates an incorrect inference by the editors to the effect that Subhash Chandra Bose joined Axis, a conclusion based on his sctions; this is not only factually incorrect, it's wrong from both sides factually.
Subhash Chandra Bose did use Axis to further cause of independence of India, in raising an Indian National Army, and fought with it to and into borders of India, marching from Singapore; but he was in no way of their thinking. Subhash Chandra Bose was, in fact, the only man to tell off Hitler to his face, that he was wrong in racism; and his wife, a born and brought up German young woman from Austria, found herself watched constantly by the various agencies, and knew she didn't have even privacy to speak in her own home, after he'd left.
The article states that Subhash Chandra Bose is emotional, in his love of India, with less theoretical and intellectual basis, and Jawaharlal Nehru had more to offer, an intellectual basis and more of a knowledge of the world, especially having visited Russia after revolution. In this the editors conclude Bhagat Singh correct, as faulty a conclusion as it could get. This conclusion is, again, based on a blind following of leftist powers by the said editors.
Reality is, Subhash Chandra Bose risked his own life continuously from the moment he escaped, to when he brought an army consisting purely of Indian men and women into borders of India, fighting all the way from Singapore marching into Imphal. But more relevantly, according to a reply by Attlee when on a visit to independent India, it was due to Subhash Chandra Bose whose victories had changed Indian mindset that British were forced to flee precipitously, in such haste - specifically, due to strike on navy docks inspired by Subhash Chandra Bose's victories that made British fear a rebellion, and take flight.
Jawaharlal Nehru on the other hand wasn't elected PM of India, although he was the first PM; he was selected, and imposed, by Gandhi, who asked the elected PM, Sardar Patel, to step aside. This decision proved against interests of India. Gandhi advised independent India to not protest when pakis claimed an extra million square miles of territory in East, letting pakis have it; he went on a hunger strike, fasting unto death, if India did not give 55 millions of pounds to Pakistan, despite latter having attacked almost immediately after independence, and give this in midst of the said war, even despite certainty that the money was going towards arms and ammunition to kill more Indians. Jawaharlal Nehru and congress gave in.
Worst, Jawaharlal Nehru demanded army stop short of a decisive, complete victory in Kashmir, and took the matter to U.N. security council, and promised a U.N. inspected plebiscite, which fortunately did not play in favour of the jihadist Pakistan only because U.N. security council imposed a first condition about pakis withdrawal of forces, which Pakistan was never going to do - on the contrary, sending army trained terrorists, and army soldiers dressed in pyjamas, claiming they weren't pakis at all, but only locals.
And both editors, as well as Bhagat Singh, are simply incorrect in their assessment of Jawaharlal Nehru offering more intellectually than Subhash Chandra Bose, as evident ftom his biography by a close relative and member of his family.
*******
Displaying 1 of 1 review