भारत स्वाधीनता संग्राम के इतिहास का अगर अध्ययन किया जाय तो आज़ादी के संघर्ष की मुख्य लड़ाई कांग्रेस और गांधी जी के नेतृत्व में गांधी जी के सिद्धांतों के आधार पर लड़ी जा रही थी। लेकिन एक और बड़ा आंदोलन जो युवकों द्वारा चलाया जा रहा था, वह क्रांतिकारी आंदोलन था, जो सशस्त्र क्रांति में विश्वास करता था। यह भी देशव्यापी था। इसके नायक भी मुख्य धारा के सेनानियों से कम लोकप्रिय नहीं थे। लेकिन यह आंदोलन भूमिगत था। गोपन और प्रचार से दूर था। इसका मूल कारण गोपनीयता किसी भी सशत्र संघर्ष की जान होती है। इसी कारण भारत के क्रांतिकारी आंदोलन का इतिहास क्रमबद्ध और प्रामाणिक रूप से नहीं लिखा गया। कुछ तो अल्प और अपुष्ट सूचनाएं, कूटनामों से लिखे दस्तावेज़ों और ऐसी गतिविधियों के विधिवत संकलन का अभाव इसका कारण रहा है। और कुछ इतिहासकारों का इन आंदोलनों के प्रति उदासीन भाव। हालांकि मन्मथनाथ गुप्त जो खुद भी भगत सिंह के साथी थे ने क्रांतिकारी आन्दोलन का एक इतिहास लिखा है।
यह लेख भगत सिंह के निकट साथी, भगवती चरण बोहरा द्वारा जनवरी 1930 में लिखा गया था जिसमें भगत सिंह ने कुछ संशोधन किया था। 23 दिसम्बर 1929 को वायसराय लार्ड इर्विन की ट्रेन को बम से उड़ाने का प्रयास किया गया था। हिंदी के प्रख्यात साहित्यकार यशपाल ने अपने उपन्यास सिंहावलोकन में इस घटना का ज़िक्र किया है। बम का बटन दबाने वाले यशपाल ही थे। लेकिन यह योजना विफल हो गयी। लार्ड इर्विन गांधी जी से मिलने दिल्ली आ रहे थे । गाँधी जी ने इस घटना पर एक लेख अपने अखबार यंग इंडिया में, कल्ट ऑफ द बम , The Cult Of The Bomb, जिसमें हिंसक कार्यो की आलोचना लिखा, जिसमें उन्होनें वाइसराय के सुरक्षित बच जाने पर ईश्वर को धन्यवाद दिया और इस हिंसा की निंदा की। इसी के जवाब में हिंदुस्तान सोशलिस्ट रिपब्लिकन एसोशिएशन की ओर से भगवतीचरण वोहरा ने ‘बम का दर्शन’ लेख लिखा, जिसका शीर्षक ‘हिंदुस्तान प्रजातन्त्र समाजवादी सभा का घोषणापत्र’ रखा। भगत सिंह ने जेल में इस लेख को कुछ संशोधन कर के अन्तिम रूप दिया। 26 जनवरी, 1930 को इसे देशभर में बाँटा गया।
***
***
बम का दर्शन
( भगत सिंह एवं बीसी बोहरा )
( भगत सिंह एवं बीसी बोहरा )
हाल ही की घटनाएँ। विशेष रूप से 23 दिसंबर, 1929 को वाइसराय की स्पेशल ट्रेन उड़ाने का जो प्रयत्न किया गया था, उसकी निन्दा करते हुए कांग्रेस द्वारा पारित किया गया प्रस्ताव तथा यंग इण्डिया में गाँधी जी द्वारा लिखे गए लेखों से स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि भारतीय राष्ट्रीय कांग्रेस ने गाँधी जी से साँठ-गाँठ कर भारतीय क्रांतिकारियों के विरुद्ध घोर आन्दोलन प्रारम्भ कर दिया है। जनता के बीच भाषणों तथा पत्रों के माध्यम से क्रांतिकारियों के विरुद्ध बराबर प्रचार किया जाता रहा है। या तो यह जानबूझकर किया गया या फिर केवल अज्ञानता के कारण उनके विषय में गलत प्रचार होता रहा है और उन्हें गलत समझा जाता रहा। परन्तु क्रांतिकारी अपने सिद्धान्तों तथा कार्यों की ऐसी आलोचना से नहीं घबराते हैं। बल्कि वे ऐसी आलोचना का स्वागत करते हैं, क्योंकि वे इसे इस बात का स्वर्णावसर मानते हैं कि ऐसा करने से उन्हें उन लोगों को क्रांतिकारियों के मूलभूत सिद्धान्तों तथा उच्च आदर्शों को, जो उनकी प्रेरणा तथा शक्ति के अनवरत स्रोत हैं, समझाने का अवसर मिलता है। आशा की जाती है कि इस लेख द्वारा आम जनता को यह जानने का अवसर मिलेगा कि क्रांतिकारी क्या हैं, उनके विरुद्ध किए गए भ्रमात्मक प्रचार से उत्पन्न होने वाली गलतफहमियों से उन्हें बचाया जा सकेगा।
पहले हम हिंसा और अहिंसा के प्रश्न पर ही विचार करें। हमारे विचार से इन शब्दों का प्रयोग ही गलत किया गया है, और ऐसा करना ही दोनों दलों के साथ अन्याय करना है, क्योंकि इन शब्दों से दोनों ही दलों के सिद्धान्तों का स्पष्ट बोध नहीं हो पाता। हिंसा का अर्थ है कि अन्याय के लिए किया गया बल प्रयोग,परन्तु क्रांतिकारियों का तो यह उद्देश्य नहीं है, दूसरी ओर अहिंसा का जो आम अर्थ समझा जाता है वह है आत्मिक शक्ति का सिद्धान्त। उसका उपयोग व्यक्तिगत तथा राष्ट्रीय अधिकारों को प्राप्त करने के लिए किया जाता है। अपने आप को कष्ट देकर आशा की जाती है कि इस प्रकार अन्त में अपने विरोधी का हृदय-परिवर्तन सम्भव हो सकेगा।
एक क्रांतिकारी जब कुछ बातों को अपना अधिकार मान लेता है तो वह उनकी माँग करता है, अपनी उस माँग के पक्ष में दलीलें देता है, समस्त आत्मिक शक्ति के द्वारा उन्हें प्राप्त करने की इच्छा करता है, उसकी प्राप्ति के लिए अत्यधिक कष्ट सहन करता है,इसके लिए वह बड़े से बड़ा त्याग करने के लिए प्रस्तुत रहता है और उसके समर्थन में वह अपना समस्त शारीरिक बल प्रयोग भी करता है। इसके इन प्रयत्नों को आप चाहे जिस नाम से पुकारें,परंतु आप इन्हें हिंसा के नाम से सम्बोधित नहीं कर सकते,क्योंकि ऐसा करना कोष में दिए इस शब्द के अर्थ के साथ अन्याय होगा। सत्याग्रह का अर्थ है, सत्य के लिए आग्रह। उसकी स्वीकृति के लिए केवल आत्मिक शक्ति के प्रयोग का ही आग्रह क्यों? इसके साथ-साथ शारीरिक बल प्रयोग भी [क्यों] न किया जाए?क्रांतिकारी स्वतन्त्रता प्राप्ति के लिए अपनी शारीरिक एवं नैतिक शक्ति दोनों के प्रयोग में विश्वास करता है परन्तु नैतिक शक्ति का प्रयोग करने वाले शारीरिक बल प्रयोग को निषिद्ध मानते हैं। इसलिए अब यह सवाल नहीं है कि आप हिंसा चाहते हैं या अहिंसा,बल्कि प्रश्न तो यह है कि आप अपनी उद्देश्य प्राप्ति के लिए शारीरिक बल सहित नैतिक बल का प्रयोग करना चाहते हैं, या केवल आत्मिक शक्ति का?
क्रांतिकारियो का विश्वास है कि देश को क्रांति से ही स्वतन्त्रता मिलेगी। वे जिस क्रांति के लिए प्रयत्नशील हैं और जिस क्रांति का रूप उनके सामने स्पष्ट है, उसका अर्थ केवल यह नहीं है कि विदेशी शासकों तथा उनके पिट्ठुओं से क्रांतिकारियों का केवल सशस्त्र संघर्ष हो, बल्कि इस सशस्त्र संघर्ष के साथ-साथ नवीन सामाजिक व्यवस्था के द्वार देश के लिए मुक्त हो जाएं। क्रांति पूँजीवाद, वर्गवाद तथा कुछ लोगों को ही विशेषाधिकार दिलाने वाली प्रणाली का अन्त कर देगी। यह राष्ट्र को अपने पैरों पर खड़ा करेगी,उससे नवीन राष्ट्र और नये समाज का जन्म होगा। क्रांति से सबसे बड़ी बात तो यह होगी कि वह मजदूर व किसानों का राज्य कायम कर उन सब सामाजिक अवांछित तत्त्वों को समाप्त कर देगी जो देश की राजनीतिक शक्ति को हथियाए बैठे हैं।
आज की तरुण पीढ़ी को मानसिक गुलामी तथा धार्मिक रूढ़िवादी बंधन जकड़े हैं और उससे छुटकारा पाने के लिए तरुण समाज की जो बैचेनी है, क्रांतिकारी उसी में प्रगतिशीलता के अंकुर देख रहा है। नवयुवक जैसे-जैसे मनोविज्ञान आत्मसात् करता जाएगा, वैसे-वैसे राष्ट्र की गुलामी का चित्र उसके सामने स्पष्ट होता जाएगा तथा उसकी देश को स्वतन्त्र करने की इच्छा प्रबल होती जाएगी। और उसका यह क्रम तब तक चलता रहेगा जब तक कि युवक न्याय, क्रोध और क्षोभ से ओतप्रोत हो अन्याय करनेवालों की हत्या न प्रारम्भ कर देगा। इस प्रकार देश में आतंकवाद का जन्म होता है। आंतकवाद सम्पूर्ण क्रांति नहीं और क्रांति भी आतंकवाद के बिना पूर्ण नहीं। यह तो क्रांति का एक आवश्यक अंग है। इस सिद्धान्त का समर्थन इतिहास की किसी भी क्रांति का विश्लेषण कर जाना जा सकता है। आतंकवाद आततायी के मन में भय पैदा कर पीड़ित जनता में प्रतिशोध की भावना जाग्रत कर उसे शक्ति प्रदान करता है। अस्थिर भावना वाले लोगों को इससे हिम्मत बँधती है तथा उनमें आत्मविश्वास पैदा होता है। इससे दुनिया के सामने क्रांति के उद्देश्य का वास्तविक रूप प्रकट हो जाता है क्योंकि यह किसी राष्ट्र की स्वतन्त्रता की उत्कट महत्त्वाकांक्षा का विश्वास दिलाने वाले प्रमाण हैं, जैसे दूसरे देशों में होता आया है, वैसे ही भारत में आतंकवाद क्रांति का रूप धारण कर लेगा और अन्त में क्रांति से ही देश को सामाजिक, राजनैतिक तथा आर्थिक स्वतन्त्रता मिलेगी।
तो यह हैं क्रांतिकारी के सिद्धान्त, जिनमें वह विश्वास करता है और जिन्हें देश के लिए प्राप्त करना चाहता है। इस तथ्य की प्राप्ति के लिए वह गुप्त तथा खुलेआम दोनों ही तरीकों से प्रयत्न कर रहा है। इस प्रकार एक शताब्दी से संसार में जनता तथा शासक वर्ग में जो संघर्ष चला आ रहा है, वही अनुभव उसके लक्ष्य पर पहुंचने का मार्गदर्शक है। क्रांतिकारी जिन तरीकों में विश्वास करता है, वे कभी असफल नहीं हुए।
इस बीच कांग्रेस क्या कर रही थी? उसने अपना ध्येय स्वराज्य से बदलकर पूर्ण स्वतन्त्रता घोषित किया। इस घोषणा से कोई भी व्यक्ति यही निष्कर्ष निकालेगा कि कांग्रेस ने ब्रिटिश शासन के विरुद्ध युद्ध की घोषणा न कर क्रांतिकारियों के विरुद्ध युद्ध की घोषणा कर दी है। इस सम्बन्ध में कांग्रेस का पहला वार था उसका वह प्रस्ताव जिसमें 23 दिसम्बर, 1929 को वाइसराय की स्पेशल ट्रेन उड़ाने के प्रयत्न की निन्दा की गई। और प्रस्ताव का मसौदा गाँधी जी ने स्वयं तैयार किया था और उसे पारित करने के लिए गाँधी जी ने अपनी सारी शक्ति लगा दी। परिणाम यह हुआ कि 1913 की सदस्य संख्या में वह केवल 31 अधिक मतों से पारित हो सका। क्या इस अत्यल्प बहुमत में भी राजनीतिक ईमानदारी थी?इस सम्बन्ध में हम सरलादेवी चौधरानी का मत ही यहाँ उद्धृत करें। वे तो जीवन-भर कांग्रेस की भक्त रही हैं। इस सम्बन्ध में प्रश्न के उत्तर में उन्होंने कहा है- मैंने महात्मा गाँधी के अनुयायियों के साथ इस विषय में जो बातचीत की, उससे मालूम हुआ कि वे इस सम्बन्ध में स्वतन्त्र विचार महात्माजी के प्रति व्यक्तिगत निष्ठा के कारण प्रकट न कर सके, तथा इस प्रस्ताव के विरुद्ध मत देने में असमर्थ रहे, जिसके प्रणेता महात्मा जी थे। जहाँ तक गाँधी जी की दलील का प्रश्न है, उस पर हम बाद में विचार करेंगे। उन्होंने जो दलीलें दी हैं वे कुछ कम या अधिक इस सम्बन्ध में कांग्रेस में दिए गए भाषण का ही विस्तृत रूप हैं।
इस दुखद प्रस्ताव के विषय में एक बात मार्के की है जिसे हम अनदेखा नहीं कर सकते, वह यह कि यह सर्वविदित है कि कांग्रेस अहिंसा का सिद्धान्त मानती है और पिछले दस वर्षों से वह इसके समर्थन में प्रचार करती रही है। यह सब होने पर भी प्रस्ताव के समर्थन में भाषणों में गाली-गलौज़ की गई। उन्होंने क्रांतिकारियों को बुजदिल कहा और उनके कार्यों को घृणित। उनमें से एक वक्ता ने धमकी देते हुए यहाँ तक कह डाला कि यदि वे (सदस्य) गाँधी जी का नेतृत्व चाहते हैं तो उन्हें इस प्रस्ताव को सर्वसम्मति से पारित करना चाहिए। इतना सब कुछ किए जाने पर भी यह प्रस्ताव बहुत थोड़े मतों से ही पारित हो सका। इससे यह बात निशंक प्रमाणित हो जाती है कि देश की जनता पर्याप्त संख्या में क्रांतिकारियों का समर्थन कर रही है। इस तरह से इसके लिए गाँधी जी हमारे बधाई के पात्र हैं कि उन्होंने इस प्रश्न पर विवाद खड़ा किया और इस प्रकार संसार को दिखा दिया कि कांग्रेस, जो अहिंसा का गढ़ माना जाता है, वह सम्पूर्ण नहीं तो एक हद तक तो कांग्रेस से अधिक क्रांतिकारियों के साथ हैं।
इस विषय में गाँधी जी ने जो विजय प्राप्त की वह एक प्रकार की हार ही के बराबर थी और अब वे ‘दि कल्ट ऑफ दि बम’ लेख द्वारा क्रांतिकारियों पर दूसरा हमला कर बैठे हैं। इस सम्बन्ध में आगे कुछ कहने से पूर्व इस लेख पर हम अच्छी तरह विचार करेंगे। इस लेख में उन्होंने तीन बातों का उल्लेख किया है। उनका विश्वास, उनके विचार और उनका मत। हम उनके विश्वास के सम्बन्ध में विश्लेषण नहीं करेंगे, क्योंकि विश्वास में तर्क के लिए स्थान नहीं है। गाँधी जी जिसे हिंसा कहते हैं और जिसके विरुद्ध उन्होंने जो तर्कसंगत विचार प्रकट किए हैं, हम उनका सिलसिलेवार विश्लेषण करें।
गाँधी जी सोचते हैं कि उनकी यह धारणा सही है कि अधिकतर भारतीय जनता को हिंसा की भावना छू तक नहीं गई है और अहिंसा उनका राजनीतिक शस्त्र बन गया है। हाल ही में उन्होंने देश का जो भ्रमण किया है उस अनुभव के आधार पर उनकी यह धारणा बनी है, परन्तु उन्हें अपनी इस यात्रा के इस अनुभव से इस भ्रम में नहीं पड़ना चाहिए। यह बात सही है कि (कांग्रेस) नेता अपने दौरे वहीं तक सीमित रखता है जहां तक डाक गाड़ी उसे आराम से पहुँचा सकती है, जबकि गाँधी जी ने अपनी यात्रा का दायरा वहाँ तक बढ़ा दिया है जहाँ तक मोटरकार द्वारा वे जा सकें। इस यात्रा में वे धनी व्यक्तियों के ही निवास स्थानों पर रुके। इस यात्रा का अधिकतर समय उनके भक्तों द्वारा आयोजित गोष्ठियों में की गयी उनकी प्रशंसा, सभाओं में यदा-कदा अशिक्षित जनता को दिए जाने वाले दर्शनों में बीता, जिसके विषय में उनका दावा है कि वे उन्हें अच्छी तरह समझते हैं, परंतु यही बात इस दलील के विरुद्ध है कि वे आम जनता की विचारधारा को जानते हैं।
कोई व्यक्ति जनसाधारण की विचारधारा को केवल मंचों से दर्शन और उपदेश देकर नहीं समझ सकता। वह तो केवल इतना ही दावा कर सकता है कि उसने विभिन्न विषयों पर अपने विचार जनता के सामने रखे। क्या गाँधी जी ने इन वर्षों में आम जनता के सामाजिक जीवन में कभी प्रवेश करने का प्रयत्न किया? क्या कभी उन्होंने किसी सन्ध्या को गाँव की किसी चौपाल के अलाव के पास बैठकर किसी किसान के विचार जानने का प्रयत्न किया? क्या किसी कारखाने के मजदूर के साथ एक भी शाम गुजारकर उसके विचार समझने की कोशिश की है? पर हमने यह किया है इसलिए हम दावा करते हैं कि हम आम जनता को जानते हैं। हम गाँधी जी को विश्वास दिलाते हैं कि साधारण भारतीय साधारण मानव के सामने ही अहिंसा तथा अपने शत्रु से प्रेम करने की आध्यात्मिक भावना को बहुत कम समझता है। संसार का तो यही नियम है- तुम्हारा एक मित्र है, तुम उससे स्नेह करते हो, कभी-कभी तो इतना अधिक कि तुम उसके लिए अपने प्राण भी दे देते हो। तुम्हारा शत्रु है, तुम उससे किसी भी प्रकार का सम्बन्ध नहीं रखते हो। क्रांतिकारियों का यह सिद्धान्त नितान्त सत्य, सरल और सीधा है और यह ध्रुव सत्य आदम और हौवा के समय से चला आ रहा है तथा इसे समझने में कभी किसी को कठिनाई नहीं हुई। हम यह बात स्वयं के अनुभव के आधार पर कह रहे हैं। वह दिन दूर नहीं जब लोग क्रांतिकारी विचारधारा को सक्रिय रूप देने के लिए हजारों की संख्या में जमा होंगे।
गाँधी जी घोषणा करते हैं कि अहिंसा के सामर्थ्य तथा अपने आप को पीड़ा देने की प्रणाली से उन्हें यह आशा है कि वे एक दिन विदेशी शासकों का हृदय परिवर्तन कर अपनी विचारधारा का उन्हें अनुयायी बना लेंगे। अब उन्होंने अपने सामाजिक जीवन के इस चमत्कार के प्रेम संहिता के प्रचार के लिए अपने आप को समर्पित कर दिया है। वे अडिग विश्वास के साथ उसका प्रचार कर रहे हैं, जैसा कि उनके कुछ अनुयायियों ने भी किया है। परंतु क्या वे बता सकते हैं कि भारत में कितने शत्रुओं का हृदय-परिवर्तन कर वे उन्हें भारत का मित्र बनाने मे समर्थ हुए हैं? वे कितने ओडायरों, डायरों तथा रीडिंग और इरविन को भारत का मित्रा बना सके हैं? यदि किसी को भी नहीं तो भारत उनकी विचारधारा से कैसे सहमत हो सकता है कि वे इग्लैंड को अहिंसा द्वारा समझा-बुझाकर इस बात को स्वीकार करने के लिए तैयार करा लेंगे कि वे भारत को स्वतन्त्रता दे दे।
यदि वाइसराय की गाड़ी के नीचे बमों का ठीक से बिस्फोट हुआ होता तो दो में से एक बात अवश्य हुई होती, या तो वाइसराय अत्यधिक घायल हो जाते या उनकी मृत्यु हो गयी होती। ऐसी स्थिति में वाइसराय तथा राजनीतिक दलों के नेताओं के बीच मंत्रणा न हो पाती, यह प्रयत्न रुक जाता उससे राष्ट्र का भला ही होता। कलकत्ता कांग्रेस की चुनौती के बाद भी स्वशासन की भीख माँगने के लिए वाइसराय भवन के आस-पास मंडराने वालों के लिए घृणास्पद प्रयत्न विफल हो जाते। यदि बमों का ठीक से विस्फोट हुआ होता तो भारत का एक शत्रु उचित सजा पा जाता। मेरठ तथा लाहौर-षड्यन्त्र और भुसावल काण्ड का मुकदमा चलानेवाले केवल भारत के शत्रुओं को ही मित्र प्रतीत हो सकते हैं। साइमन कमीशन के सामूहिक विरोध से देश में जो एकजुटता स्थापित हो गई थी,गाँधी तथा नेहरू की राजनीतिक बुद्धिमत्ता के बाद ही इरविन उसे छिन्न-भिन्न करने में समर्थ हो सका। आज कांग्रेस में भी आपस में फूट पड़ गई है। हमारे इस दुर्भाग्य के लिए वाइसराय या उसके चाटुकारों के सिवा कौन जिम्मेदार हो सकता है। इस पर भी हमारे देश में ऐसे लोग हैं जो उसे भारत का मित्र कहते हैं।
देश में ऐसे भी लोग होंगे जिन्हें कांग्रेस के प्रति श्रद्धा नहीं,इससे वे कुछ आशा भी नहीं करते। यदि गाँधी जी क्रांतिकारियों को उस श्रेणी में गिनते हैं तो वे उनके साथ अन्याय करते हैं। वे इस बात को अच्छी तरह जानते हैं कि कांग्रेस ने जन जागृति का महत्वपूर्ण कार्य किया है। उसने आम जनता में स्वतन्त्रता की भावना जाग्रत की है क्योंकि उनका यह दृढ़ विश्वास है कि जब तक कांग्रेस में सेन गुप्ता जैसे ‘अद्भुत’ प्रतिभाशाली व्यक्तियों का, जो वाइसराय की ट्रेन उड़ाने में गुप्तचर विभाग का हाथ होने की बात करते हैं तथा अन्सारी जैसे लोग, जो राजनीति कम जानते और उचित तर्क की उपेक्षा कर बेतुकी और तर्कहीन दलील देकर यह कहते हैं कि किसी राष्ट्र ने बम से स्वतन्त्रता प्राप्त नहीं की- जब तक कांग्रेस के निर्णयों में इनके जैसे विचारों का प्राधान्य रहेगा,तब तक देश उससे बहुत कम आशा कर सकता है। क्रांतिकारी तो उस दिन की प्रतीक्षा में हैं जब कांग्रेसी आन्दोलन से अहिंसा की यह सनक समाप्त हो जाएगी और वह क्रांतिकारियों के कन्धे से कन्धा मिलाकर पूर्ण स्वतन्त्रता के सामूहिक लक्ष्य की ओर बढ़ेगी। इस वर्ष कांग्रेस ने इस सिद्धान्त को स्वीकार कर लिया है, जिसका प्रतिपादन क्रांतिकारी पिछले 25 वर्षों से करते चले आ रहे हैं। हम आशा करें कि अगले वर्ष वह स्वतन्त्रता प्राप्ति के तरीकों का भी समर्थन करेगी।
गाँधी जी यह प्रतिपादित करते हैं कि जब-जब हिंसा का प्रयोग हुआ है तब-तब सैनिक खर्च बढ़ा है। यदि उनका मंतव्य क्रांतिकारियों की पिछली 25 वर्षों की गतिविधियों से है तो हम उनके वक्तव्यों को चुनौती देते हैं कि वे अपने इस कथन को तथ्य और आँकड़ों से सिद्ध करें। बल्कि हम तो यह कहेंगे कि उनके अहिंसा और सत्याग्रह के प्रयोगों का परिणाम, जिनकी तुलना स्वतन्त्रता संग्राम से नहीं की जा सकती, नौकरशाही अर्थव्यवस्था पर हुआ है। आंदोलनों का फिर वे हिंसात्मक हों या अहिंसात्मक,सफल हों या असफल, परिणाम तो भारत की अर्थव्यवस्था पर होगा ही। हमें समझ नहीं आता कि देश में सरकार ने जो विभिन्न वैधानिक सुधार किए, गाँधी जी उनमें हमें क्यों उलझाते हैं? उन्होंने मार्लेमिण्टो रिफार्म, माण्टेग्यू रिफार्म या ऐसे ही अन्य सुधारों की न तो कभी परवाह की और न ही उनके लिए आन्दोलन किया। ब्रिटिश सरकार ने तो यह टुकड़े वैधानिक आन्दोलनकारियों के सामने फेंके थे, जिससे उन्हें उचित मार्ग पर चलने से पथ भ्रष्ट किया जा सके। ब्रिटिश सरकार ने उन्हें तो यह घूस दी थी, जिससे वे क्रांतिकारियों को समूल नष्ट करने की उनकी नीति के साथ सहयोग करें। गाँधी जी जैसा कि इन्हें सम्बोधित करते हैं, कि भारत के लिए वे खिलौने-जैसे हैं, उन लोगों को बहलाने-फुसलाने के लिए जो समय-समय पर होम रूल, स्वशासन,जिम्मेदार सरकार, पूर्ण जिम्मेदार सरकार, औपनिवेशिक स्वराज्य जैसे अनेक वैधानिक नाम जो गुलामी के हैं, माँग करते हैं। क्रांतिकारियों का लक्ष्य तो शासन-सुधार का नहीं है, वे तो स्वतन्त्रता का स्तर कभी का ऊँचा कर चुके हैं और वे उसी लक्ष्य की प्राप्ति के लिए बिना किसी हिचकिचाहट के बलिदान कर रहे हैं। उनका दावा है कि उनके बलिदानों ने जनता की विचारधारा में प्रचण्ड परिवर्तन किया है। उसके प्रयत्नों से वे देश को स्वतन्त्रता के मार्ग पर बहुत आगे बढ़ा ले गए हैं और यह बात उनसे राजनीतिक क्षेत्र में मतभेद रखने वाले लोग भी स्वीकार करते हैं।
गाँधी जी का कथन है कि हिंसा से प्रगति का मार्ग अवरुद्ध होकर स्वतन्त्रता पाने का दिन स्थगित हो जाता है, तो हम इस विषय में अनेक ऐसे उदाहरण दे सकते हैं, जिनमें जिन देशों ने हिंसा से काम लिया उनकी सामाजिक प्रगति होकर उन्हें राजनीतिक स्वतन्त्रता प्राप्त हुई। हम रूस तथा तुर्की का ही उदाहरण लें। दोनों ने हिंसा के उपायों से ही सशस्त्र क्रांति द्वारा सत्ता प्राप्त की। उसके बाद भी सामाजिक सुधारों के कारण वहां की जनता ने बड़ी तीव्र गति से प्रगति की। एकमात्र अफगानिस्तान के उदाहरण से राजनीतिक सूत्र सिद्ध नहीं किया जा सकता। यह तो अपवाद मात्र है।
गाँधी जी के विचार में ‘असहयोग आन्दोलन के समय जो जन जागृति हुई है, वह अहिंसा के उपदेश का ही परिणाम था'परन्तु यह धारणा गलत है और यह श्रेय अहिंसा को देना भी भूल है, क्योंकि जहाँ भी अत्यधिक जन जागृति हुई वह सीधे मोर्चे की कार्रवाई से हुई। उदाहरणार्थ, रूस में शक्तिशाली जन आन्दोलन से ही वहाँ किसान और मजदूरों में जागृति उत्पन्न हुई। उन्हें तो किसी ने अहिंसा का उपदेश नहीं दिया था, बल्कि हम तो यहाँ तक कहेंगे कि अहिंसा तथा गाँधी जी की समझौता-नीति से ही उन शक्तियों में फूट पड़ गयी जो सामूहिक मोर्चे के नारे से एक हो गई थीं। यह प्रतिपादित किया जाता है कि राजनीतिक अन्यायों का मुकाबला अहिंसा के शस्त्र से किया जा सकता है, पर इस विषय में संक्षेप में यही कहा जा सकता है कि यह अनोखा विचार है,जिसका अभी प्रयोग नहीं हुआ है।
दक्षिण अफ्रीका में भारतीयों के जो न्यायोचित आधिकार माँगे जाते थे, उन्हें प्राप्त करने में अहिंसा का शस्त्र असफल रहा। वह भारत को स्वराज्य दिलाने में भी असफल रहा, जबकि राष्ट्रीय कांग्रेस स्वयंसेवकों की एक बड़ी सेना उसके लिए प्रयत्न करती रही तथा उस पर लगभग सवा करोड़ रुपया भी खर्च किया गया। हाल ही में बारदोली सत्याग्रह में इसकी असफलता सिद्ध हो चुकी है। इस अवसर पर सत्याग्रह के नेता गाँधी और पटेल ने बारदोली के किसानों को जो कम-से-कम अधिकार दिलाने का आश्वासन दिया था, उसे भी वे न दिला सके। इसके अतिरिक्त अन्य किसी देशव्यापी आन्दोलन की बात हमें मालूम नहीं। अब तक इस अहिंसा को एक ही आशीर्वाद मिला वह था असफलता का। ऐसी स्थिति में यह आश्चर्य नहीं कि देश ने फिर उसके प्रयोग से इन्कार कर दिया। वास्तव में गाँधी जी जिस रूप में सत्याग्रह का प्रचार करते हैं, वह एक प्रकार का आन्दोलन है, एक विरोध है जिसका स्वाभाविक परिणाम समझौते में होता है, जैसा प्रत्यक्ष देखा गया है। इसलिए जितनी जल्दी हम समझ लें कि स्वतन्त्रता और गुलामी में कोई समझौता नहीं हो सकता, उतना ही अच्छा है।
गाँधी जी सोचते हैं हम नये युग में प्रवेश कर रहे हैं। परंतु कांग्रेस विधान में शब्दों का हेर- फेर मात्र कर, अर्थात् स्वराज्य को पूर्ण स्वतन्त्रता कह देने से नया युग प्रारम्भ नहीं हो जाता। वह दिन वास्तव में एक महान दिवस होगा जब कांग्रेस देशव्यापी आन्दोलन प्रारम्भ करने का निर्णय करेगी, जिसका आधार सर्वमान्य क्रांतिकारी सिद्धान्त होंगे। ऐसे समय तक स्वतन्त्रता का झंडा फहराना हास्यास्पद होगा। इस विषय में हम सरलादेवी चौधरानी के उन विचारों से सहमत हैं जो उन्होंने एक पत्र-संवाददाता को भेंट में व्यक्त किए। उन्होंने कहा- 31 दिसंबर, 1929 की अर्धरात्रि के ठीक एक मिनट बाद स्वतन्त्रता का झंडा फहराना एक विचित्र घटना है। उस समय जी. ओ. सी., असिस्टेंट जी. ओ. सी. तथा अन्य लोग इस बात को अच्छी तरह जानते थे कि स्वतन्त्रता का झंडा फहराने का निर्णय आधी रात तक अधर में लटका है, क्योंकि यदि वाइसराय या सैक्रेटरी ऑफ स्टेट का कांग्रेस को यह संदेश आ जाता है कि भारत को औपनिवेशिक स्वराज्य दे दिया गया है, तो रात्रि को 11 बजकर 59 मिनट पर भी स्थिति में परिवर्तन हो सकता था। इससे स्पष्ट है कि पूर्ण स्वतन्त्रता प्राप्ति का ध्येय नेताओं की हार्दिक इच्छा नहीं थी, बल्कि एक बालहठ के समान था। भारतीय राष्ट्रीय कांग्रेस के लिए उचित तो यही होता कि वह पहले स्वतन्त्राता प्राप्त कर फिर उसकी घोषणा करती। यह सच है कि अब औपनिवेशिक स्वराज्य के बजाय कांग्रेस के वक्ता जनता के सामने पूर्ण स्वतन्त्रता का ढोल पीटेंगे। वे अब जनता से कहेंगे कि जनता को संघर्ष के लिए तैयार हो जाना चाहिए जिसमें एक पक्ष तो मुक्केबाजी करेगा और दूसरा उन्हें केवल सहता रहेगा, जब तक कि वह खूब पिटकर इतना हताश न हो जाए कि फिर न उठ सके? क्या उसे संघर्ष कहा जा सकता है और क्या इससे देश को स्वतन्त्रता मिल सकती है? किसी भी राष्ट्र के लिए सर्वोच्च लक्ष्य प्राप्ति का ध्येय सामने रखना अच्छा है, परन्तु साथ में यह भी आवश्यक है इस लक्ष्य तक पहुंचने के लिए उन साधनों का उपयोग किया जाए जो योग्य हों और जो पहले उपयोग में आ चुके हों,अन्यथा संसार के सम्मुख हमारे हास्यासपद बनने का भय बना रहेगा।
गाँधीजी ने सभी विचारशील लोगों से कहा कि वे लोग क्रांतिकारियों से सहयोग करना बन्द कर दें तथा उनके कार्यों की निन्दा करें, जिससे हमारे इस प्रकार उपेक्षित देशभक्तों की हिंसात्मक कार्यों से जो हानि हुई, उसे समझ सकें। लोगों को उपेक्षित तथा पुरानी दलीलों के समर्थक कह देना जितना आसान है, उसी प्रकार उनकी निन्दा कर जनता से उनसे सहयोग न करने को कहना, जिससे वे अलग-अलग हो अपना कार्यक्रम स्थगित करने के लिए बाध्य हो जाएं, यह सब करना विशेष रूप से उस व्यक्ति के लिए आसान होगा जो कि जनता के कुछ प्रभावशाली व्यक्तियों का विश्वासपात्र हो। गाँधी जी ने जीवनभर जनजीवन का अनुभव किया है, पर वह बडे दुःख की बात है कि वे भी क्रांतिकारियों का मनोविज्ञान न तो समझते हैं और न समझना ही चाहते हैं। वह सिद्धान्त अमूल्य है, जो प्रत्येक क्रांतिकारी को प्रिय है। जो व्यक्ति क्रांतिकारी बनता है, जब वह अपना सिर हथेली पर रखकर किसी क्षण भी आत्मबलिदान के लिए तैयार रहता है तो वह केवल खेल के लिए नहीं। वह यह त्याग और बलिदान इसलिए भी नहीं करता कि जब जनता उसके साथ सहानुभूति दिखाने की स्थिति में हो तो उसकी जयजयकार करे। वह इस मार्ग का इसलिए अवलम्बन करता है कि उसका सद्विवेक उसे इसकी प्रेरणा देता है,उसकी आत्मा उसे इसके लिए प्रेरित करती है।
एक क्रांतिकारी सबसे अधिक तर्क में विश्वास करता है। वह केवल तर्क और तर्क ही विश्वास करता है। किसी प्रकार का गाली-गलौच या निन्दा, चाहे फिर वह ऊँचे-से-ऊँचे स्तर से की गई हो,उसे वह अपनी निश्चित उद्देश्य प्राप्ति से वंचित नहीं कर सकती। यह सोचना कि यदि जनता का सहयोग न मिला या उसके कार्य की प्रशंसा न की गई तो वह अपने उद्देश्य को छोड़ देगा, निरी मूर्खता है। अनेक क्रांतिकारी, जिनके कार्यों की वैधानिक आंदोलनकारियों ने घोर निन्दा की, फिर भी वे उसकी परवाह न करते हुए फाँसी के तख्ते पर झूल गए। यदि तुम चाहते हो कि क्रांतिकारी अपनी गतिविधियों को स्थगित कर दें तो उसके लिए होना तो यह चाहिए कि उनके साथ तर्क द्वारा अपना मत प्रमाणित किया जाए। यह एक और केवल यही एक रास्ता है, और बाकी बातों के विषय में किसी को संदेह नहीं होना चाहिए। क्रांतिकारी इस प्रकार की डराने-धमकाने से कदापि हार मानने वाला नहीं।
हम प्रत्येक देशभक्त से निवेदन करते हैं कि वह हमारे साथ गम्भीरतापूर्वक इस युद्ध में शामिल हो। कोई भी व्यक्ति अहिंसा और ऐसे ही अजीबोगरीब तरीकों से मनोवैज्ञानिक प्रयोग कर राष्ट्र की स्वतन्त्रता के साथ खिलवाड़ न करे। स्वतन्त्रता राष्ट्र का प्राण है। हमारी गुलामी हमारे लिए लज्जास्पद है, न जाने कब हममें यह बुद्धि और साहस होगा कि हम उससे मुक्ति प्राप्ति कर स्वतन्त्र हो सकें? हमारी प्राचीन सभ्यता और गौरव की विरासत का क्या लाभ, यदि हममें यह स्वाभिमान न रहे कि हम विदेशी गुलामी, विदेशी झण्डे और बादशाह के सामने सिर झुकाने से अपने आप को न रोक सकें।
क्या यह अपराध नहीं है कि ब्रिटेन ने भारत में अनैतिक शासन किया? हमें भिखारी बनाया, हमारा समस्त खून चूस लिया?एक जाति और मानवता के नाते हमारा घोर अपमान तथा शोषण किया गया है। क्या जनता अब भी चाहती है कि इस अपमान को भुलाकर हम ब्रिटिश शासकों को क्षमा कर दें। हम बदला लेंगे, जो जनता द्वारा शासकों से लिया गया न्यायोचित बदला होगा। कायरों को पीठ दिखाकर समझौता और शान्ति की आशा से चिपके रहने दीजिए। हम किसी से भी दया की भिक्षा नहीं माँगते हैं और हम भी किसी को क्षमा नहीं करेंगे। हमारा युद्ध विजय या मृत्यु के निर्णय तक चलता ही रहेगा। क्रांति चिरंजीवी हो।
करतारसिंह
प्रेजीडेण्ट
O
प्रेजीडेण्ट
O
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB
[In December 1929, a bomb exploded under the Viceroy Irwin’s special train, from which he, however, escaped. Gandhiji thanked God for the Viceroy’s narrow escape and condemned in his article “The Cult of the Bomb” the revolutionaries for the act. It was in reply to Gandhiji’s article that this outstanding document was written by Bhagawati Charan in consultation with Chandra Shekhar Azad. It was drafted in the room located above the Soloman Company, Aminabad, Lucknow, which was used as a den exclusively by Azad, Bhagawati Charan and Yashpal.]
INTRODUCTORY
RECENT EVENTS, PARTICULARLY THE CONGRESS resolution on the attempt to blow up the Viceregal Special on the 23 December, 1929, and Gandhi’s subsequent writings in Young India, clearly show that the Indian National Congress, in conjunction with Gandhi, has launched a crusade against the revolutionaries. A great amount of public criticism, both from the press and the platform, has been maid against them. It is a pity that they have all along been, either deliberately or due to sheer ignorance, misrepresented and misunderstood. The revolutionaries do not shun criticism and public scrutiny of their ideals or actions. They rather welcome these as chances of making those understand, who have a genuine desire to do so, the basic principles of the revolutionary movement and the high and noble ideals that are a perennial source of inspiration and strength to it. It is hoped that this article will help the general public to know the revolutionaries as they are and will prevent if from taking them for what interested and ignorant persons would have it believe them to be.
RECENT EVENTS, PARTICULARLY THE CONGRESS resolution on the attempt to blow up the Viceregal Special on the 23 December, 1929, and Gandhi’s subsequent writings in Young India, clearly show that the Indian National Congress, in conjunction with Gandhi, has launched a crusade against the revolutionaries. A great amount of public criticism, both from the press and the platform, has been maid against them. It is a pity that they have all along been, either deliberately or due to sheer ignorance, misrepresented and misunderstood. The revolutionaries do not shun criticism and public scrutiny of their ideals or actions. They rather welcome these as chances of making those understand, who have a genuine desire to do so, the basic principles of the revolutionary movement and the high and noble ideals that are a perennial source of inspiration and strength to it. It is hoped that this article will help the general public to know the revolutionaries as they are and will prevent if from taking them for what interested and ignorant persons would have it believe them to be.
VIOLENCE OR NON-VIOLENCE
LET US, first of all, take up the question of violence and non-violence. We think that the use of these terms in itself, is a grave injustice to either party, for they express the ideals of neither of them correctly. Violence is physical force applied for committing injustice, and that is certainly not what the revolutionaries stand for. On the other hand, what generally goes by the name of non-violence is in reality the theory of soul-force, as applied to the attainment of personal and national rights through courting suffering and hoping thus to finally convert your opponent to your point of view. When a revolutionary believes certain things to be his right he asks for them, pleads for them, argues for them, wills to attain them with all the soul-force at his command, stands the greatest amount of suffering for them, is always prepared to make the highest sacrifice for their attainment, and also backs his efforts with all the physical force he is capable of. You may coin what other word you like to describe his methods but you cannot call it violence, because that would constitute an outrage on the dictionary meaning of that word. Styagraha is insistance upon truth. Why press, for the acceptance of truth, by soul-force alone? Why not add physical force also to it? While the revolutionaries stand for winning independence by all forces, physical as well as moral, at their command, the advocates of soul-force would like to ban the use of physical force. The question really, therefore, is not whether you will have violence, but whether you will have soul-force plus physical force or soul-force alone.
LET US, first of all, take up the question of violence and non-violence. We think that the use of these terms in itself, is a grave injustice to either party, for they express the ideals of neither of them correctly. Violence is physical force applied for committing injustice, and that is certainly not what the revolutionaries stand for. On the other hand, what generally goes by the name of non-violence is in reality the theory of soul-force, as applied to the attainment of personal and national rights through courting suffering and hoping thus to finally convert your opponent to your point of view. When a revolutionary believes certain things to be his right he asks for them, pleads for them, argues for them, wills to attain them with all the soul-force at his command, stands the greatest amount of suffering for them, is always prepared to make the highest sacrifice for their attainment, and also backs his efforts with all the physical force he is capable of. You may coin what other word you like to describe his methods but you cannot call it violence, because that would constitute an outrage on the dictionary meaning of that word. Styagraha is insistance upon truth. Why press, for the acceptance of truth, by soul-force alone? Why not add physical force also to it? While the revolutionaries stand for winning independence by all forces, physical as well as moral, at their command, the advocates of soul-force would like to ban the use of physical force. The question really, therefore, is not whether you will have violence, but whether you will have soul-force plus physical force or soul-force alone.
OUR IDEAL
THE REVOLUTIONARIES believe that the deliverance of their country will come through revolution. The revolution, they are constantly working and hoping for, will not only express itself in the form of an armed conflict between the foreign government and its supporters and the people, it will also usher in a new social order. The revolution will ring the death knell of capitalism and class distinctions and privileges. It will bring joy and prosperity to the starving millions who are seathing today under the terrible yoke of both foreign and Indian exploitation. It will bring the nation into its own. It will give birth to a new state a new social order. Above all, it will establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and will for ever banish social parasites from the seat of political power.
THE REVOLUTIONARIES believe that the deliverance of their country will come through revolution. The revolution, they are constantly working and hoping for, will not only express itself in the form of an armed conflict between the foreign government and its supporters and the people, it will also usher in a new social order. The revolution will ring the death knell of capitalism and class distinctions and privileges. It will bring joy and prosperity to the starving millions who are seathing today under the terrible yoke of both foreign and Indian exploitation. It will bring the nation into its own. It will give birth to a new state a new social order. Above all, it will establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and will for ever banish social parasites from the seat of political power.
TERRORISM
THE REVOLUTIONARIES already see the advent of the revolution in the restlessness of the revolution in the restlessness of youth, in its desire to break free from the mental bondage and religious superstition that hold them. As the youth will get more and more saturated with the psychology of revolution, it will come to have a clearer realistion of national bondage and a growing, intense, unquenchable thirst for freedom. It will grow, this feeling of bondage, this infuriated youth will begin to kill the oppressors. Thus has terrorism been born in the country. It is a phase, a necessary, an inevita-able phase of the revolution. Terrorism is not the complete revolution and the revolution is not complete without terrorism. This thesis can be supported by an analysis of any and every revolution in history. Terrorism instills fear in the hearts of the oppressors, it brings hopes of revenge and redemption to the oppressed masses, it gives courage and self-confidence to the wavering, it shatters the spell of the superiority of the ruling class and raises the status of the subject race in the eyes of the world, because it is the most convincing proof of a nation’s hunger for freedom. Here in India, as in other countries in the past, terrorism will develop into the revolution and the revolution into independence, social political and economic.
THE REVOLUTIONARIES already see the advent of the revolution in the restlessness of the revolution in the restlessness of youth, in its desire to break free from the mental bondage and religious superstition that hold them. As the youth will get more and more saturated with the psychology of revolution, it will come to have a clearer realistion of national bondage and a growing, intense, unquenchable thirst for freedom. It will grow, this feeling of bondage, this infuriated youth will begin to kill the oppressors. Thus has terrorism been born in the country. It is a phase, a necessary, an inevita-able phase of the revolution. Terrorism is not the complete revolution and the revolution is not complete without terrorism. This thesis can be supported by an analysis of any and every revolution in history. Terrorism instills fear in the hearts of the oppressors, it brings hopes of revenge and redemption to the oppressed masses, it gives courage and self-confidence to the wavering, it shatters the spell of the superiority of the ruling class and raises the status of the subject race in the eyes of the world, because it is the most convincing proof of a nation’s hunger for freedom. Here in India, as in other countries in the past, terrorism will develop into the revolution and the revolution into independence, social political and economic.
REVOLUTIONARY METHODS
THIS THEN is what the revolutionaries believe in, that is what they hope to accomplish for their country. They are doing it both openly and secretly, and in their own way. The experience of a century long and world-wide struggle, between the masses and the governing class, is their guide to their goal, and the methods they are following have never been known to have failed.
THIS THEN is what the revolutionaries believe in, that is what they hope to accomplish for their country. They are doing it both openly and secretly, and in their own way. The experience of a century long and world-wide struggle, between the masses and the governing class, is their guide to their goal, and the methods they are following have never been known to have failed.
THE CONGRESS AND THE REVOLUTIONARIES
MEANWHILE, WHAT has the Congress being doing? It has changed its creed from Swaraj to Complete Independence. As a logical sequence to this, one would expect it to declare a war on the British government. Instead, we find it has declared war against the revolutionaries. The first offensive of the Congress came in the form of a resolution deploring the attempt made on the 23 December, 1929, to blow up the Viceroy’s Special. It was drafted by Gandhi and he fought tooth and nail for it, with the result that is was passed by a trifling majority of 81 in a house of 1,713. Was even this bare majority a result of honest political convictions? Let us quote the opinion of Sarla Devi Chaudhrani who has been a devotee of the Congress all her life, in reply. She says: “I discovered in the course of my conversations with a good many of the Mahatma’s followers that it was only their sense of personal loyalty to him that was keeping them back from an expression of the independent views and preventing them from voting against any resolution whatsoever that was fathered by Mahatmaji.” As to Gandhi’s arguments in favour of the proposition, we will deal with them later, when we discuss his article The Cult of the Bomb which is more or less an amplification of his speech in the Congress. There is one fact about this deplorable resolution which we must not lose sight of, and that is this. In spite of the fact, that the Congress is pledged to non-violence and has been actively engaged in carrying on propaganda in its favour for the last ten years, and in spite of the fact also that the supporters of the resolution indulged in abuse, called the revolutionaries ‘cowards’ and described their actions as ‘dastardly’ – and one of them even threateningly remarked that if they wanted to be led by Gandhi, they should pass this resolution could only be adopted by a dangerously narrow majority. That demonstrates, beyond the shadow of a doubt, how solidly the country is backing the revolutionaries. In a way Gandhi deserved our thanks for having brought the question up for discussion and thus having shown to the old at large that even the Congress – that strong-hold of non-violence – is at least as much, if not more, with the revolutionaries as with him.
MEANWHILE, WHAT has the Congress being doing? It has changed its creed from Swaraj to Complete Independence. As a logical sequence to this, one would expect it to declare a war on the British government. Instead, we find it has declared war against the revolutionaries. The first offensive of the Congress came in the form of a resolution deploring the attempt made on the 23 December, 1929, to blow up the Viceroy’s Special. It was drafted by Gandhi and he fought tooth and nail for it, with the result that is was passed by a trifling majority of 81 in a house of 1,713. Was even this bare majority a result of honest political convictions? Let us quote the opinion of Sarla Devi Chaudhrani who has been a devotee of the Congress all her life, in reply. She says: “I discovered in the course of my conversations with a good many of the Mahatma’s followers that it was only their sense of personal loyalty to him that was keeping them back from an expression of the independent views and preventing them from voting against any resolution whatsoever that was fathered by Mahatmaji.” As to Gandhi’s arguments in favour of the proposition, we will deal with them later, when we discuss his article The Cult of the Bomb which is more or less an amplification of his speech in the Congress. There is one fact about this deplorable resolution which we must not lose sight of, and that is this. In spite of the fact, that the Congress is pledged to non-violence and has been actively engaged in carrying on propaganda in its favour for the last ten years, and in spite of the fact also that the supporters of the resolution indulged in abuse, called the revolutionaries ‘cowards’ and described their actions as ‘dastardly’ – and one of them even threateningly remarked that if they wanted to be led by Gandhi, they should pass this resolution could only be adopted by a dangerously narrow majority. That demonstrates, beyond the shadow of a doubt, how solidly the country is backing the revolutionaries. In a way Gandhi deserved our thanks for having brought the question up for discussion and thus having shown to the old at large that even the Congress – that strong-hold of non-violence – is at least as much, if not more, with the revolutionaries as with him.
GANDHI ON WAR PATH
GAVUBG ACGUEVED a victory which cost him more than a defeat, Gandhi has returned to the attack in his article The Cult of the Bomb. We will give it our closest attention before proceeding further. That article consists of three things – his faith, his opinion and his arguments. We will not discuss what is a matter of faith with him because reason has little in common with faith. Let us then take such of his opinions as are backed by arguments and his arguments proper, against what he calls violence and discuss them one by one.
GAVUBG ACGUEVED a victory which cost him more than a defeat, Gandhi has returned to the attack in his article The Cult of the Bomb. We will give it our closest attention before proceeding further. That article consists of three things – his faith, his opinion and his arguments. We will not discuss what is a matter of faith with him because reason has little in common with faith. Let us then take such of his opinions as are backed by arguments and his arguments proper, against what he calls violence and discuss them one by one.
DO THE MASSES BELIEVE IN NON-VIOLENCE
HE THINKS that on the basis of his experience during his latest tour in the country, he is right in believing that the large masses of Indian humanity are yet untouched by the spirit of violence and that non-violence has come to stay as a political weapon. Let him not delude himself on the experiences of his latest tour in the country. Thought it is true that the average leader confines his tours to places where only the mail train can conveniently land him while Gandhi has extended his tour limit to where a motorcar can take him, the practice of staying only with the richest people in the places visited, of spending most of his time on being complimented by his devotees in private and public, and of granting Darshan now and then to the illiterate masses whom he claims to understand so well, disqualifies him from claiming to know the mind of the masses. No man can claim to know a people’s mind by seeing them from the public platform and giving them Darshan and Updesh. He can at the most claim to have told the masses what he thinks about things. Has Gandhi, during recent years, mixed in the social life of the masses? Has he sat with the peasant round the evening fire and tried to know what he thinks? Has he passed a single evening in the company of a factory labourer and shared with him his vows? We have, and therefore we claim to know what the masses think. We have, and therefore we claim to know what the masses think. We assure Gandhi that the average Indian, like the average human being, understands little of the fine theological niceties about Ahimsa and Loving one’s enemy. The way of the world is like this. You have a friend: you love him, sometimes so much that you even die for him. You have an enemy: you shun him, you fight against him and, if possible, kill him. The gospel of the revolutionaries is simple and straight. It is what has been since the days of Adam and Eve, and no man has any difficulty about understanding it. We affirm that the masses of India are solidly with us because we know it from personal experience. The day is not far off when they will flock in their thousands to work the will of the Revolution.
HE THINKS that on the basis of his experience during his latest tour in the country, he is right in believing that the large masses of Indian humanity are yet untouched by the spirit of violence and that non-violence has come to stay as a political weapon. Let him not delude himself on the experiences of his latest tour in the country. Thought it is true that the average leader confines his tours to places where only the mail train can conveniently land him while Gandhi has extended his tour limit to where a motorcar can take him, the practice of staying only with the richest people in the places visited, of spending most of his time on being complimented by his devotees in private and public, and of granting Darshan now and then to the illiterate masses whom he claims to understand so well, disqualifies him from claiming to know the mind of the masses. No man can claim to know a people’s mind by seeing them from the public platform and giving them Darshan and Updesh. He can at the most claim to have told the masses what he thinks about things. Has Gandhi, during recent years, mixed in the social life of the masses? Has he sat with the peasant round the evening fire and tried to know what he thinks? Has he passed a single evening in the company of a factory labourer and shared with him his vows? We have, and therefore we claim to know what the masses think. We have, and therefore we claim to know what the masses think. We assure Gandhi that the average Indian, like the average human being, understands little of the fine theological niceties about Ahimsa and Loving one’s enemy. The way of the world is like this. You have a friend: you love him, sometimes so much that you even die for him. You have an enemy: you shun him, you fight against him and, if possible, kill him. The gospel of the revolutionaries is simple and straight. It is what has been since the days of Adam and Eve, and no man has any difficulty about understanding it. We affirm that the masses of India are solidly with us because we know it from personal experience. The day is not far off when they will flock in their thousands to work the will of the Revolution.
THE GOSPEL OF LOVE
GANDHI DECLARES that his faith in the efficacy of non-violence has increased. That is to say, he believes more and more, that through his gospel of love and self-imposed suffering, he hopes someday to convert the foreign rulers to his way of thinking. Now, he has devoted his whole life to the preaching of his wonderful gospel and has practised it with unwavering constance, as few others have done. Will he let the world know how many enemies of India he has been able to turn into friends? How many O’Dwyers, Readings and Irwins has he been able to convert into friends of India? If none, how can India be expected to share his ‘growing faith’ that he will be able to persuade or compel England to agree to Indian Independence through the practice of non-violence?
GANDHI DECLARES that his faith in the efficacy of non-violence has increased. That is to say, he believes more and more, that through his gospel of love and self-imposed suffering, he hopes someday to convert the foreign rulers to his way of thinking. Now, he has devoted his whole life to the preaching of his wonderful gospel and has practised it with unwavering constance, as few others have done. Will he let the world know how many enemies of India he has been able to turn into friends? How many O’Dwyers, Readings and Irwins has he been able to convert into friends of India? If none, how can India be expected to share his ‘growing faith’ that he will be able to persuade or compel England to agree to Indian Independence through the practice of non-violence?
WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED
IF THE bomb, that burst under the Viceroy’s Special, had exploded properly, one of the two things suggested by Gandhi would have surely happened. The Viceroy would have either been badly injured or killed. Under such circumstances there certainly would have been no meeting between the leaders of political parties and the Viceroy. The uncalled for and undignified attempt on the part of these individuals, to lower the national prestige by knocking at the gates of the government house with the beggar’s bowl in their hands and dominion status on their lips, in spite of the clear terms of theCalcutta Ultimatum, would have been checkmated and the nation would have been powerful enough to kill the Viceroy, one more enemy of India would have met a well deserved doom. The author of the Meerut prosecutions and the Lahore and Bhusawal persecutions can appears a friend of India only to the enemies of her freedom. In spite of Gandhi and the Nehru and their claims to political sagacity and statesmanship, Irwin has succeeded in shattering the unity between different political parties in the country that had resulted from the boycott of the Simon Commission. Even the Congress today is a house divided against itself. Who else, except the Viceroy and his olive tongue, have we to thank for our grave misfortunes? And yet, there exist people in our country who proclaim him a Friend of India!
IF THE bomb, that burst under the Viceroy’s Special, had exploded properly, one of the two things suggested by Gandhi would have surely happened. The Viceroy would have either been badly injured or killed. Under such circumstances there certainly would have been no meeting between the leaders of political parties and the Viceroy. The uncalled for and undignified attempt on the part of these individuals, to lower the national prestige by knocking at the gates of the government house with the beggar’s bowl in their hands and dominion status on their lips, in spite of the clear terms of theCalcutta Ultimatum, would have been checkmated and the nation would have been powerful enough to kill the Viceroy, one more enemy of India would have met a well deserved doom. The author of the Meerut prosecutions and the Lahore and Bhusawal persecutions can appears a friend of India only to the enemies of her freedom. In spite of Gandhi and the Nehru and their claims to political sagacity and statesmanship, Irwin has succeeded in shattering the unity between different political parties in the country that had resulted from the boycott of the Simon Commission. Even the Congress today is a house divided against itself. Who else, except the Viceroy and his olive tongue, have we to thank for our grave misfortunes? And yet, there exist people in our country who proclaim him a Friend of India!
THE FUTURE OF THE CONGRESS
THERE MIGHT be those who have no regard for the Congress and hope nothing from it. If Gandhi thinks that the revolutionaries belong to the category, he wrongs them grievously. They fully realise the part played by Congress in awakening among the ignorant masses a keen desire for freedom. They expect great things of it in the future. Though they hold firmly to their opinion, that so long as person like Sen Gupta whose wonderful intelligence compels him to discern the hand of the CID in the late attempt to blow up the Viceroy’s Special, and persons like Ansari, who think abuse the better part of argument and know so little of politics as to make the ridiculous and fallacious assertion that no nation had achieved freedom by the bomb, have a determining voice in the affairs of the Congress, the country can hope little from it; they are hopefully looking forward to the day, when the mania of non-violence would have passed away from the Congress, and it would march arm in arm with the revolutionaries to their common goal of Complete Independence. This year it has accepted the ideal which the revolutionaries have preached and lived up to more than a quarter of a century. Let us hope the next year will see it endorse their methods also.
THERE MIGHT be those who have no regard for the Congress and hope nothing from it. If Gandhi thinks that the revolutionaries belong to the category, he wrongs them grievously. They fully realise the part played by Congress in awakening among the ignorant masses a keen desire for freedom. They expect great things of it in the future. Though they hold firmly to their opinion, that so long as person like Sen Gupta whose wonderful intelligence compels him to discern the hand of the CID in the late attempt to blow up the Viceroy’s Special, and persons like Ansari, who think abuse the better part of argument and know so little of politics as to make the ridiculous and fallacious assertion that no nation had achieved freedom by the bomb, have a determining voice in the affairs of the Congress, the country can hope little from it; they are hopefully looking forward to the day, when the mania of non-violence would have passed away from the Congress, and it would march arm in arm with the revolutionaries to their common goal of Complete Independence. This year it has accepted the ideal which the revolutionaries have preached and lived up to more than a quarter of a century. Let us hope the next year will see it endorse their methods also.
VIOLENCE AND MILITARY ELPENDITURE
GANDHI IS of opinion that as often as violence has been practised in the country, it has resulted in an increase of military expenditure. If his reference is to revolutionary activities during the last twenty-five years we dispute the accuracy of his statement and challenge him to prove his statement with facts and figures. If, on the other hand, he had the wars that have taken place in India since the British came here in mind, our reply is that even his modest experiment in Ahimsa and Satyagraha which had little to compare in it with the wars for independence produced its effect on the finances of the Bureaucracy. Mass action, whether violent or non-violent, whether successful or unsuccessful, is bound to produce the same kind of repercussion on the finances of a state.
GANDHI IS of opinion that as often as violence has been practised in the country, it has resulted in an increase of military expenditure. If his reference is to revolutionary activities during the last twenty-five years we dispute the accuracy of his statement and challenge him to prove his statement with facts and figures. If, on the other hand, he had the wars that have taken place in India since the British came here in mind, our reply is that even his modest experiment in Ahimsa and Satyagraha which had little to compare in it with the wars for independence produced its effect on the finances of the Bureaucracy. Mass action, whether violent or non-violent, whether successful or unsuccessful, is bound to produce the same kind of repercussion on the finances of a state.
THE REFORMS
WHY SHOULD Gandhi mix up the revolutionaries with the various constitutional reforms granted by the government? They never cared or worked for the Morley-Minto Reforms, Montauge Reforms and the like. These the British government threw before the constitutionalist agitators to lure them away from the right path. This was the bribe paid to them for their support to the government in its policy of crushing and uprooting the revolutionaries. These toys – as Gandhi calls them – were sent to India for the benefit of those, who, from time to time, raised the cry of ‘Home Rule’, ‘Self – Government’, ‘Responsible’, ‘Full Responsible Government’, ‘Dominion Status’ and such other constitutional names for slavery. The revolutionaries never claim the Reforms as their achievement. They raised the standard of independence long ago. They have lived for it. They have ungrudgingly laid their lives down for the sake of this ideal. They claim that their sacrifices have produced a tremendous change in the mentality of the people. That their efforts have advanced the country a long way on the road to independence is granted by even those who do not see eye to eye with them in politics.
WHY SHOULD Gandhi mix up the revolutionaries with the various constitutional reforms granted by the government? They never cared or worked for the Morley-Minto Reforms, Montauge Reforms and the like. These the British government threw before the constitutionalist agitators to lure them away from the right path. This was the bribe paid to them for their support to the government in its policy of crushing and uprooting the revolutionaries. These toys – as Gandhi calls them – were sent to India for the benefit of those, who, from time to time, raised the cry of ‘Home Rule’, ‘Self – Government’, ‘Responsible’, ‘Full Responsible Government’, ‘Dominion Status’ and such other constitutional names for slavery. The revolutionaries never claim the Reforms as their achievement. They raised the standard of independence long ago. They have lived for it. They have ungrudgingly laid their lives down for the sake of this ideal. They claim that their sacrifices have produced a tremendous change in the mentality of the people. That their efforts have advanced the country a long way on the road to independence is granted by even those who do not see eye to eye with them in politics.
THE WAY OF PROGRESS
AS TO Gandhi’s contention that violence impedes the march of progress and thus directly postpones the day of freedom, we can refer him to so many contemporary instances where violence has led to the social progress and political freedom of the people who practised it. Take the case of Russia and Turkey for example. In both countries the party of progress took over the state organisation through an armed revolution. Yet social progress and political freedom have not been impeded. Legislation, backed by force, has made the masses go ‘double march’ on the road of progress. The solitary example of Afghanistan cannot establish a political formula. It is rather the exception that proves the rule.
AS TO Gandhi’s contention that violence impedes the march of progress and thus directly postpones the day of freedom, we can refer him to so many contemporary instances where violence has led to the social progress and political freedom of the people who practised it. Take the case of Russia and Turkey for example. In both countries the party of progress took over the state organisation through an armed revolution. Yet social progress and political freedom have not been impeded. Legislation, backed by force, has made the masses go ‘double march’ on the road of progress. The solitary example of Afghanistan cannot establish a political formula. It is rather the exception that proves the rule.
FAILURE OF NON-COOPERATION
GANDHI IS of opinion that the great awakening in the people, during the days of non-cooperation, was a result of the preaching of non-violence. It is wrong to assign to non-violence the widespread awakening of the masses which, in fact, is manifested wherever a programme of direct action is adopted. In Russia, for instance, there came about widespread awakening in the peasants and workers when the communists launched forth their great programme of Militant Mass Action, though nobody preached non-violence to them. We will even go further and state that it was mainly the mania for non-violence and Gandhi’s compromise mentality that brought about the disruption of the forces that had come together at the call of Mass Action. It is claimed that non-violence can be used as a weapon for righting political wrongs. To say the least, it is a novel idea, yet untried. It failed to achieve what were considered to be the just rights of Indians in South Africa. It failed to bring ‘Swaraj within a year’ to the Indian masses in spite of the untiring labours of an army of national workers and one and a quarter crores of rupees. More recently, it failed to win for the Bardoli peasants what the leaders of the Satyagraha movement had promised them – the famous irreducible minimum of Gandhi and Patel. We know of no other trials non-violence has been blessed with one result – Failure. Little wonder, then, that the country refuses to give it another trial. In fact Satyagraha as preached by Gandhi is a from of agitation – a protest, leading up invariably, as has alreadybeen seen, to a compromise. It can hardly be of any use to a nation striving for national independence which can never come as the result of a compromise. The sooner we recognise that there can be no compromise between independence and slavery, the better.
GANDHI IS of opinion that the great awakening in the people, during the days of non-cooperation, was a result of the preaching of non-violence. It is wrong to assign to non-violence the widespread awakening of the masses which, in fact, is manifested wherever a programme of direct action is adopted. In Russia, for instance, there came about widespread awakening in the peasants and workers when the communists launched forth their great programme of Militant Mass Action, though nobody preached non-violence to them. We will even go further and state that it was mainly the mania for non-violence and Gandhi’s compromise mentality that brought about the disruption of the forces that had come together at the call of Mass Action. It is claimed that non-violence can be used as a weapon for righting political wrongs. To say the least, it is a novel idea, yet untried. It failed to achieve what were considered to be the just rights of Indians in South Africa. It failed to bring ‘Swaraj within a year’ to the Indian masses in spite of the untiring labours of an army of national workers and one and a quarter crores of rupees. More recently, it failed to win for the Bardoli peasants what the leaders of the Satyagraha movement had promised them – the famous irreducible minimum of Gandhi and Patel. We know of no other trials non-violence has been blessed with one result – Failure. Little wonder, then, that the country refuses to give it another trial. In fact Satyagraha as preached by Gandhi is a from of agitation – a protest, leading up invariably, as has alreadybeen seen, to a compromise. It can hardly be of any use to a nation striving for national independence which can never come as the result of a compromise. The sooner we recognise that there can be no compromise between independence and slavery, the better.
IS IT A NEW ERA
‘WE ARE entering upon a new era’, thinks Gandhi. The mere act of defining Swaraj as Complete Independence, this technical change in the Congress constitution, can hardly constitute a new era. It will be a great day indeed when the Congress will decide upon a country-wide programme of Mass Action, based on well recognised revolutionary principles. Till then the unfurling of the flag of Independence is a mockery and we concur with the following remarks of Sarla Devi Chaudhrani which she recently made in a press interview.
“The unfurling of the Flag of Independence”, says, “at just one minute after midnight of the 31 December, 1929, was too stagy for words – just as the GOC and the assistant GOC and others in gaudy uniforms were card board Grand Officers Commanding.
“The fact that the unfurling of the flag of Independence lay hanging in the balance till midnight of that date, and that the scales might have been turned at even the eleventh hour fifty-ninth minute had a message from the Vicerory or the Secretary of State come to the Congress granting Dominion Status, proves that Independence is not a heart hunger of the leaders but that the declaration of it is only like a petulant child’s retort. It would have been a worthy action of the Indian National Congress if Independence was achieved first and declared afterwards.” It is true that the Congress orators will henceforth harangue the masses on Complete Independence instead of Dominion Status. They will call upon the people to prepare for a struggle in which one party is to deliver blows and the other is simply to receive them, till beaten and demoralised beyond hope of recovery. Can such a thing be named a struggle and can it ever lead the country to Complete Independence? It is all very well to hold fast to the highest ideal worthy of a nation, but it is nonetheless necessary to adopt the best, the most efficatious and tried means to achieve it, ere you became the laughing stock of the whole world.
‘WE ARE entering upon a new era’, thinks Gandhi. The mere act of defining Swaraj as Complete Independence, this technical change in the Congress constitution, can hardly constitute a new era. It will be a great day indeed when the Congress will decide upon a country-wide programme of Mass Action, based on well recognised revolutionary principles. Till then the unfurling of the flag of Independence is a mockery and we concur with the following remarks of Sarla Devi Chaudhrani which she recently made in a press interview.
“The unfurling of the Flag of Independence”, says, “at just one minute after midnight of the 31 December, 1929, was too stagy for words – just as the GOC and the assistant GOC and others in gaudy uniforms were card board Grand Officers Commanding.
“The fact that the unfurling of the flag of Independence lay hanging in the balance till midnight of that date, and that the scales might have been turned at even the eleventh hour fifty-ninth minute had a message from the Vicerory or the Secretary of State come to the Congress granting Dominion Status, proves that Independence is not a heart hunger of the leaders but that the declaration of it is only like a petulant child’s retort. It would have been a worthy action of the Indian National Congress if Independence was achieved first and declared afterwards.” It is true that the Congress orators will henceforth harangue the masses on Complete Independence instead of Dominion Status. They will call upon the people to prepare for a struggle in which one party is to deliver blows and the other is simply to receive them, till beaten and demoralised beyond hope of recovery. Can such a thing be named a struggle and can it ever lead the country to Complete Independence? It is all very well to hold fast to the highest ideal worthy of a nation, but it is nonetheless necessary to adopt the best, the most efficatious and tried means to achieve it, ere you became the laughing stock of the whole world.
NO BULLYING PLEASE
GANDHI HAS called upon all those who are not past reason to withdraw their support from the revolutionaries and condemn their actions so that “our deluded patriots may, for want of nourishment to their violent spirit, realise the futility of violence and the great harm that violent activities have every time done”. How easy and convenient it is to call people deluded, to declare them to be past reason, to call people deluded, to declare them to be past reason, to call people deluded, to declare them to be past reason, to call upon the public to withdraw its support and condemn them so that they may get isolated and be forced to suspend their activities, specially when a man holds the confidence of an influential section of the public! It is a pity that Gandhi does not and will not understand revolutionary psychology in spite of the life-long experience of public life. Life is precious thing. It is dear to everyone. If a man becomes a revolutionaries, if he goes about with his life in the hollow of his hand ready to sacrifice it at any moment, he does not do so merely for the fun of it. He does not risk his life merely because sometimes, when the crowd is in a sympathetic mood, it cries ‘Bravo’ in appreciation. He does it because his reason forces him to take that course, because his conscience dictates it. A revolutionary believes in reason more than anything. It is to reason, and reason alone, that he bows. No amount of abuse and condemnation, even if it emanates from the highest of the high can turn him from his set purpose. To think that a revolutionary will give up his ideas if public support and appreciation is withdrawn from him, is the highest folly. Many a revolutionary has, ere now, stepped on the scaffold and laid his life down for the cause, regardless of the curses that the constitutionalist agitators rained plentifully upon him. If you will have the revolutionaries suspend their activities, reason with them squarely. That is the one and the only way. For the rest let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind. A revolutionary is the last person on earth to submit to bullying.
GANDHI HAS called upon all those who are not past reason to withdraw their support from the revolutionaries and condemn their actions so that “our deluded patriots may, for want of nourishment to their violent spirit, realise the futility of violence and the great harm that violent activities have every time done”. How easy and convenient it is to call people deluded, to declare them to be past reason, to call people deluded, to declare them to be past reason, to call people deluded, to declare them to be past reason, to call upon the public to withdraw its support and condemn them so that they may get isolated and be forced to suspend their activities, specially when a man holds the confidence of an influential section of the public! It is a pity that Gandhi does not and will not understand revolutionary psychology in spite of the life-long experience of public life. Life is precious thing. It is dear to everyone. If a man becomes a revolutionaries, if he goes about with his life in the hollow of his hand ready to sacrifice it at any moment, he does not do so merely for the fun of it. He does not risk his life merely because sometimes, when the crowd is in a sympathetic mood, it cries ‘Bravo’ in appreciation. He does it because his reason forces him to take that course, because his conscience dictates it. A revolutionary believes in reason more than anything. It is to reason, and reason alone, that he bows. No amount of abuse and condemnation, even if it emanates from the highest of the high can turn him from his set purpose. To think that a revolutionary will give up his ideas if public support and appreciation is withdrawn from him, is the highest folly. Many a revolutionary has, ere now, stepped on the scaffold and laid his life down for the cause, regardless of the curses that the constitutionalist agitators rained plentifully upon him. If you will have the revolutionaries suspend their activities, reason with them squarely. That is the one and the only way. For the rest let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind. A revolutionary is the last person on earth to submit to bullying.
AN APPEAL
WE TAKE this opportunity to appeal to our countrymen – to the youth, to the workers and peasants, to the revolutionary intelligentsia – to come farward and join us in carrying aloft the banner of freedom. Let us establish a new order of society in which political and economic exploitation will be an impossibility. In the name of those gallant men and women who willingly accepted death so that we, their descendants, may lead a happier life, who toiled ceaselessly and perished for the poor, the famished, and exploited millions of India, we call upon every patriot to take up the fight in all seriousness. Let nobody toy with nation’s freedom which is her very life, by making psychological experiments in non-violence and such other novelties. Our slavery is our shame. When shall we have courage and wisdom enough to be able to shake ourselves free of it? What is our great heritage of civilisation and culture worth if we have not enough self-respect left in us to prevent us from bowing surveillance to the commands of foreigners and paying homage to their flag and king?
WE TAKE this opportunity to appeal to our countrymen – to the youth, to the workers and peasants, to the revolutionary intelligentsia – to come farward and join us in carrying aloft the banner of freedom. Let us establish a new order of society in which political and economic exploitation will be an impossibility. In the name of those gallant men and women who willingly accepted death so that we, their descendants, may lead a happier life, who toiled ceaselessly and perished for the poor, the famished, and exploited millions of India, we call upon every patriot to take up the fight in all seriousness. Let nobody toy with nation’s freedom which is her very life, by making psychological experiments in non-violence and such other novelties. Our slavery is our shame. When shall we have courage and wisdom enough to be able to shake ourselves free of it? What is our great heritage of civilisation and culture worth if we have not enough self-respect left in us to prevent us from bowing surveillance to the commands of foreigners and paying homage to their flag and king?
VICTORY OR DEATH
THERE IS no crime that Britain has not committed in India. Deliberate misrule has reduced us to paupers, has ‘bled us white’. As a race and a people we stand dishonoured and outraged. Do people still expect us to forget and to forgive? We shall have our revenge – a people’s righteous revenge on the tyrant. Let cowards fall back and cringe for compromise and peace. We ask not for mercy and we give no quarter. Ours is a war to the end – to Victory or Death.
THERE IS no crime that Britain has not committed in India. Deliberate misrule has reduced us to paupers, has ‘bled us white’. As a race and a people we stand dishonoured and outraged. Do people still expect us to forget and to forgive? We shall have our revenge – a people’s righteous revenge on the tyrant. Let cowards fall back and cringe for compromise and peace. We ask not for mercy and we give no quarter. Ours is a war to the end – to Victory or Death.
LOVE LIVE REVOLUTION
Kartar Singh,
President,
Hindustan Socialist Republican Association.
***
President,
Hindustan Socialist Republican Association.
***
© विजय शंकर सिंह
No comments:
Post a Comment