Log in

View Full Version : The Legend of Bhagat Singh - the Che Guevara of South Asia



SentimentalDisenchantment
24th March 2016, 10:02
Well yesterday, 23rd March was the day Bhagat Singh was executed by the British Government in the year 1931. I wanted to post yesterday but for the forum status.

I just wanted to post about him because I find him more or less forgotten on these forums. His importance in India though, in itself is a very ambiguous. Strangely enough, the far right uses him as a tool for their propaganda of jingoism. The Marxists-Leninists use his legacy as their own.

His model was very Leninist, although he appeared to be influenced by Bakunin and anarchism. But this excerpt here, confirms that he was a strong admirer and student of Lenin:


THE PROGRAMME.

The need of hour is therefore for a clear, honest programme for the revolution, and determined action for realization of the programme.


In 1917 before the October Revolution had come off Lenin , still in hiding in Moscow , wrote that for a successful revolution three condition are essential :--

1 A political- economic situation

2 A rebellious mass mind , and

3 A party of revolutionaries , trained and determined to lead the masses when the hour of trial arrives.


And also,

ON LENIN DAY WE SEND HEARTY GREETINGS TO ALL who are doing something for carrying forward the ideas of the great Lenin. We wish success to the great experiment Russia is carrying out. We join our voice to that of the international working class movement. The proletariat will win. Capitalism will be defeated. Death to Imperialism.




On Gandhi and Gandhism,


We should not have any illusion about the possibilities, failures and achievements of Congress movement, which should be, as it is to-day, be better stamped Gandhism . It does not stand for freedom avowedly ; it is in favour of “Partnership” – a strange interpretation of what “ complete independence” signifies. Its method is novel, and but for the helplessness of the people. Gandhism would gain no adherent for the Saint of Sabarmati . It has fulfilled and is fulfilling the role of an intermediate party of Liberal Radical combination fighting shy of reality of the situation and controlled mostly by men with stakes in the country, who prize their stakes with bourgeoise tenacity, and it is bound to stagnate unless rescued from its own fate by an infusion of Revolutionary blood. It must be saved from its friends.




On Revolution:


What we mean by Revolution is quite plan. In this century it can mean only one thing -the capture of the political power by the masses for the masses. It is in fact The Revolution. Other risings attempt a mere change of your lordships, trying to perpetuate the rotting capitalistic order No amount of profession of sympathy for the people and the popular cause can ultimately hoodwink the masses about the true nature and portent of such superficial replacement . In India too, we want nothing less then the regime of the Indian proletariat in the place of the Indian Imperialists and their native allies who are barricaded behind the same economic system of exploration . We can suffer no black evil to replace the white evil . The evils have a community of interest to do any such thing . The proletariat revolution is the only weapon of India to dislodge the Imperialist. Nothing else can attain this object


Anyways,

One of the omnipresent quotes that are present on many of his articles is this one which I believe to be representative of our struggle:

"We are sorry to admit that we who attach so great a sanctity to human life, who dream of a glorious future, when man will be enjoying perfect peace and full liberty, have been forced to shed human blood. But the sacrifice of individuals at the altar of the 'Great Revolution' that will bring freedom to all, rendering the exploitation of man by man impossible, is inevitable. "


He ended most of his pamphlets with the words: INQUILAB ZINDABAD (een-kuh-laab Zeen-daa-baad) meaning - LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION! The slogan remains powerful even today in India.


Whatever his ideas were, he remains a true friend of the working class and an enemy of Imperialism and Capitalism. He wasn't an intellectual and/or original in his thoughts but he had immense courage. The description "Che Guevara of South Asia" fits him well, considering that he was only 23 when he was executed. Who knows what his thoughts would have been later had he lived longer?

Red Spark
24th March 2016, 17:48
Hey, I had always thought 'inquilab' meant freedom and not revolution; my bad. Thanks for the post anyway.
PS: Can you give me information or cite some sources that can accurately tell about historical Indian figures like Gandhi, Nehru, Bose etc. Actually, Nepalese modern politics began with Indian independence movement so it generally arouses curiosity in me.

SentimentalDisenchantment
30th March 2016, 07:21
Sorry for the late reply, was busy with a few things.

First of all, i cant post links, as I am not yet 25 post old, so my URL's would be weird.

marxists...org archive has a few articles on Bhagat Singh. Another source would be shahidbhagatsingh....org. Let me remind you that he was very young when he wrote when he wrote them and you may not find something original or breathtaking in them.

As for Nehru, he wrote a ton of books. I would suggest reading reading his - "Glimpses of World History". He called himself a Socialist and indeed was one. Although, he wrote something pretty interesting on Stalin - he was a fan.

Here is the excerpt from "Tribute to Stalin", :

"WHEN we think of Marshal Stalin, a panorama of the history of the last 35 years passes before our eyes. All of us here are the children of this age and have been affected by it in many ways. We have grown up not only participating in our own struggles in this country but, in another way, with the mighty struggles that have taken place in this world, and we have been affected by them. And so, looking back at these 35 years or so, many figures stand out; but perhaps no single figure has moulded and affected and influenced the history of these years more than Marshal Stalin. He became gradually almost a legendary figure, sometimes a man of mystery, at other times a person who had a rather intimate bond not for a few but with a vast number of persons.


He proved himself great in peace and in war. He showed an indomitable will and courage which few possess. Perhaps when history comes to be written about him, many things will be said and we do not know what varying opinions may be recorded in subsequent generations. But everyone will agree that here was a man of giant stature, a man who, such as few do, moulded the destinies of his age and although he succeeded greatly in war, a man who ultimately will be remembered by the way he built up his great country.


Again, people may agree or disagree with many things that he did or said. But the fact remains that he built up that great country, which was a tremendous achievement. In addition to that, and this was a remarkable fact which can be said about very, very few persons—he was not only famous in this generation but he was in a sense intimately concerned, if I may say so, with vast numbers of human beings. At any rate, vast numbers thought of him in an intimate way, in a friendly way, in an almost family way, certainly in the Soviet Union, and by many others too outside. "


Read the full article on Marxists...org.

He is a figure that he is hated by the right for his secularism. (But so is Gandhi anyway, and anyone who is not Gowalkar or Savarkar). I think reading about Gowalkar and Manu-Smriti would help you a lot to understand Hindu-Fascism. He is the forefather of RSS, fan of Hitler. You should at least check him out on wiki.

When it comes to Bose, I couldn't care less. I am not at all interested in what he did. He may have been a Socialist but still he struck a deal with Hitler - thats enough for me. He admired fascism in Italy and Germany (though he hated racism). He also appeared to want a Soviet-style state. He is regarded as a hero by the right, for the most important reason that he didn't believe in the Gandhi-Nehru way. Well, the RSS-VHP-BJP faction would use anyone anyway. Like I said, not a big fan of Bose. :glare:


Now, let's come to Gandhi. :laugh:


Hmmmm...Hmmmmm....Hmmmmmmm.....where should I begin?

Ok, I admit, I admire him. His Pacifist outlook may not appear that appealing to us rev. socialists, but the guy was crazy. Just because a few whites threw him off a train, he threw off their rule of over 200 years without raising a single weapon. He was SOMETHING! I believe the left has been too harsh on him. A brilliant essay was written on him by the (one and only) George Orwell (YOU MUST READ IT), called "Reflections on Gandhi". Brilliant analysis. I agree with almost everything Orwell said. Then there is a recent book by Norman Finkelstein. Check it out if you want. I would suggest going on youtube and listen. I didnt have the time to read the book so I watched videos of NF talking on Gandhi. Great insight. You may also want to read Gandhi's original texts, but it has nothing much for the left (Noam Chomksy agrees. I emailed him on Gandhi, he said "I havent read much".). Just read Orwell's essay and watch Norman's videos.


I personally find Indian leaders boring. I don't read much about them (I don't have much time anyway. First high-school and now College entrance tests are keeping me busy. The rest of the time, I spend reading philosophy and Anarchist and Marxist literature. Just a handful like Bhagat Singh, if any at all, catch my attention).

Hope this helps. Cheers!!

guevarism
15th June 2017, 18:51
Inquilab Zindabad !

guevarism
16th June 2017, 07:28
Its pronounced as "in-kilab-zinda-baad" and its the hymn with which I rise from my bed each morning