When Bhagat Singh Wrote About Love

Did love make Bhagat Singh a weaker revolutionary? In a heated argument once, Sukhdev accused him of allowing his fascination with a woman to come in the way of revolutionary duty.
Bhagat Singh's answer, in a letter days later, was a defence of love as a revolutionary's strength, not a weakness.
On Bhagat Singh's 119th birth anniversary, Utkarsh Mishra looks at the friendship, arguments and ideas that bound him and Sukhdev together.

The air in the room was tense.

Bhagat Singh was persuading his unwilling comrades to let him go for an 'action' from which everyone knew he would not return.

Only a few days ago, he had submitted to the will of the central committee of his party -- Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, or HSRA -- that he would not go for the action, although it was proposed by him and he was already making preparations.

However, a later conversation with his dearest friend Sukhdev -- who was not present at the meeting -- shook him so much that he decided to go for it, and another meeting was called for a fresh deliberation on his proposal.

The action was to throw bombs in the Central Legislative Assembly in Delhi when the viceroy was expected to use his special powers to push through two draconian bills to suppress the labour movement.

It was aimed not only at registering protest against these bills -- or as Bhagat Singh put it, 'to make the deaf hear' -- but also to exploit the court case as a propaganda tool to make people aware of their party and its aims and objectives.

For Bhagat Singh, a revolutionary party could never succeed in its goal unless it connected with the masses. And this court case would provide the best opportunity to do just that.

However, it demanded the sacrifice of two members of the party, who were certain to be sentenced to at least life imprisonment. And no one was willing to sacrifice Bhagat Singh, the backbone of the party.

In the first meeting, Bhagat Singh tried really hard to convince them that no one else was better suited for the job. But he was too important for the movement to be squandered away like this.

Commander-in-chief Chandrashekhar Azad was especially averse to the idea. He was even opposed to courting arrest in the first place, and letting Bhagat Singh do that was out of the question.

Months after the assembly bombing of April 8, 1929, when almost all the top members of the party were in jail except him, Azad had told his confidant Vishwanath Vaishampayan that even though he gave Bhagat Singh permission to go ahead, and he acknowledged the importance of publicising the party's work, he never understood the need to deliberately get arrested to do that.

At last, Bhagat Singh backed down after the central committee voted against sending him for the action, and it was decided that Ram Saran Das would accompany Batukeshwar Dutt on the mission instead.

Apart from Bhagat Singh and Azad, the central committee consisted of Sukhdev, Bejoy Kumar Sinha, Phanindra Nath Ghosh, Shiv Verma and Kundan Lal.

As mentioned earlier, Sukhdev was not present at the meeting.

However, when he returned and heard about the decision taken by the committee, he was livid.

Bhagat Singh had already discussed the plan with him a few days ago, and they both were convinced that no one was more suitable for the job than Bhagat Singh.

So, what exactly did Sukhdev tell Bhagat Singh that persuaded him to bend the will of the majority in his favour?

And how did Sukhdev deal with the realisation that he had helped send his best friend towards almost certain death?

Prelude to Assembly Bombing

At the 1928 meeting of the party at Feroze Shah Kotla in Delhi, Bhagat Singh had proposed to join the protest against the Simon Commission that was sent to submit a report on the political situation in India.

They joined the protest in Lahore that was led by Lala Lajpat Rai.

However, during the march, police superintendent J A Scott ordered a lathi-charge and Lalaji was brutally beaten by policemen that included deputy superintendent J P Sauders. As a result, Lalaji died several weeks later.

His death was seen as a national disgrace.

The sense of humiliation that permeated the country was later summed up by Jawaharlal Nehru: 'To find that even the greatest of our leaders, the foremost and most popular man in the Punjab could be so treated seemed little short of monstruous, and a dull anger spread all over the countr... How helpless we were, how despicable when we could not even protect the honour of our chosen leaders!'

The HSRA decided to avenge Lalaji by killing J A Scott.

However, on December 17, 1928, Bhagat Singh, Azad, Shivaram Hari Rajguru and Jai Gopal (who later turned police approver in the case) killed Saunders as he left the police headquarters in Lahore.

Despite an extensive hunt and heavy security measures by the police, all those involved in this action were able to escape from Lahore.

The party's base was shifted to Jhansi and then Agra.

In Agra, with the help of Shiv Verma, Jaidev Kapoor and other revolutionaries active in the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh), two houses were rented for party activities. One of them was at Hing ki Mandi, that was frequented by Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Azad, Rajguru and other members of the party.

It was at this house that the central committee held the meeting in which Bhagat Singh proposed to throw the bombs in the assembly.

Saunders' killing had made the party somewhat popular and Verma writes in his memoirs that they didn't have to struggle for funds for quite a long time after that.

Nonetheless, Bhagat Singh wanted to take this 'propaganda by deed' even further with his latest proposal.

He sensed that people wanted to know more about their party and it was the right time to come forward and tell them about their aims and objectives and their vision of an independent India.

After escaping from Lahore, he had already visited Calcutta (now Kolkata) and established contact with senior revolutionary Jatindranath Das, who was recently released after three years in jail.

On Bhagat Singh's request, Das visited the Agra base to teach bomb-making to other members of the group.

Taking the example of French anarchist Auguste Vaillant, who threw a bomb in the French chamber of deputies on December 9, 1893, Bhagat Singh proposed a similar action in the assembly, where the Viceroy Lord Irwin was expected to use his special powers to override the assembly and push through two draconian laws -- the Trade Dispute Bill and the Public Safety Bill -- despite opposition from Indian members.

Bhagat Singh also repeated Vaillant's words that 'it takes a loud voice to make the deaf hear'.

While the committee accepted his proposal for throwing the bomb, they were not convinced about courting arrest when the revolutionaries could easily escape.

Moreover, they thought that to sacrifice two people was too high a cost only for making a statement.

Nonetheless, Bhagat Singh allayed all their apprehensions with his incontrovertible arguments. What he couldn't do was convince them that he would perform the action himself.

Azad knew that they had taken considerable risk during their escape from Lahore after Saunders' killing and that the police were fiercely hunting for them.

To get arrested willingly would be to choose certain death. His concern was shared by the committee, which unanimously voted against sending Bhagat Singh.

Sukhdev's Dissent and Emotional Turmoil

Days after this meeting in Agra, Sukhdev returned from Punjab.

When he learned about the decision taken by the committee, he exploded.

Although he too was aware that sending Bhagat Singh on this mission was tantamount to sentencing him to death, he believed no one else could present their case to the people more effectively or help rid the party of the stigma of being seen as killers or terrorists.

Verma writes that to a stranger, Sukhdev could come across as strict, stubborn, idealistic and short-tempered, but he cared about everyone in the group.

While Bhagat Singh gave an ideological and intellectual foundation to the party, Sukhdev was instrumental in its organisation, building it brick by brick. He looked after his comrades more than Bhagat Singh and, unlike him, was never bothered about his own necessities.

It was because of his caring and protective nature that his friends never complained about his harsh words.

However, from his outward demeanour, Sukhdev never looked like someone who was deeply sensitive or emotional. He had the deepest affection for Bhagat Singh.

Yet, for him, no one was above his revolutionary ideals and the party's interests. He also saw showing emotion or shedding tears in front of others as a sign of weakness. And thus, he didn't think twice about parting ways with his best friend if it meant a greater good for the party.

Bitter Words, Deep Emotions

When Sukhdev confronted Bhagat Singh, the latter told him that his efforts to convince Azad and others were in vain. But Sukhdev was having none of it.

Verma recalls Sukhdev telling Bhagat Singh some very harsh words: 'You have become quite arrogant. You think you are indispensable for the party. You've started fearing death and have become a coward.'

Bhagat Singh retorted by saying that Sukhdev was insulting him, to which he replied that he was only doing his duty towards his friend.

The more Bhagat Singh refuted Sukhdev's allegations, the stronger his words became. He even compared Bhagat Singh to Bhai Parmanand, about whom the court said that 'despite being the mastermind, he always sent other people in harm's way and saved his own life'.

'People will say the same about you one day,' he said. To this, Bhagat Singh replied, 'Don't ever talk to me again.'

Another version of the spat claims that Sukhdev accused Bhagat Singh of 'escapism due to his fascination for a certain woman'.

This allegation hurt Bhagat Singh a lot.

In his book Without Fear: The Life and Trial of Bhagat Singh, renowned journalist Kuldip Nayar takes this claim a bit further to say that the 'certain woman' was Durgawati Devi, the wife of senior revolutionary Bhagwati Charan Vohra.

However, other historians find Nayar's claim dramatic and outrageous as there is no first-hand record of it anywhere.

Nayar might have reached this conclusion because after this incident, Sukhdev went to Lahore to Durga Bhabhi, as she was known in the party, and urged her and Bhagwati Charan to meet Bhagat Singh.

Durga Bhabhi has also given an account of this meeting.

After this heated conversation with Sukhdev, Bhagat Singh insisted on calling another meeting of the central committee.

Verma recalls this meeting in his memoirs: 'Sukhdev sat through the meeting. He did not utter a word. The committee had to reverse its decision on the persistence of Bhagat Singh. Sukhdev left for Lahore the same day without sharing a word with anyone.'

Bhagat Singh's Letter on Love

As noted earlier, Sukhdev considered any display of affection, or the desire to seek or express sympathy, to be a weakness.

Once he had a passionate debate with Bhagat Singh on Victor Hugo's novel Ninety-Three.

Set during the French Revolution's civil war in 1793, Hugo's Ninety-Three pits Cimourdain, an uncompromising revolutionary against Gauvain, a young republican commander and a former pupil of Cimourdain.

Gauvain's ideals of humanity clash with the Revolution's demand for absolute justice.

When Gauvain frees the royalist leader Lantenac after seeing him risk his life to save three children, Cimourdain has him executed for betraying the Revolution.

However, unable to reconcile his love for his former pupil with his revolutionary convictions, Cimourdain shoots himself the moment Gauvain is guillotined.

Sukhdev felt that Cimourdain's suicide set a bad example for revolutionaries.

He allowed his personal attachment to a young man to take precedence over the interests of the Revolution, thereby betraying his own ideals.

He said that once a life had been placed on the revolutionary altar, no one and nothing other than the revolutionary cause could have any claim over it.

Bhagat Singh, on the other hand, had deep sympathy for Cimourdain. He argued that Cimourdain had fulfilled his revolutionary duty by sentencing Gauvain to death.

But, as a human being, Cimourdain also had a heart that had regarded Gauvain as a son. Therefore, his inability to contain himself after Gauvain's death was natural.

Bhagat Singh argued that we can truly follow the revolutionary ideal only by respecting the bonds of affection that have united human beings since time immemorial.

Their argument revealed a deeper difference between the two friends: what did it mean to be a revolutionary?

And thus, while Verma writes that Sukhdev left Agra for Lahore without uttering a word, despite knowing that he might not see his best friend again, Durga Bhabhi recalls that when he reached Lahore the next morning, his eyes were swollen.

He was perhaps weeping bitterly all through his journey.

It was typical of Sukhdev: Whatever he felt, he rarely allowed others to see it.

Bhagat Singh, on the other hand, was more expressive. And thus, he left a letter for his friend before going for the assembly action.

This letter, dated April 5, 1929, was personally delivered to Sukhdev by Verma. So, he most certainly read it.

In his letter, Bhagat Singh touched upon the theme of love and how revolutionaries should approach it, perhaps because Sukhdev accused him of 'avoiding his duty for the love of a woman'.

Arguing that love and other human emotions do not necessarily make a revolutionary weak, Bhagat Singh points to Mazzini, who, after the crushing failure of his first uprising and the deaths of his comrades, was saved from despair by a letter from the woman he loved.

True love, he says, is not an animal passion but a deeply human one that can elevate a person's character and even help him overcome his baser passions.

A revolutionary may be full of ambition, hope and attachment to life and yet be capable of renouncing all of it when duty demands it. For Bhagat Singh, it was precisely this ability to give up what one loved that made the sacrifice real.

Bhagat Singh also asks Sukhdev to shed what he calls the 'over-idealistic Arya Samajist conception of morality' that still influenced their thinking despite their radical political ideas.

He argues that their ideal of suppressing love, emotion and other human sentiments belongs to a distant, almost unattainable stage when reason alone governs human conduct.

In the real world, these emotions are natural and can even be useful and ennobling.

He, therefore, urges Sukhdev to lower the harsh standards of his idealism, stop judging those who fall prey to ordinary human weaknesses, and respond to them with sympathy rather than rebuke.

Sukhdev's Rare Display of Emotions

Although he was burdened with the perceived guilt of having sent his closest comrade away, Sukhdev threw himself into his work after returning to Lahore.

However, in a quick turn of fate, he was himself arrested on April 15, 1929, during a series of raids conducted to nab members of the HSRA after the assembly bombing.

In custody, he penned a rare heartfelt piece about his condition since Bhagat Singh left. He may have been moved to write it after receiving Bhagat Singh's letter.

He sent it to the editor of Urdu daily Vande Mataram (yes, there was an Urdu daily with this name at the time), which was published almost a year later on April 10, 1931. By then, Sukhdev, along with his friends Bhagat Singh and Rajguru, had already embraced martyrdom.

The piece was an unusually intimate account of what Bhagat Singh's absence had done to him.

He puts aside the austere image of the revolutionary to pour his heart out on the page.

He admits that his love for Bhagat Singh had become an inseparable part of his life, and that the separation left him inconsolable.

He writes that he had sacrificed the company of his dearest friend for the sake of the revolutionary objective, yet once Bhagat was gone, he realised how deeply he was bound to him.

His life seemed to lose its colour: The pleasures of the world receded, laughter no longer brought joy, and though he continued working like a machine, he no longer felt fully human.

Sukhdev describes his longing for his friend almost as an intoxication -- Bhagat's face appearing everywhere, his thoughts never leaving him, and, at times, the pain becoming so overwhelming that he would bury his face in his knees and weep.

He recalls breaking down in tears before a policeman from Delhi jail who brought him news of Bhagat Singh.

But he also regrets letting his suppressed emotions spill over, fearing what people would think if they came to know of his outpouring of grief. Haunted by this apprehension, he never spoke to the policeman again.

The Changes Prison Brought

The article that Sukhdev wrote in prison is something he most likely would not have written outside it.

However, this was not the only change that he went through in prison. Another letter from Bhagat Singh to Sukhdev, written only days before they were sentenced to death, highlights the shift in their thinking that they went through in prison.

As Azad feared, Bhagat Singh's arrest after the assembly bombing provided a much-sought impetus to the investigation in the Saunders murder case.

After throwing the bombs in the assembly, Bhagat Singh also fired two shots in the air from his gun while Batukeshwar Dutt threw the pamphlets.

The ballistic report of the gun established that it was the same weapon used in Saunders' murder.

The findings led to the formation of a special tribunal for the Lahore Conspiracy Case.

On October 7, 1930, the tribunal sentenced Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru to death, while Bejoy Kumar Sinha, Shiv Verma, Jaidev Kapoor, Kishori Lal, Mahabir Singh, Gaya Prasad and Kamal Nath Tiwari were sentenced to life imprisonment.

Bhagat Singh's letter to Sukhdev, written in September 1930, indicates that the latter was apprehensive that he might be sentenced to life imprisonment and said that he would prefer ending his life over a long incarceration.

It was the same Sukhdev who once criticised Hugo's Cimourdain for taking his life in the grip of emotions.

Bhagat Singh acknowledges this change in his thinking: 'I realise that the changed situation has affected us differently. The things you hated outside have now become essential to you. In the same way, the things I used to support strongly are of no significance to me anymore.

'For example, I believed in personal love, but now this feeling has ceased to occupy any particular position in my heart and mind. While outside, you were strongly opposed to it but now a drastic change and radicalisation is apparent in your ideas about it. You experience it as an extremely essential part of human existence and you have found a particular kind of happiness in the experience.'

This letter also indicates that both Sukhdev and Bhagat Singh had undergone a shift in their ideas about love.

But most importantly, Bhagat Singh attempts to pull Sukhdev back from his growing conviction that suicide could be a legitimate escape from suffering.

He reminds him of their discussion on Ninety-Three, when Sukhdev himself had called suicide a cowardly and indefensible act.

Bhagat Singh draws a distinction between suicide and death embraced in the course of a struggle. He says that taking one's own life to escape pain is an act of cowardice, especially for a revolutionary who has willingly chosen a life of struggle and sacrifice.

Having undertaken the struggle, a revolutionary must also be prepared to endure its consequences.

At the end, he reminds Sukhdev that 'we do not believe in God, hell and heaven, punishment and rewards... Therefore, we must think of life and death on materialist lines'.

Even though he himself expects to be hanged and does not hope for mercy, he wants his life to yield the maximum possible value before that happens.

Bhagat Singh's message to his friend was simple: Suffering was now part of the struggle, and Sukhdev had no right to throw away a life that could still serve it.

Note: Descriptions of conversations between Bhagat Singh and Sukhdev, and related incidents, are drawn from Shiv Verma's memoirs Sansmritiyan and Professor Malwinder Jit Singh Waraich's book Shaheed Sukhdev. References to the letters and their context are drawn from Professor Chaman Lal's Bhagat Singh: A Reader.