Bhagat Singh and the Politics of Ideological Erasure in Postcolonial India

Memory, appropriation, and the marginalisation of socialist thought in the construction of nationalist icons

-Ramphal Kataria

Abstract

 

The memory of Bhagat Singh in contemporary India is marked by a paradox: he is universally celebrated, yet insufficiently understood. Reduced to a symbol of youthful martyrdom and nationalist fervour, his intellectual and ideological depth—rooted in socialism, atheism, and a rigorous engagement with revolutionary theory—has been systematically diluted. This essay critically reclaims Bhagat Singh as a thinker, organiser, and ideologue of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA), situating his writings, political praxis, and ideological clarity within the broader debates of Indian nationalism and global Marxism. It further interrogates the posthumous appropriation of his legacy across political spectrums and argues that Bhagat Singh remains profoundly relevant—not as an icon, but as an unfinished intellectual project.

Keywords

Bhagat Singh, Marxism, Revolutionary Thought, HSRA, Indian Nationalism, Ideology, Political Appropriation, Secularism, Socialism, Colonial State

“The aim of life is no more to control the mind, but to develop it harmoniously; not to achieve salvation here after, but to make the best use of it here below; and not to realize truth, beauty and good only in contemplation, but also in the actual experience of daily life; social progress depends not upon the ennoblement of the few but on the enrichment of democracy; universal brotherhood can be achieved only when there is an equality of opportunity - of opportunity in the social, political and individual life.— from Bhagat Singh's prison diary, p. 124”

― Bhagat Singh, The Jail Notebook and Other Writings

I. The Making of a Revolutionary Intellectual

To understand Bhagat Singh merely as a martyr is to deny him his most radical attribute—his mind. Unlike many revolutionaries shaped primarily by impulse or circumstance, Singh consciously cultivated himself through intense reading and reflection. Between 1925 and 1928, he engaged deeply with literature on the Russian Revolution, absorbing the works of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and European anarchists and socialists.

His intellectual journey was neither ornamental nor abstract. It culminated in a decisive ideological shift: the transformation of the Hindustan Republican Association into the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association in 1928. This was not a cosmetic change. It signalled a movement from anti-colonial nationalism to a commitment toward socialist reconstruction.

Bhagat Singh’s oft-quoted assertion during the Lahore trial—that revolution is not merely a matter of bombs and pistols—captures this transition. For him, revolution was fundamentally about restructuring society along egalitarian lines.

II. Writings as Praxis: The Pen Behind the Pistol

Bhagat Singh’s writings are indispensable to understanding his ideological clarity. Far from being sporadic reflections, they form a coherent body of political thought.

Major Writings and Texts

Why I Am an Atheist (1930)

To Young Political Workers (1931)

The Jail Notebook

The Red Pamphlet (1929)

Introduction to Dreamland

Numerous letters, court statements, and journalistic articles

In Why I Am an Atheist, Singh dismantles religious orthodoxy with remarkable philosophical confidence. His critique is not merely theological but political—he rejects faith as a substitute for reason and agency.

“Merciless criticism and independent thinking are the two indispensable qualities of a revolutionary.”

His Jail Notebook reveals an eclectic yet disciplined engagement with global thinkers—from Marx to Victor Hugo. However, as historians like Harish Puri note, the notebook is not a systematic exposition but a compilation of excerpts—raising questions about the depth versus breadth of his engagement.

Yet, even within these fragments, a pattern emerges: Bhagat Singh was striving to build what may be called a “practising theory”—a framework that connects thought to action.

III. Organisation, Leadership, and Ideological Discipline

Bhagat Singh’s role in the HSRA was not merely operational—it was intellectual and strategic. He emerged as primus inter pares, not by authority but by ideological clarity.

Within the HSRA, debates were intense and consequential:

Should revolution be violent or mass-based?

What is the role of socialism in India’s future?

How to engage with Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress?

Bhagat Singh argued for a synthesis: while tactical violence might be necessary, it must ultimately serve a larger mass-based revolutionary transformation.

The bombing of the Central Legislative Assembly in 1929—carried out with Batukeshwar Dutt—was emblematic of this strategy. It was deliberately non-lethal, designed to “make the deaf hear.” Singh willingly courted arrest to use the courtroom as a political stage.

This was not adventurism; it was political theatre grounded in ideological purpose.

IV. The Limits of His Marxism: A Critical Appraisal

Was Bhagat Singh a Marxist thinker in the rigorous sense? The answer requires nuance.

While deeply influenced by Marxism, Singh did not develop an original theoretical framework comparable to contemporaries like Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci, writing from prison under Benito Mussolini, produced a sophisticated analysis of hegemony and civil society.

Bhagat Singh, by contrast, remained at a formative stage. His Marxism was:

Ethical and aspirational, rather than structurally analytical

Anti-imperialist, but less attentive to the complexities of colonial hegemony

Revolutionary, yet not fully grounded in mass politics

He underestimated, for instance, the depth of consent that sustained British rule—something Gandhi intuitively grasped through mass mobilisation.

Yet, to dismiss his Marxism as “rudimentary” is to ignore his age (23 at execution) and the conditions of his intellectual labour.

V. Jail as a Site of Resistance

Bhagat Singh’s imprisonment in Lahore Central Jail transformed him from a revolutionary activist into a moral and intellectual force.

His hunger strike—demanding political prisoner status—was not merely about prison conditions. It was a critique of colonial power and its racial hierarchies.

In jail, he read, wrote, debated, and refined his ideas. His correspondence reveals a remarkable composure and clarity, even in the face of death.

“It is easy to kill individuals but you cannot kill the ideas.”

VI. From Ideologue to Icon: The Politics of Appropriation

After his execution on 23 March 1931, Bhagat Singh’s legacy underwent a gradual transformation.

Across decades:

The Indian National Congress foregrounded his patriotism while muting his socialism

Left parties claimed his Marxism but often reduced his complexity

Contemporary parties—from Bharatiya Janata Party to Aam Aadmi Party—invoke his imagery devoid of ideological substance

Statues, slogans, and symbolic gestures have replaced engagement with his writings.

The absence of his texts in mainstream curricula is not accidental. His critique of religion, state power, and class exploitation remains uncomfortable for all establishments.

VII. The Silencing of a Radical Legacy

Why has no serious effort been made to institutionalise Bhagat Singh’s thought?

1. Ideological Inconvenience
His atheism and critique of religion challenge dominant narratives.

2. Class Question
His insistence on socialism disrupts elite consensus.

3. Anti-State Radicalism
His writings question not just colonial rule but structures of power per se.

4. Complexity Over Simplicity
It is easier to celebrate a martyr than to teach a thinker.

VIII. Relevance: Bhagat Singh as Thought, Not Memory

Bhagat Singh’s enduring relevance lies not in his actions but in his questions:

What is freedom beyond political independence?

Can democracy exist without social and economic equality?

What is the role of reason in public life?

His vision of Inquilab was not a moment of insurrection but a continuous process of social transformation.

“Revolution is an inalienable right of mankind.”

IX. Conclusion: Recovering the Unfinished Project

Bhagat Singh was not merely a revolutionary who died young; he was an intellectual in the making. His life represents an unfinished dialogue between theory and practice, nationalism and socialism, action and reflection.

To reclaim him is not to idolise him but to read him—to engage with his doubts, contradictions, and aspirations.

Until that happens, Bhagat Singh will remain what Indian polity has made him: a decorative relic, rather than a disruptive force.

Bhagat Singh does not demand remembrance. He demands engagement.

And perhaps that is precisely why he is remembered—but not read.

 

Bhagat Singh, After the Applause

The afterlife of a revolutionary mind—and the politics of forgetting

-Ramphal Kataria

 

Abstract

Nearly a century after his execution, Bhagat Singh occupies an uncontested moral high ground in India’s political imagination. He is invoked across ideological divides, appropriated into competing narratives, and ritualized into patriotic memory. Yet, the more he is remembered, the less he is read. This essay revisits Bhagat Singh not as a martyr frozen in time, but as a restless thinker—an ideologue of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA), a critic of religion, a student of Marxism, and an organizer who sought to transform rebellion into a coherent political project. It argues that his afterlife in Indian polity has been shaped less by fidelity to his ideas and more by a systematic erasure of them.

Keywords

Bhagat Singh, Revolutionary Thought, Marxism in India, HSRA, Political Memory, Secularism, Ideology, Nationalism

“Merciless criticism and independent thinking are the two indispensable qualities of a revolutionary.”

— Bhagat Singh

I. The Manufacture of a Martyr

Every year, on 23 March, the Indian state pauses to remember Bhagat Singh. Wreaths are laid, speeches delivered, statues garlanded. Schoolchildren rehearse the familiar lines—Inquilab Zindabad—often without knowing what inquilab meant to the man who raised it.

In this ritualized remembrance, Bhagat Singh is reduced to a moment: the gallows in Lahore Central Jail, the noose, the defiance. What disappears is the long and difficult labour that preceded it—the reading, the writing, the debates, the ideological ruptures.

The transformation is not accidental. It is political.

A martyr is easier to celebrate than a thinker. A dead revolutionary cannot argue back.

II. Reading as Rebellion

Between 1925 and 1928, Bhagat Singh was engaged in an act that rarely finds mention in popular accounts: he was reading—obsessively, methodically, almost urgently. The world he encountered in books was larger than the colonial state he sought to overthrow.

He read about the Russian Revolution, absorbing the writings of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. He read anarchists, socialists, European novelists. His Jail Notebook would later become a testament to this intellectual hunger—fragmented, eclectic, unfinished.

But reading, for Bhagat Singh, was not an indulgence. It was preparation.

“The sword of revolution is sharpened on the whetting stone of ideas.”

This was not rhetoric. It was method.

III. The Shift: From Nationalism to Socialism

The turning point came in 1928. The Hindustan Republican Association was renamed the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association. The insertion of a single word—socialist—marked a decisive ideological shift.

For Bhagat Singh, independence was not an end in itself. It was a means.

He was deeply sceptical of a nationalism that merely replaced British rulers with Indian elites. Political freedom without social and economic transformation, he believed, would reproduce exploitation in new forms.

This placed him at odds not only with the colonial state but also with dominant strands of Indian nationalism, including those led by Mahatma Gandhi.

IV. Violence, Theatre, and the Politics of Attention

The bombing of the Central Legislative Assembly in 1929—carried out with Batukeshwar Dutt—has often been misread as an act of desperation or fanaticism.

It was neither.

The bombs were deliberately non-lethal. The objective was symbolic: to “make the deaf hear.” Bhagat Singh and Dutt did not attempt escape. They surrendered, fully aware of the consequences.

The courtroom became their stage—not merely to defend themselves, but to perform dissent, articulate their politics, and force an empire to listen.

Statements were issued, slogans raised, ideas articulated. The colonial state, in trying to prosecute them, inadvertently amplified their voice.

This was politics by other means—not merely violence, but communication.

V. Writing Against Faith, Writing for Reason

In Why I Am an Atheist, written in 1930, Bhagat Singh undertakes a deeply personal yet politically charged critique of religion.

He rejects the idea that faith is necessary for courage or sacrifice. Instead, he locates strength in reason, in the capacity to confront reality without illusion.

“Any man who stands for progress has to criticize, disbelieve and challenge every item of the old faith.”

This was not a casual declaration. In a deeply religious society, it was a radical stance—one that continues to unsettle.

It is perhaps no coincidence that this text remains marginal in mainstream education.

VI. The Organisation: Debate, Discipline, Direction

Within the HSRA, Bhagat Singh was not merely a participant; he was an organizer of thought.

The organization was not a monolith. It was a site of intense debate:

Should revolution prioritise armed struggle or mass mobilisation?

What role should ideology play in guiding action?

How to relate to the Congress and Gandhian politics?

Bhagat Singh pushed for ideological clarity. He argued that without a coherent framework, revolutionary action would remain episodic, even futile.

He was, in many ways, the mind of the organisation.

VII. The Limits of His Moment

Yet, Bhagat Singh’s intellectual project was unfinished.

Unlike Antonio Gramsci—writing from prison under Benito Mussolini—Bhagat Singh did not have the time to develop a systematic theory of the state, hegemony, or mass politics.

His engagement with Marxism, though intense, remained exploratory. He grasped its ethical and political imperatives but did not fully theorize its application to the complexities of Indian society.

He underestimated, perhaps, the depth of consent that sustained colonial rule—the very terrain on which Gandhi operated with remarkable intuition.

But to judge him by what he did not complete is to ignore what he began.

VIII. Jail: The Final Classroom

Imprisonment transformed Bhagat Singh.

In Lahore Central Jail, he read more, wrote more, thought more. His hunger strike was not merely about prison conditions; it was a political act—a demand for dignity, for recognition as a political prisoner.

His letters from jail reveal a mind that had achieved a rare clarity.

“It is easy to kill individuals but you cannot kill the ideas.”

He knew he would die. He also knew that death would amplify his voice.

IX. After 1931: The Politics of Appropriation

In death, Bhagat Singh became available.

The Indian National Congress celebrated his patriotism but sidestepped his socialism. Left movements claimed his Marxism but often flattened its complexity. Contemporary parties—from the Bharatiya Janata Party to the Aam Aadmi Party—invoke his image, detached from his ideas.

Statues proliferate. Quotations circulate. But his writings remain largely unread.

The radical is domesticated.

X. The Silence of the Syllabus

One of the most telling absences is institutional.

Bhagat Singh’s writings—Why I Am an Atheist, To Young Political Workers, his letters and essays—are rarely part of mainstream curricula. When they are, they are excerpted, sanitized, stripped of context.

Why?

Because his ideas are inconvenient.

His atheism challenges religious orthodoxy.

His socialism questions economic inequality.

His insistence on reason disrupts blind reverence.

To teach Bhagat Singh seriously would be to invite discomfort.

XI. Bhagat Singh as an Unfinished Argument

What remains of Bhagat Singh today is not merely a legacy, but a set of questions:

What does freedom mean beyond the transfer of power?

Can democracy exist without social justice?

What is the role of reason in a society shaped by faith?

These questions are unresolved.

They are also urgent.

“Revolution is not a cult of bomb and pistol.”

— Bhagat Singh

XII. Conclusion: Against Forgetting

Bhagat Singh does not belong to the past.

He belongs to a future that remains unrealized.

To remember him is not to repeat his slogans, but to engage with his thought—to read him, argue with him, extend him.

Until then, he will remain what Indian polity has made him: a figure of reverence, stripped of relevance.

A martyr, without his mind.

Footnotes

1. Bipan Chandra, Introduction to Why I Am an Atheist, contextualises Bhagat Singh as an early Marxist thinker, while cautioning against ideological appropriation of his legacy.

2. Amarjit Chandan is credited with rediscovering Why I Am an Atheist in 1979, significantly reviving scholarly engagement with Bhagat Singh’s writings.

3. Harish Puri critiques the Jail Notebook for its lack of precise citations, noting that many claims about Bhagat Singh’s readings remain speculative.

4. The transformation of the Hindustan Republican Association into the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (1928) marked a decisive ideological shift towards socialism within the revolutionary movement.

5. Bhagat Singh’s statement—“the sword of revolution is sharpened on the whetting stone of ideas”—was made during proceedings before the Lahore High Court (1930), underscoring his emphasis on intellectual preparation.

6. The Assembly Bombing Case (1929), executed with Batukeshwar Dutt, was consciously designed as a non-lethal political intervention to “make the deaf hear.”

7. Why I Am an Atheist (1930) remains one of the most rigorous critiques of religion produced within the Indian freedom struggle, foregrounding rationalism over faith.

8. Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, developed in prison under Benito Mussolini, provides a comparative framework to assess Bhagat Singh’s evolving but incomplete engagement with Marxism.

9. Bhagat Singh’s incarceration in Lahore Central Jail (1929–31) marked the most intellectually productive phase of his life, including his hunger strike for political prisoner status.

10. The post-independence appropriation of Bhagat Singh by parties such as the Indian National Congress, Bharatiya Janata Party, and Aam Aadmi Party reflects a selective remembrance that foregrounds his martyrdom while muting his ideological commitments.

 

 

Harvest of Anger: Peasants, Power, and the Politics of Betrayal in India

From Revolutionary Promise to Fragmented Protest—Why India’s Agrarian Question Remains Unresolved

-Ramphal Kataria

Abstract

 

The history of peasant movements in India reveals a persistent yet unresolved agrarian question rooted in colonial extraction, postcolonial compromise, and contemporary neoliberal transformation. While peasants have repeatedly mobilized—ranging from localized revolts like the Indigo Rebellion to mass protests such as the 2020–21 farmers’ agitation—their struggles have largely failed to produce structural transformation. This essay, written from a Marxist perspective, argues that the failure lies in the internal contradictions of the peasantry—class differentiation, caste hierarchies, and regional disparities—combined with political co-option and ideological fragmentation. It critically examines the evolution of peasant movements, the role of Kisan Sabhas, the divergence from Congress politics, and the limitations of contemporary farmers’ agitations. By situating Indian developments within the theoretical frameworks of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedong, the essay concludes that the absence of a sustained worker-peasant alliance has prevented the emergence of a transformative agrarian politics. The ongoing crisis has rendered agriculture economically precarious, turning it into a site of survival rather than prosperity.

 

Keywords

Peasant Movements; Agrarian Crisis; Kisan Sabha; Marxism; Farmer Protests; Punjab Agriculture; Class Struggle; Political Economy; Rural India; Left Politics

I. Introduction: A Century of Resistance, A History of Deferral

At the borders of Delhi in 2020, the Indian farmer did not arrive as a stranger to protest. He came with memory—of indigo fields, of unpaid rents, of broken promises, of reforms that never reached the soil.

The 2020–2021 Indian Farmers' Protest was not an isolated upheaval. It was the latest expression of a historical contradiction that has persisted since colonial times:

the agrarian question in India remains unresolved.

“The Indian peasant rises again and again—not because he forgets, but because nothing fundamentally changes.”

II. Colonial Origins: The Making of Agrarian Distress

Colonialism did not merely exploit agriculture—it reorganized it for extraction.

The Indigo Rebellion and Deccan Riots were early responses to this transformation. Yet, these revolts were reactive, not revolutionary.

Even under Mahatma Gandhi in the Champaran Satyagraha, the peasantry was mobilized within limits. Gandhi’s politics sought moral reform, not class rupture.

III. The Left Intervention: Making the Peasant Political

The formation of the All India Kisan Sabha marked a decisive intervention by Left forces.

Leaders like Swami Sahajanand Saraswati, N. G. Ranga, and E. M. S. Namboodiripad attempted to transform peasants from a suffering mass into a political class.

They demanded:

Abolition of zamindari

Reduction of rent

Redistribution of land

These demands directly challenged both colonial authority and indigenous elites.

“The peasant must cease to be a subject of pity and become a subject of politics.” — Swami Sahajanand Saraswati

IV. Radical Peaks: Tebhaga and Telangana

The 1940s saw the most radical articulation of peasant power.

The Tebhaga Movement demanded two-thirds of produce for cultivators.

The Telangana Rebellion went further—seizing land and dismantling feudal authority.

Leaders like P. Sundarayya,  B. T. Ranadive and Harkishan Singh Surjeet sought to build a revolutionary alliance of peasants and workers.

For a brief moment, India approached a transformative agrarian revolution.

“Telangana was not merely a revolt—it was a glimpse of an alternative rural order.”

V. Theoretical Tensions: Marxism and the Peasantry

Karl Marx saw peasants as fragmented. Friedrich Engels emphasized gradual transformation.

Vladimir Lenin provided a strategy:

ally with poor peasants, neutralize middle peasants, oppose kulaks.

Mao Zedong went further—placing peasants at the centre of revolution.

India’s Left attempted to apply these frameworks but struggled against caste, regional diversity, and political compromise.

VI. Post-Independence Betrayal: Reform Without Justice

Independence marked not transformation, but containment.

Land reforms were diluted. Movements like the Bhoodan Movement, led by Vinoba Bhave, replaced class struggle with moral appeal.

The State integrated rural elites into democratic structures, preserving hierarchy under a new legitimacy.

VII. The Rise of Elite Farmers: A Shift in Politics

The farmers’ movements of the 1980s, led by Mahendra Singh Tikait, shifted focus:

From land redistribution → to MSP

From class struggle → to price negotiation

This marked the rise of dominant farmer classes.

“The farmers’ protests ceased to ask who owns the land—and began asking at what price it sells.”

VIII. Exclusion Within: The Invisible Rural Majority

Modern farmers’ movements often exclude:

Landless labourers

Dalits

Women farmers

This reflects deeper contradictions.

The “farmer” is not a unified identity—it is a hierarchy of interests.

IX. Political Appropriation: The Betrayal by Parties

Mainstream political parties have consistently used farmers as instruments.

From the Indian National Congress to regional parties like Shiromani Akali Dal and Samajwadi Party:

Movements are mobilized during elections

Demands are diluted after victory

Structural reforms are avoided

“The farmer is remembered at the ballot box—and forgotten in the budget.”

X. The Delhi Protest: Victory and Limits

The 2020–2021 Indian Farmers' Protest forced repeal of laws—an undeniable victory.

But:

It remained regionally concentrated

It excluded the most vulnerable

It fragmented after success

Punjab’s ongoing mobilizations reflect internal divisions, weakening collective strength.

XI. The Crisis Deepens: Agriculture as a Death Trap

Data reveals the severity:

Majority of farmers are small and marginal

Indebtedness is widespread

Farmer suicides persist

Agriculture is no longer sustainable—it is precarious survival.

Recent data underscores the depth of the crisis:

Over 85% of farmers are small and marginal (Agricultural Census)[2]

High levels of indebtedness persist (NABARD All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey)[3]

Thousands of farmer suicides are reported annually (NCRB)[4]

Agriculture is no longer a stable livelihood. It is increasingly a site of precarity.

XII. Conclusion: Between Resistance and Revolution

The Indian peasantry stands at a crossroads.

It has:

A history of resistance

A capacity for mobilization

But lacks:

Unity across class and caste

A transformative ideological vision

“Without a worker-peasant alliance, the revolution remains incomplete; without unity, resistance remains repetition.”

The agrarian question remains open.

And until it is resolved, the farmer will continue to march—

not toward revolution, but toward another negotiation.

Footnotes

1.     NABARD, All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey (NAFIS), 2016–17.

2.     Government of India, Agricultural Census 2015–16.

3.     NSSO, Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households.NCRB, Accidental Deaths & Suicides in India, various years.