HISTORY II

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

THE EVOLUTION OF THE INDIAN REVOLUTIONARY’S IDEOLOGY.

Submitted by Satya S. Sahu

II Year, Trimester VI

NLS ID : 2088

Submitted on 19 May 2015

National Law School of India

University

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

Table of ContentsIntroduction.................................................2

Research Methodology.........................................3

Aims and Objectives........................................3

Scope and Limitations......................................3

Sources....................................................3

Research Questions.........................................4

Style of writing...........................................4

Mode of Citation...........................................4

The Philosophy of the Bomb...................................4

Terrorism, Militant Nationalism and the legitimization of

Violence...................................................5

Secular/Religious Underpinnings of the Movements...........7

Integration of Women and Marginalised Sections.............8

Conclusion..................................................13

Bibliography................................................14

Books.....................................................14

Articles..................................................14

Miscellaneous.............................................15

Page | 1

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

IntroductionThe centrality of non-violence in the Indian freedom struggle

has been overwhelmingly accounted for, in the annals of

history. “Narratives of the anti-colonial movement have been

pre-dominantly framed within the context of the triumph of the

influence of M.K. Gandhi’s Indian National Congress

(hereinafter INC), in the dialogue with individuals who

favoured violence as the primary means of political response

to colonialism.”

However, the impact of the Indian revolutionaries in the

evolution of the nationalist agitation is anything but

insignificant. The goal of complete freedom from imperial rule

was accepted by Mahatma Gandhi only in the early 1930s, as a

fait accompli, under increasingly intense pressure from large

sections of Congress cadres; a goal that was uncompromisingly

articulated by revolutionary factions thirty years earlier.

The formation and co-ordination of these factions across the

length and breadth of the sub-continent as well as beyond itsPage | 2

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

borders, further predates the widespread mass mobilisation

envisaged by the INC.

However, it is also a fact that revolutionary activities

slowed down in the late 1930s and did not feature as

prominently in the final stages of the Indian national

movement. This decline has been commonly equated with the

failure of the revolutionaries’ means for achieving national

liberation. It is in this context that the author seeks to

revaluate the contribution of the revolutionaries in the

struggle for independence, with a critical rather than

commemorative approach.

The author shall begin by discussing the manifesto of the

Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (hereinafter HSRA)

and highlight the primary attributes of revolutionary ideology

at its peak. He will then progress to tracing the differences

in the ideological bases of the two major strands of the

Indian revolutionary movement: the early Bengal

revolutionaries’ vis-à-vis the North Indian faction.1 He will

then proceed to analyse the impact of revolutionary discourse

and activities on the mainstream national movement and its

role in mobilising mass support for independence. This

analysis will form the basis of the author’s explanation for

the abrupt decline in revolutionary activities in the late

1930s and 1940s. Additionally, the author shall substantiate

1 For the purposes of this paper, the Ghadr movement shall be dealt withseparately and not considered as part of the North Indian revolutionaryfactions, because the movement was almost completely based overseas.Similarly, the ‘Bengal’ branch shall not be used to refer to the Chittagongrevolutionary faction because the latter operated during the fag end of the1920s and the early 1930s.

Page | 3

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

the assertion that the decline of revolutionary operations did

not imply the simultaneous decline of revolutionary ideology;

it was rather adapted and incorporated into the mainstream

national movement as a necessary consequence of the INC’s

growing need to integrate diverse groups and interests in the

freedom struggle.

Research MethodologyAims and Objectives

The author aims to study the overt and embedded traits of the

Indian revolutionaries’ ideology and their impact on the

freedom struggle. The objective of this paper is to provide an

explanation for the eventual decline of revolutionary

activities in the backdrop of the expansion of the mainstream

national movement, led by the INC.

Scope and Limitations

The scope of this paper is restricted to a general examination

of the respective ideological premises of the HSRA, the Ghadr

movement and the early Bengal revolutionaries, in India. This

examination is confined to three aspects: legitimization of

violent means, secular foundations of the movements and their

role in the integration of women and the working classes into

the nationalist struggle.

The spatial constraints of this paper as well as the dearth of

adequate data force the study to eschew an examination of

other existing revolutionary organisations although, mention

has been made of some organisations for the purposes of

drawing comparisons where necessary.Page | 4

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

Sources

The author has placed reliance entirely upon secondary sources

of data such as books, articles published in journals, and

commentaries. It is to be noted that some of the commentary on

the ideology of revolutionaries as well as certain definitions

used in this paper, are offered by political scientists rather

than historiographers. This is because the socialist and

politico-religious overtones of the various groups, exercised

considerable influence on their functioning in India, and are

exhaustively examined by the social scientists. The

ideological position of the authors of the sources have also

been noted, as far as possible.

Research Questions

What is the Philosophy of the Bomb?

How did the ideological bases for the two branches of the

Indian revolutionary movement differ and how far were

they adhered to, in their operations?

How did the actions of the revolutionaries help expand

the diversity and numbers of the support base of the

mainstream national movement, which led to independence?

Style of writing

Since the paper focusses on both the role of individual

leaders’ influence on the development of revolutionary

ideology, as well as the prevailing socio-economic conditions

which determined the impact of revolutionary operations, the

style of writing does not completely conform to a historical

materialist approach but leans toward it.

Page | 5

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

Mode of Citation

The author has adopted a uniform mode of citation throughout

the paper.

The Philosophy

of the BombThe ‘Philosophy of the Bomb’ is the title of the manifesto of

the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association. Drafted by

Bhagwati Charan Vohra and Chandrashekhar Azad, with the

finishing touches given by an imprisoned Bhagat Singh, this

document espoused a response to Mahatma Gandhi’s article, “The

Cult of the Bomb” which vehemently condemned the

revolutionaries attempt to blow up the Vice-Regal train in

December 1929.2 This was the first revolutionary document

distributed nationwide which attempted to help the general

public know “the revolutionaries as they are”.3 This was published in

January of 1930, a period of time when the revolutionaries

enjoyed the pride of place in public imagination, as well as

widespread popular sympathy, even extending to the cadres of

the INC.4 Therefore, it is imperative to discuss the attributes

of the ideology, around which the revolutionary sought to base

his actions. This will be appraised against the corresponding

2 S.K. Mittal and S.Irfan Habib, The Congress and the Revolutionaries in the 1920s,Vol.10 (6) SOCIAL SCIENTIST 20 (June 1992).3THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB (1929) (translated from original text) available athttp://www.shahidbhagatsingh.org/index.asp?link=bomb. (last accessed on 19May 2015).4 Habib, supra note 2, at 21.

Page | 6

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

attributes of the ideology of revolutionary groups in early

20th Century Bengal and the somewhat unique Ghadr party.

Terrorism, Militant Nationalism and the legitimization of

Violence

The manifesto of the HSRA begins by tendering a definition of

the concept of ‘violence’ in order to rebut Gandhi’s

condemnation of the acts of the revolutionaries as ones which

discredit the cause of freedom simply by virtue of employing

physical force. Violence was understood as the use of physical

force in committing injustice, and therefore, directly opposed

to the revolutionary cause of overthrowing the forces of

tyranny.5 There is a concerted effort on the part of Azad and

Vohra, to depict the recourse to physical force as a last

resort in backing the persistent suffering of revolutionaries,

working to attain their individual and national rights. Their

means exhibited the revolutionaries’ ‘soul-force’. This soul-

force was simply the theory supporting the peaceful means of

satyagraha, propounded by Gandhi and his supporters in the INC.6

This line of argumentation was also echoed by Sachindranath

Sanyal, who located the debate around the correctness of the

employment of violent means, in the context of Gandhi’s

vagueness about India’s ultimate political goal.7 The assertion

therein, was that when the good of humanity (the ultimate end

of non-violent struggle) is not protected by any other means,

then the use of violence and bloodshed was justified in the

5 PHILOSOPHY, supra note 3.6 Id.7 Habib, supra note 2, at 22.

Page | 7

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

manner a surgical operation requires the letting of blood.8 The

intention of the revolutionaries in the interwar period,

therefore, was to change the debate from that of violence

versus non-violence to that of a strictly non-violent approach

versus an approach amalgamating the two.9 ThisThis stance of

the HSRA, can therefore, be considered to be an effort at

legitimizing, in popular opinion, the use of violent means to

obtain an uncompromisingly clear goal of complete

independence.

This stance of the HSRA is a far cry from that of the Bengal

revolutionaries and the Ghadr movement. The early Bengal

revolutionaries were led by Extremist leaders, Aurobindo and

Barindranath Ghose. The need for political independence or

swadhinata was first articulated in the Jugantar patrika, a

newspaper founded in 1906,10 which provided a selective

presentation and interpretation of news in its columns. The

objective was to propagate an instinctual conviction in its

readership, of the illegitimacy of British rule in India. The

inevitable consequences of not focusing on arguments based on

economic and historical justifications to substantiate the

aforementioned claim, was that the political position of the

8 Bhagat Singh, Why I am an Atheist (1930) (translated from original Gurmukhiscript) available athttps://www.marxists.org/archive/bhagat-singh/1930/10/05.htm (last accessedon 19 May 2015).9 Id.10 Sukla Sanyal, Legitimizing Violence: Seditious Propaganda and Revolutionary Pamphlets inBengal, 1908-1918, Vol.67 (3) THE JOURNAL OF ASIAN STUDIES 759, 762. (August2008).

Page | 8

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

revolutionaries was based almost exclusively on an innate

hatred of the British rule.11

Aurobindo Ghose and his associates, themselves did not

subscribe to the belief that independence could be achieved by

resorting to simple acts of armed violence. The extremists

considered passive resistance as an ‘expedient, but not an

article of faith’ and passivity could not be adhered to, at

the expense of resistance.12 His idea was to legitimize the use

of violence by means of an armed military insurrection, formed

by young men, disciplined in martial activities and supported

by a revolt in the Indian Army and ‘help from outside’.13 The

formation of secret societies formed of the majority of young

men, were instrumental in this long term strategy. The

response to this strategy was feeble due, in main part, to the

lure of quick and spectacular results of bombings of tactical

positions and official assassinations, for the incensed youth

in the aftermath of partition.14 “The principal hallmark of the

methods used by the early Bengal revolutionaries, therefore,

changed from military preparations to terrorist acts. ” The

popular desire of the ‘militant nationalists’, was to “provide

dramatic replies to police brutality and official arrogance ”.15

Far from being a response of the last resort, terrorist

activity was now pursued with the goal of improving public

11 Peter Heehs, NATIONALISM, TERRORISM, COMMUNALISM: ESSAYS IN MODERN INDIAN HISTORY,3 (1998).12 Id, at 7.13 Heehs, supra note, at 4; ‘help from outside’ suggested that the legitimacy ofIndian military insurgency needed to be recognized by a foreign nation.14 Id.15 See, Peter Heehs, Foreign Influences on Bengali Revolutionary Terrorism 1902-1908,Vol.28 (3) MODERN ASIAN STUDIES 533 (1994).

Page | 9

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

morale and help form an unfavourable opinion of British rule,

detracting from the ultimate goal of overthrowing colonial

oppression.16 The religious underpinnings of the Bengal

revolutionary movement (as discussed later in the paper), led

to the ritualization celebration of such acts of violence, and

therefore, in stark contrast to the North Indian branch’s

ideas on the resort to such means.

The Ghadr movement, on the other hand, strikes a common ground

with the early Bengal revolutionaries’ views on the use of

violent means. Reliance is placed mostly on Kartar Singh

Sarabha and Har Dayal’s activities and writings, to infer a

common ideology for the Ghadr party, due to their prominence

in the party’s functioning as well as the lack of any other

sources attributing any other person in the development of its

ideology. On one hand, violent and armed rebellion was the

central cause of the movement, and the imagination of a

popular armed uprising with the support of rebellious soldiers

of the British Indian Army was the sole exhortation driving

the recruitment of members.17 The name Ghadr, itself, meant

‘rebellion’ and the party’s objective explicitly dismissed any

passive means of resistance in favour of the taking up of

rifles and the shedding of blood.18 On the other hand, there

was now an ideology that inspired the exclusive resort to

violence, located in Har Dayal’s political philosophy of a

16See, Shukla Sanyal, REVOLUTIONARY PAMPHLETS: PROPAGANDA AND POLITICAL CULTURE INCOLONIAL BENGAL (2014).17 Harish K Puri, The Influence of Ghadar Movement on Bhagat Singh’s Thought And Action,Vol. 9(2) JOURNAL OF PAKISTAN VISION 71 (2008).18 Kuldip Nayar, THE MARTYR: BHAGAT SINGH-EXPERIMENTS IN REVOLUTION, 56 (2000).

Page | 10

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

revolution initiated on the basis of anarchism.19 That violence

is legitimate, was a given irrefutable fact, because the

alternative of passive resistance could never bring about

complete freedom. Therefore, the Ghadr movement conferred

primacy to acts of militant nationalism, similar to the early

Bengal revolutionaries, and at the same time, never needed to

legitimize violence in public opinion in India.

Secular/Religious Underpinnings of the Movements

The manifesto of the HSRA regards religion in contempt as is

indicated by the term ‘religious superstition’ as a bond that is to

be broken in the course of the revolution.20 The socialist

foundations of the ideology of the HSRA, therefore,

necessitated that the quality of freedom gained from the

independence struggle was given importance at par with the

success of the struggle itself. The emphasis, inferred from

Bhagat Singh’s writings, was on the “exploitative and

iniquitous character of religious institutions as instruments

in the hands of the vested interests of the ruling class. ”

21 The

Ghadr movement, was widely considered the first secular Indian

revolutionary movement, which organized members of multiple

religious groups and individuals on the basis of a single

purpose.22

However, the clarity of the HSRA in maintaining the

justifications for a nationalist revolution, in socio-economic

19 Maia Ramnath, DECOLONIZING ANARCHISM: AN ANTIAUTHORITARIAN HISTORY OF INDIA’SLIBERATION, 1892 (2012).20 PHILOSOPHY, supra note 3.21 Puri, supra note 17, at 55.22 Id.

Page | 11

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

objectives, was not shared by the early Bengal

revolutionaries. For the latter, “assertion of the Indian

people’s exclusive right of the ownership of India and control

of its destiny, was the foremost task ” and hence, social and

communal problems were considered as matters to be dealt with,

after the attainment of independence.23 Furthermore, there was

no active exhortation for a secular approach to recruitment of

members nor in the propaganda released. Indeed, the

“revolutionary nationalist enterprise was conceptualised in the

role of Vedic self-sacrifice and martyrdom, in order to bestow

an ethical and moral dimension to acts of violence ”. The

aspiration towards heroic martyrdom associated with the acts

of nationalist terrorism, was aimed at evoking the mass

sentiment of the public.24

In theory, this approach could have enabled the Bengali

nationalist movement break free of its elitist, Hindu Bhadralok-

only, identity and make a lasting impact on the wider public

life of Bengal. However, the inherent reliance placed on the

Gita and its teachings, to inform the development of the body

and mind of the samitis’ members, and the prevailing conditions

of illiteracy among the vast majority of the population in the

province, meant that these barriers were constantly

reinforced, regardless of the intentions of the leaders. It

may well be “that the religiousness of this ideology could

transcend traditional sectarian lines, but these boundaries

23 Amit Ku. Gupta, Defying Death: Nationalist Revolutionism in India, 1897-1938, Vol.25(9) SOCIAL SCIENTIST 3, 20 (September 1997).24 Sanyal, supra note 16.

Page | 12

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

still created a broadly Hindu framework”.25 The unification of

the masses in a single struggle, therefore, was never possible

in the case of the Bengal revolutionaries.

The HSRA, on the contrary, required that every member

relinquish their religious and caste identity, upon their

induction as a revolutionary. Public perception, therefore,

viewed the HSRA as a true symbol of inter-religious unity,

campaigning for a nation, separate from the debate on

communalism. The fact that this perception spread in the

1920s, a time when Gandhi and the INC persistently compromised

on communal issues, is also one of the reasons for the immense

popularity for the revolutionaries’ actions, cutting across

religious lines. 26

It is however, to be noted that the Bengali revolutionaries

(akin to the members of nationalist organisations such as

India House)27 cannot be attributed the conscious practice of

actively pursued communalism, with a distinct view to favour

the Hindu upper classes. Their activities were not dependent

on their religious identities.

Integration of Women and Marginalised Sections

The INC, due in main part, to the socio-religious movements of

the 19th Century, continued to promote the narrative that

women’s role in the national movements against imperialism was

a direct consequence of the galvanisation of the men.28 The

25 See, Bankim Chandra Chatterji, ANANDAMATH, OR THE SACRED BROTHERHOOD, 102(2005).26 Puri, supra note 22, at 8.27 See, Bipan Chandra et al., INDIA’S STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE, 434 (1989).28 Leela Kasturi and Vina Mazumdar, WOMEN AND INDIAN NATIONALISM, 19 (1994).

Page | 13

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

HSRA, in stark contrast, in its manifesto, scarcely makes a

distinction between the roles of men and women in laying down

their lives for the causes of the “exploited millions of

India”.29 There are instances of women such as Durgawati Devi,

the wife of Bhagwati Charan Vohra, who played an important

role in both strategizing and operations in the field.30

However, there is not much in way of evidence to suggest that

women actively participated in revolutionary activities of the

HSRA en masse.

The Bengali revolutionary movement, benefited greatly from the

overt as well as the invisible roles played by women in

providing food, and shelter as well as forming transport

networks of weapons and communication.31 They may have been

relegated to mostly support based roles at the turn of the

century, since direct involvement of women in terrorist acts

were only sporadically reported.32 However, it is also to be

noted that women’s’ “associations at that time, were inevitably

elite, bourgeois and urban, consisting of women with the

advantages of social status, education and privilege ”.33

Therefore, it is highly likely that women’s actively militant

roles as participants in the struggle, separate from the samiti

based revolutionaries, remained mostly overlooked. The fact

remains that regardless of the intentions of the leaders of

both revolutionary factions, there was no concerted attempt on

29 PHILOSOPHY, supra note 3.30 Y Ramachandra Reddy and Surya Prakash, Imprints of Bhagat Singh in IndianIndependence Movement: A Historical Overview, Vol.2 (6) IRJHAL 37 (2014).31 Mazumdar, supra note 28, at 19.32 Id.33 Mazumdar, supra note 28, at 17.

Page | 14

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

either part to actively counter the forces of repression that

prevented women from participating as freely as men in their

operations.

However, the dominant narrative about the women's movement as

one small part of the mainstream national struggle was

suddenly dispelled during the time of the Civil Disobedience

Movement in 1930. The leaders of the INC were taken aback

simply because its leadership had not accounted for the

mobilisation of mass support for the revolutionaries’

activities. Women's participation in these organized

movements, was never sought to be examined simply because the

issue was non est in the revolutionary ideology, which did not

make any distinction between the roles of men and women in a

collective struggle. Therefore, while we cannot credit the

revolutionary movements for the exponential increase in

women’s’ participation, it is be noted that they did not pose

any impediment for the same. At the same time, the passivity

in their approach towards the issue, meant that they lost out

on the opportunity to evoke political as well as moral support

from women, who formed a sizeable percentage of the

population. This opportunity would later be capitalized on by

the INC.

The Bengali Revolutionary movement, despite sporadic

inclinations, never managed to rise to the level of mass

protests in urban areas (the Swadeshi movement in Calcutta,

for example) nor did they achieve the widespread prevalence of

peasant insurgencies in the countryside.34 The intense emphasis34 Sumit Sarkar, MODERN INDIA 1886-1947, 124 (2000).

Page | 15

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

on religiosity in the functioning of the secret samitis, acted

to keep the sizeable Muslim population of Bengal, at a

considerable distance.35 Hemchandra Kanungo, argued that the

lack of contact or direct empathy with the peasant class

undermined the aspirations of the movement to draw huge

numbers into an active political struggle.36 The absence of any

conscious efforts on their part to link the justifications for

violent resistance with the socio-economic issues prevalent at

the time, further alienated most of the middle and lower

classes in Bengali society.37 Therefore, the role of the early

Bengal revolutionaries in mobilizing popular opinion and

participation in the struggle for independence, was

negligible, to say the least.

The HSRA, on the contrary, appreciated the necessity of

combating imperialism through the mobilization of the classes

who were most socially and economically disadvantaged by it,

not merely the urban proletariat but also the rural peasant

class.38 The complete adherence to atheism also contributed to

the credibility of the HSRA as a neutral organization.39 The

credit for reorganizing the HSRA along such lines is

attributed primarily to Bhagat Singh, who had previously done

the same in the case of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha. His

association with the left leaders, the Workers and Peasants

Party as well as the inspiration derived from Har Dayal’s

35 Id.36 Heehs, supra note 11, at 32.37 Sarkar, supra note 34, at 125.38 S.Irfan Habib, Remembering a Radical, Vol.34 (1) INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTREQUARTERLY 124,125 (2007).39 Sarkar, supra note 34, at 252.

Page | 16

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

anarchist ideology was reflected in the functioning of the

HSRA, to the extent that they believed the undeveloped class

consciousness of the Indian masses could be jolted from its

slumber only by the spectacle created by exemplary

revolutionary deeds.40 The direct consequences of the efforts

of the HSRA and the Naujawan Bharat Sabha are best exemplified in

the events which occurred during Independence Day celebration

on January 26, 1930. Demonstrators in the crowd hoisted a red

flag alongside the tricolour amidst the (suddenly popular)

celebrations, a move that surprised the leaders of the

INC.41This was followed by a balanced press statement from

Jawaharlal Nehru, conveying his respect for the ‘blood and

suffering of the workers’ and a declaration that ‘rivalry between

our national tricolour and the workers’ red flag should not exist’.42 The

explicit recognition of the contribution of the working

classes on the same plane as that of the upper classes, by the

leadership of the INC helped solidify the expanding support

base for the Civil Disobedience Movement.

In summation, the revolutionary ideology espoused by the HSRA,

was the one that captured the imagination of the masses, as

opposed to the Bengal revolutionaries’ more reactionary and

less encompassing one. However, as has been contended above,

in spite of the HSRA’s duty to eliminate the “ignorance, apathy

and sometimes, active opposition of the masses”,43 the choice of their

activities continued to reflect ideas of dramatic militant

40 Chaman Lal, Revolutionary Legacy of Bhagat Singh, Vol.42 (37) ECONOMIC AND POLITICALWEEKLY 3712, 3714 (2007).41 Habib, supra note 2, at 28.42 Id.43 Habib, supra note 2, at 22.

Page | 17

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

action, individual heroism and self-sacrifice.44 This is

seemingly at odds with Bhagat Singh’s views at that particular

time; that socialist society could not be brought down by

violent means, and non-violence was an indispensable policy

for all mass movements.45

The distinction vis-à-vis the militant nationalism which was

characteristic of the earlier phase of the revolutionary

struggle, was the employment of “non-violent civil disobedience

and the practice of hunger strikes by Bhagat Singh and his

comrades, when they were jailed in pursuance of the trials for

their crimes”. This was the actual manifestation of the

‘exemplary revolutionary deed’ followed by the spectacular

example of young men, visibly and voluntarily suffering for a

cause that they held out to be greater than themselves, and

under which they exhorted Indians to unite. By situating

themselves within a context of a non-violent struggle, the

revolutionaries aimed to demonstrate that the physical force

expressed in bombings and assassinations, worked in tandem

with the soul force exhibited through prolonged fasts unto

death and self-suffering.46 47

However, what finally mobilized the masses was not the fact

that the strength of the revolutionary ideology was exhibited

in their struggle, but the very portrayal of their suffering

itself. It must also be noted that the idea of organisation

44 Puri, supra note 17, at 77.45 Bhagat Singh, supra note 8.46 Habib, supra note 2, at 36; See, Footnote No. 79.47 See, Neeti Nair, Bhagat Singh as ‘Satyagrahi’: The Limits to Non-Violence in Late ColonialIndia, Vol. 43(3) MODERN ASIAN STUDIES 649 (May 2009).

Page | 18

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

offered by the revolutionaries inevitably struck a chord with

the sizeable peasant population; a section of society whose

traditional means of protest against exploitation, was through

armed rebellion48. Hence, the vast majority of Indians

identified with notions of selfless sacrifice in admiration of

the symbols of resistance that the revolutionaries had now

become. In doing so, they had created a paradox wherein the

masses, cutting through religious, class and caste lines,

begun to identify with a common cause, but this mobilization

was on the basis of sentimentalism, something which glorified

the ‘individual’ instead of the ‘revolution’.49

Ultimately, therefore, revolutionary ideology, played second

fiddle to the aura of the revolutionary and his use of

violence, in popular imagination; something that has continued

to subsist in the modern day. It’s also the reason for the

virtual collapse of the HSRA, and gradually, of the

revolutionary factions all over India,50 after the deaths or

capture of most of their leading members. This left no

possibility of continued organisation for revolution.51 The

primary reason for the decline of the Indian revolutionary is

therefore, his persistent emphasis (intentional or otherwise)

on preparations for violent activities and armed rebellion and

not on a concerted effort to build a mass organization based

on a unifying ideology. The formation of revolutionary groups48 Todd Landman, ISSUES AND METHODS IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS: AN INTRODUCTION, 115(2003).49 Puri, supra note 17, at 81.50

The Chittagong branch also disintegrated in the aftermath of theexecution of Surya Sen, although, the Bengal Volunteers and small bands ofrevolutionaries continued to engage in assassinations of minor officials.51 Puri, supra note 17, at 82.

Page | 19

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

merely created edifices where, this ideology remained confined

to as the creed to be followed only by those who sought to

join it. It inevitably meant that popular support in favour of

a revolutionary movement never arose; this popular support was

in favour for the acts of revolution.

However, describing the failure of the revolutionaries in

forming the mainstream national movement as a failure of their

ideology, would be immensely unfair. Apart from helping

develop the discourse on socialist ideals as a mainstay of the

Indian national movement,52 the staunch uncompromising stance

of the revolutionaries concerning communal interests,

convinced leaders of the INC such as Nehru that ‘religion in India

will kill the country and its people, if not subdued.53 The middle and lower

classes now rallied around the INC, which now had capable

leaders at its wherewithal to effectively organise them, who,

in the 1930s, were more in agreement with the revolutionaries’

exercise of legitimate violence over the rigid Gandhian

narrative of passive protest.54 Therefore, the emotive

connection forged between the people and the idea of a common

freedom struggle was cemented by the INC’s initiatives of

civil disobedience, which now purported to encompass issues

affecting every strata of Indian society; a marked departure

from the earlier swadeshi and boycott initiatives, which were

confined to the participation of a few sections of society.

Most importantly, however, the emergence of the revolutionary

52 Discourse which helped in the inception of the Communist Party of Indiain 1924-25.53 Sarkar, supra note 34, at 252.54 Habib, supra note 2, at 35; See, Footnote No.23.

Page | 20

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

factions in the political landscape of 1920s India, was

instrumental in creating dialogue between the members of the

INC, the public, and Gandhi, culminating in the latter being

forced to again participate in political activity in 1928.55

ConclusionOver the course of this paper, the author has discussed the

role that ideology played in determining the methods and

objectives of the two primary strands of revolutionary

movements in India. While the HSRA sought to break away from

reactionary acts of violence and dissociate themselves from

being tagged as a nationalistic terrorist group, their actions

only diverged from the early Bengal revolutionaries in the

practice of contextualizing their operations with propaganda.56

While the revolutionary in India managed to mobilize immense

mass support at the peak of his popularity, this support was

merely expressive of public opinion on the spectacular acts of

individual heroism and not the ideology inspiring the acts

themselves. The use of violence was legitimized primarily due

to the emotive cause in rebellion against the tyranny of the

colonial rulers, instead in a concretised political basis as

intended by the revolutionaries.

On a sidenote, the ideology espoused by Bhagat Singh,

continued more systematically in new directions, by his

55 Habib, supra note 2, at 22.56 The HSRA sought to validate an action, by distributing pamphlets rightafter its commission, while the Bengal revolutionaries felt no need to doso.

Page | 21

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

colleagues, in literature and dissemination of radical

political ideas in post-independence India.57

57 See, Nikhil Govind, BETWEEN LOVE AND FREEDOM: THE REVOLUTIONARY IN THE HINDINOVEL (2014).

Page | 22

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BOMB

Page | 23