Introduction As we all know there were various elements that made up the Indian national movement.

Among these were the revolutionaries, the INC and of course Mahatma Gandhi. It is obvious that the ideologies of the revolutionaries and Gandhi were mostly incompatible and so were the methods used by them. Further, in the later stages of the movement, the revolutionaries came the closest to the INC and Gandhi in terms of popular appeal and thus the question becomes politically relevant. The relationship between these elements is according to me one of the factors that shaped the Indian national movement and the way in which the movement is perceived today. Research Methodology Aim To study the relationship between the revolutionaries, the INC and Gandhi. Scope and Limitations The scope of the project is to first study the events taking place at that time in order to lend context to the paper, Secondly the paper will study the methods and the ideologies of the revolutionaries, the INC and Gandhi in order to examine the clashes present there. Thirdly the paper will try to determine whether the clash between these parties was purely ideological or were prompted, at least in part, by political factors. Lastly the paper will look into the consequences of this clash. Due to the specificity of the topic the paper may not be lengthy and the sources may be limited. Hypothesis Gandhi's rejection of the revolutionaries and their actions was not purely ideological but was motivated by political factors as well. Research Questions What were the events that took place at that time? What were the ideologies of the three parties? Did Gandhi not support the revolutionary activities solely on the basis of ideology? What would have happened if Gandhi had supported these activities? Chapterisation Chapter I: Events of the Time This chapter will examine the events of the time period between 1920 and 1935. The important events include the Kakori robbery, the killing of Saunders, bombing of the Central Legislative

Assembly, Bhagat's trial and execution and also the Chittagong raids. Simultaneously the inactivity of the Congress and the failure of the Non Co-operation movement will be studied. Chapter II: A Clash of Ideologies This chapter will examine the respective ideologies and point out the conflict and the similarities in ideology and method. Chapter III: Gandhi's Political Motives. The final chapter is where the hypothesis will be proved or disproved. The chapter will look at Gandhi's statements and the motions passed because of him in the Congress sessions in response to the activities of the revolutionaries. It will also look at the inconsistencies in Gandhi's statements and writings and try to prove that if he had wanted to he could have justified the actions of the revolutionaries and therefore his condemnation of their acts was also political. Chapter I Events of the Time Amnesty and Failure of the Non Cooperation Movement In early 1920,in order to facilitate the Montague Chelmsford reforms, the British Government released the revolutionaries who had been incarcerated and stopped the severe persecution of these revolutionaries that took place during World War I. This also enabled the return of several revolutionaries who had absconded. At the same time the INC launched the Non Cooperation Movement. Ignoring the ideological and methodological differences present, many of the Revolutionaries joined the Movement on the urging of C.R. Das and Mahatma Gandhi. All revolutionary activities were suspended during the Movement as the Revolutionaries wanted to give Gandhi's methods a chance. However this cooperation between Gandhi and the Revolutionaries came to the same abrupt end that the Movement did after the Chauri Chaura incident. 1 Prior to the suspension of the Movement, the young Revolutionaries had held high hopes of the Movement and were pleased with the awakening of the masses brought about by the Movement. However the suspension of the Movement put an end to these hopes and a mood of disillusionment set in. The basic strategy of non violence came into heavy questioning by many of the young revolutionaries and this further widened the ideological gap between Gandhi and the Revolutionaries that had existed before the brief period of cooperation between these two elements
1 B. Chandra, India's Struggle for Independence, (Penguin Books India, 1989: New Dehli ), p.237.

of the National Movement.2 This disillusionment not only took the people who had been following revolutionary methods back on to that path but also drove a large number of youth towards these activities. A lack of efficacious alternatives also played a part in this. Ultimately, this resulted in a rejuvenation of the revolutionary element. The fact that a number of the new revolutionary leaders such as Jogesh Chandra Chatterjea, Surya Sen, Jatin Das, Chandrashekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Shiv Varma, Bhagwati Charan Vohra and Jaidev Kapur, had been enthusiastic participants in the Non Cooperation Movement is in itself testament of the fact that the failure of the Non Cooperation Movement played a major role in the growth of revolutionary terrorism in the 1920s.3 Two Strands With the emergence of new leaders, two separate strands of revolutionary terrorism developed. One strand and the strand that would develop more in terms of its ideology was the one in Punjab, U.P. and Bihar. The other strand, which would make significant strides in terms of the organisation of the revolutionary activities was the strand that developed in Bengal. Founding of the HRA First to emerge on the scene were the North Indian revolutionaries. The presence of established revolutionaries such as Ramprasad Bismil, Jogesh Chatterjea and Sachindranath Sanyal, whose Bandi Jiwan served as a textbook to the revolutionary movement, helped in the rapid organisation of the revolutionary effort in these areas. These veterans met in Kanpur on October 1924 and founded the Hindustan Republican Association to organize armed revolution to overthrow colonial rule and establish in its place a Federal Republic of the United States of India whose basic principle would be adult franchise.4 Kakori The activities of the HRA including propaganda and the acquisition of arms would need money. The Revolutionaries hatched a plan to fund their activities by robbing the official Railway cash on the 8Down train at a village outside lucknow called Kakori on the 9 th of August, 1925. The reaction of the British was quick and brutal. Ashfaqulla Khan, Ramprasad Bismil, Rshan Singh and Rajendra Lahiri were hanged, four others were sent to the Andamans for life and seventeen others were
2 C. Lal , Revolutionary Legacy of Bhagat Singh, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 42, No. 37 (Sep. 15 - 21, 2007), pp. 3714. 3 Supra note 1 at p.238. 4 S.N. Sen, History Of Freedom Movement In India (1857-1947), (New Age International, 1997:New Dehli) p. 247.

sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. Chandrashekhar Azad was the only one who escaped the hands of the British.5 Foundation of the HSRA The top leadership of the Revolutionaries was severely reduced after the Kakori case. However the younger leaders like Bejoy Kumar Sinha, Shiv Varma and Jaidev Kapur in U.P., Bhagat Singh, Bhagwati Charan Vohra and Sukhdev in Punjab reorganized the HRA under the leadership of Chandrashekhar Azad. These young revolutionaries met at Ferozeshah Kotla at Delhi on the 9 th and 10th of September 1928. During the meeting the new leadership was formalized. Due to the influence of socialism on this group, the HRA was changed to the HSRA to reflect the fact that socialism was the goal of the organisation.6 The Death of Lala Lajpat Rai and the Saunders Murder In the list of events that shaped the story of the Revolutionaries, the death of Lala Lajpat Rai is probably the most important. Lala Lajpath Rai died as a result of a lathi charge when he was leading an anti-Simon Commission demonstration at Lahore on 30 October her 1928. The HSRA was moving rapidly away from their methods of assassination and other such individual heroism. The death of Lajpath Rai changed all this. A romantic and probably misguided notion took seed in the revolutionaries' minds that the death of Lajpath Rai had to be avenged. On 17 December 1928, Bhagat Singh, Azad and Rajguru assassinated, at Lahore, Saunders, a police official involved in the lathi charge of Lab Lajpat Rai, though the intention had been to kill Scott, the officer actually responsible for Lajpath Rais death. In a poster, put up by the HSRA after the assassination, the assassination was justified as follows: The murder of a leader respected by millions of people at the unworthy hands of an ordinary police official . . . was an insult to the nation. it was the bounden duty of young men of India to efface it. . . We regret to have had to kill a person but he was part and parcel of that inhuman and unjust order which has to be destroyed. 7 Central Legislative Assembly Bombing One of the last acts of this group of Revolutionaries was the bombing of the Central Legislative Assembly. The need for a revolution by the masses had become clear to the likes of Bhagat Singh and in order to lead the masses to the revolution, Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt were asked to throw a
5 Id. 6 A.K. Gupta, Defying Death: Nationalist Revolutionism in India, 1897-1938, Social Scientist, Vol. 25, No. 9/10 (Sep. - Oct., 1997), p. 20. 7 Reproduced in K. Nayar, The Martyr: Bhagat Singh Experiments in Revolution, (Har-Anand Publications, 2000: New Dehli), p.40.

bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly on 8 April 1929. The more immediate causes for the bombing was to protest against the passage of the Public Safety Bill and the Trade Disputes Bill which would reduce the civil liberties of citizens in general and workers in particular. The bombs were themselves harmless. The purpose was not to kill but as the leaflet they threw into the Assembly proclaimed, to make the deaf hear. The objective was to get arrested and to use the trial court as a forum for propaganda so that people would become familiar with their movement and ideology.8 Trial of Bhagat Singh and Impact Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt were tried in the Assembly Bomb Case. Later, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru and a number of other revolutionaries were tried in a series of conspiracy cases. These trials just furthered the cause of the Revolutionaries who had decided much earlier to carry out propaganda by deed. The defiance shown by the Revolutionaries in Court was inspirational and the wide coverage that the case got in the newspapers spread their fame far and wide. Bhagat Singh had beoame a household name by the time he was hanged in March 1931. Earlier, the hunger strike undertaken by the Revolutionaries in jail to force the British to recognize them as political prisoners instead of treating them as normal criminals, had stirred the imagination of the counrty. On 13 September, Jatin Das, one of the participants of the hunger strike, died on what was the 64th day of the fast. Thousands came to pay him homage at every station passed by the train carrying his body from Lahore to Calcutta. Subhash Chandra Bose paid for the body to be transported and at Calcutta, a two mile long procession of more than six lakh people carried his coffin to the cremation ground. It is important to keep the impact of the Revolutionaries in mind while discussing the succeeding parts of the paper. The Bengal Strand The Bengal Revolutionaries continued working with the Congress and with C.R. Das and the Swarajists. This allowed them access to the masses through the party structure. The group was divided into the Bose camp and the Sengupta camp after Das' death and the Yugantar and Anushilan groups gave their support to either group. 9 Among the significant acts of the Bengal Group was Gopinath Saha's attempt to assassinate Charles Tegart, the Police Commissioner of Calcutta. Unfortunately, another Englishman named Day was killed. The British promptly went on a program of suppression against anyone with affiliations with
8 Ibid at p.61 9

the revolutionaries. These included Subhas Chandra Bose and many other Congressmen. Saha was hanged despite widespread popular protest. 10 The Chittagong group The Bengal Group was hindered by in-fighting among the various factions present there. There emerged, however, new groups with cordial relations with all these factions. Among these new groups was the Chittagong group led by Surya Sen. Surya Sen had actively participated in the Non Cooperation Movement and had become a teacher in a national school in Chittagong. Surya Sen soon was leading a group of revolutionary youth including Anant Singh, Ganesh Ghosh and Lokenath Baul. The aim of this group was to shatter the aura of invincibility surrounding the British and especially the notion that Indians could not fight the British in any effective manner.11 The Chittagong Raids In order to further their goals, the Chittagong Group planned a raid on the two main armouries in Chittagong, the destruction of the telephone and telegraph systems of the city and the dislocation of the railway communication system between Chittagong and the rest of Bengal. A group of six revolutionaries, led by Ganesh Ghosh, captured the Police Armoury. Another group of ten, led by Lokenath Baul, took over the Auxiliary Force Armoury along with its Lewis guns and 303 army rifles. Unfortunately they could not locate the ammunition. The revolutionaries also succeeded in dislocating telephone and telegraph communications and disrupting movement by train. All this was done in the name of the Indian Republican Army, Chittagong Branch. 12 Surya Sen hoisted the National Flag outside the Police Armoury where all the revolutionaries had gathered. Realizing that it was not possible to put up a fight in the town against the army, the Revolutionaries took refuge in the Chittagong hill ranges. They were surrounded on the Jalalabad Hill and decided to disperse into the surrounding villages. Despite oppression by the British the villagers gave food and shelter to the revolutionaries and helped them to survive for three years. Surya Sen was finally arrested on 16 February 1933, tried and hanged on 12 January 1934.13 Importance of the Raids The Chittagong rebels made an important advance over the methods of their North Indian counterparts. They replaced the acts of individual heroism of the likes of Bhagat Singh with planned
10 11 12 13 Supra note 1 at p. 242 Supra note 1 at p.242 Supra note 6 at p.24. Supra note 1 at p.242.

attacks on the major organs of the State.

However these Revolutionaries too believed in

Propoganda by deed. According to Kalpana Joshi the plan was that, the Government would bring in troops to take back Chittagong they would die fighting, thus creating a legend and setting an example before their countrymen to emulate . Surya Sen too was of this opinion as is evidenced by his statement that A dedicated band of youth must show the path of organized armed struggle in place of individual terrorism. Most of us will have to die in the process but our sacrifice for such a noble cause will not go in vain.14 Revival of Activity and the British Response The Chittagong Armoury Raid had an immense impact on the people of Bengal. It lead to a stream of recruits for the Revolutionaries. A large scale revival of revolutionary activity was seen in 1931 and 1932. for example inn Midnapore district alone, three British magistrates were assassinated. The impact can be best seen in the number of women who came out of their traditional roles to take up the revolutionary cause. Pritilata Waddedar died while conducting a raid, while Kalpana Dutt was arrested and tried along with Surya Sen and given a life sentence. Santi Ghosh and Suniti Chowdhury, shot dead the District Magistrate and Bina Das fired point blank at the Governor while receiving her degree at the Convocation. 15 The Government armed itself with twenty repressive Acts and let loose the police on all nationalists. In Chittagong, it burnt several villages, imposed punitive fine on many others, and in general established a reign of terror. In 1933, it arrested and sentenced Jawaharlal Nehru to a two year term in jail for sedition for making a speech in Calcutta condemning imperialism and praising the heroism of the Revolutionaries.

Chapter II A Clash of Ideology In the second chapter the paper will try and make a comparison between the ideological aspects of the Revolutionary Movement and the ideology espoused by Gandhi. Some of the important ideological aspects are as follows. Secularism and Atheism Mahatma Gandhi's ethos of non violence found its ultimate base in religion. Prayer meetings, fasts
14 Supra note 1 at p.245. 15See S. Dey Ideological Perceptions of Women in the Revolutionary Terrorist Movement in Bengal, 1928-34: Some Introductory Remarks (Proceedings of the Indian History Congress: 53rd Session 1992-93)

and other such methods were used to further the National cause. Although Gandhi rejected the evils of religion such as the caste system, the use of Hindu terminology itself was enough to alienate other communities. The Congress did not have the mass appeal that Gandhi enjoyed and hence had to go along with this. Even before Gandhi, the INC had had a Hindu flavour about it through the activities of Tilak and Lajpat Rai. The Bengal revolutionaries had shed some of their earlier Hindu religiosity in as far as they no longer took religious oaths and vows. Some of the groups also no longer excluded Muslims. The Chittagong IRA cadre included many Muslims like Sattar, Mir Ahmad, Fakir Ahmad Mian, Tunu Mian and got massive support from Muslim villagers around Chittagong. However they still retained elements of social conservatism, nor did they evolve broader socio economic goals.16 Speaking of the North Indian revolutionaries, Bismil had asked the people to establish HinduMuslim unity and unite all political groups under the leadership of the Congress. Later secularism found its strongest advocate in Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh revered Lajpat Rai even Lajpat Rai was criticised by him for turning to communal politics. Bhagat Singh understood the danger that communalism posed to the nation and the national movement. This is very evident from the organisation of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha. Bhagat Singh and very tellingly his comrades were insistent that membership would not be opened to members of religious or communal organisations. In addition two of the six rules of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha, drafted by Bhagat Singh, were: To have nothing to do with communal bodies or other parties which disseminate communal ideas and to create the spirit of general toleration among the public considering religion as a matter of personal belief of man and to act upon the same fully.17 Bhagat Singh while condemning the communal killings in 1927 went on to say that religion was ones private concern and communalism was an enemy to be fought. He pointed out that communal killers did not kill a person because he was guilty of any particular act but simply because that person happened to be a Hindu, Muslim or Sikh. While the Revolutionaries were generally secular, Bhagat Singh was an outright Atheist. In a pice of writing titled Why I am an Atheist, he outlined his journey towards atheism by rejecting the mysticism of the Sikh faith. Critical thinking and the ending of blind faith and superstition were emphasised to be essentials of the revolution and these could be brought about only by being an atheist. In the article Bhagat Singh wrote that Any man who stands for progress,has to criticise, disbelieve and challenge every item of the old faith. Item by
16 Supra note1 at p.243 17 Supra note 7 at p.42

item he has to reason out every nook and corner of the prevailing faith.18 Socialism and Communism Emerging social forces influenced both the HSRA and the Bengal Revolutionaries. The trade unionism after the World War and the potential for revolution in that class was very appealing to the Indian revolutionaries. Secondly the Russian Revolution proved to be highly inspiring to these young revolutionaries. The revolutionaries were eager to learn from and take the help of the young Soviet State and its ruling Bolshevik Party. The third influence was that of the newly sprouting Communist groups with their emphasis on Marxism, Socialism and the proletariat. More than the Bengal Strand, the HSRA made the step forward in terms of ideology. The process had started with the HRA itself. The manifesto issued by the HRA read that it stood for the abolition of all systems which make the exploitation of man by man possible. The founding council had decided to preach social revolutionary and communistic principles. They proposed the nationalization of the railways and other means of transport and large-scale industries such as steel and ship building. The HRA had also decided to start labour and peasant organizations and to work for an organized and armed revolution. The ideological revolution was not restricted to the younger parts of the Revolutionaries. Ramprasad Bismil issued an appeal to the youth to give up on the cult of the bomb and embrace the open movement. In comparison, the INC was ruled by the Indian elite and even people within the party criticised this. Yusuf Meherali speaking at the Karachi Session says, ....To our mind, imperialism has no heart to change, it has only pockets to fill . Yusuf Meherali attacked unequivocally the politics of compromise and of change of heart and made sharp references to string-pullers of the Congress; the Birlas, the Purushottamdas Thakurdases, the Walchand Hirachands, the Husseinbhai Laljis; who were then out and busy in making efforts to obtain the fruits of the suffering and sacrifices of others.19 Clearly socialism was not high on the agenda of the INC and even Nehru who had been a Socialist in the 1920s drifted away from that goal. The Role of Ideas Emphasizing the role of ideas in the making of revolution, he declared before the Lahore High Court: The sword of revolution is sharpened on the whetting-stone of ideas. Wide reading and
18 The article is available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/bhagat-singh/1930/10/05.htm 19 S. K. Mittal and I. Habib , The Congress and the Revolutionaries in the 1920s, Social Scientist, Vol. 10, No. 6 (Jun., 1982), p. 33. See also S. Sarkar, The Logic of Gandhian Nationalism: Civil Disobedience and the GandhiIrwin Pact 1930-31, The Indian Historical Review, July, 1976, Vol 111, No. 1, pp 116.

deep thinking pervaded the ranks of the HSRA leadership. Sukhdev, Bhagwati Charan Vohra, Shiv Varma, Bejoy Sinha, Yashpal, all were intellectuals. Even Chandrashekar Azad, who barely knew English, accept any idea till it was fully explained to him. He followed every major turn in the field of ideas through discussion. The draft of the famous statement of revolutionary position, The Philosophy of the Bomb, was written by Bhagwati Charan Vohra at the instance of Azad and after a full discussion with him. 20 In contrast there was no ideological education carried out by the Congress and Gandhi. The focus was not on ideas but on the methods. Non violence was a creed to be followed absolutely. The individual leaders were well read and had their own ideology but when it came to the masses, what mattered was the charisma of the leaders and not of the ideas that they held. India is still reeling from this ideological vacuum created then. Non Violence Gandhi's obsession with non violence is well known and many a time, he criticised the revolutionaries and even blamed them for delaying independence. He even went to the etent of moving and getting passed in a Congress Session, a resolution congratulating Lord Irwin for escaping an attempt on his life. The leadership of the HSRA directed the sharp edge of its counter criticism against Gandhi. Referring to the question of violence or non-violence it wrote: ...violence is physical force applied for committing injustice, and that is certainly not what the revolutionaries stand for.... Further they stated that the philosophy of non-violence as a philosophy arising out of despair. They accused the Mahatma of spreading philosophical cowardice by preaching nonviolence throughout the length and breadth of the country, and asked if he did not believe in Mazzini's dictum that ideas ripen quickly when nourished by the blood of martyrs21 As will be seen in the next section, the clash between violence and non violence dominated the relationship between these two elements of the Freedom Struggle. It came to characterize the debate and wrongly so because the Revolutionaries soundly reasoned out their use of violence but Gandhi completely ignored their definition of Revolution and revolution and terrorism, sadly, were used in conjunction and often interchangeably to describe these acts of defiance against the British.

20 Ibid at p.27 21 Supra note 19 at p.24.

Chapter III Victims of Gandhis Politics? The projection of Gandhi as a spiritual philosopher rather than a political activist often leads to the overlooking of Gandhi's political strategy. We have to desist from ignoring the centrality of politics in Gandhi's life.22 Keeping this in mind some factors which could have contributed to Gandhi;s animosity towards the Revolutionaries are discussed below. Moving on from Terrorism Bhagat Singh had already, before his arrest in 1929, abandoned his belief in terrorism and individual heroic action. He had turned to Marxism and had come to believe that popular broadbased mass movements alone could lead to a successful revolution. This is clear from the statement earlier made by him in his behest to young political workers. In fact, the Naujawan Bharat Sabha was founded to carry out open political work among the youth, peasants and workers. It was to open branches in the villages. Bhagat Singh and his comrades also gave expression to their understanding that revolution meant the development and organization of a mass movement of the exploited and suppressed sections of society by the revolutionary intelligentsia in the course of their statements from 1929 to 1931 in the courts as well as outside. Just before his execution, Bhagat Singh declared that the real revolutionary armies are in the villages and in factories. Most importantly, in his behest to young political workers, written on 2 February 1931, he declared: Apparently, I have acted like a terrorist. But I am not a terrorist. . . Let me announce with all the strength at my command, that I am not a terrorist and I never was, except perhaps in the beginning of my revolutionary career. And I am convinced that we cannot gain anything through those methods. 23 Acts of Pragmatism and mischaracterization of the debate Despite the moving away ideologically from acts of terrorism, the Revolutionaries still continued these activities. The reason for this lies in the pragmatic approach that they had to adopt. The answer also lies in their belief in propaganda by deed. The spread of their ideology was a slow process and in order to speed up the process, these men had to commit the acts of revolution. Here, the difference between revolution and terrorism becomes important. According to the HSRA revolution was not mere sanguinary strife but the ending of all forms of human exploitation. The Philosophy of the Bomb, written by Bhagwati Charan Vohra. Chandrasekhar Azad and Yashpal,
22 V.Rajan, Gandhi: The Colonising Object, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 15 (Apr. 15-21, 2006), p. 1425. 23 See http://www.marxists.org/archive/bhagat-singh/1931/02/02.htm

defined revolution as independence, social, political and economic aimed at establishing a new order of society in which political and economic exploitation will be an impossibility.24 Their terrorism was not terrorism as we understand it today. It was not aimed at striking fear in the hearts of the British but rather was a means to the end of a socialist revolution. They were as opposed to the Indian elite who oppressed the poor as they were against the oppressive British regime. In a letter from jail, Bhagat Singh wrote: The peasants have to liberate themselves not only from foreign yoke but also from the yoke of landlords and capitalists.25 Often when the question of the conflict between Gandhi and the Revolutionaries arises, the debate centers around the question of the use of violent or non violent methods. This is a mischaracterisation of the issue. The Revolutionaries were never terrorists. The violence perpetrated was not violence for violence's sake. The goal they had in mind was the emergence of a socialist nation. Gandhi's non violence, though, was a creed for him. It formed the basis, at least ostensibly for all his actions. Though at a very broad level these two methods are fundamentally opposed to each other, in this case, the contrast becomes a case of comparing apples with oranges. For Gandhi non violence was an ideology whereas for the Revolutionaries, violence was just a method or a means to a greater end. The ideas of the Revolutionaries were well known at that point of time. These ideas were clearly articulated in Bhagat Singh's trial and reported extensively. The letters written by Bhagat Singh were also widely read. Then why did Gandhi still condemn these methods? Though we can only speculate here, Gandhi's insistence on criticising the methods of the Revolutionaries seems to be a reaction not based completely on ideological grounds. It is a paradox that Gandhi believed in winning foes through the gospel of love while he indulged in bitter denunciation of those who disagreed with him in his own country. Position of Congress Leaders Immediately after the Saunders murder, Nehru sent a message to Naujawan Bharat Sabha, stating that many in India are full of sympathy for them and are prepared to help them as much as they can. Speaking at Lahore on August 9, 1929, Nehru praised the revolutionaries on hunger strikes saying that, We should realise the great value of the struggle that these brave young men are carrying on inside the jail. They are not struggling to get honours from the people or laurels from the crowd for their sacrifice. What a contrast this is, compared with the unfortunate wrangles
24 See J. Sanyal, Sardar Bhagat Singh available at www.shahidbhagatsingh.org 25 B. Singh, B. Hooja, The Jail Notebook And Other Writings, (LeftWord Books, 2007: New Dehli), p. 158.

among Congressmen and the fighting for securing positions in the Congress and the reception coinmittee. I am ashamed to hear of these internecine differences amongst the Congressmen. But my heart is equally delighted by witnessing the sacrifices of the young- mnc who are determined to die for the sake of the country.26 Probably, the staunchest supporter of Gandhi, Nehru's comments help shed some light with the mood of dissatisfaction in the INC with Gandhi's response to the Revolutionaries. Normally, Nehru was very hesitant to go against Gandhi's wishes. He had even apologised to Gandhi for visiting the revolutionaries in jail. However the hunger strike and the subsequent executions inspired even Nehru to overcome his reluctance in this matter.

Gandhi's Contradictions revolutionary activity is suicidal at this stage of the country's life at any rate. if not for all time in a country so vast, so hopelessly divided and with the masses so deeply sunk in pauperism and so fearfully terror struck.27 The last remark of Gandhi implies that in different circumstances, he might not have opposed revolutionary methods. In another case where Gandhi advocated violence was when he upbraided some villagers for abandoning their families in the face of oppression and then taking cover behind the doctrine of non violence. These contradictions lead us to question Gandhi's belief in non violence itself. Was non violence the central tenet of his life or was it merely a strategy adopted by a shrewd politician? Impact of the Revolution The impact of the Revolutionaries can be measured by two parameters. One is the reaction of the masses and the second is the reaction of the British. The masses were clearly inspired by the acts of the Revolutionaries. The six lakh people that gathered to witness Jatin Das' funereal procession are testament enough of the impact that the Revolutionaries had. Equally interesting to study is the reaction of the British to the revolutionaries. By all accounts, the trial of Bhagat Singh was a farce and all the principles and procedures of fair trial were blatantly overridden to ensure his execution. 28 The brutal reprisals that took place after each revolutionary act shows us that the British were badly shaken. Venturing into the sphere of speculation again, it is not impossible to imagine that if Bhagat Singh and his comrades had not been executed, then they would have grown to match the popularity of the INC and the mass revolution would have been a reality instead of an unfulfilled vision.
26 J. Nehru, An Autobiographry, (Penguin Books, 1962:New Dclhi), p.174. 27 Supra note 19 at p. 23 28 See generally, A. Noorani, The Trial of Bhagat Singh:Politics of Justice (Oxford India Paperbacks, 1996:New Dehli)

Could Gandhi have saved Bhagat Singh? This debate has raged on and on without a conclusive answer being found. At the Karachi session of the INC in 1931, Gandhi received a rough reception for apparently not trying hard enough to save Bhagat Singh via the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. There are differing accounts as to how sincerely Gandhi pursued this topic with Lord Irwin. According to the statement made by Gandhi in the Karachi Session of the INC, he pleaded long and hard but to no avail This is supported in part by Lord Irwin's statements in his autobiography. The opposite was claimed by Emerson, then Home Secretary and Allen Campbell Johnson who both claim that Gandhi was not very concerned about the fate of the Revolutionaries and even promised to control the situation once the executions happened.29 As both accounts are not completely verifiable, Gandhi's sincerity in the matter still remains debatable. What is not debatable, however, is that Gandhi did not use the considerable bargaining power at his disposal, to make the British spare the lives of Bhagat Singh and his comrades.

Conclusion The beauty of any historical debate is that we can never be sure as to what really took place at any given point in the past. One such debate, which has lasted for a while now, is the debate concerning the relationship between Gandhi and the revolutionaries such as Bhagat Singh. The obvious answer to the question is that the Revolutionaries were anathema to Gandhi and his beliefs. However stopping there would be to oversimplify tremendously and ignore too many other factors. This paper set out to study those factors and to determine whether the animosity that Gandhi harboured was purely ideological or had political undertones to it. In order to do this the events of that time were examined and the impact of the revolutionary activities shown. To give Gandhi's side of the story a fair chance, the ideological clash between these two elements was examined . Finally, however, those factors which lead us to believe that Gandhi's hatred was not just based on ideology were examined. These included the moving away of the Revolutionaries from acts of violence, the immense impact that they had on the masses and the British, leading to both the British and the INC being threatened and lastly and most importantly, Gandhi's failure to save Bhagat Singh and his comrades from the gallows. Gandhi was a great spiritual leader and his obsession with non violence is well known, but we should never forget that Gandhi was a politician first and foremost and should greet with cynicism any attempt to brush away the clash between Gandhi and the Revolutionaries as purely ideological.
29 For the full version of these statements see D.P. Das, Gandhi and Bhagat Singh, Mainstream(Independence Day, 1970)

Bibliography T. V. Sathyamurthy, Revolutions and Revolutionaries, Transition, No. 21 (1965), p. 24. V.Rajan, Gandhi: The Colonising Object, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 15 (Apr. 15-21, 2006), p. 1425. M. Juergensmeyer, Gandhi vs. terrorism Ddalus, 2007, p. 30 D.Das, A Tale of Two Incidents, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 24 (Jun. 11-17, 2005), p. 2372 J. Sanyal, Sardar Bhagat Singh available at www.shahidbhagatsingh.org C.P. Singh, What Mahatma Gandhi did to save Bhagat Singh available at www.mkgandhi.org