Bhagat Singh Birth Centenary 1907–2007

By Harish K. Puri

[Presented at a 3-day Indian Council of Historical Research and Institute of Punjab Studies seminar in Chandigarh. 26-28 Sept 2007]

Among the large number freedom-fighters who laid down their lives in the struggle, the popularity of Shaheed Bhagat Singh appeared to be of an exceptional order; almost incomparable. His name and his picture with the hat became popular in practically all parts of India after his execution. Nehru referred  to his popularity as “sudden and amazing”. Writing about Bhagat Singh four years after his death, the Director of Intelligence Bureau, Sir Horace Williamson noted that, “His photograph was on sale in every city and township and for a time rivaled in popularity even that of Mr. Gandhi himself”. (Quoted in Noorani 2005:256)

 That kind of sentiment was also expressed by the official Congress historian Pattabi Sitaramayya. In fact towards the last days of his life, Bhagat Singh himself came to have a sense of the enormous esteem he had gained.  In his last written reponse (22nd March 1931) to a note from convicts of the Second Lahore Conspiracy Case, he is reported to have told them: “my name has become a symbol of Indian revolution. The ideals and the sacrifices of the revolutionary party had raised me to a height beyond which I will never be able to rise if I live”.  (Text in Gupta 2007: 98)  Was there an intimation of immortality ?
  
Bhagat singh was highly respected and loved among his comrades for his knowledge and qualities of a good human being. His popular image in the minds of most Indians, then as at present, however, was of handsome young men who defied and challenged the mighty British Empire, avenged the national insult of the assault of Lala Lajpat Rai and smilingly sacrificed his life alongside two other comrades. The reverence for martyr and martyrdom – shaheed and Shaheedi – balidaan –  in fighting the ‘satanic forces’ had enjoyed a mystical glory in different religio-cultural traditions (particulary in the Sikh tradition). It was indeed a part of their conviction that, as conveyed in the opening words of the Manifesto of HSRA, “The food on which the tender plant of liberty thrives is the blood of the martyr.” They seemed to have been convinced that more than any other action it is their death which would serve the cause of arousing the masses for revolution. Why is giving of blood – martyrdom – Sir froshi  ki  tamanna  – so significant in the imagination and the folklore of nationalism is an issue for a separate enquiry. How could anyone argue with one daring the enemy by staking one’s life?
 
Bhagat Singh, however, was not the first martyr of the national struggle for freedom, nor was he the last one. Actually their number was quite large; the courage and sacrifice of Vasudev Balwant Phadke, Chapekar Brothers, Kartar Singh Sarabha, ‘Bagha’ Jatin  or Surya Sen was no less honourable. In fact in the given context of the religious mentality of the people and the prevalent ethos of revolutionary organizations, that was suffused with religious symbolism and mysticism, Bhagat Singh’s atheism and rejection of religious obscurantism (so convincingly articulated in his “Why I am an Atheist”), could have been a good enough reason for common man to turn away from his politics. What was then secret of that exceptional glory or iconography? This paper is an attempt to explore the conditions or factors that may help to explain the making of that legend.

             Our exploration leads us to focus on three factors. One related to the historical conditions of a massive political upsurge among the industrial workers, the peasants and the youth in general in north India towards the end of 1920s. The radicalism inspired by the Russian revolution affected not only those who were dissatisfied with the course of Gandhian struggle but also a new generation of Congress men like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose. Second factor, it appears to me, was Bhagat Singh’s emphasis on connecting with the people, specially the youth, for political awakening and a critical engagement with the mainstream national movement. That included his skilful use of the courtroom as a platform for political education and propaganda. The third factor related to the long hunger-strike in jail for the rights of political prisoners, which facilitated an emotional bonding of a variety of leaders as also common people with him and his comrades.

 “Do you think had we not entered the (political) field, no revolutionary work would have taken place?  If you think so you are making a big mistake. It is true that we have succeeded to a great extent in changing the (political) atmosphere, however, we are only the product of the necessity of the time”. (emphasis added)

The reference was evidently to the new stirrings in the midst of the despondency which followed Gandhi’s withdrawal of the Non-cooperation movement after the happenings at Chauri Chaura. The new kind of Gandhian movement launched in 1921 had aroused a level of public political upsurge and participation from one part of the country to another as never seen or visualized before. C R  Das, was able to persuade a large section of the political terrorists and other radical young men to put their trust in Gandhi’s “Swaraj within One Year”. They were able to   make a significant contribution to the massive upsurge. The withdrawal of that movement left many political leaders and young radicals feeling betrayed. Rise of communal divisions and hatred that led to communal riots appeared to add to the sense of despair and hopelessness. Even 6 years later Gandhi told Subhas Bose that he was unable to see any light. However, the massive country-wide public protest against the Simon Commission was one manifestation of the latent anger and resistance. The sense of outrage welled up when the panic-stricken  police resorted to beating up the agitators including highly respected leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Govind  Ballabh Pant  in UP and Lajpat Rai at Lahore. The lathi blows on Lajpat Rai at Lahore were believed to have caused his death a few days later. There was a renewed and effective boycott of British goods. Radicalism was in the air.

             

Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev

A number of students and youth organizations sprang up at various places. The most prominent of these was the Naujawan Bharat Sabha first established at Lahore in 1926 which, in the words of Subhas Bose, was “a thorough going nationalist movement, in order to fight communalism and religious fanaticism in Punjab”. (Bose 1934: 225). The students and the other youth were the most enthusiastic in organising protest against the Simon Commission. Some of them  seemed to have been inspired by the message of the Russian Revolution and of a new kind of social order.

The Hindustan Republican Association (HRA) of the nationalist revolutionaries of north India was converted in September 1928 into Hindustan Socialist Republican Association and Army (HSRA). The Kirti movement in Punjab and then the organization of All India Peasants and Workers movement became another anti-imperialist political platform. Riasti Praja Mandal was organized in July 1928 to carry on the struggle in the native states of Punjab.

The year 1928 also witnessed an extraordinary labour militancy and a series of big strikes.  There was a big strike by workers of South Indian Railway. The Strike by the scavengers of Calcutta Municipal Corporation signified a new dimension of upsurge. The famous April to October 1928 long strike of the Bombay textile workers was described as “massive, total and peaceful”. In a secret letter to the Secretary of State for India the Governor of Bombay on 16 August 1928, admitted:

“It is really amazing how the men are holding out . . . . I have been considerably disturbed by the fact that . . . not a single man returned to work”. (Sarkar: 271)

The Calcutta Congress session in December 1928 witnessed the challenge of radical “left-wingers” who moved an amendment to the official resolution that called for nothing less than complete Independence as the objective of the Congress. Though the amendment was defeated, it was a pointer to the change in the mood of congress men.  Bhagat Singh and a few of his comrades were there at that time. Calcutta at that time was also the venue for a number of other political conferences. Next year followed the first general strike in jute mills under Bengal Jute Worker’s Union, largely controlled by the communists. The All India Trade Union Congress was affiliated with the “League Against Imperialism”. In December 1927 when Jawaharlal Nehru returned from his visit to Europe, he had begun to call himself a socialist.

 The arrest of 31 labour leaders on March 20, 1929, led to the famous Meerut Conspiracy Case. It was in reaction to these developments that the government resorted to extra-ordinary measures to bring the Public Safety Bill and the Trade Disputes Bill – the occasion which was considered appropriate by Bhagat Singh and his comrades to throw the two harmless bombs in the Central Assembly on 8th April 1929. That incident, which as Lord Irwin admitted, was meant not to hurt men, but to attack the institution, captured the newspaper headlines in India and abroad. He and BK Dutt were arrested soon after the incident. Within a week the leading members of HSRA and others suspected of collaborating with them were arrested and put behind the bars.

The Defence Committee for the Meerut Case prisoners included towering advocates such as Moti Lal Nehru, M C Chagla, Dewan Chaman Lal. Mahatma Gandhi’s visit to meet the Meerut prisoners in jail tended to give an impression of the coming together of the national forces. The declaration of complete independence at the Lahore session 1929 with the young “left-winger” Jawaharlal Nehru as its president and then the launching of the historic salt satyagraha in 1930, all these developments created an air of expectation.

As an early day political guru of Bhagat Singh, Jaichandra Vidyalankar observed: “The people came to know him for the first time when he threw a bomb in the Central Assembly”. The admiration for their thought and courage and raised the public curiosity to know more about the man, his party and his ideas and whetted the appetite for news and information on their sufferings, and struggles inside the jails.

The second factor was his exceptional focus on connecting with the people of India particularly the youth, and giving voice to their inner feelings. This included

“We are sick of the stigma of violence attached to us. We are neither killers, nor terrorists.” That was how Sukhdev articulated the feelings he shared with Bhagat Singh.  They were stung by the remarks from Dewan Chaman Lal or comments by the editor of The Tribune. “We want the country and the world to know about our faith in revolution”. For putting these ideas and sentiments across in an effective manner the party relied largely on the knowledge and skill of Bhagat Singh. That was, according to his comrades, the reason why the earlier decision of the HSRA was revised so as to depute Bhagat Singh with BK Dutt to throw the bombs in the Assembly and use the most suitable occasion to explain and publicise what they stood for.

His comrade Shiv Verma recalled  that Bhagat Singh was the first among the revolutionaries of India to emphasise on the basic necessity of  letting the people know what the revolutionaries wanted to do and why, to emphasise that the strength of their movement depended on the willing and passionate support of the people. As for the character of organization it was necessary to have  what Verma described as sangthan ka janvaadikaran i.e. building its public and popular base. According to him Bhagat Singh pleaded as follows.

“The people of the country appreciate our courage and our actions but they are not able to directly connect with us . So far we have not even told them in clear words regarding the meaning of the freedom that we talk about – what would be the form and content of that freedom. What would be the shape of the government to be constituted after the exit of the British and who would constitute that government. To give our movement a popular support base we will have to take our objectives and programme to the people. Because without gaining such a support our old type of sporadic individual actions of killing one or the other British official or government approvers  will not do. ( Shiva Verma,, Sansmritian pp19-20)

Organising students’ and youth conferences and lectures, writing and circulation of pamphlets, publishing articles, responding to important social and political issues, criticizing wrong notions and actions of leaders, clarifying confusing and complex issues and their own position became their regular pursuits. A “Tract society” was established for circulating small tracts. “He was a pamphleteer in the great tradition”, wrote A G Noorani.(2005;5)  And his qualities of the mind and character left a deep impression on all his comrades. The meetings of the Naujawan Sabha were addressed by leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, Saifuddin Kitclewand Sohan Singh Josh. The members of Punjab Naujawan Sabha included popular leaders such as Kitchlew, Kedar Nath Sehgal and Dhanwantri. The British Intelligence service recorded that “its members were a combination of certain extreme members of the Congress, Akali irreconcilables, Kirti group of Sikh communists and the student revolutionaries”.  (H. pol. 1928  File no. 1/28 )

(b)  Court as a political platform. Within a week of the Assembly Bomb incident most of his comrades had been arrested. Now they continued to do what was possible from inside the jail and in the court. Written statements in the court, significantly that of 6 June, read out by Asif Ali in the Court, and letters to government officials became a major source for reports by the Press. What appeared in the newspapers was carefully perused and responded to. They did not wish to miss any opportunity to expose the hypocrisy of judicial system and of the judges in the eyes of the public. If the British government tried to make, “the conscious use of the court of law as a political weapon . . . in order to crush the rebels against the system”, Bhagat Singh and his comrades decided to use that weapon to expose the farce of justice where the court acted more like an office of the police.

(c) Engagement with the Congress.  No less important to them was a continuous and critical engagement with Gandhi and the Congress. The long and active association of his father and his uncle Sardar Ajit Singh with the Congress seemed to have created in him an affinity with it. He,  indeed  stated clearly that

“All our activities were directed towards one aim i.e. identifying ourselves with the great movement, as its military wing. If anybody has misunderstood me let him amend his ideas”. (emphasis added)

 Whether it was the occasion to express their revulsion at Lajpat Rai’s  drift towards Hindu Mahasabha’s communal politics or of making a choice between the ideas of Jawaharlal Nehru on the one hand and those of Subhash Bose on the other, or of dicussing the futility of the Swarajist party’s constitutionalism,  he and his comrades remained engaged. Yet they never wavered in their respect for those leaders.

The most important issue was, of course, Gandhi’s creed of non-violence and his opposition to the activities and methods of the revolutionaries. Bhagat Singh was clear that Gandhian struggle had awakened the masses and that his role in removing apathy and fear from the minds of the common people and peasants and workers was no small deal. “The Revolutionary must give to the angel of non-violence his due.” (Letter “To the Young Workers”: 52).  “Mahatma Gandhi is great and we mean no disrespect to him if we express our emphatic disapproval of the methods advocated by him for our country’s emancipation” , said the Manifesto of HSRA.

After the Congress passed Gandhi’s resolution condemning the attack on Viceroy’s train, Gandhi followed it up by an article “Cult of the Bomb”.  Bhagwati Charan and Bhagat Singh circulated a rejoinder entiled “The philosophy of the Bomb” in which the issue was seriously discussed. But more important for our purpose here is their perception of where they stood in relation to the Congress.

“There might be those who have no regard for the Congress and hope nothing from it. If Gandhi thinks that the revolutionaries belong to that category, he wrongs them grievously. They fully realize the part played by the Congress in awakening among the ignorant masses a keen desire for freedom. They expect great things of it in future.” (emphasis added)

They however, had serious problem with the manner in which the Congress  directed the popular movements such as  Ahmedabad workers’ strike of 1920, or  the compromising spirit of the final resolution of issues involved in Bardoli satyagraha of 1921-22. The snag, in their judgement, as that the Congress was  “controlled mostly by men with stakes in the country, who prize their stakes with bourgeois tenacity, and it is bound to stagnate. It must be saved from its friends” ( letter "To the young Wokers" 2nd February 1931 p. 51, emphasis added) Accordingly, the message sent jointly by him and B K Dutt to  Punjab Student’s Conference at Lahore in December 1929 was : “Today, we cannot ask the youth to take to pistols and bombs”. Since the Congress was going to soon raise the flag for Complete Independence and call upon the youth to join in the fierce struggle, “The youth will have to bear a great burden in this difficult time in the history of the nation”.   

Bhagat Singh and his comrades were not inclined to turn their backs on Congress movement. They considered themselves as the radical lobby associated with the Congress struggle determined to “save” that movement from the vested economic and communal interests. On the other hand, the fact that Gandhi’s resolution condemning the violent action targeting the Viceroy was carried only by a margin of 81 votes in a house of 1713 pointed to the emerging appreciation for their programme within the congress. More so, as Sarla Devi Chaudhrani, whose close emotional bond with Gandhi has been a subject of interest following Rajmohan Gandhi’s recent book Mohandas, disclosed that  many voted in favour of the resolution ‘out of personal loyalty to Gandhi’. The Congress seemed to recognize Bhagat Singh and his party as hardly less deserving of support and honour than Gandhi. In his letter to lord Irwin, Gandhi underlined the fact that the party of violence was, in their opposition to state violence, gaining ground among the masses.

The third factor that turned the public attention towards him and forged an emotional bond with Bhagat Singh was the hunger-strike he and Dutt started in the jail for the rights of political prisoners. That has been rightly described as a ‘Gandhian method”. One of the most revolting manifestations of the British rule and of India’s bondage was related to treatment of political prisoners in the jails. That the European prisoners be given additional privileges was unacceptable. That had to be fought inside the jails with a method available and suitable. Kuldip Nayar thought that Bhagat Singh “wanted to prove to Gandhi that the revolutionaries knew how to go through the rigours of fasting and the torture of approaching death” (2004: 80)

We learn from BK Dutt that Bhagat Singh conveyed to him during the train journey from Delhi to the Jail that the two of them would begin a hunger-strike  for claiming the rights of political prisoners as soon as they reached the jails.  Accordingly, they started the hunger-strike on 15th June 1929. They had reportedly enjoyed better facilities in Delhi jail. What was it which led to his determination to start the hunger strike straightaway? On reaching Mianwali Jail Bhagat Singh told his co-prisoners that the hunger-strike by Kakori case prisoners had not led to any improvement in their conditions despite the reforms promised by the British authorities; that the Babbar Akalis were being treated as criminals. However, to the best of my knowledge no lead is available in the literature about why he considered the starting of the hunger strike for that purpose as topmost item on his agenda. But we are surely able to see its impact.

His letter to I G of Prisons on 17th June stated that he lost 6 pounds already. On 10th of July when proceedings of Saunders’ murder case opened, those present were shocked to see a pale and weak Bhagat Singh being brought to the court  lying on a on a stretcher. “our eyes became wet” recollected Shiv Verma. (Verma,  op.cit.  47). On 13 July all their other comrades in jails went on hunger-strike. Soon there were reports of  prisoners in more than half a dozen jails –- Meerut, Agra, Bareilley, Mianwali, Rawalpindi etc. and joined by prisoners of  Kakori case, Dakshineshwar Bomb Case, the Communist  leaders of Meerut Conspiracy Case, the Babbar Akalis and many others. Many of these were subjected to torture and additional punishments for joining that strike. Newspapers reported about brutal methods to feed them forcibly, leading in some cases to serious complications. The Tribune reports such as “Bhagat Singh bore marks of violence on his body”, or that “The court in fact had all the appearance of a police office”. These were followed by more and more in a large number of newspapers in north India:

“The condition of Das was still serious and he had developed pneumonia, temperature being 103 degrees”,

Jatin’s condition distinctly worse. Temprature – 95 degrees F, pulse 52-pm. Very weak and exhausted. Extremities are cold. Complained of loss of sensation in the legs. Condition grave. 

“Shiv verma  and Jatin are considered unfit  for artificial feeding. Placed on dangerously ill list”,

“I wish to die” says Jatin,as Gopi Chand Bhargava  talked to him in Jail . “Why”?
“For the sake of my country, to uplift the status of political convicts”.

“The condition of Shiv Verma has suddenly taken a critical turn yesterday  as a consequence of forced feeding. He is reported to have vomited blood”.

“Bijoy, Ajoy and Kishori Lal . . . also vomited blood.

“500 convicts and under trial prisoners in the Borstal Jail did not have the evening meal yesterday.

“Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthy told the press after his interview with Das that “Das was lying in a precarious condition”.

The proceedings of the court had to be successively adjourned from 26 July to 24 September 1929 and again in February 1930, owing to some of the accused being unfit to attend the court.

Let alone the other newspapers, even the Civil and Military Gazette wrote a leading article on the hunger-strike reporting particulary on the condition of Jatin Das. (Das 1979: passim)

  As the details of the forced feeding, the stories of resistance and the consequent further worsening of their physical conditions were reported by newspapers, the public attention was getting more and more focused on their suffering and their courage. Apprehensions, sympathy, anger was in the air.

Jatin Das’s brother Kiron Das wrote that from 14th July, processions, public meetings and house to house visits by leaders of the Congress and Naujawan Bharat Sabha, including a large number of ladies, were organized to sypmathise with the hunger-strikers. A sum of Rs. 10000 was collected for the defence of the hunger strikers. (Das 1979: 22)  Resolutions were passed at the provincial and local meetings of the Congress and student organizations.

 

Doctors like Mohd. Ansari and B C Roy intervened to warn the Government and jail doctors, from a medical point of view, of the dangers of forced feeding. Moti Lal Nehru referred to the lessons of forced feeding of the Irish nationalists in British jails when the practice had to be abandoned after Thomas Agase died of heart failure caused by forced feeding by doctors.  Apprehensions were expressed about similar kind of anger and strong feelings after the death of Bhagat Singh and Dutt, as it happened in Ireland following the Terrence MacSwiney.

The under trial prisoners gave warnings in the court. Ajoy Ghose addressed the Court. “Das is on deathbed, if anything happens the court will be responsible for this. The treatment that we are receiving is simply callous and inhuman”. (Das:26)

The Viceroy was anxious. In his telegram of 12 August 1929 to the Secretary of State for India

“Reports from the Punjab Government say that public sympathy with the strikers is increasing, and was manifest even in quarters where it was not expected that it would arise. This sympathy is not confined to the Punjab, and there are definite signs that the Lahore situation is arousing great public interest all over India. . . .The death of any one of the accused would consequently be followed by a profound disturbance of public opinion . . . “ (cited Das:33)
 
The Communist Party of Great Britain wrote about the so-called trial, “unparalleled in the history of political persecution, characterized by the most inhuman and brutal treatment”.

A large of highly respected national political leaders and legal luminaries of the time, such as Motilal Nehru, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and M R Jayakar joined in questioning the government in the Central Assembly, about their designs,  expressing the public’s anguish and pleading for a civilized response to the legitimate demands of the political prisoners. In one of his historic speeches, Mr. Jinnah said:

‘”Sir, You know perfectly well that these men are determined to die. It is not a joke. I ask the Hon’ble Law Member to realize that it is not everybody who can go on starving himself to death. Try it for a little while and you will see. . . . The man who goes on hunger–strike has a soul.  . . It is the system, this damnable system of Government, which is resented by the people. “(Text in Noorani : Appendix III)

“Soul Force”. That was the word used in their seriously written rejoinder to Gandhi, The Philosophy of the Bomb. It meant vindication of truth, not by hurting the opponent, but through infliction of suffering on oneself.

Besides meetings and demonstrations, there was an intense Press agitation. Subhas Bose recollected a few years later that ‘There was intense agitation throughout the country over the hunger-strike and there was a public demand that the govt. should remedy their just grievances “(1934: 226). Bose was one of many who were arrested In connection with a demonstration of this kind in Calcutta in September 1929 and sent up for trial for sedition ( 226-27)

On 13 September, Jatindranath Das  died.  Hartals followed all over India.  As his dead body was being taken to Calcutta, the train was stopped at the major railway stations where  a large number of leaders and  other people, particularly Congress men, were waiting to offer their tributes. Subhas Bose was  in-charge of  all arrangements for the last rites. Moti Lal Nehru tabled a motion for the adjournment of the Central Assembly to censure the government on their condemnable attitude towards the hunger-strikers,

“It is said, Sir, that Nero fiddled while Rome was burning. Our benign Government has gone one better than Nero. It is fiddling on the deathbeds of these youngmen, misguided they may be, but patriots they are, all the same”
 
The Government of India issued the New Jail Rules on February 19, 1930. Henceforth no special privileges were to be given to prisoners on grounds of race. Many demands were conceded, though it was still far short of the desired reforms.

The murder was forgotten. Bhagat Singh and his comrades were brave patriots  who were undergoing intense physical and mental suffering in fighting the evil empire. Bhagat Singh understood the immense significance of their hunger-strike. “Our suffering has brought positive results. A revolution is going on through out our country. Our objective has been achieved”, he wrote in his letter to Sukhdev.

 

The Right  Moment

When the date of the execution of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru drew nearer the public tempo of apprehension and expectation started rising.  As the negotiations between Gandhi and Lord Irwin progressed, so did the efforts for Gandhi’s intervention for saving their lives. By the time he came to be hanged with his two comrades, the Congress had owned him emotionally as a beloved national hero. Perhaps a majority of them felt somewhat guilty that Gandhi could not save them. He died at the pinnacle of his glory. No other revolutionary had done as much to forge his emotional bonds with the masses. No other was executed in the full glare of such attention and a wrench in the heart of the nation.

 His execution was followed by What Noorani termed as “The Moral Abyss”. “In the aftermath there was depression all around”. Questions continued to be raised whether Gandhi could have saved him. Some would raise a question later whether Bhagat Singh ever give a serious thought to what would be the fate of their struggle after his death. The Indian communists were, by then, not only opposed to revolutionaries indulging in individual terrorism, but were also “isolated from the mainstream freedom struggle” (Chakravartty 2007:12).  But Bhagat Singh achieved exceptional glory. He was perhaps right in his belief: that that was the right time for him to die and that, as he told his other comrades the evening before, that was “a height beyond which I will never be able to rise if I live”.

¡                                  

Select readings

Bose, Subhas Chandra 1934. The Indian Struggle
Chakravartty, Gargi 2007. P. C. Joshi – A Biography. NBT, Delhi
Das, Kiron 1979. Profile of a Martyr Jatin Das . Public Relations Department, Haryana.
Gupta, D. N  Ed. Bhagat Singh 2007. Bhagat Singh: Select Speeches and Writings
Gupta, Manmathnath 1977. Bhagat Singh and His Times.  Delhi: Lipi Prakashan.
Malwinderjit S. Waraich and Gurdev S. Sidhu 2005. The Hanging of Bhagat Singh
Nayar, Kuldip 2000.  The Martyr Bhagat Singh: Experiments in Revolution
Noorani A G  2005 (1996).  The Trial of Bhagat Singh ; Politics of Justice
Sanyal, Jitendranath (1947. Reprint 1999) Amar Shahid Sardar Bhagat Singh (Hindi)
Sarkar, Sumit  1985. Modern India 1885-1947, Macmillan Delhi
Sindhu, Varinder [Bhagat Singh’s niece] 1968. Yugdrashta Bhagat  aur Unke Mrityuanjay Purkhey (Hindi)
Singh, Jagmohan [Bhagat Singh’s nephew] 2006. Shahid  Bhagat Singh ate ohnan de Sathiaan diaan Likhtaan (Punjabi)
Verma, Shiv 2002 (1967) Sansmritiyan (Hindi)

 

The author Professor Puri is a political scientist and historian. His PhD thesis was on the Ghadr movement.
After retirement he lives in Ludhiana.
E: harishpuri@gmail.com