I’m writing this not only as an Indian but also as someone who Consider Bhagat Singh as his ideal. I don’t want to get into any controversy but just want to throw some light on the recent issue in JU. How can someone call Bhagat Singh or any other Revolutionary a Terrorist?. But I feel this is not the first instance.
In Indian History, post-independence the term ‘Terrorist’ has been used on many occasions for that Great Revolutionary. For many years our NCERT books have been calling him as Revolutionary Terrorist.
Look at the irony, the British Government who passed the orders to hang Shaheed-e-Azam Bhagat Singh, described him as ‘true revolutionary’ in their judgement, even they didn’t use words like terror or terrorism.
Shaheed Bhagat Singh in his own letter titled- “the young political workers’ reiterated that he is not a terrorist and urged the young contemporaries to have a crystal clear view between the two. He was regarded as A “Revolutionary Socialist” and not a Terrorist.
As reported by The Hindu, In 2016, a book, which formed the part of Delhi University’s History curriculum called Bhagat Singh a “revolutionary terrorist”, prompting the freedom fighter’s family to raise the issue with DU authorities as well as HRD Ministry.
The book titled “India’s Struggle for Independence”, authored by noted historian Bipin Chadra and Mridula Mukherjee, mentioned Bhagat Singh, Chandra Shekhar Azad, Surya Sen and others as “revolutionary terrorists” in Chapter 20.
At that Time, Bhagat Singh’s family had written a letter to HRD Minister Smriti Irani seeking her intervention in this regard and demanded appropriate changes in the textbook. This is a very sad precedent that even after 70 years of Independence such words are used for the revolutionaries, who gave their lives for the freedom of the nation.
As Someone Rightly said and is quite justified to quote him:
There’s a big difference between a Patriot and Terrorist. Shaheed-E-Azam Bhagat Singh was a True patriot. He killed Saunders and he provided a reasonable explanation for it. After the murder, in a note he said that they regret having killed a man, but it was a necessary blow and the vindication of Lala Lajpat Rai’s death. Tell me, which terrorist does that? Which terrorist regrets taking a life? Whereas for the bomb that he threw in the assembly was a clear warning to the britishers to end their tyrannical rule or else there will be a very bloody revolution. If he meant to harm anyone he wouldn’t have thrown the harmless bombs on the benches.
AND NO! Even during the british rule he was never called a terrorist except by his own country citizens who were evidently pro-congress. His act was totally justified and was never an act of terrorism. As he himself stated during the trial “We are not perpetrators of dastardly outrages”.
He was a patriot who died for his country and he deserves to be respected, not insulted by vilifying him using the label of “a terrorist”. Why use words which have a clear negative impression on the people who don’t know about him or his ideologies? Why not use other words? People who fight for the right cause have always been called rebels or patriots. Then why do you have to use such a demeaning term.
As a Writer, this is my General Opinion and I have no intent to hurt anyone. As Dr.Jagandeep Singh, Member of Self Education Trust rightly said- “Martry’s Martyrdom doesn’t need mercy of any Government recognition”, his sacrifice will always be remembered and will keep on inspiring the coming generation. I feel since the matter is resolved and since the professor has issued an apology we all must end this without creating any further controversy. If you really admire Shaheed-E-Azam Sardar Bhagat Singh, carry him in your hearts and work towards a Progressive Nation.
Kanwal Singh is a Columnist, Blogger and a Civil Service Aspirant. He can be reached at singhinderpal_7007@ymail.Com