V.I. Lenin in his seminal work State and Revolution (1917) unequivocally stated:
"What is now happening to Marx's theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the 'consolation' of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it."
Lenin made this observation in the context of Marxism, but it carries a universal resonance. A similar fate has befallen the ideas, contributions and sacrifices of the Indian revolutionary Bhagat Singh. A recent example is an article by Bhagwan Josh, 'Why Bhagat Singh was not a Marxist Thinker' (The Tribune, March 23, 2026), which concluded with the claim that 'the fact remains that Bhagat Singh was hanged not for his revolutionary ideas but for committing a murder of a British officer.' It is notable that The Tribune chose to publish this piece on the 95th anniversary of the martyrdom of Bhagat Singh and his comrades Rajguru and Sukhdev — a publication that had once remained steadfastly supportive of the revolutionaries when they were alive.
Bhagwan Josh invokes names such as Antonio Gramsci, Bipin Chandra and Harish Puri to buttress his argument. Gramsci and Bipin Chandra are no longer alive to respond, but readers may be curious whether Professor Harish Puri — whose work is cited — also holds the view that Bhagat Singh was not a revolutionary. Harish Jain has since responded with 'Why Bhagat Singh Defies Easy Labels' (The Tribune, March 26, 2026), recalling that in an earlier Punjabi work, Bhagat Singh da Markasvad, Josh himself had located 'Bhagat Singh within the distinct Leninist current that was emerging in Punjab between 1928 and 1931, an intellectual formation grounded in study, debate and ideological seriousness, and set apart from what he saw as the more pragmatic and often anti-intellectual strands within Indian communism.'
One of Josh's criticisms is that Bhagat Singh's writings lack 'perfunctory references to the sources or books from which these notes and quotes were taken,' leaving, in his words, 'a rather perplexing question mark with regard to the authentic source.' This objection mistakes the conditions of Bhagat Singh's life for a scholarly failing. Bhagat Singh was not a doctoral candidate at a university; he was engaged in the project of liberating his country from colonial rule. According to British official documents, he spent 716 days in prison, during which he consulted or read approximately 302 books, and was proficient in English, Urdu, Hindi and Punjabi. Outside prison, he worked as a researcher and journalist. He embodied the Gramscian dictum — arrived at independently — that 'it is necessary to think and study even under the most difficult conditions… to keep the risk of intellectual degradation at bay.'
Bhagat Singh read not to compose a doctoral proposal for Oxford or Cambridge, but to understand the world and India in order to challenge the mightiest imperial power of his time and replace it with a system where, in his words, 'men do not exploit men.' That is precisely what serious political thinking looks like.
Josh poses another question: 'But what sort of Marxism did Bhagat Singh imbibe from his readings? Did this Marxism help him in any way to get some insight into the contemporary politics of Indian nationalism, working class movements and the immediate historical social reality around him? A mastery of Marxism that is merely an exercise in the appropriation of textual discourse must remain a Brahmanical Marxism.' The charge is puzzling in light of what Bhagat Singh actually wrote. He died at twenty-three, yet produced: Universal Love (Hindi, 1924), Youth (Hindi, 1925), Religious Riots and Their Solution (Punjabi, 1927), Religion and Our Freedom Struggle (Punjabi, 1928), The Issue of Untouchability (Punjabi, 1928), Satyagrah and Strikes (Punjabi, 1928), Students and Politics (Punjabi, 1928), New Leaders and Their Duties (Punjabi, 1928), Lala Lajpat Rai and Youth (Punjabi, 1928), What is Anarchism? Parts 1–3 (Punjabi, 1928), The Revolutionary Nihilists of Russia (Punjabi, 1928), Ideal of Indian Revolution (English, 1930), Why I Am an Atheist (English, 1930), The First Rise of Punjab in the Freedom Struggle (Urdu, 1931), Introduction to Dreamland (English, 1931) and Letter to Young Political Workers (English, 1931). The Manifesto of Naujawan Bharat Sabha and the Manifesto of Hindustan Socialist Republican Army were drafted by Bhagwati Charan Vohra and finalised after consultation with Bhagat Singh. To describe this body of work as 'Brahmanical Marxism' is to ignore it entirely. Bhagat Singh developed Marxism in the context of Indian realities. As Marx himself said, future generations would come and prove him wrong — that is how Marxism as a science survives.
Josh also dismisses the Ghadar movement as a failure and argues that Bhagat Singh, 'instead of learning a lesson from its tragic failure, blindly followed the example of the Ghadarites.' This reading conflates defeat with futility. The refusal to acknowledge the significance of a resistance movement because it did not prevail militarily is a stance with some unfortunate company. The most prominent RSS ideologue, M. S. Golwalkar, expressed a similar sentiment when he wrote:
"There is no doubt that such men who embrace martyrdom are great heroes and their philosophy too is pre-eminently manly. They are far above the average men who meekly submit to fate and remain in fear and inaction. All the same, such persons are not held up as ideals in our society. We have not looked upon their martyrdom as the highest point of greatness to which men should aspire. For, after all, they failed in achieving their ideal, and failure implies some fatal flaw in them." [Bunch of Thoughts, M. S. Golwalkar]
Finally, Josh makes the claim that the uprising of 1857 — more accurately described as a nationwide liberation war that continued for over three years — was defeated by British forces and Sikh troops. This is an oversimplification that the historical record does not support. There are abundant contemporary documents showing that Punjab and Sikhs played a significant role on both sides of the conflict. It was not only Sikh ruling families in Punjab who sided with the British; prominent Hindu and Muslim families across Punjab did so as well. This was no different from the pattern across the rest of India, where the rulers of Gwalior, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kota, Bhopal, Dhar and many other native states joined the British in suppressing the uprising.
Bhagat Singh and his comrades continue to be synonymous with the idea of Indian revolution. That is precisely why efforts to diminish their legacy recur with such regularity. Marxism survives; so will Bhagat Singh's heritage.
---
Shamsul Islam's writings are available at: http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam; Facebook: https://facebook.com/shamsul.islam.332; Twitter: @shamsforjustice; http://shamsforpeace.blogspot.com/; Books: https://tinyurl.com/shams-books
Comments