To Young Political Workers
[Written on February 2, 1931, this document is a sort of
behest to young political workers of India. At that time the talk of some sort
of compromise between the Congress and the British Government was in the air.
Through this document Bhagat Singh explained as to when a compromise is
permissible and when it is not. He also made out that the way Congress is
conducting the movement it was bound to end in some sort of compromise. After
analysing to the conditions then prevailing, he finally advised the youth to
adopt Marxism as the ideology, work among the people, organize workers and
peasants and form the Communist Party.
After Bhagat Singh's execution this document was
published in a mutilated form. All references to Soviet Union, Marx, Lenin and
the Communist Party were carefully deleted. Subsequently, the GOI published it
in one of its secret reports in 1936. A photostat copy of the full report is
preserved in the library of the Martyrs' Memorial and Freedom Struggle Research
Centre at Lucknow.]
To The Young Political Workers.
DEAR COMRADES
Our movement is passing through a very important phase at
present. After a year's fierce struggle some definite proposals regarding the
constitutional reforms have been formulated by the Round Table Conference and
the Congress leaders have been invited to give this …think it desirable in the present circumstances to call
off their movement. Whether they decide in favour or against is a matter of
little importance to us. The present movement is bound to end in some sort of
compromise. The compromise may be effected sooner or later. And compromise is
not such ignoble and deplorable an thing as we generally think. It is rather an
indispensable factor in the political strategy. Any nation that rises against
the oppressors is bound to fail in the beginning, and to gain partial reforms
during the medieval period of its struggle through compromises. And it is only
at the last stage — having fully organized all the forces and resources of the
nation — that it can possibly strike the final blow in which it might succeed
to shatter the ruler's government. But even then it might fail, which makes
some sort of compromise inevitable. This can be best illustrated by the Russian
example.
In 1905 a revolutionary movement broke out in Russia. All
the leaders were very hopeful. Lenin had returned from the foreign countries
where he had taken refuge. He was conducting the struggle. People came to tell
him that a dozen landlords were killed and a score of their mansions were
burnt. Lenin responded by telling them to return and to kill twelve hundred
landlords and burn as many of their palaces. In his opinion that would have
meant something if revolution failed. Duma was introduced. The same Lenin
advocated the view of participating in the Duma. This is what happened in 1907.
In 1906 he was opposed to the participation in this first Duma which had
granted more scope of work than this second one whose rights had been
curtailed. This was due to the changed circumstances. Reaction was gaining the
upper hand and Lenin wanted to use the floor of he Duma as a platform to
discuss socialist ideas.
Again after the 1917 revolution, when the Bolsheviks were
forced to sign the Brest Litovsk Treaty, everyone except Lenin was opposed to
it. But Lenin said: "Peace". "Peace and again peace: peace at
any cos t— even at the cost of many of the Russian provinces to be yielded to
German War Lord". When some anti-Bolshevik people condemned Lenin for this
treaty, he declared frankly that the Bolsheviks were not in a position to face
to German onslaught and they preferred the treaty to the complete annihilation
of the Bolshevik Government.
The thing that I wanted to point out was that compromise is
an essential weapon which has to be wielded every now and then as the struggle
develops. But the thing that we must keep always before us is the idea of the
movement. We must always maintain a clear notion as to the aim for the
achievement of which we are fighting. That helps us to verify the success and
failures of our movements and we can easily formulate the future programme.
Tilak's policy, quite apart from the ideal i.e. his strategy, was the best. You
are fighting to get sixteen annas from your enemy, you get only one anna.
Pocket it and fight for the rest. What we note in the moderates is of their
ideal. They start to achieve on anna and they can't get it. The revolutionaries
must always keep in mind that they are striving for a complete revolution.
Complete mastery of power in their hands. Compromises are dreaded because the
conservatives try to disband the revolutionary forces after the compromise from
such pitfalls. We must be very careful at such junctures to avoid any sort of
confusion of the real issues especially the goal. The British Labour leaders
betrayed their real struggle and have been reduced to mere hypocrite
imperialists. In my opinion the diehard conservatives are better to us than
these polished imperialist Labour leaders. About the tactics and strategy one
should study life-work of Lenin. His definite views on the subject of
compromise will be found in "Left Wing" Communism.
I have said that the present movement, i.e. the present
struggle, is bound to end in some sort of compromise or complete failure.
I said that, because in my opinion, this time the real
revolutionary forces have not been invited into the arena. This is a struggle
dependent upon the middle class shopkeepers and a few capitalists. Both these,
and particularly the latter, can never dare to risk its property or possessions
in any struggle. The real revolutionary armies are in the villages and in
factories, the peasantry and the labourers. But our bourgeois leaders do not
and cannot dare to tackle them. The sleeping lion once awakened from its
slumber shall become irresistible even after the achievement of what our
leaders aim at. After his first experience with the Ahmedabad labourers in 1920
Mahatma Gandhi declared: "We must not tamper with the labourers. It is
dangerous to make political use of the factory proletariat" (The Times,
May 1921). Since then, they never dared to approach them. There remains the
peasantry. The Bardoli resolution of 1922 clearly denies the horror the leaders
felt when they saw the gigantic peasant class rising to shake off not only the
domination of an alien nation but also the yoke of the landlords.
It is there that our leaders prefer surrender to the
British than to the peasantry. Leave alone Pt. Jawahar lal. Can you point out
any effort to organize the peasants or the labourers? No, they will not run the
risk. There they lack. That is why I say they never meant a complete
revolution. Through economic and administrative pressure they hoped to get a
few more reforms, a few more concessions for the Indian capitalists. That is
why I say that this movement is doomed to die, may be after some sort of
compromise or even without. They young workers who in all sincerity raise the
cry "Long Live Revolution", are not well organized and strong enough
to carry the movement themselves. As a matter of fact, even our great leaders,
with the exception of perhaps Pt. Motilal Nehru, do not dare to take any
responsibility on their shoulders, that is why every now and then they
surrender unconditionally before Gandhi. In spite of their differences, they
never oppose him seriously and the resolutions have to be carried for the
Mahatma.
In these circumstances, let me warn the sincere young
workers who seriously mean a revolution, that harder times are coming. Let then
beware lest they should get confused or disheartened. After the experience made
through two struggles of the Great Gandhi, we are in a better position to form
a clear idea of our present position and the future programme.
Now allow me to state the case in the simplest manner. You
cry "Long Live Revolution." Let me assume that you really mean it.
According to our definition of the term, as stated in our statement in the
Assembly Bomb Case, revolution means the complete overthrow of the existing
social order and its replacement with the socialist order. For that purpose our
immediate aim is the achievement of power. As a matter of fact, the state, the
government machinery is just a weapon in the hands of the ruling class to
further and safeguard its interest. We want to snatch and handle it to utilise
it for the consummation of our ideal, i.e., social reconstruction on new, i.e.,
Marxist, basis. For this purpose we are fighting to handle the government
machinery. All along we have to educate the masses and to create a favourable
atmosphere for our social programme. In the struggles we can best train and
educate them.
With these things clear before us, i.e., our immediate and
ultimate object having been clearly put, we can now proceed with the
examination of the present situation. We must always be very candid and quite
business-like while analysing any situation. We know that since a hue and cry
was raised about the Indians' participation in and share in the responsibility
of the Indian government, the Minto-Morley Reforms were introduced, which
formed the Viceroy's council with consultation rights only. During the Great
War, when the Indian help was needed the most, promises about self-government
were made and the existing reforms were introduced. Limited legislative powers
have been entrusted to the Assembly but subject to the goodwill of the Viceroy.
Now is the third stage.
Now reforms are being discussed and are to be introduced in
the near future. How can our young men judge them? This is a question; I do not
know by what standard are the Congress leaders going to judge them.
But for us, the revolutionaries, we can have the following
criteria:
1.
Extent of
responsibility transferred to the shoulders of the Indians.
2. From of the Government institutions that are going to be introduced and the extent of the right of participation given to the masses.
3. Future prospects and the safeguards.
2. From of the Government institutions that are going to be introduced and the extent of the right of participation given to the masses.
3. Future prospects and the safeguards.
These might require a little further elucidation. In the
first place, we can easily judge the extent of responsibility given to our
people by the control our representatives will have on the executive. Up till
now, the executive was never made responsible to the Legislative Assembly and
the Viceroy had the veto power, which rendered all the efforts of the elected
members futile. Thanks to the efforts of the Swaraj Party, the Viceroy was
forced every now and then to use these extraordinary powers to shamelessly
trample the solemn decisions of the national representatives under foot. It is
already too well known to need further discussion.
Now in the first place we must see the method of the
executive formation: Whether the executive is to be elected by the members of a
popular assembly or is to be imposed from above as before, and further, whether
it shall be responsible to the house or shall absolutely affront it as in the
past?
As regards the second item, we can judge it through the
scope of franchise. The property qualifications making a man eligible to vote
should be altogether abolished and universal suffrage be introduced instead.
Every adult, both male and female, should have the right to vote. At present we
can simply see how far the franchise has been extended.
I may here make a mention about provincial autonomy. But
from whatever I have heard, I can only say that the Governor imposed from
above, equipped with extraordinary powers, higher and above the legislative,
shall prove to be no less than a despot. Let us better call it the
"provincial tyranny" instead of "autonomy." This is a
strange type of democratisation of the state institutions.
The third item is quite clear. During the last two years
the British politicians have been trying to undo Montague's promise for another
dole of reforms to be bestowed every ten years till the British Treasury
exhausts.
We can see what they have decided about the future.
Let me make it clear that we do not analyse these things to
rejoice over the achievement, but to form a clear idea about our situation, so
that we may enlighten the masses and prepare them for further struggle. For us,
compromise never means surrender, but a step forward and some rest. That is all
and nothing else.
HAVING DISCUSSED the present situation, let us proceed to
discuss the future programme and the line of action we ought to adopt. As I
have already stated, for any revolutionary party a definite programme is very
essential. For, you must know that revolution means action. It means a change
brought about deliberately by an organized and systematic work, as opposed to
sudden and unorganised or spontaneous change or breakdown. And for the
formulation of a programme, one must necessarily study:
1. The goal.
2. The premises from where were to start, i.e., the existing conditions.
3. The course of action, i.e., the means and methods.
2. The premises from where were to start, i.e., the existing conditions.
3. The course of action, i.e., the means and methods.
Unless one has a clear notion about these three factors,
one cannot discuss anything about programme.
We have discussed the present situation to some extent. The
goal also has been slightly touched. We want a socialist revolution, the
indispensable preliminary to which is the political revolution. That is what we
want. The political revolution does not mean the transfer of state (or more
crudely, the power) from the hands of the British to the Indian, but to those
Indians who are at one with us as to the final goal, or to be more precise, the
power to be transferred to the revolutionary party through popular support.
After that, to proceed in right earnest is to organize the reconstruction of
the whole society on the socialist basis. If you do not mean this revolution,
then please have mercy. Stop shouting "Long Live Revolution." The
term revolution is too sacred, at least to us, to be so lightly used or
misused. But if you say you are for the national revolution and the aims of
your struggle is an Indian republic of the type of the United State of America,
then I ask you to please let known on what forces you rely that will help you
bring about that revolution. Whether national or the socialist, are the
peasantry and the labour. Congress leaders do not dare to organize those
forces. You have seen it in this movement. They know it better than anybody
else that without these forces they are absolutely helpless. When they passed
the resolution of complete independence — that really meant a revolution — they
did not mean it. They had to do it under pressure of the younger element, and
then they wanted to us it as a threat to achieve their hearts' desire —
Dominion Status. You can easily judge it by studying the resolutions of the
last three sessions of the Congress. I mean Madras, Calcutta and Lahore. At
Calcutta, they passed a resolution asking for Dominion Status within twelve
months, otherwise they would be forced to adopt complete independence as their
object, and in all solemnity waited for some such gift till midnight after the
31st December, 1929. Then they found themselves "honour bound" to
adopt the Independence resolution, otherwise they did not mean it. But even
then Mahatmaji made no secret of the fact that the door (for compromise) was
open. That was the real spirit. At the very outset they knew that their
movement could not but end in some compromise. It is this half-heartedness that
we hate, not the compromise at a particular stage in the struggle. Anyway, we
were discussing the forces on which you can depend for a revolution. But if you
say that you will approach the peasants and labourers to enlist their active
support, let me tell you that they are not going to be fooled by any
sentimental talk. They ask you quite candidly: what are they going to gain by
your revolution for which you demand their sacrifices, what difference does it
make to them whether Lord Reading is the head of the Indian government or Sir
Purshotamdas Thakordas? What difference for a peasant if Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru
replaces Lord Irwin! It is useless to appeal to his national sentiment. You
can't "use" him for your purpose; you shall have to mean seriously
and to make him understand that the revolution is going to be his and for his
good. The revolution of the proletariat and for the proletariat.
When you have formulated this clear-cut idea about your
goals you can proceed in right earnest to organize your forces for such an
action. Now there are two different phases through which you shall have to
pass. First, the preparation; second, the action.
After the present movement ends, you will find disgust and
some disappointment amongst the sincere revolutionary workers. But you need not
worry. Leave sentimentalism aside. Be prepared to face the facts. Revolution is
a very difficult task. It is beyond the power of any man to make a revolution.
Neither can it be brought about on any appointed date. It is brought can it be
brought about on an appointed date. It is brought about by special
environments, social and economic. The function of an organized party is to
utilise an such opportunity offered by these circumstances. And to prepare the
masses and organize the forces for the revolution is a very difficult task. And
that required a very great sacrifice on the part of the revolutionary workers.
Let me make it clear that if you are a businessman or an established worldly or
family man, please don't play with fire. As a leader you are of no use to the
party. We have already very many such leaders who spare some evening hours for
delivering speeches. They are useless. We require — to use the term so dear to
Lenin — the "professional revolutionaries". The whole-time workers
who have no other ambitions or life-work except the revolution. The greater the
number of such workers organized into a party, the great the chances of your
success.
To proceed systematically, what you need the most is a
party with workers of the type discussed above with clear-cut ideas and keen
perception and ability of initiative and quick decisions. The party shall have
iron discipline and it need not necessarily be an underground party, rather the
contrary. Thought the policy of voluntarily going to jail should altogether be
abandoned. That will create a number of workers who shall be forced to lead an
underground life. They should carry on the work with the same zeal. And it is
this group of workers that shall produce worthy leaders for the real
opportunity.
The party requires workers which can be recruited only
through the youth movement. Hence we find the youth movement as the starting
point of our programme. The youth movement should organize study circles, class
lectures and publication of leaflets, pamphlets, books and periodicals. This is
the best recruiting and training ground for political workers.
Those young men who may have matured their ideas and may
find themselves ready to devote their life to the cause, may be transferred to
the party. The party workers shall always guide and control the work of the
youth movement as well. The party should start with the work of mass
propaganda. It is very essential. One of the fundamental causes of the failure
of the efforts of the Ghadar Party (1914-15) was the ignorance, apathy and
sometimes active opposition of the masses. And apart from that, it is essential
for gaining the active sympathy of and of and organising the peasants and
workers. The name of party or rather,* a communist party. This party of
political workers, bound by strict discipline, should handle all other
movements. It shall have to organize the peasants' and workers' parties, labour
unions, and kindred political bodes. And in order to create political
consciousness, not only of national politics but class politics as well, the
party should organize a big publishing campaign. Subjects on all proletens enlightening the masses of the socialist theory shall be
wit in easy reach and distributed widely. The writings should be simple and
clear.
There are certain people in the labour movement who enlist
some absurd ideas about the economic liberty of the peasants and workers
without political freedom. They are demagogues or muddle-headed people. Such
ideas are unimaginable and preposterous. We mean the economic liberty of the
masses, and for that very purpose we are striving to win the political power.
No doubt in the beginning, we shall have to fight for little economic demands
and privileges of these classes. But these struggles are the best means for
educating them for a final struggles are the best means for educating them for
a final struggle to conquer political power.
Apart from these, there shall necessarily be organized a
military department. This is very important. At times its need is felt very
badly. But at that time you cannot start and formulate such a group with
substantial means to act effectively. Perhaps this is the topic that needs a careful
explanation. There is very great probability of my being misunderstood on this
subject. Apparently I have acted like a terrorist. But I am not a terrorist. I
am a revolutionary who has got such definite ideas of a lengthy programme as is
being discussed here. My "comrades in arms" might accuse me, like Ram
Prasad Bismil, for having been subjected to certain sort of reaction in the
condemned cell, which is not true. I have got the same ideas, same convictions,
same convictions, same zeal and same spirit as I used to have outside, perhaps
— nay, decidedly — better. Hence I warn my readers to be careful while reading
my words. They should not try to read anything between the lines. Let me
announced with all the strength at my command, that I am not a terrorist and I
never was, expected perhaps in the beginning of my revolutionary career. And I
am convinced that we cannot gain anything through those methods. One can easily
judge it from the history of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association.
All our activities were directed towards an aim, i.e., identifying ourselves
with the great movement as its military wing. If anybody has misunderstood me,
let him amend his ideas. I do not mean that bombs and pistols are useless,
rather the contrary. But I mean to say that mere bomb-throwing is not only
useless but sometimes harmful. The military department of the party should
always keep ready all the war-material it can command for any emergency. It
should back the political work of the party. It cannot and should not work
independently.
On these lines indicated above, the party should proceed
with its work. Through periodical meetings and conferences they should go on
educating and enlightening their workers on all topics. If you start the work
on these lines, you shall have to be very sober. The programme requires at
least twenty years for its fulfillment. Cast aside the youthful dreams of a
revolution within ten years of Gandhi's utopian promises of Swaraj in One Year.
It requires neither the emotion nor the death, but the life of constant
struggle, suffering and sacrifice. Crush your individuality first. Shake off
the dreams of personal comfort. Then start to work. Inch by inch you shall have
to proceed. It needs courage, perseverance and very strong determination. No
difficulties and no hardships shall discourage you. No failure and betrayals
shall dishearten you. No travails (!) imposed upon you shall snuff out the
revolutionary will in you. Through the ordeal of sufferings and sacrifice you
shall come out victorious. And these individual victories shall be the valuable
assets of the revolution.
LONG LIVE REVOLUTION
==========================
2nd February, 1931
2nd February, 1931
Transcription/Source: www.shahidbhagatsingh.org
HTML Markup: Mike B. for MIA, 2006
Copyright: © Shahidbhagatsingh.org. Published on MIA with the permission of Shahidbhagatsingh.org and Shahid Bhagat Singh Research Committee.
HTML Markup: Mike B. for MIA, 2006
Copyright: © Shahidbhagatsingh.org. Published on MIA with the permission of Shahidbhagatsingh.org and Shahid Bhagat Singh Research Committee.
Comments