Bhagat Singh: A Fighter For Indian Independence
- Mar 23
- 6 min read
On the evening of 23rd March, 1931, three young men walked towards the gallows in Lahore Central Jail. Witnesses later recalled that they did not resist, did not plead, and did not falter. One of them, Bhagat Singh, reportedly called out “Inquilab Zindabad” – “Long live the revolution” – as the noose was placed around his neck. He was 23 years old.
It is easy, with hindsight, to reduce Bhagat Singh to a symbol. In India today, his name appears on posters, statues, and school textbooks, often presented as a straightforward martyr of the independence movement. But the reality of his life is far more complex. He was not only a revolutionary but also a disciplined political thinker, a reader of European socialist theory, and a young man shaped by a particular moment in colonial history when protest, repression, and radicalisation were deeply intertwined.
To understand Bhagat Singh properly, it helps to begin not with his death, but with the environment he was born into.
Early Life in a Politically Charged Punjab
Bhagat Singh was born on 28th September, 1907, in Banga, a village in the Punjab region of British India, now part of Pakistan. His family was already deeply involved in anti-colonial politics. His father, Kishan Singh, and his uncles were associated with the Ghadar Party, a revolutionary organisation formed by Indian expatriates that advocated armed rebellion against British rule.
This was not an abstract political influence. Singh grew up in a household where conversations about independence were routine, and where resistance to British authority was not simply discussed but expected. His early life coincided with a particularly tense period in Punjab, where British policies had created both economic strain and political unrest.
One of the most formative events in his childhood came in 1919 with the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar. British troops, under the command of General Dyer, opened fire on a large gathering of unarmed civilians, killing hundreds. The massacre sent shockwaves across India. For the twelve-year-old Bhagat Singh, it appears to have had a lasting psychological effect. According to later accounts, he visited the site shortly afterwards and collected soil soaked with blood, keeping it as a reminder of British violence.
From an early age, then, his political identity was shaped not only by ideology but by lived experience.
Education and the Formation of a Political Mind
Singh’s education also played an important role in his development. He attended the National College in Lahore, an institution founded by Lala Lajpat Rai as an alternative to British-controlled education. The college encouraged nationalist thinking and exposed students to a wide range of political ideas.
It was here that Singh began to read extensively, engaging with the works of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and other socialist thinkers. He was not simply absorbing ideas passively. He was actively forming a worldview that combined anti-imperialism with a broader critique of economic inequality.
In one of his later writings, he would state: “Revolution is not the cult of bomb and pistol. It is the spirit of freedom, of equality, and of justice.”
This distinction is important, because Singh is often remembered primarily for acts of violence. Yet his own writings suggest that he saw these actions as symbolic rather than purely destructive.
The HSRA and the Turn to Revolutionary Action
By the mid-1920s, Singh had become involved with the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA), a group committed to overthrowing British rule through revolutionary means. The organisation believed that political independence alone would not be enough; it also sought to establish a socialist republic that addressed class inequality.
The turning point in Singh’s revolutionary activity came in 1928. That year, the British government sent the Simon Commission to India to discuss constitutional reforms. The commission was widely criticised because it contained no Indian members, leading to protests across the country.
In Lahore, a demonstration led by Lala Lajpat Rai was met with police violence. Rai was severely beaten during the protest and died weeks later from his injuries. His death became a rallying point for nationalists.
Singh, along with his associates, decided to retaliate. Their plan was to assassinate James A. Scott, the police officer believed to be responsible for ordering the lathi charge that led to Rai’s death. However, in a case of mistaken identity, they killed J.P. Saunders, a junior officer, instead. As they fled the scene, Head Constable Channan Singh pursued them through the streets of Lahore. In the confusion that followed, he was shot and killed by Chandrashekhar Azad, who was covering the escape. The incident underlined how quickly the situation had escalated beyond a single targeted killing, becoming a broader and more chaotic confrontation with colonial authority.
The Saunders Assassination and Life on the Run
The killing of Saunders and Singh marked a significant escalation. Singh was now a wanted man. He fled Lahore, reportedly cutting his hair and shaving his beard to avoid recognition, a notable step given the cultural importance of uncut hair in Sikhism.
For several months, he remained underground, moving between safe houses and relying on a network of supporters. Yet rather than retreating permanently, he began planning an act that would bring his message directly into the public sphere.
The Central Legislative Assembly Bombing
On 8th April, 1929, Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt entered the Central Legislative Assembly in Delhi and threw two low-intensity bombs into the chamber. The bombs were deliberately designed not to kill but to create noise and disruption.
Leaflets were scattered, and slogans were shouted as smoke filled the room. Singh later explained the intention behind the act: “It takes a loud voice to make the deaf hear.”
Rather than escaping, both men surrendered. This decision transformed the incident into a political statement. The subsequent trial became a platform for Singh to articulate his ideas, and his image began to circulate widely in newspapers across India.
Prison, Hunger Strikes, and Political Writings
During his imprisonment, Singh’s political thinking became even more visible. He undertook a prolonged hunger strike to protest the treatment of Indian prisoners, who were subjected to harsher conditions than their British counterparts.
The strike lasted over two months and drew significant public attention. It also highlighted broader issues of inequality within the colonial prison system.
At the same time, Singh wrote extensively. His essays and letters reveal a young man deeply engaged with questions of ideology, religion, and social justice. In his essay “Why I Am an Atheist,” he rejected religious belief, arguing that reliance on divine intervention was incompatible with revolutionary thought.
He wrote: “The idea of God is helpful to man in distress… But I deny the existence of an all-powerful God.”
These writings complicate the image of Singh as a purely nationalist figure. He was not simply seeking independence from Britain; he was advocating for a reorganisation of society along socialist lines.
Trial, Sentencing, and Execution
The British authorities charged Singh in connection with both the Saunders murder and the Assembly bombing. The trial process was widely criticised for its procedural irregularities, including the use of a special tribunal that limited the defendants’ ability to appeal.
On 7th October, 1930, Singh, along with Sukhdev Thapar and Shivaram Rajguru, was sentenced to death.
Public reaction in India was immediate and widespread. Protests were organised, petitions were submitted, and political leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi, faced pressure to intervene. Gandhi did raise the issue with the British authorities, but no clemency was granted.
The executions were carried out on 23rd March, 1931, ahead of the scheduled date, reportedly to avoid public unrest. The bodies were secretly cremated by the authorities, but news quickly spread.
Legacy and Historical Interpretation
In the years that followed, Bhagat Singh’s legacy took on a life of its own. For some, he represented the militant edge of the independence movement, in contrast to Gandhi’s non-violent approach. For others, he was a symbol of youthful idealism and sacrifice.
His influence extended beyond his immediate actions. His writings continued to circulate, shaping discussions about socialism and revolution in India. He became, in many ways, a bridge between anti-colonial nationalism and broader leftist politics.
It is also worth noting that Singh’s legacy has been interpreted in different ways over time. In post-independence India, various political groups have sought to claim him, emphasising different aspects of his thought. Some focus on his nationalism, while others highlight his commitment to socialism and secularism.
What remains consistent, however, is the sense that Bhagat Singh represents a particular kind of political engagement. He was not content with gradual reform or limited concessions. He believed in fundamental change, and he was willing to accept the consequences of that belief.
As one contemporary observer noted, “He did not merely die for a cause; he thought for it, argued for it, and lived it.”
Today, Bhagat Singh is commemorated across India, particularly on 23rd March, often referred to as Shaheed Diwas, or Martyrs’ Day. Streets, institutions, and films bear his name. Yet behind the commemorations lies a more complex figure: a young man who read widely, wrote critically, and acted decisively in a time when the future of India was still uncertain.
His story, when looked at closely, is less about martyrdom and more about the intellectual and political currents that shaped a generation. It is a reminder that independence movements are not only fought in the streets, but also in classrooms, in books, and in the minds of those who imagine a different kind of society.
Comments