Thursday, March 27, 2008

Bhagat Singh was a CPM revolutionary

What next? He died fighting Hindu fundamentalism? It takes incredible talent to come out with these kind of stories. That is what makes the "eminent historians".

The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Bhagat Singh as seen by Ramasami Periyar
Periyar saw in young Bhagat Singh an ally who stood for rationalism and spoke against caste oppression. He was clear that Bhagat Singh’s principle represented socialism and communism ...
Even I am clear in my mind that Karl Marx was a staunch Hindu and stood for upholding the principles of Sanatana Dharma. Does that change anything?
Ramasami Periyar was inspired by similar sentiments and was engaged in the 1930s in organising industrial and agriculture workers to fight against the big capitalists and landlords. This struggle invited the wrath of the colonial government leading to the ban on Communist Party and other like minded organisations.
Does it not make the communists look like they were leading the independence movement? I will post a detailed one on the communist involvement shortly.

Bhagat Singh was not only against communal and divisive politics, he hated and mocked at the Indian caste system, which makes the people untouchable on the basis of their birth in a particular caste. He reiterated in his writings and statements that all exploitations-economic, social or cultural, had to go if we want to build a strong nation. Echoing these views in his own way, Periyar wrote further in the editorial that “to abolish untouchability we have to abolish the principle of upper and lower castes. In the same manner, to remove poverty we have to do away with the principle of capitalists and wage-earners. So socialism and communism are nothing but getting rid of these concepts and systems. These are the principles Bhagat Singh stood for.”
Why does it appear to me that I am reading the biography of an Indian communist? I suspect this paragraph has been lifted and the communist name replaced with Bhagat Singh. Communal and divisive politics sounds pretty much like CPM manifesto, doesn't it. Gives me the impression that BJP was more powerful than British at that time.

Bhagat Singh’s ideal and supreme sacrifice has the potential to enliven millions of struggling lives. Like Che Guevara, Bhagat Singh will
continue to inspire all those who are committed to secular socialist values and reject the caste based hierarchical society.
Why does the author not stop with "secular socialist values" but add "reject the caste based hierarchical society"? Did he have to write a minimum number of words for his article to be complete? Or did he have to fulfill some grammatical construct criteria? Or is he trying to suggest Bhagat Singh's fascination for some desert cult?


Anonymous said...

Just as "Bharat Ratna" award has been democratised by awarding it retrospectively, Bhagat Singh can also be awarded "Pagutharivu Singam" (retrospective award, handed retrospectively by EVR). The fact that he was not a "Dravidian" does not matter.

Dirt Digger said...

Socialism and communism are nice concepts to read in the book. But there is no single place in history where it was implemented successfully. Its idealistic, impractical and puts power into a very small set of goons.
Periyar was a hypocrite who preached rationalism while there were idols of God in the house where he lived and his family were devout people.
If a person cannot convert his own family, then his qualifications are suspect.