Martyrs, Mahatma and Media

From the perspective of India’s freedom movement, 1929 was a salient year: this marked the end of the ‘conservative and constitutional era’ of Motilal Nehru. The baton of the Congress presidency was passed on to his son, Jawaharlal, whose views were radical and in sharp contrast to those of the old guard. The demand was no longer for Dominion Status—the younger Nehru unfurled the tricolour on the banks of the Ravi on December 19, and asked for Purna Swaraj (complete, unfettered Independence). Our protagonist, Virender, was in fact arrested one day before the Congress session, where he was making arrangements for the session as a young volunteer.

Inqilab Zindabad

Earlier that year, the Imperial government had legislated the controversial Public Safety Bill with its retrospective stipulations. Although the Central Assembly, under the leadership of Vithalbhai Patel (Sardar’s elder brother), had rejected the Bill, Viceroy Irwin approved it by using his extraordinary powers. This was the spur for the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army to ‘make the deaf hear’: two of its leading members—Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt—hurled smoke bombs in the Assembly. No one was harmed—for that was never the intention—but ‘Inqilab Zindabad’ reverberated in the Assembly, even as they stood their ground to offer themselves for arrest.

The HSRA was not just against British rule; it envisaged a revolution to ‘ring the death knell of capitalism, class distinction and privileges’. But while the revolutionaries were willing to make any sacrifice for their country, they were not ready to compromise on their dignity. The barbaric prison conditions saw them undertaking fasts unto death to ensure that they were treated like human beings. In fact, when the Bengal revolutionary Jatin Das became a martyr to the cause, it galvanized not only the nation but also friends and supporters in Ireland, who too had made fasting into a potent political weapon.

While acknowledging the bravery, patriotism and willingness to sacrifice their lives for their nation, the Mohans also point out that the objectives of these young men and women were rarely accomplished on account of lack of training, financial constraints and the machinations of the state, which included a biased judiciary, a pliant administration and a repressive police force. Also, one must not forget that even while there was popular support for the revolutionaries, the most organised political opinion in the country, led by the Congress, rejected their ‘non-violent approach’.

Thus, even Jawaharlal Nehru, who was quite enamoured of the revolutionaries, could not defy the diktat of the Mahatma, who wanted to lead the country to Swaraj through Satyagraha. In the chapter ‘The Bomb: Cult or Philosophy’, the Mohans tell us that in response to the Mahatma’s article ‘Cult of the Bomb’, published in Young India in January 1930, Bhagat Singh and Bhagwati Charan Vohra wrote The Philosophy of the Bomb. According to them, their actions were designed not to harm anyone, but ‘to shock people out of apathy and instil fear in oppressors’.

A newer nuance to the Gandhi–Irwin Pact

A lot has been written about Gandhi’s failure to get a reprieve for Bhagat Singh in the course of the Gandhi–Irwin Pact. We learn from the authority of Virender that there was indeed a possibility after the Gandhi–Irwin meeting, but when faced with a virtual revolt from his own officialdom, who threatened to resign if clemency was shown to Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, Irwin backtracked. This nuance of an important aspect of our history is hardly known even to those who have studied this period in great detail.

AG Noorani also tells us that ‘the weapon (hunger strike) which Bhagat Singh and his associates used, and which was to win them acclaim, was distinctly Gandhian’. So rather than cast them as binaries, the Mohans aver: ‘in the course of history, the exploits of the two men who defined India’s freedom struggle with actions that were a nod to the country’s pluralism continue to co-exist... in the year-long farmers’ agitation, the ideals of Gandhi and Bhagat Singh coalesced again... their legacies, contrasting yet enduring, continue to stand tall’.

The martyrdom of Bhagat Singh

The day of Bhagat Singh’s execution is etched so clearly in Virender’s memory, for he too was in Lahore jail on March 23 under the stringent Regulation III of 1818. The three revolutionaries had refused to sign a mercy petition; on the contrary, they told the authorities that as they had been accused of waging war against the King and the country, they should be treated as PoWs and shot instead of being hanged.

Such was their aura that the hanging was advanced by a day, a special magistrate had to be requisitioned, and everyone—from the barber to the head warder—broke down. But the revolutionaries hugged each other, and all the inmates chanted Inqilab Zindabad as they kissed the gallows. The confirmed atheist that he was, Bhagat Singh refused to acknowledge any God or Wahe Guru even during the last moments of his life. Bhagat Singh’s niece tells us that the last book that he was reading was The Life of Lenin.

Pratap – the defiant newspaper

Let’s now get back to Pratap—the defiant newspaper. From its very inception, it spoke truth to power—and whether it was the British Governors of Punjab, or the Unionist government of Sir Sikandar Hyat Khan, or Khizr Hyat Tiwana, or the Congress government of Pratap Singh Kairon in independent India, the editorial policy was free, fair and absolutely frank. Thus, it was during the Emergency period that Mrs Gandhi’s fierce censorship rules took exception even to blank editorial spaces.

Governments handle the media in two ways: patronage through government advertisements, and control through a host of regulatory agencies. Liberalisation also took its toll on independent newspapers—for those backed by business houses also set up TV channels, and cross-subsidised the losses in the media by gaining concessions elsewhere. A policy tweak in their main line of business—be it infrastructure or energy or tariff lines for their preferred commodities—gave higher returns than a reader-subscription model. As they say, who pays the piper decides the tune!

One must also mention that after the creation of Punjabi Suba, most governments had a definite bias against the Hindi press of Jalandhar, for they had all been in favour of Maha Punjab. Even when the BJP was a junior alliance partner with the Akali Dal, the discrimination continued, and when the state was under the shadow of terrorism, very few papers had the guts and the gumption to speak truth to power. Pratap was one of them, but finally, after a run of 99 years, Vir Pratap published its final edition on 31 March 2017, for ‘passionate journalism’, as Virender and his son Chander Mohan (and the co-author) knew it, was over. In their own words: ‘(journalism) in the past was based on ideology and ideals; now it is entirely business... big companies with crores were coming in, and we just couldn’t compete with them’.

Well, the print edition of Pratap can perhaps not be revived, but the story of defiance will continue to inspire all those who believe that ideas will outlast not just political empires and totalitarian regimes, but also those who believe that money controls everything! It’s time for Pratap to resurrect itself online, with readers taking the lead role as citizen journalists and contributing their editorial comments.

Pratap is dead, long live Pratap!