IN DEFENCE OF THE MARTYRS AND IN ALLIANCE WITH THEM

The assassination of the perpetrators of State crime by patriots like Kshudiram, Prafulla Chaki, Madanlal Dhingra, Udham Singh, Bhagat Singh and the like was the radical consequence of the anger of the Indians suffering the torment of barbarous British tyranny. It was in character distinct from mass movement for national liberation which the Gandhian movement eminently was and this is a well-recognised fact, but it was by no means revolutionary adventurism as may be implied from the oft-quoted but unsubstantiated Leninist stance then in relation to brother Aleksandr's attempt to assassinate the then Tsar Alexander III, for it was the precursor to later developments along violent revolutionary lines on a much more widespread basis, earliest of which being that of the Balasore armed struggle of Bagha Jatin and his comrades (1915) followed by the Chittagong Armoury Raid (1930) and finally, the last war of Indian independence fought by the INA led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which eventually dealt the death-blow to the British empire and brought it to its knees liberating India and leading, thereby, to the liberation of a host of colonised countries.

Manhood as evident in extreme nationalism of the day need not be denigrated as mere selective public killing for it violates the spirit of freedom-seeking as enshrined in the endeavour of these valorous souls who in exalted, intrepid mood carried out the executions when justice there was none in the occupying imperial system pretending to render the rule of law which it had usurped in the first place. The so-called terrorist outfits like Anushilan Samity and Jugantar through these assassinations made the environs so hot for the British that they had to hurry off in panic to the safer resort of New Delhi before extremist organisations like the Hindustan Republican Association hit them hard again making them scurry for cover under dubious legislation facilitating barbarous treatment of the natives that reduced the children of the gods to beasts of burden. Gandhi's seminal work of mass mobilisation along the unique line of non-violent struggle has been hailed the world over as the legitimate mode of struggle for an unarmed people against titanic State power in opposition but does in no way dim the lustre of the selfless sacrifice of the martyrs who carried the bullet to its rightful destination and sent a shudder through the heart of the oppressive recipient of it all. Rather, these singular acts of courage and conviction shone like beacons in the path of the masses who were in no way constitutionally capable of such daring but, nonetheless, sought inspiration from the self-sacrifice of these virile youths. That Gandhi organised the masses successfully to give cohesion and direction to the freedom movement can in no way be doubted but it remains to be seen when it will be that the citizens of free India in vast numbers read the true history of independent India perceptively to give the recognition that is due to the builders of their freedom, violent, non-violent et al. Till then, passing superficial judgement on the revolutionaries of hallowed memory not only does them the gravest injustice but is a pointer to the calamitous cowardice that has overcome the land fabled for kshatriya valour, the Bharat that exhorted Arjuna to take up arms in the Battle of Kurukshetra with the flaming words of that prince of patriots, Krishna,"Cast off this unmanliness and mean faintness of spirit and arise in battle, O scorcher of thy enemies."

In the Second World War the countries under Nazi occupation frequently resorted to sabotage and other resistance activities to disrupt the smooth functioning of the Nazi forces. Such activity was not aimed at winning the war but did go a long way in helping the Allied Powers deal the Germans the death-blow in battle. Resistance is a natural and an essential part of the struggle for freedom of an occupied people and is looked upon with pride in virile European races and not cast aspersions upon as in hapless India that has forgotten its martial past when it was dharma to resist evil through armed uprising.

The same detractors of violent revolution including Gandhi quote copiously from the Bhagavad Geeta to uphold their non-violent principles while torturing the text of the scripture beyond recognition to suit their pseudo-philosophical ends. That Vivekananda was clearly in favour of a violent revolution wherever it might have been necessary but was also equally aware of the limitations of a totally disarmed people striving to strike off the colonial fetters using violence makes for contrasting interpretations of what he might have espoused for India had he lived on to see India suffer worse ignominies at the hands of the British. From his own statements we may infer conflicting emotions and an equal support for both violence and non-violence as the dual means of liberation of the motherland. There are copious quotes of Vivekananda which may be adduced to bear his broad sympathies for the national cause using both methods and, therefore, it will be limiting the Swami if one cites any of these as being Swamiji's specific stand on the liberation movement however well one may prop up the case by citing holy instances as being suggestive of the veracity of one's proposition. Sister Nivedita had taken up her own stand on the issue and so had the venerable disciples of Ramakrishna on the same although conflict of interest had somewhat pitted them on opposite sides of the fence, never in spirit but only in concrete socio-political terms, and rightly so, for the Ramakrishna Mission in its nascent state had to be protected from the ire of the British masters and also because the entire focus of the Mission from its inception was strictly spiritual, and exclusively so, irrespective of the fact that its founder, Swami Vivekananda, was so volcanic a personality that he often erupted against the iniquities of the times and urged concrete action against the British government, even violent action as was aptly articulated by his words to Bal Gangadhar Tilak,"What the country needs today is a bomb." To therefore suggest that Vivekananda's position was against indiscriminate bomb-throwing takes the discussion off its former focus and makes it an exercise in frivolity, for who ever suggested in the first place that a thinker of Vivekananda's stature would chalk out a terrorist agenda by way of the modus operandi for national liberation? But does it, therefore, in any way prove that he would have been in favour of the debilitating stance of the Mahatma right till the end of the freedom struggle that effectively precipitated the partition of the motherland? Would he not have severely upbraided any such attempt at inducing passivity into the people to the extent that they would forget to rightfully take up arms against an oppressive regime the like of which history has few parallels to offer? Would the magnanimous messiah have thus spoken disparagingly of the very souls he had inspired with his flaming words, thunderbolts that had sent hundreds to the gallows smilingly and hundreds of thousands to terrible confinement and banishment with a heart full of love and a soul full of sacrifice for the motherland so dear to them that nothing could dare deter their resolve to free her off her shackles even if the direst consequences awaited them in every step of the way? No, no, he was too vast a soul himself, too complex for ordinary understanding, too valorous for cowards to comprehend but easy of access to the valiant ones that bled for the motherland, freed her and then were banished a second time by their future children who broke off umbilical links from their illustrious predecessors. Now, if banished they stand in so many estimations, banished stands Vivekananda in solidarity with them. Jai Hind!