Welcome to Pakistan
Bhagat Singh the intellectual

Bhagat Singh the intellectual

The legacy of Bhagat Singh shouldn't be limited to being simply revolutionary but also an intellectual par...

Sher Khan March 29, 2012

A lesser appreciated aspect about Bhagat Singh, who was executed on March 23, 1931, was his intellectual prowess. In the greater context of subcontinent politics and history, Singh’s socio-political understanding showed a very nuanced and detailed insight into the future of India and the importance to transform society.

The tragedy, in the context of a Pakistan that lacks an academic culture, is that Singh’s legacy has been used to reaffirm the state narratives set in place. For some reason or another, history before 1947 has been studied in limited scope within Pakistan. In reality, Singh’s writings should be seen as an example for leaders to create a coherent vision for the nation-state.

His ideological rise was accompanied by a diverse reading list. He was well-versed in Marx, Lenin and other radical literature but also studied people such as Tom Paine, James Mill, Dostoevsky, Sinclair and a host of other authors. His available writings show a wide sophistication on a wide variety of topics.

Singh wrote:

“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.”

The greater point in Singh’s legacy has to be the emphasis that a leader should provide a long-term vision for a nation which something Singh does quite aptly through his writings. In this sense, he was far ahead of his time, dreaming of a reconstructing society in a way which a status quo ruling elite does not dominate a political system.

Further, his views on religion, economics and society provide a greater insight into the long-lineage of feudal and class domination in the subcontinent.

At a time when leaders and politicians talk about change, the relevance of this discussion is uncanny. Today, the one constant feature has been that most progressive forces continue to be stifled and suffocated. Revolutionary and radical thought as a result has been negated by a status quo that is bent upon providing compromised solutions.

As a result, the legacy of Bhagat Singh should not be limited to being simply revolutionary but also an intellectual par excellence.

Read more by Sher here, or follow him on twitter @sherakhan46.

WRITTEN BY:
Sher Khan

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necassarily reflect the views and policies of the Express Tribune.

COMMENTS (48)

Yuri Kondratyuk | 11 years ago | Reply @prabhjyot singh madan:

Sikhism was not started by Hindus.

Guru Nanak was a Hindu Bedi Kshatriya. Sikhism was largely influenced by Indian Sufism, which is a synthesis of Hindu and Islamic thoughts. The initial Sikhs were converted Hindus and Muslims. That's why Guru Granth Sahib has the poem Raga Basant written by Swami Ramananda who was a Hindu Vaishnava saint and incidentally, the guru of Kabir too. Raga Basant explicitly speaks of shedding all mundane discrimination for the sake of devotion to Rama.

Yuri Kondratyuk | 11 years ago | Reply @Critical:

Unfortunately,the Nehru administration after independence wrote our history books in such a way that people believe it was Gandhi alone who brought independence

Independence from British rule would have happened without Gandhi or anybody else. But, Gandhi's(and Sardar Patel's) credit lies in ensuring that independence didn't result in a hundred odd Indias.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Anoop | 12 years ago | Reply @Mustafa Moiz: You have proved nothing. Nada. You have said that every other Pakistani does. You defend TNT and say its a glorious theory, without seeing the glaring contradictions. You defend Jinnah without even talking about his association with Feudals(I have given an example of him partnering with thugs like Suhrawardy, which you have ignored, of course). There is indeed nothing left to say. But, I should also point out the plethora of articles in ET who say exactly what I say about TNT (I have provided one such link) but sugar coat it. Jinnah siding with Feudals and Feudals running into his arms is as clear as night and day. If you chose to ignore it, well, then its not my fault. Just one last word: If Jinnah is so secular or his vision is so clear, why do Pakistanis still debate it every other day? Why do Mullahs use Jinnah to justify their world view so as the liberals? This doesn't happen with people of the same era like Gandhi and Nehru. Their vision is clear. No debate needed. Why so much confusion? Who is right? Who is wrong? Isn't this the biggest problem of them all? Jinnah never took sides, today's Pakistan has to suffer the consequences.

Mustafa Moiz | 12 years ago | Reply @Anoop: You've said a lot of garbage and shown a lot of hypocrisy that I would like to reply to, but I'm done arguing with you. This article is fast getting old, and I'm not interesting in talking to you any longer. Throughout this discussion, what you have been doing is making a ridiculous statement, then acting as though that statement is true, and continuing on that line. You take your own definitions, which I have already shown you to be false, and pretend that that is the truth, and continue your argument on that basis. I'm done talking to you.

Anoop | 12 years ago | Reply @Mustafa Moiz: "And this is specifically a problem between Muslims and Hindus, not necessarily with other religions such as Judaism and Christianity." Utter rubbish. Muslims of India still are tied to many Hindu traditions. For example even today in Muslim marriages Henna is used prominently. Jews and Christians dont use it, but Muslims do. The Muslim marriages closely resemble a Hindu one in North India. You are just giving quite idiotic reasons to prove that Muslims and Hindus are different people. They were not, they are not. No set of Human beings are incompatible with each other, provided brotherhood is encouraged from within both Communities. While Gandhi fasted for Muslims on the streets of Kolkata, Jinnah called direct action on the Hindus. That is the major difference between 2 approaches. "And we did (or planned to) build our nation based on unity and equality, but that would not have been possible in the subcontinent without the creation of Pakistan" Even Hitler promised the moon to the Germans, that doesn't excuse him from having a wrong world view. "I don't know how you got the extension of Christians and Sikhs being extensions in the Two Nation Theory." Have you read what I written before? Have you got the gist of what I was writing? Lets not go in circles here.. "We couldn't move against the feudals because they were too powerful." And, whose fault is that? Wasn't it Jinnah himself who embraced Feudals into the Muslim League? Who was Suhrawardy, that Jinnah allied with? I know Shias are not Constitutionally discriminated like non-Muslims and Ahmadis, but they suffer a lot of injustices. For example, LeJ was given birth to by Pakistani Intelligence that you talk about to target Shias in Kashmir. What Country gives birth to intentionally target its own people!

Pakistan politics | 12 years ago | Reply Very Nice article http://707monty.blogspot.com

Mustafa Moiz | 12 years ago | Reply @Anoop: I have already talked about East Pakistan. And of course, a Muslim doesn't eat the same food as a Hindu, a Muslim ritually sacrifices an animal which is sacred to Hindus, intermarriage is extremely rare between the two religious communities, and I can go on naming the differences which make these two communities so incompatible. And this is specifically a problem between Muslims and Hindus, not necessarily with other religions such as Judaism and Christianity. And we did (or planned to) build our nation based on unity and equality, but that would not have been possible in the subcontinent without the creation of Pakistan. With the creation of Pakistan (allowing for the East Pakistan argument which I have already talked about), we could enforce ideas of unity and equality among people with whom we were much more similar. I don't know how you got the extension of Christians and Sikhs being extensions in the Two Nation Theory. You made up a line about non-Muslims being evil and so extended your own argument to Christians and Sikhs. How are Bengalis different? I am not talking about ethnicity or language. I am talking about the geographical reality of a thousand miles of Indian territory in between them. That's how they're different. The circumstances I was referring to was a hostile and already (at Partition) more powerful and well-equipped neighbour to our east, a small, and now landless, educated class (I am referring to the Muhajirs) coming as homeless, landless refugees, while the majority of West Pakistanis were under some powerful feudal lords, and so, naturally, we could not immediately work against them. Even our military, at the start, was under General Auchinleck, who would not use the military against India (I'm not saying he should or shouldn't have, I'm just illustrating the level of problems we had to face at Partition). The realities, and weaknesses, of Jinnah's Pakistan immediately prior to Partition as compared to Nehru's India, were extreme, and the hand of the Pakistani leadership was extremely weak and restrained at this point. We couldn't move against the feudals because they were too powerful. And I can ask the same of you. You're talking about Shias when our President is Shia in Pakistan? When we have had ISI, military, and national civilian heads throughout our history who have been Shia? I disagree vehemently with the declaration against Ahmadis, which by the way was done by Bhutto, a Shia, and I have said so many times. My full sympathies are with the Ahmadi community, but there isn't much I can do in my personal capacity right now. And with regards to signing the passport, I put realities and necessities above ideology, and so, even if I don't like it, I sign the document when renewing my passport.

Anoop | 12 years ago | Reply @Mustafa Moiz: You want to talk about Khalistan movement when a Sikh is PM in India? He was not just as accident, he was elected again in 2009!!! "killings of Christians in Orissa" People do bad things, yes. But, the problem starts when you Constitutionally start discriminating them. Problem multiplies when you place laws which harasses them(Blasphemy laws). Who is the most powerful woman in India? A Italian Catholic. Who is the Defence Minister? A Catholic too! There are no laws in India which discriminate, nor we have to sign shameful documents which declare Ahmadis are non-Muslims every time we renew our passport. I can honestly say I've never discriminated against anyone based on any ideoogy. Can you? One more question(that I ask most Pakistanis I come across): Do you have a passport? Aren't you ashamed of signing that shameful document and discriminating against Ahmadis, fellow Muslims?

Anoop | 12 years ago | Reply @Mustafa Moiz: Mustafa, you still dont get it, do you! TNT is a theory which essentially says two set of Human Beings are somehow so different that they cant possibly live with each other harmoniously. Its a theory based on division on man; the point of divide being Religion. In 1971, the Bengalis said, "Hey wait a minute, TNT applies to us too. We are completely different from the West Pakistanis", and broke off. You are supposed to build a Nation on the ideas of unity and equality, not pointing out how Muslims are God's own Children who are somehow different, despite the fact that they have lived together side by side(and still do in India) for ages. There have been number of columns in Express Tribune saying precisely, although sugar coated so as to not gain attention from the local Mullah. As recently as last week. http://tribune.com.pk/story/355500/a-new-two-nation-theory/ Lets not go into the fact that how much ammo the Mullah gains for his world view by propagating this precise theory. That is the reason Ahmadis are Constitutionally discriminated. Thats the reason Shias are rounded off from a bus and shot point blank. All because TNT overlaps what Mullahs have been saying all along. Muslims are special, non-Muslims are evil(This case Hindus. And, by extension Christians and Sikhs) No theory has caused so much bloodshed (Ironically, Muslim blood is spilled every time) and harm to South Asian Muslims as this. You say East Pakistan should have been a different nation from the start. Its easy to theorize when the events have already happened! How are Bengalis different? If it is ethnicity and language, then so are the Balochis! So are Sindhis. Dont you see? You should promote Unity, not divisiveness. "circumstances did not permit it." It was not circumstances, but if you look back its Jinnah's decision to side with Islamists and Feudals. Liaquat Ali Khan was his deputy, wasn't he? What did he do when Pakistan was declared an Islamic Republic? Nothing. Why didn't during Jinnah's 1 year in Pakistan, speak a single word against Feudals, when Nehru raged against them even before Partition and destroyed it in 1951? You can give as many excuses as you want, but the fact will remain that Pakistan was an ill-thought out, divisive ideology, which did more harm than good. But, I am also thankful that it indirectly saved India. To hear more about it, you can catch my piece here: http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/how-pakistan-is-good-for-india/

RAVI | 12 years ago | Reply I wish to know from my Pakistani frnds what they think about lokmanya bal gangadhar tilak for whom jinna was lawyer in court against British govt.

Mustafa Moiz | 12 years ago | Reply I could ask the same question of you. If the Two Nation Theory, or, as it is, separation based on religion is not correct, then what about the Khalistan Movement and the killings of Christians in Orissa?

Mustafa Moiz | 12 years ago | Reply @Anoop: Firstly, Sikhs and Christians. Sikhs and Christians were not mentioned because the Two Nation Theory was forwarded by Muslims, so we mentioned Muslims, the largest minority in the subcontinent, and Hindus, the majority who, in our view, whether you agree or not, had their daggers drawn towards us. Whether you agree or not is beside the point, but that was our view. And so, Sikhs and Christians did not come into that equation. If there were more than two nations, Sikhs or Christians were welcome to ask for their own nations, but that did not concern us. Secondly, about Muslim sects. This is an area where I have often said that all sects should come in, including Ahmadis. Thirdly, Bengali Muslims. You say they were discriminated against, I point out that even our physical standards in our military were relaxed to make it easier for East Pakistanis to enter (and I get this information from an Australian/British former soldier and writer). And also, as some people point out, thanks to the geographic reality, East Pakistan should have been a separate nation from the start, a separate Muslim nation in the east of the subcontinent. A third nation and a third complication was not possible during a hasty Partition, which was far from perfect. As you must know, Mountbatten also moved the date of Partition forward, and rejected Liaqat Ali Khan's earlier proposal for deciding the boundaries and territories of the new states. Now, as to religion or ethnicity. Pakistan would not be the first country to be created on the basis of religion, and as another example, I point, not to Israel, which is also there, but to Turkey, which was comprised mainly of Muslims, not just Turks, but Greek, Bulgarian, Armenian and others who escaped their homelands where they faced persecution or expulsion based on their religion. For Ataturk, it was possible to forge a strong Turkish identity to unite these different groups, and I wish it would have been possible to do the same in Pakistan, but sadly, circumstances did not permit it. And now, about the Baloch, I did not understand your point. You seem to be saying that under the Two Nation Theory, the Baloch should be a part of Pakistan.

Anoop | 12 years ago | Reply @Mustafa Moiz: "If you don’t agree with the Two Nation Theory then don’t use it to say he’s Indian. " He's certainly not a Pakistan, so he's gotta be an Indian. Why should I not point out the glaring holes in TNT to amuse myself? If he is indeed part of Pakistan, then so are many freedom fighters whom Jinnah had opposed during partition. Is it geographical area that he was born in that makes him a Pakistani? If so, thats a very narrow minded approach to nationalism. The idea of Pakistan is very incompatible with the beliefs he led his life. "And as I said, the Two Nation Theory talks about Muslims and Hindus, not Muslims and non-Muslims." Oh, that makes it a lot better and less communal! (I hope you get the sarcasm) Where to Sikhs fit in, or Christians? Do all Muslim sects come under that umbrella? Who decides who comes in? Are Ahmadis Muslims? Why were Bengali Muslims discriminated even though they were Muslims and fit the bill as per TNT? Why is the point of divide Religion? Why not ethnicity? If so, why are not Balochis considered a different nation, just like Bengalis? Too many glaring holes.

Cynical | 12 years ago | Reply You calll Bhagat Singh, a sikh, a non believer an intellectual! How is it possible for someone to be an intellectual without the knowledge of the Book?

Deb | 12 years ago | Reply @Avantika @kaalchakra: Do you know sikhism was started by hindu’s ? did you know that punjabi hindus gave their first born sons to the cause of sikhism. Sikhism is a separate religion but they are decendents of hindus. hindus get married in gurudwaras do you know ?Recommend You are preaching to the converted.There is hardly a thing under the sun that @kaalchakra isn't aware of and doesn't know about.That's his fountain of infinite wisdom which convinced him how despicable creatures the hindus are.

prabhjyot singh madan | 12 years ago | Reply @Avantika: Sikhism was not started by Hindus. If the pandits had a chance they would kill it in the stub. We were a bhagti movement initially which shot up against inequality. Sikhism is a part of India . I am proud of it too. Guru Nanak was against discrimination. It is part of history . But , please I am not Hindu but a proud Indian. Please learn history . Sat Sri akal , cheerio.take care.....in Indian independencelot of Punjabi went to jail and kala pani in Andaman.check it . Jai hind

Avantika | 12 years ago | Reply @kaalchakra: Do you know sikhism was started by hindu's ? did you know that punjabi hindus gave their first born sons to the cause of sikhism. Sikhism is a separate religion but they are decendents of hindus. hindus get married in gurudwaras do you know ?

Mustafa Moiz | 12 years ago | Reply @Anoop: If you don't agree with the Two Nation Theory then don't use it to say he's Indian. And as I said, the Two Nation Theory talks about Muslims and Hindus, not Muslims and non-Muslims.

prabhjyot singh madan | 12 years ago | Reply The message of bhagat Singh, bismil, mohammad ram Singh , etc should be respected. These departed souls belong to humanity for their high ideals. Please don't denigrate their sacrifice as a battle of ownership between India and Pakistan. Sat Sri akal , salam, cheers . Take care everyone. Have a nice day

Anoop | 12 years ago | Reply @Mustafa Moiz: I don't really ascribe to the flawed Two-Nation theory. I think thats balderdash. Correction: Two-Nation theory said there are 2 nations one Muslim another non-Muslim. For a proponent of TNT, he would naturally fall under the category of Indian. For me he is an Indian. Period.

Mustafa Moiz | 12 years ago | Reply @Anoop: There were two nations in India, one Muslim and the other Hindu. Now which category did Bhagat Singh fall under?

kaalchakra | 12 years ago | Reply Anoop This is most basic stuff. Almost all Pakistani brothers and sisters would like the 'revolutionary for justice" part about him. Some would like the "atheist revolutionary" part. His not being a "Hindu" helps tremendously. BTW, he was a great guy. Everyone should be welcome to admire him. Does not mean we agree with him on everything.

Imran Kamyana | 12 years ago | Reply A tribute to Ram Parsad Bismil, the writer of "sarfaroshi ki tamanna." He was hanged in 1927 for his Marxist views. Bhagat Singh used to sing those verses in his last days. http://www.struggle.com.pk/%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B1-%D9%BE%DA%BE%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B3%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%B1-%D8%AC%DA%BE%D9%88%D9%84-%DA%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7-%D9%84%DB%8C%DA%A9%D9%86-%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D8%A2%D8%AC-%D8%A8%DA%BE/

Anoop | 12 years ago | Reply @Samad Khan: I am just putting forward my observations. I've not said anything which is untrue. Feel free to correct if so. I am a great fan of many Pakistanis, so dont get me wrong. What caught my eye was the appreciation for a lone Indian Freedom Fighter when many others were also around. If you like an Indian who is no more, good for you.

Critical | 12 years ago | Reply @Anoop: Love towards Bhagat Singh is an exclusive right to Indians alone...In fact,even a Britisher can love him even though he fought against their rule 80 yrs ago....Havent u seen the hero-worship of Che Guevera among American youth?? You cannot dictate others what they should love and what they shouldnt... F.Y.I I'm an indian

Mustafa Moiz | 12 years ago | Reply @manish: I just said what I thought about the article, I neither know nor do I care what his age was.

manish | 12 years ago | Reply @Mustafa Moiz: sir, before saying that it is poorly written and is hypocritical, did you try to acknowledge what was his age at that time: only 23 and 6 months.. at that age we are just worried about girls or jobs, when he succeeded in galvanising youth of country and had attained that intellectual level, and was pondering over god's existense.. can i ask you what you had achieved by the age of 23 years?

Samad Khan | 12 years ago | Reply @Anoop: Pakistanis Like Bhagat Singh but not people like you. Find out why he is liked here instead of blaming us. Go do your exercise. Just because you appear here and post against pakistan and Pakistanis will not qualify for love .

Nida | 12 years ago | Reply @Mustafa Moiz: but he would have chosen to migrate to india after partition had he lived. coz he was born to sikh parents.

Mustafa Moiz | 12 years ago | Reply @Pakistani Hindu: Having read this objectively, I find it poorly written and Bhagat Singh's own reasoning to be, at best, the same as that of the religious peoples he criticizes, at worst, less logical and hypocritical.

Anoop | 12 years ago | Reply @Mustafa Moiz: Jinnah had said that 2 nations already reside in India(even before partition). One Muslim and the other non-Muslim. Thats the basis of 2 nation theory, isn't it? So, if we follow Jinnah's theory Bhagat Singh is an Indian, not Pakistan. By that extension people like Bose, Nehru and Gandhi have also fought for freedom and spent decades in British Jails and have sacrificed their lives for India(Pakistan included). Nobody likes them in Pakistan, do they! They like feudal lords and lawyers who got what they wanted without spending a day in jail due to their proximity to the British.

Critical | 12 years ago | Reply @from india: After NDA came to power in 1997,there were lot of changes in our history textbooks,what is dubbed as saffornising History and then after UPA came back,they again changed the history books... This sacrilege was done in 2006.here is the link http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/NM13/ICSE-textbook-calls-Bhagat-Singh-a-terrorist/Article1-122512.aspx What is the more worrying fact is that Mohammed Ghanzi and Ghori's exploits are detailed in our textbooks but quite recently I read that Ghori attacked Prithviraj Chauhan and begged for forgiveness when he was defeated...but still came back with a stronger army and didnt show any mercy when he defeated Prithviraj Also,our textbooks devote chapters on each Mughal King,but nowhere did they mention about Shivaji and the brave Sikhs who fought against Islamification of India.... Same goes to our freedom struggle...Its all how Congress was formed and how it fought under Mahatma Gandhi...I'm not a critic of Gandhi,in fact,I respect him a lot...But I feel that others should also been given their place in history... My first real history lesson came from the series of articles "History in Black and White" published in Frontline,a weekly magazine from "The Hindu" group..

Mustafa Moiz | 12 years ago | Reply @Anoop: What's so interesting? And he was Indian because the name Pakistan was not yet used for the area which is today called Pakistan.

from india | 12 years ago | Reply @ Critical - which ICSE book named Bhagat Singh and others as terrorists ? i have passed ICSE in 2003 and I have never come across anything like this. Infact there was nothing mentioned about Bhagat Singh in the first place. Thanks to the Congress party which had manipulated history like anything !!

Imran Kamyana | 12 years ago | Reply He was hanged on 23 of March alongside his comrade Sukhdev and Raj Guru. These were the real hero of independence movement who struggled to get rid of exploiter and exploitative system i.e Capitalism! 23مارچ 1931کو سامراجیوں نے لاہور ہی میں، جدو جہدِ آزادی کے عظیم شہید بھگت سنگھ کو 23سال کی عمر میں اپنے انقلابی ساتھیوں سکھ دیو اور راج گرو سمیت تختہ دار پر لٹکادیا۔اپنی آخری تقاریر میں سے ایک میں بھگت سنگھ کہتا ہے’’میں ایسی ہر آزادی کو مسترد کرتا ہوں جس کے بعد برطانوی استحصالیوں کی جگہ مقامی حکمران لے لیں۔حقیقی آزادی صرف اور صرف سوشلسٹ انقلاب کے ذریعے حاصل کی جا سکتی ہے‘‘۔بھگت سنگھ کا مشن ابھی ادھورا ہے اور تاریخ نے یہ ذمہ داری نئی نسل کے کندھوں پر ڈالی ہے۔ http://www.struggle.com.pk/bankruptcy-of-two-nation-theory/

Ansar Khwaja | 12 years ago | Reply Wow, at-least in India Baghat singh is part of popular discourse while pakistanis here could care less.

Anoop | 12 years ago | Reply Bhagat Singh- Indian, Atheist, Revolutionary. Quite unlike the people Pakistanis normally like. Interesting.

hariharmani | 12 years ago | Reply @Raw is War: Sardar was voted the greatest Indian in 2008",India To Day" ahead of Netaji Bose and Gandhi.He is a mythical figure like legendary Shivaji,Rana Pratap and Guru Govind Singh,I will put Emperor Akbar too there as greatest 6 Indians along with Mr Jinnah.Mr Jinnah is very badly understood in India not to speak of Pakistan.

KDP | 12 years ago | Reply Let us not forget Rajguru and Sukhdev fellow freedom fighters who also were hung at the same time and I believe side by side with Bhagat Singh. Very few people remember them

Critical | 12 years ago | Reply @Raw is War: Unfortunately,the Nehru administration after independence wrote our history books in such a way that people believe it was Gandhi alone who brought independence.. M K Gandhi was given a demi-god status.This was done to gain support to Congress in elections and in fact the fake Gandhis still use their name.. The efforts of Bhagat Singh,Azad,Asfaqullah,Bismil were all supressed...In fact,in an ICSE textbook,they were referred to as terrorists...All because they were once a staunch supporter of Gandhian ideology and then realised that freedom struggle under Gandhi will take forever and true freedom will not come to the poor unless we adopted a socialist movement. Similarly,RSS and its leader V.D.Savarkar were referred to as anti-nationals when they actually fought for an united India and prevent Muslim League from breaking India.... We criticise Pakistan of altering history when we ourselves have done the same..Its time we gave the heroes the place in history... Raj Kumar Santhoshi did a wonderful work in the movie "The Legend of Bhagat Singh"..However,the movie wasnt received well than the mindless romantic comedies....

RiffyR | 12 years ago | Reply Wow, this is something I never knew!

Raw is War | 12 years ago | Reply @Sher Khan Bhagat Singh is a much loved figure in India. Even ahead of Gandhi and Nehru for most Indians.

antony | 12 years ago | Reply Unbelievable .. I cant believe Bhagat singh was such a honest and brave person intellectually who advocates humans to go by reason and critical thinking rather than blind faith..I am very grateful for the author and the above commentator to reveal such a sterling character for me. I learned Darwin's theory through youtube animated videos and countless easy to understand videos..Here is a person who read it through book version and on his own effort to seek the truth ..I believe Jesus advocated just this ( "Seek the truth and the truth will set you free ") as recorded in bible.

muhammad sarmad | 12 years ago | Reply Bhagat singh is treated badly and deliberately ignored in our history books because he was an atheist.The narrative that our society has developed is that to be a nice,good,heroic person, you must have been a deeply religious one also.To those in power pakistani heroes can only be people who were religious.Bhagat singh was an avowed atheist,he made no apologies for it and it is for this that he has been deliberately sidelined from our school books and popular discourse.

sohaib mahmoud | 12 years ago | Reply Why I am athiest? is an underrated piece of work. Kudos to tribune for promoting progressive thought!

Pakistani Hindu | 12 years ago | Reply Must read http://www.shahidbhagatsingh.org/index.asp?link=atheist

Pamirfalcon | 12 years ago | Reply All genuine revolutionaries are intellectuals as they understand society better than others. link text

sadaf Khan | 12 years ago | Reply This is an amazing piece. It is sad that people don't respect Baghat Singh and have commercialized him.

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

Bhagat Singh the intellectual

More by this writer

FOLLOW US