The Clemency Effort for Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru A Comment

By Anil Nauriya

[I] INTRODUCTION

An impression has been sought to be created that Gandhi not only did not do enough to save Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru from the gallows but also sought mere postponement of their execution. In recent years one writer, A G Noorani, has especially furthered this impression. Other writers tend mechanically to repeat this idea. { A recent review by the historian K N Panikkar of two books, (one by S Irfan Habib and another by Kuldip Nayar) refers to “Gandhiji’s reluctance to intercede with the Viceroy to save their life” and also to “Gandhiji’s plea at least to postpone the execution” (The Hindu, February 5, 2008) . } As is shown below, both statements within quotes are based on a mis-appreciation of the facts. Some of the films on Bhagat Singh and his comrades which appeared in recent years were, in a few aspects, not quite free of the tendencies underlying such writings.

Yet a re-examination of this scholarship, rather than its mere repetition, is overdue. Gandhi did not seek “postponement” of the execution of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru as has been suggested. He sought commutation of the sentence upon them. [ See Gandhi’s letter dated March 23, 1931 to Viceroy Irwin, Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 45, pp. 333-334 ]

In the Gandhi-Irwin talks the Viceroy had been reluctant to commute the sentence. So Gandhi urged in addition that in view of execution being an “irretrievable act” which would be “beyond recall” ( both Gandhi’s expressions), Irwin should “suspend for further review” the carrying out of this ultimate penalty.

In his book on the subject, A G Noorani left out the line in Gandhi’s March 23, 1931 letter relating to “suspend for further review”. Other writers have apparently been repeating the error.Asking for “postponement of execution” would imply ( and that is how it would be commonly understood) that instead of execution on a particular date the execution should take place on another date. Gandhi’s fallback position, in the face of commutation not being immediately possible, is “suspend for further review”. This is by no means “postpone and then execute”, as has been erroneously suggested, but (if one insists on using the word postponement) “postpone and reconsider”.

The next part contains an outline of some of the issues involved in the clemency debate. The final part contains further details along with some references. For more exhaustive references the reader is referred to my two articles in Mainstream, New Delhi, April 6, 1996 and March 22, 1997 where the matter has been examined at length.

[II] AN OUTLINEThe clemency power existed both with the Punjab Governor and the Viceroy of India.

A police officer had been shot dead. The then Viceroy Irwin was therefore under pressure from the police and the civil service not to intervene to prevent the execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev.Even while the Privy Council in London was to deal with the matter, there was, in December 1930, a revolutionary attempt on the life of Geoffrey de Montmorency, the then Governor of Punjab. This could not have made the Governor more sympathetic towards the clemency idea.

Gandhi was released from prison in the last week of January 1931.He immediately announced that those under death sentence ought not to be hanged.In the following month Gandhi attended Motilal Nehru’s funeral at Allahabad. Soon after that Gandhi asked Tej Bahadur Sapru, M R Jayakar and V S Srinivas Sastri, all of whom wielded influence with the Viceroy, to prevent the hanging of Bhagat Singh and his comrades.In a way it is in these efforts of Sapru, Jayakar and Srinivas Sastri that the Gandhi-Irwin Pact had its origin. The Viceroy was already under severe pressure as mentioned above. But the only way to prevent the hanging was to come to an understanding with the Viceroy.

After the Privy Council decision in the matter in February 1931, the Secretary of State in London sent a message to the Viceroy in India saying that he would be “glad to know” of the date of execution. Such pressure from London limited the Viceroy’s options further.

In the effort to get the sentence on Bhagat Singh commuted, Gandhi came into contact with Bhagat Singh’s father. Gandhi was in touch also with Asaf Ali who had appeared as a Barrister for Bhagat Singh and his comrades.Asaf Ali in fact brought to Gandhi a draft clemency petition “as from Bhagat Singh” addressed to the Punjab Government. Gandhi put aside the draft and drew up a fresh draft more in keeping with the self-respect of Bhagat Singh.On March 23, 1931 Gandhi woke up at 1.00 am to write a letter to Irwin in yet another last minute effort to save the life of Bhagat Singh and his comrades. In his letter Gandhi wrote, inter alia : “Execution is an irretrievable act. If you think there is the slightest chance of error of judgement, I would urge you to suspend for further review an act that is beyond recall.”. Some writers have claimed that when Gandhi uses the word “suspend” he was asking merely for postponement, because the latter word occurs in some official documents of the time. But the lines in Gandhi’s letter showed clearly that this was not so as Gandhi was stressing that execution would be “an irretrievable act”, and “an act beyond recall”. Anyone can see that the effort here is for non-execution.

There is a lesson in this for all aspiring scholars. Never accept something merely on the authority of a writer or publisher. Always check the original sources.

Subhas Bose, who was in touch with Gandhi during this period, wrote in his work “Indian Struggle” that Gandhi tried his very best for Bhagat Singh and his comrades.The Viceroy Irwin admitted in a speech at Maiden’s Hotel, Delhi three days after the execution of Bhagat Singh that Gandhi had made a forceful request for commutation. The revolutionaries themselves acknowledged Gandhi’s efforts in the first biography of Bhagat Singh by J N Sanyal which appeared soon after the execution.

[III] THE EVENTS IN MORE DETAIL ALONG WITH SOME REFERENCES

I have listed here also some facts which tend to be neglected by writers on the subject.

i. Gandhi was conscious of the curtailment of rights of those tried by the

Tribunal set up under the Lahore Ordinance. On May 4, 1930 Gandhi wrote

to the then Viceroy Irwin referring to the abandonment of ordinary criminal

procedure in the trial of Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Shaheed Sukhdev and

Shaheed Rajguru as a “veiled form of martial law” (CWMG, Vol 43, p 391).

ii. May 5, 1930 to January 26, 1931 : Gandhi was himself in prison. This fact is

seldom mentioned in accounts on Shaheed Bhagat Singh. The hazards of

working with secondary materials are exemplified in the case of one work

which, without mentioning Gandhi’s own incarceration, seems to make a

grievance of the fact that Gandhi did not visit Bhagat Singh and his comrades

in prison.

iii. October 1, 1930 : When Gandhi was in prison, the Servants of the People

Society was active on behalf of Bhagat Singh and his comrades. It contacted

Henry Polak, Gandhi’s friend from his South Africa days, who was in

England. On October 1, 1930 Polak replied to Sir Moti Sagar on legal

representation in the Shaheed Bhagat Singh case before the Privy Council.

Polak who was now practising as a solicitor in England, offered his legal

services free of charge. He suggested that D.N. Pritt and Sydney Smith be

engaged in the case. Pritt and Smith were later engaged in accordance with

this advice. [For National Archives reference, see my article in Mainstream,

March 22, 1997]

iv. October 7, 1930 : Tribunal sentences Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and

Sukhdev to death.

v. December 23, 1930 : At a time when the appeal to the Privy Council was to

be dealt with, the Governor of Punjab Geoffrey de Montmorency was shot

and wounded in Lahore. Two police officers and one lady doctor were also

injured. [Indian Annual Register, 1930, Volume 2, p. 45] The Governor’s

opinion was to count in the matter of commutation of sentence.

vi. January 26, 1931 : Gandhi released from prison.

vii. January 31, 1931 : Speech by Gandhi at Allahabad saying that those

under death sentence should not be hanged. (CWMG, Vol 45, p. 133).

viii. February 14, 1931 : Gandhi sent Mahadev Desai to Tej Bahadur Sapru to see

if they could “help prevent hanging of Bhagat Singh”. [Mahadev Desai Diary

(Gujarati series) Vol. 14, pp 43-44]

ix. Also on February 14, 1931 : Gandhi sent Mahadev Desai similarly to V.S.

Srinivas Sastri to seek support for the clemency effort. [Mahadev Desai Diary

(Gujarati series) Vol. 14, pp 43-44] Gandhi appears similarly to have sent

Mahadev Desai to M.R. Jayakar to seek support for the clemency effort.

[Mahadev Desai Diary (Gujarati series) Vol. 14, pp 43-44]. (The Gandhi-

Irwin pact in the first week of March 1931 was brought about by mediation

of Sapru, Srinivas Sastri and Jayakar).

x. February 18, 1931 : In the talks with Viceroy Irwin, Gandhi asks for

“suspension of sentence” as a “humanitarian issue”. (CWMG Vol 45, p. 200)

The reference to “humanitarian issue” clearly shows that Gandhi was not

asking for bare postponement of execution as some writers have erroneously

suggested. “Suspension of sentence” is a term of law and under S 401 of the

old Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, which was then in existence, the

sentence could be indefinitely suspended. Faced with resistance to the

commutation idea, Gandhi had suggested this course. This has been loosely

referred to as “postponement”. In fact Gandhi’s fallback position was not

“postpone and execute” but “suspend in order to reconsider”

xi. February 27, 1931 : The Privy Council in London having meanwhile

rejected the case filed on behalf of Bhagat Singh, a telegram was sent by the

Secretary of State, London to the Home Department, Government of India,

New Delhi, summarising the Privy Council judgment. In the telegram the

Secretary of State indicated that he would be “glad to know” of the date of

execution. [This telegram is in the National Archives and I have given the

complete reference in my article in Mainstream on March 22, 1997.] Such

pressure from London, clearly served to restrict the Viceroy’s room for

maneuver.

xii. March 7, 1931 : Gandhi’s speech at Delhi saying, inter alia, “I cannot in all

conscience agree to anyone being sent to the gallows, much less a brave

man like Bhagat Singh” (CWMG, Vol. 45, p. 273).

xiii. March 8, 1931 : A large meeting was held in Lahore under auspices of

Naujawan Bharat Sabha. Gurdas Mal, the father of Hari Kishan who had

attempted the assassination of the Punjab Governor, was produced and

lionised at this meeting. Such events, which were taking place even as

Gandhi was trying to extract a commutation decision from the Viceroy, could

not have made Gandhi’s task easier.

xiv. March 19, 1931 : Emerson, the Home Secretary of the Government of India,

records Gandhi’s comment that execution of Bhagat Singh would “seriously

complicate matters” concerning the Gandhi-Irwin pact (CWMG, Vol. 45,

p.445).

xv. March 21, 1931 : Gandhi put aside Asaf Ali’s draft petition as from Bhagat

Singh to the Punjab Government and prepared a fresh draft in keeping with

the self-respect of Bhagat Singh. Asaf Ali took this draft to Lahore.

[Mahadev Desai Diary (Gujarati series) Vol 14, p. 166]

xvi. Also on March 21, 1931 : Gandhi’s further plea to Irwin for commutation of

sentence. (Internal evidence of Gandhi’s letter of March 23, 1931 to Irwin).

xvii. March 23, 1931 : Gandhi’s letter to Irwin seeking reconsideration of the

death sentence on Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru. Gandhi

pointed out that execution “is an irretrievable act”. He referred to his

request for commutation made two days earlier. Gandhi again

requested Irwin to at least suspend “for further review an act that is

beyond recall”. [CWMG, Vol 45, pp 333 –334] Gandhi offered to go and

see Irwin again for this purpose if his presence was necessary.

In this letter Gandhi also wrote : “ In the present case the chances are

that, if commutation is granted, internal peace is most likely to be

promoted. In the event of execution, peace is undoubtedly in danger.”

In the face of this, it is erroneous to argue that Gandhi did not try to

obtain commutation of the sentence.

xviii. March 26, 1931 : Speech by Irwin in Delhi acknowledging Gandhi’s forceful

request for commutation and fact of having listened to Gandhi making such

request, thus confirming yet again that such request was made prior to March

23, 1931 (Gandhi and Irwin had not met on March 23). [ Indian Annual

Register, 1931, Volume 1, p. 86]

xix. Revolutionary acknowledgement of Gandhi’s efforts. (J.N. Sanyal, Sardar

Bhagat Singh : A Short Life Sketch, 1931 at p. 97) J N Sanyal was the brother

of the revolutionary Sachindranath Sanyal.

xx. Threat of revolt by civil service if Bhagat Singh and comrades not hanged.

(Account by Kranti Kumar, one of the earliest members of Naujawan Bharat

Sabha and a leader of a demonstration against Gandhi, published in Homage

to Martyrs, 1981) [For detailed reference see my article in Mainstream, March

22, 1997] The role of the Civil Service in thwarting clemency efforts also

confirmed by J.N. Sanyal, in a subsequent (1983) edition of Sardar Bhagat

Singh : A Short Life Sketch, pp 73-74.

xxi. Aruna Asaf Ali states in Fragments From the Past: Selected Writings And

Speeches of Aruna Asaf Ali, Patriot Publishers, New Delhi, 1989, p. 102

that the Punjab Governor threatened to resign if Bhagat Singh and his

comrades were not executed.

xxii. One additional matter requires to be cleared up. Some writers have mentioned

a passage from Pattabhi Sitaramayya’s History of the Congress, without

understanding or explaining its context. After recording Gandhi’s efforts at

commutation of sentence, Sitaramayya had written that Gandhi told the

Viceroy that “..if the boys should be hanged they had better be hanged before

the Congress, than after.” [Sitaramayya, 1935 edition , p. 745 ( italics added)]

Some writers used this to arraign Gandhi. But this reference actually proves

the opposite. Gandhi was seeking commutation of sentence. But when the

Viceroy said that all he could offer was to postpone the sentence to until after

the Karachi session, the passage shows that Gandhi rejected such bare

postponement.

It is sufficiently clear that Gandhi asked Irwin to commute the sentence, that

is to substitute a lesser sentence for the death sentence. Irwin himself on

March 26, 1931 confirmed the fact of this request. And Gandhi’s letter

dated March 23, 1931 is also evidence of this.

xxiii. Subhas Bose in his “Indian Struggle 1920-1934” (Calcutta, 1948, p. 285)

admits that Gandhi did “try his very best” to “save the lives of these

youngmen”. Gandhi’s efforts were known also to Tej Bahadur Sapru,

Srinivas Sastri and M.R. Jayakar who had kept in touch with the Viceroy.

They were also known to Bhagat Singh’s lawyer, the eminent freedom

fighter, Asaf Ali and to Bhagat Singh’s father both of whom had kept in

touch with Gandhi during this period.

xxiv. Since the commutation request did not seem to work in the face of pressure

that Irwin was facing from London and also from the British police and civil

service in India, Gandhi had suggested a way out. This was to suspend the

sentence for further review. This is a power which was specifically provided

for in S 401 of the then Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to the

Government of India and Provincial Governments. Such suspension can be

indefinite as to time. Every lawyer knows that this does not mean a mere

postponement of execution. It means non-enforcement and possibly a

further reconsideration of the sentence itself. Pattabhi Sitaramayya’s,

The History of the Congress, [1935 edition, p. 745 ] shows that when

Gandhi was offered bare postponement of the execution until after the

Karachi Congress to be held in the last week of March 1931, he rejected the

idea.

xxv. Subhas Bose accepts that the spirit of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact required non-

execution of Bhagat Singh and his comrades, although this was not an express

condition. Bose records that “the execution was against the spirit if not the

letter of the Delhi Pact”. [Bose, Indian Struggle 1920-34, Calcutta, 1948,

p.285]