COMRADE
SHYAMJI KRISHNAVERMA
revolutionary,
secularist and anti-capitalist
Why were the
revolutionaries from Gujarat ignored by our history and literature?
Two
myths were created by the ruling elites during the freedom struggle
and after independence. First, that Gandhi and the Indian National
Congress, with the methods of non-violence and peaceful
non-cooperation and civil disobedience, were instrumental in
achieving India's independence from the much-hated British Raj.
Second, that revolutionaries such as Shyamji Krishnaverma, Bhagat
Singh and others were individual terrorists pure and simple, who
believed in bloodshed and armed robberies - just for the fun of it.
Is it, therefore, not fortunate, assert the despicable purveyors of
these myths, composed in equal part of the ignorant and the
malicious, that India adopted Gandhi's path rather than taking the
line advocated by the revolutionaries?
The
India House in London was ridiculed by Mahatma Gandhi as the “School
of violence in England
headed by Pandit Shyamji Krishnavarma”1
What
did the Mahatma say about SHYAMJI
KRISHNAVARMA AND INDIA HOUSE when he visited him in Nov.1906?2
“He
lives on the land which he has purchased. Though he can afford to
live in comfort, he lives in poverty. He dresses simply and lives
like an ascetic. His mission is service to his country. The idea
underlying his service is that there should be complete swaraj for
India and that the British should quit the country, handing over
power to Indians. If they do not do so, the Indians should refuse
them all help so that they become unable to carry on the
administration and are forced to leave. He holds that unless this is
done the people of India will never be happy. Everything else will
follow swaraj.
In
order to seek support for these views and win people over to his
faith, he has founded India House at his own cost. Any Indian student
is allowed to stay there against a very small weekly payment. All
Indians, whether Hindus, Muslims or others, can and do stay there.
The expenses of some students are borne by Shyamji himself. There
is full freedom for everyone in the matter of food and drink. “
The
attitude towards comrades from Gujarat like Shyamji Krishna Verma,
Madam Cama, S S Rana, Bhagwaticharan Vora and others is negative. The
attitude of Gandhi and Congress on the issues of adivasi struggle,
dalit movement, workers rights, women’s question were largely
reactionary and quite opposed to those held by revolutionaries.
Thanks to years of Congress rule, nobody in Gujarat knows anything
about these great communist revolutionaries and freedom fighters.
“To
get rid of the British, two schools of thought were prevalent. One
was represented by Mahatma Gandhi and the other by the
revolutionaries. And these two opinions to attain freedom were also
antagonistic. Gandhi advocated that it is only through "good"
means that lasting peace and progress can be attained and thus saw
truth as the end and nonviolence as the way. The revolutionaries,
however, held that any method, including violence, could be adopted
to achieve the aim of throwing the British out from their motherland.
Another difference between the two thoughts was that Gandhi believed
in the destruction of evil and not the evil-doer while the
revolutionaries believed in eliminating both.
Rama
Hari Shankar in his book3
has tried to explain how Gandhi influenced the thoughts of
revolutionaries and to what extent the latter supported Gandhi in his
plans to attain freedom. The revolutionaries aspired to reconstruct a
society based on justice, as they could not tolerate the way British
were playing with the Indian social, economic and political system.
They believed that a revolution was necessary to end the oppression
and exploitation of the masses.”
Hence
our revolutionaries were resisted and ignored by the Congress during
the freedom struggle and after to usher the capitalist model of
nation-building and keep the anti-capitalist ideologies at bay!
What
is the intention of the Sangh Parivar?
The
Sangh Parivar is desperately seeking to expropriate militant freedom
fighters to overcome its reactionary role during the anti-colonial
struggle. Pre-independence, the RSS was known as a Brahmin group out
to foment communal trouble or resist Dr. Ambedkar’s dalit movement.
RSS
an exclusively male organisation decided to model itself on 'Hindu
Joint Family' and on analogy with the patriarch of Hindu joint family
created the post of Sar Sangh Chala (supreme dictator). Its emphasis
was, one, physical fitness of volunteers and their training in
methods of street battles (not battles against the British Raj), and
two, it started discussion groups, the Bouddhis, where the glorified
Hindu history was (and is) shoved down the throats of trainees.
After
its formation RSS got lot of support from Brahmins/Banias, landed
aristocracy and a small section of the middle class. It concentrated
on so called 'cultural' war of spreading the Hindutva doctrine by
molecular permeation, keeping aloof from the anti British and even
went to the extent of ridiculing the 1942 Quit India Movement and
supported the British war effort. They were busy creating cadres for
their ‘social’ project of rejuvenating
Hindu society.4
They know that nobody has even ever heard of these revolutionaries -
till Mr. Modi arrived with the ashes!
A
new history of 'militant' freedom struggle is being created for the
Sangh Parivar with revolutionaries and adivasi liberation leaders
like Motilal Tejawat. They
are keen to hijack them in their fold to slowly drop into our
consciousness that all of them fought for a ‘Hindu rashtra’ and
opposed Gandhi and the Congress. They are extremely well organised
with a large network of cadres in all spheres and are very efficient
at Goebbelian propaganda; they have already managed to create the
feeling that their purely political fascist pogrom ‘Hindutva’ is
only Hinduism.
In
the emerging bi-polar polity (parliamentary democracy as duel between
the Congress and the BJP), they need to prove their anti-colonial
credentials in this republic that emerged as a result of the freedom
struggle. They know very well that there will not be even a whisper
from the Congress: keeping mum to avoid further embarrassment on
their role in the anti-colonial movement and all future efforts to
keep out revolutionaries from our history books. And
the Sangh Parivar is happily trying to appropriate the legacy of
militant freedom struggle (minus their communism and atheism)
What
did Comrade Shyamji stand for?
- Revolutionary Overthrow of British Empire
- Socialism and anti-Capitalism
- Secularism
His
famous journal “Indian Sociologist” published for over 2 decades
(since January 1905) was directly inspired by humanist Herbert
Spencer, who was quoted on the mastheads of all issues:
“Every
man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the
equal freedom of any other man.”
He
and his comrades were in touch with the Russian Marxists and deeply
influenced by Lenin. He proudly writes about the unfurling of Indian
Flag by Madam Cama and reproduces her address at the International
Socialist Congress in Stuttgart on August 18, 19075:
“Friends,
Comrades and Socialists,
I
have come here to speak for the dumb millions of Hindusthan, who are
going through terrible tyranny under the English Capitalists and the
British Government.”
He
was also closely associated with the Ghadar Party (Party of Revolt)
formed in April 1913 by the Indian revolutionaries then living in
Canada and the USA. The party was both internationalist and secular
in its outlook; it recognised the importance of revolutionary work in
the army with the aim of inciting the latter to revolt against the
British imperialist rule, and overwhelmingly drew its ranks from the
peasants turned factory workers, unlike the earlier revolutionaries
who had by and large belonged to the lower middle class
intelligentsia.
From
time to time, Ghadar published the following advertisement in its
publications:
"Wanted enthusiastic and heroic soldiers for organising Ghadar in Hindustan.
"Wanted enthusiastic and heroic soldiers for organising Ghadar in Hindustan.
Remuneration
- Death;
Reward
- Martyrdom;
Pension
- Freedom;
Field
of work - Hindustan."
In
1909, the revolutionaries struck a big blow to the British government
when Madan Lal Dhingra killed Curzen Wylie, a high-ranking British
official. Dhingra was sentenced to death and hanged in London. The
British government started keeping a very strict watch on the
revolutionary activities in London after the assassination of Wylie.
The “Sedition Committee” report in 1918 under the chairmanship of
Justice Rowlatt speaks in volumes on the activities of Com. Shyamji
and his comrades; and their links with revolutionary groups in
Russia, Germany and China.
Com.
Shyamji proudly looked upon all religious communities in India,
including Muslims, as patriotic:
“Bombay
Corporation accepts war trophy!
We
learn with regret that the Bombay Municipality has accepted a gun
captured during the late war in South Africa……..
It is
gratifying to observe and, one may say, it is a sign of the times
that of all the members of the Bombay Corporation present at the
meeting it was left for a Mahommedan gentleman to move, and for
another mahommedan gentleman to second a proposition objecting to the
acceptance of this contemptible proposal.”6
On
the issue of cow politics he felt that it was a handy tool for
the enemies. When the Amir of Afghanistan banned cow slaughtered in
Delhi in respect for feelings of devout Hindus, he wrote:
“We
wish that both Hindus and Mahomedans would on all occasions show
their good sense by following the noble example set by that mighty
ruler and thereby avoid playing into the hands of their enemies who
are ever ready to take advantage of their dissentions.”7
1
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi VOL. 19 :
29 SEPTEMBER, 1919 - 24 MARCH, 1920 p.133
2
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi VOL.
5 : 6 NOVEMBER, 1905 - 3 NOVEMBER, 1906
3
‘When Gandhi
fought the revolutionaries, review by Ivninderpal Singh’ of:
Gandhi’s Encounter with the Indian Revolutionaries by Rama Hari
Shankar (2001). Siddharth Publications, New Delhi.
4
“Founded in 1925, the RSS was organised on
authoritarian and militaristic lines and, functioning below the
surface and glorifying violence, it was developed basically as an
anti-Muslim organisation. It did not participate in the
anti-imperialist movement or wage any anti-imperialist struggle even
of its own conception on the ground that it had to conserve its
strength for its main task of protecting Hindus from Muslim
domination. It grew in northern India in the 1940s because of
communalisation of politics during the War years and large-scale
communal violence, in which it played an active role during
1946-1947.” (Bipan Chandra (1998) Jan Sangh: The BJP's
Predecessor, The Hindu, May 11)
5
Indian Sociologist Vol.1, 9 (Sept.1907)
6
Indian Sociologist Vol.1, 5 (May 1905)
7
Indian Sociologist Vol.1 No.2 (Feb. 1907)
