People's Democracy

(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)

Vol. XXX

No. 13

March 26, 2006



"Our Purpose Was To Make The Deaf Hear"

Bhagat Singh's Statement in the Sessions Court


Bhagat Singh (standing fourth from right) along with the cultural group of National College Lahore


The following is the text of the statement of Bhagat Singh and B K Dutt in the Assembly Bomb Case read in the Court on June 6, 1929, by Asaf Ali on behalf of Bhagat Singh and B K Dutt. This was meant as a policy document explaining the aims and objectives of the revolutionary movement.


WE stand charged with certain serious offences, and at this stage, it is but right that we must explain our conduct.


In this connection, the following questions arise:

1.      Were the bombs thrown into Chamber, and, if so, why?

2.      Is the charge, as framed by the Lower Court, correct or otherwise?


To the first half of first question, our reply is in the affirmative, but since some of the so-called 'eye witnesses' have perjured themselves and since we are not denying our liability to that extent, let our statement about them be judged for what it is worth. By way of an illustration, we may point out that the evidence of Sergeant Terry regarding the seizure of the pistol from one of us is a deliberate falsehood, for neither of us had the pistol at the time we gave ourselves up. Other witnesses, too, who have deposed to having seen bombs being thrown by us, have not scrupled to tell lies. This fact had its own moral for those who aim at judicial purity and fair play.


At the same time, we acknowledge the fairness of the Public Prosecutor and the judicial attitude of the Court so far.




In our reply to the next half of the first question, we are constrained to go into some detail to offer a full and frank explanation of our motive and the circumstances leading up to what has now become a historic event.


When we were told by some of the police officers, who visited us in jail, that Lord Irwin, in his address to the joint session of the two Houses, described the event as an attack directed against no individual but against an institution itself, we readily recognised that the true significance of the incident had been correctly appreciated.


We are next to none in our love for humanity. Far from having any malice against any individual, we hold human life sacred beyond words.


We are neither perpetrators of dastardly outrages, and, therefore, a disgrace to the country, as the pseudo-socialist Dewan Chaman Lal is reported to have described us, nor are we ‘Lunatics’ as The Tribune of Lahore and some others would have it believed.




We humbly claim to be no more than serious students of the history and conditions of our country and her aspirations. We despise hypocrisy. Our practical protest was against the institution, which since its birth, has eminently helped to display not only its worthlessness but its far-reaching power for mischief. The more we have pondered, the more deeply we have been convinced that it exists only to demonstrate to world India’s humiliation and helplessness, and it symbolises the overriding domination of an irresponsible and autocratic rule. Time and again the national demand has been pressed by the people’s representatives only to find the wastepaper basket as its final destination.




Solemn resolutions passed by the House have been contemptuously trampled underfoot on the floor of the so-called Indian Parliament. Resolutions regarding the repeal of the repressive and arbitrary measures have been treated with sublime contempt, and the government measures and proposals, rejected as unacceptable by the elected members of the legislatures, have been restored by a mere stroke of the pen. In short, we have utterly failed to find any justification for the existence of an institution which, despite all its pomp and splendour, organised with the hard earned money of the sweating millions of India, is only a hollow show and a mischievous make-believe. Alike, have we failed to comprehend the mentality of the public leaders who help the government to squander public time and money on such a manifestly stage-managed exhibition of India’s helpless subjection.




We have been ruminating upon all these matters, as also upon the wholesale arrests of the leaders of the labour movement when the introduction of the Trade Disputes Bill brought us into the Assembly to watch its progress. The course of the debate only served to confirm our conviction that the labouring millions of India had nothing to expect from an institution that stood as a menacing monument to the strangling of the exploiters and the serfdom of the helpless labourers.


Finally, the insult of what we consider an inhuman and barbarous measure was hurled on the devoted heads of the representatives of the entire country, and the starving and struggling millions were deprived of their primary right and the sole means of improving their economic welfare. None who has felt like us for the dumb-driven drudges of labourers could possibly witness this spectacle with equanimity. None whose heart bleeds up of the economic structure, could repress the cry which this ruthless blow had wrung out of our hearts.




Consequently, bearing in mind the words of the late Mr S R Das, once Law member of the Governor-General’s Executive Council, which appeared in the famous letter he had addressed to his son to the effect that the ‘bomb was necessary to awaken England from her dream’, we dropped the bomb on the floor of the Assembly Chamber to register our protest on behalf of those who had no other means left to give expression to their heart-rending agony. Our sole purpose was “to make the deaf hear” and to give the heedless a timely warning. Others have as keenly felt as we have done, and from under the seeming stillness of the sea of Indian humanity, a veritable storm is about to break out. We have only hoisted the “danger-signal” to warn those who are speeding along without heeding the grave dangers ahead. We have only marked the end of an era of Utopian non-violence, of whose futility the generation has been convinced beyond the shadow of doubt.




We have used the expression Utopian non-violence, in the foregoing paragraph, which requires some explanation. Force when aggressively applied is “violence” and is, therefore, morally unjustifiable, but when it is used in the furtherance of a legitimate cause, it has its moral justification. The elimination of force at all costs is Utopian, and the new movement which has arisen in the country, and of that dawn we have given a warning, is inspired by the ideals which guided Guru Gobind Singh and Shivaji, Kamal Pasha and Riza Khan, Washington and Garibaldi, Lafayette and Lenin.


As both the alien government and the Indian public leaders appeared to have shut their eyes to the existence of this movement, we felt it is our duty to sound a warning where it could not go unheard.


We have so far dealt with the motive behind the incident in question, and now we must define the extent of our intention.




We bore no personal grudge or malice against anyone of those who received slight injuries or against any other person in the Assembly. On the contrary, we repeat that we hold human life sacred beyond words, and would sober lay down our own lives in the service of humanity than injure anyone else. Unlike the mercenary soldiers of the imperialist armies who are disciplined to kill without compunction, we respect, and, in so far as it lies in our power, we attempt to save human life. And still we admit having deliberately thrown the bombs into the Assembly Chamber. Facts speak for themselves and our intention would be judged from the result of the action without bringing in Utopian hypothetical circumstances and presumptions.




Despite the evidence of the government expert, the bombs that were thrown in the Assembly Chamber resulted in slight damage to an empty bench and some slight abrasions in less than half a dozen cases. While government scientists and experts have ascribed this result to a miracle, we see nothing but a precisely scientific process in all this incident. Firstly, the two bombs exploded in vacant spaces within the wooden barriers of the desks and benches; secondly, even those who were within two feet of explosion, for instance, Mr P Rau, Mr Shanker Rao and Sir George Schuster were either not hurt or only slightly scratched. Bombs of the capacity deposed to by the government expert (though his estimate, being imaginary, is exaggerated), loaded with an effective charge of potassium chlorate and sensitive (explosive) picrate, would have smashed the barriers and laid many low within some yards of the explosion.


Again, had they been loaded with some other high explosive, with a charge of destructive pellets or darts, they would have sufficed to wipe out a majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly. Still again we could have flung them into the official box which was occupied by some notable persons. And finally we could have ambushed Sir John Simon whose luckless Commission was loathed by all responsible people and who was sitting in the President’s gallery at the time. All these things, however, were beyond our intention and bombs did no more than they were designed to do, and the miracle consisted in no more than the deliberate aim which landed them in sage places.


We then deliberately offered ourselves to bear the penalty for what we had done and to let imperialist exploiters know that by crushing individuals, they cannot kill ideas. By crushing two insignificant units, a national cannot be crushed. We wanted to emphasis the historical lesion that letters de cachets and Bastilles could not crush the revolutionary movement in Frances. Gallows and the Siberian mines could not extinguish the Russian Revolution. Bloody Sunday, and Black and Tans failed to strangle the movement of Irish freedom.


Can ordinances and Safety Bills snuff out the flames of freedom in India? Conspiracy cases, trumped up or discovered, and the incarceration of all young men who cherish the vision of a great ideal, cannot check the march of revolution. But a timely warning, if not unheeded, can help to prevent loss of life and general sufferings.


We took it upon ourselves to provide this warning and our duty is done.