ਪਿਛਲੇ ਕੁੱਝ ਸਾਲਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਵੈਲੇਨਟਾਈਨ ਡੇ ਵਾਲੇ
ਦਿਨ ਸੰਘ ਆਪਣੇ ਪੁਰਾਣੇ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਕੁੱਟ ਮਾਰ ਵਾਲੇ ਤਰੀਕਿਆਂ ਤੋਂ ਇਲਾਵਾ
ਵਿਰੋਧ ਦਾ ਇੱਕ ਹੋਰ ਤਰੀਕਾ ਪ੍ਰਯੋਗ ਵਿੱਚ ਲਿਆ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ। ਉਸਨੇ ਇਸ
ਦਿਨ ਨੂੰ ਕਿਸੀ ਹੋਰ ਦਿਨ ਦੇ ਰੂਪ ਵਿੱਚ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕਰਨੇ ਕੀ ਵੀ ਕੋਸਿਸ਼ ਕਰ
ਦਿੱਤੀ ਹੈ। ਸੰਘ ਦੇ
ਕੁੱਝ ਲੋਕ ਇਹ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਇਸ ਦਿਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਹੀਦ ਭਗਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਤੇ
ਉਸਦੇ ਸਾਥੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਫਾਂਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸਜਾ ਸੁਣਾਈ ਗਈ ਸੀ। ਸ਼ੁਰੂ ਵਿੱਚ
ਕੁੱਝ ਸਾਲ ਤਾਂ ਉਹ ਬੇਸ਼ਰਮੀ ਨਾਲ ਇਸ ਦਿਨ ਨੂੰ ਭਗਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੂੰ ਫਾਂਸੀ ਦੀ
ਸਜਾ ਦੇਣ ਦੀ ਤਾਰੀਖ ਦੱਸਦੇ ਸਨ, ਪਰ ਬਾਅਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਇਨਾਂ ਦਾ ਇਹ ਝੂਠ ਜਿਆਦਾ
ਸਮਾਂ ਚੱਲਿਆਂ ਨਹੀਂ, ਫਿਰ ਬਾਅਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੇ ਇਹ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ ਸ਼ਰੂ ਕਰ
ਦਿੱਤਾ ਕਿ ਇਸ ਦਿਨ ਉਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਫਾਂਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਸੁਣਾਈ ਸੀ।
ਸਮਾਜ ਦੇ ਹੇਠਲੇ ਵਰਗ ਵਿੱਚ ਇਸਦਾ ਬਹੁਤ ਹੀ
ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ ਹੋ ਚੁੱਕਾ ਹੈ। ਇੱਥੋਂ ਤੱਕ ਕਿ ਇੱਕ ਅਖਬਾਰ ਰਾਜਸਥਾਨ ਪੱਤ੍ਰਿਕਾ
ਯੋਜਨਾਬੱਧ ਨੇ ਇੱਕ ਵੱਡੀ ਤਸਵੀਰ ਨੂੰ ਇਸ ਨਾਲ ਸ਼ੇਅਰ ਵੀ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਸੀ
ਅਤੇ ਉਸ ਪੋਸਟ ਨੂੰ ਲੱਖਾਂ ਲਾਇਕ ਅਤੇ ਸ਼ੇਅਰ ਵੀ ਮਿਲ ਗਏ ਸਨ।
ਤੱਥ
ਇਹ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਭਗਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਦੇ ਮੁਕੱਦਮੇ ਦਾ ਮਾਮਲਾ ਹੀ 7 ਮਈ 1929 ਨੂੰ ਸ਼ੁਰੂ
ਹੋਇਆ, ਕਈ ਘਟਨਾਕ੍ਰਮ ਤੋਂ ਗੁਜ਼ਰਨ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਅਦ (ਜਿਸਦੀ ਬਿਊਰਾ ਥੱਲੇ ਦਿੱਤਾ
ਗਿੳਾ ਹੈ) ਟ੍ਰਾਈਬੁਨਲ ਨੇ ਕੇਸ ਤਿੰਨ ਜੱਜਾਂ ਦੇ ਟ੍ਰਾਈਬੁਨਲ ਨੂੰ ਭੇਜ
ਦਿੱਤਾ, ਜਿੱਥੇ ਕੋਈ ਦਲੀਲ ਤੇ ਅਪੀਲ ਨਹੀਂ ਚਲਦੀ ਸੀ। ਫਿਰ 5 ਮਈ 1930
ਨੂੰ ਕੇਸ ਦੁਬਾਰਾ ਸ਼ੁਰੂ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਸੀ , 7 ਅਕਤੂਬਰ 1930 ਵਿੱਚ ਉਨਾਂ
ਨੂੰ ਫਾਂਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਸੁਣਾਈ ਗਈ ਸੀ ਅਤੇ 23 ਮਾਰਚ 1931 ਨੂੰ ਫਾਂਸ਼ੀ
ਦਿੱਤੀ ਗਈ ਸੀ।
ਹੁਣ ਸਵਾਲ ਇਹ ਉੱਠਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਸੰਘ ਨੇ ਭਗਤ ਸਿੰਘ
ਦੀ ਸ਼ਹਾਦਤ ਨੂੰ ਇਸੇ ਦਿਨ ਲਈ ਹੀ ਕਿਉ ਚੁੱਣਿਆ ?
ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਸ਼ਹੀਦ ਭਗਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੇ ਫਿਰਕੂ ਰਹਿਣ ਦੀ ਸਿਆਸਤ ਦਾ ਵਿਰੋਧ ਕੀਤਾ,
ਦੇਸ ਦੇ ਗਰੀਬ, ਮਿਹਨਤਕਸ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਇਨਕਲਾਬ ਲਈ ਇੱਕਜੁੱਟ ਹੋਣ ਦਾ ਸੱਦਾ
ਦਿੱਤਾ। ਨੌਜਵਾਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਇਨਕਲਾਬ ਦਾ ਸਹੀ ਰਾਸਤਾ ਦਿਖਾਇਆਂ। ਇਸ ਲਈ ਸਹੀਦ
ਭਗਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਦੀ ਵਿਚਾਰਧਾਰਾ ਤੋ ਸੰਘ ਪਰਿਵਾਰ ਅੱਜ ਵੀ ਡਰਦੇ ਹਨ।ੳੁਸ ਦੀਆਂ
ਕਿਤਾਬਾਂ ਦੇ ਦਰਸਨ ਕਰਕੇ ਸੰਘੀ ਪਰਿਵਾਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਹਾਲਤ ਖਰਾਬ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ।
ਲੇਕਿਨ ਭਗਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਅੱਜ ਵੀ ਦੇਸ ਦੇ ਨੌਜਵਾਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਮੌਜੂਦ ਹੈ।
ਸੰਘ ਲਈ ਇਹ ਸੰਭਵ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਉਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਵਿਰੁੱਧ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਰ ਕੂੜ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ
ਕਰ ਸਕਣ। ਇਸ ਲਈ ਸੰਘ ਨੇ ਇਹ ਰਾਸਤਾ ਫੜਿਆ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਭਗਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਦੀ ਜਿੰਦਗੀ
ਨਾਲ ਜੁੜੇ ਤੱਥਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਛੇੜਛਾੜ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਵੇ। ਇਸ ਲਈ ਸੰਘ ਦੇ ਇਸ ਝੂਠ
ਦਾ ਪਰਦਾਫਾਸ਼ ਕਰਨਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਸੀ। ਨਾ ਸਿਰਫ ਸਹੀਦ ਭਗਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਦੇ ਵਿਚਾਰਾਂ
ਦੀ ਰੱਖਿਆ ਲਈ ਬਲਕਿ ਇਤਿਹਾਸ ਦੀ ਰੱਖਿਆ ਲਈ ਵੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ।
The Trial of
Bhagat Singh
Source:
http://www.indialawjournal.org/archives/volume1/issue_3/bhagat_singh.html
Backdrop
Bhagat Singh is one of India's greatest freedom fighters.
The youth of India were inspired by Bhagat Singh’s call to
arms and enthused by the defiance of the army wing of the
Hindustan Socialist Republican Association to which he
Sukhdev and Rajguru, belonged. His call, Inquilab Zindabad!
became the war-cry of the fight for freedom. Bhagat Singh
was executed by the British after a sham trial for his
involvement in the Lahore Conspiracy Case at the age of
twenty-three on 23 March, 1931.
On April 8, 1929, Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt threw a bomb in
the Central Legislative Assembly "to make the deaf hear" as
their leaflet described the reason for their act. As
intended, nobody was hurt by the explosion as Bhagat Singh
had aimed the bomb carefully, to land away from the seated
members, on the floor. The bomb, deliberately of low
intensity, was thrown to protest the repressive Public
Safety Bill and Trades Dispute Bill and the arrest of 31
labour leaders in March 1929. Then a shower of leaflets came
fluttering down from the gallery like a shower of leaves and
the members of the Assembly heard the sound of, ‘Inquilab
Zindabad!’ and ‘Long live Proletariat!’ rent the air.
Bhagat Singh and B.K.Dutt let themselves be arrested, even
when they could have escaped, to use their court appearances
as a forum for revolutionary propaganda to advocate the
revolutionaries’ point of view and, in the process, rekindle
patriotic sentiments in the hearts of the people. Bhagat
Singh surrendered his automatic pistol, the same one he had
used to pump bullets into Saunder’s body, knowing fully well
that the pistol would be the highest proof of his
involvement in the Saunders’ case.
The authorities believed that in Bhagat Singh they had
caught a big fish and that he was the mastermind behind all
revolutionary activity in India. The government was,
however, intrigued by the two revolutionaries giving
themselves up so easily. The British did not want to take
any chances, so even the summons to the two revolutionaries
were delivered to them in jail.
Trial
The style and format of the writing in the handbills struck
British intelligence as suspiciously familiar. The format
and style in these handbills was similar to the style and
format of the handwritten posters that announced the murder
of Saunders and which had been plastered on the city’s
walls. The British began to suspect that Bhagat Singh was
one of Saunder’s killers. He was singled out as the author
of the text on the leaflets as well as on the posters.
Bhagat Singh was charged with attempt to murder under
section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Asaf Ali, a member of
the Congress Party was his lawyer.
The Trial started
on 7 May, 1929. The Crown was represented by the
public prosecutor Rai Bahadur Suryanarayan and the trial
magistrate was a British Judge, P.B Pool. The manner in
which the prosecution presented its case left Bhagat Singh
in no doubt that the British were out to nail him. The
prosecution’s star witness was Sergeant Terry who said that
a pistol had been found on Bhagat Singh’s person when he was
arrested in the Assembly. This was not factually correct
because Bhagat Singh had himself surrendered the pistol
while asking the police to arrest him. Even the eleven
witnesses who said that they had seen the two throwing the
bombs seemed to have been tutored.
Some of the questions asked in
court were:
Judge: ‘Were you present in the Assembly on the 8th of
April, 1929?”
Bhagat Singh: ‘As far as this case is concerned, I feel no
necessity to make a statement at this stage. When I do, I
will make the statement.”
Judge: ‘When you arrived in the court, you shouted, “Long
Live Revolution!”. What do you mean by it?’
As if it had already made up its mind, the court framed
charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3 of the Exposive Substances Act. Bhagat Singh and
Dutt were accused of throwing bombs ‘to kill or cause
injuries to the King Majesty’s subjects’. The magistrate
committed both of the revolutionaries’ to the sessions
court, which was presided over by Judge Leonard Middleton.
The trial started in the first week of June, 1929. Here
also, Bhagat Singh and Dutt were irked by the allegation
that they had fired shots from a gun. It was apparent that
the government was not limiting the case to the bombs thrown
in the Assembly. It was introducing extraneous elements to
ferret out more information about the revolutionary party
and its agenda.
However, Judge Leonard Middleton too swallowed the
prosecution story. He accepted as proof of the verbal
testimony that the two had thrown the bombs into the
Assembly Chamber and even said that Bhagat Singh fired from
his pistol while scattering the leaflets there. The court
held that both Bhagat Singh and Dutt were guilty under
Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1988 and were
sentenced to life imprisonment. Judge Middleton rules that
he had no doubt that the defendant’s acts were ‘deliberate’
and rejected the plea that the bombs were deliberately
low-intensity bombs since the impact of the explosion had
shattered the wood of one and a half inch thickness in the
Assembly.
The two were persuaded to file an appeal which was rejected
and they were sent for fourteen years. The judge was in a
hurry to close the case and claimed that the police had
gathered ‘substantial evidence’ against Bhagat Singh and
that he was charged with involvement in the killings of
Saunders and Head Constable Chanan Singh and that the
authorities had collected nearly 600 witnesses to establish
their charges against him which included his colleagues, Jai
Gopal and Hans Raj Vohra turning government approvers.
Bhagat Singh was sent to Mianwali Jail and Dutt to Borstal
Jail in Lahore and were put on the same train though in
different compartments on 12th March, 1930 but after
requesting the officer on duty to allow them to sit together
for some distance of the journey, Bhagat Singh conveyed to
Dutt that he should go on a hunger strike on 15th June and
that he would do the same in Mianwali Jail. When the
Government realized that this fast had riveted the attention
of the people throughout the country, it decided to hurry up
the trial, which came to known as the Lahore Conspiracy
Case. This trial started in Borstal Jial, Lahore, on 10
July, 1929. Rai Sahib Pandit Sri Kishen, a first class
magistrate, was the judge for this trial. He earned the
title of Rai Sahib for loyal service to the British. Bhagat
Singh and twenty-seven others were charged with murder,
conspiracy and wagering war against the King.
The revolutionaries’ strategy was to boycott the
proceedings. They showed no interest in the trial and
adopted an attitude of total indifference. They did not have
any faith in the court and realized that the court had
already made up its mind. A handcuffed Bhagat Singh was
still on hunger strike and had to be brought to the court in
a stretcher and his weight had fallen by 14 pounds, from 133
to 119. The Jail Committee requested him to give up their
hunger strike and finally it was his father who had his way
and it was on the 116th day of his fast, on October 5, 1929
that he gave up his strike surpassing the 97 day world
record for hunger strikes which set by an Irish
revolutionary.
Bhagat Singh started refocusing on his trial. The
crown was represented by the government advocate
C.H.Carden-Noad and was assisted by Kalandar Ali Khan, Gopal
Lal, and Bakshi Dina Nath who was the prosecuting inspector.
The accused were defended by 8 different lawyers. The court
recorded an order prohibiting slogans in the courtroom. The
government advocate filed orders by the government
sanctioning the prosecution under the Explosive Substances
Act and Sections 121, 121 A, 122 and 123 of the Penal Code
relating to sedition.
When Jai Gopal turned approver, Verma, the youngest of the
accused, hurled a slipper at him. After this incident, the
accused were subjected to untold slavery. The case built by
the prosecution was that a revolutionary conspiracy had been
hatched as far as back as September, 1928, two years before
the murder of Saunders. The government alleged that various
revolutionary parties had joined together to forge one
organization in 1928 itself to operate in the north and the
north-east of India, from Lahore to Calcutta.
The case proceeded at a snails pace and hence the government
got so exasperated that it approached the Lahore High Court
for directions to the magistrate. A division bench of the
Lahore High Court dismissed the application of Carden-Noad.
Through March, 1930, the proceedings were relatively smooth.
The magistrate could not make any headway without the
cooperation of the undertrials. On1 May, 1930, the viceroy,
Lord Irwin, promulgated an Ordinance to set up a tribunal to
try this case. The Ordinance, LCC Ordinance No.3 of 1930,
was to put an end to the proceedings pending in the
magistrate’s court. The case was transferred to a tribunal
of three high court judges without any right to appeal,
except to the Privy Council.
The case opened
on 5 May 1930 in the stately Poonch House.
Rajguru challenged the very constitution of the tribunal and
said that it was illegal ultra vires. According to him, the
Viceroy did not have the power to cut short the normal legal
procedure. The Government of India Act, 1915, authorized the
Viceroy to promulgate an Ordinance to set up a tribunal but
only when the situation demanded whereas now there was no
breakdown in the law and order situation. The tribunal
however, ruled that the petition was ‘premature’.
Carden-Noad, the government advocate elaborated on the
charges which included dacoities, robbing money from banks
and the collection of arms and ammunition. The evidence of
G.T. Hamilton Harding, senior superintendent of police, took
the court by surprise as he said that he had filed the FIR
against the accused under the instructions of the chief
secretary to the government of Punjab and he did not know
the facts of the case. Then one of the accused J.N Sanyal
said that they were not the accused but the defenders of
India’s honour and dignity.
There were five approvers in total put of which Jai Gopal,
Hans Raj Vohra and P.N.Ghosh had been associated with the
HRSA for a long time. It was on their stories that the
prosecution relied. The tribunal depended on Section 9 (1)
of the Ordinance and on 10th July 1930, issued an order, and
copies of the framed charges were served on the fifteen
accused in jail, together with copies of an order intimating
them that their pleas would be taken on the charges the
following day. This trial was a long and protracted one,
beginning on 5 May, 1930, and ending on 10 September, 1930.
It was a one-sided affair which threw all rules and
regulations out of the window. Finally the tribunal framed
charges against fifteen out of the eighteen accused. The
case against B.K.Dutt was withdrawn as he had already been
sentenced to transportation for life in the Assembly Bomb
Case.
On
7 October 1930, about three weeks before the
expiry of its term, the tribunal delivered its judgement,
sentencing Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru to death by
hanging. Others were sentenced to transportation for
life and rigorous imprisonment. This judgement was a
300-page one which went into the details of the evidence and
said that Bhagat Singh’s participation in the Saunders’
murder was the most serious and important fact proved
against him and it was fully established by evidence. The
warrants for the three were marked with a black border.
The undertrials of the Chittagong Armoury Raid Case sent an
appeal to Gandhiji to intervene. A defence committee was
constituted in Punjab to file an appeal to the Privy Council
against the sentence. Bhagat Singh did not favour the appeal
but his only satisfaction was that the appeal would draw the
attention of people in England to the existence of the HSRA.
In the case of Bhagat Singh v. The King Emperor, the points
raised by the appellant was that the ordinance promulgated
to constitute a special tribunal for the trial was invalid.
The government argued that Section 72 of the Government of
India Act, 1915 gave the governor-general unlimited powers
to set up a tribunal. Judge Viscount Dunedin who read the
judgment dismissed the appeal. Thus from the lower court to
the tribunal to the Privy Council, it was a preordained
judgement in flagrant violation of all tends of natural
justice and a fair and free trial.