If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
In the recently-concluded general studies paper of the UPSC’s Civil Services exam, candidates saw a strange question that asked them to evaluate the contribution of revolutionary terrorism represented by Bhagat Singh [source]. Since Indian citizens are always waiting to be offended, it was only matter of time before protests and law suits followed. Is Bhagat Singh a terrorist, asks The Times of India’s Speak Up-like section. Trust them to be sensational.
It should be noted that the term, revolutionary terrorism used to describe Bhagat Singh’s actions were used in school and university texts although the concept and definition of terrorism has changed drastically. I fail to understand how the people responsible for writing the exam question weren’t aware of this changed definition of terrorism. Probably to the British Raj, Bhagat Singh was a terrorist who used violent means to voice his protest as opposed to Gandhi’s more genteel form. But to many Indians, he was a hero who loved his country selflessly and used an alternate form of protest that found acceptance among many. Terrorism in its contemporary sense is used to define an action that is “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act” [United Nations]. The keywords here are civilians and non-combatants. Bhagat Singh never targeted innocent citizens but instead chose to target government officers and machinery. Even in the bomb blasts in the legislative assembly, he made sure the bomb was non-lethal and simply made a loud noise. At best, he can be termed a revolutionary which before Mao and Che Geuvera was an acceptable term.
Recent findings has shown us that Bhagat Singh and his colleagues often received the short shrift when credits for India’s Independence were rolling. The Legend of Bhagat Singh, a movie by Raj Kumar Santoshi remains one of my favorite Independence-era movies and while being a tad overzealous in depicting patriotism was well researched and effectively showed the tensions between the renegades and the Congress Party. The primary problem here is of labeling and in a history that prides itself on the non-violence movement, any departure from that path might have labeled you as a terrorist. History is written by victors and the Congress Party, thanks to its later socialist mode of governance had enough opportunite to temper Bhagat Singh and his ilk’s contribution to the freedom struggle.
Even professors at JNU agree that a distinction should be made between his actions and contemporary terrorism and given that it is Bhagat Singh’s birth centenary year, the UPSC could have worded the question a little more carefully.
by Patrix | on Thursday, November 1st, 2007 at 4:00 pm | 
Current Affairs, History, India . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:48 pm reply
While I agree that the term needs to be revisited, I don’t think that going by a legal definition is a good argument in support of such a move. The definition that you cited says “civilians or non-combatants”, which is different from your interpretation, “innocent citizens”. Regular government officials, while not always innocent citizens, are indeed civilians or non-combatants.
Secondly, AFAIK, the question papers are typically set by a pool of professors from various universities (including DU, JNU etc). UPSC may pick the final questions out of a large pool, but the questions are certainly not framed in Dhaulpur House. It is, in fact, beyond UPSC’s capability and expertise to do that (there are more than 20 subjects).
I would have liked to see the academia own up responsibility and come out with a different term.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:52 pm reply
Vivek, I agree! I missed the innocent part because that has been the defining strategy of today’s terrorists. But as I mentioned considering the public scrutiny that UPSC papers go through especially in light of any controversial statements, it would make sense to revisit the definition.