Indian revolutionary and a major figure in the Indian independence movement of the early Twentieth Century. Singh was active in revolutionary struggle from an early age and he was briefly affiliated with the Mohandas Ghandi’s “Non-Cooperation” movement, although Singh would break with Ghandi’s philosophy of non-violent resistance later in life.

Singh embraced atheism and Marxism-Leninism and integrated these key components into his philosophy of revolutionary struggle. Under his leadership, the Kirti Kissan Party was renamed the Hindustan Socialist Republican Organization. As Singh and his organization rose to new prominence in the Indian independence movement, they became the focus of public criticism from Ghandi himself, who disagreed with their belief that violence was a necessary and vital component of revolutionary struggle.

Singh’s secularism was perhaps his most important contribution to the socialist and independence struggles. During those turbulent times, British Imperialism used every tactic to create antagonism among the different religions of India, especially between Hindus and Muslims. The Sanghatan and Shuddi Movements among Hindus; and tableegh and many sectarian movements in Muslims bear witness to the effects of this tactic. Bhagat Singh removed his beard which was a violation of Sikh religion, because he did not want to create before the public the image of a ‘Sikh’ freedom fighter. Nor did he want to be held up as a hero by the followers of this religion. He wanted to teach the people that British Imperialism was their common enemy and they must be united against it to win freedom.

On April 8, 1924, Baghat Singh and his compatriot B. K. Dutt hurled two bombs on to the floor of the Central Delhi Hall in New Delhi. The bombs were tossed away from individuals so as not to harm anyone and, in fact, no one was harmed in the ensuing explosions. Following the explosions, Singh and Dutt showered the hall with copies of a leaflet that later was to be known as “The Red Pamphlet.” The pamphlet began with a passage which was to become legendary in the Indian revolutionary struggle:

“It takes a loud voice to make the deaf hear, with these immortal words uttered on a similar occasion by Vaillant, a French anarchist martyr, do we strongly justify this action of ours.”

Singh and Dutt concluded the pamphlet with the phrase “Long Live the Revolution!” This phrase (translated from “Inquilab Zindabad!” became one of the most enduring slogans of the Indian Independence Movement.

Singh and Dutt turned themselves in following the bombing incident. Following the trial, they were sentenced to “transportation for life” and while imprisoned, Singh and Dutt became outspoken critics of the Indian penal system, embarking on hunger strikes and engaging in agitation and propaganda from within the confines of the prison. Shortly after the commencement of his prison sentence, Singh was implicated in the 1928 death of a Deputy Police Superintendent. Singh acknowledged involvement in the death and he was executed by hanging on 23 March 1931.

Bhagat Singh is widely hailed as a martyr as a result of his execution at the hands of oppressors and, as such, he is often referred to as “Shaheed (Martyr) Bhagat Singh.”

Bhagat Singh - marxist.org

Megathreads and spaces to hang out:

reminders:

  • 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
  • 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
  • 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
  • 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
  • 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog

Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):

Aid:

Theory:

  • Graphite22 [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think I understand what you're saying. lmk if this sounds close lol

    Assuming we're talking about fiction made in America, I think there is a "death roll" approach about how we come up with it in the first place. Start at a base genre of fiction, then just slap whatever weird genre tags you feel like because it -might- make sense later. We end up reading these blobs of fiction with no direction and no root in something "real" because genre intertwining is a difficult task. Everything gets lost when different types of fiction mash together and you end up having nothing while having "everything".

    Hauntology is no exception and is definitely part of that "death roll" approach, especially as a secondary genre but barely as a primary genre. It also became a niche little part of "American Lore" so to speak because it may have been profitable at one time or maybe it still is(?). Taking these two things into account, you have authors slapping genres together and tacking on hauntology to create specific feelings but it always falls flat. Integrating such themes from that genre needs to have a grounded basis in order to justify the haunting. A lot of fiction just mentions souls, spirituality and more but then leave it at that. There is no deeper meaning but it sells. Having hauntology in the background of fiction in this manner gives readers a strange sense of comfort that terminates thoughts and the need to find more understanding.

    So why do Americans like this shit, in this form? There are two things that come to my head. One is the desire to create American "lore" from the past. The second is that Americans only accept things as "good" if it makes money. Creating American lore is white supremacist as a foundation, it's fake as shit and has no culture. What a better way to learn the lessons of the past and create lore by watching 3 dude bros flail around on a Civil War battleground listening to noises that they recorded in production. Those soldiers taught us a lesson and that's our culture! Meanwhile, "voodoo" is big, bad, and scary because the slaves wanted to inflict suffering on their oppressors. Now wouldn't that be a scary thought?!?! Why do they want American "Lore" to suffer? We learned lessons from those soldier ghosts!!

    My second point comes into play when TV shows and movies try to build this shit up. Both of those things are extremely profitable and it just begs to be created over and over again. If you can beat other real cultures into a consumable, digital paste of slop, then you can most definitely build a new lore structure off the remains. There are so many pieces of fiction in our overall media that desperately tries to add spirituality into a vessel that wants to destroy. It's been proven to make money and it serves its secondary purpose of hurting other cultures.

    I think I'm rambling at this point too

    TL;DR Culture appropriation = destruction and this applies to fiction and ESPECIALLY hauntology.

    I really hope some more thoughtful posters can poke holes in what I wrote because I'm way more interested in this topic then I ever thought I could be and I want to learn more lmao

    • punk_punk
      ·
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

      • heartheartbreak [fae/faer]
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are correct in that you are describing hauntology. Because all the signifiers are being built solely off other signifiers the possibility for radically different imaginations is encircled.

        I think the hypertension is in a sense the lamest attempt to build something out of a totally encircled imagination, an intuitive desire to break out of the prison of capitalist realism without the vision to see the bars. I see multiverse lore as the final and most obvious layer of this, where the concept is every single thing possibly imaginable and yet multiverse are always constrained by the same immortal logic of capitalist realism.

        I think that these things actually are a genuine reaction to the Real, and all of the horrors beyond human comprehension we come into contact with on the daily, particularly WWIII and climate apocalypse looming on the horizon. The symbolic matrix of ideology does it's best attempt at imagining solutions to impending danger, but the tools of the algorithm have withered off any logic that could threaten to destroy the reproduction of the relations of production, rendering the output lame farces of imagination that even the most ideologically confused person can libidinally infer as more of the same.

        I would actually say that this pathetic and sad output cycle is the Objet A, where everything around us is slop and yet the slop nature of it makes it all the more consumable, even and perhaps especially to ideological communists who see it as such.