|
'Hunger-Strikers'
Demands
Reiterated
(3)
After
the
passing
of
the
AICC
resolution
regarding
hunger
strike,
the
copies
of
the
same,
which
were
sent
to
different
political
prisoners,
were
withheld
by
the
jail
authorities.
Further,
the
govt.
refused
a
Congress
deputation
to
meet
the
prisoners
in
this
respect.
(4)
The
Lahore
Conspiracy
Case
undertrials
were
assaulted
brutally
on
23rd
and
24th
Oct.,
1929,
by
orders
of
high
police
officials.
Full
details
have
appeared
in
the
press.
The
copy
of
the
statement
of
the
one
of us
recorded
by
the
Special
Magistrate,
Pt.
Shri
Krishan,
has
been
duly
forwarded
to
you
in a
communication
dated
16th
Dec.,
1929
Neither
the
Punjab
Government
nor
the
Govt.
of
India
felt
it
necessary
to
reply
or
even
acknowledge
receipt
of
our
communication
praying
for
an
enquiry.
While,
on
the
other
hand,
local
government
has
felt
the
imperative
necessity
of
prosecuting
us in
connection
with
the
very
same
incident
for
offering
"voilent"
resistance".
(5)
In
the
last
week
of
Dec.
1929,
Sj.
Kiran
Chandra
Das
and
eight
others
confined
in
the
Lahore
Borstal
Jail,
when
being
taken
to
and
produced
in
the
Magistrate's
Court,
were
found
handcuffed
and
chained
together
in
flagrant
breach
of
the
unanimous
recommendations
of
the
Punjab
Jail
Enquiry
Committee
and
also
of
Inspector-General
of
Prisons,
Punjab.
It is
further
noteworthy
that
these
prisoners
were
undertrials,
changed
for a
bailable
offence.
A
long
statement
issued
by
Dr.
Mohd.
Aslam,
Lala
Duni
Chand
of
Lahore
and
Lala
Duni
Chand
of
Ambala
in
this
connection
was
published
in
Tribune.
When
we
learnt
these
and
other
sufferings
of
the
political
prisoners
we
refrained
from
resuming
our
hunger
strike,
though
we
were
much
grieved
as we
thought
that
the
matter
was
going
to be
finally
settled
at an
early
date,
but
in
the
light
of
the
above
instances,
are
we
now
to
believe
that
the
untold
sufferings
of
the
hunger
strikers
and
the
supreme
sacrifice
made
by
Jatin
Das
have
all
been
in
vain?
Are
we to
understand
that
the
govt.
gave
its
assurance
only
to
check
the
growing
tide
of
public
agitation
and
to
avert
a
crisis?
You
will
agree
with
us if
we
say
that
we
have
waited
patiently
for a
sufficiently
reasonable
period
of
time.
But
we
cannot
wait
indefinitely.
The
government,
buy
its
dilatory
attitude
and
the
continuation
of
vindictive
treatment
to
political
prisoners,
has
left
us no
other
option
but
to
resume
the
struggle.
We
realise
that
to go
on
hunger
strike
and
to
carry
it on
is no
easy
task.
But
let
us at
the
same
time
point
out
that
India
can
produce
many
more
Jatins
and
Wagias,
Ran
Rakshas
and
Bhan
Singhs.
(The
last
two
named
laid
down
their
lives
in
the
Andamans
in
1917
- the
first
breathed
his
last
after
63
days
of
hunger
strike
while
the
other
died
the
death
of a
great
hero
after
silently
undergoing
in
human
tortures
for
full
six
months.)
Enough
has
been
said
by us
and
the
members
of
the
public
(inquiry
committee)
in
justification
of
the
better
treatment
of
political
prisoners
and
it is
unnecessary
here
to
repeat
the
same.
We
would
however
like
to
say a
few
words
as
regards
the
inclusion
of
motive
as
the
basis
and
the
most
important
factor
in
the
matter
of
classification.
Great
fuss
has
been
created
on
the
question
of
criteria
of
classification.
We
find
that
motive
has
altogether
been
excluded
so
far
from
the
criteria
suggested
by
different
provincial
governments
This
is
really
strange
attitude.
It is
through
motive
alone
that
the
real
value
of
any
action
can
be
decided.
Are
we to
understand
that
the
Government
is
unable
to
distinguish
between
a
robber
who
robs
and
kills
his
victim
and a
Kharag
Bahadur
who
kills
a
villain
and
saves
the
honour
of a
young
lady
and
redeems
society
of a
most
licentious
parasite?
Are
both
to be
treated
as
two
men
belonging
to
the
same
category?
Is
there
no
difference
between
two
men
who
commit
the
same
offence,
one
guided
buy
selfish
motive
and
the
other
by a
selfless
one?
Similarly,
is
there
no
difference
between
a
common
murderer
and a
political
worker,
even
if
the
latter
resorts
to
violence?
Does
not
his
selflessness
elevate
his
place
from
amongst
those
of
ordinary
criminals?
In
these
circumstances
we
think
that
motive
should
be
held
as
the
most
important
factor
in
the
criteria
for
classification.
Last
year,
in
the
beginning
of
our
hunger
strike,
when
public
leaders
including
Dr.
Gopi
Chand
and
Lala
Duni
Chand
of
Ambala
- the
last
named
being
one
of
the
signatories
to
the
Punjab
Jail
Enquiry
Committee
Report
-
approached
us to
discuss
the
same
thing
and
when
they
told
us
that
the
government
considered
to
treat
the
political
prisoners
convicted
of
offences
of
violent
nature
as
Special
class
prisoners,
then
by
way
of
compromise
we
agreed
to
the
proposal
to
the
extent
of
excluding
those
actually
charged
with
murder.
But,
Later
on,
the
discussion
took
a
different
turn
and
the
communique
containing
the
terms
of
reference
for
the
Punjab
Jail
Enquiry
Committee
was
so
worded
that
the
question
of
motive
seemed
to be
altogether
excluded,
and
the
classification
was
based
on
two
thing:
(1)
Nature
of
Offence;
and
(2)
Social
Status
of
"Offender".
Next
|
