|
Regarding
Line
of
Defence
In
Hari
Kishan's
Case
[On
December
23,
1930,
when
the
Government
of
Punjab
was
coming
out
of
the
University
Hall,
Lahore,
after
delivering
his
convocation
address,
Hari
Kishan
fired
at
him.
One
man
died
and
the
Governor
was
slightly
injured.
During
the
trial
Hari
Kishan's
defence
counsel
took
the
line
that
Hari
Kishan
had
no
intention
to
kill
the
Governor
and
that
he
only
wanted
to
give
a
warning.
Bhagat
Singh
was
opposed
to
this
line
of
defence.
He
wrote
to
one
of
his
friends
outside
about
how
revolutionary
cases
should
be
conducted.
This
letter
was
published
in
the
people
in
June
1931.]
I
am
very
sorry
to
note
that
my
last
letter
in
this
connection
did
not
reach
its
destination
at
the
proper
time
and
therefore
could
be of
no
use,
or
failed
to
serve
the
purpose
or
which
it
was
written.
Hence,
I
write
this
letter
to
let
you
know
my
views
on
the
question
of
defence
in
the
political
cases
in
general
and
the
revolutionary
cases
in
particular.
Apart
from
certain
points
already
discussed
in
that
letter,
it
shall
serve
another
purpose
too,
i.e.
it
shall
be a
documentary
proof
that
I am
not
becoming
wise
after
the
event.
Anyhow,
I
wrote
in
that
letter
that
the
plea
that
the
lawyer
was
suggestion
to
offer
defence,
should
not
be
adopted.
But
it
has
been
done
in
spite
of
your,
and
mine,
opposition.
Nevertheless,
we
can
now
discuss
the
matter
in a
better
light
and
can
formulate
definite
Ideas
about
the
future
policy
regarding
defence.
You
know
that
I
have
never
been
in
favour
of
defending
all
the
political
accused.
But
this
does
not
imply
that
the
beauty
of
the
real
struggle
should
be
altogether
spoiled.
(Please
note
that
the
term
beauty
is
not
used
in
the
abstract
sense
but
it
means
the
motive
that
actuated
a
particular
action).
When
I say
that
all
the
politicals
should
always
defend
themselves,
I say
it
with
certain
reservations.
It
can
be
cleared
by
just
one
explanation.
A man
does
an
act
with
a
certain
end
in
view.
After
his
arrest
the
political
significance
of
the
action
should
not
be
diminished.
The
perpetrator
should
not
become
more
important
than
the
action
itself.
Let
us
further
elucidate
it
with
the
help
of
the
illustration.
Mr.
Hari
Kishan
came
to
shoot
the
Governor.
I
don't
want
only
to
discuss
the
ethical
side
of
the
action.
I
want
only
to
discuss
the
political
side
of
the
case.
The
man
was
arrested.
Unfortunately,
some
police
official
had
died
in
the
action.
Now
comes
the
question
of
the
defence;
well,
when
fortunately
the
Governor
had
escaped
there
could
be a
very
beautiful
statement
in
his
case,
i.e.,
the
statement
of
actual
facts
as
was
made
in
the
lower
court.
And
it
would
have
served
the
legal
purpose
too.
The
wisdom
and
ability
of
the
lawyer
depended
on
his
interpretation
of
the
cause
of
the
Sub-Inspector's
death.
What
did
he
gain
by
saying
that
he
did
not
intend
to
kill
the
Governor
and
only
wanted
to
warn
him,
and
all
that
sort
of
thing?
Can
any
sensible
man
imagine
even
for a
moment
the
possibility
of
such
a
design?
Had
it
any
legal
value?
Absolutely
none.
Then,
what
was
the
use
of
spoiling
the
beauty
of
not
only
the
particular
action
but
also
the
general
movement?
Warning
and
futile
protests
cannot
go on
forever.
The
warning
has
once
been
given
long
ago.
The
revolutionary
struggle
had
begun
in
right
earnest
so
far
as
the
strength
of
the
revolutionary
party
allowed.
Viceroy's
train
action
was
neither
a
test
nor a
warning.
Similarly,
Mr.
Hari
Kishan's
action
was
part
of
the
struggle
itself,
not a
warning.
After
the
failure
of
the
action,
the
accused
can
take
it in
purely
sportman-like
spirit.
The
purpose
having
been
served
he
ought
to
have
rejoiced
in
the
lucky
escape
of
the
Governor.
There
is no
use
of
killing
any
one
individual.
These
actions
have
their
political
significance
in as
much
as
they
serve
to
create
a
mentality
and
an
atmosphere
which
shall
be
very
necessary
to
the
final
struggle.
That
is
all.
Individual
actions
are
to
win
the
moral
support
of
the
people.
We
sometimes
designate
them
as
the
'propaganda
through
deed'.
Now,
the
people
should
be
defended
but
subject
to
the
above
consideration.
This
is
after
all a
common
principle
that
all
the
contending
parties
always
try
to
gain
more
and
to
lose
less.
No
general
can
ever
adopt
a
policy
in
which
he
may
have
to
make
a
greater
sacrifice
than
the
gain
expected.
Nobody
would
be
more
anxious
to
save
the
precious
life
of
Mr.
Hari
Kishan
than
myself.
But I
want
to
let
you
know
that
the
thing
which
makes
his
life
precious
should
by no
means
be
ignored.
To
save
the
lives
at
any
cost
, is
not
our
policy.
It
may
be
the
policy
of
the
easy-chair
politicians,
but
it is
not
ours.
Much
of
the
defence
policy
depends
upon
the
mentality
of
the
accused
himself.
But
if
the
accused
himself
is
not
only
afraid
of
shrinking
but
is as
enthusiastic
as
ever,
than
his
work
for
which
he
risked
his
life
should
be
considered
first,
his
personal
question
afterwards.
Again,
there
may
be
some
sort
of
confusion.
There
may
be
cases
where
the
action
is of
no
general
importance
in
spite
of
its
tremendous
local
value.
There
the
accused
should
not
be
sentimental
as to
admit
the
responsibility.
The
famous
trial
of
Nirmal
Kant
Rai
would
be
the
best
illustration.
But
in
cases
like
the
where
it is
of
such
political
importance,
the
personal
aspect
should
not
be
attached
greater
value
than
the
political
one.
If
you
want
to
know
my
frank
opinion
about
his
case,
let
me
tell
you
frankly
that
it is
nothing
short
of
the
political
murder
of an
incident
of
historic
importance
at
the
altar
o
professional
(legel)
vanity.
Here
I may
point
out
one
thing
more,
that
the
people
responsible
for
this
strangulation
of
the
case,
having
realised
their
blunder
and
having
become
wise
after
the
event
in
not
daring
to
shoulder
their
responsibility,
are
trying
to
belittle
the
beauty
of
the
marvellous
character
of
our
young
comrade.
I
have
heard
them
saying
that
Mr.
Hari
Kishan
shirked
to
face
it
boldly.
This
is a
most
shame-faced
lie.
He is
the
most
courageous
led I
have
ever
come
across.
People
should
have
mercy
upon
us.
Better
ignored
than
demoralised
and
degraded
but
well
looked
after.
Lawyers
should
not
be so
unscrupulous
as to
exploit
the
lives
and
even
deaths
of
young
people
who
come
to
sacrifice
themselves
for
so
noble
a
cause
as
the
emancipation
of
the
suffering
humanity.
I am
really
. .
.*
Otherwise,
why
should
a
lawyer
demand
such
an
incredible
fee
as
has
been
paid
in
the
above
case?
In
the
sedition
cases,
I may
tell
you
the
limit
to
which
we
can
allow
the
defence.
Last
year
when
one
comrade
was
prosecuted
for
having
delivered
a
socialistic
speech
and
when
he
pleaded
not
guilty
to
that
charge,
we
were
simply
astounded.
In
such
cases
we
should
demand
the
right
of
free
speech.
But
where
such
things
are
attributed
to
one a
he
has
not
said
and
are
contrary
to
the
interests
of
the
movement,
deny.
Thought
in
the
present
movement
the
Congress
has
suffered
for
having
allowed
its
members
to go
to
jail
without
defending
themselves,
in my
opinion
that
was a
mistake.
Anyhow,
I
think
if
you
read
this
letter
along
with
my
previous
one,
you
will
come
to
know
very
clearly
my
ideas
about
the
defence
in
political
cases.
In
Mr.
Hari
Kishan's
case,
in my
opinion,
his
appeal
should
be
filed
in
the
High
Court
without
fail
and
every
effort
should
be
made
to
save
him.
I
hope
both
these
letters
indicate
everything
I
want
to
say
on
this
subject.
|
