- Home
- Trial & Political Ideas
Plate 08 — The Courtroom
A prosecution is also a publication
Colonial India tried its revolutionaries in open court and reported the proceedings in the press. That procedural fact turned a series of criminal cases into the most widely circulated political argument the revolutionary movement ever made.
Plate 08.1 — Structure of a political trial
Three parties, three purposes, one room
The state
Sought a conviction, and beyond it a demonstration that the colonial legal order was orderly, procedural and secure. A political trial is always partly a statement that the state is not afraid of the defendant.
The accused
Did not contest the facts. Contested the meaning — arguing that the act was a political statement rather than an attempt at murder, and using the proceedings to state the case that the leaflets had begun.
The public
Read the proceedings in the newspapers. This was the audience the action had been designed for, and the reason arrest was not treated by the accused as a defeat.
A state that tries its opponents in public gives them a microphone. Colonial India discovered this repeatedly and never found a way around it.
Plate 08.2 — Procedure
The legal machinery
Colonial legal procedure was not a neutral container for these cases. Its design shaped what could be argued, by whom, and for how long.
Batukeshwar Dutt was convicted on 12 June 1929 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code — attempt to murder — and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, and sentenced to transportation for life by the Sessions Judge at Delhi.
Two features of the colonial legal system are worth setting out, because they recur across the political trials of the period.
Conspiracy as a charging strategy. Conspiracy charges allowed the state to try an entire network in a single, lengthy proceeding, to admit a broad range of evidence, and to link defendants to acts they had not personally committed. The Lahore Conspiracy Case, in which Dutt was also among the accused, followed this pattern, as had the Kanpur and Meerut prosecutions.
Special procedure. Where ordinary process proved slow or produced difficulties, the government could and did resort to special tribunals and ordinances that curtailed the usual protections, including provisions permitting proceedings to continue in the absence of the accused. The Lahore Conspiracy Case was ultimately dealt with under such an arrangement.
The effect was that the state controlled the procedural terrain almost completely. What it could not control was the reporting.
Plate 08.3 — The argument
What was actually being argued
Stripped of the drama, the position that the accused advanced in and around the Central Assembly Bomb Case had four connected parts.
That the Assembly could not decide. A chamber whose rejections could be overruled by executive certification was not a legislature in any sense that mattered, and presenting it to Indians as representation was itself a political act requiring an answer.
That the legislation was directed at political organisation. The Public Safety Bill and the Trade Disputes Bill were understood by their opponents as measures to restrict organising and striking, rather than as ordinary regulation.
That the act was communicative, not homicidal. This was the central contested claim: that an empty target area, low-intensity devices, printed leaflets and a refusal to escape describe a demonstration and not an attempted killing.
That independence alone was insufficient. The HSRA’s socialism held that a transfer of power that left economic conditions untouched would not amount to liberation. This was the argument that most clearly separated the organisation from other currents in the movement, and it reached its widest audience through the reporting of these trials.
A note on quotations
Political trials of this period generate a great deal of quotable material, and a considerable amount of it is unreliable. Statements are paraphrased, translated, condensed and re-attributed until wording that appears in no contemporary record circulates as verbatim speech.
This site quotes only what can be attributed to a contemporary source, and identifies that source. Where a phrase is famous but its precise wording is uncertain, it is described rather than quoted. Where a widely repeated line cannot be traced, it is omitted — even when omitting it makes the page less dramatic.
The leaflet distributed on 8 April 1929 argued that a deaf government had to be addressed loudly — a formulation associated with the French anarchist Auguste Vaillant. That is presented here as the leaflet’s argument rather than as a verbatim quotation of it.
Plate 08.4 — Aftermath
The sentence was not the end of the argument. It moved the argument into the prisons.
Three days after conviction, on 15 June 1929, Batukeshwar Dutt and Bhagat Singh began a hunger strike. They had been separated — Singh to Mianwali Jail, Dutt to Lahore Central Jail — and both refused food on the same demand: that Indian political prisoners receive the treatment already extended to European convicts.
It is worth registering what that means about the men and about the moment. Both had just been sentenced to spend the remainder of their natural lives in custody. Within seventy-two hours they had opened a second front, over conditions rather than over independence, on behalf of a category of prisoner rather than themselves.
The courtroom phase had lasted about two months. The prison phase lasted, for Dutt, roughly nine years — and its consequences lasted the rest of his life.