MovieChat Forums > The Legend of Bhagat Singh (2002) Discussion > Excellent Film, but Overemphasizes B. Si...

Excellent Film, but Overemphasizes B. Singh's Importance


I thought the film was spectacular. I thought it did an excellent job of sticking close to the real facts involved while still providing a real human drama with brilliant dialogue.

That said, I think the movie's billing of Bhaghat Singh as a revolutionary sharing an equal stature to Gandhi, or even threatening Gandhi's popularity seems to be a bit overblown. The problem with the HSRA was that it didn't start with a broad base of popular support or used traditional methods of organizing to build a mass movement. It didn't infuse the masses with its ideology. I mean look at what organizing the HSRA involved itself in. First they gave some meals to the poor. The poor are likely to say thanks, that was tasty, but there wasn't a great effort to instill the values of the movement into the masses. Gandhi's movement was largely successful on this count as it played into religious morality, which the masses could relate to. Then the movement tried to draw attention by attempting to kill the officer responsible for Lala Lajpat Rai's death, but killing Saunders by mistake. Then there is the bomb throwing, the court case, and the prison fast, which by the end does draw support to the movement, but too late to see it lasting long beyond the deaths of Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru.

While Bhaghat Singh is a true hero and martyr who should be remembered by all Indians and freedom loving people, his actual influence on the indian freedom struggle is perhaps not as great as the movie would seem to make it. His vision and desire to address class issues as well as independence was far reaching.

On the note about Gandhi. I don't think you can hold any political figure up to sainthood. The underlying facts that give rise to the implication that Gandhi didn't do more to save the lives of Bhaghat Singh are verified in historical sources, but its unclear whether that is the only permissible interpretation that the facts allow. Even if Gandhi did do as he was accused of in the movie, I don't know that it should tarnish his reputation otherwise. He certainly never hailed himself up to be a saint. This was the label put on him by others. He claimed to be a man, possessing the same weaknesses as everyone else, so we shouldn't seek sainthood out of the man if in a moment of weakness he acted out of opportunism.

reply

well written!
hear, hear!! :)

reply

That is one of the most balanced thread I have seen in this site. Wonder why no one is talking heh.

Well I second ur opinion, to say the least

thats me in the corner.........Mayur

reply

I don't think this is a balanced post at all. It's clearly of defence of Ghandi's reputation. You seem to forget that Ghandi was 38 years older than Bhagat and his strategy for independence was spreading when Bhagat was even a kid. In fact, Bhagat looked up to Ghandi as a "poster boy" for independence. Therefore comparing popularity is kind fo stupid. Bhagat's popularity was certainly vast considering the short amount of time he lived, which is what the movie showed. Ghandi through his lifetime was by no means perfect and it can be argued whether his non-violence strategy was the most efficient catalyst for India's independence. He has also been slated for hating blacks, which is another slur on his reputation. I'm not going to touch that one but just using it as an example. I think it's fair to say that through his actions, Ghandi was a rather sturbon man when it came to his own viewpoint. IMO this is partly his own downfall. When it comes to opinions I lean towards Bhagat's because being "saints" will not get you far against the demonic nature of the British. It can be argued that through total non-violence too many died uneccessaryily or got injured. What I'm saying is that it's extremely hard to "fight" for something through total non-violence. I think with hindsight, many today follow Bhagat's methodology as I believe it was truely revolutionary and ahead of it's time. Peaceful protesting in the UK today is still useless.

However, both are legends in their own right and I respect both for their sacrifices in India's independence. Would India have gotten its independence without these men, definitely but both are very inspirational stories.

P.S. this movie was 10x better than Ghandi (everyone Indian speaking "Dawson's Creek" vocabulary English is not realistic!)

If u feel u need to insult ppl, post on www.moviestar.nu/articles/baldmoviestarsenglish.html

reply

I have had my doubts about the roles these two great men played in India's freedom struggle.
Gandhi's personality is very complicated. Plus there was a novelty factor since no one earlier had talked of non voilence as a means of conflict resolution (which was what it was when he started, and later transformed into the struggle for independence). He had an independent mindset, and was shrewed enough to understand the people and the society around him, and construct a movement based on this knowledge.
Bhagat Singh on the other hand was heavily influenced by world events and the rise of socialism. It may surprise some to know that he was a Giant of an intellectual, and a voracious reader. I admired him as a revolutionary, but when I finally read some of his write ups, I was stunned to come across someone who lay great emphasis on discussions and logics to arrive at a conclusion.
As to their importace, no doubt that Gandhi was unparelleled during the freedom movement, whereas Bhagat Singh symbolised any alternative ideologies that people had. Al least that what my limited understanding is.

reply

sitting in front of computer and compairing leaders...
'i mean u can compare by reading books and your little knowledge but in order to testify what is true u should be in field'.

at your age bhagat singh had known the reason of every crime i.e. poverty and hanged to death..

but u wanna know statistics and all other things...

reply