Gandhi’s Role in the Execution of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru

Bhagat Singh and Mahatma Gandhi 

At times, I find myself questioning whether Mahatma Gandhi was truly a nationalist in the fullest sense of the term. One of the most troubling episodes that fuels this doubt is the execution of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru. The sequence of events leading to their deaths raises the unsettling possibility that Gandhi, had he acted differently, might have saved their lives.

The trial of these three revolutionaries was controversial from the outset. The judges, serving under the colonial legal framework, ultimately handed down the sentence of death by hanging. However, not all members of the judiciary agreed. Justice Agha Haider Khan, one of the judges involved, openly opposed the death penalty in this case. He argued that in a situation where suspicion remained, it was unjust to impose the irreversible punishment of death. According to him, the principles of law did not justify capital punishment when absolute certainty was absent. When his dissent was overruled, Agha Haider Khan chose to resign from his judicial post, declaring that he could not remain complicit in what he saw as a grave injustice and a moral darkness within the colonial legal system.

It is here that Gandhi’s role becomes the focus of critical debate. The historical record indicates that during this period, Gandhi was engaged in political negotiations with Lord Irwin, the Viceroy of India. The impending executions coincided with preparations for the Second Round Table Conference in London, to which Gandhi was invited as the sole representative of the Indian National Congress.

Many have argued that Gandhi possessed a unique opportunity to intervene decisively. As part of the ongoing Gandhi–Irwin Pact, he could have made the commutation of the death sentences a precondition for cooperation. The British Viceroy had the authority to veto or commute the executions. Had Gandhi refused to participate in the Second Round Table Conference until this demand was met, it is conceivable that Lord Irwin would have been compelled to act—especially given the political sensitivity of the moment and the British government’s desire to project an image of conciliatory engagement with Indian leaders.

Instead, Gandhi proceeded with his scheduled visit to London, placing broader constitutional negotiations ahead of the immediate fate of Bhagat Singh and his comrades. Critics have long maintained that this was a political miscalculation of historical proportions. They argue that if Gandhi had prioritized saving the revolutionaries’ lives, Irwin’s political position could have been undermined, possibly even leading to his resignation, as failure to secure Indian participation in the conference would have been a significant embarrassment for the colonial administration.

The result, tragically, is well known: Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru were executed on 23 March 1931, becoming martyrs for India’s freedom struggle. While their sacrifice inspired generations, it also left behind an enduring question—whether their lives might have been spared had Gandhi chosen to leverage his influence differently at that critical juncture.

This episode remains a point of deep historical contention, compelling us to examine the complex interplay of moral conviction, political strategy, and the limits of negotiation under colonial rule.

This Article is Authored by Adnan Khan currently pursuing MA Political Science in Manipur University.