During whose tenure as the Viceroy of India were the great martyrs Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru hanged?

1. Chronology of British Viceroys (1858–1947) (basic)

Welcome to our journey through Modern Indian History! To understand the revolutionary movement, we must first understand the stage on which it played out: the British Viceregal administration. After the Revolt of 1857, the British Parliament passed the Government of India Act 1858, which ended the rule of the East India Company and transferred power directly to the British Crown. This shift changed the very nature of Indian governance.

The most visible change was the title of the head of administration. The 'Governor-General of India' was redesignated as the Viceroy of India, acting as the direct representative of the British Monarch Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Historical Background, p.4. This era, lasting from 1858 to 1947, saw a succession of Viceroys who reacted differently to India's growing demand for freedom. While Lord Canning served as the first Viceroy, others like Lord Curzon and Lord Irwin became central figures during periods of intense political and revolutionary activity.

Understanding this chronology is vital because revolutionary actions were often direct responses to the policies of specific Viceroys. For instance, the revolutionary activities of the late 1920s reached their climax during Lord Irwin's tenure, a time characterized by both official declarations of "Dominion Status" and harsh crackdowns on nationalist leaders Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India, Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences, p.367.

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Historical Background, p.4; History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Effects of British Rule, p.276; Modern India, Bipin Chandra, Struggle for Swaraj, p.289; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India, Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences, p.367

2. Evolution of Revolutionary Terrorism: Phase II (HSRA) (basic)

Welcome back! Now that we understand the roots of the revolutionary movement, let’s look at its powerful rebirth in the late 1920s. After the setback of the Kakori robbery case and the subsequent arrest of top leaders, a younger generation stepped up. This phase marks a significant intellectual shift: the movement moved away from just individual acts of heroism toward a structured, socialist ideology.

In September 1928, a historic meeting took place at the ruins of Ferozshah Kotla in Delhi. Under the charismatic leadership of Chandra Shekhar Azad, the old Hindustan Republican Association (HRA) was reorganized into the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA) Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 17, p.350. This wasn't just a name change; it reflected a deepening of their goals. Figures like Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Bejoy Kumar Sinha were heavily influenced by Marxist and Socialist thoughts, aiming not just to replace British rulers with Indian ones, but to end all forms of exploitation of man by man Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 17, p.349.

The HSRA's strategy also evolved. While they still used symbols of power to strike back, they wanted to use these actions as propaganda by deed to awaken the masses. For instance, when Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt threw bombs in the Central Legislative Assembly on April 8, 1929, they chose harmless smoke bombs. Their goal was not to kill, but to protest against repressive laws like the Public Safety Bill and to "make the deaf hear" Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 17, p.350-351.

Feature	HRA (1924)	HSRA (1928)
Full Name	Hindustan Republican Association	Hindustan Socialist Republican Association
Core Ideology	Armed revolution for a Federal Republic	Socialism and Mass-based revolution
Key Figures	Bismil, Sanyal, Chatterjee	Azad, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru

Sources: Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Chapter 17: Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.349-351; India and the Contemporary World – II. History-Class X . NCERT(Revised ed 2025), Nationalism in India, p.41

3. The Simon Commission and the Death of Lala Lajpat Rai (intermediate)

To understand the radicalization of Indian revolutionaries in the late 1920s, we must look at the Simon Commission — a catalyst that turned peaceful protest into a flashpoint of tragedy. Under the Government of India Act 1919, a commission was supposed to be appointed ten years later to review the progress of governance. However, the Conservative government in Britain, led by Stanley Baldwin, feared a loss to the Labour Party in the upcoming elections. Not wanting the "future of Britain's most priced colony" to be decided by the more sympathetic Labour Party, they pre-emptively appointed the Indian Statutory Commission (popularly known as the Simon Commission) on November 8, 1927 Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Simon Commission and the Nehru Report, p.357.

The commission, chaired by Sir John Simon, consisted of seven members — all of whom were white Englishmen. This complete exclusion of Indians from a body meant to decide India's constitutional future was seen as a profound national insult. In response, a wave of unity swept across the political spectrum. The Indian National Congress, the Liberals of the Hindu Mahasabha, and the Jinnah-led faction of the Muslim League all agreed to a complete boycott Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Simon Commission and the Nehru Report, p.358. When the commission arrived in February 1928, it was met with black flags and the legendary chant: "Simon Go Back!"

The turning point for the revolutionary movement occurred in Lahore in October 1928. During a peaceful demonstration led by Lala Lajpat Rai (known as Sher-i-Punjab), the police launched a brutal lathi charge. Rai was struck multiple times on his chest by police official Saunders' orders. Gravely injured, he famously declared: "The blows, which fell on me today, are the last nails driven into the coffin of British Imperialism." Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Simon Commission and the Nehru Report, p.360. He succumbed to his injuries on November 17, 1928. This death shook the nation and directly forced the young revolutionaries of the HSRA — like Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Chandrashekhar Azad — to abandon their focus on mass organization and return to individual heroic action to avenge their mentor Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Action against the Revolutionaries, p.350.

Party/Group	Stance on Simon Commission
Congress & Muslim League (Jinnah Faction)	Boycott (No Indian representation)
Hindu Mahasabha & Liberals	Boycott
Muslim League (Shafi Faction) & Unionists (Punjab)	Supported the Government/Commission
Justice Party (South India)	Did not boycott

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Simon Commission and the Nehru Report, p.357-360; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.350; Modern India (Old NCERT), Struggle for Swaraj, p.283

4. The Civil Disobedience Movement (1930) (intermediate)

The Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM), launched in 1930, represented a fundamental shift from demanding 'Dominion Status' to the goal of Purna Swaraj (Complete Independence). Mahatma Gandhi chose Salt as the central symbol of defiance because it was a basic necessity for every Indian, regardless of caste or religion, yet it was heavily taxed and monopolized by the British government History, Class XII (Tamil Nadu State Board), Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.51. This movement transformed the freedom struggle into a truly mass-based revolution, engaging everyone from urban intellectuals to the rural poor.

The movement was sparked by the historic Dandi March. On March 12, 1930, Gandhi set out from Sabarmati Ashram with 78 followers on a 375-km journey to the coast of Dandi. He reached the shore on April 6, 1930, and symbolically broke the salt law by picking up a handful of salt Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, After Nehru..., p.810. This single act ignited a fire across the subcontinent. In Tamil Nadu, C. Rajagopalachari led a similar march from Trichinopoly to Vedaranniyam, while in Malabar, K. Kelappan (famous for the Vaikom Satyagraha) marched from Calicut to Payanneer Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences, p.373.

Beyond salt, the CDM involved diverse forms of resistance that challenged the very structure of colonial administration. This included the boycott of foreign cloth, picketing liquor shops, and the refusal to pay specific colonial taxes like the Chowkidara tax in Eastern India. In regions like Andhra, military-style camps called Sibirams were established to coordinate activities. The movement was met with harsh repression; nearly 80,000 satyagrahis were imprisoned within the first four months Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences, p.389. Although the movement was eventually suspended following the Gandhi-Irwin Pact of 1931, it demonstrated that the British could no longer rule India without the consent of the governed.

Sources: History, Class XII (Tamil Nadu State Board), Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.51; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, After Nehru..., p.810; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences, p.373; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences, p.389

5. The Round Table Conferences (1930–1932) (exam-level)

The Round Table Conferences (RTCs), held between 1930 and 1932, were a series of three high-level sessions in London designed to decide the future constitutional structure of India. After the backlash against the all-British Simon Commission, the British government realized they could no longer ignore Indian opinion. These conferences marked the first time Indians were invited as "equal" partners to discuss their own governance, though the reality on the ground was far more turbulent.

The First RTC (November 1930 – January 1931) was officially opened by King George V and chaired by Ramsay MacDonald. While it saw participation from Princely States, Muslim League, and Liberals like Tej Bahadur Sapru, it was ultimately a failure because the Indian National Congress (INC) boycotted it to continue the Civil Disobedience Movement Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 19, p.382. To bridge this gap, the British negotiated the Gandhi-Irwin Pact in March 1931. This truce was bittersweet for the nationalist movement; while it paved the way for Congress participation in the next conference, it occurred amidst the tragic execution of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru on March 23, 1931—an event that deeply moved the Indian public just days before the Karachi Congress Session Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 17, p.351.

The Second RTC (September – December 1931) is perhaps the most famous because Mahatma Gandhi attended as the sole representative of the INC Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 19, p.384. However, the session reached a deadlock over the Communal Question. Gandhi argued for a united electorate, while other leaders, including Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, demanded separate electorates for minorities and the depressed classes. By the Third RTC (November 1932), the momentum had faded; the Congress was back in jail, and participation was thin. Nevertheless, these discussions formed the basis of the White Paper which eventually led to the Government of India Act of 1935 Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 19, p.404.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 19: Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences, p.382; A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 17: Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.351; A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 19: Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences, p.384; A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 19: Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences, p.404

6. The Gandhi-Irwin Pact and Karachi Session (1931) (exam-level)

After the mass intensity of the Salt Satyagraha, the British government realized that no constitutional scheme would be viable without the participation of the Indian National Congress. This led to the unconditional release of the Congress Working Committee in January 1931 and subsequent negotiations between Mahatma Gandhi and the Viceroy, Lord Irwin. The resulting Gandhi-Irwin Pact (signed on March 5, 1931), also known as the Delhi Pact, was a watershed moment because it placed the Congress on an equal footing with the British government for the first time Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Chapter 19, p.379. While the government agreed to release non-violent political prisoners and allow peaceful picketing, it notably refused to commute the death sentences of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru, a decision that cast a dark shadow over the pact.

The Karachi Session of the Congress, held in late March 1931 and presided over by Vallabhbhai Patel, met under a cloud of immense grief and public anger following the execution of the three revolutionaries just six days prior Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Chapter 17, p.351. Despite the 'black flag' demonstrations Gandhi faced upon arrival, the session was historic for two reasons. First, it endorsed the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, paving the way for Gandhi's participation in the Second Round Table Conference. Second, and more importantly, it moved beyond political freedom to define the socio-economic essence of 'Swaraj' by adopting resolutions on Fundamental Rights and the National Economic Programme Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Chapter 19, p.381.

The contrast between the diplomatic concessions and the revolutionary sacrifice is best understood through the sequence of events that spring:

Party	Key Concessions / Agreements
The Government	Released non-violent prisoners; returned confiscated lands; allowed salt collection for personal use.
The Congress	Suspended the Civil Disobedience Movement; agreed to participate in the next Round Table Conference.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Chapter 19: Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences, p.379, 381; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Chapter 17: Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.351; History, Class XII (Tamil Nadu State Board), Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.53

7. The Lahore Conspiracy Case and the Final Sentence (exam-level)

The Second Lahore Conspiracy Case was a watershed moment in the Indian freedom struggle, marking the transition of the revolutionary movement from individual acts of heroism to a deeply ideological battle against imperialism. Following the Central Assembly Bombing in April 1929, the police uncovered the HSRA's 'bomb factory' in Lahore, leading to the arrest of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru, and others. They were tried not just for the bombing, but for the murder of British police officer John Saunders—an act they had carried out to avenge the death of Lala Lajpat Rai History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.50.

While in prison, these revolutionaries turned the courtroom into a platform for their socialist ideology. A defining moment of this period was the hunger strike led by Jatindra Nath Das. He, along with other political prisoners, protested against the pathetic conditions in jail and the discriminatory treatment of Indian prisoners compared to Europeans. After a heroic 64-day strike, Jatindra Nath Das achieved martyrdom, an event that sent a wave of grief and anti-colonial sentiment across the country History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Period of Radicalism in Anti-imperialist Struggles, p.64.

The final sentence was delivered on October 7, 1930, by a Special Tribunal. Despite massive public outpourings of support and legal appeals, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru were executed on March 23, 1931. This occurred during the viceroyalty of Lord Irwin, just days before the Karachi Session of the Congress where the Gandhi-Irwin Pact was to be discussed. In their final days, the trio displayed immense courage, writing to the Governor of Punjab that since they had 'waged a war' against the British, they should be treated as war prisoners and shot dead rather than hanged History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Period of Radicalism in Anti-imperialist Struggles, p.65.

Sources: History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.50; History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Period of Radicalism in Anti-imperialist Struggles, p.64-65; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM, Chapter 19: Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences, p.381

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

This question serves as the perfect synthesis of the two major threads you have just studied: the revolutionary movement of the late 1920s and the constitutional negotiations between the British and the Congress. To solve this, you must anchor the execution of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru to a specific date—March 23, 1931. By connecting this date to the broader political landscape, such as the Civil Disobedience Movement and the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, the administrative context becomes clear. As noted in A Brief History of Modern India by Rajiv Ahir (Spectrum), this period was defined by the transition from the Simon Commission protests to the Round Table Conferences, all of which fall under the tenure of Lord Irwin (1926–1931).

To arrive at the correct answer, (B) Lord Irwin, you must use chronological elimination to avoid the common traps set by the UPSC. Lord Curzon is a classic distractor associated with the Partition of Bengal (1905), while Lord Minto is tied to the 1909 reforms—both eras are far too early. Lord Chelmsford oversaw the Non-Cooperation Movement and the Rowlatt Act nearly a decade before these executions. The "trap" here is often a confusion of revolutionary phases; while Chelmsford dealt with the post-WWI revolutionaries, it was specifically under Irwin's administration that the Lahore Conspiracy Case reached its tragic conclusion. Mastering these tenure windows is essential for navigating the "Viceroy-Event" matrix frequently tested in the Preliminary exam.