Within a short time of arriving in San Francisco, Vishno Das Bagai embedded himself inside the Ghadar Party as a British colonial spy.1 He was entrusted by party leader Ram Chandra to oversee the Ghadar Party’s funds. Between August 1916 and March 1917, Vaishno Das Bagai and Ram Chandra exploited their trusted position within the Ghadar Party to divert revolutionary funnds into their personal bank accounts. Bhagat Singh Bilga, in his book Unfolded Pages of the Ghadar Movement, notes that Lala Lajpat Rai—a prominent Ghadar leader wrote that Vishnu Das Bagai was Ram Chandra’s trusted confidant and full partner in the embezzlement of Ghadar Party funds.2 These funds were donated by the real victims of racism, discrimination, and exclusion (hardworking Indian laborers) from all over the Pacific Coast to support the cause of India's liberation from British colonial rule.
Using the embezzled Ghadar Party funds, Bagai purchased a residential property at 1610 Edith Street in Berkeley, in August 1916, after few months of his arrival (Bagai family timeline in Berkeley). This maneuver is verified in a diary entry by then-Ghadar Party President Bhagwan Singh Gyanee, who unknowingly believed that visited what he believed to be a movement-owned house registered in Ram Chandra name on January 2, 1917.3 Real estate records research, at Alameda County Assessor's Office, reveal the property was bought by V.D. Bagai from Watkins on August 7, 1916, and was not deeded to the Pacific Coast Hindustani Association until March 8, 1917—after mounting suspicions within the party.4,5 This sequence of events provides crucial evidence of Bagai's financial misconduct and betrayal of the revolutionary movement he claimed to support.
August 7, 1916 - Bagai purchases property using misappropriated Ghadar Party funds
March 7, 1917 - Property transferred to Bhagwan Singh Gyanee
March 8, 1917 - Property finally deeded to Pacific Coast Hindustani Association
A deeper rift between Bagai and Ram Chandra emerged when Chandra allegedly discovered Bagai’s ties to British intelligence. In what appeared to be a calculated attempt at self‑preservation, Bagai disclosed the Edith Street property purchase to Bhagwan Singh Gyanee—turning on his old friend Ram Chandra from Peshawar— in an effort to regain trust and avoid being exposed as a British colonial spy.
Bhagwan Singh Gyanee failed to detect the role of Vaishno Das Bagai as the colonial spy who had successfully planted the seeds of division that would soon split the Ghadar Party into two factions—one led by Bhagwan Singh and the other by Ram Chandra.
Kala Bagai's silence on her husband's embezzlement of Ghadar Party funds and deneying the fact that Mr. Bagai was an "English Spy"6 may have been a strategic choice—an effort to preserve her family's dignity and shield her children from public shame. Yet this omission has had lasting consequences. Similarly, activists who campaigned for the Kala Bagai Way street renaming, either overlooked or intentionally masked this critical aspect of Bagai family sotry. By excluding documented evidence of Vaishno Das Bagai's betrayal of the revolutionary movement, they presented a sanitized narrative that raises serious questions about historical accountability and the ethics of public commemoration.