What did Bose himself think of the Mahatma?

Recently, R N Ravi, the Governor of Tamil Nadu, whether due to his penchant for creating controversies or as his latest bid to show his allegiance to the views of the political masters at the Centre, declared that Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent struggle for independence had become irrelevant after 1942, when he called the Quit India movement, and that it was Subash Chandra Bose and his armed struggle from outside India that brought India freedom. Is that accurate?

Let me first unquestioningly accept the key role that Netaji Bose played in India’s freedom struggle, along with Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and others in the Indian National Congress between 1927 and 1939, and in the years between 1940 and 1945 when he travelled first to Italy and Germany and then to Japan to cobble up an army mostly out of Indian soldiers who had fought under British command and had become prisoners of war of the Axis Powers. That role became especially crucial between 1942 and mid-1945, when the British had jailed the entire Congress leadership in India. When neither the Hindu Mahasabha nor the RSS stepped in to keep  India’s freedom struggle going, it was Bose who did so. But what did Bose himself think of Gandhi’s importance in the freedom struggle from 1920 to 1942 and beyond? 

Bose’s book The Indian Struggle, which was first published in England in 1937 but was banned by the British in India until 1948, when the Nehru government ensured that it saw the light of day, throws an authentic light on his views of Gandhi, his successes and his failures. 

Here are some extracts from the book: 

In 1920 India stood at the cross-roads. Constitutionalism was dead; armed revolution was sheer madness. But silent acquiescence was impossible. The country was groping for a new method and looking for a new leader. Then there sprang up India’s man of destiny—Mahatma Gandhi…The Indian National Congress of today is largely his creation…From a talking body he has converted the Congress into a living and fighting organisation…But how could he achieve so much within this short period? By his single-hearted devotion, his relentless will and his indefatigable labour. Moreover, the time was auspicious and his policy prudent…His policy was one of unification. He wanted to unite the Hindu and Moslem; the high caste and the low caste; the capitalist and the labourer; the landlord and the peasant…

Rejoicing over Gandhi’s resoluteness at the 1931, Roundtable Conference Bose writes, “In 1931, when Mahatma landed in London, he answered the press, ‘but I am here on a special mission and my loin-cloth represents my principles and India’. Mahatma’s first speech at the plenary session on November 30th is a priceless document”. And he goes on to quote Gandhi approvingly, “I knew that I am not going to get anything from the British and therefore, I know I must go back and yet invite the nation to another course of suffering.”

Of course, in the book, Bose also analyses why by 1934, Gandhi had still not been able to lead India to freedom. His analysis, perhaps a foreboding of his own parting of ways with Gandhi in 1939, is that while the Mahatma knew himself and his people very well and had designed his method of struggle accordingly, he did not know the enemy, the British, well enough.

In 1942, Netaji, then in exile and struggling in Europe and South-East Asia to build the INA, becomes emotional when he learns that the Congress had passed the Quit India resolution.  He records “in the Congress session, Mahatma give a stirring ninety-minute speech declaring his total determination to fight unto his death, even if he is alone. Gandhiji called the Indian Army to be disbanded as it is the army of occupation if its control did not pass on to the hands of Indians. If the British think that India requires a century to govern herself, the Congress must go through a fiery ordeal…If it becomes necessary, if it is God’s will…face a shower of bullets.”

Again, in 1943 – Governor Ravi may note – it was Bose, four years after he had parted ways with Gandhi and Congress, that called Gandhi “Bapuji”, “Father of the Nation” in a radio address from Singapore. And when he formed the Indian National Army, Bose called one brigade ‘Gandhi Brigade’ and another ‘Jawahar Brigade’. When he made the “Dilli Chalo” call in 1944, he wanted to march to the Red Fort and hoist the Indian flag atop it and “hand over a free India to Bapuji.” 

Unfortunately, now history is being mis-written by a new set of victors. No doubt, Netaji even called Mahatma an “impractical idealist”, “faddist” and “dictatorial”, but he, like most of India, knew and acknowledged that without the Mahatma, the freedom struggle could not succeed. It was also true that Netaji, like Nehru and others, was greatly perturbed when Gandhiji withdrew the first civil disobedience movement when it was at the peak, because of a few violent incidents. It was true that after the 1931 Poona Pact, Bose felt that Gandhi had diluted the focus on achieving political freedom and deviated into the emancipation of Harijan (Dalits) from the oppressive caste system. Again, it was true that just as Gandhi was steadfast, even adamant, in his principles, Bose, too, was. When he won the election for Congress president against the wishes of Gandhi and the Congress right-wing of Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad, etc., Bose resigned and quit Congress because to him, the choice was between abiding by Gandhi’s principles or his own. 

Netaji and Gandhiji trekked different paths though their ultimate goal was the same. Neither was deceived by British hypocrisy. Netaji would shake hands with anyone -- be it Mussolini, Hitler or Yamamoto, to unfurl the Indian flag. Gandhiji would also shake hands with anyone for it -- including Jinnah and Savarkar.  Netaji wanted India to become a Socialist Republic, Gandhi wanted ‘Gram Swaraj’. 

“If your efforts to achieve Independence succeeds, I will be the first person to hug and congratulate you,” Netaji records the Mahatma as saying during their last talk.

Perhaps both enjoyed suffering and sacrifice, which are the touchstones of high public morality. Their quarrel was that between a strong-principled father and an equally strong-willed son.  Both abhorred the capitalism of the day, the communists and the communalists like the Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League. While Gandhiji wanted to disarm the British, Netaji wanted to face them with an army. 

(The writer is Chairman, Vision Committee, KPCC)