Can Bose and Gandhi coexist?

It is a common mistake to assume that the Gandhi, Nehru and Azad brigades of the INA were named by Bose, but they were not

Although the public reaction to the installation of Netaji's statue near India Gate has been overwhelmingly appreciative, some amongst the intelligentsia have been greatly cynical about it. They appear to have been affected by a fear of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP substituting Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru with Bose.

It was, therefore, instructive to read the column 'Bose is being shown as counter to Gandhi…' by Sushant Singh published in this newspaper on 10 September. The views expressed in the article also reflect the opinion of the section of our intelligentsia referred to above.

Singh claims that the relationship between Bose and Gandhi 'was marked by deep mutual love, affection and respect.' He writes that Bose and Nehru were close friends, and then comes the standardised claim that Bose named INA's regiments after Gandhi and Nehru. Mr Singh adds that Bose warned people about Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha in his speeches from Germany.

Also Read | Bose is being shown as counter to Gandhi. He would have rejected the idea

Let's take a fuller look, based on facts and not fantasy, at the relation between Bose and Gandhi. The fact is that no two individuals could have been more different than Bose and Gandhi in practically every aspect of life. The first impression of a twenty-four-year-old Bose when he met Gandhi in Bombay in 1921 was: "There was a deplorable lack of clarity in the plan which the Mahatma had formulated" to "bring India to her cherished goal of freedom."

In the Calcutta Congress session of 1928, Bose challenged the leader's resolution seeking dominion status for India and argued in favour of complete independence. Gandhi wasn't pleased either with the drill by the Congress volunteers in military style under the leadership of Bose dressed in a military uniform. Around the same time, speaking at an All-India Youth Congress meeting in Calcutta, Bose severely criticised the 'effects and consequences' of the Sabarmati school of thought for creating "a feeling and an impression that modernism is bad, large scale production is an evil, wants should not be increased and the standard of living should not be raised…."

Bose's opposition to Gandhian politics grew stronger after he was packed off to another exile in Europe in 1933. The bluntest verdict on Gandhi, however, came through a public statement issued by Bose and Vithalbhai Patel on 9 May 1933, a day after Gandhi recommended the suspension of the Civil Disobedience Movement. Bose and Patel declared, "We are clearly of (the) opinion that as a political leader Mahatma Gandhi has failed." A journalist who was present while the statement was being drafted later recalled Bose telling him, "Gandhi is an old useless piece of furniture. He has done good service in his time, but he is an obstacle now."

Gandhi, on the other hand, never put his trust in Bose. While selecting Bose as the Congress president for 1938, Gandhi wrote to Vallabhbhai Patel, "I have observed that Subhas is not all dependable." Before the year was out, Gandhi had already made up his mind that Bose had to be replaced by one of his more 'dependable' lieutenants. What happened thereafter is too well known to repeat here. It would suffice to point out that while Bose wanted a full-scale mass campaign to oust the British Raj as the war began, Gandhi, in contrast, chose the moment to slow down as he felt it was immoral to pressurise the British in their moment of crisis.

While it is true that Bose repeatedly appealed to the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League to give up their communal worldview, he also expressed his concern repeatedly that at some point, Gandhi might compromise with the British in settling for dominion status. He argued that since "non-violent civil disobedience cannot secure the expulsion of the Britisher from India," Gandhi had to "think of a compromise with Britain."

Bose's letters clearly show that their differences were too wide and too deep, not only over the methods of the struggle for freedom, but also over the reconstruction of free India. In 1940, he wrote to elder brother Sarat: "The more I think of Congress politics, the more convinced I feel that in future we should devote more energy and time to fighting the High Command. If power goes into the hands of such mean, vindictive and unscrupulous persons when Swaraj is won, what will happen to the country!...Another reason why we should fight them now is that they have no idea of national reconstruction. Gandhism will land free India in a ditch—if free India is sought to be rebuilt on Gandhian, non-violent principles. India will then be offering a standing invitation to all predatory powers."

Yet, Bose never hesitated to acknowledge Gandhi's role in recreating Congress and giving India a new mode of political agitation. But, in the final count, it was his considered view that "Mahatma Gandhi has rendered and will continue to render phenomenal service to his country. But India's salvation will not be achieved under his leadership."

Addressing Gandhi as the 'Father of our nation', therefore, talks more about Bose's broadness of mind and heart than anything else.

Mr Singh makes the common mistake of assuming that the Gandhi, Nehru and Azad brigades of the INA were named by Bose himself. They were not. The names were given before Bose arrived in Southeast Asia. Nehru and Bose indeed were friends. Until 1938. Only bitter disagreements defined their relation after that. About Nehru, Bose wrote in 1939, "Nobody has done more harm to me personally and to our cause…." Why they fell apart was explained later by Nehru himself, when he told journalist Taya Zinkin "I subordinated myself to Gandhi, although I was in agreement with what Subhas was trying to do. I suppose it is right to say that I let him down.."

Mr Singh presents the empty canopy as a symbolism of independent India. It makes me wonder if he believes that India became independent only in 1968 when our government was compelled to remove the British monarch's statue because it had been defaced by the public. The canopy was left empty because of political and bureaucratic procrastination, and not to symbolise anything.

The fact is that the fantasy narrative of India's independence being a result of a non-violent Gandhian movement will crumble down the moment an honest government acknowledges that the British made a hasty retreat because of the impact of the INA trials and the consequent RIN mutiny. The prospect of this eventuality seems to have unnerved many.

(Chandrachur Ghose is the author of 'Bose: The Untold Story of an Inconvenient Nationalist' and co-author of 'Conundrum: Subhas Bose's Life After Death')

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH)