One of India’s most charismatic and iconic heroes Subhash Chandra Bose was born 125 years ago. Here was a man who epitomised a tragic heroism, a person of immense ability and bravery, who sacrificed comfort and a secure future as a civil servant to travel of a difficult path of taking on the British government, going to jail several times in the freedom struggle, then falling out with Gandhi, escape from his beloved motherland and tragic death in exile. He represents everything that our ordinary selves are too craven to do in our quotidian lives.
Yet it is all too easy to be swayed by the Bose legend. Several people were so inspired by him that they named their children after him — some even in a full form — I’ve heard of someone named “Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Reddy”.
I myself grew up memorising all the Indian National Army tunes as a six year old, and singing along with the choirs at Teen Murti Bhawan on nationalist events in the 60s and 70s.
Kadam-kadam badhaaye ja,
Khushi ke geet gaaye ja,
Yeh zindagi hai Qaum ke,
Tu Qaum pe lutaye ja.
Without having to face the rigours of a war and the harsh conditions of the 40s, it’s all too easy to get fascinated by the INA, to get children dress up in costume and enact imagined scenes, to weep on hearing Bose’s brave declarations made over the Azad Hind radio. And 75 years on as an independent country, too many people whose ideology has nothing to do with Bose’s can lay claim to his legacy are given to saying that Bose is not given his due as a leader by the previous governments. Narayan Murthy, a co-founder of Infosys, even claimed that in Delhi there is not a single road named after Bose. [False: the very road in front of the Red Fort, form where the PM addresses the nation on Independence Day, is called Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg. There are several Subhash Nagars, Netaji Nagars, and stadiums and institutes named after Bose in Delhi alone.]
In response to a quotation I had posted (of Nehru’s first speech from the Red Fort, where he specifically recalled the role of two individuals — Mahatma Gandhi and Subhas Chandra Bose) and something I had written, a noted scholar commented that this "should be sobering for all those who revere Nehru and demonize Bose".
In what I had written, I was actually arguing for a more honest and nuanced evaluation of the Bose legacy, something that is actually somewhat problematic for a modern secular democracy. This is something difficult to do today, with hot tempers and ill-informed debate, and deeply entrenched beliefs that have no basis but some ill-defined grudges and false identifications.
I wrote the following in that context — let it be clear that I find a lot to admire in Bose: in the man and his personality, in his immense intellectual ability, in his far-sighted visions especially for science, for planning, for his systematic approach to the problems the country faced, for his deeply-held sense of fair-play and his through-and-through secular ethos.
All that said, Subhash Chandra Bose is not someone I idolise. It is absolutely inconceivable to me (today) that someone like Bose --- well-read and politically active on the Left, and who had travelled in the 30s through Europe --- could have missed something as obvious as the sheer brutality of the Fascist regimes of Spain, Italy and Germany. More so since Nehru, who was, in the Congress ranks and Mahatma Gandhi loyalists, one of the very few who had political and personal sympathy for Bose and who kept in touch with him regularly, spoke and wrote extensively on this matter throughout that turbulent decade.
In retrospect, however, one can say that Bose unfortunately had a rather shallow approach to a true social-democratic path -- which involves empowerment of the common people in the decision processes (and not merely popular will as evinced in elections). From his writings in the 30s and 40s, it seems he was all too enamoured of the use of State power and Nationalist sentiment (see his fascination for Il Duce, and even Franco.. and then his going first to Hitler, then to Tojo, and finally -- it is said -- to seek Stalin's help). See also his writings where he explicitly advocates a dictatorship in India.
He also seemed much too fascinated with militaristic power and was given to dressing up in uniform, even as a civilian at the 1928 Congress session — when as "Commander-In-Chief of Congress Volunteer Corps", he got himself togged out with military uniform and insignia, leading to Gandhi calling it a “Bertram Mills Circus”. His arrival in a caparisoned chariot as President of the Congress at Haripura would have further irked the Mahatma. I think that his distaste for Bose's theatrics led Gandhi to underestimate his subsequent bravery, innate sense of honour and willingness to doggedly fight the British even in the hardest of circumstances.
Let's also be clear, while he was all togged up in uniform, Bose was not a fighting man. He was a leader of the imagination, but not a general. Among the few genuinely capable military leaders and tacticians in the INA was Shahnawaz Khan, who fought all the way to eastern India (and the decisive twin battles of Imphal-Kohima). Even at its peak the INA, with ~40000 troops had perhaps only about 12000 who were fighting fit, the rest were support volunteers and the like. I would go with the estimates Hugh Toye made in his book. This was certainly not a force that could have made a difference to capturing India. It is true however, that after the War, the INA's actions gained hugely in the popular imagination with the British badly "misunderestimating" the sentiments that the Red Fort trials on grounds of treason of three captured INA officers would raise.
Bose’s alliances with the Axis powers has a much darker side to it, which is difficult to gainsay. There are many other really ethically troublesome (if not gruesome) aspects to the alliance with the Waffen SS of the Legion Freies Indien (950th Infantry Regiment) and their terrible acts in the last phase of the Western war. As also the horrific torture and treatment by the Japanese of Indian army PoWs (in Singapore, in Rabaul, etc.) who did not join the INA (of which Bose ought to have been aware).
All this said, there is no denying that Bose was an inspirational leader, an innately honest and decent human, secular to the core, who at the end translated his words into his actions, however misguided we may feel them to be (with the benefit of hindsight) in a broader political sense. I think Nehru certainly recognised that essential decency, spirit and courage, even if he concurred with Gandhi on the problematic aspects of the socialist-nationalist ideology espoused by Bose (which lived on in the confused politics of his party, the Forward Bloc).
I don't think it ever was Nehru vs Bose contest, but more Gandhi's distaste for Bose's showiness, and Bose's impatience with Gandhi's non-violent tactics that led to the (Gandhi-) loyalist conservative side of the Congress (Patel, Rajendra Prasad, ...) having a general distaste for Bose’s politics. Yet in all their profound political disagreements, there was respect accorded, not only in words but in deeply cherished sentiments.
I always found it fascinating that Nehru personally contributed money (not GoI money) to Bose's immediate family. {BTW, in 1982, my parents got to meet his widow Emilie in Vienna at the residence of Manju and Ambassador SK Singh, and according to them, she had frankly had had enough of the claims of the Bose aficionados in India that he was still alive, and that the Govt of India had conspired to keep him out of power, etc.}
No comments:
Post a Comment