The country is celebrating the 125th birth anniversary of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. The celebrations are expected to be on a scale and grandeur as they would head into the 75th year of Indian Independence. Netaji Bose was no doubt a stalwart whose contribution to Indian freedom movement cannot be questioned. His Indian National Army (INA) was an attempt to throw British out through a war or means of a revolution something perhaps he borrowed from the European context as observed in the unification of Italy post the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire. His mysterious disappearance, the fate something that remains disputed till date, did put an end to the efforts, something hastened by the British victory in the Battle of Imphal that was fought on the highway between Imphal and Kohima. The trial of the INA prisoners which happened in the Red Fort attracted huge uproar and disquiet across the country, many of whom believe hastened the Indian independence. What however would be instructive is an analysis of the feud between Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Bose in securing the supremacy in the Congress. The events that led to Netaji’s resignation as Congress President and later expulsion from the party is bound to be curious. Towards this, while there are many accounts, it would be prudent to look at the views of Nirad Chaudhuri who observed the events from the ringside. Nirad Babu as he was known as functioned as the secretary to Sarat Chandra Bose, brother of Subhas Babu.
At the outset, it must be mentioned that Nirad Babu did not have a favourable view of Subhash Bose, yet he comes across with a sympathetic view of Subhas Bose in the entire episode that unfolded between 1938 and 1939. To Nirad Chaudhuri, Gandhi’s offer of Congress Presidentship to Subhas Bose in 1938 Haripur session was sugarcoated as a benevolence something of English nobleman accepting a commoner as his son in law. Nirad Babu feels it was a surrender, albeit a belated recognition of the Bengal’s face in the Indian National Congress. Subhas Bose had become the face following the vacuum created through the death of CR Das or Bipin Pal or even the retreat of Sri Aurobindo into spirituality a decade or so before. Bengal was looking, to borrow from Nirad Chaudhuri, a political Vivekananda, something they saw in Subhas Bose. Bose no doubt was very popular, had a strong personal appeal, yet he lacked in institutional and organizational building skills. He made up for these weakness through a personal charisma but these weakness haunted him when he was confronted with the Gandhian group in the Tripuri session of the Congress in 1939.
Nirad Babu locates the differences between Gandhi and Bose in their personalities and castes. While Bose would be Shakta, Gandhi was a Vaishnava and the divide was too deep. Nehru too was of similar profile like Bose, but he could supress his views in deference to Gandhi. Nehru would be a team man of sorts while Bose would be an individualist, someone with a streak of rebelliousness in him. Given Nehru’s attributes, Gandhi could him to reach to constituencies something beyond Gandhi’s reach. While Gandhi could mobilize the masses in the hinterland, something Bose lacked, Bose could appeal to the gentry, the middle class influenced by the European tradition. Bose got influenced by the revolutionary nationalism that evolved in Europe through the 19th century including Germany, Italy, Ireland among others, Gandhi fashioned his thoughts in context of what today can be termed as Abrahamic Vaishnavism, something having similar roots but very different manifestations as compared to Raja Rammohan Roy propagated in Brahmo Samaj a century or so before.
They did co-exist, albeit uneasily for close to two decades. Congress could not do without Bengal, whose face was Subhas Babu while to Netaji Bose, Gandhi was something unavoidable given his domineering presence on the national canvas. There was suspended antipathy between the two something which broke in the open, descended into something ugly, and ended badly for Bose. Perhaps, it was tragic in some ways that Bose represented a streak that was experiencing diminishing returns in the Indian context while Gandhian model was just building on the horizon and was to be the star for the next two decades or so. This perhaps too was the cause why Bose could not get the Presidency of the Congress earlier. It was only in 1938, a couple of years after he returned from exile, he was offered a post. Yet as he assumed it, the differences between the Mahatma and Netaji exploded in multiple ways. Their styles of functioning were very different. Bose was impulsive while Gandhi was someone who was cool and calculative and had organization behind him. While Bose was popular, he could not get the organization behind him even in Bengal. For all the revolutionary traits a blend of Hindu and European nationalist school, Bose preferred the approach of power than agitation. His emphasis on Calcutta Municipal Corporation led him to neglecting the affairs of the centre. His belief of Calcutta being the prospective centre of revolution and thus of critical import in managing Calcutta Corporation led him to a downfall. His focus on individualism went at odds with the Congress tradition of unity against an external goal even if it mean surrender to Gandhi. Gandhi for all his democratic instincts was dictatorial in many ways, and Bose could never accept Gandhi as one. Bose’s indiscretions of accusing Congressmen of sabotaging the freedom struggle in late 1938 led to revolt within the party.
Bose won against Gandhi’s nominee Pattabhi Sitaramayya something unthinkable in the Congress ecosystem. He leveraged his personal appeal despite his serious indisposition and thus absence from the session. His interests were being managed by his brother Sarat Babu. Bose’s supporters did attempt to shout down Nehru. The coalition which Bose had built up was a short term convergence of interests rather than long term interplay of organization building and control. The Gandhians who were part of the Congress used their experience to ensure Bose would not get his way on the Working Committee among other things. The session at Tripuri in March 1939 was dominated by intrigue, innuendoes and conspiracies freely flowing across.
No doubt, the post-session aftermath was bitter. While the Bose brothers appealed to Gandhi for his intervention, the latter while appearing neutral sought to defend his supporters. What went against the Boses was perhaps Sarat Babu’s emotional outburst against the others in the Congress Working Committee. The Gandhian managers were quick to take this opportunity to hit back by claiming their innocence and their efforts to cooperate with Subhas Babu and how it went in vain. They smartly put the ball back in the court of Subhas Bose, the final outcome was his resignation as party president. He was later expelled which led him to form the Forward Bloc. Interestingly, as Nirad Babu points out, even his own brother stayed back in the Congress. Hardly any of the Bengali intelligentsia went with Subhas Bose. Interestingly, in Nirad Babu’s conclusions, the only one who came out honourably in this episode was Jawaharlal Nehru. This is despite, Nirad Babu’s personal antipathy towards Nehru.
As one dissects this episode, it is perhaps tragic, the clash of individuals of different styles and personalities happened perhaps at a wrong time. Had there been a unity, maybe, the direction of the struggle would have been different. Yet, history is all about what happened and not about what ifs. Contrary to juxtaposing one personality against another, this episode demonstrates intra-party rivalries and their outcomes manifesting in the open. Leadership is not perfect, they have their own human failings, and this was what came out in this episode. Bose was never perhaps cut out in the Congress mould of thinking, something that was hostage to Gandhian ideas, relevant to the times. The two had to part ways just that the pleasant divorce would be an oxymoron. Bose’s impulses got the better of him thus the round going to his rivals. Bose went to form Indian National Army, yet this would be a different story about its success or otherwise.
Thoughts on Theory and Practice 