Gandhiji and Subhas Chandra

The relationship between Subhas Chandra and the Indian National Congress, and in particular Gandhiji-Subhas relationship, is a sensitive issue which deserves careful and objective study. For, the parting of ways between them changed the course of Subhas Chandra’s life and activities by way of adding new dimensions to our freedom struggle. It is on that score attempts have persistently been made by some quarters to ignore, to underestimate his contribution and even to distort the truth. Let us address ourselves to an objective study of relationship between these two prominent leaders of our freedom movement.

Subhas Chandra was a born patriot. He first joined the Baptist Mission School at the age of five but he felt frustrated by the racial discrimination practised in the school. He was not admitted to the Sports Club simply because he came of an Indian family. Nor was he admitted to the Boys’ Volunteer Corps. He was not allowed to take the test for scholarship. This discrimination made Subhas conscious, even in his boyhood, of the two different worlds existing in India–one representing the arrogant attitude of racial superiority in a school run on European lines and the other representing his family and the Indian society. Thus the race complex which he developed in his school-days profoundly influenced his attitude and behaviour towards the Britishers in his later life. The rebellious spirit which was noticed since childhood characterized his life and political career in later years. He was against all kinds of bondage and restrictions and the very idea of subjection to a foreign country was sufficient to steel his determination to sacrifice everything for the independence of his motherland.

So, Subhas’s decision to resign from the I. C. S. was the natural culmination of his patriotism and idealism. Even before resigning from the I. C. S. Subhas had studied the organization and working of the Congress and was aware of its various shortcomings. At Cambridge he studied modern European History including some original source books like Bismarck’s Autobiography, Mettemich’s Memoirs and Cavour’s letters, etc. These original sources, Subhas recalled, helped to rouse his political sense and to foster his understanding of the inner currents of international politics. Even when he was in England Subhas did not share the faith of Indian Liberals and others that it was the aim of British policy to grant India progressive constitutional concessions, that many of her problems would be solved when Labour came into power. He was clear in his mind that the Indian people had to be organized for starting a revolution. Ideas of revolution were not to be imported from Russia or from any other country. The Indian revolutionary movement at the time of partition of Bengal was vivid in his mind. With these radical views Subhas Chandra returned to India after resigning from I. C. S.

Subhas landed in Bombay on 16 July 1921. The non-violent non-cooperation movement, the first of its kind in Indian history, was in full swing throughout the country during the year 1921. While in England, Subhas was well aware that with the emergence of Gandhiji in Indian politics, Indian national movement was proceeding under a new leader in a new method with a new aim. The new leader was Gandhiji, the new method being non-violent non-cooperation and the new aim was Swaraj. He also knew the call given by Deshabandhu Chittaranjan Das for patriotism and service to the nation in Bengal. So, the day Subhas landed in Bombay, he met Gandhiji at Gandhiji’s residence, Mani Bhavan. That was the first meeting of these two personalities. The very first meeting marked the parting of ways ideologically. Differences between the two cropped up even at the very beginning of their meeting. Subhas wanted to have a clear conception of Gandhiji’ s plan of action. He wanted to have elucidation from Gandhiji on three points. How were the different activities conducted by the Congress going to culminate in the last stage of campaign namely, the non-payment of taxes? How could non-payment of taxes or Civil disobedience force the Government to retire and grant freedom to Indians? How could Gandhiji promise Swaraj within one year as he had been doing since the last annual session of the Indian National Congress?

Subhas could not clear his doubts in his talks with Gandhiji. He had his own reservations about the efficacy of the non-payment of taxes, the campaign started by the Congress during the Non-cooperation Movement. Gandhiji, on the other hand, had an idea that his campaign would paralyse the British administration in India. Second, Subhas had a feeling that mere non­payment of taxes could not drive the British out from India. But Gandhiji felt that Civil disobedience movement would compel the British to concede to Indian demands. Third, Gandhiji had promised his followers Swaraj, and that too within one year, which, Subhas thought was impossible.

Agreement was there on the ultimate objective of India’s freedom from foreign rule, but fundamental differences on the method of achieving the objective largely characterized the political relations between these two leaders from the day they first met in Bombay in July 1921 till they met for the last time at Wardha in June 1940.

It is interesting to note that probably, Subhas was the only political figure at that time who was not inspired by the magnetic personality of Gandhiji. Subhas proved that he was an exception and he turned out to be a critic of Gandhiji. He had his own way of thinking, feeling and judging men and matters.

However, Subhas had already contacted C. R. Das through letters from Cambridge and on reaching Calcutta, he took the earliest opportunity to meet him. Subhas found in Deshabandhu C. R. Das, his political guru, friend, philosopher and guide. ‘I felt I had found a leader and meant to follow him.’ So deep was Deshabandhu’s influence on Subhas that the latter followed without question the policy and directions given by C. R. Das in Indian or Bengal politics.

The Mahatma, being of an older generation and a spiritualist, was steadfast about the interrelation between means and ends. Satyagraha was Gandhiji’s philosophy of action and he had developed this philosophy in the course of his struggle against racialism in South Africa. The quintessence of this principle is that violence cannot be conquered by violence; it is possible to win over violence by non-violence.

On the other hand, Subhas, being a young activist, pragmatist, revolutionary and even to some extent a terrorist, was particular about the end more than the means. The main source of Subhas’s ideology was the idea of Aurobindo, not of Gandhi. With it was mingled a sense of pride in Indian civilization, Bankim Chandra’s equation of Motherland, Mother and Durga, Vivekananda’s Kshatriya spirit and ideal of ‘Atmano Mokshartham Jagada Hitayacha’ and above all, the call of Aurobindo for passive and if necessary for active (or violent) struggle. He maintained contact with Jugantar, Sree Sangha, B. V. Group, Hindusthan Republican Army etc. There is an opinion that Subhas was influenced by Fascism and Nazism. If it is so, it may be between 1933 and 1938 and not earlier. While in Europe during this period, he became acquainted with Fascism and Nazism.

True, Subhas did not like some of the ideas of Gandhiji, but he had reverence for the Mahatma throughout his life. He could sense the importance of Gandhiji in India’s struggle for freedom.

Let us now trace the course of events by way of studying this relation. Whenever Gandhiji used to launch a movement Subhas would appreciate it, but would not approve of it if it was given up abruptly. Subhas was, in fact, happy over the launching of the Non-Cooperation Movement (1921) which roused mass consciousness. He said, ‘the year 1921 undoubtedly gave the country a highly organized party organization. Before that the Congress was a constitutional party and mainly a talking body. The Mahatma not only gave it a new constitution and a nation-wide basis but, what is more important, converted it into a revolutionary organization.’

But when the Non-Cooperation Movement was called off by Gandhiji after the Chauri Choura incident (4 February 1922) Subhas considered it as an ‘order of retreat’.

Subhas wanted the Civil Disobedience Movement to be started two years earlier in 1928, instead of in 1930. In addition to the ‘Simon Go ’ heat, the time was opportune with labour unrest around.

Subhas, as the Chairman of the Reception Committee of the Youth Congress, in Calcutta in December 1928, strongly advocated activism and optimism as opposed to passivism and pessimism of the two schools of thought of Sabarmati and of Pondicherry. As a pragmatic, Subhas was critical of the Gandhian views.

Subhas submitted his own minority Report advocating complete independence immediately, though the majority Report (1928) accepted it as the final goal. Both Pt. Motilal Nehru and Gandhiji were content with Dominion status. When Gandhiji asked for complete independence in 1929, Subhas had gone still further demanding the setting up of a parallel Government. Gandhiji clearly replied, ‘We ought not to bite more than we can chew.’

The climax of differences between Subhas and Gandhiji was reached when Subhas declared his candidature for the Presidentship of the Congress, for the second term for the Tripuri Session (1939). Both Subhas and Gandhiji took the issue as a prestigious one. Gandhiji, the ever undisputed King of the Congress, suggested Nehru for the post, though he had already occupied it thrice (1929, 1936, 1937) ‘including two consecutive terms just before Bose (1938)’. Nehru, probably for this reason, declined it. Then Gandhiji leaned towards Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, probably to placate the Muslims, but he declined on ground of his health. Finally, Dr Pattabhi Sitaramayya was recommended by Gandhiji and Bose was asked to withdraw from the contest.

Subhas Bose, on the other hand, was nominated by a number of Provincial Congress Committees. Subhas’s decision to contest the Presidential election despite Gandhiji’s disapproval was guided by ideological considerations rather than personal ambitions. He thought that the war was imminent in which England would be involved and the Congress needed a definite leftist orientation in order to take maximum advantage out of England’s difficulties.

The Left Wingers thought that Gandhi and his followers had lost initiative and dynamism and lacked proper understanding of the international crisis which afforded the golden opportunity to achieve India’s freedom. It may be pointed out here that a man of Rabindranath Tagore’s eminence, requested Gandhi to allow Bose a second term. The Gandhiites argued for a unanimous choice of President and not for election. It meant that the nominee of Gandhiji should be accepted. Again, they were not for re-electing the same person except under very exceptional circumstances. There was some meaning and point in demanding a unanimous choice; but not in arguing against the second term for Bose, when Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru had already enjoyed successively two terms (1936 and 1937), in addition to the first one in 1929. Again, Bose’s stand was more appropriate as that was on the basis of democracy, policy and programmes.

Subhas Chandra’s historic success in the election (with 1580 votes in favour and 1375 against) was a clear indication of his position, power, popularity, and also of his policy and programme.

But Gandhiji was not prepared to take it lying down and he issued a statement after the election of Bose which gave rise to an undesirable controversy:

‘I must confess that from the very beginning I was decidedly against his election for reasons into which I need not go. Since I was instrumental in inducing Dr Pattabhi not to withdraw his name as a candidate, the defeat is more mine than his’.

This was surely stabbing Bose in the . Gandhiji had become uncompromising in his attitude to Bose. He had treated the election of Bose as a vote of no-confidence in his leadership and the rejection of the principles for which he stood. He had taken the defeat of Sitaramayya as his personal defeat. This was not in the true spirit of a Mahatma. The ‘Mahatma’ would not have tried for the split of the party or for the defection of the minority from it. Bose regretted this attitude of Gandhi.

Subhas also committed a couple of mistakes. First, he was surely wrong to regard Gandhiji as old, ignorant of international situation, unwilling and incapable of leading mass movement. Second, Subhas’s complaint that the Rightists were selling the country on score of federation was not tenable. There might be differences of opinion regarding the organization and method of introducing federation, but to style it a conspiracy tantamounted to provoking the other party. He committed this third mistake when he did not care to settle the dispute with Gandhiji when he met the latter on 15 February at Wardah. His fourth mistake was his too much dependance on the active support of the Leftists. He had no organization of his own, nor did he try seriously to form any. He should not have so high an impression about his own charisma.

However, like an ideal hero, Subhas Chandra tried sincerely to persuade the Mahtma. In a statement issued on 4 February 1939, Bose said:

‘It will always be my aim and object to try and win Gandhiji’s confidence for the simple reason that it will be a tragic thing for me if I succeed in winning the confidence of other people but fail to win the confidence of India’s greatest man’.

On the other hand, the Mahatma asked, indirectly for the resignation of Bose from the presidentship. He wrote in his letter (24.3.1939) to Bose referring to Mr. Pant’s resolution: “I do not know how far you are fit to attend to the  national work. If you are not, I think you should adopt the only constitutional course open to you.” In another letter (2 April 1939), the Mahatma directly said: “If, on the other hand, your programme is not accepted, you should resign. And you will be free to educate the country along your own lines.”

The tragedy was staged in Calcutta. Bose resigned from the Presidentship of the Congress at the A. I. C. C. meeting in Calcutta (on 29 April 1939). And within three months Bose was expelled from the party itself. The reason for all this was that Bose contested the will of Gandhiji.

But Gandhiji took revenge of his candidate’s defeat in the Presidential election by forcing Bose to resign and finally expelling him from the Congress party itself. In this context the Mahatma’s attitude was unfortunately vindictive and unworthy of a Mahatma. But the role of Bose was dignified and generous and it elevated his personality to a great height as a gallant hero.

True, Gandhiji succeeded in expelling Bose out of the party, but he was not able to expel him from the politics of India. Rather it was a boon for Netaji. Subhas who was a ‘Neta’ (leader) became ‘Netaji’. No more politics in troubled water - his heroic activities from Calcutta to Kabul, Kabul to Berlin, Berlin to Singapore, Singapore to Kohima made him immortal. It was, as it were, a response to Tagore’s call to a leader to fill up his vacant throne.

Gandhiji and Subhas met for the last time at Wardah in June 1940. This meeting was thrilling. Gandhiji revealed his mind and spirit as if he was confessing for his previous sin of forcing Bose to resign and expelling him from the party. Mahatmaji said, ‘Subhas, I have always loved you. You are keen on launching some mass movement. You thrive when there is fight. You are terribly emotional. . . . I am an old man now and must not do anything in haste. I have the greatest admiration for you. Regarding your love for the country and determination to achieve its freedom, you are second to none. Your sincerity is transparent. Your spirit of self-sacrifice and suffering cannot be surpassed by anybody. But I would like these qualities to be used at a more opportune moment.’ It was almost the final observation of Gandhiji on Bose. Again, Mahatmaji continued, ‘...you have got the qualities of a great leader. . . . If you come out successful, I shall be the first to congratulate you.’

Gandhiji admired Bose for his youthful role, while replying to a correspondent: ‘He has youth before him and he must have the dash of a youth. He is not held down by me or anybody else. He is not the man to be so held. It is his own prudence that holds him...he is as much reformist and liberal as I am.’ The gulf between them, according to Gandhiji, was on the means to be adopted: the violent or non-violent.

It is interesting to note that the outlook and attitudes of Gandhiji, Nehru and other Gandhiites changed as their rival, a competition and an obstacle, left the opposition camp in India. Gandhiji at once changed his tone and began to admire Bose’s activities. The change in the Gandhian attitude towards Bose was clear in the writing of Maulana Azad, a Gandhiite who wrote: ‘I also saw that Subhas Bose’s escape to Germany had made a great impression on Gandhiji. He had not formerly approved many of Bose’s actions, but I found a change in his outlook...he admired the courage and resourcefulness that Subhas Bose had displayed in making his escape from India. His admiration for Subhas Bose unconsciously coloured his view about the whole war situation.’ Even Sir Stafford Cripps was perturbed at this admiration of Gandhiji for Bose. On hearing a false news of Bose’s death in an air crash, Gandhiji had sent his condolence to Bose’s mother, ‘in glowing terms about her son and his services to India.’

Gandhiji’s admiration for Bose reached its height when he said that Bose was ‘a patriot of patriots’ in a conversation with Louis Fisher, an American Journalist. Not only this; now a real Mahatma, he confessed in the conversation: ‘Twice I kept him from becoming the President of the Congress.’

On Subhas’s part, even after his escape from India, he maintained the same personal admiration for Gandhiji and the same ideology of his activism and militancy. He always accepted Gandhiji as ‘India’s greatest leader’, ‘the creator of the present awakening in our country’, and admired Kasturba as ‘the mother of the Indian people’. He referred to him as ‘the Father of our nation’ in his broadcast addressed to Mahatma Gandhiji over the Rangoon Radio (on 6 July 1944).

Gandhiji acted as a shrewd politician, especially in relation to Bose. But he was affectionate towards Bose when he said: ‘Netaji was like a son to me,’ while addressing the I. N. A. prisoners in the detention camps (in 1945). Gandhiji had no other way, except expressing his personal admiration for Bose, as by that time (1945) Bose had become not only ‘a patriot of patriots’ but had surpassed the stature of Gandhiji himself.

* Extract from the scholarly article published in Bulletin of the Rama Krishna Mission, Institute of Culture in February 2003.