In The Indian Struggle, Subhas Chandra Bose had outlined the reasons why he foresaw that communism would never be adopted in India. Firstly, he wrote, communism had no sympathy with nationalism, whereas the freedom movement was a national movement. Lenin’s thesis on the relation between nationalism and communism had been sidestepped after the failure of the Chinese revolution. The second reason was Russia’s disinterest in sparking a world revolution, with its focus on internal affairs and a decline in its prestige due to its pacts with capitalist countries and the joining of the League of Nations. Thirdly, the anti-religious and atheistic character of Russian communism would not fit into the Indian environment, where ‘a national awakening is in most cases heralded by a religious reformation and a cultural renaissance’. The fifth reason, he felt, was that although communist theory had made ‘certain remarkable contributions in the domain of economics’ such as state planning, it was weak in other aspects Bose. Later, however, he retracted his argument about the conflict between nationalism and communism at an interview with Rajani Palme Dutt in January 1938, where he said:
I should point out also that Communism, as it appeared to be demonstrated by many of those who were supposed to stand for it in India, seemed to me anti-national, and this impression was further strengthened in view of the hostile attitude which several among them exhibited towards the Indian National Congress. It is clear, however, that the position today has fundamentally altered. I should add that I have always understood and am quite satisfied that Communism, as it has been expressed in the writings of Marx and Lenin and in the official statements of policy of the Communist International, gives full support to the struggle for national independence and recognises this as an integral part of its world outlook.
His later utterances, however, indicate that this statement was more a tactical retreat than a change in belief.
Netaji Believed Indian Nationalism Was All About The Highest Ideals Of Human Race
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, whose birth anniversary is being celebrated today, wanted the hypocrisy going on in the name of society, religion and state to be ‘crushed ruthlessly’.
Subhas had urged Jawaharlal to preside over the All-Bengal Students’ Conference in Calcutta, held on 22 September 1928. Like Subhas, Jawaharlal too sang paeans to the youth, and had similar things to say about empowering different disadvantaged groups in the society, but the thrust of his message was very different. His was a message of socialism in contrast to nationalism. ‘I have placed before you the ideals of internationalism and socialism as the only ideals worthy of the fine temper of the youth’, he told them. As far as his attitude to communism was concerned, he said that:
. . . though personally I do not agree with many of the methods of the communists and I am by no means sure to what extent communism can suit the present conditions in India, I do believe communism as an ideal of society. For essentially it is socialism, and socialism I think is the only way if the world is to escape disaster.
Speaking at the same conference, Subhas outlined where he differed with Jawaharlal in the sphere of ideas. He too believed in internationalism, but not in the form which obliterated distinctive characteristics of different nations. The expression of nationalism by Chittaranjan, a humanist, poet, essayist, thinker and a politician fiercely proud about his Bengali heritage rolled into one, was in stark contrast to the critique of nationalism by Tagore. In their quarrel, Subhas was completely on his political mentor’s side. From Mandalay Jail, he had criticized the ‘shallow internationalism in life and literature of Tagore and his school which did not realize the fundamental truth in nationalism’. He would touch upon the topic now and then, but his speeches and writings lacked the lyrical exuberance of his guru. While speaking at the Maharashtra Provincial Conference, Subhas responded to the charge of nationalism being ‘narrow, selfish and aggressive’ from the perspective of ‘cultural internationalism’: his response was more in the nature of a political project that he envisioned rather than at an abstract, conceptual level. He pointed out that Indian nationalism, far from being any of these, was ‘inspired by the highest ideals of the human race, viz., Satyam (the true), Shivam (the good), Sundaram (the beautiful)’:
Nationalism in India has instilled into us truthfulness, honesty, manliness and the spirit of service and sacrifice. What is more, it has roused the creative faculties which for centuries had been lying dormant in our people and, as a result, we are experiences a renaissance in the domain of Indian art.
In fact, he would return to the philosophical aspects of the independence movement repeatedly in his speeches around this time. Organizing the movement was the immediate problem, but equally important was to impart a character to it. Subhas was not yet advocating a particular form of political and social organization for independent India. Rather, he focused on defining the components which would make up the whole, and wished to lay the ground for post-independence reconstruction. He was preoccupied with questions such as: What was the most desirable political system for India’s development? What were the roles of the students and the youth? How should India balance nationalism and internationalism?
The ideal of the youth was to break the shackles of all oppression, injustices, and malpractices to create a new nation, he told a youth conference at Pabna. Creation of a new order had to follow the destruction of status quo. Subhas invoked Krishna’s stern castigation of Arjun in the battlefield of Kurukshetra— ‘Klaivyam masma gamah Partha’— as the message which contained the essence of immortal youth. The youth movement, just like the national movement, was not merely a political movement. It had to weave together varying strands of art, literature, philosophy, science, commerce, and sports for the development of national life.
He refused to stand behind any particular ‘ism’ at this point. No ‘ism’ (he referred to anarchism, socialism, communism, Bolshevism, syndicalism, republicanism, constitutional monarchy, and fascism) was adequate to lift humanity out of misery unless individual characters were strengthened. Indians, he said, had every quality except tenacity of purpose—what was needed, therefore, was the ability to sacrifice everything for the sake of an idea. As Vivekananda had pointed out, the basis of nation formation as well as of establishing an effective ‘ism’ was to create good human beings first. Whatever ‘ism’ India chose for itself, it had to be moulded in accordance with its traditions and had to answer well to the requirements of present conditions. It was equally important to pay attention to the nationalist aspect of the movement as to the internationalist aspect. The latter was required to be the foundation of lasting global peace based on common understanding, development and exchange of knowledge, and the emphasis on the latter was critical to be able to create a nation based on new ideals. The responsibility for this regeneration was on the shoulders of the youth.
The national awakening would not take place unless the foundations of Indian society were shaken up. For most people, as he pointed out, social oppression was a greater reality than political oppression. The never-changing aim was complete freedom — social, economic and political. Most people could relate more immediately to social oppression than to state-led oppression, and it was futile to expect the oppressed sections to join in the political movement. He said that the ‘hypocrisy that is going on in the name of society, religion and state must be crushed ruthlessly’. Therefore, ‘Privileges based on birth, caste or creed should go, and equal opportunities should be thrown open to all irrespective of caste, creed or religion.’
If it was important to break out of the restrictive traditions of the past, it was equally important to remain connected with the achievements of the past and be proud of one’s heritage. The politics of nation-making did not take away anything from his consciousness of being a Bengali. In his presidential address the 1929 Bengal Provincial Conference at Rangpur in North Bengal (now in Bangladesh), Subhas took his audience through the history of the province, stressing its tradition of rebelliousness, the unique identity the region maintained in ancient times, the vivacity of the Bengalis leading to experimentations with social and political forms and their achievements in spreading ideas in other countries, the syncretic culture during the Muslim rule, the reform movements, and lastly the emergence of the nationalist movement. Aware of the increasing influence of Marxist thought, especially amongst the revolutionary groups, he reiterated his conception of India’s traditional forms of socialism. Vivekananda and Deshbandhu were the icons of his variant of socialism, who struggled throughout their lives to uplift the downtrodden. Again, he voiced his opposition to accepting any ‘ism’ as a package. Every ‘ism’ had elements of truth — what was good in socialism should be accepted; but accepting tenets of socialism did not mean that the discipline, organisation and obedience of fascism were to be disregarded. He referred to how the Soviet Union had to implement the New Economic Policy in contravention to the orthodox communist philosophy to suit its unique needs. He argued that if an ‘ism’ is imposed on a country by disregarding its history and its present conditions, it would either lead to a revolution or give rise to a contrary ideology like fascism. Most important, however, was the development of personality. No ‘ism’ could succeed without good human beings.
He was only too aware of the barriers to building up that mass movement in the form of caste and religious divisions, the position of women in the society and the tentative links between the Congress and the industrial labour and peasants. Throughout this period, these themes kept resonating in his speeches as the basis of attaining social, economic and political freedom.
(Excerpt from Bose: The Untold Story of An Inconvenient Nationalist by Chandrachur Ghose, with permission from Penguin Random House)