While exploring the title of my upcoming biography of Subhas Chandra Bose, the phrase that came instantly to my mind was ‘an inconvenient nationalist’. No one could deny his stature as a national hero, yet almost every party in India’s political spectrum has had their own set of problems with Bose, and continue to do so.
Nothing could demonstrate this more clearly than the amusing variety of reactions that followed the central government’s decision to install Bose’s statue near India Gate under the canopy which was once occupied by a statue of England’s monarch. The odd thing is that the statue of England’s monarch continued to be at that place until 1968 when, after being vandalised, it was removed and the place has remained vacant since then. Although three names – those of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Bose – were considered for the replacement statue, by 1969 it was decided by then government it that would be Gandhi’s. That the decision would be changed so suddenly after years of non-implementation has been largely welcomed by people, but has created a stir among the notables in the world of journalism, diplomacy and politics.
Historian Audrey Truschke tweeted two pictures — one of Bose shaking hands with Hitler and another of Prime Minister Narendra Modi garlanding Bose’s statue. The immediate target of her tweet was the ‘Hindu Right’ and the image of Bose in Hitler’s presence proved to be a useful weapon. Modi was seen glorifying a Nazi collaborator, and by extension was an ideological inheritor. Edward Luce, associate editor of the Financial Times, was as blunt in his tweet: Bose’s statute is an ‘exhibit of Modi’s fascist ideology’ because ‘Bose was an admirer of Hitler and a pawn of the Axis powers’. Bruce Gilley, a professor of political science at the Portland State University, labelled Bose as a ‘Nazi lover’ and posted photos of a group of anticolonial leaders visiting a Nazi labour camp, falsely marking Bose as one of the visitors and ‘India’s suddenly glorified hero … taking some tips from Nazi field artillery units’.
The reactions of Indian public intellectuals were not much different. It is indeed an irony that a whole lot of public intellectuals of a former British colony continue to judge Subhas Chandra Bose, arguably the greatest Indian anti-colonialist, through glasses handed down by the colonisers. In that sense, as far as the attitude towards Bose is concerned, not much has changed since 1942 when Bose’s broadcasts confirmed that he had gone over to Germany.
A British-Indian writer who was once the editor of Newsweek International wrote that the ‘statue of a man who was pals with Hitler is going to sully India Gate in New Delhi,’ but offered the additional insight that although ‘Bose consorted with Hitler’ he would ‘most likely have despised the Hindutva mob’. Malini Parthasarathy, chairperson of the Hindu Group, also found the decision disappointing because of Bose’s ‘dalliance’ with fascism and felt that Gandhi, who had ‘captured the world’s imagination with his civil disobedience struggle’ was the more deserving candidate. She tweeted that colonialism is better than Nazism because it ‘never really descended into ethnic cleansing or genocide’. Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar, consulting editor of The Economic Times, saw in the decision a ‘naked attempt’ by the BJP ‘to try and appropriate Bose as a nationalist hero, downplaying the role of Gandhiji’. Bose was not the right candidate for him because he ‘collaborated with two of the worst regimes in history — Hitler’s Nazis and Japan’s imperial thugs — that inflicted unspeakable horrors in World War II’. This was followed by an appeal to President Ram Nath Kovind by a group of 136 academics, writers, lawyers and other professionals that instead of installing a permanent statue of Bose, a mix of leaders of the independence movement should be represented through holograms on a rotational basis.
ALSO READ | Netaji Wanted Women to be Trained in Self-defence while Gandhi Insisted on Their ‘Purity’
Why the Resistance to Bose
In many ways, Bose has been like the proverbial elephant to the four blind men. While the international press, academia and foreign government circles have portrayed him as a fascist sympathiser, if not a fascist himself, the leftist parties in India, especially the All India Forward Bloc (not to be confused with the party established by Subhas, although the current party claims its legacy) have made him a leftist icon. With the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), there have been renewed efforts to focus on Bose’s nationalist credentials by playing down his socialist thoughts and his association with the Axis powers. While the Left and left-of-centre parties have found in him a useful secular icon, the increasingly consolidating votaries of Hindutva have tried hard to project his rootedness in Hindu spirituality and culture.
Then why this resistance to Bose? The answer varies depending on the parties concerned. The same parties which project him to suit their political objectives, also have their own set of problems with him. The objections of the Congress party are not the same as that of the Left parties, which again differ from the Right-wing parties. And the reasons of those who still fancy the days of British Raj are entirely different. The array of negative reactions on this occasion, however, has one common thread — Bose’s association with the Axis powers. This is bound to convey the perception that Bose indeed was a ‘Nazi lover’ or a collaborator and that he somehow was subservient to their ideology and interests.
But how much of that is true? Was Bose really what he is being made out to be? Let’s have a look at the facts first.
Bose’s first recorded reference to fascism appears in his first speech as the mayor of the Calcutta Corporation on September 24, 1930. Presenting his plan for the Corporation, he said, ‘We have here in this policy and programme a synthesis of what modern Europe calls Socialism and Fascism.’ Then he explained what he implied by the usage of these two terms — ‘We have here the justice, the equality, the love, which is the basis of Socialism, and combined with that we have the efficiency and discipline of Fascism as it stands in Europe today’.
Those who are susceptible to translate this statement as Bose’s early conversion to fascism ought to keep in mind the opinion expressed by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer in January 1927. The Chancellor declared, ‘If I had been an Italian I am sure I would have been wholeheartedly from start to finish with Fascismo’s triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.’ About Mussolini, who was once recruited by Samuel Hoare as a British agent at a weekly payment of GBP 100, he added, ‘I could not help being charmed, as so many other people have been, by his gentle, simple bearing and his calm, detached poise, despite so many burdens and dangers.’ The man who appeared to be a deep admirer of Mussolini and fascism was Winston Churchill. And, Churchill had no qualms in shaking hands with the ‘bestial appetites and passions of Leninism,’ which had worsened significantly within the next few years.
The author received this photo from the Bose family
Bose’s First Exposure to Fascism
Bose had his direct exposure to fascism and national socialism (Nazism) about three years later when he was exiled from India. The central theme of all his activities in Europe during his stay there, from March 1933 to March 1936, was to generate support for India’s independence movement. His approach was eclectic, without any ideological inclination, which included efforts at improving trade and cultural ties with the countries that he visited, learning more about the resistance movements and governance (especially municipal governance), and disseminating information about India.
Bose’s trip to Germany in July 1933 was organised by Lothar Frank, a member of the Nazi Party, on behalf of the Indo-German Society. Frank saw to it that every courtesy was extended to Bose on behalf of the government including arranging his stay at the state guesthouse. Subhas, however, wouldn’t be tied down to government hospitality and moved out to a hotel at his own expense. His attempts to meet Hitler, with the objective of having the offensive passages in Mein Kampf retracted, failed. Frank mentioned that he arranged a number of interviews with the dissident leaders in the Nazi Party, from which Subhas tried to learn about the methods of operating such secret groups.
The memoirs of Bose’s nephew Asoke Nath show how Subhas engaged with the Indian students in Europe in making known his objections to the Nazi racist points of view and observations. Subhas himself wrote a memorandum on April 5, 1934 to Foreign Office councillor Dyckhoff, sharply critical of the German attitude towards Indians. He forcefully argued that relations between Germany and India would improve only when the attacks on Indians stopped and racial legislation being considered then withdrawn.
Franz Thierfelder, the director of the German Academy in Munich, was one of the persons with whom Bose developed a friendly relationship. Two of his letters to Thierfelder clearly demonstrate Bose’s attitude to Nazi Germany. On November 7, 1935, he wrote:
As you know, since my first visit to Germany in 1933, I have tried to improve relations between Germany and nationalist India. Unfortunately, certain situations arose which affected this friendship in an adverse manner. In fact, the new regime … contributed to a certain extent to the worsening of ties that had existed earlier between India and Germany … The reasons are:
1) The present pro-British attitude of the German government.
2) The race-propaganda, which among the unintelligent people in Germany, promotes a general scorn against the coloured races.
3) A disdainful attitude towards contemporary India among the highest German leaders which is evident in their writings and reports.
4) The blocking or censor of pro-Indian articles and the wilful promotion of anti-Indian articles in the German media.
In making demands to amend the situation, Bose was a realist. In a battle of propaganda, he was careful not to create obstacles out of high morals. He wasn’t preaching the Germans: their political ideology wasn’t his concern. His only concern was how they treated Indians and India.
I consciously avoid demanding anything which might be difficult to implement. For example, if a pro-British policy brings advantages to Germany, I have no reason to demand an anti-British policy, though as Indians we would welcome any such German attitude or policy. Similarly, I do not demand that you give up your race theory, no matter how many scientific reasons we might offer against it. We only want it to be modified so that it wittingly or unwittingly, does not provoke any bad opinion about Indians. Moreover, we also do not wish for once that you write in favour of Indians in the German press if you do not want to — we only ask that you do not write against India … We, nationalists, will do as much for Germany as Germans do for India.
Just before embarking on his journey back to India in March 1936, Subhas again wrote to Thierfelder. This time he was as blunt as possible.
… I regret that I have to return to India with the conviction that the new nationalism of Germany is not only narrow and selfish but arrogant … Apart from this new racial philosophy and selfish nationalism there is another factor which affects us even more. Germany in her desire to curry favour with Great Britain finds it convenient to attack India and the Indian people … I am still prepared to work for an understanding between Germany and India. This understanding must be consistent with our national self-respect.
On a personal level, Subhas was as humane and enlightened as any other Cambridge alumni like him. He had for friends Kitty Kurti and Alex, a sensitive, newly married Jewish couple in Berlin. After being advised by Subhas, the couple went to the US, and from her Massachusetts home in 1965 Kitty Kurti wrote her tribute for ‘Netaji’ — a book titled Subhas Chandra Subhas as I knew Him. In it, she wrote that Subhas ‘did not attempt to hide’ from her his deep contempt for the Nazis. In the same vein, he cited India’s exploitation by British imperialism and explained why he had to do business with the Nazis. ‘It is dreadful but it must be done. India must gain her independence, cost what it may,’ he told the couple after a meeting with Hermann Göring.
The author received this photo from the Bose family
How Bose Defined Foreign Policy
What needs to be kept in mind while assessing Bose is the reason for his leaving India and going to Germany. From the very conception of his plan to go out of India, Subhas had settled the question of his destination. It was the Soviet Union. Germany or Japan were not even under consideration. Secondly, the constant principle that Bose followed was that of national interest above everything else, including internal politics of other countries. In his presidential address at Haripura in 1938, Bose stated clearly:
In connection with our foreign policy, the first suggestion that I have to make is that we should not be influenced by the internal politics of any country or the form of its state. We shall find in every country men and women who will sympathise with Indian freedom, no matter what their own political views may be. In this matter we should take a leaf out of Soviet diplomacy. Though Soviet Russia is a communist state, her diplomats have not hesitated to make alliances with non-socialist states and have not declined sympathy or support coming from any quarter.
The only reason that he couldn’t include the examples of Russia’s non-aggression pact with Germany and the division of spoils in Poland and her subsequent alliance with Churchill’s England was that they were yet to happen, in the future. It was England’s interest that spurred Churchill to hold Stalin’s hand. The estimated 10-11 million deaths (revised in recent times from the earlier estimates of 20-30 million) did not stir his conscience or those who wax eloquent of his strategy. An estimated 1.7 million people were arrested in the Soviet Union in 1937-38 alone, of whom 818,000 have been claimed to be shot.
Bose repeated his argument during a broadcast over the Azad Hind Radio on August 31, 1942:
Do not be carried away by ideological considerations; do not bother about the internal politics of other countries, which is no concern of ours. Believe me when I say that the enemies of British imperialism are our friends and allies. It is to their interest to see the British Empire broken up, and India is once again free.
In his first radio broadcast from Berlin on May 1, 1942, Subhas stated that ‘my concern is, however, with India, and if I may add further, with India alone’. When he raised with Hitler at their meeting on May 27, 1942, the issue of his disparaging comment about Indians in Mein Kampf, Hitler answered that his words were ‘directed at certain tendencies among the suppressed peoples to form a united front against their oppressors’. Churchill was never asked for an explanation of his disparaging comments on Indians, by those who opposed Subhas and posed for photographs exuding friendly warmth with the former British Prime Minister, so he never had to offer any explanation.
Bose’s reaching out to Nazi Germany was in continuation of existing contacts between Germany and Indian patriots in the national interest of their respective countries. Girija Mookerjee, who was with Bose in Germany between 1941 and 1943, explained that ‘even Imperial Germany during the World War I had taken up the cause of Indian independence and the German Foreign Office had, therefore, a precedent to go by’. He wrote:
Men who weighed this question at the German Foreign Office were men of career, who were neither National Socialists nor did they belong to the inner coteries of Hitler. They were German civil servants who performed their duties as good German citizens during the war. These men, guided by the desire to advance German national interests in India, thought it advisable for political reasons to support the movement sponsored by Netaji in Germany.
In fact, the strongest supporters of Bose in the German foreign office belonged to the resistance movement against Hitler.
Subhas was naturally grateful to the Italians, Germans and the Japanese for all their help, but remained clearheaded about the leaders, their power equations and their own political posturing. Focused on extracting the help required for India’s liberation from a reluctant Hitler, Subhas had to play along the game of propaganda and do what was required to win a battle of perception. While it was imperative for him to portray the Axis bloc as a valuable and trusted ally, it was equally important for them to show the British that he was won over.
Yet, the reality was that he was there seeking help, not as an armchair critic. His purpose was to obtain as much help as possible without compromising on self-respect or India’s interest. There is little doubt that he achieved whatever little was possible under those conditions admirably. ‘He wanted to keep his own liberty of action and he did not want to be branded as pro-Nazi,’ recalled Girija Mookerjee. And when it was required, he didn’t mince words. During his meeting with Hitler, for instance, irritated by the dictator’s patronising attitude, he shot back, asking Adam von Trott zu Solz to ‘Please tell His Excellency that I have been in politics all my life and that I do not need advice from anyone.’ Bose’s personal assessment of Hitler was that he ‘was a German version of the Fakir of Ipi’.
How World Defines Foreign Policy
It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to state that Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru were far closer to the British in mind and spirit (despite being on opposite sides) than Subhas Bose was ever with the Axis leaders despite being dependent on their help.
The stark truth is, that all nations and their leaders pursue nothing but their national interests. Explaining this in the summer of 1990 was Nelson Mandela. In the City College of New York, Mandela was interacting for the first time with American people in a town meeting moderated by broadcast journalist Ted Koppel. Mandela was bombarded with questions about his dealing with world leaders not approved by America. Diplomat and political writer Kenneth Adelman commented that ‘those of us who share your struggle for human rights against apartheid have been somewhat disappointed by the models of human rights that you have held up since being released from jail’. Then he put this query:
You’ve met over the past six months three times with Yasser Arafat, whom you have praised. You have told Gaddafi that you share his view and applaud him on his record of human rights in his drive for freedom and peace around the world; and you have praised Fidel Castro as a leader of human rights and said that Cuba was one of the countries that’s head and shoulders above all other countries in human rights, in spite of the fact that documents of the United Nations and elsewhere show that Cuba is one of the worst. I was just wondering — are these your models of leaders of human rights, and if so, would you want a Gaddafi or an Arafat or a Castro to be a future president of South Africa?
In response, Mandela asserted the following amid a standing ovation from the audience:
One of the mistakes which some political analysts make is to think their enemies should be our enemies. Our attitude towards any country is determined by the attitude of that country to our struggle. Yasser Arafat, Colonel Gaddafi, Fidel Castro support our struggle to the hilt. There is no reason whatsoever why we should have any hesitation about hailing their commitment to human rights as they’re being demanded in South Africa. They do not support [the anti-apartheid struggle] only in rhetoric; they are placing resources at our disposal for us to win the struggle. That is the position.
His response to Henry Siegman, executive director of the American Jewish Congress, was more pointed. ‘Firstly, we are a liberation movement which is fully involved in a struggle to emancipate our people from one of the worst racial tyrannies the world has seen. We have no time to be looking into the internal affairs of other countries. It is unreasonable for anybody to think that this is our role.’
In 2015, when the then British Prime Minister David Cameron was cornered by Jon Snow of Channel 4 News over Britain’s support to Saudi Arabia for a seat in the UN Human Rights Council, Cameron had to admit:
Of course it would be easier for me to say, ‘I’m not having anything to do with these people, it’s all terribly difficult, etcetera, etcetera.’ For me, Britain’s national security and our people’s security comes first.
It is this strange belief that a delusional sense of moral superiority scores over national interest that drives the dislike of most intellectuals of Indian origin for Bose, although historical facts don’t support their claim of Bose being a Nazi supporter or collaborator. It also feeds into their desire to appear good Gandhian beings to impress the western world, which is one of the main reasons that a Gandhian mythology has been carefully constructed and sustained by official promotion since independence.
ALSO READ | Not Gandhian Movement, Fear of Open Rebellion Due to INA Trials Hastened Exit of British Raj
Why ‘International Experts’ Hate Bose
The case of foreign experts is a little different. The deep-rooted dislike for Bose there revolves around a much more fundamental reason than his association with the Axis powers. As Philip Mason, Joint Secretary, War Department, in the dying days of the Raj had observed:
There are elements in Bose’s character which are repellent to an English reader — his arrogance and refusal to compromise, the assurance with which a man who … proposed that India should pay ‘a blood sacrifice’ to get liberation the way he chose…
What is significant is the continuity of this attitude towards Bose. The pattern of distinguishing Subhas as the bad boy among the Indian leaders started soon after the news of his presence in Germany became publicly known. Described as ‘Among the slick, satisfied top handful of Congress politicians … Bose stands out,’ in the Time magazine in 1938 and admired in the British press during his short visit to England in January 1938, Subhas gradually became the villain.
Until 1942, Subhas was still described as ‘a left-wing leader’ or an ‘extreme Indian Nationalist leader’. By the middle of 1942, the British press had started calling Subhas ‘the Indian Quisling’. The Observer labelled Subhas as the ‘star Radio Quisling of the Indian firmament’. The use of the Axis-related pejoratives was noticeably more frequent in the British press in comparison to its American counterpart. Thus, ‘Axis puppet Bose arrives in Japan,’ and the ‘Indian Traitor’s ‘First Act’ after forming the Azad Hind government was to declare war on Britain and America’. ‘Indian Quisling Declared War.’ At the Greater East Asia Conference, ‘Asiatic Puppets Confer’ and ‘Tojo Gives ‘Pep’ Talk to East Asian Quislings’. When Subhas was received by the Japanese emperor, a headline was ‘Bose sees his boss.’ An American newspaper ran a daily knowledge test for its readers asking for which country the ‘46-year-old Chandra Bose heads the puppet government proclaimed by Japan,’– Burma, India, Siam or Philippines. While an American newspaper informed that the INA was ‘commanded by traitor and puppet’ Subhas, Australian newspapers declared that it was the ‘evil genius of Bose’ that was behind the army. When the Imphal campaign ended, ‘India’s Renegade Army Fails in Revolt,’ readers were told. After his reported death in a plane crash in August 1945, readers in Australia were reminded that he was ‘The Man who Promised India to Hitler.’ The New York Times was more forthright: ‘Indian puppet is reported killed.’
The attitude of the international experts on India, unfortunately, appears to have been shaped more by continued media propaganda than actual history or concern for India.
This is part one of a three-part series by the author on Subhas Chandra Bose. You can read the second part here and the third part here.
Chandrachur Ghose is author of the Bose: The Untold Story of an Inconvenient Nationalist, published by Penguin. He is co-founder of Mission Netaji, the pressure group that has successfully campaigned from 2006 resulting in the declassification of hundreds of secret files on Netaji. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the stand of this publication.
Read all the Latest Opinions here
Comments
0 comment