Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose wanted ruthless dictatorship in India for 20 years

[anant_s]

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose wanted ruthless dictatorship in India for 20 years

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, by his own admission in his book, "Indian Struggle", believed India needed a political system that was a mix of fascism and communism.

Recent allegations about a newly independent India under Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru snooping on the kin of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose is what conspiracy theorists and spin doctors needed to push their agenda — that Netaji was a greater patriot than Pandit Nehru. The "see-I-told-you" band of people, some of them public intellectuals, have kept the media and political circles abuzz with all sorts of activity ever since.

Every day, someone or the other claims to know what really happened to Bose and blames Pandit Nehru and the Congress for it. Any narrative or opinion that runs contrary to this new perception is immediately denounced as a work of traitors. However, Bose's admirers conveniently ignore his Faustian treaty with Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan.

Netaji Bose, by his own admission in his book, "Indian Struggle" (published in 1935 in London), believed India needed a political system that was a mix of fascism and communism — something that he called samyavad. Netaji made a special trip to Rome in 1935 to present a copy of his book to Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, whom he greatly admired and whose ideals he would follow for the rest of his life. Bose's reactionary views naturally brought him into conflict with the pacifist leaders of Congress, most notably Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru. But the friction didn't happen in 1935, it happened much earlier.

Bose had organized the annual session of the Indian National Congress in 1928 in Calcutta. There, he organized a guard of honour in full military style—over 2,000 volunteers were drilled in military fashion and organized into battalions; half of them wore military uniforms with "officers" wearing metal epaulettes. For himself, Bose got a senior British military officer's dress tailored by Calcutta-based British firm, Harman's, complemented by an aiguillette and a field marshal's baton; he also assumed the title of general officer commanding, much to the chagrin of Gandhi, who described the whole thing as 'Bertram Mills circus'. But Bose's love for militarism continued just like his love for a good show.

Subhas Chandra Bose (in military uniform) with Motilal Nehru at the Calcutta session of the Indian National Congress in December 1928.

In 1938, at the 51st session of the Congress at Haripura, Bose was the president. He organized for himself a grand ceremony that was no less than a victory march of a triumphant ancient Indian king returning from digvijaya. He supposedly entered the venue in a chariot drawn by 51 bullocks, accompanied by 51 girls in saffron saris, after a two-hour procession through 51 gates that also had 51 brass bands playing. He would do similar shows in Southeast Asia when he came to the helm of Indian National Army and Indian Independence League.

In October 1943, Bose announced the formation of the Provisional Government of Free India (Arzi Hukumat-i-Azad Hind). He arbitrarily assumed the titles of head of state, prime minister, and minister for war and foreign affairs — the first he intended to keep when India was liberated. He demanded total submission and fealty from Indians everywhere; anybody who opposed him, his army or government could be executed (some accounts suggest many were indeed tortured or executed on orders of Bose or with his knowledge).

The INA's proclamation put this into writing: "If any person fails to understand the intentions of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind and the Indian National Army, or of our Ally, the Nippon Army, and dares to commit such acts as are itemized hereunder which would hamper the sacred task of emancipating India, he shall be executed or severely punished in accordance with the Criminal Law of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind and the Indian National Army or with the Martial Law of the Nippon Army."



In a speech the same year in Singapore, Bose spoke about India needing a ruthless dictator for 20 years after liberation. Then Singapore daily, Sunday Express (now defunct), printed his speech where he said, "So long as there is a third party, ie the British, these dissensions will not end. These will go on growing. They will disappear only when an iron dictator rules over India for 20 years. For a few years at least, after the end of British rule in India, there must be a dictatorship...No other constitution can flourish in this country and it is so to India's good that she shall be ruled by a dictator, to begin with ..."

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose (right) with Mahatma Gandhi in February 1938.


By this time, Netaji seems to have liked Nazism more than Fascism. In a speech to students of Tokyo University in 1944, Netaji said India needs to have a philosophy that "should be a synthesis between national socialism (Nazism) and communism". Around this time, of course, any form of cordiality that existed between Bose and Pandit Nehru had evaporated.

While Bose fancied himself as a world leader like Hitler and Mussolini, Pandit Nehru despised both individuals and their ideologies. He expressed his "intense dislike" for Fascism and said there can be no middle path between fascism and communism, the former being a "crude and brutal effort of the capitalist order".

Nevertheless, after Bose "died" in that mysterious air crash in August 1945, Pandit Nehru paid a tribute to his former colleague, "In the struggle for the cause of India's independence he has given his life and has escaped all those troubles which brave soldiers like him have to face in the end. He was not only brave but had deep love for freedom. He believed, rightly or wrongly, that whatever he did was for the independence of India ... Although I personally did not agree with him in many respects, and he left us and formed the Forward Bloc, nobody can doubt his sincerity. He struggled throughout his life for the independence of India, in his own way."
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose wanted ruthless dictatorship in India for 20 years - The Times of India
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My views:
I for one am a strong supporter of democracy and hold Netaji in great respect. Netaji had his vision of fighting colonialism and history tells us that Congress was never at ease with him and his ideology. With that bit said, and we having an advantage of looking back at era of Nehruvian politics and his plans for India, it looks a lot of mistakes were committed in first decade and a half of us as a nation.
I'm not sure if dictatorship was what was required (it could have effectively killed democracy forever), but a strong leadership (I'm referring to Sardar Vallabh bhai Patel), could have taken care of several issues that bother us to date.
Nehru's vision of India wasn't an ideal way for a newly born nation especially the path of economy he chose (loosely based on Soviet system). Perhaps one reason in my mind why even after almost 7 decades of freedom, we still haven't lived upto our potential.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@thesolar65 @levina @scorpionx @Rain Man @Manindra @Koovie @GURU DUTT @jbgt90 @Joe Shearer @Dillinger @SpArK

 

[scorpionx]

While reading the article, I felt a bit uncomfortable with the rhythm of it; somehow it tries to put NSB in a frame that is based upon all the vices of a ruthless dictator, its emphasis on how INA would execute all those who will come in the way towards freedom. His admiration for dictatorship was a necessary evil and his words have proved to be quite prophetic given the condition of Indian democracy for the last odd seventy years.

The article sees democracy as a virtue of civilized society, championed by Nehru and Gandhi. But was it really true in reality? NSB would not have left Congress, if his victory in a democratically contested election had not have rejected by Gandhi. Nehru was not a dictator, at least he never intended to become one in his life time. But the rest of his compadres made him one. Nehru became the last word in all forms of civil and military administration. His blundered policies both domestic and international, although flawless in theory were horribly proven wrong when it met the practical world. 1962 war was the perfect example of how 'yesmen' can sleepwalk to disaster.Post Nehruvian period became even worse, with Nehru's principles vanquished when India saw emergency rule in within 13 years of his death. Newspapers were censored, all the opposition leaders put into jail and constitutional democracy was just a silent observer.

NSB might have admired Mussolini and HItler, but his admiration was strictly India centric. His patriotism never bent down before the necessity of the military assistance from the Japanese. The article perhaps ignores the fact that at a point of time, between INA and the Japanese army, there arose a moment of difference. The INA strictly demanded that once the force enters Indian territory, all civil and military decisions will be taken by Indians only; demand that was later accepted by the highest military authority in Japan. I remember a little story. When INA was moving towards Imphal, a Burmese boy of age around 17-18 years tried to assassinate NSB. Before he got nearer he was caught and badly beaten by the other bodyguards. When NSB came to know about it, he called the boy. Dressed him up in his own hand and released him, telling that all that his British handler had told him was lie; He was never going to slaughter the Burmese. Can anyone imagine the same if the Burmese boy was in Rome or Berlin?

 

[Levina]

Netaji did say in one of his speeches to students in Tokyo that "India must have a political system "of an authoritarian character". Netaji was a patriot of almost fanatical zeal, he had remarkable courage and devotion, and his bravery shines through all his actions.
Frankly, I can not predict how India would've been if Netaji had taken over as our PM, but at the same time I can assure you that he would not 've been an Indian version of Hitler, an impression which this article gives us.

WiNtEr Is CoMiNg!!!!!!!!!

Ants and the Grasshoper!

 

[Koovie]

A mix of fascism and communism?

Sounds a like the recipe for a failed state.

 

[anant_s]

of an authoritarian character

Yes or for a different choice of words, A determined leadership, which in my opinion Nehru failed to provide. Its not that first PM didn't try, my gila shikva is that his thought and vision were skewed. World order had changed a huge bit after WW II and Indian leadership failed to remain in sync with times. Our proximity to Soviet Union led to distancing from US (& consequently Europe beyond iron curtain) and as a result over foreign policy and economics remained caged inside a pseudo communist mindset.
Also the fact that we were not able to take marginalized population along-with, led to complications such as poverty problem never being solved effectively, highly concentrated development and not to mention local insurgency (Maoism etc). Also the border disputes on both East and West still persist for there was no attempt for an effective dialogue.
i therefore often think (& support) the idea that perhaps Sardar Patel would've proved a better choice.
Alas destiny often has different ideas.

Nehru became the last word in all forms of civil and military administration. His blundered policies both domestic and international, although flawless in theory were horribly proven wrong when it met the practical world. 1962 war was the perfect example of how 'yesmen' can sleepwalk to disaster.Post Nehruvian period became even worse, with Nehru's principles vanquished when India saw emergency rule in within 13 years of his death. Newspapers were censored, all the opposition leaders put into jail and constitutional democracy was just a silent observer.

Sir, i have a question for you (in context of quoted part above). Do you think that our democracy in first 2-3 decades was really mature in a sense that there was little or no opposition to Congress (from outside) and Congress President (from inside)? If the top man in country yielded an absolute power (i'll omit Shastriji here, for his term was too brief) without any checks and balances, it was nothing but a sort of authoritarianism.
& perhaps that is why several policy decisions were taken because nobody objected them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guess who!

@levina

 

[dray]

samyavad

"Samya" in English means 'equality' and "Vad" in English means 'ism', and today the author of this article is telling us that it actually means "Fascism" and "Nazism".

Expecting more such articles discrediting Netaji as the demand for declassification of Netaji files becomes stronger.

 

[anant_s]

Expecting more such articles discrediting Netaji as the demand for declassification of Netaji files becomes stronger.

Hope it is done shortly, a lot of fog engulfs history and truth surrounding Netaji leading to some people propagating baseless stories around him. this won't clear till truth hidden in several classified documents is made public.

 

[harpoon]

A mix of fascism and communism?

Sounds a like the recipe for a failed state.

May be...but applied correctly fascism and communism can bring about social engineering in a very short time.

 

[Koovie]

May be...but applied correctly fascism and communism can bring about social engineering in a very short time.

And then ruins the nation...

Fascism: Failed. Communism: Failed.

The economic success we enjoyed in the last decades is down to free market principles. And the only reasons which hinder our growth are measures and social- and political ills which hamper the market.

 

[Nicky G]

ToI, simply can't trust the article, unless someone can directly quote the book referred to. If in the improbable event, it pans out, Bose did indeed call for a communist fascist state, I'd vehemently oppose it. Communism is pure garbage, fascism is not that much better.

An authoritarian rule based on the best that Sanatana dharma has to offer would have been ideal, as secularism in India has always been a joke on the majority community. Even if done properly, I see no reason to not follow the best of what our tradition has to offer.

The actual problem is that I don't see any leader then that I'd trust or be comfortable with being the dictator, not even Patel considering how he caved into Gandhi's wishes and let Nehru be PM. To put a man, any man above the nation, is not acceptable.

I have little problem with the quick fix that a 'proper' authoritarian rule would provide, the problem is why would anyone want to relinquish the power?

 

[scorpionx]

Sir, i have a question for you (in context of quoted part above). Do you think that our democracy in first 2-3 decades was really mature in a sense that there was little or no opposition to Congress (from outside) and Congress President (from inside)? If the top man in country yielded an absolute power (i'll omit Shastriji here, for his term was too brief) without any checks and balances, it was nothing but a sort of authoritarianism.
& perhaps that is why several policy decisions were taken because nobody objected them.

First, don't call me sir. Its embarrassing.

OT, democracy was not mature then and it is still not today. How it could be then? Nehru's domestic and international popularity was quite unparalleled in India; In world circle, he was the face of India, his sense of international politics was better than his Indian colleagues, he was the second in command during freedom movement and after the death of Sardar Patel Nehru remained as the only one who had the rarest ability to question Mahatma Gandhi's decisions; public looked at him as the sole, lasting legacy of the national movement that gave India its freedom. Though Nehru tried to achieve a mature democracy like the West during his life time he did not succeed. All his efforts to build a considerable opposition (yes, it is true) remained a fantasy.

And we are still from being a mature democracy for thousand reasons. Indian democracy has given birth to a pool of democratically elected autocrats. National decisions follow the interests of a number of Billionaires; state and Police administration acting as orderlies and bouncers of a few corrupts whom people elect for benefits they hardly get. With my optimism at its highest peak, I can only expect we achieve it in my life time.

 

[MilSpec]

In my view if Netaji was able to come back to India, and escape political persecution from the hands of congress, instead of becoming the P.M, he would have emerged as the primary opposition to the congress. A strong opposition could have kept spinelessness of Congress in check, and hopefully toppled congress in the late 50's or early 60's. Much of India's pressing foreign policy issues could have been avoided.

 

[Levina]

In my view if Netaji was able to come back to India, and escape political persecution from the hands of congress, instead of becoming the P.M, he would have emerged as the primary opposition to the congress.

Now thats interesting!!
He would've definitely preferred to remain in opposition while Nehru was the PM.

 

[TejasMk3]

Sure...Netaji files showed Congress perhaps had a hand in keeping him in captivity, and killing him, one of the most patriotic charismatic leaders of India, one who couldve challenged congress domination that went unchecked for a good few decades.

Hey it's totally fine, if the congress did do it, you should thank them for it...see what a terrible leader Netaji wouldve been, we are much much better of without him! - TOI

 

[Jaggu]

Nehru was in power from 1947 to 1964. How is that any different? At least if an honest man like SCB became a leader for 20 years, maybe India would have grown economically instead of it's economy standing still as it was under Nehru Dynastic rule.