Lately Leftist ideological hegemony is being challenged in India and the "master narrative" is coming under question, especially with respect to co-option of freedom fighters in Leftist tent. One figure at the centre of these debates is Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, whose sudden demise in 1945 has kept us wondering what if he had been alive?
Mohammad Ayoob, University Distinguished Professor Emeritus of International Relations, Michigan State University in his article has made the argument that if Bose had survived it would have led to a division in the Congress with "the old guard, including economic rightists and concealed Hindu nationalists" staying with Gandhi and Nehru and "the younger and more radical elements" supporting Bose. If Bose would have come to power in India then Partition could have been avoided and certainly the rise of Hindu nationalism.
Like Muslim League and the British Raj, Prof. Ayoob criticizes Gandhi, Nehru and Congress of being a 'Hindu' party. He argues that "Gandhi’s Hindu attire and vocabulary" had turned off most of the Muslim elite and so had "Nehru's attitude towards them demonstrated by his refusal to accommodate the Muslim League in the Uttar Pradesh government in 1937 ". Recently, Yogendra Yadav had advised RSS and Hindus to emulate example of "Confident Hindus" like Gandhi. Apparently even Gandhi isn't good enough, at least not without changing his communal attire and vocabulary. Gandhiji, drop that communal khadi dhoti at once. Please wear a Pajama if you will and a skull cap would help. And for the last time, stop talking about Ram Rajya. You are being extremely insensitive to Muslims who were massacred en masse and their mosques destroyed in Ram Rajya thousands of years ago. Their sacred symbols were desecrated, priests were brutally murdered, women raped and households looted by Hindu fighters screaming "Hinduism or death". Your slogan of swaraj isn't working either, Gandhiji, in fact the whole conundrum of Independence from foreign rule is disrespectful to the benevolent foreign rule that Hindus had been under before British. A benevolence that didn't at least kill all the Hindus and didn't destroy all the temples. Be grateful, you were spared what you deserved.
However, the real tragedy is with Nehru. Gandhi couldn't mend his kaffir ways and therefore lost all chance to please Muslims but at least he got the consolation prize, "Confident Hindu". The state sponsored nationalist discourse may not admit it and Left dominated academia will never admit it but Gandhi and Gandhian techniques were thoroughly Hindu. They were inspired by the ancient Indic thought and culture. Andrew Heywood says that Gandhi's 'political philosophy' was "derived from Hinduism". Vinay Lal from UCLA also points out the continuity between ancient Indian practices and Gandhian techniques of fasting, non-violent protests and commitment to 'truth', the truth which is multi-sided and far more complicated than own opinion and pursuit of which is incomplete without the 'other'. There was no concept of 'us vs. them' mimicking the western 'God vs. Satan' dichotomy. The only dichotomy was 'truth vs. falsehood'. The movement towards ultimate truth was the goal and the 'other' was the part of this journey, contributing his side of the truth to ours, an aggregation that brings both closer to the 'ultimate truth'. It is clear that Gandhian grammar of dissent is an application of Indic dialectics in the political domain. A detailed discussion about this is beyond the scope of this article but suffice to say that regardless of left or 'Hindu nationalists' hating the fact, Gandhism remains the embodiment of Indic thought and culture. The transactional equilibrium between Nehruvian Left and Marxist-Socialists in post-independence India which allowed Congress to dominate Parliament and Left to dominate academia left no space remaining for Gandhi. But Gandhi's moral authority was still needed by the infant nation. The compromise was complete separation of Gandhi from his Indic credentials. Facilitated by Godse killing physical Gandhi, this sinister arrangement killed essential Gandhi, mummified him and decorated it in the museum of Leftist propaganda.
Coming back to tragedy of Nehru, who unlike Gandhi, harboured political aspirations. He was pushed harder to placate Muslims. Nehru had to out-compete Jinnah, the leader of Muslims and champion of the idea of Muslim homeland. He therefore had to shun any tinge of Kaffir-ness. On the other hand, caught in the communal discourse of colonial times, he still was a Hindu, who would come to power in a country of Hindu majority. Being generous in historical assessment, Nehru's reluctance towards his 'Hindu-ness' in politics can be excused on account of his political aspirations. But that would have been harmful for Congress Party who wanted to deepen its Muslim votebank. State historians complied and Congress-Left alliance rid Nehru's legacy completely of any Hindu heritage. Today, Nehru doesn't remain 'Hindu' enough to be given the title of a 'Confident Hindu'. Short of conversion, he also lost to Jinnah who took away his Pakistan. Today his successor Rahul Gandhi has to try very hard to prove he is a 'Confident Hindu'. Sadly, unlike Congress Presidency he couldn't inherit this from his great grandfather.
If 'Confident Hindus' like Gandhi, and not so confident Hindus like Nehru have no chance, an empowered Hindu like me shouldn't even try to impress Muslims. However, No need to be disheartened. Prof. Ayoob has an answer for us, Subhash Chandra Bose. He argues that Bose would have been able to avoid the Partition given that his "popularity among the Muslim elites surpassed that of Gandhi and Nehru".
I couldn't move forward without saying a word about the politics of this discourse. See the underlying assumption that the blame of Partition rests on the shoulder of Hindus. They didn't prove to be good enough hosts for Muslims to stay in the guesthouse called India. Partition isn't about communalism. It isn't about the expansionist history of political Islam or the role of Muslim league. Partition is about the incapability of Hindus. Hindus couldn't convince their 'benevolent masters' to stay. Hundreds of years of subjugation, genocide and oppression, yet the confidence to ask for self-rule! Damn you Hindus.
Prof. Ayoob imagines 'Hindu communalism' to be such a threat in present day India that he has to bring Bose back from the dead to fight it but Muslim communalism is something that should have been rewarded better by Gandhi and Nehru. See how Prof. Ayoob is grading nationalist leaders on the basis of their popularity among Muslims. Not just the goal of placating extreme-Muslims is too worthy but the standards to do so are also very high. Not everyone can achieve this goal. Even Gandhi and Nehru are disqualified. Such good leaders were also not good enough! Hindus, try harder.
Now let's come to main argument. Prof. Ayoob argues that "Bose could have competed with Muhammad Ali Jinnah for the loyalty of the Muslim elite, thus making a fundamental difference to the outcome of the 1946 provincial elections in which the League bagged most of the Muslim seats". Let's say Bose hadn't died and the partition in Congress had happened between Bose faction and Nehru-Gandhi faction, separately contesting the 1946 elections. If he is right, then Bose would have successfully split the Muslim vote away from Muslim league. As Congress left with only "economic rightists and concealed Hindu nationalists" wouldn't have had much of the Muslim vote anyway, the major loss would be to Muslim League. If Bose had won the Indian majority overall, Muslims and Hindus combined and had been able to replace Congress as the main vehicle of nationalism, what was next?
Muslims League would have come to see Bose as the main enemy rather than the Congress. Bose was more radical in his Leftism than Nehru but also less pluralistic in his nationalism. Prof. Ayoob sees his ideological commitment to left as a panacea for communal challenge but as we will discover later this is nothing more than wishful thinking. The demand for Partition by Muslim League wasn't a demand framed in terms of representation of Muslims in independent India. As seen by their election campaigns during 1946 elections, the demand for Pakistan was framed completely in religious terms and fighting for Pakistan was a religious duty. Muslim League couldn't have accomplished its goal of partition without active British support. Given its weakness once the British were gone, the League wouldn't have dug its own grave by agreeing to any scheme of independent India without functional partition. The fact that Bose was slightly left of Nehru couldn't have made a difference in attitude of the League.
After coming to power, Bose would have found himself in a situation similar to Nehru, and his party formed out of 'radical and younger' members would have faced the same challenges as the old Congress party. Time would have brought the young Bosians closer to the Congress 'old guard' and political power would have brought radical Bosians closer to Congress conservatism. Bose could have put a dent in Muslim League's vote bank but not replace it as the vanguard of Muslim community given the clear religious agenda of the League. League would have continued its propaganda, this time, taking Bose as the main challenge, instead of the kaffir Hindu, it would have been the kaffir Communist, as it was during the nationalist protests in Hyderabad princely state where Communists came in direct confrontation with the Nizam.
On the other hand, Congress comprising the "old guard, economic rightist and concealed Hindu nationalists" would have shifted more towards the right. Gandhi was a man of principles and he would have been the same but Nehru as a politician would have found a more comfortable constituency than before to work with. He would no longer be in direct line of fight with the League and under pressure to placate Muslims, as Muslims would never come to Congress past League and Bose. He would have gotten time to reconcile himself better with Gandhian thought, something he couldn't do being in the political power. Gandhi still carried a lot of political legitimacy and with him, Nehru would have started working in the grassroots, given that his dream of political power had shifted farther with rise of Bose. He would have gotten time to engage and deliberate with the right wing and this interaction would have immensely benefitted both the sides, just as conciliation of Gandhi and Ambedkar in the form of Poona pact benefitted both caste Hindus and Dalits.
Bose would have found himself sandwiched between a more Gandhian Congress on one hand and an insatiable League on the other. Nehru without his prospects of becoming PM wouldn't have pushed hard for independence and concentrated on social work while League would have continued its obstructionist tactics for partition. Prof. Ayoob argues that Bose's "secularism tinged with hypernationalism.. would have been far more muscular and could have prevented Hindu chauvinism from gaining traction". How would have Bose's more muscular secularism tinged with hypernationalism reacted towards the Muslim communalism, which was, as several Leftist scholars concede, a much bigger problem than Hindu communalism? If anything, being directly in the line of fire of Muslim League would have further irritated Bose, as would have League's closeness with colonial masters. Given his personality and aversion to Gandhian non-violence, tough reaction would have followed from Bose's side. Bose rose to power with the help of Muslim constituency but will this constituency support him in his crusade, most likely violent, against their separatist brothers? Bose would also have a hard time fighting with Muslim communalists without attracting Hindu communalists in his party's ranks. All over, Bose's party would have become the same as the old Congress, but without Gandhi and non-violence.
Prof. Ayoob has criticized Nehru's secularism as 'liberal and effete' and not muscular enough, and so it was in dealing with Muslim communalism. Bose wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Let's say Bose would have been able to avoid Partition with his muscular response, what would've un-partitioned India looked like? Would the problem of Muslim communalism be over for once and all? This seems highly unlikely. Even if we believe in the wishful thinking of Prof. Ayoob that Bose would have gained the support of Muslim League by "making compromises" on the way which Congress didn't make, the problem of Muslim communalism would have been far from over. The factors behind Muslim communalism as explained by leftist scholars - underdevelopment, poor spread of modern education, primacy of socially reactionary leaders, popularity of religious appeals and fatwas as instrument of politics would have remained the same. So would have the reverence for Political Islamic expansionism and bigotry against Hindus as idol-worshippers. Scholars like Bipan Chandra in fact criticise the Congress leadership for conceding to early demands of Muslim communalists arguing that it led to further strengthening of orthodoxy in Muslim community. Therefore, at best Bose could've been able to force the League to delay the demand of Partition but not discard it completely. With departure of British, Bose's communist ideology would have come in direct confrontation with that of the League's. Given Bose's fascination with authoritarian style of governance and derision of Gandhian non-violence, the clash between Bose led Left and right-wing Islamism would have been explosive.
Even if Bose had come to power after the partition, it is doubtful whether his attitude towards "Hindu Nationalism" would have been negative. Bose himself was thoroughly influenced by Vivekanada, Aurobindo Ghosh and Bankim Chandra and appreciated their ideals of self-confidence and self-respect. Leonard A Gordon argues that 'inner religious explorations' set Bose apart from the growing atheistic socialists and communists. Much like Gandhi, he also used the idioms of Indic culture in the service of nationalism. In his address as the General Secretary of Congress at Maharashtra Provincial Conference on May, 1928, Bose said that Indian nationalism is inspired by highest ideals of "satyam, shivam, sundaram". When lodged in Calcutta’s Mandalay Jail in 1925, Bose organised Durga Puja in the prison itself and when prison authorities refused, he went on a hunger strike. Bose was also open to the possibility of cooperation with between Hindu Mahasabha and Forward Bloc to form an active front against British Raj. A meeting between him and Savarkar reportedly took place in 1940 when Savarkar suggested Bose that “he should smuggle himself out of the country, reach out to the axis powers and raise an Indian Army of liberation out of Prisoner of War (PoWs).” In 1944, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in his speech on Azad Hind Radio referred to him as 'Veer Savarkar' and said, "when due to misguided political whims and lack of vision, almost all the leaders of Congress party have been decrying all the soldiers in Indian Army as mercenaries, it is heartening to know that Veer Savarkar is fearlessly exhorting the youths of India to enlist in armed forces. These enlisted youths themselves provide us with trained men and soldiers for our Indian National Army."
Bose left India at the outbreak of the war and died in 1945 in Taiwan. He therefore largely missed the extreme communalism of the 40s. His stint as a political leader in India involved challenging the mainstream leadership of Congress, not being in power himself. Therefore, it is not as simple to predict how his theoretical leftist commitments would've worked out when he came to power. Historically all around the world, when they first tasted power, Left forces almost always surprised others with the path they took. Leftist theory itself has the drawback of being predominantly a critical or negative enterprise rather than positive. The utopian goal of socio-economic equality is hard to achieve and more so with the instrument of violent revolution. Leftist leaders, therefore often find themselves in a tough spot after gaining power.
To gain some insight into what Bosian India would have been like, we can turn to a third world country which just like India, is an ancient civilization, suffered colonial oppression, was equally poor and gained independence under a charismatic Leftist leader like Bose. Mao was the communist revolutionary who became the founding father of People's Republic of China and ruled till his death in 1976. He eradicated the nationalist Kuomintang in China through violent revolution. Like Mao, Bose also had a flair for socialist authoritarianism and if Indira Gandhi with her level of socialist commitments could have imposed Emergency, Bose with his open appreciation for authoritarianism would have certainly chosen a China style communist government over a noisy, inefficient democracy.
The journey of communism in China has been an interesting one. For one, Chinese leadership completely rejected the communist model of economy early on, and adopted a market economy operated by authoritarian government. This change is what differentiated USSR from China and is said as to be the deciding factor in insulating China from a USSR style collapse. The foreign policy of China also doesn't reflect an ideological commitment to communism. The foreign policy statements of China never refer to spread of communism as a goal and rarely use ideologically informed language, even after gaining immense economic and military power. Despite its muscular foreign policy and geopolitical aspirations, China seems to be in no mood to export its 'communist model' to other parts of the world. In fact, many scholars argue that there is no 'Chinese communist model' to export! China is a good old authoritarian state that uses the instrument of communism for its benefit.
The cloak of Communism shielded Mao from undue criticism of western scholars ever ready to justify the colonialism as a civilizing mission. If not for the foreign ideology, Mao would have been an 'oriental despot' and Maoist violence would have been an evidence of barbarity of the uncivilized world. Therefore, while Indian National Movement turned to Indic principles of non-violence and truth under Gandhi to establish legitimacy, Mao turned to communism. Today also communism continues serving that purpose. Chinese state is organized on a communist politico-administrative structure which deprives its citizens of freedoms and rights that have become non-negotiable in the democratic world. While pledging communism as a choice over democracy on paper, China focuses more on its ancient civilizational legacy and Confucius thought for soft power. Its ideas and vision are filled with civilizational pride and the dominant nationalist language is of civilizational resurgence. The official party line of 'Communism' protects China from a strong reaction when it checks the spread of Christian imperialism by banning bible downloads in the country or Islamic radicalism when it forces Uyghurs to fly Chinese national flag atop the mosques. Chinese government is justified in doing so for communist ideological reasons which attract less criticism than 'communal' reasons. Unlike Indian culture that is open for everyone to debate and discuss in Indian as well as international politics, Chinese don't even bring their culture on the discussion table. The Chinese remember their colonial past as 'the century of humiliation' and have made it a point to treat respect for their civilization as non-negotiable. Unlike Communists in India, they don't entertain much less promote any criticism of their civilization.
Faced with the challenge of Muslim communalism, the reaction of Bose would have been definitive. Partition would have hurt the deeply nationalist Bose and these experiences would have brought him ideologically closer to the 'Hindu' Gandhi while remaining tough in dealing with challenges. He would have made a fair assessment of the multiple challenges faced by a post-colonial nation - economic as well as cultural legacy of colonialism, emergence of capitalist neo-imperialism while continuation of medieval Christian and Islamic imperialism in different forms and the alliance between regressive Indian Left and western Left against nationalist leadership and would have responded adequately.
As he would have prepared himself to become the leader of independent India from a soldier, he would have discovered that acknowledgement of the past atrocities on Indic culture and revival of Indic thought is absolutely necessary for Indian nation to heal, recover and grow, influenced as he was by Hindu political renaissance led by Ghosh and others. Much like Chinese leadership, Bose would have taken up the goal of civilizational resurrection once in power. Prof. Ayoob has argued that Bose would have checked the Hindu Chauvinism. I believe Bose would have checked the industrial production of deceptive terms like "Hindu chauvinism" by Indian left which, frustrated from its electoral failures, turned to identity politics for political survival. Bose could've saved the Left in India from self-cannibalism and even given a new lease of life to Leftist thought suffering global decline by correcting the deficiencies of theoretical Marxism, making it more practical by assimilating it with Indic thought. Bose, if at all, would have been an Indic socialist.
This article is about the legacy of Bose and what Bosian India would've looked like. There still remain some unanswered questions. What is Indic thought? What are the deficiencies of theoretical Marxism? Can leftist thought be reconciled with Indic thought? What is Indic socialism? These will be answered soon. Subscribe!