Means vs end

As Independence Day nears, I am reminded of two major figures of the freedom movement — Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose. While Nehru’s contribution to the struggle and the formation of our democracy is well known, Bose’s contribution ended before Independence. Mystery surrounds the death of the leader known as Netaji. It is high time that all files with the government on Bose be declassified to clear the air.

The career and achie-vements of the two had much in common. Both were ardent nationalists. The Russo-Japanese War of 1905 ignited nationalist feelings in Nehru. He wrote, “Japanese victories stirred up my mind… I mused of Indian freedom and Asian freedom from the thralldom of Europe.” Bose saw Japanese victories against European colonial powers as an opportunity to attain India’s Independence through their assistance. He grew up in Calcutta, influenced by political cross-currents of violence and non-violence that were dominant there in the early 20th century. Both were sons of flourishing lawyers. Their fathers sent them to England for education. On his return to India, Nehru joined the Indian National Congress, giving up a life of comfort for struggle and long spells in prison.

Bose had a fiery start in politics. He was expelled from Presidency College for assaulting a British professor for his anti-India remarks. He was then ad-mitted to Scottish Church College and graduated from there. He went to England to take the examination for the “heaven born service”, the ICS. But he resigned and joined the Congress, which was led by Mahatma Gandhi, giving up power and privilege to join the struggle for freedom. Both Nehru and Bose had socialist views at variance with the rightist views of the Mahatma and many other Congress leaders. Whereas Nehru would give in to the Mahatma, Bose was more assertive. He contested the election for the post of Congress president against Pattabhi Sitaramayya, who was the Mahatma’s nominee, and won the election. The Mahatma declared that it was his personal defeat. The working committee and the top leadership of the party did not co-operate with Bose. He resigned from the party and formed a new party, the Forward Bloc.

From the beginning, Bose showed militaristic lean-ings. On joining the Con-gress he organised uni-formed volunteers with himself as their general. He designed his own uniform. Whereas on a visit to Europe, Nehru had refused to meet Mussolini because he was a military dictator, Subhas Chandra Bose, on a separate visit, had no hesitation in meeting him. He was prepared to sup with the devil if that could help him win India’s freedom.

This was anathema to the Mahatma who insisted on both, right end and right means. Nehru toed the Mahatma’s line. Bose escaped from internment at Calcutta to Germany via Afghanistan. In Germany, he mobilised Indian prisoners of war. They started calling him Netaji. When Japan entered the Second World War, he decided to go East. Hitler made a German submarine available. Netaji undertook the hazardous and strenuous journey. On arrival in Singapore, he breathed life into the Indian National Army comprising Indian prisoners of war. He also formed the Azad Hind government.

The Mahatma launched the Quit India Movement in 1942, giving a “Do or Die” call. All Congress leaders were imprisoned. Jayaprakash Narayan escaped from Hazaribagh jail and went underground in Nepal. He organised a widespread subversive movement, uprooting railway tracks and attacking communications and government offices. The British administration was paralysed for a while. A whole division of British troops was deployed in Bihar to crush the movement. As a student, having seen this first hand, I felt that we could not win Independence through non-violent means. The British military machine had to be weakened from within.

After the Japanese surrendered, we started getting Japanese prisoners. INA prisoners were kept in Insein Jail at Rangoon. I had joined the Army in 1944 and was serving in Burma at that time. The INA prisoners would tell us that they had fought for India’s freedom while we were mercenaries and lackeys of the British. No doubt it was a great moment when during the 1944 Japanese offensive, the INA planted the flag of freedom on Indian soil at Morang in Manipur. Talking to surrendered Japanese generals, I learnt that in that operation the INA played a subsidiary role.

However, the psychological impact of the INA was great in India and on the Indian Army. The British chose only British and Gorkha soldiers for Chindit operations behind Japanese lines. They were not sure of the loyalty of Indian troops. While in Burma, we heard about the naval mutiny in Bombay and the INA trials at the Red Fort. After Burma, I was posted to Indonesia where we got engaged in fighting Indonesians opposing the return of the Dutch colonial rule. We saw Asian nationalism rising from the ashes of European colonialism — the Dutch in Indonesia, French in Indochina and the British in Malaya. The Indian Army that returned from Southeast Asia was different from what it had been before the war. No wonder Clement Attlee, the British Prime Minister in 1945, during a visit to India in 1956, told Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari, the governor of West Bengal, that they had to quit India in 1947 because they could no longer trust the Indian Army.

Till 1942, the dominant leader of our Independence movement was no doubt the Mahatma, but, after him, it was perhaps Netaji who played a major role in hastening our Independence. Many believe that had Netaji survived and returned to India, history would have taken a different turn. There may have been no Partition, nor the holocaust that accompanied it. The Mahatma, then at Patna, when he heard that Nehru and Patel had accepted Partition without consulting him, remarked, “I wish Subhas was alive.”

The writer, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir