The following excerpts have been taken from Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s book, “The Indian Struggle 1920-1942” published by Oxford University Press.

On Mahatma Gandhi.

Though Hindu society has never had an established church like Europe, the mass of the people have been profoundly susceptible to the influence of Avatars. Priests and ‘gurus’. The spiritual man has always wielded the largest influence in India and he is called a ‘Saint’ or ‘Mahatma’ or ‘Sadhu’. For various reasons, Gandhiji came to be looked upon by the mass of the people as a Mahatma before he became the undisputed political leader of India. At the Nagpur Congress in December 1920, Mr. M.A.Jinnah, who was till then a Nationalist leader, addressed him as ‘Mr. Gandhi’, and he was shouted down by thousands of people who insisted that he should address him as ‘Mahatma Gandhi’. The asceticism of Gandhiji, his simple life, his vegetarian diet, his adherence to truth and his consequent fearlessness-all combined to give him a halo of saintliness. His loin-cloth was reminiscent of Christ, while his sitting posture at the time of lecturing was reminiscent of Buddha. Now all this was a tremendous asset to the Mahatma in compelling the attention and obedience of his countrymen. As we have already seen, a large and influential section of the intelligentsia was against him, but this opposition was gradually worn down through the enthusiastic support given by the masses. Consciously or unconsciously, the Mahatma fully exploited the mass psychology of the people, just as Lenin did the same thing in Russia, Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany. But in doing so, the Mahatma was using a weapon which was sure to recoil on his head. He was exploiting many of the weak traits in the character of his countrymen which had accounted for India’s downfall to a large extent. After all, what has brought about India’s downfall in the material and political sphere? It is her inordinate belief in fate and in the supernatural, her indifference to modern scientific development, her backwardness in the science of modern warfare, the peaceful contentment engendered by her latter-day philosophy and adherence to Ahimsa (non-violence) carried to the most absurd length. In 1920, when the Congress began to preach the political doctrine of non-co-operation, a large number of Congressmen, who had accepted the Mahatma not merely as a political leader but also as a religious preceptor, began to preach the cult of the new Messiah. As a consequence, many people gave up eating fish and meat, took the same dress as the Mahatma, adopted his daily habits like morning and evening prayer and began to talk more of spiritual freedom than of political Swaraj. In some parts of the country the Mahatma began to be worshipped as an Avatar. Such was the madness that seized the country at the time that in April 1923 in a politically-minded province like Bengal, a resolution moved at the Jessore Provincial Conference to the effect that the goal of the Congress was not spiritual Swaraj but political Swaraj was defeated at the end of a heated debate.

The role which a man plays in history depends partly on his physical and mental equipment, and partly on the environment and the needs of times in which he is born. There is something in Mahatma Gandhi, which appeals to the mass of the Indian people. Born in another country he might have been a complete misfit. What, for instance, would he have done in a country like Russia or Germany or Italy? His doctrine of non-violence would have led him to the cross or to the mental hospital. In India it is different. His simple life, his vegetarian diet, his goat’s milk, his day of silence every week, his habit of squatting on the floor instead of sitting on a chair, his loin-cloth, in fact, everything connected with him has marked him out as one of the eccentric Mahatmas of old and has brought him nearer to his people. Wherever he may go, even the poorest of the poor feels that he is a product of the Indian soil-bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. When the Mahatma speaks, he does so in a language that they comprehend, not in the language Sir Surendra Nath Banerji would have done, but in that of the Bhagavad-Gita and the Ramayana.

When he talks to them about Swaraj, he does not dilate on the virtues of provincial autonomy or federation, he reminds them of the glories of Ramarajya (the kingdom of King Rama of old) and they understand. And when he talks of conquering through love and ahimsa (non-violence), they are reminded of Buddha and Mahavira and they accept him.

But the conformity of the Mahatma’s physical and mental equipment in the traditions and temperament of the Indian people is but one factor accounting for the former’s success. If he had been born in another epoch in Indian history, he might not have been able to distinguish himself so well. For instance, what would he have done at the time of the Revolution of 1857 when the people had arms and were able to fight and wanted a leader who could lead them in battle? The success of the Mahatma has been due to the failure of constitutionalism on the one side and armed revolution on the other. Since the eighties of the last century, the best political brains among the Indian people were engaged in a constitutional fight, in which the qualities most essential were skill in debate and eloquence in speech. In such an environment it is unlikely that the Mahatma would have attained much eminence. With the dawn of the present century people began to lose faith in constitutional methods. New weapons like Swadeshi (revival of national industry) and Boycott appeared, and simultaneously the revolutionary movement was born. As the years rolled by, the revolutionary movement began to gain ground (especially in Upper India) and during the Great War there was an attempt at a revolution. The failure of this attempt at a time when Britain had her hands full and the tragic events of 1919 convinced the Indian people that it was no use trying to resort to the method of physical force. The superior equipment of Britain would easily smash any such attempt and in its wake there would come indescribable misery and humiliation.

In 1920 India stood at the cross-road. Constitutionalism was dead, armed revolution was sheer madness. But silent acquiescence was impossible. The country was groping for a new method and looking for a new leader. Then there sprang up India’s man of destiny-Mahatma Gandhi-who had been bidding his time all these years and quietly preparing himself for the great task ahead of him. He knew himself, he knew his country’s needs and he knew also that during the next phase of India’s struggle, the crown of leadership would be on his head. No false sense of modesty troubled him, he spoke with a firm voice and the people obeyed.

The Indian National Congress of today is largely his creation. The Congress Constitution is his handiwork. From a talking body he has converted the Congress into a living and fighting organization. It has its ramification in every town and village in India, and the entire nation has been trained to listen to one voice. Nobility of character and capacity to suffer have been made the essential tests of leadership, and the Congress is today the largest and the most representative political organization in the country.

But how could he achieve so much within this short period? By his single-hearted devotion, his relentless will and his indefatigable labour. Moreover, the time was auspicious and his policy prudent. Though he appeared as a dynamic force, he was not too revolutionary for the majority of his countrymen. If he had been so, he would have frightened them, instead of inspiring them; repelled them, instead of drawing them. His policy was one of unification. He wanted to unite Hindu and Moslem; the high caste and the low caste; the capitalist and the labourer; the landlord and the peasant. By this humanitarian outlook and his freedom from hatred, he was able to rouse sympathy even in his enemy’s camp.

But Swaraj is still a distant dream. Instead of one, the people have waited for fourteen long years. And they will have to wait many more. With such purity of character and with such an unprecedented following, why has the Mahatma failed to liberate India?
He has failed because the strength of a leader depends not on the largeness, but on the character of one’s following. With a much smaller following, other leaders have been able to liberate their country, while the Mahatma with a much larger following has not. He has failed, because while he has understood the character of his own people, he has not understood the character of his opponents. The logic of the Mahatma is not the logic which appeals to John Bull. He has failed because his policy of putting all his cards on the table will not do. We have to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and in a political fight, the art of diplomacy cannot be dispensed with. He has failed, because he has not made use of the international weapon. If we desire to win our freedom through non-violence, diplomacy and international propaganda are essential. He has failed, because the false unity of interests, that are inherently opposed, is not a source of strength but a source of weakness in political warfare. The future of India rests exclusively with those radical and militant forces that will be able to undergo the sacrifice and suffering necessary for winning freedom. Last but not least, the Mahatma has failed, because he had to play a dual role in one person-the role of the leader of an enslaved people and that of a world-teacher, who has a new doctrine to preach. It is this duality which has made him at one the irreconcilable foe of the Englishman, according to Mr. Winston Churchill, and the best policeman of the Englishman, according to Miss Ellen Willkinson.

In spite of the unparalleled popularity and reputation which the Mahatma has among his countrymen and will continue to have regardless of his future political career, there is no doubt that the unique position of the Mahatma is due to his political leadership. The Mahatma himself distinguishes between his mass popularity and his political following and he is never content with having merely the former. Whether he will be able to retain that political following in the years to come in the event of the British attitude being as unbending as it is today, will depend on his ability to evolve a more radical policy. Will he be able to give up the attempt to unite all the elements in the country and boldly identify himself with the more radical forces? In that case nobody can possibly supplant him. The hero of the present phase of the Indian struggle will then be the hero of the next phase as well. But what does the balance of probability indicate?
The Patna meeting of the All India Congress Committee in May 1934, affords an interesting study in this connection. The Mahatma averted the Swarajist revolt by advocating Council-entry himself. But the Swarajists of 1934, are not the dynamic Swarajists of 1922-23. Therefore, while he was able to win them over, he could not avoid alienating the Left Wingers, many of whom have now combined to form the Congress Socialist Party. This is the first time that a Socialist Party has been started openly within the Indian National Congress, and it is extremely probable that economic issues will henceforth be brought to the fore. With the clarification of economic issues, parties will be more scientifically organized within the Congress and also among the people in general.

The Congress Socialists appear at the moment to be under the influence of Fabian Socialism and some of their ideas and shibboleths were the fashion several decades ago. Nevertheless, the Congress Socialists do represent a radical force within the Congress and in the country. Many of those who could have helped them actively are not available at present. When their assistance will be forthcoming, the Party will be able to make more headway.

One definite prediction can be made at this stage, namely, that the future parties within the Congress will be based on economic issues. It is not improbable that in the event of the Left Wingers capturing the Congress machinery, there will be a further secession from the Right and the setting up of a new organization of the Right Wingers like the Indian Liberal Federation of today. It will of course take some years to clarify the economic issues in the public mind, so that parties may be organized on the basis of a clear programme and ideology. Till the issues are clarified, Mahatma Gandhi’s political supremacy will remain unchallenged, even if there is a temporary retirement as in 1924. But once the clarification takes place, his political following will be greatly affected. As has been already indicated, the Mahatma has endeavourer in the past to hold together all the warring elements-landlord and peasant, capitalist and labour, rich and poor. That has been the secret of his success, as surely as it will be the ultimate cause of his failure. If all the warring elements resolve to carry on the struggle for political freedom, the internal social struggle will be postponed for a long time and men holding the position of the Mahatma will continue to dominate the public life of the country. But that will not be the case. The vested interests, the ‘haves’, will in future fight shy of the ‘have-nots’ in the political fight and will gradually incline towards the British Government. The logic of history will, therefore, follow its inevitable course. The political struggle and the social struggle will have to be conducted simultaneously. The Party that will win political freedom for India will also be the Party that will win social and economic freedom for the masses. Mahatma Gandhi has rendered and will continue to render phenomenal services to his country. But India’s salvation will not be achieved under his leadership.

On Deshabandhu Chittaranjan Das

For a people so prone to mysticism and supernaturalism, the only hope of political salvation lies in the growth of a sane rationalism and in the modernization of the material aspect of life. It was therefore distressing to many sober Nationalists to find that through the conscious influence of the Mahatma, some of the above weak traits in the Indian character were again becoming prominent. Thus there arose a rationalist revolt against the Mahatma and his philosophy. As the Swaraj Party headed this revolt, elements from the Right and from the Left that were tired of the irrationalism of the Mahatma-were those who preferred constitutional action to civil disobedience and the Deshabandhu C.R.Das by virtue of his social position and his vocation as an advocate, was able to command their confidence. Among the Left elements was the younger generation of Congressmen who did not find the ideology and method of the Mahatma to be sufficiently radical for the modern world and who looked upon the Deshabandhu as a more radical (or revolutionary) force in Indian politics. It was the unique personality of Deshabandhu C.R.Das that was able to combine into one party such dissimilar elements, to wrest the Congress machinery from the hands of the orthodox ‘No-Changers’ and to carry on a fight against the bureaucracy on many fronts. But in his absence, there was no one competent enough to continue his many-sided activities or to keep together the diverse elements that composed the Swaraj Party. The result was that the Swaraj Party remained in power only so long as the Mahatma did not emerge from his voluntary retirement. When he did emerge in 1929, the Swarajist leader, Pandit Motilal Nehru, surrendered without even the show of a fight.

The death of Deshabandhu C.R.Das may be regarded as the beginning of a period of all-round depression in the country. If Mahatma Gandhi had come out of his retirement exactly at this juncture, things might have taken a different course, but unfortunately for India, he did not do so. The Deshabandhu’s personality was, among other things, a powerful cementing factor within the Swaraj Party and also in the domain of Hindu-Muslem relations. It served, moreover, to tone up the attitude of the Party to an extremist pitch. In his absence, dissensions began to appear within the Party.

On Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru

Another factor which lent significance to the proceedings of the Madras Congress was the return of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru from Europe and his participation in the Congress deliberations. Pandit J.L.Nehru had had a most interesting career. After completing his studies at Cambridge he had been called to the Bar. But when in 1920 the non-co-operation movement was launched, he threw up his professional work and joined the Mahatma. According to popular gossip, he was largely responsible for persuading his father, Pandit Motilal Nehru, to do the same. He did not agree with the Swarajists on the question of working inside the Legislatures and since they came into power, he had voluntarily occupied a back seat in the councils of the Congress. Latterly he had been to Europe with his sick wife and during his stay there he studied some of the latest developments in Europe and especially in Soviet Russia. Since his return to India he gave expression to a new ideology and declared himself to be a Socialist, which was extremely welcome to the Left Wing in the Congress and to the youth organization in the country. The new phase in his public career was first given expression to the Madras Congress.

In August, a special meeting of the All-India Congress Committee was called to decide who should preside over the ensuing Congress. In accordance with the Congress Constitution, the vast majority of the Provincial Congress Committee had nominated Mahatma Gandhi, but he declined to accept the nomination. The general feeling in Congress circles was that the honour should go to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. But the Mahatma decided to back the candidature of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. For the Mahatma the choice was a prudent one, but for the Congress Left Wing it proved to be unfortunate, because that event marked the beginning of a political rapprochement between the Mahatma and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and a consequent alienation between the latter and the Congress Left Wing. Since 1920, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had been a close adherent of the policy advocated by the Mahatma and his personal relations with the latter had been always friendly. Nevertheless, since his return from Europe in December 1927, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru began to call himself a Socialist and give expression to views hostile towards Mahatma Gandhi and the older leaders and to ally himself in his public activities with the Left Wing opposition within the Congress. But for his strenuous advocacy, it would not have been possible for the Independence League to attain the importance that it did. Therefore, for the Mahatma it was essential that he should win over Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru if he wanted to beat down the Left Wing opposition and regain his former undisputed supremacy over the Congress. The Left Wingers did not like the idea that one of their most outstanding spokesmen should accept the Presidentship of the Lahore Congress, because it was clear that the Congress would be dominated by the Mahatma and the President would be a mere dummy. They were of opinion that a Left Wing leader should accept the Presidentship only when he was in a position to have his programme adopted by the Congress. But the Mahatma took a clever step in supporting the candidature of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and his election as President opened a new chapter in his public career. Since then, Pandit J. L. Nehru has been a consistent and unfailing supporter of the Mahatma.