Subhas Chandra Bost His Vision of New India Tapan Kumar Chattopadhyay Subhas Chandra Bose, affectionately and reverentially called ‘Netaji’ by his countrymen, was a fire-brand patriot and a radical nationalist whose only aim was to free India from foreign rule and to establish thereafter a socialistic, secular and democratic republic. His vision of a free India was based on his attitude towards: (a) the then contemporary political ideologies and (b) reconstruction of indian society, polity and economy. In early 1930s Subhas Bose was attracted towards fascism. He came in close contact with both Hitler, the Nazi chief, and Mussolini, the Italian fascist leader. However, he was more in rapport with Mussolini who, unlike Hitler, was not so explicitly racist. Bose’s close association with ‘Mussolini attracted him towards fascism. He appreciated the fasc'st ideology which was based €n the principle of mass organization, combined with strict party disc attitude towards fascism when he wrote The Indian Struggle in 1934, }e. This was his In this book Bose had compared fascism with communism and pointed out some similarities between them. He wrote:”... there are certain traits common to both. Both Communism and Fascism believe in the supremacy of the State over the individual. Both denounce parliamentarian democracy. Both believe in party rule. Both believe in the dictatorship of the party and in ruthless suppression of all dissenting minorities. Both believe in a planned industrial reorganization of the country. These common traits will form the basis of the new synthesis. That synthesis is called..’Samyavada’ ~ an Indian word, which means literally ‘the doctrine of synthesis or equality’. It will be India’s task to work out this synthesis,” (Bose 1964: 314). However, while appreciating these common traits of fascism and communism, Bose criticized communism because he felt that “Communism today ie. in 1934] has no sympathy with Nationalism in any form and the Indian movement is a Nationalist movement ~ a movement for the national liberation of the Indian people.” (ibid) Subsequently, however, he changed his views regarding both fascism and communism. In January 1938, in an interview with R. Palme Dutt, one of the founders of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Bose said that what he wrote in The Indian Struggle (in 1934) was based on the ground realities of that time “What | really meant”, he said, “was that we in India wanted our national freedom, and having won it, we wanted to mave in the direction of Socialism. This is what | meant when | referred to ‘a synthesis between Communism and Fascism’. Perhaps the expression | used was not a happycone. But | should like to point out that when | was writing the book, Fascism had not started cn its imperial expedition, and it appeared to me merely an aggressive form of nationalism. | should point out also that Communism as it appeared to be demonstrated by many of those who were supposed to stand for it in India seemed to me anti-national..It is clear, however, that the position today has fundamentally altered | should add that... Communism, as it has been expressed in the writings of Marx and Lenin...gives full support to the struggle for national independence... ‘My personal view today is that the Indian National Congress should be organized on the broadest anti-imperialist front, and should have the two-fold objective of winning political freedom and the establishment of a socialist regime.” (Bose 1964: 394) Ina speech at All-India Naujawan Bharat Sabha in Karachi on 5 April 1931, Subhas Bose said “A. want a Socialist republic in India. The exact form the Socialist State will take — itis not possible to detail at this stage. We now only outline the main principles and features of the 2-13). He said: “..the principles that should form the Socialist State.” (Bose, Sisirfed] 1997: basis of our collective life are — justice, equality, freedom, discipline and love...all our affairs and relations should be guided by a sense of justice. In order to be just and impartial, we shall have to treat all men as equal. In order to make men equal we shall have to make them free. Bondage within the socio-economic or political system robs men of thelr freedom and gives rise to inequalities of various kinds. Therefore, in order to ensure equality we must... Become fully and wholly free. But freedom does not mean indiscipline or license. Freedom does not imply the absence of law... Discipline imposed on us by ourselves is necessary..as a basis of life. Lastly, all these fundamental principles, viz. Justice, Equality, Freedom and Discipline — presuppose or imply another higher principle, vi. Love Unless we are inspired by a feeling of love for humanity we can neither be just towards all, nor treat men as Equal, nor feel called upon to suffer and sacrifice in the cause of freedom nor enforce discipline of the right sort. These five principles... constitute the essence of Socialism as | understand it, and the Socialism that | would like to see established in India.” (ibid: 111 - 12) Bose argued further that the establishment of a socialist republic meant basically four things firstly, complete political freedom, i.e. the independent Indian State should be totally free from the control of British imperialism; secondly, there should be “complete economic emancipation” i.e. every individual “must have the right to work and the right to a living wage” and to ensure this “there should be a fair, just and equitable distribution of wealth” ; thirdly, there has to be complete social equality, i.e. there shall be no caste nor any depressed class and all men should have the same status and same rights; and, finally, “there shall be no inequality between the sexes”In an address to the students of Tokyo University in November 1944 Bose reiterated his ideas on socialism, He sail: “Well, at present, public opinion in india is that we cannot leave it to private initiative to solve these national problems, especially the economic problem...Therefore, public opinion in India is in favour of some sort of socialist system, in which the initiative will not be left to private individuals, but the state will take over the responsibility for solving ‘economic questions. Whether it is a question of industrializing the country or modernizing agriculture, we want the state to step in and take over the responsibility and put through reforms within a short period...” (Quoted in Chatterjee 1999:10) Although Bose was a socialist, he opined that socialism in India should be established on the basis of Indian history and culture so as to satisfy the needs and conditions of India. Bose had a deep-rooted faith in indian spiritualism. Hence, in spite of praising the Soviet model of planning, he could not accept d too much on the material factor in human Marxism proper because it (Marxism) empha life, In The Indian Struggle he argued that this was one of the reasons why communism could not be adopted in India. Moreover, unlike the Marxists, Bose never thought in terms of a violent revolution / dictatorship of the proletariat or withering away of the state. However, although Bose had certain reservations regarding the theory and practice of communism, he accepted the Marxian description of socialism and the Soviet model of planned economy. Bose argued that India needed a progressive system which would be a synthesis of nationalism and socialism. This is not to be construed as National Socialism of the Nazis of Germany. To Bose, this “progressive system... will fulfil the social needs of the whole people and will be based on national sentiment.” (ibid: 13). Bose asserted that economic emancipation is an intrinsic part of political emancipation. He believed that economic liberation would be possible only by building up a socialist economy. In his Presidential Address at the 51* session of the Indian National Congress held at Haripura in February 1938, Subhas Bose said: “Though it may be somewhat premature to give a detailed plan of reconstruction, we might as well consider some of the principles according to which our future social reconstruction should take place. | have no doubt in my mind that our chief national problems relating to the eradication of illiteracy and disease and to scientific production and distribution can be effectively poverty, tackled only along socialistic lines."(Bose 1997:205) {As President of the Congress, Bose appointed a National Planning Committee with Jawaharlal Nehru as its chairman. While inaugurating the Planning Committee on 17 December 1938, Eose outlined the basic points of his economic thinking. Being aware of the criticisms from the Gandhian camp for his views on planning and industrialization, Bose tried to make it clear that there was no basic conflict between cottage industries and large-scale industries. In this context, he pointed out that industries could be categorized into cottage industry, medium- scale industry and large-scale industry. While elaborating his views on the relation between cottage industries and large-scale industries, he stressed the importance of ‘mother industries’such as power industry, machinery manufacturing industries, heavy chemicals and communication industries for providing the means of production to be used by artisans in cottage industries so as to facilitate quicker and chezper production. He wanted the Planning Committee to make a survey of the state of these basic industries. In his Haripura address Subhas Bose asserted that the first task of the national government in free India would be to set up a National Planning Commission for drawing up a comprehensive plan of social and economic reconstruction. He said, “The planning commission will have to carefully consider and decide which of the home industries could be revived despite the competition of modern factories and in which sphere large-scale production should be encouraged. However much we may dislike modern industrialism and condemn the evils which follow in its train we cannot go back to the pre-industrial era..we should reconcile ourselves to industrialization and devise means to minimize its evils and at the same time explore the possibilities of reviving cottage industries where there is a possibility of their surviving the inevitable competition of factories... In a country like India, there will be plenty of room for cottage industries, especially in the case of industries including hand-spinning and hand- ‘weaving allied to agriculture.”(Bose1997:207-8) In the same address Bose gave due emphasis on the agrarian problem also. He called for a “radical reform of our land system, including the abolition of landlordism.” He said: “agricultural indebtedness will have to be liquidated and provision made for cheap credit for the rural population. An extension of the co-operative movement will be necessary for the benefit of both producers and consumers.” (ibid: 208) Moreover, he argued, “the state on the advice of a planning commission will have to adopt a comprehensive scheme for gradually socializing our entire agricultural and industrial system in the spheres of production and appropriation. Extra capital will have to be procurec for this, whether through internal or external loans or through inflation.” (ibid) Elsewhere in an article, ‘Free India and its Problems’, published originally in a German periodical in August 1942 and reprinted in Azad Hind, Subhas Bose wrote that in free India the most important social problem that the new regime would have to solve was poverty and unemployment. He wrote: “India’s poverty under British rule has been due principally to two causes ~ systematic destruction of Indian industries by the British Government and lack of scientific agriculture. In pre-British days, India produced all her requirements in food and industry and she exported her surplus industrial products to Europe, e.g. textile goods. The advent of the industrial revolution and political domination by Britain destroyed the old industrial structure of India and she was not allowed to build up a new one. Britain purposely kept India in the position of a supplier of raw materials for British industries. The result was that millions of Indians, who formerly lived on industry, were thrown out of employment. Foreignrule has impoverished the peasantry and has prevented the introduction of modern scientific agriculture. The result of this has been that the once rich soil of India has a very poor yield and can no longer feed the present population. About 70 per cent of the peasantry has no work for about six months in the year. India will therefore need industrialization and scientific agriculture through state aid, if she has to solve the problem of poverty and unemployment...The Free Indian State will have to look after the welfare of the labourer, providing him with a living wage, sickness insurance,, compensation for accident, etc... Similarly, the peasant will have to be given relief from excessive taxation and also from his appalling indebtedness."(Bose 1997: 291 - 92) However, India’s plans for social reconstruction, Bose argued, “are likely to fall through” if “the population goes up by leaps and bounds...t will therefore be desirable to restrict our population...! would urge that public attention be drawn to this question.” (ibid: 207) To Bose another important social problem to be solved by the new regime in India was the problem of public health. He argued that given state support and sufficient financial help this problem could be easily solved... He believed that India’s ancient systems of medicine, for example Ayurveda and Unani could also be helpful in this connection. Now, the question that arises is how would Free India get the money required for all these big schemes? In answering this question Bose gave his own views regarding the management of public finance. He favoured the abolition of the gold standard and introduction of a barter system. He wrote: “Britain has robbed India of her gold and silver, and what Ittle stil remains, will certainly be removed before the British leave the country, India’s national economy wil, naturally, have to discard the Gold Standard and accept the doctrine that national wealth depends on Labour and production and not on gold. Foreign trade will have to be brought under state control and organized on the principle of barter (exchange of goods) as Germany has done since 1933.” (ibid) Interestingly, while Subhas Bose was in favour of the Soviet model of planning at the macro level for tackling the basic problems of poverty, unemployment and illiteracy, he was, at the same time, a strong advocate of ‘municipal socialism’, that is, using the municipal government for managing the basic civic services like water supply, roads, primary education, public health and other such services. (Mukhopadhyay 1999: 19) Thus far it is clear that Bose wanted a socialist economy with state intervention in sroduction and appropriation. He argued that to implement the economic programme outlined by him, a competent government was required. He wanted independent India to become a democratic republic but he was against Western democracy which was based on capitalism. Bose wanted democratization of the whole society. He said: “Privileges based on birth, caste or creed shouldgo and equal opportunities should be thrown open to all irrespective of caste, creed or religion.” (Quoted in Chatterjee 1999:9) However, Bose felt that India could not become a proper democratic republic immediately after independence. He argued that a strong government was required to carry out ruthlessly radical reforms in India’s body polity and economy. When asked in Kabul, on his way to Germany, as to how India could be kept united in the face of religious, caste and communal dissensions, Bose assertively said that twenty years of ruthless dictatorship was required to solve the various problems in India. On another occasion he said that there should be benevolent dictatorship in India for about fifteen years till the educational standard of the masses had reached the necessary minimum level required for democracy. (Pattanaik 1991:49) However, though Bose called for ‘benevolent dictatorship’ and ‘dictatorship for the time being’, he was against the suppression of civil liberty. As D. . Pattanaik rightly points out Bosc believed in the sacrosance of the judiciary and rule of law, which are generally denied in an authoritarian rule. (ibid: 51) To Bose, then, ‘benevolent dictatorship’ was a transitional phase, necessary for preparing India for democracy. Bose wanted not only an efficient government but also a competent political party. In The Indian Struggle he wrote: ‘..we want a party of determined men and women... It will be the task of this party to create a new, independent and sovereign state in India. It will be the task of this party to execute the entire programme of post-war socio-economic reconstruction Let this party be called the Samyavadi Sangha. It will be a centralized and well-disciplined All- India Party - working amongst every section of the community, This party will have its representatives working in the Indian National Congress, in the All-India Trade Union Congress, in the Peasants’ organization, in the women’s organizations, in the students organizations, in the depressed classes’ organizations ...The different branches of the party working in different spheres... must be under the control and guidance of the central committee of the party This party will work in co-operation with any other party that may be working towards the same end...The Samyavadi Sangha will stand for all-round freedom for the Indian people, that is, for social, economic and political freedom. It will wage a relentless war against bondage of every kind till the people can become really free.” (Bose 1964:378) Bose’s emphasis upon the Samyavadi Sangha notwithstanding, he was in favour of a multi-party system. In his Haripura address he said: “The state will probably become a totalitarian one if there be only one party as in countries like Russia, Germany and Italy. But there is no reason why other parties should be banned. Moreover, the party itse!f will have a democratic basis, unlike, for instance, the Nazi party which is based on the ‘leader principle’. The existence of more than one party and the democratic basis of the Congress Party will prevent the futureIndian state becoming a totalitarian one. Further, the democratic basis of the party will ensure that leaders are not thrust upon the people from above, but are elected from below.” (Bose 1997: 205) This observation of Bose makes it clear that for him ‘benevolent dictatorship’ would be a temporary, transitional phase, after which there will emerge in India some form of representative democracy. Elsewhere, in his article on ‘Free India and its Problems’, Bose wrote: ‘One thing, however, is clear. There will be a strong, Central Government. Without such a Government order and public security cannot be safeguarded. Behind this Government will stand a well-organized, disciplined all-ndia party which will be the chief instrument for maintaining national unity.” (ibid: 290) Regarding unity of India, Bose said, in his Haripura address: “From the standpoint of Indian unity the first thing to remember is that the division between British India and the Indian states is an entirely artificial one. India is one and the hopes and aspirations of the people of British india and of the Indian states are identical.” (ibid: 201) Elsewhere, he said: “The Indian Princes and their states are an anachronism which must soon be abolished. They would have disappeared long ago, if the British had not preserved them in order to hamper the unification of the country... The Princes will naturally disappear along with the British rule, since most of them are very unpopular with their own people."(ibid: 293) In the Haripura address he said: “Our goal is that of an Independent India and in my view that goal can be attained only through a federal republic in which the provinces and the states will be willing partners.” (ibid: 201) To Bose, Indian unity also depended on communal harmony and secularism. “... only by emphasizing our common interests, economic and political’, he opined, “can we cut across communal divisions and dissensions. A policy of live and let live in matters religious and an understanding in matters economic and political should be our objective.” (ibid: 203) To Bose religious faith was a personal affair. Although Durga Puja and Id festivals were celebrated in Azad Hind Fauz, he was strictly secular in relation to politics. He criticized both the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League for their communal attitude. He was against communal reservations of any kind. Hence he criticized the Communal Award and the concept of separate electorates He argued that the Communal Award would only create divisions among the people and would isolate the minorities from the national mainstream. (Pattanaik 1991:74) Thus, from the foregoing analysis itis clear that Subhas Bose dreamt of a new India with a socialistic, democratic and secular government.References 1 Bose, Subhas Chandra, Speech at Naujawan Bharat Sabha (April 1931) in Bose, Sisir K. and Bose Sugata (eds), (1997), The I sential Writings of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. Calcutta : OUP Bose, Subhas Chandra, Presidential Address at Haripura Congress (February 1938) in Bose, Sisir K and Bose Sugata, op. cit. Bose, Subhas Chandra, ‘Free India and its Problems, first published in a German periodical in August 1942 and reprinted in op.cit. Bose, Subhas Chandra (1964), The Indian Struggle1920 ~ 1942. Bombay : Asia Publishing House Chatterjee, Subhas Chandra (1999), “Subhas Chandra Bose ~ His Vision of a New India’ in Sengupta, Pabitra and Sen, Rajkumar (eds), Vision of New India : Economic Ideas of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.Calcutta:Bibhasa Mukhopadhyay, Asok (1999),'Economic Thinking of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’ in Sengupta ete, op.cit. Pattanaik, D. D. (1991), Political Philosophy of Subhas Chandra Bose. New Delhi : Associated Publishing House