30th January 2013
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was an EXTREME fascist socialist/communist: no role model for modern India!
While I admire Netaji for his bold nationalism, he was unfortunately a creature of his times and was EXACTLY LIKE NEHRU on the subject of socialism – only MUCH more extreme. Nehru was a Fabian, i.e a democratic socialist. Netaji was a fascist (authoritarian) socialist.
“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.” — Indian Struggle. [PDF vol. 1, vol 2]
Had he lived and come to power, India’s fate would have been as bad or worse than its current fate – a poor nation ravaged by corruption and injustice.
He had good intentions, but as a rule, good intentions do NOT translate into good results. It is a deeper understanding of human nature, like Chanakya had, that India needs. Idealism is fatal. Because it is often very stupid.
We need to be clever at how we do things. To deal with humans as if they were robots who will work according to one’s “plans” for them is the great folly.
A few extracts about Netaji from various sources:
1. Subhas Chandra Bose and India’s Struggle for Independence By Andrew Montgomery
As early as 1930 — in his inaugural speech as mayor of Calcutta — the fervent young Bose first expressed his support for a fusion of socialism and fascism:
“… I would say we have here in this policy and program a synthesis of what modern Europe calls Socialism and Fascism. We have here the justice, the equality, the love, which is the basis of Socialism, and combined with that we have the efficiency and the discipline of Fascism as it stands in Europe today.”
In years that followed, the brilliant, eclectic Bengali would occasionally modify this radical doctrine, but would never abandon it entirely. For example, in late 1944 — almost a decade-and-a-half later — in a speech to students at Tokyo University, he asserted that India must have a political system “of an authoritarian character. . . To repeat once again, our philosophy should be a synthesis between National Socialism and Communism.” [Sanjeev: Fascism – i.e. National Socialism is already a form of communism. See also this.]
Many of Bose’s admirers have been inclined to downplay or even ignore the fascist elements in his ideology, and even to pretend they never existed.
During his years in Mandalay prison and another short term of imprisonment in Alipore jail in 1930, he read many works on political theory, including Francesco Nitti’s Bolshevism, Fascism and Democracy and Ivanoe Bonomi’s From Socialism to Fascism. It is clear that these works on fascism influenced him, and caused an immediate modification of his long-held socialist views: as noted above, in his inaugural speech as mayor of Calcutta, given a day after his release from Alipore jail, he revealed his support for a seemingly contradictory ideological synthesis of socialism and fascism.[Source]
2. From Bose’s Indian Struggle, Vol.1
“Unless we are at the end of the process of evolution or unless we deny evolution altogether, there is no reason to hold that our choice is restricted to two alternatives. Whether one believes in the Hegelian or in the Bergsonian or any other theory of evolution — in no case need we think that creation is at an end. Considering everything, one is inclined to hold that the next phase in world-history will produce a synthesis between Communism and Fascism. And will it be a surprise if that synthesis is produced in India?
“In spite of the antithesis between Communism and Fascism, 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 the ruthless suppression of all dissenting minorities. Both believe in a planned industrial reorganisation of the country. These common traits will form the basis of the new synthesis. That synthesis is called by the writer ‘Samyavada’ — an Indian word, which means literally ‘the doctrine of synthesis or equality’. It will be India’s task to work out this synthesis.” [Sanjeev: Samyavada = extreme collectivism where everyone is exactly equal, in the economic and every other sense]
It has been urged sometimes that Gandhism is an alternative to Communism. This idea is, in the opinion of the writer, erroneous. Mahatma Gandhi has given the country (and may be, the world) a new method — the method of passive-resistance or Satyagraha or nonviolent non-co-operation. He has not given his country or humanity a new programme of social reconstruction as Communism has — and the alternative to Communism can be only another theory of social reconstruction. No doubt, the Mahatma has condemned the ‘machine civilisation’ of the modern world and has eulogised the good old days when men were content with their cottage industries and their wants were few. But that is a personal belief or idiosyncrasy. Whenever he has expounded the contents of Swaraj, he has spoken in the language of Mid-Victorian Parliamentarian Democracy and of traditional capitalist economics. The ‘Eleven Points’ which he enunciated in 1930 as connoting his ‘substance of independence’, will be unreservedly accepted by any Indian industrial magnate. One could, therefore, say that the Mahatma does not intend pulling down the modern industrial structure if he were to get political mastery over his country, nor does he desire to completely industrialise the country. His programme is one of reform — he is fundamentally a reformist and not a revolutionary. He would leave the existing social and economic structure much as it is today (he would not even abolish the army altogether) and would content himself with removing the glaring injustices and inequalities against which his moral sense revolts. There are millions of his countrymen who accept his method owing to the pressure of circumstances, but not his programme of reconstruction, and who would like to build up quite a different India if they had the power. As has been already indicated, the future of India ultimately lies with a party with a clear ideology” [Sanjeev: we can hear Bose clearly reject liberal democracy – he is a communist revolutionary at heart.]
“The immediate objective of the Forward Bloc was an uncompromising struggle with British Imperialism for winning India’s independence. To this end, all possible means should be employed and the Indian people should not be hampered by any philosophical notions like Gandhian non-violence, or any sentimentalism like Nehru’s anti-Axis foreign policy. The Bloc stood for a realistic foreign policy and a post-war order in India on a Socialist Basis.”
3) From an article sent in by Brig R S Chhikara, Founder General Secretary, Netaji Subhash Bose – INA Trust, #239, Sector-17 A , Gurgaon, (Haryana-122001), E Mail ID firstname.lastname@example.org
“The planned economy that Nehru followed after 1947 was very much according to Bose’s orientation: industrialization under politically set priorities and guided by the government; industrialization including international cooperation but with a strong political shield to protect Indian markets. It was Subhas who set up the first planning Committee (commission) of the Indian National Congress (INC) and appointed Nehru as its chairman.”
“While outlining his vision for a free India, Subhash Chandra Bose proclaimed that socialist authoritarianism would be required to eradicate poverty and social inequalities from a diverse country like India. He openly espoused for an authoritarian state on the lines of Soviet Russia and Kemal Atatürk’s Turkey. Bose was also an exponent of socialism and opined that industrialization and Soviet-style five-year plans held the key to a vibrant Indian nation.”
5) From Wikipedia
In England, he exchanged ideas on the future of India with British Labour Party leaders and political thinkers like Lord Halifax, George Lansbury, Clement Attlee, Arthur Greenwood, Harold Laski, J.B.S. Haldane, Ivor Jennings, G.D.H. Cole, Gilbert Murray and Sir Stafford Cripps . He came to believe that a free India needed socialist authoritarianism, on the lines of Turkey’s Kemal Atatürk, for at least two decades. [Source]
6) From Hindustan Times:
“He made this point for the first time in his speech before the Bengal Branch of the Independence for India League in October 1928. The League’s manifesto … which he helped draft…. This manifesto was, for all purposes, a document advocating socialism for India.
His proposals …included
- Nationalisation of basic industries,
- Nationalisation of railways, shipping and airways,
- Ceiling on individual ownership of capital”. [Source]
Some commentators are not happy with my characterisation of Netaji as fascist. They forget that he HIMSELF promoted National Socialism (fascism) and Communism – in the form of a “combination”. Unless I am told that the quotations above are false, I will stick to this conclusion.
7. From website of All India Forward Block (party founded by Bose):
“Considering everything, one is inclined to hold that the next phase in world-history will produce a synthesis between Communism and Fascism and will it be a surprise if that synthesis is produced in India?” — Indian Struggle
“When we see National Socialism in Europe today, what do we find? National Socialism has been able to create national unity and solidarity and to improve the condition of the masses. [Sanjeev: Despite Bose’s differences with racist forms of fascism, he was PERFECTLY AT EASE with the fascist ideology, that arose from Hegelian collectivism. He just wanted MORE communism.] But it has not been able to radically reform the prevailing economic system which was built up on a capitalistic basis. On the other side, let us examine the Soviet experiment based on Communism. You will find one great achievement and that is planned economy. Where communism is deficient is that it does not appreciate the value of national sentiment. What we in India would like to have is a progressive system which will fulfil the social needs of the whole people and will be based on national sentiment. In other words, it will be a synthesis of Nationalism and Socialism. This is something which has not been achieved by the National Socialists in Germany to-day.” — Tokyo speech
“That synthesis is called by the writer ‘Samyavada’ – an Indian word, which means literally ‘the doctrine of synthesis or equality’. It will be India’s task to work out this synthesis.” — Indian Struggle.