by Bhavuk and Prashansa Upadhyay

Introduction –
Subhash Chandra Bose, a highly adored freedom fighter of India with indomitable spirit and indefatigable courage was born on 23rd January 1897. He is among those rarest of men in history whose life as well as “after life” has been equally romanticized and admired. His escape from India and his role at the forefront of Indian National Army (Azad Hind Fauj) had generated an air of heroism about him in India. When he died in an air-crash in 1945(and till now we have no reason to believe otherwise), this heroism got mixed with a yearning for this charismatic leader in a country advancing towards its freedom. Thereafter, continuous attempts have been made from all quarters to appropriate him. In this process of appropriation many statements have been taken out of context and many half-truths have passed on as complete candid pictures. This has given rise to many myths regarding Subhash Chandra Bose, his relations with other Congress leaders as well as his ideology. We shall make an attempt to debunk the more “popular myths” associated with Bose through his own writings and correspondence. The three primary myths to be debunked are about Nehru and Bose’s relations, Bose and Patel’s relations and why Bose’s appropriation by the communal forces is the greatest irony.
The rift between Nehru and Bose
It is one of the most favourite pastimes of various right wing organizations to pit Bose against Nehru in their attempt to show how they were antagonistic to each other. However,the reality is contrary to what is being portrayed. Subhash Chandra Bose had been deferential to CR Das and Motilal Nehru since his inception in politics. With the passage of time, Subhash and Jawaharlal came to be seen in the same light representing the left wing within the Congress. Both of them surged as the favourite leaders of the youth. Their popularity could be gauged from the fact that the charismatic youth leader of the time, Bhagat Singh, himself wrote an article on the two titled- ‘New Leaders and their Different Ideologies’ in Kirti magazine in 1928. The two had opposed the dominion status of the Nehru Report and had been adamant to amend this clause at the Calcutta session of the Congress in 1928. The All India Congress Committee passed Gandhi’s resolution that, if the British did not accede to their demand for Dominion status within two years, then a call for complete independence should be given, by 118 votes. Subhash got 45 votes in his favour.
A meeting of the left wing within the Congress had taken place in Lucknow in 1928 attended by both Nehru and Bose. After the meeting both of them began organising branches of the Independence League all over the country. (Subhash Chandra Bose, An Indian Pilgrim: The Indian Struggle, 1935, pp.136-137) The first All Bengal Conference of Students was held in August 1928 at Calcutta presided by Jawaharlal Nehru.(Bose, 1935, p.137) The Independence League was formally inaugurated at Delhi in November and according to Bose it attained the importance that it did largely because of Nehru’s association with it. (Bose, 1935, p.152)
At the time when the Gandhi-Irwin pact was about to be signed, Bose hoped that Nehru would be successful in getting Gandhi to agree to more favourable terms for the nation. He wrote that there was no one with sufficient personality to force their views on Gandhi except Jawaharlal Nehru. (Bose, 1935, p.181)
The difference between Bose and Nehru regarding Gandhi was that while both were deferential to him, Nehru was not ready to break with him unlike Subhash. We shall see this more vividly as we move forward. The relations between Nehru and Bose were extremely friendly during this time and as argued by Rudrangshu Mukherjee in his Nehru And Bose: Parallel Lives (2014), Bose had started to think of Nehru as an elder brother and mentor but Nehru was perhaps unaware about the change. Bose took great care of Kamla Nehru during her treatment in Europe and regularly kept himself updated regarding her health despite his peripatetic nature of stay.(Letter from Bose to Nehru dated 4th October 1935, p.121, Bunch Of Old Letters)
He was with Nehru in his hour of bereavement and wrote a letter to him to that effect on 4th March 1936 (Bunch Of Old Letters, p.166)
On his return to India, Bose was detained and shortly imprisoned. This did not go down well with the youth of the nation and their admiration for Bose was given expression by Nehru who declared 10th May to be celebrated as Subhash Day. (Rudgranshu Mukherjee, Nehru And Bose: Parallel Lives, 2014, p. 213)
In Bose’s letter to Nehru dated 30th June 1936 he expressed his concern for Nehru’s health and went on to advise him a couple of things regarding his priorities as Congress President.(Bunch Of Old Letters, p.195) The two had come quite close and were almost one voice over all the matters of the Congress. When the infamous Tripuri incident took place and seeing no cooperation forthcoming from his Working Committee, Bose resigned, he wrote a letter to his nephew. This letter which is quoted by almost all the accusers as evidence of Nehru’s malign towards Bose should be read in the context and in full. Though the letter says, no one had done more harm to me than Nehru in my cause, it was meant for the Tripuri incident. This emerges from the fact that Bose despite his admiration for Gandhi was ready to part ways with him which Nehru was not. Rudrangshu Mukherjee points out that at this time Bose even invited Nehru to discuss the situation(Rudrangshu Mukherjee, Nehru And Bose: Parallel Lives, 2014, p.243)
We must also not forget that Nehru was made the chairman of the Planning Committee during Bose’s tenure as Congress President and Nehru makes it a point to mention it. (Nehru, Discovery Of India, Classic Reprint, 2010, p.412) When the news of Bose’s death reached Nehru, he was moved to tears, one of the very few occasions when he cried in public. He even donned the lawyer’s coat after 25 years to defend the INA prisoners alongside Bhulabhai Desai. Nehru contrasts Bose’s heroic resistance from Japan with the lethargic attitude of a few Congressmen.(Nehru, Discovery Of India, Classic Reprint, 2010, p.521). Bose on his part named one of the battalions of his army after Nehru. They had their differences but those were probably very few and their mutual respect and admiration was tremendous. As Rudrangshu Mukherjee highlights, it is their friendship, the partnership they had, which has been overlooked by historians.
Patel And Bose Did Not See Eye To Eye
There can hardly be any misconception as great as this, for which often even historians have been responsible. Bose and Patel had their differences and often quite sharp ones but they greatly admired each other. When Patel had become the Sardar Patel of India after Kheda, Bose referred to his achievement at Kheda as a “glorious victory.”(Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel: A Life, 1991, p.168)
While Bose was closer to Nehru, when Nehru was made the president of Congress in 1929, Bose wrote in his Indian Pilgrim that the general feeling in congress circles was that the honour should go to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. (p.169) The Karachi session, apart from the fundamental rights, was notable for the unity displayed by Gandhi, Patel, Nehru and Bose. (Rajmohan Gandhi, 1991, p. 204)
Rajmohan Gandhi also narrates an incident which displays Patel’s curiosity to learn from Bose as well as a competitiveness between the two through Mahadev Desai’s diary. Mahadev Desai notes in his diary on 29th may 1932 that Patel asked him a question which he found interesting and amazing. He asked who was Vivekananda? Mahadev Desai thought that this thought might have risen because of Bose claiming Vivekananda his inspiration in an article in Leader. He suggested Romain Rolland’s books on Vivekanand and Ramkrishna Paramhans. While the latter part is correct, it appears in June and not on 29th May. Also, Mahadev Desai himself offers this suggestion to Patel and not on any particular query raised by Patel. If this fact is true then Rajmohan Gandhi might have used a different version of Mahadev desai’s diary which might be in existence as against that accessible on the Internet.
Vithalbhai Patel had been in Austria where he met Bose. Vithalbhai’s health had been continuously deteriorating and in September 1933 it reached a position where he had to be attended by doctors at most of the time round the clock. As his last but not insignificant political act, Vithalbhai Patel along with Subhash Chandra Bose signed a joint statement against Gandhi’s passive resistance stating that he had failed as a leader and India now needed new methods for its independence.( GI Patel, Vithalbhai Patel: Life And Times, Volume 2, 1950, pp.1217-1218) Vallabhbhai Patel was in prison at this time but he was deeply attached to his brother despite a few bitter memories which marred Vithalbhai’s move to Europe and wrote multiple letters to Vithalbhai. Probably the involvement of the British saw that these letters never reached Vithalbhai who thought that his brother had probably neglected him. (GI Patel, Vithalbhai Patel: Life And Times, Volume 2, 1950, p.1226) Bose who had this remarkable gift of nursing and dotting on the ill, looked after him extremely well. Gandhi remarked on this aspect that Bose had outdone himself with the care of Vithalbhai.
Vithalbhai made his Will at the Clinique de Linegeure, Gland in which he wrote that three fourth of his estates were to be used by Subhash for India’s political uplift and publicity work on behalf of India’s freedom struggle. He appointed Dr. P.T. Patel and G.I. Patel as executors of the Will.(G.I. Patel, Vithalbhai Patel: Life And Times, Volume 2, pp.1250-1251) GI Patel further mentions that though he asked Bose for the original Will several times, he could only muster a copy of the Will that he sent to GI Patel. GI Patel met Vallabhbhai in Nashik prison and showed him the Will. Vallabhbhai subjected the Will to cross examination enquiring why Vithalbhai’s signature was not attested by a medical person when he was in failing health? Since he would not have been able to dictate the Will in one go because of his illness, why was the original handwritten copy not produced? He was also suspicious as to why all three men who attested Vithalbhai’s signature were Bengalis and two of them merely students when eminent people like Bhulabhai Desai and others were present nearby.
Despite this fact we must keep in mind that Gordhanbhai Patel and not Vallabhbhai Patel moved the Bombay High Court in January 1939. Bhulabhai Desai, Chimnalal Setalvad and Motilal Setalvad represented GI Patel and others whereas PR Das (CR Das’s brother) and Manekshaw represented Bose. Justice B.J Wadia held that the reference in the Will to objects on which Subhash was to spend Vithalbhai’s money was vague and thus invalid. Vallabhbhai Patel announced that the money would go to Vithalbhai Memorial Trust. Subhash Chandra Bose appealed against the judgement but Justice Sir John Baumont and Justice Kania reaffirmed Justice Wadia’s ruling.( Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel :A Life, 1991, p.237)
Now looking at the relation between the two, Rajmohan Gandhi tells us about the Haripura session of the Congress that the relation between Patel and Bose seemed free of friction and consensus marked the session’s decisions.(Patel: A Life, 1991, p.265) When Khare had accused Patel of malicious intent towards him in sidelining him, Bose had defended Patel in this episode. Similarly, when the Muslim League headed coalition government fell in Assam, Patel backed Subhash who said Congress should make a bid to power as against Azad and Prasad’s opinion on the matter.(Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel: A Life, 1991, p.277) When life was made difficult for Bose as president at the Tripuri session Sarat Bose (Subhash Chandra Bose’s brother) wrote to Gandhi that Patel had a hand in the mean, malicious and vindictive propaganda against Bose.( Patel:A Life, p.281) While Patel was apprehensive of Bose’s candidature for President at Haripura, at Tripuri, Patel and others were simply toeing the line of Gandhi.
When Subhash was leading the INA, Vallabhbhai claimed Subhash as a colleague and fellow-fighter and was willing to help the personnel and dependents of the INA. He also headed the Congress Committee set up to assist relatives of those in a members killed by the Allies.( Patel: A Life, p.348)
Thus, we find that despite all their differences Bose and Patel had immense respect for each other and assisted each other for the attainment of the goal of independence.
Bose Was Closer to the Hindu Communalists
This myth emnates from the fact that Bose had gone on a hunger strike for Durga Puja celebration in Burmese jail. The entire episode is reproduced in Bose’s own book An Indian Pilgrim’s chapter 7, “In Burmese Prisons.” Bose wrote that “in October 1925, our national religious festival — the Durga Pujah — falling due, we applied to the Superintendent for permission and for funds to perform the ceremony. Since similar facilities were given to Christian prisoners in Indian prisons, the Superintendent gave us the necessary facilities, in anticipation of Government sanction.” (An Indian Pilgrim, pp.123-124) The Government, however, refrained from giving sanction and censured the Superintendent, Major Findlay, for acting on his own responsibility. Thereupon Bose was forced to commence a hunger-strike in February 1926. Three days after the hunger-strike began, the Calcutta paper, Forward, published the news of the hunger-strike and also the ultimatum Bose had sent to the Government. Bose further wrote that “about the same time Forward published extracts from the report of the Indian Jail Committee of 1919-21. Before this Committee a high official of the Prison Department, Lieut-Col. Mulvany, had given evidence to say that he had been forced by his superior officer, the Inspector-General of Prisons of Bengal, to withdraw the health reports he had sent of some state-prisoners in his jail and to send in false reports instead.”(An Indian Pilgrim, p.124) T.C. Goswami, a Swarajit member of the Legislature, moved ajournment of house over hunger strike in Mandalay jail. This alongside the disclosures of the report and Lieut-Col. Mulvany’s evidence ensured that after 15 days of hunger strike Subhash Chandra Bose carried the day. This clearly shows, he was rooting for fundamental rights of freedom and appealing to reason as he gave the example of Christian prisoners.
Like Gandhi and Nehru, he too was a staunch believer of Hindu-Muslim unity and believed in the shared cultural heritage of India. His appeal for the demolition of the Holwell monument and celebration of 3rd July 1940 as Sirajuddaula Day was not just a tactical move to gain Muslim League support but came from a deep conviction of Hindu -Muslim unity he firmly believed in. He named one of the battalions of the INA after Maulana Azad. He accorded a place of honour to General Shahnawaz in the INA and adopted as the slogan of the army- Jai Hind, a secular slogan praised by Mahatma Gandhi himself. The man had no bigoted bone in his body.
Conclusion
Bose was a charismatic leader of the national movement who gave his all for the freedom of the nation. He might have had differences with people but was not an enemy with anyone. None of the leaders of the national movement acted with malicious intent against one another. They were all fellows in arms often with different views but with a common aim. These facts need to be reiterated frequently and often in the public domain so that myths regarding the national movement and the a-historicity of those myths can be countered.
Bhavuk and Prashansa Upadhyay (PhD Candidates at The Department of History, AMU)