Michael Jackson: The Virgo In a World Apart | Tarot.com
Shared via AddThis
The late, great Michael Jackson always displayed a Leo's flashy style, but he was born with his Sun in modest Virgo. The self-critical nature of this zodiac sign can lead to shyness (think Michael Jackson's last few years, all but living as a recluse). Dark Pluto's conjunction to Michael's Virgo Sun added power, mystery and -- in the end -- danger to his personality.
Before his recent, untimely death by heart attack on June 25, 2009, Michael Jackson was long considered one of the most enigmatic celebrities on the planet. A star since early childhood and the creator of some of the most popular and recognizable music of his time, his legal difficulties have outshone his musical work in recent years. Born August 29, 1958, in Gary, Indiana, Michael was a Virgo, the zodiac sign of the clean, careful and quirky. In the latter half of his career, this germ-phobic performer seemed to have embraced the shadow side of Virgo's characteristics.
The astrological explanation for this is the close conjunction of Pluto, the planet of extremes, to Michael Jackson's Sun. Pluto's presence empowered Jackson with almost superhuman skills as an entertainer; unfortunately, Pluto is associated with the mythological Lord of the Underworld, which means Pluto's presence also revealed the potential for Jackson's dark side and deep secrets that require complete privacy -- this explains why Jackson demanded complete control of his environment, and why he left the stage and studio to create his own, childlike haven (Neverland Ranch in California). Trust doesn't come easily for Pluto types, even ones who weren't famous at the age of six. The Sun is also a symbol for the father, with Michael's famously controlling and allegedly abusive papa (Joe Jackson) well-represented by Pluto in his son's chart
The finely tuned precision of Michael's Sun wouldn't have attracted audiences and produced beautiful music without the exquisite sensitivity of Jackson's Pisces Moon. The Moon represents feelings, and none are more refined than those of the last sign of the zodiac. This gave Michael Jackson the lush imagination to complement and inspire his truly Virgo, high-level skills. People with their Moons in Pisces often live in a world without emotional boundaries; they're sponges who pick up on the reactions of those around them.
This is a gift when it comes to healing others and tapping into a bottomless well of creativity. But it can also bring a sense of uncertainty, an unrooted quality that makes for restless souls. Faith helps overcome this vulnerability, as Pisces Moons often find the universal connection they seek through religion or spiritual practice. Still, Michael remained isolated by his uniqueness, separated by actions both inspired (his relentless musical creativity) and profane (his questionable relationships with young boys) that made him so different from the rest of us.
His rare musical brilliance shone most brightly through the symbol of artistic Venus in the expressive sign of Leo. But Michael's Venus was both gifted and complicated by its close proximity to Uranus, the planet of uniqueness. Venus-Uranus people bring fresh perspectives to the arts and often break the boundaries of old categorizations. The success of the quirky Plutonian hit 'Thriller' was a breakthrough for African-American artists in the culture of early MTV, showing how this placement of Venus and Uranus added sparkle and freshness that excited audiences and confounded critics -- Michael Jackson did not fit into any conventional category as a performer.
On a personal level, this relationship between Venus and Uranus could hint at unusual relationship preferences, as well as a fear of being confined by love. The vast majority of individuals with this combination in their chart are in no danger of violating laws or shocking the community. Yet in Michael Jackson's case, the absence of clear sexual orientation (or the questionable ways he tried to express his sexual orientation) have sadly become his most publicized characteristics in recent years.
It is unfortunate that a profoundly talented soul -- and such a creative mind -- made his mark on pop culture, only to have it marred. With this Venus-Uranus placement, it remains unclear whether Jackson broke any laws, or if he truly was just an eccentric with an innocent -- if misunderstood -- love of children.
Whether guilty of crimes or not, however, Michael may have felt that in his uniqueness there was also something deeply wrong with him, as if his creative genius had not put him above us, but had simply set him apart. Interestingly, the strength of all these elements -- his honed Virgo work ethic, his highly imaginative Pisces Moon, his Venus-Uranus-inspired way of flaunting convention, even the Plutonian tendencies to push musical boundaries to the extreme -- truly combined to make Jackson the once and future King of Pop.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Celebrity Deaths: Is There a Cosmic Connection? from Cosmic Reporter's Tarot Blog
Celebrity Deaths: Is There a Cosmic Connection? from Cosmic Reporter's Tarot Blog
Shared via AddThis
As you probably already know, today brought the untimely deaths of two American pop culture legends: bombshell actress Farrah Fawcett and “King of Pop†Michael Jackson. Two days ago, we also said goodbye to TV personality/television host/all-American good guy Ed McMahon, a loss which came fast on the heels of actor David Carradine’s tragic end.
Although there is no stand-out cosmic explanation for the sudden rash of celebrity deaths, master astrologer Jeff Jawer offers a couple insights, noting, “Monday’s New Moon in cozy Cancer was opposite Pluto, the planet of death and rebirth, setting the stage for some dramatic exits. Pieces of our cultural history are leaving with the departures of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett and Ed MacMahon.†He adds, rather optimistically, “Expansive Jupiter’s close conjunction with spiritual Neptune is a great time to make an escape. The recent deaths of so many famous people may look like a tragic loss to the living but could be a joyous journey for those who have left us.
Still, it is interesting to look at each celeb's Sun sign to see what we can learn about their deaths.
Michael Jackson
The often scandalous saga of Michael Jackson's life came to a sad, shocking end when he died suddenly of a heart attack. He was only 50, and although he had spent the better part of his last decade either in court or in seclusion, his fame never waned. His Virgo sense of perfectionism (combined with his romantic Pisces Moon) had awarded him an outstanding career, from endearing child star to King of Pop to eccentric legend. True to Virgo form, he was defined by his career (after all, he penned some of the most enduring pop hits of our time) and was strongly influenced by his surroundings, which prompted him to create his own paradise in California, Neverland Ranch. For a time, he could tap into his fantasy-driven Pisces Moon and create his own reality. Sadly, he was taken just as this same ability to dream prompted him to organize an epic comeback tour.
Read more about Michael Jackson's unique astrological profile here, and please, feel free to leave your own reflections on these dearly-departed celebs in the comments section.
Shared via AddThis
As you probably already know, today brought the untimely deaths of two American pop culture legends: bombshell actress Farrah Fawcett and “King of Pop†Michael Jackson. Two days ago, we also said goodbye to TV personality/television host/all-American good guy Ed McMahon, a loss which came fast on the heels of actor David Carradine’s tragic end.
Although there is no stand-out cosmic explanation for the sudden rash of celebrity deaths, master astrologer Jeff Jawer offers a couple insights, noting, “Monday’s New Moon in cozy Cancer was opposite Pluto, the planet of death and rebirth, setting the stage for some dramatic exits. Pieces of our cultural history are leaving with the departures of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett and Ed MacMahon.†He adds, rather optimistically, “Expansive Jupiter’s close conjunction with spiritual Neptune is a great time to make an escape. The recent deaths of so many famous people may look like a tragic loss to the living but could be a joyous journey for those who have left us.
Still, it is interesting to look at each celeb's Sun sign to see what we can learn about their deaths.
Michael Jackson
The often scandalous saga of Michael Jackson's life came to a sad, shocking end when he died suddenly of a heart attack. He was only 50, and although he had spent the better part of his last decade either in court or in seclusion, his fame never waned. His Virgo sense of perfectionism (combined with his romantic Pisces Moon) had awarded him an outstanding career, from endearing child star to King of Pop to eccentric legend. True to Virgo form, he was defined by his career (after all, he penned some of the most enduring pop hits of our time) and was strongly influenced by his surroundings, which prompted him to create his own paradise in California, Neverland Ranch. For a time, he could tap into his fantasy-driven Pisces Moon and create his own reality. Sadly, he was taken just as this same ability to dream prompted him to organize an epic comeback tour.
Read more about Michael Jackson's unique astrological profile here, and please, feel free to leave your own reflections on these dearly-departed celebs in the comments section.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Is Australia racist: Let's look at the whole picture
Is Australia racist: Let's look at the whole picture
Shared via AddThis
| By - Vandana K Mittal, | |||||
| 04 June 2009, Thursday |
Shared via AddThis
Disclaimer: Whatever I write below is not meant to condone the attacks on Indian students.Those attacks are reprehensible and must be condemned and stopped.The effort is to present the whole picture and not the narrow breast beating of our national channels.
IT IS the season for bashing it seems. While some hoodlums are up to targeted bashing of Indian students in Australia (mainly Melbourne), we in India are up in arms as a nation to bash an entire nation and its population as racist. Our media, that has trouble finding reporters to send to some not-so-remote parts of the country to report on the problems of these regions, seem to have no trouble sending shrill voiced, excited and half-baked young reporters to far away Australia to prowl the streets and send back reports that confirm our 'worst fears' : Australia is a racist country.
It all has a sense of deja vu... remember when Bhajji and Symonds had that monkey/maa -ki spat and we rose as one to beat our collective breast and shout racist...we got that mercurial sardar off the hook by some fancy testimonies of 'senior' players and flexing the BCCI financial muscles only to have him slapping Sreesanth a few months later. Now these 'seasonal' birds are at it again...walking the streets of Australia sending back lop sided reports without any regard for the long term effect they will have on the Indo-Aussie ties.
Like migratory birds, they are there for the short haul and once their channels and newspapers have something new and equally sensational to report on, they will pack up their microphones and depart the Aussie shores. But what about the people of Indian origin, who have lived there for decades, who will continue to live there after this storm has passed and who for the most parts like the lives they have made for themselves in Australian cities?
And what about the thousands of Indian students (at last count about 90,000), who will be continuing to stay back in Australia to complete their degrees?
And what about the injustice done to million of Australians, who are not racist but have been painted as such?
The media is making a grave mistake and doing a disservice to everyone by whipping up this 'racism' hysteria.
In all my years of living in Australia, I never felt that the nation was racist. What it probably has are some people, who are without a doubt racist.
And those who are blatantly racist are racist probably because of :
1) Their own narrow and xenophobic tendencies and
2) Because they know very little about India and Indians
3) What they do know about Indians comes from the Indians, who are there (so maybe the Indians there are not being very good ambassadors for the country).
The vast majority of Australian population is warm, welcoming and accepting of the huge deluge of immigrants that has been arriving on its shores for almost two decades now.They are keen to put behind them the days of 'whites only' policies and move in tune with the changing global trends and attitudes.
Aussies are the biggest champions of the underdog and the under privileged. They hate the 'tall poppy syndrome' (some being more advantaged and prominent than the others) and go to great lengths to be the ordinary 'bloke' next door, the 'mate' who will chugg a stubbie with you and be there for you when needed.
In my initial days in the country, I was over whelmed by the number of Aussies, who helped me in ways big and small. (If they sometimes seemed patronising it was because they did not know the difference between a well-off, well educated migrant and those seeking asylum from disadvantaged, war torn countries.)
They explained things at work, helped me find books at the local library, explained to me the labrynthine Australian tax system and helped me find my first job. When I turned up at the interview looking very tense and stressed ( I had lost way while driving to it and had was late) the interviewer held my hand, smiled warmly and told me to relax as, according to her, my CV was enough of an interview. She did not have to do that but she did.
During this same period, I met a large number of fellow Indians, who have made huge economic strides in their new country and who by and large live peacefully and happily in Australia. But I also met a large number of those who remain caught in their 'us Vs them' mindset. In their large, double storied houses (dubbed Mc Mansions by the media) they gather routinely for chai and samosas and for 'Indian dinners' wherefor the entire evening they try and outdo one another in detailing how Australia is not all that great, how Aussies do not accept them, how they are discriminated against, how the 'white' culture pollutes and alienates their children and how 'great' their motherland India is. In their curry aided weepy, sentimentality they forget to mention the eagerness with which they had sought migration to Australia, the haste with which they had discarded Indian nationality for the Aussie one and how when they go to India for vacations they can hardly find anything good or right about the country. Ghettos are dangerous things but mental ghettos are even worse.
If Aussies are upset (as New Zealanders earlier were) about the rapid demographic changes in their country, it is also because of the arrivals failing to integrate fully with the locals. And this applies to all immigrants. In the suburb, where I worked, the large number of Afghan and other Muslim immigrants had forced the local KFC to turn Halal and keep no pork products, the nativity scene celebrations could no longer be held in schools during Christmas season lest they offend the Muslim sensibilties. Mince pies, those most iconic of Aussie treats, were not to be served during school fairs etc (pork/non-halal issues. Electoral considerations make the local politicians also bow to these demands (in some case the demand is assumed and not actually made).
In the local play grounds, the Aussie boys play Footy on the weekends and the people from the sub continent play cricket to loud music from Bollywood films. The Indians (and others) also by and large fail to embrace the concept of volunteering in the community. Voluntary work in the community is the virtual backbone of the Aussie way of life and by focussing only on what they can get from Australia the sub -continent immigrants fail to address the issue of what they can do for the communities they arrive into. This often leads to white Aussies leaving suburbs to move to newer or suburbs further away and the old suburbs gradually turn into 'Asians only' areas. This happens with the Chinese/Vietnamese/ Indian and various other communities.
Then there is the vast student population from India. Where are these large numbers coming from? In areas like Chandigarh, there are virtual assembly line businesses specialising in sending the Punjabi youth to Australia. None of these students have any intention of coming back. Most intend to settle down under. Australia is the new 'Kanaada' for the Punjabi. With the Canadian immigration now taking close to five years to get through they have set their sights on Australia as the country to migrate to.Australian migration rules are more stringent then the Canadian ones and hence the use of the education route to achieve the immigration dream.
They enrol in small TAFE (tertiray educaion system) courses in hair dressing, nursing care and similar with an eye on filling the vacancies in these areas and making Australia their new home. Nothing objectionable in all this except that they arrive in Aussie cities from small towns and cities of India with little or no idea about the culture and value systems of the new country. For them all 'goras' are the same and they carry the baggage of these stereotypes with them. I have personally heard some of these students talking in English (and Indian languages) about how 'loose' white women are, how little the 'white' parents care for their children, how easy it is to trick the benefit system of Australia to claim more dollars...
Why am I writing all this in an article supposed to discuss the attacks on Indian students? I am sharing this so that people understand how bizarre and one sided is the picture being painted by our jingoistic media. I am sharing all this so that we pause to look inwards towards our own idiosyncracies and inflexibilties, while clamouring for action against the perpetrators of the current attacks. Those guys need to be caught and punished but we too need to soul search a bit about how we treat the 'other'.
Australia on its part needs to crack down on the violence agaisnt overseas students and it also needs to take a long hard look at its immigration policy and its mega efforts to sell Aussie education all over the globe. It spins money ofcourse but by ignoring the concerns of the Australian population and without making a good case for its policies they are going to invite further problems on their head. Australia maybe a large continent but it has a small population of just 21 million and although they need the immigrants to keep their economy chugging along they also need to look far into the future and anticipate how their society may have to change with the arrival of more and more immigrants. Easy education dollars, earned now by roping in students via education fairs held world wide, may be attractive and tempting but may prove too expensive in the long run.
The time to act is now. For both countries. Both countries need to sensitise their young people about the other's cultures and way of life. The media could still redeem itself by focussing on this rather than calling a whole country racist and beaming interviews of students who say they want to leave Australia. Take my word for it. Most won't
It never ceases to amaze me, how as a nation, we are so ready to hang our jingoistic nationalism on to the peg of one arrogant and ill mannered cricketeer but show no desire whatsoever to actually change in ways that would do India proud.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Netaji Subash Chandra Bose - Strategic Thoughts and practices - By Prof. Abul Kalam
Few political personalities of the Indian National Movement have earned so much admiration and laurels for the saga of demonstrated courage, vision and sacrifice and at the same time have been the target of an equal amount of condemnation as Subhas Chandra Bose (1897-1945), presumably for his arrogance, refusal to compromise and seeming lack of realism. He was one of the most acclaimed heroes fighting for India’s liberation from the yoke of British colonial rule, as a national leader he enjoyed equal status with Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, but to many his personality was most attractive of the three and his reputation in certain area even rivaled that of Gandhi himself. In his manner and political style, in ideology and action, Bose represents a unique phenomenon in India’s national Movement. While Gandhi has been viewed as the father of Indian Awakening, Bose is seen as the father of Indian Revolution.
Yet Bose continues to be little understood. Despite the allegation of his overriding, even prodigious arrogance, his alleged impatience and superficiality, opportunism and adventurism, the story of Bose’s life is of absorbing interest, not only because of his fiery brand of nationalism and his idealism but also because of his political astuteness, and his plan of action for attaining India’s freedom. Some analysis tend to view him as an arch-rebel against the British Raj. Bose, however, humbly called himself ‘the Servant of India’. While British propaganda stigmatized him as ‘an enemy agent’ and a Nazi or a Fascist collaborator, Rabindranath Tagore had once hailed him as the long sought Deliverer of the Bengali Nation, the one who would unite and reawaken the Indian Nation.
The paper examines the strategic blue-print or framework of action of Bose for the liberation of India. It advances the view that, despite the constraints and limitations imposed by the existing frame of national liberation struggle and the colonial surroundings of the time in the realm of world politics, Bose was perhaps the only nationalist leader of the period in the subcontinent who had demonstrated a great deal of understanding of the dynamics of strategy and tactics involved in India’s liberation struggle and made significant contribution to the conceptual appraisal of international relations, which, indeed, brought together a world view very specific to Subhas and his time.
To highlight this view further, the paper is divided into two sections. The first section highlights Bose’s strategic ideas and plan of action for India’s liberation, while the second section examines Bose’s contribution in the arena of international relations as a policy maker.
Bose was a staunch Indian nationalist. As a logical sequel to his patriotic zeal, Bose developed an invincible faith in India’s destiny, and hence took up the case of India’s independence as a spiritual goal and a righteous cause. He was not a believer in any escapist philosophy but a revolutionary who was drawn to politics inspired by the lover of his country and mankind. The deification of India as the mother and the glamour attached to sacrifice for the motherland constituted the main trend of his strategic thought – the ultimate policy ambition- and contributed to the development of his concept of nationalism on the basis of a religious consciousness. India thus featured in his thought not as a mere territory but as a spiritual being, a living thing.
To attain India’s liberation he laid his firm faith on revolutionary struggle, which consisted of two phases, a phase of nationalist struggle against British imperialism and a phase of inter-class struggle against all privileges, distinction and vested interests. Bose was equally of the firm view that no country could win its independence without any sacrifice and without fighting a war. Such a conviction led him to advance a militant strategy of direct action and made him an ardant advocate of revolution, as against Indian National Congress plea for moderation based on constitutional methods. He exhorted all people to be prepared for dharamayuddha, i.e., making sacrifice for a righteous cause, as he viewed patriotism with an added emphasis of religiosity. His strategy of direct action and his emphasis on force and violence for fighting the war of India’s liberation was thus in full accord with his strategic outlook. It was this approach which made him a subject of bitter controversy in the then Indian socio-political life.
Secondly, Bose from his own analysis came to the conclusion that all efforts of the Indian themselves may not be sufficient to expel the British and, therefore, he wanted to rouse international public opinion in favour of India’s liberation movement. He was of the view that India must exploit an opportune international situation and seek foreign help to drive out Britain from India. The Second World War, he thought, provided such an opportune movement he was looking for and afforded him with that moment to organize an army and equip it with arms and ammunition to launch an arms struggle against British rule in India. It was for this reason Bose escaped from India during the war to seek international help so as to fulfil his determination to win India’s freedom.
One may ask, why did Bose postulate such a strategic concept which brought him into confrontation with the Congress hierarchy? He was certain that Britain was unlikely to grant independence to India of its own free will as many in the Congress hierarchy believed. Therefore he thought it appropriate not only to resort to a strategy of violence involving direct action but was also legitimate to seek international assistance in support of his strategy to over throw the British.
It may be mentioned that most of Bose’s contemporary revolutionary leaders, including Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Tito held the same view as far as their perception of the external enemy was concerned, though direct onslaught by the Axis powers on their territory had left them with little option but to join in the Allied counter-attack on a commonly perceived enemy. In the case of India, Bose had a different perception for unlike China, Vietnam or Yugoslavia, India was not a direct military target of any of the Axis powers.
Bose’s strategic posture would thus appear quite rational, commanding, and superb. Having read Clausewitz and being convinced of the ultimate victory of his mission, he adopted the slogan of total mobilisation for a total war and his battle-cry became Chalo Delhi (To Delhi) in Clausewitzian style of a zero-sum game. Obviously, India, being under British colonial hegemony, was to emerge as the front in the liberation struggle, while the countries of Southeast Asia where his forces temporarily camped , were to appear as the ‘rear areas’ from which the struggle would be spearheaded by mobilizing support of the immigrant population as well as of the foreign powers. Such ideas, though developed independently, were consistent with the revolutionary blue-print of his great revolutionary. Chinese contemporarian, Mao Zedong, ideas which were later further developed by Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap in the course of the Vietnam War.
Indeed in all these spheres, Bose proved to be quite innovative as he sought to mobilize help from what was in essence an ’enemy territory’ and was quite unconventional in nature. His aim was a draft support of a couple of millions of Indian civilians in Southeast Asia and recruit Indian soldiers employed with the British colonial army.
It is true that in the military field Bose had no prior exposure, direct experience or background. He had only relatively small training as a member of the university corps. It was hence suggested that he had an ‘incredible naivete’ in military matters, yet he exacted great loyalty and enjoyed tremendous amount of respect from his adherents and subordinates in the Indian National Army (INA). Somewhat echoing the words of Napoleon, whose undaunting spirit to overcome any hurdle inspired him, he complimented his soldiers by telling them: conduct yourself in a manner so that your countrymen may bless you and posterity may be proud of you. While lamenting the odds confronting his forces in the INA, he could still inspire them with confidence and Napoleonic voice. “I can offer you nothing for the present except hunger, thirst, privation, forced marches and death, but if you follow me, I shall lead you to victory and freedom”. And, again with Napoleonic spirit, while assuring his soldiers that he will be with them in darkness and sunshine, in sorrow and in joy, in suffering and in victory, he was himself tireless, taking little sleep and working far into the night so as to fulfil his promise.
Although a committed revolutionary, Bose was not an anarchist. Nor did he believe in terrorism or violence merely for the sake of it, though he did admire the immense sacrifice rendered by the terrorists for the great cause of India’s independence. So long as he was in the Congress he wanted to see it developed into a mass-based political organization able to articulate and mobilize all the energies of the nation for the attainment of the goal of India’s freedom. Hence he firmly believed that India’s independence was to be won by the develo0pment of the Congress into a parallel government, with each department and instrument of British administration in India to be duplicated by the Congress. He wanted India to be a republic and its future constitution to be republican. Hence he rejected Dominion status as he was concerned that it would merely help the British to perpetuate their imperialist and capitalist interest in India. Indeed, such a stance compelled Gandhi himself, who was inclined to such an idea, to move a resolution in 1929 at the Lahore session of the Congress which defined Congress objective as complete independence.
Bose’s concern, however, was not only freedom or independence. He held a great vision for India’s unity and a plan for free India. He held the view that without obliterating the ingrained and vested evils such as poverty, ignorance, caste system, communalism and other social anachronisms and religious divisiveness, India can hardly be free or can be turned into modern democracy. Caste and communalism must not be allowed to hinder a free and democratic India.
Here begins Bose’s second phase of Indian revolution, the phase of revolutionary construction at home. As part of the second phase of his struggle Bose laid wholehearted faith in socialism, as it could form part of a general strategy of involving the masses in the freedom movement and would help eradicate barriers and distinction based on wealth, caste, sex and religion – all of which must go. Thus, in addition to its pragmatic utility, the humanitarian and egalitarian aspects of socialism had great appeal for Bose. He was in favour of a synthesis and in this, his views were again coloured by national considerations. He was all for social upliftment of women and wanted them to have equality of status with men, but he believed that the latter would never voluntarily concede equality of status. Hence, he felt, that for women there is little option but to struggle to assert their right. He himself created an example to facilitate the liberation of women by setting up the Rani of Jhansi Brigade during the War consisting only of women so that the latter could be prepared to play due role in the liberated independent India.
Bose abhorred the emerging trend of communal politics in India, intentionally well-laid by the alien authorities as in the case of the Catholic-Protestant question in Ireland. He himself sought to bring together the two communal parties, the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League, in a joint fight wit the Congress for India’s independence and even suggested to Mohammad Ali Jinnah that in the event of such a joint struggle taking place the latter could become the first Prime Minister of free India. Perhaps in order to accommodate Muslim sentiments, a special session of the Bengal Provincial Conference of the Congress Forward Bloc, founded by Bose, decided on 25 May 1940 at his instance to observe 3 July 1940 as Sirajuddowla Day, in honour of the last independent Nawab of Bengal. But by that time he was already ousted from the Congress itself, which was perhaps a prelude to his removal from the political scene in India and his dream of a united India was belied.
In this context, it maybe recalled that Bose’s election in 1938 as Congress President by Gandhi himself, despite his ideological differences with Bose, was based on the premise that Bose, with his secular approach and his acceptability to the Muslims, would be able to arrest the mounting tide of communalism in India. And once elected he assured the Muslims that they had nothing to fear in the event of India winning her freedom. On the contrary, they have everything to gain. It was only natural that his ouster from the Congress and his attempted political diminution deliberately pursued by the Congress leadership had the effect of providing an upper hand to the communal forces within and beyond Congress, paving the way for the subsequent partition of India.
To attain his goal, Bose also propounded the doctrine of Samyavada, which sought to accommodate the common trails of nationalism, fascism, national-socialism, socialism and secularism. The ideals he sought to incorporate included complete national independence and uncompromising anti-imperialist stand, scientific large-scale production for the economic regeneration through a modern and socialist state, social ownership and control of both the means of production and distribution, freedom of religious worship and equal rights for individuals, linguistic and cultural autonomy for all sections of the Indian community and application of the principle of equality and social justice in building up the New Order in free India. All these would be enforced through establishing Samyavada Sangh in India, a centrally controlled all-Indian party, representing all classes of people and committed to uphold the eternal principle of India’s political independence, equality and justice.
On basic questions of strategy and tactics, Bose was thus immensely thoughtful and farsighted. For resolving fundamental problems of India’s national life he conceived a comprehensive plan with two components, an immediate component of struggle against colonialism and a long-term component of national reconstruction. The immediate component of the plan included preparing the country for self-sacrifice towards the objective of liberation, to keep it unified and to provide scope for local and cultural autonomy. Through elaborate planning and appropriate organization the country would be prepared for struggle and self-sacrifice and the people would have to be drawn to a strategy of direct action against foreign imperialism.
Bose thus proved himself to be a great strategic thinker and a good tactician with a pragmatic vision about the future of India. His credit lies not merely in articulating his ideas and theories but also in seeking to translate his politico-strategic theories into a programme of action. During the Quit India movement he innovated the concept of non violent guerrilla warfare to be undertaken within India and made a remarkable contribution to the theory of boycott and passive resistance. His programme of action, designed to give the Indian mass movement new dimensions of operational strategy and effectiveness, included prevention of tax and revenue collection, stay-in-strike by workers to hamper production, social boycott of the British and the pro-British Indian elements, sabotage and actual efforts to seize power by force of arms.
With his strategy of direct action and theory of boycott, Bose also popularized the tactical concept of mass-base for political parties to fight a revolutionary struggle, stressing the importance of closely associating the youth, students, the labouring classes-workers and peasants with the political life of the nation in order to galvanise the national movement.
While in Congress, he held the view that the INC could capture power with an intense nationalist struggle which would culminate in a general strike and civil disobedience. That would paralyse the administration and running of the government would be made impossible. Because the colonial government itself would like to follow a policy of persecution and repression, the jails would be full, the government itself would be demoralized, the bureaucracy would be forced to yield to the demands and desires of the people and the British authorities could no longer count on the loyalty of their servants. The Congress could then take full command of the situation by developing its organizational structure into a full and parallel government, duplicating each department and every instrument of the British hierarchy of administration. Labour should be organized, political education be provided for the masses, all preparations should follow for capturing power from the British.
However, Bose’s embittered relations with the Congress hierarchy over the programme of direct action against the British advocated by him, when the latter had confronted the Axis powers, including the issue of an ultimatum to the British and mobilisation of international support in favour of India’s nationalist struggle, led to his resignation and eventual expulsion from the Congress. The machination of the Congress hierarchy together with his frequent persecution by the colonial authorities in India made him desperate and had left him with little option but to seek to redeem his framework of action from abroad.
Bose became President of the Indian National Congress at a very critical juncture of international diplomacy when the Axis powers were on the brink of their forward march. As a pragmatic politician, fully committed to the cause of India’s liberation, he was inclined towards playing a real politik and wanted the Congress to pursue a foreign policy which would be based not on idealism or emotionalism but on considerations of India’s national interest. His view was that in the pursuit of foreign policy Congress should set aside its inhibition about the international politics or conduct of any country or the form of its state/government, as the people of every country, whatever their political ideology, sympathized with the aspiration of the Indian people for freedom and independence. He took the subtle position that the Congress leadership should tone down their utterance against the militarist and expansionist activities of the Axis powers and should take a leaf out of the diplomacy of the USSR, which did not hesitate to make alliances with non-socialist states as long as such an alliance served Soviet interests. In fact, apart from the question of the pace of the nationalist movement, and appropriate strategy and tactics to be followed, one of the main reason of Bose’s suspension from all executive positions in 1939 was his differences with the Congress hierarchy over the war issue and his attitude towards world affairs.
Bose’s “whole life.” As he stated, “is one long, persistent, uncompromising struggle against British imperialism, and is the best guarantee of my bona fides”. He himself saw his leanings towards the Axis alliance as a hazardous mission and his sole object was the expulsion of the British from India; in this case, if he had any triumph he would share that with Gandhiji and the Indian people. But Bose was not an Axis apologist and was not certainly soft toward the expansionist maneuvers of the Axis powers. Rather it was under his stewardship as President, the Congress had decided to observe 12 June 1938 as China Day throughout India in solidarity with the Chinese people fighting the Japanese invasion. In September an ambulance unit was also dispatched to Canton, which was a victim of Japanese bombardment. All this symbolized, as Bose stated, India’s goodwill, esteem and sympathy for the Chinese nation. He had no illusion about the behaviour of the Nazis in Europe. With specific reference to Munich Pact, which he called as an abject surrender to Nazi Germany, he wondered how Europe had sold her soul for the sake of a seven day’s earthly existence and passed the hegemony in Europe into the hands of Germany.
It may nevertheless be mentioned that, while Bose was an uncompromising player in the game of politics, he was also accommodative of the views of others in the Congress who had advocated a policy of active opposition to both fascism and imperialism everywhere. He understood the strong sentiment in the Congress behind it and though not approving, not only did not protest but publicly associated himself with it as President. But Bose was cold shouldered by the Congress hierarchy, which had adopted manifestly an anti-Fascist approach, being strongly influenced by the views of Gandhi and Nehru in its foreign policy orientation and sought to negotiate with Britain, denouncing the Axis alliance. Not only he was isolated in the Congress for his views, forcing him to resign but was also expelled unceremoniously, and he Bengal Pradesh Committee which had backed him up was also banned and immobilised in an intolerant fashion. It was in sheer disgust and remorse he stated in Delhi on 12 October 1939 that he was opposed to Hitlerism whether in India, within the Congress or any other country.
Bose was not particularly prejudiced about Britain except for the question of British imperialism and colonization of India. He certainly cherished no enmity as he said, towards the British people. We are fighting Great Britain and we want the fullest liberty to determine our future relations with her. But once we have real self-determination, there is no reason whey we should not enter into the most cordial relations with the British people. It seems obvious that this attitude towards the Axis alliance was merely tactical and very much consistent with classical strategic theorizing the enemies of Britain, he though, in the context of the War, were the friends of India and the defeat of Britain in the War would lead to emancipation of India or to put in more categorical terms in his own words. The fundamental principle of our foreign policy has been and will be Britain’s enemy is India’s friend.
Long before the outbreak of the Second World War, Bose was convinced of an impending international crisis involving the major powers and he wanted that India should make the fullest use of that crisis to win back her freedom. Naturally he considered the war of 1939 as a blessing in disguise, which had set the final stage of struggle for India’s liberation. Having witnessed an unprecedented awakening in the Indian states and with his firm belief that India was ripe for revolution, he perceived as a cold blooded realist, that an opportune moment had arrived in India’s national history for a final showdown with the British when everyone seemed to be willing to give blood necessary to win liberty. All that it needed then was to sink internal differences, pull our resources and pull our weight in the national struggle and seek international support and one all-embracing organization to link up Indian nationalists all over the world. Therefore, he pleaded that in their own national interest the Indians should dissociate themselves from the British war efforts, as any British victory in the war is likely to delay India’s independence.
Initially Bose was not interested in mobilizing the support of the Axis alliance, although he did understand, for instance, the imperialistic logic, which worked in Tokyo when her race for expansion and act of aggression took the world opinion by surprise. He contemplated going to China, but the British authorities refused to permit him to visit China and even threatened to intern him under the Defence of India Act. Having a view of the USSR as an anti-British and anti-imperialist power he had a desire to go to Russia, as he felt that Russia was the only country which could help to liberate India.
Moreover, the attack from the North-West was in keeping with traditional historical precedent, but the declaration of the Russo-German War dashed his hope for inducing Soviet support from the North-West towards the Indian liberation struggle at that time. Therefore, he had to re-plan his international strategy, with the planned assault from the non-traditional direction, the North-East, a strategy which in its originality, planning and daring is unequalled in the world’s military annals.
It may be mentioned that Bose’s attempt to induct support of the Axis powers was no more than a response to Britain’s own war effort, as it had introduced troops and weapons from other foreign countries in India. It was only natural that the nationalists fighting the British would have the similar right to seek foreign support against the British imperialist intrusion. But, he insisted, the emancipation of India must be the work primarily of Indian themselves. As far as Britain was concerned he did not conceal his rules of the game. He was a zero-sum player and, therefore, bluntly stated, ‘I am an extremist and my principle is – all or none’. He would sacrifice everything so as to attain the objective of India’s independence.
The INA itself certainly had failed in its immediate mission in Arakan or in the Imphal Operation, but the failure itself may be more ascribed to an overextended Japan (which had deferred the planned offensive against the enemy until the monsoon of 1944) than to the lapses of the INA or of its Commander-in-Chief. After the failure in this front, Bose, as Commander-in-Chief of the Azad Hind Fouz had to leave Burma, as he said, with a heavy heart, yet with an invincible spirit he implored others not to be disheartened, as India, he felt, might have lost the first round of our fight for independence. But there are many more rounds to fight. For, as he said, the roads to Delhi are many, like the roads to Rome. And along one of these many roads we shall travel and ultimately reach our destination, the metropolis of India.
Even the defeat and surrender of Japan did not disillusion him, as he asserted that ‘the darkest hour precedes the dawn’. That ‘Japan’s surrender was not India’s surrender’ and that the justness of India’s liberation was such that it was “bound to prevail in the long run”. With his hindsight of shifting diplomatic and strategic dynamics he was certain that the alliance between Russia and the West would not outlast the war in Europe and that USSR would prove to be a greater menace to Anglo-American imperialism than the Axis powers were. Indeed, being aware of Soviet sympathy for a free India, Bose’s Provisional Government of Azad Hind had never declared war on Russia, which Bose had always considered as an anti-imperialist power, and not an enemy in so far as India’s independence was concerned, although the Provisional Government did declare war on both Britain and the USA. Hence after Japan’s surrender to the Allies he wished to go to Russia to seek Soviet help to fight the British. Following his insistence it was indeed arranged for Bose to fly by a special aeroplane to Manchuria, then under Russian occupation, but the ill-fated plane crashed in Taipei on 18 August 1945 on its way to Dairen, resulting in his untimely death as well as a sad demise of his scheme of inducting Soviet support for India’s liberation.
Bose indeed, was a nationalist, not a stooge of any foreign power. He had full knowledge of world politics and a masterly understanding of changing international situations. His consistent emphasis on a strong central government for a liberated India was based not only on the requirements of internal consolidation but also on the considerations of ensuring security against any external attack. He had the boldness and courage to protest the disparaging comments made by Hitler in his Main Kampf on the ability of the Indians to rebel against the British, which also attested to his dislike of Hitler and his Nazism. The government he headed and the Army he commanded maintained their independent postures, even during the worst of crises during the war. The INA did, of course, work out a common strategy with the Japanese against the perceived common enemy, but it did operate quite independently, that is, without playing any role unless the common strategy so demanded.
Thus in 1944 while the INA was enabled to participate in the Imphal Operation as a full and equal participant, the Japanese were refused permission to launch their planned heavy air attack on Calcutta as it would alienate Indian sentiment and cause unnecessary suffering and panic among the Indian people. While formal recognition from the powers allied with the Axis powers in October 1943 did provide the Provisional Government of Azad Hind with international legitimacy, Bose’s Government did not necessarily toe the Axis line on war and peace nor did Bose give away anything, not even symbols, which might have harmed India’s interests and honour.
Rather, Bose persuaded the Japanese government to transfer the Japanese-held Indian territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the Indian Ocean to the Provisional Government of Azad Hind, renamed respectively as Shaheed (Martyr) and Swaraj(Freedom), so that he could assert his sovereign authority, even if for propaganda purposes. He maintained the diplomatic dignity and honour of India even after the debacle in Burma, as he refused to receive the Japanese Ambassador to Bose’s government, Hachiya, who came to Rangoon without any diplomatic ‘credentials’ and had to wait until they were produced. In similar vein he refused to allow the INA to be used against the Burmese National Army of Aung San after its revolt against the Japanese. He even refused to accept the honour of ‘Order of the Rising Sun’ offered by the Japanese Emperor until India was free and was in a position to reciprocate.
Bose’s thought on an international system was to replace the old hierarchy of order with a new pattern of symmetrical interaction from below, involving nations then under colonial subjugation. The idea was to circumvent the asymmetric order of international relations of the time, led by some metropolitan empires. In such a prognosis he seems to have been far advanced of his time. He also advocated internationalism, not of the existing British Commonwealth or of the Japanese-sponsored ‘Co-prosperity Sphere’ type, both of which then emerged as mere imperialist tools.
Bose had laid his faith in regional systems based on common interests and culture, which would gradually extend until a symmetrical order of international system came into being. His view of the then British Commonwealth was that it must develop into an association of free nations or disintegrate. It hardly needs mentioning that the post-war transformation of that body was consistent with Bose’s vision. Similarly, he felt that the “Co-Prosperity Sphere” as a regional framework might help promote world peace minus the phenomenon of Japan’s hegemony. In the context of the changing global scenario in the post-Cold War era, especially in the context of developing relationships in the Asian-pacific region where Japan may be seen as a major player, one may perceive the emergence of a new regional grouping in the region, seemingly consistent with the project of Bose.
Conclusion
Subhas Chandra Bose was a pragmatic revolutionary strategist and a politician of top order who had to innovate conceptual ideas on strategy at a time when there was very little intellectual framework for coping with the practical problems of politics. Bose’s conceptual ideas were indeed, unique in the sense that the domestic frame of his multifaceted struggle was inseparable from the external linkages that he sought to develop and cultivate. Thus, his vision of policies in general was an all-encompassing one and in that sense one might suggest that he laid his faith in a general theory of strategy with all its linkage components. Having developed his frame-work he sought to apply all his theoretical concepts to test them on the slippery ground of politics of his time.
Basically, Bose’s struggle was for a state that was non-existent as a free political entity and for a country that had lost its dignity in the comity of nations because of an imposed colonial bondage. His youthful dream, as he wrote to his mother, was merely to be an adventurer, but in the end he emerged to many Indian revolutionaries as the Man of Destiny or Netaji – the revered leader – who could have delivered the Indian nation not merely its freedom and independence but also the much cherished development, equality and social justice as well as restore India’s lost prestige in the country of nations. But the fateful events of history had cut short his mission and did not permit him to immediately deliver what he had visualized.
This essay has been taken from the book “Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose - Relevance to Contemporary World Edited by Dr. S.R. Chakravarty and Dr. C. Paul (Har-Anand Publications Pvt, Ltd, New Delhi.)
Source - http://www.netaji.in/articles/subhas-chandra-bose-strategic-thoughts-and-practices.html
Yet Bose continues to be little understood. Despite the allegation of his overriding, even prodigious arrogance, his alleged impatience and superficiality, opportunism and adventurism, the story of Bose’s life is of absorbing interest, not only because of his fiery brand of nationalism and his idealism but also because of his political astuteness, and his plan of action for attaining India’s freedom. Some analysis tend to view him as an arch-rebel against the British Raj. Bose, however, humbly called himself ‘the Servant of India’. While British propaganda stigmatized him as ‘an enemy agent’ and a Nazi or a Fascist collaborator, Rabindranath Tagore had once hailed him as the long sought Deliverer of the Bengali Nation, the one who would unite and reawaken the Indian Nation.
The paper examines the strategic blue-print or framework of action of Bose for the liberation of India. It advances the view that, despite the constraints and limitations imposed by the existing frame of national liberation struggle and the colonial surroundings of the time in the realm of world politics, Bose was perhaps the only nationalist leader of the period in the subcontinent who had demonstrated a great deal of understanding of the dynamics of strategy and tactics involved in India’s liberation struggle and made significant contribution to the conceptual appraisal of international relations, which, indeed, brought together a world view very specific to Subhas and his time.
To highlight this view further, the paper is divided into two sections. The first section highlights Bose’s strategic ideas and plan of action for India’s liberation, while the second section examines Bose’s contribution in the arena of international relations as a policy maker.
Bose was a staunch Indian nationalist. As a logical sequel to his patriotic zeal, Bose developed an invincible faith in India’s destiny, and hence took up the case of India’s independence as a spiritual goal and a righteous cause. He was not a believer in any escapist philosophy but a revolutionary who was drawn to politics inspired by the lover of his country and mankind. The deification of India as the mother and the glamour attached to sacrifice for the motherland constituted the main trend of his strategic thought – the ultimate policy ambition- and contributed to the development of his concept of nationalism on the basis of a religious consciousness. India thus featured in his thought not as a mere territory but as a spiritual being, a living thing.
To attain India’s liberation he laid his firm faith on revolutionary struggle, which consisted of two phases, a phase of nationalist struggle against British imperialism and a phase of inter-class struggle against all privileges, distinction and vested interests. Bose was equally of the firm view that no country could win its independence without any sacrifice and without fighting a war. Such a conviction led him to advance a militant strategy of direct action and made him an ardant advocate of revolution, as against Indian National Congress plea for moderation based on constitutional methods. He exhorted all people to be prepared for dharamayuddha, i.e., making sacrifice for a righteous cause, as he viewed patriotism with an added emphasis of religiosity. His strategy of direct action and his emphasis on force and violence for fighting the war of India’s liberation was thus in full accord with his strategic outlook. It was this approach which made him a subject of bitter controversy in the then Indian socio-political life.
Secondly, Bose from his own analysis came to the conclusion that all efforts of the Indian themselves may not be sufficient to expel the British and, therefore, he wanted to rouse international public opinion in favour of India’s liberation movement. He was of the view that India must exploit an opportune international situation and seek foreign help to drive out Britain from India. The Second World War, he thought, provided such an opportune movement he was looking for and afforded him with that moment to organize an army and equip it with arms and ammunition to launch an arms struggle against British rule in India. It was for this reason Bose escaped from India during the war to seek international help so as to fulfil his determination to win India’s freedom.
One may ask, why did Bose postulate such a strategic concept which brought him into confrontation with the Congress hierarchy? He was certain that Britain was unlikely to grant independence to India of its own free will as many in the Congress hierarchy believed. Therefore he thought it appropriate not only to resort to a strategy of violence involving direct action but was also legitimate to seek international assistance in support of his strategy to over throw the British.
It may be mentioned that most of Bose’s contemporary revolutionary leaders, including Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Tito held the same view as far as their perception of the external enemy was concerned, though direct onslaught by the Axis powers on their territory had left them with little option but to join in the Allied counter-attack on a commonly perceived enemy. In the case of India, Bose had a different perception for unlike China, Vietnam or Yugoslavia, India was not a direct military target of any of the Axis powers.
Bose’s strategic posture would thus appear quite rational, commanding, and superb. Having read Clausewitz and being convinced of the ultimate victory of his mission, he adopted the slogan of total mobilisation for a total war and his battle-cry became Chalo Delhi (To Delhi) in Clausewitzian style of a zero-sum game. Obviously, India, being under British colonial hegemony, was to emerge as the front in the liberation struggle, while the countries of Southeast Asia where his forces temporarily camped , were to appear as the ‘rear areas’ from which the struggle would be spearheaded by mobilizing support of the immigrant population as well as of the foreign powers. Such ideas, though developed independently, were consistent with the revolutionary blue-print of his great revolutionary. Chinese contemporarian, Mao Zedong, ideas which were later further developed by Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap in the course of the Vietnam War.
Indeed in all these spheres, Bose proved to be quite innovative as he sought to mobilize help from what was in essence an ’enemy territory’ and was quite unconventional in nature. His aim was a draft support of a couple of millions of Indian civilians in Southeast Asia and recruit Indian soldiers employed with the British colonial army.
It is true that in the military field Bose had no prior exposure, direct experience or background. He had only relatively small training as a member of the university corps. It was hence suggested that he had an ‘incredible naivete’ in military matters, yet he exacted great loyalty and enjoyed tremendous amount of respect from his adherents and subordinates in the Indian National Army (INA). Somewhat echoing the words of Napoleon, whose undaunting spirit to overcome any hurdle inspired him, he complimented his soldiers by telling them: conduct yourself in a manner so that your countrymen may bless you and posterity may be proud of you. While lamenting the odds confronting his forces in the INA, he could still inspire them with confidence and Napoleonic voice. “I can offer you nothing for the present except hunger, thirst, privation, forced marches and death, but if you follow me, I shall lead you to victory and freedom”. And, again with Napoleonic spirit, while assuring his soldiers that he will be with them in darkness and sunshine, in sorrow and in joy, in suffering and in victory, he was himself tireless, taking little sleep and working far into the night so as to fulfil his promise.
Although a committed revolutionary, Bose was not an anarchist. Nor did he believe in terrorism or violence merely for the sake of it, though he did admire the immense sacrifice rendered by the terrorists for the great cause of India’s independence. So long as he was in the Congress he wanted to see it developed into a mass-based political organization able to articulate and mobilize all the energies of the nation for the attainment of the goal of India’s freedom. Hence he firmly believed that India’s independence was to be won by the develo0pment of the Congress into a parallel government, with each department and instrument of British administration in India to be duplicated by the Congress. He wanted India to be a republic and its future constitution to be republican. Hence he rejected Dominion status as he was concerned that it would merely help the British to perpetuate their imperialist and capitalist interest in India. Indeed, such a stance compelled Gandhi himself, who was inclined to such an idea, to move a resolution in 1929 at the Lahore session of the Congress which defined Congress objective as complete independence.
Bose’s concern, however, was not only freedom or independence. He held a great vision for India’s unity and a plan for free India. He held the view that without obliterating the ingrained and vested evils such as poverty, ignorance, caste system, communalism and other social anachronisms and religious divisiveness, India can hardly be free or can be turned into modern democracy. Caste and communalism must not be allowed to hinder a free and democratic India.
Here begins Bose’s second phase of Indian revolution, the phase of revolutionary construction at home. As part of the second phase of his struggle Bose laid wholehearted faith in socialism, as it could form part of a general strategy of involving the masses in the freedom movement and would help eradicate barriers and distinction based on wealth, caste, sex and religion – all of which must go. Thus, in addition to its pragmatic utility, the humanitarian and egalitarian aspects of socialism had great appeal for Bose. He was in favour of a synthesis and in this, his views were again coloured by national considerations. He was all for social upliftment of women and wanted them to have equality of status with men, but he believed that the latter would never voluntarily concede equality of status. Hence, he felt, that for women there is little option but to struggle to assert their right. He himself created an example to facilitate the liberation of women by setting up the Rani of Jhansi Brigade during the War consisting only of women so that the latter could be prepared to play due role in the liberated independent India.
Bose abhorred the emerging trend of communal politics in India, intentionally well-laid by the alien authorities as in the case of the Catholic-Protestant question in Ireland. He himself sought to bring together the two communal parties, the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League, in a joint fight wit the Congress for India’s independence and even suggested to Mohammad Ali Jinnah that in the event of such a joint struggle taking place the latter could become the first Prime Minister of free India. Perhaps in order to accommodate Muslim sentiments, a special session of the Bengal Provincial Conference of the Congress Forward Bloc, founded by Bose, decided on 25 May 1940 at his instance to observe 3 July 1940 as Sirajuddowla Day, in honour of the last independent Nawab of Bengal. But by that time he was already ousted from the Congress itself, which was perhaps a prelude to his removal from the political scene in India and his dream of a united India was belied.
In this context, it maybe recalled that Bose’s election in 1938 as Congress President by Gandhi himself, despite his ideological differences with Bose, was based on the premise that Bose, with his secular approach and his acceptability to the Muslims, would be able to arrest the mounting tide of communalism in India. And once elected he assured the Muslims that they had nothing to fear in the event of India winning her freedom. On the contrary, they have everything to gain. It was only natural that his ouster from the Congress and his attempted political diminution deliberately pursued by the Congress leadership had the effect of providing an upper hand to the communal forces within and beyond Congress, paving the way for the subsequent partition of India.
To attain his goal, Bose also propounded the doctrine of Samyavada, which sought to accommodate the common trails of nationalism, fascism, national-socialism, socialism and secularism. The ideals he sought to incorporate included complete national independence and uncompromising anti-imperialist stand, scientific large-scale production for the economic regeneration through a modern and socialist state, social ownership and control of both the means of production and distribution, freedom of religious worship and equal rights for individuals, linguistic and cultural autonomy for all sections of the Indian community and application of the principle of equality and social justice in building up the New Order in free India. All these would be enforced through establishing Samyavada Sangh in India, a centrally controlled all-Indian party, representing all classes of people and committed to uphold the eternal principle of India’s political independence, equality and justice.
On basic questions of strategy and tactics, Bose was thus immensely thoughtful and farsighted. For resolving fundamental problems of India’s national life he conceived a comprehensive plan with two components, an immediate component of struggle against colonialism and a long-term component of national reconstruction. The immediate component of the plan included preparing the country for self-sacrifice towards the objective of liberation, to keep it unified and to provide scope for local and cultural autonomy. Through elaborate planning and appropriate organization the country would be prepared for struggle and self-sacrifice and the people would have to be drawn to a strategy of direct action against foreign imperialism.
Bose thus proved himself to be a great strategic thinker and a good tactician with a pragmatic vision about the future of India. His credit lies not merely in articulating his ideas and theories but also in seeking to translate his politico-strategic theories into a programme of action. During the Quit India movement he innovated the concept of non violent guerrilla warfare to be undertaken within India and made a remarkable contribution to the theory of boycott and passive resistance. His programme of action, designed to give the Indian mass movement new dimensions of operational strategy and effectiveness, included prevention of tax and revenue collection, stay-in-strike by workers to hamper production, social boycott of the British and the pro-British Indian elements, sabotage and actual efforts to seize power by force of arms.
With his strategy of direct action and theory of boycott, Bose also popularized the tactical concept of mass-base for political parties to fight a revolutionary struggle, stressing the importance of closely associating the youth, students, the labouring classes-workers and peasants with the political life of the nation in order to galvanise the national movement.
While in Congress, he held the view that the INC could capture power with an intense nationalist struggle which would culminate in a general strike and civil disobedience. That would paralyse the administration and running of the government would be made impossible. Because the colonial government itself would like to follow a policy of persecution and repression, the jails would be full, the government itself would be demoralized, the bureaucracy would be forced to yield to the demands and desires of the people and the British authorities could no longer count on the loyalty of their servants. The Congress could then take full command of the situation by developing its organizational structure into a full and parallel government, duplicating each department and every instrument of the British hierarchy of administration. Labour should be organized, political education be provided for the masses, all preparations should follow for capturing power from the British.
However, Bose’s embittered relations with the Congress hierarchy over the programme of direct action against the British advocated by him, when the latter had confronted the Axis powers, including the issue of an ultimatum to the British and mobilisation of international support in favour of India’s nationalist struggle, led to his resignation and eventual expulsion from the Congress. The machination of the Congress hierarchy together with his frequent persecution by the colonial authorities in India made him desperate and had left him with little option but to seek to redeem his framework of action from abroad.
Bose became President of the Indian National Congress at a very critical juncture of international diplomacy when the Axis powers were on the brink of their forward march. As a pragmatic politician, fully committed to the cause of India’s liberation, he was inclined towards playing a real politik and wanted the Congress to pursue a foreign policy which would be based not on idealism or emotionalism but on considerations of India’s national interest. His view was that in the pursuit of foreign policy Congress should set aside its inhibition about the international politics or conduct of any country or the form of its state/government, as the people of every country, whatever their political ideology, sympathized with the aspiration of the Indian people for freedom and independence. He took the subtle position that the Congress leadership should tone down their utterance against the militarist and expansionist activities of the Axis powers and should take a leaf out of the diplomacy of the USSR, which did not hesitate to make alliances with non-socialist states as long as such an alliance served Soviet interests. In fact, apart from the question of the pace of the nationalist movement, and appropriate strategy and tactics to be followed, one of the main reason of Bose’s suspension from all executive positions in 1939 was his differences with the Congress hierarchy over the war issue and his attitude towards world affairs.
Bose’s “whole life.” As he stated, “is one long, persistent, uncompromising struggle against British imperialism, and is the best guarantee of my bona fides”. He himself saw his leanings towards the Axis alliance as a hazardous mission and his sole object was the expulsion of the British from India; in this case, if he had any triumph he would share that with Gandhiji and the Indian people. But Bose was not an Axis apologist and was not certainly soft toward the expansionist maneuvers of the Axis powers. Rather it was under his stewardship as President, the Congress had decided to observe 12 June 1938 as China Day throughout India in solidarity with the Chinese people fighting the Japanese invasion. In September an ambulance unit was also dispatched to Canton, which was a victim of Japanese bombardment. All this symbolized, as Bose stated, India’s goodwill, esteem and sympathy for the Chinese nation. He had no illusion about the behaviour of the Nazis in Europe. With specific reference to Munich Pact, which he called as an abject surrender to Nazi Germany, he wondered how Europe had sold her soul for the sake of a seven day’s earthly existence and passed the hegemony in Europe into the hands of Germany.
It may nevertheless be mentioned that, while Bose was an uncompromising player in the game of politics, he was also accommodative of the views of others in the Congress who had advocated a policy of active opposition to both fascism and imperialism everywhere. He understood the strong sentiment in the Congress behind it and though not approving, not only did not protest but publicly associated himself with it as President. But Bose was cold shouldered by the Congress hierarchy, which had adopted manifestly an anti-Fascist approach, being strongly influenced by the views of Gandhi and Nehru in its foreign policy orientation and sought to negotiate with Britain, denouncing the Axis alliance. Not only he was isolated in the Congress for his views, forcing him to resign but was also expelled unceremoniously, and he Bengal Pradesh Committee which had backed him up was also banned and immobilised in an intolerant fashion. It was in sheer disgust and remorse he stated in Delhi on 12 October 1939 that he was opposed to Hitlerism whether in India, within the Congress or any other country.
Bose was not particularly prejudiced about Britain except for the question of British imperialism and colonization of India. He certainly cherished no enmity as he said, towards the British people. We are fighting Great Britain and we want the fullest liberty to determine our future relations with her. But once we have real self-determination, there is no reason whey we should not enter into the most cordial relations with the British people. It seems obvious that this attitude towards the Axis alliance was merely tactical and very much consistent with classical strategic theorizing the enemies of Britain, he though, in the context of the War, were the friends of India and the defeat of Britain in the War would lead to emancipation of India or to put in more categorical terms in his own words. The fundamental principle of our foreign policy has been and will be Britain’s enemy is India’s friend.
Long before the outbreak of the Second World War, Bose was convinced of an impending international crisis involving the major powers and he wanted that India should make the fullest use of that crisis to win back her freedom. Naturally he considered the war of 1939 as a blessing in disguise, which had set the final stage of struggle for India’s liberation. Having witnessed an unprecedented awakening in the Indian states and with his firm belief that India was ripe for revolution, he perceived as a cold blooded realist, that an opportune moment had arrived in India’s national history for a final showdown with the British when everyone seemed to be willing to give blood necessary to win liberty. All that it needed then was to sink internal differences, pull our resources and pull our weight in the national struggle and seek international support and one all-embracing organization to link up Indian nationalists all over the world. Therefore, he pleaded that in their own national interest the Indians should dissociate themselves from the British war efforts, as any British victory in the war is likely to delay India’s independence.
Initially Bose was not interested in mobilizing the support of the Axis alliance, although he did understand, for instance, the imperialistic logic, which worked in Tokyo when her race for expansion and act of aggression took the world opinion by surprise. He contemplated going to China, but the British authorities refused to permit him to visit China and even threatened to intern him under the Defence of India Act. Having a view of the USSR as an anti-British and anti-imperialist power he had a desire to go to Russia, as he felt that Russia was the only country which could help to liberate India.
Moreover, the attack from the North-West was in keeping with traditional historical precedent, but the declaration of the Russo-German War dashed his hope for inducing Soviet support from the North-West towards the Indian liberation struggle at that time. Therefore, he had to re-plan his international strategy, with the planned assault from the non-traditional direction, the North-East, a strategy which in its originality, planning and daring is unequalled in the world’s military annals.
It may be mentioned that Bose’s attempt to induct support of the Axis powers was no more than a response to Britain’s own war effort, as it had introduced troops and weapons from other foreign countries in India. It was only natural that the nationalists fighting the British would have the similar right to seek foreign support against the British imperialist intrusion. But, he insisted, the emancipation of India must be the work primarily of Indian themselves. As far as Britain was concerned he did not conceal his rules of the game. He was a zero-sum player and, therefore, bluntly stated, ‘I am an extremist and my principle is – all or none’. He would sacrifice everything so as to attain the objective of India’s independence.
The INA itself certainly had failed in its immediate mission in Arakan or in the Imphal Operation, but the failure itself may be more ascribed to an overextended Japan (which had deferred the planned offensive against the enemy until the monsoon of 1944) than to the lapses of the INA or of its Commander-in-Chief. After the failure in this front, Bose, as Commander-in-Chief of the Azad Hind Fouz had to leave Burma, as he said, with a heavy heart, yet with an invincible spirit he implored others not to be disheartened, as India, he felt, might have lost the first round of our fight for independence. But there are many more rounds to fight. For, as he said, the roads to Delhi are many, like the roads to Rome. And along one of these many roads we shall travel and ultimately reach our destination, the metropolis of India.
Even the defeat and surrender of Japan did not disillusion him, as he asserted that ‘the darkest hour precedes the dawn’. That ‘Japan’s surrender was not India’s surrender’ and that the justness of India’s liberation was such that it was “bound to prevail in the long run”. With his hindsight of shifting diplomatic and strategic dynamics he was certain that the alliance between Russia and the West would not outlast the war in Europe and that USSR would prove to be a greater menace to Anglo-American imperialism than the Axis powers were. Indeed, being aware of Soviet sympathy for a free India, Bose’s Provisional Government of Azad Hind had never declared war on Russia, which Bose had always considered as an anti-imperialist power, and not an enemy in so far as India’s independence was concerned, although the Provisional Government did declare war on both Britain and the USA. Hence after Japan’s surrender to the Allies he wished to go to Russia to seek Soviet help to fight the British. Following his insistence it was indeed arranged for Bose to fly by a special aeroplane to Manchuria, then under Russian occupation, but the ill-fated plane crashed in Taipei on 18 August 1945 on its way to Dairen, resulting in his untimely death as well as a sad demise of his scheme of inducting Soviet support for India’s liberation.
Bose indeed, was a nationalist, not a stooge of any foreign power. He had full knowledge of world politics and a masterly understanding of changing international situations. His consistent emphasis on a strong central government for a liberated India was based not only on the requirements of internal consolidation but also on the considerations of ensuring security against any external attack. He had the boldness and courage to protest the disparaging comments made by Hitler in his Main Kampf on the ability of the Indians to rebel against the British, which also attested to his dislike of Hitler and his Nazism. The government he headed and the Army he commanded maintained their independent postures, even during the worst of crises during the war. The INA did, of course, work out a common strategy with the Japanese against the perceived common enemy, but it did operate quite independently, that is, without playing any role unless the common strategy so demanded.
Thus in 1944 while the INA was enabled to participate in the Imphal Operation as a full and equal participant, the Japanese were refused permission to launch their planned heavy air attack on Calcutta as it would alienate Indian sentiment and cause unnecessary suffering and panic among the Indian people. While formal recognition from the powers allied with the Axis powers in October 1943 did provide the Provisional Government of Azad Hind with international legitimacy, Bose’s Government did not necessarily toe the Axis line on war and peace nor did Bose give away anything, not even symbols, which might have harmed India’s interests and honour.
Rather, Bose persuaded the Japanese government to transfer the Japanese-held Indian territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the Indian Ocean to the Provisional Government of Azad Hind, renamed respectively as Shaheed (Martyr) and Swaraj(Freedom), so that he could assert his sovereign authority, even if for propaganda purposes. He maintained the diplomatic dignity and honour of India even after the debacle in Burma, as he refused to receive the Japanese Ambassador to Bose’s government, Hachiya, who came to Rangoon without any diplomatic ‘credentials’ and had to wait until they were produced. In similar vein he refused to allow the INA to be used against the Burmese National Army of Aung San after its revolt against the Japanese. He even refused to accept the honour of ‘Order of the Rising Sun’ offered by the Japanese Emperor until India was free and was in a position to reciprocate.
Bose’s thought on an international system was to replace the old hierarchy of order with a new pattern of symmetrical interaction from below, involving nations then under colonial subjugation. The idea was to circumvent the asymmetric order of international relations of the time, led by some metropolitan empires. In such a prognosis he seems to have been far advanced of his time. He also advocated internationalism, not of the existing British Commonwealth or of the Japanese-sponsored ‘Co-prosperity Sphere’ type, both of which then emerged as mere imperialist tools.
Bose had laid his faith in regional systems based on common interests and culture, which would gradually extend until a symmetrical order of international system came into being. His view of the then British Commonwealth was that it must develop into an association of free nations or disintegrate. It hardly needs mentioning that the post-war transformation of that body was consistent with Bose’s vision. Similarly, he felt that the “Co-Prosperity Sphere” as a regional framework might help promote world peace minus the phenomenon of Japan’s hegemony. In the context of the changing global scenario in the post-Cold War era, especially in the context of developing relationships in the Asian-pacific region where Japan may be seen as a major player, one may perceive the emergence of a new regional grouping in the region, seemingly consistent with the project of Bose.
Conclusion
Subhas Chandra Bose was a pragmatic revolutionary strategist and a politician of top order who had to innovate conceptual ideas on strategy at a time when there was very little intellectual framework for coping with the practical problems of politics. Bose’s conceptual ideas were indeed, unique in the sense that the domestic frame of his multifaceted struggle was inseparable from the external linkages that he sought to develop and cultivate. Thus, his vision of policies in general was an all-encompassing one and in that sense one might suggest that he laid his faith in a general theory of strategy with all its linkage components. Having developed his frame-work he sought to apply all his theoretical concepts to test them on the slippery ground of politics of his time.
Basically, Bose’s struggle was for a state that was non-existent as a free political entity and for a country that had lost its dignity in the comity of nations because of an imposed colonial bondage. His youthful dream, as he wrote to his mother, was merely to be an adventurer, but in the end he emerged to many Indian revolutionaries as the Man of Destiny or Netaji – the revered leader – who could have delivered the Indian nation not merely its freedom and independence but also the much cherished development, equality and social justice as well as restore India’s lost prestige in the country of nations. But the fateful events of history had cut short his mission and did not permit him to immediately deliver what he had visualized.
This essay has been taken from the book “Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose - Relevance to Contemporary World Edited by Dr. S.R. Chakravarty and Dr. C. Paul (Har-Anand Publications Pvt, Ltd, New Delhi.)
Source - http://www.netaji.in/articles/subhas-chandra-bose-strategic-thoughts-and-practices.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
