This article has been co-authored by Saswati Sarkar, Shanmukh, Dikgaj.
The doctrinaire conflict between two individuals can be unambiguously identified when they consistently articulate their principled stands and follow their principles through their actions. The distinction becomes challenging when one or both vacillate and/or act contrary to their stated principles. Subhas Chandra Bose has been consistent throughout in his demand for political independence by virtue of complete severance from the British. While in India, he pushed Congress to launch mass movements demanding complete independence, and from outside India he led the Indian National Army to liberate India through war. He wanted to develop free India as a modern, industrialised nation with focus on advances in science, livelihood, and education for the masses. He has also been unambiguous that he would seek political emancipation through the most efficacious means which could involve armed conflict or even a total war. Mahatma Gandhi, on the other hand, identified Spiritual Swaraj, which would cure Indian civilisation from evils such as doctors, lawyers, railways, mill made cloth, heavy machinery, medicine and contraceptives, as his goal early on. He subsequently verbally demanded Dominion Status with membership in the British Commonwealth most of the time, without, however, revoking his articulation of spiritual Swaraj. In 1942, however, expecting that the British would lose the second world war, he sought complete severance from them, but reverted to demanding Dominion Status as soon as the tides of the war turned. Nonetheless, other than the Quit India movement of 1942, none of the mass movements launched by Gandhi demanded even Dominion status – they were mostly centered around social agenda, specific grievances, extra-territorial Muslim Caliphate, and financial reforms (the last incorporated the demands of his industrialist sponsors).
Unlike what is commonly believed, Gandhi and Bose did not differ on their choices between communism and capitalism. Both were socialists, as per their stated positions, and disassociated themselves from Communism (Bose certainly did). Again, unlike what is commonly believed, Gandhi was not opposed to violence per se, (he helped British recruit soldiers from India during the first world war); he was however opposed to the violent overthrow of British by Indians, except during 1942 when he appeared to condone violence. But, he reverted to his insistence on eschewing violence against the British as soon as they were back to their winning ways in the second world war. Given Gandhi’s substantial flexibility in doctrines, or “flexible conscience” as Bose would call it, the conflict between the two had more to do with personal control over Indian dissent and perhaps collateral British and business interests that conflicted with Bose’s agenda.
In this article we expound on the doctrinaire positions of Gandhi and Bose on their understandings of Swaraj, preferences for modernisation (industrialisation, Science, education, research and modern amenities and professions like doctors, lawyers, railways, hospitals, medicines and contraceptives). In sequels, we expound on 1) Bose’s views on means to India’s political emancipation and his connection with the revolutionary movement in India, and 2) Gandhi’s stand on violence.
Section A: Complete independence vs spiritual swaraj-Unrelenting freedom struggle vs entreaties, compromises and deals
Bose sought complete severance from the British empire, while Gandhi’s goal posts vacillated between “Spiritual Swaraj”, Dominion Status and complete severance. Bose espoused an uncompromising, unrelenting, militant, if not violent, all out struggle against British colonialism as opposed to the path of entreaties, compromises and deals Gandhi championed. Bose believed that freedom is never given, it is taken, while Gandhi on the other hand sought to attain his Swaraj through loyalty to the empire and a “change of heart” on their part p. 59, [1]. An examination of writings of the two protagonists would establish the same.
Bose considered himself a leftist and Gandhi and his coterie as rightist. But, what he meant by leftism and rightism will illuminate us on how he perceived the doctrinaire difference between him and Gandhi on the question of how freedom is achieved. Quoting him from an article that he wrote between January, 1941 in Kabul during his escape to Germany: “In the present political phase of Indian life, leftism means anti – imperialism. A genuine anti imperialist is one who believes in undiluted independence (not Mahatma Gandhi’s substance of independence) as the political objective and in uncompromising national struggle as the means for attaining it. After the attainment of independence, leftism will mean socialism and the task before the people will then be the reconstruction of national life on a Socialist basis. Socialism or socialist reconstruction before attaining our political emancipation is altogether premature. ” pp. 27-28, [6]. He described rightists as negation of leftists, as those “prepared for a deal with imperialism. “ p. 28, [6]. We can understand Bose’s values from a letter that he wrote to his brother on May 6, 1927, contemptuously refusing a conditional offer for release made by the British after more than three years of incarceration at the dreaded Mandalay prison of Burma: “Ideas will work out their own destiny, and we, who are but clods of clay encasing sparks of the divine fire, have only to consecrate ourselves to these ideas. A life so consecrated is bound to fulfil itself, regardless of the vicissitudes of our material and bodily existence. My faith in the ultimate triumph of the idea, for which I stand is unflinching, and I am therefore not troubled by thoughts of my health and future prospects…..I am not a shopkeeper and I do not bargain. The slippery path of diplomacy I abhor as unsuited to my constitution. I have taken my stand on a principle and there the matter rests. I do not attach such importance to my bodily life that I should strive to save it by a process of haggling. My conception of values is somewhat different from that of the market place and I do not think that success or failure in life should be determined by physical or material criteria. Our fight is not a physical one and it is not for a material object. As St. Paul said, ‘We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.’ Our cause is the cause of freedom and truth: as sure as day follows night, that cause will ultimately prevail. Our bodies may fail and perish but, with faith undiminished and will unconquerable, triumph will be ours. It is however for Providence to ordain who of us should live to witness the consummation of all our efforts and labours, and as for myself, I am content to live my life and leave the rest to Destiny” pp. 47-49, [4], p. 225, [29].
We now reproduce some of Gandhi’s writings to show how he believed India would attain freedom, or what he understood by freedom. First, in 1908, Gandhi identified “spiritual Swaraj” as his goal: “When we are slaves we think that the whole universe is enslaved. Because we are in an abject condition, we think that the whole of India is in that condition. As a matter of fact, it is not so, but it is as well to impute our slavery to the whole of India. But if we bear in mind the above fact we can see that if we become free, India is free. And in this thought you have definition of ‘Swaraj.’ It is ‘ Swaraj ‘ when we earn to rule ourselves. It is therefore in the palm of our hands. Do not consider this ‘ Swaraj ‘ to be like a dream. Hence there is no idea of sitting still. The ‘ Swaraj ‘ that I wish to picture before you and me is such that, after we have once realised it, we will endeavour to the end of our lifetime to persuade others to do likewise. But such ‘ Swaraj ‘ has to be experienced by each one for himself. “ pp. 15-16, [24], p. 282, [27].
In the conclusion of his book titled Hind Swaraj, Gandhi has written: “To them (English) I would respectfully say: ‘I admit you are my rulers. It is not necessary to debate the question whether you hold India by the sword or by my consent. I have no objection to your remaining in my country, but although you are the rulers, you will have to remain as servants of the people. It is not we who have to do as you wish, but it is you who have to do as we wish. You may keep the riches that you have drained away from this land, but you may not drain riches henceforth. Your function will be, if you so wish, to police India; you must abandon the idea of deriving any commercial benefit from us. We hold the civilisation that you support to be the reverse of civilisation. We consider our civilization to be far superior to yours. If you realise this truth, it will be to your advantage and, if you do not, according to your own proverb, you should only live in our country in the same manner as we do.1 You must not do anything that is contrary to our religions. It is your duty as rulers that for the sake of the Hindus you should eschew beef, and for the sake of Mahomedans you should avoid bacon and ham………We consider your schools and law courts to be useless. We want our own ancient schools and courts to be restored. The common language of India is not English but Hindi. You should, therefore, learn it. We can hold communication with you only in our national language.
We cannot tolerate the idea of your spending money on railways and the military. We see no occasion for either. You may fear Russia; we do not. When she comes we shall look after her. If you are with us, we may then receive her jointly. We do not need any European cloth. We shall manage with articles produced and manufactured at home. You may not keep one eye on Manchester and the other on India. We can work together only if our interests are identical.
…….We believe that at heart you belong to a religious nation. We are living in a land which is the source of religions……..If you will abandon your so-called civilization and search into your own scriptures, you will find that our demands are just. Only on condition of our demands being fully satisfied may you remain in India; and if you remain under those conditions, we shall learn several things from you and you will learn many from us. So doing we shall benefit each other and the world. But that will happen only when the root of our relationship is sunk in a religious soil.’ “ pp. 306-307, [27].
Paraphrasing, Gandhi would allow the English to rule (“police” in his words), if they follow Indian civilisation in India, which he understood as one that relies on articles produced and manufactured at home, and does not have railways, European cloths, military and modern schools and law courts. We would later cite passages from the same book to show that his spiritual Swaraj also involved abolition of machinery, hospitals, medicines and contraceptives. Gandhi preached his concept of Swaraj to the masses, which contributed to attribution of religiosity to his persona. Bose has written: “In 1920, when the Congress began to preach the political doctrine of non-co-operation, a large number of Congressmen who had accepted the Mahatma as not merely a political leader but also as a religious preceptor – began to preach the cult of the new Messiah. As a consequence, many people gave up eating fish and meat, took the same dress as the Mahatma, adopted his daily habits like morning and evening prayer, and began to talk more of spiritual freedom than of political Swaraj. In many parts of the country, the Mahatma began to be worshipped as an avatar. Such was the madness that seized the country that in April 1923 in a politically minded province like Bengal, a resolution moved at the Jessore political conference to the effect that the goal of the Congress was not spiritual Swaraj but political Swaraj was defeated at the end of a heated debate.” pp. 126-127, [1]. The demand for spiritual Swaraj therefore diluted the one for perhaps more meaningful political Swaraj. Nonetheless, other times, and likely for a politically attuned audience, he would imply self rule or Dominion Status by Swaraj, positing membership in British empire as a partner or an ally of the British as his eventual goal. On June 22, 1918, Gandhi spoke thus at Nadiad:
Sisters and brothers of Kheda district, you are all lovers of Swaraj; some of you are members of the Home Rule League. One meaning of Home Rule is that we should become partners in the empire. today we are a subject people. We do not enjoy all the rights of Englishmen. We are not today partners in the empire as are Canada, South Africa and Australia. We are a dependency. We want the rights of Englishmen, and we aspire to be as much partners in the empire as the Dominions overseas. We look forward to a time when we may aspire to the Viceregal office. pp. 83-87, [30]. His aspirations therefore ended with making his countrymen eligible for the exclusive privileges of their colonial masters. Gandhi continued in the same pamphlet as follows: “Partnership in the empire is our definite goal. We should suffer to the utmost of our ability and even lay down our lives to defend the empire. If the empire perishes, with it perish our cherished aspirations. Hence the easiest and the straightest way to win Swaraj is to participate in the defence of the empire”. pp. 83-87, [30]. “We shall not succeed in becoming partners in the empire by trying to embarrass it. Embarrassing it in its hour of crisis will not help us to secure the rights which we must win by serving it. To distrust the statesmen of the empire is to distrust our own strength; it is a sign of our own weakness. “ pp. 83-87, [30].
Gandhi’s views did not fundamentally alter over time. After the Guwahati session of Congress in 1926, he wrote in Young India: “Year after year a resolution is moved in the Congress to amend the Congress creed so as to define Swaraj as complete independence and year after year happily the Congress throws out the resolution by an overwhelming majority….The moving of the resolution betrays the impatience….of some ardent Congressmen who have lost faith in the British intentions and who think that the British government will never render justice to India. The advocates of independence forget that they betray want of faith in human nature and, therefore, in themselves. Why do they think that there can never be change of heart in those who are guiding the British people? What, therefore, the creed (adopted in 1920) does retain is the possibility of evolution of Swaraj within the British empire or call it the British Commonwealth? “ p. 52, [31], p. 200, [11]. He is here objecting to defining Swaraj as complete independence, but leaving open as to what Swaraj ought to denote – it could very well be his spiritual Swaraj.
Gandhi moved for Dominion Status in Calcutta Congress, 1928, and ensured that an amendment moved by Bose demanding complete independence was defeated. Under intense public pressure, he moved a resolution for complete independence in Lahore Congress, 1929, but effectively rescinded his demand for independence within a month. Bose has written that “On January 30 (1930) he (Gandhi) issued a statement in his paper, Young India, saying that he would be content with the `substance of independence’ and he mentioned eleven points to explain what he meant by that expression. At the same time he virtually gave up the use of the word `independence’ and substituted in his place the more elastic expression, `substance of independence’ or another expression especially coined by him-namely, Purna Swaraj, which he could interpret in his own way. The eleven points enunciated by him had a reassuring effect on all circles that had been alarmed by the idea of independence and they paved the way for lengthy negotiations in the months to follow. “ pp. 197-198 [1]. The eleven points enumerated financial demands and prohibition. In March 1931, Gandhi and Lord Irwin, the Viceroy of India, arrived at the Gandhi-Irwin pact which neither mentioned independence nor Dominion Status. In the ensuing Karachi session of Congress in 1931, Gandhi’s staunch follower Vallabhbhai Patel said “gave the go by to the Lahore resolution on independence and advocated dominion status for India” in his opening speech as Congress President p. 229, [1]. Post complete independence resolution, Bose had noted that “though the Congress accepted the goal of complete independence as its objective, no plan was laid down for reaching that goal – nor was any programme of work adopted for the coming year. A more ridiculous state of affairs could not be imagined, but in public affairs, we are sometimes inclined to lose not only our sense of reality but our common sense as well”‘ pp. 193-194 [1].
We note that GD Birla and Mahadev Desai, Gandhi’s secretary, had referred on February 5, 1939, in a meeting with Laithwaite, the Viceroy’s Secretary, to “the sentence in the article (authored by Gandhi in recent past in his periodical, Harijan) about the Congress being the ally of the British Government and Bapu’s anxiety to have their cooperation. “ p. 244, [12]. In February 1939 Gandhi persuaded Congress to reject then Congress President Bose’s demand to serve an ultimatum on British for quitting India, and subsequently forced the latter to resign from the Presidency that he won fair and square. On September 4, 1939, at the outbreak of the second world war, Gandhi had written that “I am not therefore just now thinking of India’s deliverance. It will come, but what will it be worth if England and France fall, or if they come out victorious over Germany ruined and humbled? “ pp. 311, [2], pp. 220-221, [15].
But then the Axis forces advanced with lightning speed between 1940 to early 1942. Early 1942, Japan had displaced British from Andaman and was virtually knocking at India’s door steps after felling Burma and Singapore. We now show that Gandhi thought that the British might lose during this period. On May 16, 1940 and June 6, 1940, respectively, his secretary Mahadev Desai wrote to GD Birla that “Hitler’s stock with Bapu is going up”, and “In his letter (to Viceroy Linlithgow) Bapu had written: ‘This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man. If you call it off today, he will follow suit. If you want to send me to Germany or anywhere else, I am at your disposal. You can also inform the cabinet about this’ “ p. 255, [12]. GD Birla has also written that during this period “Bapu unfortunately took it for granted that Britain had lost the war. “ p. 255, [12]. Maulana Azad has written about early 1942: “Gandhiji by now inclined more and more to the view that Allies would not win the war. He feared that it might end in the triumph of Germany and Japan or at best there might be a stalemate. Gandhiji did not express the opinion about the outcome of the war in clear cut terms but in discussions with him I felt that he was becoming more and more doubtful about an Allied victory. “ p. 40, [7]. During the All India Congress Committee Working Committee (AICC) meeting in Allahabad in April 1942, Jawaharlal. Nehru said that “It is Gandhiji’s feeling that Japan and Germany will win. This feeling unconsciously governs his decision. “ p. 43, [5], p. 223, [11]. It is during this AICC meeting, in an apparently fundamental change in stance, Gandhi asked the British to Quit India, that is, demanded complete independence or severance from the British. He had written in 1942 that: “I have not asked the British to hand over India to Congress or to the Hindus. Let them entrust India to God or in modern parlance to anarchy. “ p. 12, [5]. Then after the AICC had passed the Quit India resolution, he spoke at the Bombay meeting: “I am not going to be satisfied with anything short of complete freedom…..We shall do or die. We shall either free India or die in the attempt.” p. 14, [5]. As we show later, this would be the only mass movement that Gandhi would call which involved the demand for complete independence-none of the others demanded even Dominion Status. Gandhi however moved away from his demand to completely sever ties as the tide of the second world war turned.
The transfer of power in 1947 did not involve complete independence and the then Viceroy Mountbatten continued to serve as India’s Governor General post-independence. Gandhi was amenable to having Union Jack in one corner of India’s national flag: “But what is wrong with having the Union Jack in a conrner of our flag? If harm has been done to us by the British it has not been done by their flag and we must also take note of the virtues of the British. They are voluntarily withdrawing from India, leaving power in our hands. A drastic bill which virtually liquidates the Empire did not take even a week to pass in Parliament. Time was when even very unimportant bills took a year and more to be passed. Whether they have been honest in framing the bill only experience will show. We are having Lord Mountbatten as our chief gate-keeper. So long he has been the servant of the British king. Now he is to be our servant. If while we employed him as our servant we also had the Union Jack in a corner of our flag, there would be no betrayal of India in this…..We would have thereby shown our friendship for the British. If I had the power that I once had I would have taken the people to task for it (opposing installation of Union Jack in India’s national flag). “ pp. 86-87, [18]. He was assassinated before India declared independence as in complete severance of ties (the continuity with the British regime was not disrupted in essence as we will argue later).
Finally, as stated earlier, many high ranking British officials including Viceroys Chelmsford, Linlithgow and Puckle (Director general of Intelligence in 1940), Ellen Wilkinson, (member of the British Parliament for several years and a member of the British cabinet from 1945-1947) regarded Gandhi as an “asset” p. 94, Vol. 3, p. 138, Vol. 4, [20], an ally p. 179 [21] and “the best policeman the British had in India” p. 219, [1] (In 1919, Viceroy Chelmsford even said that “Interned he (Gandhi) would be rallying cry to the disaffected; out he may prove of great assistance to us” p. 179 [21]). In its confidential notes, the same British intelligence described Bose as a “long standing extreme nationalist ” p. 27, [8], “a bitterly and irremediably anti-British politician, ” p. 27, [8] (note prepared by M. J. Clauson on December 15, 1932) and an “implacable foe of British rule in India” p. 49, [8]. We now compare the statements of Secretaries of States for India, Lord Zetland (1939) and Marquess of Zetland (1936), in the House of Lords on Gandhi and Bose. In the later part of 1939, Lord Zetland, described Gandhi as: “The most outstanding leader on the Indian political stage, known to and beloved by the people of India for the readiness which he has shown not only to interpret to us the viewpoint and aspirations of the Indian National Congress, but to endeavour to appreciate in his turn our viewpoint and the difficulties with which we had to grapple, and furthermore, for the help he has most willingly given us in our endeavours to surmount them. “pp. 227-228, Vol. V [19], p. 128, [11]. One of Gandhi’s closest associates, and a “permanent member” of his working committee, JB. Kriplani echoed Zetland’s assessment when he described Gandhi as ” always anxious to (politically) accommodate his opponents” p. 134, [9]. On Bose, the Marquess of Zetland stated on December 1, 1936: “Unhappily, Mr. Bose, a man of great ability, a man possibly of genius, is a man who, whether by his own fault or by misfortune, has directed almost all his abilities to destructive rather than constructive purposes. ” p. 126, [8]. So, even the British saw that Bose (whose abilities they highly commended) was seeking to dethrone them from India with all his might, while Gandhi was in effect assisting or accommodating them, which was more elegantly put as “appreciating their viewpoints and difficulties.”‘
Section B: To modernise or not to modernise ?
The stated visions of Gandhi and Bose differed substantially with respect to their desired evolution of India and her politics. Gandhi advocated a “back to the roots” vision comprising of spinning, khadi and local self-sufficiency at village level while Bose held steadfast to a futuristic vision of large scale industrialisation and a politics devoid of irrationality and religiosity. While Bose believed that “For a people so prone to mysticism and supernaturalism, the only hope of political salvation lies in the growth of a sane rationalism and in the modernisation of the material aspect of life. ” p. 127, [1], Gandhi’s attitude towards modernity is best captured by his letter to Henry Polak, on October 14, 1909,
(9) Increase of material comforts, it may be generally laid down, does not in any way whatsoever conduce to moral growth.
(10) Medical science is the concentrated essence of Black Magic. Quackery is infinitely preferable to what passes for high medical skill.
(11) Hospitals are the instruments that the Devil has been using for his own purpose, in order to keep his hold on his kingdom. They perpetuate vice, misery and degradation, and real slavery.
(12) I was entirely off the track when I considered that I should receive a medical training. It would be sinful for me in any way whatsoever to take part in the abominations that go on in the hospitals. If there were no hospitals for venereal diseases, or even for consumptives, we should have less consumption, and less sexual vice amongst us.
(13) India’s salvation consists in unlearning what she has learnt during the past fifty years. The railways, telegraphs, hospitals, lawyers, doctors, and such like have all to go, and the so-called upper classes have to learn to live conscientiously and religiously and deliberately the simple peasant life, knowing it to be a life giving true happiness.
(14) Indians should wear no machine-made clothing, whether it comes out of European mills or Indian mills.
(15) England can help India to do this, and then she will have justified her hold of India. There seem to be many in England today who think likewise. pp. 169, [25], pp. 169, pp.18-19, [24].
Thus, Gandhi believed that if England could help India return to the Paleolithic era by freeing them of railways, lawyers, doctors, telegraphs, machinery, hospitals, machine-made clothing, it could legitimately continue to rule India. So, as far as Gandhi was concerned, abjuring machine-made clothing or courts was not merely a tool for freeing India, but fundamental enough to continue with slavery if that was what it took to eschew the evil. Indeed, it is spinning that constituted the center-piece of his political programme. Bose was perhaps right in contending that: “He (Gandhi) was exploiting many of the weak traits in the character of his countrymen which had accounted for India’s downfall to a large extent. After all, what has brought about India’s downfall in the political and material sphere? It is her inordinate belief in fate and the supernatural-her indifference to modern scientific development – her backwardness in the science of modern warfare, the peaceful contentment engendered by her latter-day philosophy and adherence to Ahimsa (non-violence) carried to the most absurd length” p. 126 [1]. To put Gandhi’s views in context of contemporary Indian society, it is worthwhile to recall that before 1900, Jagadish Chandra Bose, while conducting scientific research at the Presidency College Laboratory of Calcutta had provided practical demonstration of the efficacy of millimetre range wavelength microwaves at the Town Hall of Kolkata, and had published scientific papers at the Royal Society of London (October 1895), the London journal the Electrician (Vol. 36) (December 1895) and the Asiatic Society of Bengal (May 1895). He had also described the design of a microwave receiver and transmitter apparatus “iron-mercury-iron coherer with telephone detector” in a paper presented at the Royal Society, London, which lead to the development of wireless telegraphy. In 1896, as a faculty member of the Presidency College of Calcutta, Dr Prafulla Chandra Ray had published a paper on preparation of a new stable chemical compound: mercurous nitrite, which lead to a large number of investigative papers on nitrites and hyponitrites of different metals, and on nitrites of ammonia and organic amines.
We now elaborate on the conflicts between the stated visions of Bose and Gandhi in context of modernity by quoting their speeches and writings. We rely on a book that Gandhi had published called ‘Indian Home Rule’ in 1908 in which he expounded his view of the “Spiritual Swaraj.” He reaffirmed his commitment to it in 1921, where he said, “I withdraw nothing except one word of it, and that in deference to a lady friend’. The reason is the indelicacy of the expression” pp. 259, [26], pp. 3, [24]. We obtain Bose’s views from his speeches in 1938 when he became the Congress President [14].
Section B.1: To industrialise or not to industrialise ?
Gandhi: Gandhi sought to attain Gram Swaraj or economy that is self sufficient at the village level. He sought to popularise spinning not only as part of Gram Swaraj, but also as a political program. He had a strong distaste for machinery and therefore industrialisation: “Machinery has begun to desolate Europe. Ruination is now knocking at the English gates. Machinery is the chief symbol of modern civilisation; it represents a great sin. The workers in the mills of Bombay have become slaves. The condition of the women working in the mills is shocking. When there were no mills, these women were not starving. If the machinery craze grows in our country, it will become an unhappy land. It may be considered a heresy, but I am bound to say that it were better for us to send money to Manchester and to use flimsy Manchester cloth than to multiply mills in India. By using Manchester cloth we only waste our money; but by reproducing Manchester in India, we shall keep our money at the price of our blood, because our very moral being will be sapped, and I call in support of my statement the very mill-hands as witnesses.” pp. 303, [27]. Furthermore, in a book in which Gandhi himself wrote the foreward, his close associate, Prof NK Bose represents Gandhi’s views on 15-6-1947 as: “the Congress seemed to stand for projects of industrialism in which he saw no deliverance for the masses from their grinding poverty. He did not believe in mill-made civilisation as he did not in mill-made cloth. “ p. 202, [32].
It is ironical that Gandhi’s inner circle and his emissaries comprised of India’s top industrialists, like Birla and Bajaj, who generously funded his programs, and Congress agenda was largely guided by their interests during his regime. Recall that in June 1942, Louis Fischer, the American journalist, asked Gandhi: “Very highly placed Britishers had told me that Congress was in the hands of big business and that Gandhi was supported by the Bombay mill-owners who gave him as much money as he wanted. What truth is there in these assertions. “ Gandhi replied: “Unfortunately, they are true. “ Fischer asked: “What proportion of the Congress budget is covered by rich Indians? “ Gandhi replied: “Practically, all of it. In this ashram, for instance we could live much more poorly than we do and spend less money. But, we do not, and the money comes from our rich friends.” pp.405, [17], pp. 405-406, p. 122, [11]. Industrialists also funded many social service organisations, which were under the sole control of Gandhi – the Gandhi Seva Sangh, All India Spinners Association, All India Village Industries Association, Go Seva Sangh, Talimi Sangh, Harijan Sevak Sangh p. 123, [11]. These helped Gandhi capture the Congress machinery p. 138, [1]. GD Birla became the founding President of the Harijan Sevak Sangh in 1932 p. 162, [13]. The inconsistency between the practice that Gandhi followed and his stated theory makes one wonder if Gandhi’s message was to accentuate the religious aura surrounding his persona or did he ever intend to de-industrialise India ?
Bose: We reproduce excerpts of his Presidential address at the Haripura session of the Congress in February, 1938: “To solve the economic problem, agricultural improvement will not be enough. A comprehensive scheme of industrial development under state-ownerships and state-control will be indispensable. A new industrial system will have to be built up in place of the old one which has collapsed as a result of mass production abroad and alien rule at home. The planning commission will have to carefully consider and decide which of the home industries could be revived despite the competition of modern factories and in which sphere large scale production should be encouraged. However much we may dislike modern industrialism and condemn the evils which follow in its train, we cannot go back to the pre-industrial era, even if we desire to do so. It is well, therefore, that we should reconcile ourselves to industrialisation and devise means to minimise its evils and at the same time explore the possibilities of reviving cottage industries where there is possibility of their surviving the inevitable competition of factories. In a country like India, there will be plenty of room for cottage industries, especially in the case of industries including hand-spinning and hand weaving allied to agriculture” p. 16, [14].
In 1938, as Congress President, Bose had launched the National Planning Committee for drawing up a comprehensive plan of industrialisation and of development p. 371, [1], and recommended: “as a preliminary step towards national planning there should be an economic survey of the present industrial position with a view to securing the necessary data for the National Planning Commission.” p. 46, [14]. On October 2, 1938, he convened in Delhi a Conference of ministers of industries, the first of its kind, since Congress joined governments p. 48, [14]. There he outlined his vision on industrialisation: “To my mind the principal problem that we have to face is not industrial recovery, but industrialisation. India is still in the pre-industrial stage of evolution. No industrial advancement is possible until we pass through the throes of an industrial evolution. If the industrial revolution is an evil, it is a necessary evil. We can only try our best to mitigate the evils that have accompanied its advent in other countries. In the world, as it is constituted today, a community which resists industrialisation, has little chance of surviving the international competition.” p. 51, [14]. Bose articulated why India needed industrialisation: Firstly, industrialisation is necessary for solving the problem of unemployment. Scientific agriculture will increase the production of the land, which would imply that same amount of food grains would be generated by fewer men. This will therefore accentuate unemployment. So, if food, clothing and education is to be given to every man and woman, industrial production has to be enhanced and a good portion of the population will have to be transferred from land to industry. Secondly, he perceived socialism to be the basis of national reconstruction and socialism presupposed industrialisation. Thirdly, industrialisation was necessary if India were to compete with foreign countries. Lastly, industrialisation was necessary for improving the standard of living of the people at large pp. 47, 50, [14]. Classifying industry in three categories: heavy, medium, and cottage, he said: “Heavy industries at the present time is no doubt of the greatest value for the rapid economic development of the country. They form the backbone of our national economy. We cannot unfortunately make much headway in this direction until we capture power at the Centre and secure full control of our fiscal policy. The medium-scale industries can be started by business leaders with Government co-operation and help.” “Industrialisation does not therefore mean that we turn our back on cottage industries. Far from it. It only means that we shall have to decide which industries should be developed on a cottage basis and which on a large-scale basis. In the peculiar national economy which exists in India today, and in view of the limited resources of our people, we should do our very best to develop cottage industries, side by side with large-scale industries. “ p. 52, [14].
His major focus was however on heavy and medium industries as he had said earlier: “Though I do not rule out cottage industries and though I hold that every attempt should be made to preserve as also revive cottage industries wherever possible, I maintain that economic planning for India should mean largely planning for the industrialisation of India And industrialisation, as you will all agree, does not mean the promotion of industries for manufacturing umbrella-handles and bell metal plates as Sir John Anderson will have us believe. “p. 45, [14]. He sought to focus on the growth and development of the mother industries, viz, power supply, metal production, machine and tools manufacture, manufacture of essential chemical, transport and communication industries p. 52, [14]. He wanted the conference to consider: 1) a proper economic survey of each province 2) co-ordination between cottage and large scale industries with a view to preventing overlapping 3) the advisability of having regional distribution of industries 4) rules regarding technical training in India and abroad for students 5) provisions for technical research 6) advisability of appointing a committee of experts to give further advice on the problems of industrialisation p. 53, [14].
Bose did not believe that India would earn her freedom by spinning. He started expressing his ideological differences with Gandhi on modernisation in general, and spinning as a political program in particular, early on. In December, 1928, at the age of 31, speaking as the chairman of the reception committee, he said “advocated activism, as opposed to the passivism which was being preached from Sabarmati ashrama of the Mahatma and Pondicherry ashrama of Sri Aurobindo Ghosh. He also pleaded for the modernisation in the material side of life. The speech caused resentment among the followers of the Mahatma and Sri Aurobindo Ghosh” p. 172, [1]. On August 17, 1929, when Bose addressed the Rajshahi district students’ conference, he declared that the loincloth and the bullock cart, will not do, for we cannot go back to the village ways as Gandhi wants p. 199, [10]. He had quipped in the Presidential Address in the All India Students Conference at Delhi in January, 1940: “We are now expected to spin our way to Swaraj, but how can we be convinced of the efficacy of this `magic mantra’ of Mahatma Gandhi when we know that a century ago when the Indian people knew nothing but Khadi and hand-spinning, they fell a victim to foreign domination. No, it is time to call a spade a spade and to tell our people clearly that the idea of winning Swaraj through spinning is moonshine. Spinning has its place in the national economy, but let it not be exalted into the method of our national struggle. And let not the Independence Day pledge be vulgarised by introducing clauses about spinning, etc. “ p. 61, [3]. Cognizant of Bose’s criticisms, Gandhi had written to one of his closest ‘pure khadi’ associates in Bengal, Satish Das Gupta, on August 24, 1929: “Subhas Babu will never pardon the loin-cloth. We must bear with him. He can not help himself. He believes in himself and in his mission. He must work it out as we must ours. “ pp. 155, [16], p. 196, [10].
The final break between Bose and Gandhi occurred ostensibly in part on the differences between the two on industrialisation. Bose believed that his launching of the National Planning Committee as the Congress President, in 1938, for drawing up a comprehensive plan of industrialisation and of development “caused further annoyance to Mahatma Gandhi who was opposed to industrialisation “ p. 371, [1]. Indeed, Gandhi wrote to Bose on April 10, 1939, that “Let us agree to differ there and let us meet on the social, moral and municipal platforms. I cannot add the economic, for we have discovered our differences there also. “ pp. 164-165, [14]. On April 13, 1939, Bose replied to Gandhi: “You have despaired altogether of our collaborating on the political and economic platform. You have added the economic, probably because you have disapproved of our idea of industrial planning for India, even though we advocate encouragement of suitable cottage industries along with industrialisation” p. 170, [14]. We would later see that this difference would in part cost Bose in 1939 the Congress Presidency that he won fair and square, and would in turn lead to his expulsion from Congress. We have already discussed how Gandhi benefited from and in turn helped several top industrialists. Also, the successor who he would eventually choose, Nehru, believed in industrialisation and modernisation. Thus in a sense, even these doctrinaire differences did not constitute the basis for his vicious political vendetta against Bose. The conflict between the two had more to do with personal control over Indian dissent and perhaps collateral British and business interests that conflicted with Bose’s agenda. Nonetheless, by now, we know that post-independence India has adopted Bose’s, rather than Gandhi’s, vision for modern India, that of progress through a combination of industrialisation and encouragement of cottage industries.
Section B.2: Education and research
Gandhi: The ordinary meaning of education is a knowledge of letters. To teach boys reading, writing and arithmetic is called primary education. A peasant earns his bread honestly. He has ordinary knowledge of the world. He knows fairly well how he should behave towards his parents, his wife, his children and his fellow-villagers. He understands and observes the rules of morality. But he cannot write his own name. What do you propose to do by giving him a knowledge of letters? Will you add an inch to his happiness? Do you wish to make him discontented with his cottage or his lot? And even if you want to do that, he will not need such an education. Carried away by the flood of western thought we came to the conclusion, without weighing pros and cons, that we should give this kind of education to the people. pp. 298-299, [27], pp. 8, [24].
Bose: The Indian Science News association invited Bose, the then President of the Congress to preside over the third general meeting of the Association on August 21, 1938. In the event, during a question and answer session with renowned scientist Profession Megnad Saha, Bose articulated his views on (technical and scientific) education and research as follows: “We should also tackle the problem of technical education and technical research. So far as technical education is concerned, as in the case of Japanese students, our students should be sent abroad for training in accordance with a clear and definite plan so that as soon as they returned home, they may proceed straight away to build up new industries.
So far as technical research is concerned, we shall all agree that it should be free from governmental control of every kind. It is only in this unfortunate country that government servants are entrusted with scientific research on receipt of princely salaries and we know very well what results have been obtained therefrom. There should be a permanent National Research Council. These are some of my ideas on the problems of industrialisation and national reconstruction and I believe they are held in common by scientific men and women in this country. We, who are practical politicians, need your help, who are scientists, in the shape of ideas. We can, in our turn, help to propagate these ideas and when the citadel of power is finally captured, can help to translate these ideas to reality. What is wanted is far-reaching cooperation between science and politics. “ p. 46, [14].
In the same speech, Bose appreciated the impact of scientific publication on industrialisation and general education: “I gratefully recognise the fact that your (Prof. Meghnad Saha’s) magazine Science and Culture has helped to direct intelligent thoughts in this country towards the problem of industrialisation. The articles published periodically on Electric Power Supply, Flood-control, River-physics, need for establishing National research Council etc. have been highly illuminating and instructive. “ pp. 45-46, [14].In the industries research ministers’ conference in Delhi on October 2, 1938, Bose declared that “National Reconstruction will be possible only with the aid of science and our scientists. “p. 51, [14].
Section B.3: Role of military in the constitution of a nation
Gandhi expressed his views in his book ‘Indian Home Rule‘ in form of a conversation between a reader and an editor, the latter being Gandhi himself p.3, [24]. We provide relevant extracts:
Editor (Gandhi): Supposing we get self-government similar to what the Canadians and the South Africans have, will it be good enough?
Reader: That question also is useless. We may get it when we have the same powers; we shall then hoist our own flag. As is Japan, so must India be. We must own our navy, our army, and we must have our own splendour, and then will India’s voice ring through the world.
Editor (Gandhi): You have drawn the picture well. In effect it means this: that we want English rule without the Englishman. You want the tiger’s nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English. And when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englistan . This is not the Swaraj that I want. pp. 255, [27], pp.3, [24]. So Gandhi did not want a Swaraj where India would have her own navy and army.
In contrast, Bose was acutely conscious of the role the armed forces play in the political growth of a nation. In his Presidential address in February, 1938, “he had spoken as follows: Her (Britain’s) phenomenal rise in the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries was the result of her sea power. Her decline as an empire in the twentieth century will be the outcome of the emergence of a new factor in world history-Air Force. It was due to this new factor, Air Force, that an impudent Italy could successfully challenge a fully mobilised British Navy in the Mediterranean. Britain can rearm on land, sea and air, up to the utmost limit. Battleships may still stand up to bombing from the air, but air force as a powerful element in modern warfare has come to stay. Distances have been obliterated, and despite all anti-aircraft defences, London lies at the mercy of any bombing squadron from a continental centre, In short, air force has revolutionised modern warfare, destroyed the insularity of Great Britain and rudely disturbed the balance of power in world politics. The clay feet of a gigantic empire now stand exposed as these have never been before” p. 8, [14].
Henceforth, we will present some “remarkable” views that Gandhi expressed on other aspects associated with modernity. Bose has not spoken about these in any great depth – it is therefore appropriate to assume that he did not have anything unusual to report.
Section B.4: Gandhi’s views on railways
If we did not rush about from place to place by means of railways and such other maddening conveniences, much of the confusion that arises would be obviated. Our difficulties are of our own creation. God set a limit to man’s locomotive ambition in the construction of his body. Man immediately proceeded to discover means of overriding the limit. God gifted man with intellect that he might know his Maker. Man abused it so that he might forget his Maker. I am so constructed that I can only serve my immediate neighbours, but in my conceit I pretend to have discovered that I must with my body serve every individual in the Universe. pp. 269, [27], pp. 4, [24].
Gandhi used to however extensively travel using the Railways both in India and South Africa. He also crossed oceans in ships several times to travel back and forth between India, Europe, and South Africa. One wonders whether the inconsistency in his policies and actions stemmed from the “confusion” arising from such travels.
Section B.5: Modern medicine
We now present Gandhi’s views on doctors, hospitals and contraceptives.
Doctors have almost unhinged us. Sometimes I think that quacks are better than highly qualified doctors. Let us consider: the business of a doctor is to take care of the body, or, properly speaking, not even that. Their business is really to rid the body of diseases that may afflict it. How do these diseases arise? Surely by our negligence or indulgence. I overeat, I have indigestion, I go to a doctor, he gives me medicine, I am cured. I overeat again, I take his pills again. Had I not taken the pills in the first instance, I would have suffered the punishment deserved by me and I would not have overeaten again. The doctor intervened and helped me to indulge myself. My body thereby certainly felt more at ease; but my mind became weakened. A continuance of a course of medicine must, therefore, result in loss of control over the mind.
I have indulged in vice, I contract a disease, a doctor cures me, the odds are that I shall repeat the vice. Had the doctor not intervened, nature would have done its work, and I would have acquired mastery over myself, would have been freed from vice and would have become happy.
Hospitals are institutions for propagating sin. Men take less care of their bodies and immorality increases. European doctors are the worst of all. For the sake of a mistaken care of the human body, they kill annually thousands of animals. They practise vivisection. No religion sanctions this. All say that it is not necessary to take so many lives for the sake of our bodies. These doctors violate our religious instinct. Most of their medical preparations contain either animal fat or spirituous liquors; both of these are tabooed by Hindus and Mahomedans. We may pretend to be civilised, call religious prohibitions a superstition and want only to indulge in what we like. The fact remains that the doctors induce us to indulge, and the result is that we have become deprived of self-control and have become effeminate. In these circumstances, we are unfit to serve the country. To study European medicine is to deepen our slavery. pp. 277-278, [27], pp. 6-7, [24].
Indeed, Gandhi is said to have denied his wife modern care with penicillin, dissuading his son Devadas Gandhi. According to his close associate, JB Kriplani: “By February 20, 1944 her (Kasturba Gandhi’s) condition was declared as grave. Devadas wanted to get penicillin for injection from England but Gandhiji dissuaded him from doing so. He said: ‘You cannot cure your mother now, no matter what wonder drugs you may muster. I will yield to you if you insist. But you are hopelessly wrong. She has refused all medicines and water these two days. She is in God’s hands now. You may interfere, if you wish to, but I advise against the course you are adopting. And remember you are seeking to cause physical pain by an injection every four to six hours to a dying mother.’ Devadas had to yield to his father’s advice… “.pp. 216-217, [9]. But, Gandhi seemed to avail of modern medicine for the betterment of his own constitution, as necessary. JB Kripalani has written: “If ever he consulted medical men or if they insisted on examining and treating him, he did not call even Hakim Ajmal Khan, but modern doctors” p. 422, [9]. Also, during his fasts and his illnesses, he was overseen by the head of the Indian Medical Council, Dr Abraham Solomon Erulkar [28]. JB Kripalani has recalled: “In April 1944, Gandhiji suffered from malaria, which brought about an anaemic condition and low blood pressure. The deterioration in his health caused great concern and anxiety”, and “After his release, Gandhiji rested at Poona for three days and then proceeded to Bombay where he stayed at Juhu. His health was shattered and it was found that he had contracted hookworm infection. “One wonders how Gandhi cured himself (which he must have since he survived without recurrence that we know of) of malaria or hookworm infection without quinine or antibiotics ? He is indeed said to have availed of quinine p. 64, [33]. How was it known he had malaria or hookworm infection without a pathological exam? Note that Gandhi was free during the last instance, so he was not seeing a doctor in accordance with established prison policies.
We describe Gandhi’s views on contraceptives and population control as reported by Prof NK Bose in a book in which Gandhi had written the foreword: pp. 281-282, [32]:On April 2, 1925, Gandhi said: “If it is contended that birth control is necessary for the nation because of over-population, I dispute the proposition. It has never been proved. In my opinion, by a proper land-system, better agriculture and a supplementary industry, this country is capable of supporting twice as many people as there are today. But I have joined hands with the advocates of birth control in India from the standpoint of the present political condition of the country. “
Gandhi was asked: “For the sake of the mother whose health is drained away by too many children and for the sake of children themselves, may not birth control through contraceptives be resorted to as the next best thing to self-control ? “ He responded: “Women should have to resist their husbands. If contraceptives are resorted to, frightful results will follow. Men and women will be living for sex alone. They will become soft-brained, unhinged, in fact mental and moral wrecks.”He was asked: “Even in exceptional cases where women are too weak for childbearing or where either of the parents is diseased can’t this method be resorted to ? “ He responded: “No. In cases stated above its better that husband and wife should live apart. ” Gandhi stated: “I consider it inhuman to impose sterilisation laws on the people. But in cases of individuals with chronic diseases, it is desirable to have them sterilised if they are agreeable to it. Sterilisation is a sort of contraceptive and though I am against the use of contraceptives in case of women, I do not mind voluntary sterilisation in case of man since he is the aggressor. “
On January 1, 1935, “Mrs. Nair asked if contraceptives were not permitted, how the population problem could be solved; to which Gandhiji replied that nature could solve the problem. If people multiplied like rabbits, they will die like rabbits”.
Section C.3 Gandhi and Bose did not differ on communism vs capitalism
Unlike what is commonly believed, Bose-Gandhi doctrinaire conflict was not centred around their affinities towards communism and capitalism. We show that both Gandhi and Bose considered themselves socialists, and neither was a communist. We first start with Gandhi’s views:
In Harijan, on April 14, 1940, Gandhi wrote, an article approving the socialistic principles suggested by Jaiprakash Narayan: “I have claimed that I was a socialist long before those I know in India had avowed their creed. But my socialism was natural to me and not adopted from any book. It came out of my unshakable belief in non-violence. No man could be actively non-violent and not rise against social injustice no matter where it occurred. Unfortunately, Western socialists have, so far as I know, believed in the necessity of violence for enforcing socialistic doctrines….Shri Jayaprakash’s propositions about land may appear frightful. In reality they are not. No man should have more land than he needs for dignified sustenance. Who can dispute the fact that the grinding poverty of the masses is due to their having no land that they can call their own ? “ pp. 144-145, [23]. Then, “This brings me to socialism. Real socialism has been handed down to us by our ancestors who taught: ‘All land belongs to Gopal, where then is the boundary line? Man is the maker of the line and he can therefore unmake it.’ Gopal literally means shepherd; it also means God. In modern language it means the State, i.e., the people… That the land today does not belong to the people is too true. But the fault is not in the teaching. It is in us who have not lived up to it. I have no doubt that we can make as good an approach to it as is possible for any nation, not excluding Russia, and that without violence. “ pp. 231-232, [22].
Bose also considered himself ” a socialist, but that was a very different thing from being a communist” p. 348, [10]. Recall that in his world view he was a leftist in the sense that he was an anti-imperialist and believed in attaining undiluted independence, not merely substance thereof [6]. Thus, neither economics nor communism was central to Bose’s notion of leftism. We repeat his views here for ensuring continuity of exposition. “In the present political phase of Indian life, leftism means anti – imperialism. A genuine anti imperialist is one who believes in undiluted independence (not Mahatma Gandhi’s substance of independence) as the political objective and in uncompromising national struggle as the means for attaining it. After the attainment of independence, leftism will mean socialism and the task before the people will then be the reconstruction of national life on a Socialist basis. Socialism or socialist reconstruction before attaining our political emancipation is altogether premature. “ pp. 27-28, [6] He described rightists as negation of leftists, as those “prepared for a deal with imperialism. “ p. 28, [6], and considered B Tilak and Aurobindo Ghosh as leftists (clearly neither was a communist) p. 15 [1].
Bose had explicitly disassociated himself from communism. A primary distinction between communists and socialists lay in their respective emphasis on internationalism vis a vis nationalism. Bose had ridiculed the internationalism of the communists and had disparaged them for attacking the concept of nationalism: “The attack is not only ill advised but unconsciously serves the interests of our alien rulers…before we can endeavour to reconstruct Indian society….we should first secure the right to shape our own destiny…When political freedom has been attained, it will then be time to consider seriously the problem of social and economic reconstruction. As far as I am aware this is also the opinion of prominent communists in other lands. To introduce fresh cleavage within our ranks by talking openly of class war and working for it appears to me at the present moment to be a crime against nationalism. To what straits we may be reduced by a mal-assimilation of Karl Marx and Bakunin becomes manifest when we come across a certain class of Indian labourites (or communists, if you call them so), who openly advocate the use of British or foreign cloth on the plea of internationalism. “ p. 166, [10]. In 1927, in a letter from Mandalay jail to his brother, he had disassociated himself from Communism: “If I had the remotest intention of becoming a Bolshevik agent, I would have jumped at the offer made and taken the first available boat to Europe. If I succeeded in recouping my health, I could then have joined the gay band who trot about from Paris to Leningrad talking of world revolution and emitting blood and thunder in their utterances. But I have no such ambition or desire. “ p. 146, [10]. In addition, while independence was primary, and unionization secondary to Bose and other socialists, radicalisation and organisation of the workers was primary to Indian communists p. 207, [10].
In sequels we will discuss the views of Bose and Gandhi on legitimacy of utilising violence in attaining political objectives.
References:
[1] S. C. Bose, The Indian Struggle (1920-1942)
[2] Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi’s Statement to the Press, Shimla, 05/09/1939, http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL038.PDF
[3] Subhas Bose, The Alternate Leadership, Speeches, Articles, Statements and Letters, June 1939-1941, Netaji Collected Works, Vol. 10, An Address to Students of India, Presidential Address at the All India Students’ Conference, Delhi, in January, 1940, pp. 58-64
[4] Hugh Toye, Subhas Chandra Bose – The Springing Tiger, Jaico Publishing House, 2013
[5] Government of India White Paper on Congress Party’s Responsibility for the events of 1942, 13/02/1943
[6] Subhas Chandra Bose, Writings and Speeches 1941-1943, Netaji Collected Works, Vol. 11, Forward Bloc – Its Justification
[7] Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, `India Wins Freedom’
[8] Nanda Mookherjee: Subhas Chandra Bose: The British Press, Intelligence and Parliament, Jayasree Prakashan, Calcutta 700026, 1981
[9] JB Kripalani , Gandhi His Life and Thought
[10] Leonard A. Gordon, Brothers Against the Raj – Biography of Indian Nationalists, Sarat and Subhas Chandra Bose
[11] Suniti Ghosh, The Tragic Partition of Bengal
[12] G D Birla In the Shadow of the Mahatma
[13] Medha M. Kudayisya “The Life and Times of G D Birla”
[14] Subhas Chandra Bose, Congress President, Speeches, Articles and Letters, January 1938-May 1939, Netaji Collected Works, Vol. 9
[15] Suniti Kumar Ghosh “The Indian Big Bourgeoisie – Its genesis, Growth and Character”
[16] Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Letter to Satis Chandra Das Gupta, 24/08/1929 http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL046.PDF
[17] – ibid, Interview to Louis Fischer, 04/06/1942 http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL082.PDF
[18] – ibid, Speech at a Prayer Meeting, New Delhi, 19/07/1947, http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL096.PDF
[19] D. G. Tendulkar, Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Vol I, New Delhi, 1969, Vols II-VIII, Bombay, 1951-1954
[20] G D Birla “Bapu – A unique association”
[21] Judith M. Brown “Gandhi’s rise to power – Indian Politics 1915-1922”
[22] Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi speech at Faizpur, 02/01/1937, http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL070.PDF
[23] – ibid, `Jayaprakash’s Picture’, Gandhi’s article in Harijan on 14/04/1940, http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL078.PDF
[24] Sir C. Sankaran Nair, “Gandhi and Anarchy”, 1922.
[25] Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Letter to Henry Polak, 14/10/1909, http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL010.PDF
[26] – ibid, Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule, Young India, 26/01/1921, http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL022.PDF
[27] – ibid, Indian Home Rule, http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL010.PDF
[28] – http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0003_0_02450.html
[29] Netaji Collected Works, Vol. 4
[30] Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi’s appeal in a speech in Nadiad, 22/06/1918. http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL017.PDF
[31] -ibid, Independence, Article in Young India, 13/01/1927 http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL038.PDF
[32] Nirmal Kumar Bose, Selections From Gandhi, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, April, 1957
[33] Anthony J. Parel, Gandhi: Hind Swaraj’ and Other Writings