Coauthored by Saswati Sarkar, Shanmukh and Dikgaj
The Hindu Bengalis had constituted the sword arm of India during the freedom fight against the British [7]. In the words of Subhas Chandra Bose, “Bengal, of which Calcutta is both the heart and the brain, has for a very long time been one of the strongholds of the nationalist movement’’ pp. 98-99, [8], and “With the dawn of the present century there was a national awakening in India on a large scale, and Bengal, which had suffered longest from the British yoke, was the pioneer in the new movement’’ p. 13, [8]. He has squarely attributed the nationalist movement in Bengal to the Hindus therein, describing them as “the backbone of nationalism in this country’’ p. 90, [3]. He explicitly stated that “Nobody will deny that Bengal has been the cradle of Indian Nationalism since the dawn of British rule in this country. Hindu Bengal, in particular, has throughout these decades thought and striven in terms of nationalism’’ p. 169, [3].
In the twentieth century, both in ideas and actions, the freedom movement against the British was driven by the Hindu Bengalis. It started from their losing the awe of the British in the last part of the nineteenth century, which precipitated intellectual and physical retaliation from them against British racism. Then under the inspired leadership of Arabindo Ghosh and Bepin Chandra Pal, the Hindu Bengalis ushered in the freedom movement against the British through the anti-partition movement in 1905 that spread from Bengal to the rest of India, and was the first nationwide mass movement against the British shorn of Jihadi motivation. Ideas and messaging that would drive the freedom movement from here onwards were formulated and coalesced in Hindu Bengal before and during this anti-partition agitation, starting from Bande Mataram in the late nineteenth century, to Swaraj and Swadeshi just before and during 1905. Arabindo Ghosh was the ideological fountainhead of the Swaraj and Swadeshi movements in the first decade of the twentieth century. These were later appropriated by Gandhi, without due attribution, and launched as Non-Cooperation and the civil disobedience movements in the 1920s and 1930s. The Hindu Bengalis comprised the bulk of the revolutionary freedom fighters, and they organized, trained and contributed to revolutionary movements, not merely in their province, but throughout India and even abroad. An ethnic demographic decomposition of the revolutionaries shows that the Hindus of undivided Bengal and the Hindu Bengalis residing outside Bengal, eg, in the United Provinces, collectively struck for India. Even in Madras Presidency, Bengalis provided the ideological and logistical support to revolutionaries who struck against the British. The Bengal revolutionaries forced the British to annul the Bengal partition, offer various political reforms and struck terror in their hearts. They infiltrated the Congress machinery and forced it to declare independence as its goal in 1929 Lahore Congress [7]. Subhas Chandra Bose had envisioned the Quit India movement, which was eventually launched by Gandhi in 1942, owing in part due to relentless pressure from Bose. Finally, the Indian National Army that Subhas Chandra Bose led, forced the British to transfer power, even in its defeat, by inspiring mass protest movements against trial of the I.N.A. heroes and by inciting disloyalty in the British Indian military, which became evident through mutinies in their army, air force and navy. Thus, what Arabindo Ghosh started, Subhas Chandra Bose ended.
Yet, the Bengalis have never received due credit for their enormous contribution to the resistance against the British, – the vision, resolve, organization, intellectual sophistication, valour, creativity, strategy and sacrifice embodied in the same. At times individual Bengali icons have been credited for expelling the British, but never the ethnicity as a whole. As a specific example, consider the following tweet from a Rajya Sabha MP and a public intellectual, Dr. Subramanian Swamy:
Here, Dr. Swamy is crediting the entire identity of `Sikhs’ and `Marathas’ for “finishing off the Muslim invaders’’ but mentions only the individual Subhas Chandra Bose as an icon, but not his by birth or by culture identity the `Bengali’, for liberating India from the British. One may argue that many of the Sadhus and Sanyasis mentioned above were Bengalis. Yet, the ethnicity is never credited as a whole, unlike some others, in fact, as in Prof. Swamy’s tweets the ethnicity isn’t even named in positive connotation concerning the freedom movement against the British. Following in this vein of thought, there is a distinct attempt by certain groups to actually disassociate Subhas Chandra Bose from his Bengali roots by claiming that he was never important in Bengal. We will name such a group in our current set of articles (to be clear, we are not aware of any association of Dr. Swamy with any such group, nor are we suggesting that Dr. Swamy is indulging in such actions).
Notwithstanding, it is important to recognize that Subhas Chandra Bose was a product of the Bengali revolutionary ecosystem and ethos – and the very best of it, the flowering of Bengali culture, the greatest embodiment of Bengali values. The fountainhead of his inspiration may be definitively located in Bengal – Swami Vivekananda all his life, the various Bengal renaissance icons and Arabindo Ghosh in his formative years. His letters, speeches, particularly when he was stationed outside Bengal, reveal a deep attachment to everything Bengali – the soil, the ambience, the panorama, the culture, the literature, the food – in short, everything. We intend to elaborate on this organic connection in another series. But in the current one, we establish that Bengal constituted Subhas Chandra Bose’s predominant support system. In this sense, he was Bengal’s. That entails no conflict with his other identities, namely Indian and Hindu, rather enforces these.
We first argue that Subhas Chandra Bose was propelled to political prominence at the national level by virtue of a strong support from Bengal Congress. During his time, Bengal was by far the largest political bloc in India, particularly in the Indian National Congress. Though the support from Bengal would not by itself suffice, unless some of the other large political blocs chimed in, any leader for whom Bengalis consolidated would start with a huge advantage in any national-level political contest in India. The situation is reminiscent of the saying in contemporary India – that the road to Delhi is through Lucknow – owing to the large number of Lok Sabha seats from Uttar Pradesh. While various leaders of Bengal Congress betrayed Bose at different points, the rank and file therein stood with him through thick and thin, braving the wrath of the All India Congress Committee, who sought to oust him from his home base through intrigues, machinations, threats, intimidations and enticements, in short, through Gandhian intrigue (Section A). The Bengal intelligentsia vociferously supported him when he took his stand against the compromises made by the Gandhian High Command, comprising Nehru, Patel, Rajagopalachari, Kripalani, and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. This was despite the fact that at times he was less than deferential to its doyens like renowned chemist and entrepreneur, P. C. Ray and Nobel-laureate, poet Rabindranath Tagore (Section B). His finances mainly came from the Bengalis, though they had stopped dominating the business in Bengal for some time before his birth. Thus, finances remained his Achilles heel all along (Section C). This is also why the account of his political domination in Bengal is all the more remarkable, other than the fact that he was active in politics in Bengal for a very short time and had limited financial backing. Between 1921 and 1940, the period in which he was active in Bengal politics, he was outside of jail for only about 9 years, and functioned as an independent leader only in 5 of those years. The political base he could develop with both limited time and money at his disposal owed entirely to his connection with the Bengali common people (Part-II). This connection was organic because he embodied several characteristics that are dear to the hearts of the Bengalis, viz, his academic prowess, his principled stances, his revolutionary politics, and finally, his refusal to countenance disrespect at any cost. These qualities were all manifest in his life from his earliest days. He was therefore the epitome of the dominant culture of the Bengali Bhadralok, and was cherished in Bengali hearts and homes, not only while he was active in Bengal, but also long after he had physically left. This connection has been seen only rarely in human history. This is what we document in this series of three articles. Last and the least, we touch upon the propaganda of some charlatans and opportunists seeking to disassociate his legacy from his beloved Bengal, his সোনার বাংলা, towards their vicious ends. We expose the egregious factual and logical errors in such propaganda (Part-III).
There is one letter which epitomizes Subhas Chandra Bose’s personality, and the values that Bengalis adored in him. We start with by reproducing excerpts from the letter, without further commentary, but with some highlights.On 18.10.34, he wrote in Bangla to a friend and a candidate in then Bengal elections, Satyendra Chandra Mitra, who sought his endorsement, “You have asked for so little from me – and yet I cannot satisfy you – though I wish I could have done more, much more, for you. The best thing would probably have been not to reply at all – but, I always believe in frankness, even when that frankness alienates friends.
I have no faith in the Working Committee dominated by the satellites of Mahatma Gandhi. I have even less faith in the Parliamentary Board, the prominent members of which shirked their duty when the country was passing through a crisis in 1932-33. I have no sympathy, whatsoever, for those erstwhile colleagues of mine who have dragged in Mahatma Gandhi once again into the politics of Bengal to strengthen their own position. Last but not least, I am ashamed to have anything to do with a party that sets up Sj. Nalini Sarkar as the Mayor of Calcutta on the strength of European support.
I love you as a dear friend, I am grateful to you for what you have done for those important people who suffer so much and who have very few friends in this world. I honor you as a patriot. But how can I help you? I have no confidence in the machinery that has set you up as a candidate – and I doubt if they would have set you up if they had been able to get Akhil Babu. I deplore the circumstances which have produced a contest between Akhil Babu and yourself. But I feel quite helpless. How can I separate you from the machinery that has set you up?
…I shall continue to say and to do what I consider right, even if that brings upon me untold suffering and unpopularity.
I cannot accept – nor can I understand – this attitude of ‘don’t accept, don’t reject’ towards the Communal Award. The party of Dr. B. C. Roy has done incalculable disservice to Bengal by supporting Mahatma Gandhi on this question. Bengal should have been quite united on this question.
I have written strongly because I feel strongly ; I have spoken bluntly because I am a plain, blunt man who has the courage to call a spade a spade. I shall continue to fight and stand for Bengal and for the best interests of India, even if I am an inglorious minority of one. I am sorry I cannot help you in your present difficulty but I am sure you will appreciate my position and excuse me. I hope the day will come when under different circumstances, I shall demonstrate that I am really a friend of yours – not a time-server but a real friend.
Please accept my Bijoya love and embraces.” pp. 82-83, [9]
Section A: Support from the Congress Rank and File
The Congress organization in Bengal (Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee or BPCC) had remained firmly under Bose’s control from the late 1920s despite opposition by Gandhi, and by a Gandhian wing in the Bengal Congress. During his conflict with Gandhi, Subhas Chandra Bose was powered largely through the backings of the BPCC delegates. One of the reasons why Subhas Bose was so popular in the BPCC was that he spoke the words of revolutionary Bengal, which comprised of a significant and vocal chunk of the BPCC, and in the words of historian Bidyut Chakrabarty, “Jugantar’s decision to back Bose was determined, to a large extent, by the militant image Bose projected in the 1928 Calcutta Congress, first as the GOC [General Officer in Command] of the Bengal Volunteers, and secondly as an active supporter of the `Independence Resolution’’’ p. 11, [21]. Further, Bidyut remarks that ``He [Subhas] was considered one of the most dangerous of the freedom fighters, in part because of his radical stance within the Congress, but mainly because of his intimate association with `revolutionary terrorism’’’ p. 21, [21]. Thus, speaking for a revolutionary base which was most active in Bengal, and especially among the youth, and by his espousing the nationalist cause, Bose would go on to become the pre-eminent radical leader, speaking for a nationalist base all over India, but most prominently in Bengal.
In this section, we highlight the pre-eminent position that JM Sengupta had occupied post the death of CR Das and how the the support of the rank and file of the BPCC propelled Subhas Bose to leadership position in BPCC, trouncing Sengupta (Section A.1). Further, we show how Bose was the de-facto leader of the revolutionaries and the youth of Bengal, and how he organised them into a powerful bloc (Section A.2). We also narrate how this bloc organised en masse in a fight against the Gandhians during the Congress presidential elections in 1939 and how it stood firm behind Bose even after he was expelled from the Congress by the Congress stalwarts (Section A.3).
Section A.1: Besting the Goliath, J. M. Sengupta, in Bengal Congress leadership tussle
In 1920 Subhas Chandra Bose had joined freedom struggle under the tutelage of C. R. Das. In 1925 he was sent to jail in Mandalay. Shortly after, C. R. Das died in June 1925. Right after C. R. Das’ death, while Subhas Chandra Bose was jailed in Mandalay, Gandhi installed J. M. Sengupta as Das’ successor in Bengal. J. M. Sengupta was a renowned barrister and the son of a member of the Bengal Legislative Council. On 8th September, 1925, M. R Jayakar, then a Maharashtrian Swarajist leader, wrote to Lajpat Rai: “I hear from friends in Bengal that Gandhi’s injudicious interference in favour of Sengupta as successor to Das has caused a reaction, which will break up the Swaraj party, and wipe out the good work which Das has done.’’ p. 198, [10], p. 631, [22]. Sarat Bose had written to Subhas Bose, who was then incarcerated at Mandalay jail in Burma, “There has been great excitement lately over filling up the positions held by Deshbandhu. It has been eventually decided (on the advice of Mahatma Gandhi) that J. M. Sengupta is to occupy all the three positions. Personally, I think it is a great mistake to put any other man into all the places filled by Deshbandhu. But, the Mahatma’s decision was accepted.’’ p. 137, [5].
Released from British prison in 1927, in 1929, Subhas Chandra Bose wrested the control of the BPCC from J. M. Sengupta. Sengupta was a decade older than Bose and belonged to a more elite family than him. Bose has written “ in November (1929) – the annual meeting of the Bengal Congress Committee was held for electing officer-bearers, etc. At that meeting it was found that two groups had formed within the Committee, one following the leadership of the late Mr. Sengupta and the other of the writer. There was a keen contest and the latter party ultimately won by a narrow margin. …The breach had begun at the time of the Calcutta Congress when the late Mr. Sengupta supported the Mahatma and wanted the writer to do so. Since then a separate party had grown up in Bengal under the leadership of the late Mr. Sengupta which stood for unquestioning obedience to the Mahatma and his policy. The majority party in Bengal did not bind itself to the Mahatma in that way and in its outlook and programme it was allied with the Left Wing opposition to the Mahatma in the Congress’’ p. 191, [8]. By middle of 1931, Bose’s victory on Sengupta seems to have been decisive. On 9 June 1931, British officers of Calcutta S. B. forwarded a note to the Home Department, stating that, “With the President of the B. P. C. C. (Subhas Bose) at loggerheads with K. M. Sen Gupta [should be J. M. Sengupta] the influence of the latter in congress circles in Calcutta cannot be great’’ p. 5, [29]. That Bose could beat the odds stacked against him, in his battle with Sengupta, indicates the support he had from the BPCC during that time.
Subhas Chandra Bose could also wrest partial control of the District Congress Committee in Sengupta’s home-district, Chattogram, through an alliance with the legendary revolutionary Surjo Sen. Surjo Sen’s lieutenant and successor, revolutionary Binod Behari Dutta has recalled, “At that time [1928] there was a leadership tussle between Subhas Chandra Bose and Deshpriya Jatindramohan. Although the latter was from Chattogram, Masterda [Surjo Sen] was aligned with Subhas and was elected as the Congress Secretary at Chattogram’’ pp. 220-221, [23]. In fact, Subhas Chandra Bose presided over the district congress meeting in Chattogram 11-13 May, 1929, pp. 61-62, [24].
Majority of the Bengal Congress delegates voted for the amendments Bose moved opposing the compromises by Gandhi in the All India Congress Committees. Subhas Bose’s eldest nephew, Ashok Bose, has written: “The Congress organization in Bengal continued to remain after the Karachi Congress [1930] under uncle’s control. This was anathema to the Right Wing of the Congress, the supreme leader of which was Mahatma Gandhi himself and the leader in Bengal, Mr. J. M. Sengupta. As at the Congress session in Lahore in 1929 so at that in Karachi earlier in the year, the majority of delegates from Bengal had voted with uncle.’’ p, 55, [15]. In Calcutta Congress of 1928 about 2/3 of the Bengali delegates backed Bose’s amendment to Gandhi’s resolution in which Bose demanded complete independence for India. Gandhi opposed the amendment p. 192, [5].
Further, it might be pointed out that Congress candidates in Bengal regularly asked for Bose’s endorsement, even while he was living in exile in Europe, believing that those endorsements would boost their electoral prospects. We notice one such request from Satyendra Chandra Mitra to which Bose responded (in the negative) on 18.10.34 p. 82, [9]. Bose also kept winning the elections from afar, and the winning factions invariably campaigned in the name of Bose, even when Bose was exiled to Europe. For instance, “in June 1934, elections to the DCC and BPCC were held. A total of 316 members were elected with 191 members from the KS Roy-BC Roy (pro-Bose) and 125 from the JC Gupta-led pro-Sengupta group’’ p. 126, [21]. However, the constitution of the Congress was amended in the Bombay session in 1934 and the PCC was allowed only 100 men, due to the new constitution. p. 126, [21]. Further, due to tussles within the BPCC, in December 1934, BC Roy stepped down as the president of the BPCC. Then, Subhas Bose was unanimously elected as the president of the BPCC p. 127, [21].
Section A.2: Icon of young Congress cadres and students
Subhas Chandra Bose’s equation with the women, the youth and the students in Congress was particularly strong. They followed him, adored him, protected him, and played pranks on him.
In Calcutta Congress, 1928, Subhas Chandra organized an army of volunteers, the Bengal Volunteers, and marched with them in military attire as their G.O.C. (General Officer in Command) to ceremoniously welcome then Congress President Motilal Nehru. This had a strong impact on the young grassroots cadres of the Congress, many of whom were budding revolutionaries. Similar volunteer forces were organized in many districts and they started marching in military attire in different Congress events. In an article titled Subhas Chandra and the revolutionaries of Bengal, Chattogram revolutionary and young Congress worker, Ananta Singh wrote , “ ….before this [Calcutta Congress, 1928] I had no direct acquaintance with Subhaschandra – I had never seen him face to face. I saw his various pictures in newspapers. This was the first time I saw Subhas as G.O.C. [General Officer in Command] at the head of a large army. In his military attire I witnessed with my whole heart the extraordinary personality and brave soldier in Subhas in military attire – my heart was filled with pride imagining him as the overall leader of independent India. I felt revolutionary stirrings in my mind seeing the extraordinary fearless personality of the commander in chief of the future revolutionary soldiers seeking freedom. Subhas in military attire on horseback. The sun had lit his face, his eyes. His proud eyes were glowing. The General of revolutionary Bengal was determined to declare the full fledged independence war at this Congress assembly” p. 271, [25]. Ananta Singh also wrote, “…there is no doubt that following the Bengal Volunteers even we constituted in Chattogram an organized and decorated volunteer force. Quoting from the verdict against us, “In December, 1928, the All India session of the Congress was held in Calcutta which was attended by Ambika Chakraborty, Surya Sen, Nirmal Sen, Anantalal Singh, Harigopal Bal and Tarakeshwar Dastidar (another absconding). At this Congress numerous volunteers were in obedience wearing Khaki Military uniforms and commanded by Subhas Bose and Jatin Das wearing the uniforms of military officers. The prosecution suggestion is that those Chittagong visitors after witnessing the display of pseudo militarism returned home filled with a spirit of emulation which was soon to be translated into practice” p. 271, [25]. Thus, the revolutionary base in Bengal Congress emulated Subhas Chandra Bose.
In May, 1929, Subhas Chandra Bose presided over Chattogram District Congress. He was happy to see the military trained and military dressed volunteers in Chattogram pp. 61-62, [24]. Chattogram revolutionary, Kalpana Dutta, has recalled the following about that event in her memoirs [31]. “I have seen Ganeshda [Ganesh Ghosh] only twice – and that too from a distance. In 1929, big leaders had come for the Political Conference [in Chattogram] – Subhas Bose, Latika Bose, Jyotish Ghosh, Nripen Banerjee, etc. I had been to meet them at the station. Suddenly, I heard the trampling of feet behind me and a military order: `halt’. I turned to see volunteers drawn up in formation. I heard their GOC [in the Bengal Volunteers] was Ganesh Ghosh.
At 8-30 next morning, there was a students’ meeting at the Town Hall. We were all very enthusiastic about it and turned up at the hall at 7-30 in the morning. I found the pandal absolutely empty – nobody had turned up [yet]. Ganesh Ghosh, with his face bandaged up, was on guard – all alone. He had been injured in a fight with the goondas who attacked the conference the night before. The students’ meeting would not begin for some time yet. The [Bengal] Volunteers had to be sent home after a long period on duty – so he was mounting guard all alone. The pandal was a huge affair – stretched all over the Town Hall grounds. There was every likelihood of the goondas attacking again. But here he was injured and alone – ready to meet with a whole pack of ruffians if necessary.’’ pp. 31-32, [31].
The devotion by the Bengal Volunteers, which was organised by Bose, was what gave Bose the necessary backing to fight the power of the Congress establishment. In turn, Bose served as their confidant, their mentor and inspiration. Police report stated, “That day (12th May, 1929) the Presidential speech was delivered by Mr. Subhas Bose, it’s tenor being that he had faith in Mahatma Gandhi but he could not see how the country could be saved by non-violence. The volunteers were present in force at the conference under the command of Ganesh Ghosh who was stayed as G.O.C. and wore military uniform similar to that worn by Subhas Bose at the Calcutta Congress” p. 272, [25]. In the afternoon of his District Congress Presidential speech, Bose met the members of Surjo Sen’s core group, Ganesh Ghosh, Ananta Singh, Tripura Sen, in a secret chamber of Mahalaxmi Bank in absence of others. They trusted him enough to confide in him that they did not support the non-violence policy of Congress and they would not be decorative showpieces in Congress. They are adhering to non violence temporarily, as a matter of strategy, to use it as a cover for preparation of a youth rebellion. He offered moral support for their plans pp. 61-62, [24]. In less than a year, the Chattogram group embarked on the daring Chattogram Armory raid.
Revolutionary Shanti Ghose has described some endearing incidents in her memoirs. In Jessore, Subhas Chandra Bose had presided over a political conference. A young girl from Jessore, Bibha Dasgupta, was accompanying him. Tirelessly Bose moved around various party meetings and assemblies. A green coconut was arranged for him in the evening. It was placed so that after freshening up, he could drink the juice within. In rural Bengal glasses were not customary, and the standard practice was to drink directly from the coconut shell. In Bose’s absence, Bibha drank the juice and left the empty shell covered up. After Bose returned, trying to drink from the shell, he found it empty. Everyone was embarrassed. Bose realized that the mischief was Bibha’s doing and sent for her. She came, and quipped, “yes, I drank! If I wanted for myself, no one would give me a coconut, but did I labor any less than you?’’ Bose laughed pp. 33-34, [26]. Shanti herself grew up in Comilla, a district adjoining Chattogram. In 1931, at the age of fifteen, she attended a district level student conference in Comilla. There Subhas Chandra wrote in her autograph book, “আপনার মান রাখিতে জননী আপনি কৃপাণ ধরো’’, (pick up the sword to protect your honor, ye mother!). On 14 December, 1931, along with Suniti Chowdhuri, she shot dead the British magistrate of Comilla, Stevens. When the news of Shanti and Suniti arrest reached Bose, another attendee in that Conference, reminded him of what he wrote in Shanti’s autograph book p. 47, [26]. Subhas Chandra Bose never forgot the adolescent duo, as also other brave Bengali women. About 12 years later, on 22 October 1943, he delivered a speech on the occasion of birthday celebration of Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi and on the opening of the first camp for the training of the volunteers of the all-women Rani of Jhansi regiment he founded in the Indian National Army he led. He spoke there: “I cannot forget an incident in Calcutta when we held a procession against the orders of the Government and when the police tried to break the procession by lathi charge, some of our sisters made a cordon around us (coming between us and the police) without flinching to face lathi charges…Not only in the history of the Passive Resistance Movement but in the history of the Revolutionary Party also, we have the examples of our brave sisters who have played a noble part. I know of many sisters who became daring revolutionaries. If one type of courage was necessary for passive resistance, another and more active courage is necessary for revolutionary efforts, and in this too, I found that our sisters were not wanting. In 1931, an English magistrate was shot dead by two girls ; the age of one was 16, the age of the other was 17. In India, even ordinary men will shudder before Magistrates, but then two young sisters bravely went to the house of the Magistrate and fired at him. You can easily imagine what wonderful courage those young sisters might have had. Such courage does not descend from the skies ; it has its roots in the age-old traditions of India’s past. Since 1928, I have been taking interest in women’s organizations in India and I found that, given the opportunity, our sisters could rise to any occasion. There was one Rastra Mahila Sangh of ladies in Bengal, which did splendid work. In December 1928, a volunteer corps of 500 women was formed which was not only run on sound lines but their parades and their discipline gave us great hopes and confirmed my belief in the fact that, given the impetus and opportunity, Indian women could perform duties entrusted to them in a befitting manner’’ p. 125, [27].
Section A.3: The challenge to Gandhian compromise from Bengal
Moving to 1938 when Bose contested the Congress Presidential election against B. P. Sitaramayya, who had the explicit and the vocal support of Gandhi and the Congress High Command, Jogesh Chandra Chatterji has written that “The Bengal Congress was staunchly behind Subhas Chandra Bose during his conflict with the Congress High Command’’ p. 181, [6].
Bose won his Presidential election primarily because of the strong support he received from the large contingent of 544 delegates Bengal sent to Congress, which was the largest among all provinces then in India p. 70, [3]. Thus, in any presidential contest a candidate for which Bengali delegates consolidated would be at a significant advantage, quite like how a strong performance in the Lok Sabha in UP today substantially boosts the corresponding party’s chance for an overall win. Also, note that the Hindu Bengalis constituted a strong component of the middle class in Assam in the 1930s, and Congress drew its delegates largely from this segment. Thus, due to the strong political presence of the Hindu Bengalis in the Congress, Bose was starting from a large base.
The Ananda Bazar Patrika had published the absolute numbers of votes that Subhas Bose got [20]. The table is incomplete as the number of votes that Bose got in NWFP and Mahakoshal have not been published there. The numbers have been shown in Fig. 1.
Figure 1: Absolute number of votes obtained by Bose and Sitaramayya in the various provinces, along with the mention of the total votes in each province, shown in column 2.
There is a second reference for the number of votes that Bose got, which tallies, more or less, with the figures given in [20]. Bidyut Chakrabarty has given the number of votes in percentages p. 43, [21]. These numbers have been shown in Fig. 2. It must be remarked that there are variations of the numbers given above in other sources, including p. 566, [7]. But the number of votes most accepted and what appears in the official Congress versions is 1580 votes for Bose and 1377 votes for Sitaramayya p. 43, [21], from which, based on the figures of [20] and p. 43, [21], the number of votes for Bose and Sitaramayya in each of the states can be inferred.
Figure 2: Percentage of votes obtained in the different provinces by Bose and Sitaramayya.
To appreciate the extent of the Hindu Bengali consolidation for Bose, note that the unprecedented Hindu consolidation that propelled BJP to 300+ seats in 2019 Lok Sabha came from 44% Hindus voting for them, and 51% Hindus voting for NDA, as per a reputed post-poll survey [4].
Figure 3: Percentage of the votes polled by Bose and Sitaramayya in the different provinces as a fraction of the total votes polled.
To appreciate how many Bengalis consolidated for Bose, we have presented here two bar graphs which respectively show the percentage of the overall and their own votes which Bose and Sitaramayya respectively got from different provinces. The graph (Fig. 3) is based on the inferences from p. 43, [21], and [20]. Fig. 3 shows the number of votes that Bose and Sitaramayya got from the provinces as a fraction of the total votes polled, while Fig. 4 shows the number of votes that Bose and Sitaramayya got as a fraction of the votes they polled from the provinces.
Figure 4: Percentage of votes polled by Bose and Sitaramayya in the various provinces as a fraction of the votes they polled respectively.
Bose’s votes came heavily from Bengal [25.57%], UP [17.02%], Punjab [11.51%], TN [6.96%], Karnataka [6.71%], and Kerala, [5.06%], whereas Sitaramayya’s votes came heavily from Bihar [14.31%], UP [13.44%], Andhra [13.15%], and Gujarat [7.26%]. One can observe from the above graph, that the predominant support that Bose got in Bengal that was instrumental in his ability to defeat Sitaramayya.
Bose’s campaign was powered by the Bengal revolutionaries. Jogesh Chandra Chatterji, formerly of Anushilan Samiti, campaigned for him in the United Provinces. At his request, Acharya Narendra Deva of the Congress Socialist Party issued a statement to the press supporting the candidature of Bose p. 516, [6]. Jogesh Chandra Chatterji was in charge of the election campaign for Subhas Chandra Bose in U.P. He carried on a vigorous propaganda for Bose and toured thirteen districts of U.P. p. 517, [6]. Amarendra Nath Roy, a former Anushilanite and founder of the CSP in Bengal remained at Lucknow as the most trusted helper of the team working for Bose. Bose sent revolutionary veterans, Birendranath Chatterjee and Dhiren Mukherjee (ex-Anushilanite) to Lucknow, to obtain reports from there pp. 517-518, [6]. Bose secured 199 voters from U.P., his rival Sitaramayya got 115 votes p. 518, [6].
B. R. Tomlinson has noted that “Bose’s victory came as a shock to the ‘Old Guard’ (as Gandhi and his colleagues were called during the crisis). According to Bose, Gandhi and his lieutenants had thought that he would get only 25 to 30 per cent of the votes and the result frightened them into thinking that they had lost control of the national movement” p.128, [32].
Jogesh Chandra Chatterji notes thatthe Congress High Command then made up their mind that at the next Congress, at Tripuri, Bose must be crushed at any cost. Sardar Patel and Rajagopalachari were the main figures in this nefarious design p. 518, [6]. Helping Bose out under the given circumstances was akin to staking his position in the Congress. But Chatterji agreed to do so, he was cautioned against it by C. B. Gupta. But Chatterji was willing to brave disciplinary action by the Congress High Command pp. 518-519, [6]. In the 1939 Tripuri Congress, Chatterji pressed CSP leader Narendra Deva to do something in support of Bose p. 520, [6]. Chatterji writes how a resolution that would have worked against Bose was scuttled at the Tripuri Congress, “In the open session a resolution was put forward by M. S. Aney that the power vested in the delegates be given to the members of the A.I.C.C. [which was opposed to Bose]. This was opposed by the majority of the delegates from Bengal and U.P. Others remained neutral. Maulana Azad counted the votes and declared that it was passed. We challenged it and wanted a division. They were not ready for that. But we insisted and walked to the passage in front of the dias. Nehru wanted to hoodwink us by saying that a disturbance by 200 Bengalees would not be able to disturb the Congress Session. This remark was resented by all. Neither the demonstrators were only 200, nor were they all Bengalees. The majority of U.P. delegates were there. At this stage J.P. [Jayaprakash Narayan] came down from the dias and finding me in the crowd asked me why we were doing this. I counter-questioned him if he supported the Aney resolution. His reply was in the negative. On his further question as to what could we do I said angrily that we would break the dias and finish the Congress and then go away. The thing was that I was attending the Congress after a lapse of 14 years, as I was in jail. It was a democratic platform of the nation and from this platform an arbitrary action was simply revolting to us. The resolution, too, did not come through the Subjects Committee as was the usual rule. J.P. then asked me in an angry mood that there were about 3000 delegates in this gathering of nearly a lakh and half men, and how could a division be taken ? I said in reply that an announcement might be made that after the other business was over the delegates should go to the delegates Pandal when the division would be taken. He then left for the dias but before he reached there the resolution was withdrawn’’ pp. 521-522, [6].
In 1939 Tripuri Congress, G. B. Pant who was known to be close to Nehru, moved a resolution that mandated that Bose form the Congress Working Committee in accordance with Gandhi’s wishes. This resolution was intended to bring in a stalemate in Congress as Gandhi could refuse to suggest names for the Congress Working Committee to Subhas Chandra Bose, which is exactly what he did. Achar Singh China has written, “In the meeting of the All India Congress Committee when the Pant resolution was put for discussion, the Bengal delegates made so much noise that the meeting could not be held for two hours’’. p. 319, [14]. Bose relied on the Congress left wing to stall this resolution, it was this left wing that had powered his Presidential win. But large parts of the left wing abstained ensuring that the resolution sails through. General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (CPI), P. C. Joshi was ready to abstain, but was prevented from doing so by the rank and file, namely the Bengal Communists. They openly charged P. C. Joshi of acting at the behest of the British Communist Party. Specifically, one such grass-root Communist Niharendu Dutt-Mazumdar has recalled that when the CPI rank and file forced Joshi to vote against the Pant resolution, he said “Our throat is cut.’’ Dutt-Mazumdar responded, “Your masters in the Communist Party of Great Britain may be annoyed, but this will save India’s throat.’’ pp. 378-379, [5]. The role of the Bengal delegates in reversal of C.P.I’s decision to abstain during the crucial Tripuri vote comes across from Jawaharlal Nehru’s letter to Krishna Menon, written on March 16, 1939, about this Tripuri session: “The cables about Tripuri must have confused you sufficiently. …Behind the words, right and left, there were many other factors at play, the most notable being the emergence into prominence of certain adventurist individuals [Subhash Chandra Bose] who wanted to exploit the left to their own advantage. Nothing could have been worse for the left than to be closely associated with these individuals and groups and their peculiar tactics. …..the voting in the Congress itself represented, among other things, a reaction against adventurism. Many people in the left realised that they were drifting into an unholy alliance with people who had no policy or programme, or any position in the country. Sarat Bose’s speech opposing the main resolution of the Congress on the national demand was an astounding performance. Leftist circles, after a feeling of triumph due to the presidential election, feel somewhat disheartened by the course events took. The reaction is natural. I think, however, that the left has gained something solid and will profit by this experience. The Congress Socialist Party may be shaken up within its own ranks to some extent but it has gained in prestige in the country, because of its disassociation from the adventurist elements. The Communist Party people tried to follow the same path but not very successfully and changed their attitude three times in the course of the two days, largely owing to pressure from Bengal and some other people.” p. 524, [19]. The Pant resolution sailed through, though, because of the abstention of the Congress Socialist Party [CSP], which is what Nehru praises the CSP for in the above letter. Jogesh Chandra Chatterji has written how he had unsuccessfully tried to prevent this abstention. Jayaprakash Narayan had informed Chatterji that the CSP and CPI leaders had discussed the Pant resolution and had decided that both would remain neutral on it. In response, Chatterji sarcastically suggested that CSP place a resolution that so long as Gandhi was active he be given absolute authority of the Congress and plenary sessions not be held any more during his lifetime. Chatterji has written that “J.P.’s face became red and he went away without uttering a word”. The Pant resolution was to be moved at the delegates’ panel at 8 AM. Chatterji waited for Narendra Deva at the leaders’ entrance but the latter thought that the decision was correct under the circumstances. Chatterji sat aloof at the delegates’ pandal in dejection. Along with some of his comrades, he submitted to Jayaprakash their resignation from CSP, the news of their resignation was published in all dailies the next day. He left Tripuri out of disgust. But, on return to Lucknow they withdrew their resignation pp. 523-525, [6]. RSPI historian Buddhadeb Bhattacharya has written, “Other Anushilan Marxists [Anushilan Samiti revolutionaries who had by then adopted Marxism, but had joined the CSP rather than the CPI] fully supported Bose and stood solidly behind him’’ p. 43, [2].
Subhas Chandra Bose resigned from Congress Presidency at the All India Congress Committee Meeting in Calcutta in May, 1939. Sabitri Prasanna Chatterjee has described the scene at the Calcutta meeting: “We were present at this meeting. As soon as Subhas Chandra resigned from the Presidential position we saw and heard ourselves the tremendous discontent among the audience. That day only because of the impact of Subhas Chandra’s personality that there were no untoward incidents in the meeting hall. Sarat Chandra and Subhas Chandra took the newly elected President (Rajendra Prasad) in their own car to his home. But it is also true that that day outside the meeting hall many leaders were humiliated because of public agitation. Subhas Chandra’s popularity and the non-cooperation of the Congress leadership with Subhas Chandra is responsible for this tragic incident’’ p. 105, [16].
Section A.4: Beyond Congress Presidency – the home-base stands firm
In August 1939, Subhas Chandra Bose was effectively expelled from Congress. Sabitri Prasanna Chatterjee has written about how the Bengal Congress rank and file stood with him even afterwards: “Multiple influential leaders and Congress workers of Bangladesh began to assist Subhas Babu in this crisis. He got workers and those willing to sacrifice; loyalty, sincerity, courage to tolerate suffering were not wanting in his party. Amidst opposition. his own captivity, broken health, inconvenience, there was no want of consolation. The root of this was innumerable examples of sacrifice and tolerance of persecution of innumerable fellow-travelers of his political path. Besides, the minds of youth of India were seen to be attracted to Subhaschandra through deep affection, and leaving other states, specifically in Bangladesh many influential and wealthy individuals among his erstwhile opponents were seen to stand by him ; to accomplish through their strength, capability, patronage, the tasks he had initiated’’ p. 204, [16].
After Bose was defeated in Tripuri, the BPCC openly reposed faith in Bose, by re-electing him as the BPCC [Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee] president on 21 April 1939, just on the eve of the AICC session in Calcutta on 29 April 1939. The BPCC also decided to vest absolute powers in Subhas Bose to nominate the Executive Council according to his choice, which showed that he still was unchallenged in the BPCC p. 133, [21]. In his diary Syamaprasad Mookerjee has written about Subhas Bose’s control on Bengal Congress at that time: “Gandhi was relentless against Subhas and was determined to oust him from the Congress. Subhas at Gandhi’s behest had kicked out Khare and very soon he himself was thrown out of the Congress. His, however, was a great personality. His election as President, in spite of Gandhi and his big followers, gave him an added glory. That he was fighting Gandhi’s ‘moderate’ policy also made him popular. He received tremendous ovation in many parts of India and it seemed that the Forward Block was going to be a great rival of the Congress and ultimately to capture it. In Bengal, Subhas’s organization functioned as the de facto Congress although it was refused recognition by the All-India body. The nominated executive – called the ad hoc Congress, could not gain any strength or prestige due to the hold that Subhas had on the province. In the Legislature, the Congress Party – well-known for its discipline and organized opposition – was at last split into two groups; one under Sarat Bose; the other under Kiran Sankar Roy, representing what came to be known as the Official Congress Party’’ p. 31, [17]. According to historian, Bidyut Chakrabarty, the pro-AICC group led by Kiran Shankar Roy, which had `considerable power and resources, had no substantial following in the ranks of the Congress workers.’ p. 133, [21].
Bose formed the election committee consisting of Muzaffar Ahmed (a communist), Charu Chandra Roy (a Forward Bloc member) and Charu Chandra Banerji (a member of the Congress Socialist Party) for the district PCC elections, which was resented by the KS Roy, PC Ghosh and BC Roy factions. The AICC had scented danger when the new BPCC had flouted its ban on Satyagraha and the ban on the criticism of the ministries by organising an All India Protest Day on 9 July 1939, and wanting to punish Bose, decided to intervene. p. 136, [21]. Its goal was to “discipline the disloyal BPCC, the Working Committee having disqualified Bose from the presidentship of BPCC and from being a member of any elective Congress Committee for three years from August 1939, empowered the President to take disciplinary action against others who persisted in indiscipline.’’ p. 136, [21]
The Congress High Command had now declared war on the BPCC and “was to spare no effort to crush the militant leadership of Bengal completely. On 17 August 1939, Rajendra Prasad declared `meeting of the BPCC held on 26 July – the Requisition Meeting – null and void’. The Executive Council of the BPCC reacted instantly and at its special meeting on 25 August adopted resolutions `reaffirming its full confidence in Sjt. Subhas Chandra Bose’ and deploring the AICC decision as `an attempt to strengthen the hands of the supporters of the Congress Working Committee in the BPCC’. It also raised the constitutional validity of the AICC authority because the `infliction of punishment on the ground of indiscipline ought to be a function of the judiciary’. There was no trouble about getting these anti-AICC resolutions accepted.’’ p. 137, [21]. However, the resolutions were put to a vote in the general meeting of the BPCC on 30 August 1939, and there the anti-Bose faction opposed it hard. To quote Bidyut Chakrabarty once more. “Out of the 541 members of the BPCC, 353 members attended the meeting. The resolutions were ratified by 213 to 138 votes … The votes were counted four times, indicating the frenetic atmosphere, but BC Roy, KS Roy and Prafulla Ghosh had to concede to the Bose led Bengal Congress. The meeting was an example of left unity in the sense that, except for the MN Roy group, the left – the Communist party, CSP, Kishan Sabhas – actively participated in order to show, according to the Amrita Bazar Patrika `the consolidation of the left forces under the leadership of Subhas Bose.’’’ p. 137, [21].
To cut Bose down to size, “the central leadership now formed an Election Tribunal consisting of Satish Chandra Dasgupta, Kshitish Prasad Chattopadhyay and Priya Ranjan Sen. According to the Bombay decision (1939), an election tribunal should consist of men with no party affiliation. In this case, each of them was a well known Gandhian and opposed to Bose. In his letter to the Congress President, Sarat Bose outlined the known oaffiliations of the members of the Tribunal. Satish Chandra Dasgupta and Priya Ranjan Sen belong to the Khadi group and Kshitish Chattopadhyay is an active member of the pro-KS Roy group.’’’ pp. 137-139, [21]. However, despite the protests by the BPCC and different district PCCs, the AICC appointed tribunal proceeded to make as many changes as it desired, as it desired.
It is clear how much of a hold Bose had on the Bengal Congress despite being expelled from the Congress. Bidyut Chakrabarty once more narrates the following. “Bose was no longer a Congress member but a majority of the BPCC members had backed him. The new president of the BPCC Rajendra Chandra Dev, after his election deferentially declared that he `can do not better than be guided by his [Sj. Bose] advice, as long as he has to discharge the duties of the president.’’’ p. 140, [21]. At the executive meeting on 30 October, 1939, the BPCC decided to put Rs. 5000 at the disposal of Bose to keep the Congress organisation in proper shape for any coming eventualities.’’ p. 140, [21]. According to Bidyut Chakrabarty, “This decision was a clear defiance of the Working Committee’s resolution that the AICC fund in Bengal, created from the contributions of the Congress members in the legislature lying in deposit with the leader of the Congress Legislative Party, be transferred to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad who may hold in on behalf of the AICC’’ p. 140, [21].
The AICC decided to appoint an audit group to examine the books of the BPCC and take over the remaining funds that it had. The group it appointed to audit the BPCC books was the Batliboi and Co. group, whose only credit was, according to Sarat Bose, having their audit of the Bengal immunity null and void by the Calcutta High Court. Recognising the measure for what it was – an attempt to cripple the BPCC, the BPCC secretary, Ashrafuddin Ahmad Chowdhury, decided to transfer the funds it had at its disposal to the private accounts of Subhas Bose to prevent the AICC from taking over the funds that the BPCC had at its disposal. According to Bidyut Chakrabarty, “As much as Rs. 10,000 was transferred to Subhas Bose out of the BPCC account `in view of the critical situation in the country.’’ pp. 140-141, [21].
There was an onslaught on the Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee by the All India Congress Committee as a result. On 13 January, 1940, Subhas Chandra Bose has written, “How else can you explain the determined and ruthless attempt that is being made to exclude Bengal, real Bengal, from the Ramgarh Congress? The Rightist plan has to be put through at Ramgarh and Bengal with her contingent of 544 delegates may prove inconvenient to the Congress High Command. Therefore Bengal has to be eliminated by hook or by crook. But this is not so easy. You can exclude Bengal from the Ramgarh Congress, but you cannot exclude her from the public life of India’’ p. 70, [3]. On 17 February, 1940, Subhas Chandra Bose has written, “I was removed from the Presidentship of the B.P.C.C. by a fiat of the Working Committee. The B.P.C.C. did not take this lying down and a long controversy ensued. During this controversy it became clear that a solid majority in the B.P.C.C. would adhere to me despite the frowns of the High Command…..There was another source of anxiety for the Rightists. They wanted to have an easy time at the next Congress at Ramgarh in Bihar and were eager to avoid the uncertain atmosphere which had prevailed at the Tripuri Congress in March 1939. It was clear to them that Bengal would send a strong contingent of Leftist delegates to the Ramgarh Congress – perhaps 450 in number. This had to be frustrated at any cost. … Successive steps have been taken by the Working Committee to curb and humiliate the B.P.C.C. but to no avail. On a flimsy ground, a partisan Election Tribunal was foisted on the Bengal P.C.C. The rules for the Tribunal framed by the B.P.C.C. came in for special attention and interference at the hands of the Working Committee, unlike what happened in the case of other provinces. It was then discovered by the High Command that these devices would not have to reduce our majority in the new P.C.C. Then the Working Committee adopted the drastic and desperate step of virtually superseding the B.P.C.C. by handing over to a partisan ad hoc Committee the entire responsibility of running the election of delegates for the Ramgarh session of the Congress to be held in March, 1940….As an interesting interlude, an auditor was sent by the Working Committee to examine the accounts of the B.P.C.C. But his Herculean efforts ended in smoke. The Working Committee had been misinformed by its agents in Bengal who had reported that the All-India Forward Bloc was being financed by the funds of the B.P.C.C. and of the Bengal Parliamentary Party’’ pp. 77-78, [3].
Anushilan Samiti revolutionaries led by Jogesh Chandra Chatterji finally broke ranks with the Congress Socialist Party, and formed their own party, the Revolutionary Socialist Party of India [RSPI] on the issue of Gandh-Bose feud pertaining to compromise with the British. Buddhadeb Bhattacharyya has written: “Bose organized an Anti-Compromise Conference at Ramgarh (Bihar) where the AICC met in March 1940. Bose, FB, Kisan Sabha, the Labour Party, the Anushilan group within the CSP organized this conference. The conference demanded that there be no compromise with the British on the issues of support for the war effort and complete independence….The resolution adopted by the All India Congress Committee in its Ramgarh session threatened to hold civil disobedience, but did not lay down any war-policy or a line of action. The Congress Socialist Party issued a statement lending support to the Working Committee ‘in the belief and hope that the call for mass civil disobedience would soon turn into direct action itself.’ In the Working Committee resolution for Ramgarh the Congress socialists saw ‘a turning point in history’ ….Anushilan Marxists within the CSP ‘could not tolerate this subservience to Gandhi.’ They severed all organizational relationship with the CSP. Chatterji said, the only ‘alternative before us was to form a new party of our own based on the ideas of Karl Marx and Lenin…’ The new party was named as Revolutionary Socialist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)’’ p. 47, [2].
Yet, the pro-AICC group of BPCC went nowhere in its opposition against the Bengal Congress faction led by Subhas Chandra Bose, so much so that Dr. Syamaprasad Mookerjee has noted in his diary (on 20 October, 1944) that in the elections to the Calcutta Corporation in March 1940, “The official Congressmen found themselves unprepared to fight against Subhas.’’ pp. 31-32, [17]. Dr. Mookerjee has described Bose as one whom “Gandhi’s followers in Bengal feared to challenge’’ p. 34, [17]. Also, interestingly, the primary membership of Bengal Congress plummeted in 1940-41 to half of what it was in 1939-40 p. 8, [28]. Its possible that the rank and file withdrew from the official (Gandhi) wing of Bengal Congress, or large number of followers of Bose were expelled.
On 2-2-1941, the leader of the pro-AICC group of Bengal Congress, Kiran Shankar Roy, wrote to Dr. Rajendra Prasad of the AICC Working Committee, “As it is, the position of the Congress in Bengal has been shaken to its foundation by the revolt of Sree Subhas Bose and Sree Sarat Chandra Bose. Against great odds we have succeeded in keeping alive some sort of Congress organization in this province. As you know we have to fight against the provincialism of the Bose brothers on the one hand and communalism of the Hindu Mahasabha on the other. By great efforts, thanks to the support we received from the Working committee and specially from Maulana Azad and also to some extent because of the blunders of the Bose brothers we are now making fair progress and the public opinion is gradually veering round the Congress…The position here is not like the position in the U.P., Bihar, Bombay or Madras. There the Congress is powerful enough to come back to power whenever necessary. In Bengal unfortunately the Congress is fighting at present for its very existence.’’ p. 5, [30]. So, the pro-AICC wing of Bengal Congress barely existed, despite the Gandhian crutch at their disposal. Unbeknownst to Kiran Shankar Roy, Bose had by then moved on beyond the political squabbles of Congress leadership and beyond British surveillance. Two weeks before Roy wrote this letter, Bose had set forth towards yet another glorious chapter in the resistance movement. He was on his way towards Germany; but, not before, he could demonstrate his control over the Bengal Congress despite the onslaught of the Gandhian behemoth.
What is remarkable is that Bose could establish this level of domination in the BPCC in a very short time and with limited financial backing. Between 1921 and 1939, he was free for about 9 years, and functioned as an independent leader only in 5 of those years.
Lastly, not only BPCC, but the Congress Committees of all provinces that had supported Bose in the 1939 Presidential elections were targeted by the A.I.C.C. Between 10 and 24 December, 1940, Bose wrote “The B.P.C.C. is not the only organization which has suffered at the hands of the High Command. Other Provincial Congress Committees like those of Delhi, Kerala, etc. have also suffered’’ p. 148, [3], and “The Maulana [Azad] perhaps thinks that his word is law, no matter what the Congress Constitution or Constitutional law may say. That is why in his ignorance of law and procedure, he mustered sufficient impudence to order the cancellation of the annual meeting of the Bengal Congress Parliamentary Party which had been duly convened by its General Secretary. And that is why he exhibited similar impudence when he ordered the Punjab Congress Parliamentary Party to elect a particular individual as Leader. Unfortunately for the Maulana that Party elected Sardar Sampuran Singh as leader, despite his mandate, but ever since Sardarji’s election as leader, the Maulana has been after him. The Grand Moghul has now ordered the expulsion of Sardar Sampuran Singh from the Congress Party and it remains to be seen whether that Party will sacrifice its Leader or stand by him as it has done in Bengal. Whatever happens, there is no doubt that by forcing out of the Congress Master Tara Singh and Sardar Sampuran Singh, the outstanding leaders of the Sikh Community, the Congress High command is virtually threatening to drive the Sikhs out of the Congress. One can only hope that the Sikhs will not meekly submit to this authoritarianism, because the Congress is a national institution and not the property of any individual or group’’ p. 151, [3]. Nationwide, primary membership of Congress fell by more than 50% in 1940-41, as compared to 1939-40 p. 8, [28].
Section B: Support from the intelligentsia
Political opponents like Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, who was an intellectual in his own right, would seek Bose’s and his brother’s release when the British incarcerated them. In Gordon’s words, “ He [Syama Prasad Mookerjee] was also a family friend of the Boses…He would fight to get them out of prison and press the government with questions about their health when they were in prison’’ p. 268, [5]. On 20 October, 1944, Dr. Mookerjee has written in his diary, “We, specially I, had no personal grudge against Subhas. Indeed I had for him admiration and affection, and genuinely believed that there was no other person who could come near him in the political field of India, specially Bengal. …Few thought he could have established contact so successfully as to be able to go away to Germany. When he started talking from the enemy radio, people were surprised beyond measure. …In any case his name is today associated with unique romantic adventure – a man, a patriot who so hated foreign rule and so eager to see his country free, that he risked all, and completely identified himself with the enemy. Whether his methods will lead to any success or not, it is extremely doubtful. Today it must be admitted that taking him as he is, he is one of the foremost Indians of his time who regarded no means or method as bad if he felt he could thereby attain power to wrest the freedom of his country. If England wins – as she is likely to – and continues to hold her sway over India, it is doubtful if he will ever be permitted to return to India. A national hero in exile to serve his country’s cause – that is how he appeals to many of his countrymen who may not agree with him always’’ pp. 35-36, [17].
In 1938-1939, Bose contested the Congress Presidency, in opposition to Gandhi and the Congress Working Committee, comprising Nehru, Patel, Rajendra Prasad, Rajagopalachari, etc. Bengal intelligentsia came out in his support. Ashoke Bose has written, “On the 7th November, [1938] Sir Prafulla Chandra Roy, the doyen of the Indian scientists, in a statement published in the Ananda Bazar Patrika of Calcutta on the day following, declared: “Having thought over the matter deeply and after considering the current national and international political situation, I have come to the conclusion that Subhas Chandra Bose is the fittest person for the presidentship of the Congress at the present time. I earnestly appeal to Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress High Command to seriously consider the advisability of letting Subhas Chandra continue as President for another year.” One other fact which is not widely known is about the very important role played by Dr. Meghnad Saha in this connection. Dr. Saha approached Poet Rabindranath with the request to write to Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru urging uncle’s re-election, Professor Saha who had been nominated a member of the National Planning Committee set up by the Congress in October felt very strongly that uncle’s election was imperative if planning were to be made a reality. He saw the Poet several times in Santiniketan to impress this on the latter. The Poet who had himself been giving serious thought to the matter thereupon deputed one of his Secretaries, Mr. Sudha Kanta Roy Choudhury, in December with a letter to Mahatma Gandhi at Wardah requesting him to favorably consider uncle’s re-election in the context of the current political situation in the country. At the same time, the Poet wrote to Pandit Nehru on the same lines and had personal discussions with the latter on the subject during his visit to Santiniketan shortly thereafter. Mahatma Gandhi in a letter to Pandit Nehru confirmed receipt of the Poet’s letter delivered to him by Mr. Roy Choudhury and the fact of having sent his reply thereto and also having advised Pandit Nehru to communicate his own views to the Poet on the subject’’ pp. 164-165, [15]. On 19/1/39, Rabindranath Thakur wrote to Bose, “I have been requested to publicly support your election as the next Congress President. I wish to keep you informed of my standpoint in this regard. You probably know that I have already written to Mahatmaji and Jawaharlal giving expression to my interest in the matter…..The second point, I have come to you to take charge of Bengal’s destiny….Bengal today is weak. I desire that a worthy person be given full charge of guiding the province of Bengal and assemble all Bengalis around him. Fortified by that unity Bengal will once again be able to prove her excellence. This is the main purpose underlying my resolve to honor you in the theatre. This will that may take shape is deeper and purér than what can be achieved through Congress. I saw this during the Bengal partition movement- the manner in which Bengal then expressed her will in full vigour has never been seen in India’s history. That realisation must be roused once again and in this effort I shall rely on you.” pp. 238-239, [11]. Rabindranath Tagore arranged a public reception for Bose at Amra Kunja in Santiniketan on 21 January, 1939, in which he said: “What we have to say today our seers have said a thousand years ago. The words of welcome you heard here today, they said the same words so long ago in welcoming those for whom the world waits. Those words will never be out-dated. The welcome through which you have travelled, the seat of honour our countrymen have offered you, the meaning of that seat of honour will be found in their sacred message….In my mind I have accepted you as the leader of the nation. I have decided to give expression to this message of mine publicly. You have been established as the leader of Bengali nation. I do not know about the rest of the country. I can not impose my will there. I am a Bengali, I know Bengal. Bengal’s need is immense. Therefore, if I invite you for this purpose you have to respond” pp. 240-241, [11].
After Subhas Chandra Bose’s resignation from Congress, Bengal intelligentsia continued to support him and the Forward Bloc Party he formed. Rabindranath Tagore sent him the following note on his resignation: “The dignity and forbearance which you have shown in the midst of a most aggravating situation has won my admiration and confidence in your leadership. The same perfect decorum has still to be maintained by Bengal for the sake of her own self-respect and thereby to help to turn your apparent defeat into a permanent victory’’ p. 109, [11]. Subsequently, in December, 1939, after Bose was disqualified from holding Congress office for three years, Tagore asked Gandhi to lift the ban on Bose and cordially invite his cooperation in supreme interest of national unity. Gandhi declined his advice throughout. On January 15, 1940, Gandhi wrote to C. F. Andrews, “If you think it proper tell Gurudev that I have never ceased to think of his wire and anxiety about Bengal. I feel like Subhas is behaving like a spoilt child of the family. The only way to make up with him is to open his eyes. And then his politics show sharp differences. They seem to be unbridgeable. I am quite clear the matter is too complicated for Gurudev to handle. Let him trust that no one in the Committee has anything personal against Subhas. For me, he is my son” p. 403, [5], pp. 226-227, [18].
Bengal intelligentsia supported Bose notwithstanding the fact that at times he had been less than deferential to its doyens – in fact, the very same individuals who were at the receiving end came out in his support when he needed them the most. Let us for example consider his interactions with Prafulla Chandra Ray. In 1922-23 Dr. Ray had organized a committee for providing relief to the victims of a flood that devastated North Bengal. In Indian Struggle, Subhas Chandra Bose had written about this natural calamity and P. C. Ray’s exemplary role in it, as: “Towards the end of September, 1922, four large districts of Bengal were devastated in a flood, which destroyed crops, washed away houses and killed people and cattle. The whole countryside was a vast expanse of water. The Congress organizations throughout the province promptly participated in relief actions. Thanks to the efforts of Sir P. C. Roy, the famous chemist and the President of the Relief Committee and to the generosity of the public, a fund of more than 400,000 rupees was raised, besides large contributions in cloth, foodstuffs and fodder (for the cattle). On this occasion, the Government of Bengal contributed a sum of 20000 rupees and in justifying the niggardliness of the Government, the Maharaja of Burdwan, a member of the Governor’s Executive Council, stated that the Government was not a charitable institution. The relief operations conducted by the public, without any aid from the Government were so successful that they added greatly to the prestige of the Congress, whose members were largely responsible for them. In fact, we had the good fortune of being complimented on our work by the Governor of Bengal, Lord Lytton, personally when he inspected the flooded areas. Since then, the Congress has always taken a leading part in organizing relief operations on the occasion of floods and famines’’ pp. 90-91, [8]. On 4 August, 1930, during another flood, the Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee formed a Flood and Famine Relief Committee to organize the relief operation; on 10 August, at a public meeting, Dr. Ray was elected its president. But, Bose gave a statement in Amrita Bazar Patrika on the 1922 Relief Fund that `there was mismanagement of the Relief Fund of 1922 and two out of the three secretaries were in the dark about the way the money was spent’. P. C. Ray had managed the 1922 funds along with Satish Chandra Dasgupta, Niren Duta and Dr. Indranarayan Sengupta (as secretaries) . Bidyut Chakrabarty notes, “ In a long statement in Amrita Bazar Patrika, Roy, who did not wish to defend himself against `Bose’s insinuation’, expressed his inability to preside over a committee when his reliability was questioned’’. Later, he joined the parallel flood relief committee, `Sankat Tran Samity’’, formed by Bose’s then rival in the BPCC. J. M. Sengupta p. 122, [21]. The disagreement between Bose and Dr. PC Ray was probably amicably resolved somewhere in the 1930s during which Bose wrote the Indian Struggle, and the description therein was probably his acknowledgment of his earlier error of judgment. Nontheless, a smaller man than P C Ray would not have risen to the occasion of championing Bose’s case for Congress Presidency owing to personal resentment.
We next consider Subhas Chandra Bose’s prior interactions with Rabindranath Tagore. In 1935, in his book Indian Struggle, in which he had berated Gandhi for his many compromises, Bose described, Tagore as “one of the staunchest supporters of the Mahatma in his subsequent campaigns” p. 65, [8]. By association, this was less than complimentary on Tagore. On 3 August 1934, Bose wrote in Bangla to Rabindranath Tagore, requesting him to write to Bernard Shaw to write a few lines in favor of his upcoming book, The Indian Struggle. He wanted a foreword to his book from some outstanding English writer. He wrote to Tagore: “I shall deem it a great favour if you should write to Mr Bernard Shaw in this regard. But I should not like to make the request, if you feel in any way disinclined or embarrassed to do so. And if you decide to write to him, kindly write in such a way that it may lead to positive results. There is no point in writing just to keep my request. When I was coming to Europe, you had kindly given me a letter of introduction to Mon. Romain Rolland, but that letter of introduction was written as if only to honor my request. I was therefore not able to make proper use of that letter and started correspondence with Mon. Rolland on my own. Mr Bernard Shaw probably knows nothing about me ; so, it will be necessary to write to him in the proper way.” p. 77, [9]. As was his style, he was being blunt and honest; in telling without any sugarcoating that the poet’s earlier letter was of no use. Given a nobel laureate’s stature and the age difference of 36 years between the duo, a lesser man would have taken offense at this transparency.
The indulgence that the Bengal intelligentsia showed Subha Chandra Bose owed to their deep sense of Bengali nationalism and appreciation for the latter’s role as Bengal’s soft power, thanks to his unparalleled ability and integrity.
Nirad C. Chaudhuri [1897-1999] who deeply resented Bose has written in the 1990s about Bose’s glorification by the Bengali intelligentsia until then: “What is most tragic about this episode [Bose’s escape from India in 1941] is its glorification by the Bengali intelligentsia and its exploitation by the surviving relatives for promoting their political interest. Even today there is no admission of its deplorable futility’’ p. 646, [1] .
Section C: Support from the wealthy
A large part of his political funding came from a section of Hindu Bengali landlords. Leonard Gordon has written. “Subhas also had a number of wealthy patrons and these were said to include Sarat’s close friend Debendra Lall Khan of Narajol, Kumar Bishunath Roy, Bimbal Sinha of Paikpara, the Maharaja of Mymensingh, the Goswami family of Serampore, and a few others, all among the wealthy landed class of Bengal, who held nationalist sentiments and were struck with Subhas’ talents, intelligence, and appearance’’ p. 161, [5]. It is remarkable that Gordon does not name any non-mercantile or non-Bengali sponsor though the business in Bengal was controlled by the non-Bengalis. We get one name from Joya Chatterji though “Khaitan had helped Subhas Bose in the past, negotiating on his behalf with different business houses to raise funds for the Congress’’, but Khaitan switched over to the Hindu Mahasabha in 1939, at least in partp. 137, [12].
Given his stature in Bengal, even Bengalis who were highly placed in the British establishment, and were therefore by definition, British collaborators, had financially supported him, in instances of dire necessity, eg, when he went to Europe for medical treatment in 1933. Ashok Bose has written: “Among numerous friends and well-wishers who offered and extended their generous help, the names of Kumar Debendralal Khan of Najarole and Sir Nripendra Nath Sircar deserve special mention. Kumar Debendralal Khan had been a loyal co-worker of uncle in the political field. Sir Nripendra Nath Sircar was, on the other hand, a political opponent or could be regarded as such and was then occupying the post of the Law Member of the Government of India. Nevertheless, he had great affection and personal regard for uncle’’ p. 69, [15].
It is worthwhile to point out that business in Bengal had largely been outside the control of the Hindu Bengalis for several decades before Bose. This has, for example, been documented by renowned chemist and entrepreneur, Prafulla Chandra Ray, who was a contemporary of Bose:
“At Darjeeling, at Kalimpong, in fact on the Sikim and Bhootan frontiers, an extensive export trade in wool, musk, ghee, cardamom etc., as also import trade in salt and piece-goods amounting to several crores, is carried on exclusively by the Marwaris. The Bengalis have allowed themselves to be driven out of their own vantage ground. To what extent this slow, imperceptible and peaceful penetration by the Marwari has affected the rural economy of our country will be made clear by reciting some typical instances. At Karmatar within a stone’s throw of the East Indian Railway Station is the Bazar or the trading mart. Here all the important export and import business is in the hands of the Marwari traders. From Karmatar I once had occasion to go to a place named Karo nearly five miles off ; here also one or two Marwari houses had the monopoly of all the trade ; they were also waxing fat as money-lenders to the poor peasant folks all round.
In Bengal proper also the state of things is much the same. At Talora in North Bengal near Bogra, a Marwari is the biggest exporter of local rice ; he has set up a rice mill; he is in addition a thriving money-lender. At Bardal, on the river Kapotakshi in the southern portion of Khulna, there is a weekly hat or mart where an extensive import and export transaction is carried on ; but the leading firms are all owned by Marwaris. Bishnupur, near Bankura is a seat of Tusser (a kind of course silk) cloth manufacture. Only a few years ago the business was conducted by the Bengalis, but they have now been completely ousted by the pushing and plucky Marwaris. The silk industry of Murshidabad and Maldah is also mainly carried on by advances from the Marwaris and Bhatia merchants, who are practically the biggest exporters of the stuff.
Bengal is an agricultural country. The produce of the land – rice, jute, oil-seeds, pulses – is mainly controlled by the Marwaris….The import trade of Bengal is also to a large extent in the hands of the Marwaris; not only are they the Banians of the importing European houses, but between these and actual consumers there is an “interminable series” of dealers and middlemen who are principally Marwaris’’ pp. 445-446, [13].
Marwaris established complete domination over finances in different regions, in part, by excluding the locals. Dr. Ray sourced the following from a report in The Statesman Newspaper on February 11, 1931: “Bengali merchants were all-powerful in all cases of important trade such as rice, jute, sugar, salt, etc. But from this date Ralli Bros changed their brokers from a Bengali firm to a Marwari firm. That firm is still carrying on the brokerage business in piecegoods for Ralli Bros., under the able guidance of Sir Hariram Goenka. Now naturally a Marwari firm having secured the brokerage business of a very large firm, that firm as a natural corollary brought in Marwari dealers and ever since that date the Marwaris have gradually driven away Bengalis from all classes of trade. It is a well-known fact that today nearly 80 per cent of jute shares are held by the Marwaris’’ p. 464, [13].
“Even before the annexation of Assam by the British the Marwaris had gone up the Brahmaputra to its very sources e.g. Sadiya, and were carrying on a most lucrative trade. More than a century has elapsed since then and we now find the Marwari trading and banking houses spreading over the length and breadth of Assam i.e. the Darang or the Brahmaputra Valley, like a network and even financing European Tea gardens to the exclusion of the Assamese’’ pp. 444-445, [13].
“The Marwari who has spread his tentacles far and wide over Bengal is shrewd enough to realize that once the eyes of the Bengali are opened and directed to business, he (the Marwari) will have to lose his ground and slowly ejected from the coigns of vantage he occupies. On this ground, i.e. from instinct of self-preservation, he will never consent to take in a Bengali young man as an apprentice to his firm. It is sometimes possible for a young man to be apprenticed to a European firm and by and by rise to high posts and even be finally taken as a partner but it is next to impossible for a Bengali to be an apprentice to a Marwari or Bhatia firm. Nor is this all. Scores of instances have come to my notice of young Bengalis starting business on a small scale who have been simply crushed out of their existence. The jealous Marwari competitor begins to undersell him till he is financially ruined. Hence it is, however paradoxical it may appear, the Marwari though nominally a resident of Calcutta, is hostile to the best interests of Bengal. In short, these non-Bengali groups or rather colonies (who aside from their business have no particular roots or attachments to their place of settlement), fattening on vested interests are a positive menace to the economic progress of the Bengali’’ pp. 476-477, [13].
And, from at least 1921, the stronghold of the Marwari businessmen, the Burrabazar District Congress Committee in Calcutta, though a unit of the BPCC used to send its contributions to the AICC rather than to the BPCC. p. 197, [10]. In return, Burrabazar – though a small part of Calcutta – got its own District Congress Committee in the BPCC. Further, in 1939-40, when most of the BPCC defected to Bose after his expulsion from the Congress, the Burrabazar District Congress Committee remained loyal to the official Congress p. 147, [21]. Marwari business magnate G. D. Birla, who operated from Bengal, regularly donated to M. Gandhi – can be seen from the correspondences he reproduced in his book pp. 7-16, 32-34, 88, 98, 101, 118, 170, 201, 226, 263 [34]. In the period between January 1930 and March 1931, G. D. Birla gave between one and five lakh rupees according to the estimate of a high British official p. 72, [35]. Dr. Rajendra Prasad, who was a close associate of both M. Gandhi and G. D. Birla, wrote in the foreword to a book authored by the last that Birla “always stood for us during our struggle for freedom, and helped us, whenever required, by contribution’’ and “Gandhiji in fact never hesitated to draw on their [Birlas] resources when it was necessary to do so, nor did they [Birlas] ever hesitate to put their resources at his disposal’’ [34]. In fact, Birla was ready to fund Gandhi even when other business magnates, eg, from Bombay, withdrew. In the words of B. R. Tomlinson “In February 1936, Bhulabhai Desai had noted how little the Indian business community was prepared to do for the Congress in terms of financing the P.L.A. [Provincial Legislative Assembly] election campaign. Although G. D. Birla was ready to pay his share and use his influence to raise the estimated Rs 500,000 that the Parliamentary Board would need, the most influential of the Bombay capitalists, Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas and Sir Chunilal Mehta, refused to provide any money at all, leaving Desai’s hopes resting on the Ahmedabad industrialists Ambalal Sarabhai and Kasturbhai Lalabhai.” p. 82, [32].
Tomlinson has summarized well, “The main sources of funds open to the ‘right-wing’ [Gandhian] leaders were donations from Indian businessmen negotiated by [Vallabhbhai] Patel, [Bhulabhai] Desai, [Jamnalal] Bajaj and G. D. Birla. There was also the capital and interest on certain special appeal funds and the loans that could be raised on them. Nehru had no independent resources; he was completely dependent on the ‘Gandhians’ for money.’’ pp. 123-124, [32].
Thus, finances were Bose’s heel of Achilles all along because the business in Bengal had moved outside the control of the Hindu Bengali businessmen, to people who identified very little with Hindu Bengalis, and accordingly hardly financed independent Hindu Bengali leaders like him. Nonetheless, he managed through sheer resolve, political will and creativity. Specifically, he received some voluntary financial and the political support from non-Bengali mercantile bloc, but that came from outside Bengal’s influence sphere (Delhi). He also coerced some financial support from non-Bengali mercantile blocs from within Bengal’s political sphere (eg, Tatas in Jamshedpur). And whatever business remained within Bengali control in Bengal did fund Bose, the relation in this case was transactional. B. R. Tomlinson has written, “Bose’s sources of income were smaller, but they were genuinely his own. He could rely on payments for favours shown to Bengali businessmen by the Bengal P.C.C. [BPCC] and the Calcutta Corporation (as long as he controlled these bodies) and on ‘protection money’ from large industrial magnates in Bengal, Bihar, Assam and Orissa, given in return for good labour relations. He also had support from a group of non-Bengali businessmen, headed by the Delhi millowner Shankar Lal, and could use the funds of the Tropical Insurance Company (of which he and his brothers were directors and Shankar Lal Managing Director) to stabilise his finances. From these sources Bose managed to raise Rs 50,000 simply for the expenses of his delegates and canvassers at Tripuri” pp.123-124, [32]. An example of the “protection money’’ Bose received from a large industrial magnate operating in Bihar is as follows. A British Government report states, “In 1938, Subhas Bose was reported to be receiving large sums of money from Tatas in return for a promise not to create trouble among the Company’s labor and there was information that his nominees were to be considered favourably for employment at TISCO’’ p. [12], [33]. Bose’s connections to Shankar Lal, the younger brother of Delhi-based business magnate, Lala Shri Ram, were however ideological and political. Shankar Lal was Bose’s election-in-charge in his Congress Presidential contest in late 1938 to early 1939 p. 516, [6]. Shankar Lal became the General Secretary of the Forward Bloc Party that Bose had formed in early July 1939, p. 391, [5]. In 1940 under Bose’s instructions, Shankar Lal traveled in a Japanese ship from Calcutta to Japan, assuming the name of Hiralal Gupta. Bose’s nephew Dwijen Bose helped Lal obtain the passport. Lal met Rash Behari Bose and Japanese officials there in an effort to learn their plans. Later he was caught by the British and the plan was revealed p. 416, [5].
References:
[1] Nirad C. Chaudhuri, “Thy Hand, Great Anarch!’’
[2] Documents of the Revolutionary Socialist Party – Volume 1, Compiled by Murari Mohan Saha
[3] Subhas Chandra Bose, `The Alternative Leadership, Speeches, Articles, Statements and Letters’, June 1939-1941 Netaji Collected Works, Volume 10, Edited by Sisir K. Bose and Sugata Bose
[4] Post-poll survey: the 2019 verdict is a manifestation of the deepening religious divide in India https://www.thehindu.com/elections/lok-sabha-2019/the-verdict-is-a-manifestation-of-the-deepening-religious-divide-in-india/article27297239.ece
[5] Leonard Gordon, “Brothers against the Raj’’
[6] Jogesh Chandra Chatterji, “In Search of Freedom’’
[7] Saswati Sarkar, Shanmukh, Dikgaj, “A Historical Defense for the Citizenship Amendment Bill- Hindu Bengal’s contribution to India’’,
[8] Subhas Chandra Bose, “The Indian Struggle’’, Netaji Collected Works, Volume 2, Edited by Sisir K. Bose and Sugata Bose
[9] Subhas Chandra Bose, India’s Spokesman Abroad, Netaji Collected Works, Volume 8, Letters, Articles, Speeches and Statements 1933-1937, Edited by Sisir K. Bose and Sugata Bose
[10] Suniti Kumar Ghosh, “The Tragic Partition of Bengal’’
[11] Subhas Chandra Bose, “Congress President Speeches, Articles and Letters, January 1938-May 1939’’, Netaji Collected Works, Volume 9, Edited by Sisir K. Bose and Sugata Bose
[12] Joya Chatterjee, “Bengal Divided’’
[13] Prafulla Chandra Ray, “Life and Experiences of a Bengali Chemist’’, Part I
[14] Indo-Russian Relations : 1917-1947, Select Documents From The Archives of The Russian Federation, Part II, 1929-1947, Edited and Compiled by Purabi Roy, Sobhanlal Datta Gupta, Hari Vasudevan
[15] Asoke Bose, “ My Uncle, Netaji’’
[16] Sabitri Prasanna Chatterjee, “Subhas Chandra O Netaji Subhas Chandra’’
[17] Syamaprasad Mookerjee, “Leaves From a Diary’’
[18] LETTER TO C. F. ANDREWS, Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, http://www.gandhiashramsevagram.org/gandhi-literature/mahatma-gandhi-collected-works-volume-77.pdf
[19] Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vol 9
[20] Ananda Bazaar Patrika, Reference provided by Prasun Moitra
[21] Bidyut Chakrabarty, “Subhas Chandra Bose and Middle Class Radicalism’’
[22] M. R. Jayakar The Story of my Life II, Vol. II, Bombay, 1959
[23] Binod Behari Chowdhury, Sangathak Masterda Surjo Sen, সংঘটক মাস্টারদা সূর্য সেন, Bharoter Swadhinota Sangram, Chattogram Bidroha o Biplabi Mahanayak Surjo Sen, ভারতের স্বাধীনতা সংগ্রাম, চট্টগ্রাম বিদ্রোহ ও বিপ্লবী মহানায়ক সূর্য সেন – Edited by Sharif Shamshir
[24] Ananta Singha- The organization and preparation for Chattogram rebellion, Bharoter Swadhinota Sangram, Chattogram Bidroha o Biplabi Mahanayak Surjo Sen, ভারতের স্বাধীনতা সংগ্রাম, চট্টগ্রাম বিদ্রোহ ও বিপ্লবী মহানায়ক সূর্য সেন – Edited by Sharif Shamshir
[25] Satishchandra Maikap, Swadhinotar Homanal e tirisher dashak: prasanga Masterda-Netaji, স্বাধীনতার হোমানলে এ তিরিশের দশক: প্রসঙ্গ মাস্টারদা–নেতাজি, Bharoter Swadhinota Sangram, Chattogram Bidroha o Biplabi Mahanayak Surjo Sen, ভারতের স্বাধীনতা সংগ্রাম, চট্টগ্রাম বিদ্রোহ ও বিপ্লবী মহানায়ক সূর্য সেন – Edited by Sharif Shamshir
[26] Shanti Ghose, অরুন বহ্নি
[27] Subhas Chandra Bose, “Writings and Speeches, Chalo Delhi, 1943’’, Netaji Collected Works, Volume 12, Edited by Sisir K. Bose and Sugata Bose
[28] Congress membership, National Archives,
Ref-file no, HOME_POLITICAL_I_1941_NA_F-4-7_41 topic: strength of the Indian National Congress Primary Members 1939-41
Identifier PR_000003012044
[29] Ref- file no.4/22/31-political , topic-Measures to cope with terrorist activity. Question of dealing with direct incitement to terrorist crime by public bodies expressing sympathy with assassins. Opinions of local Governments on the possibility of dealing with this mischief by (a) withdrawal of Government grants, (b) the amendment of the law relating to local authorities so as to make resolutions of this kind a ground for suspension of the authority, and (c) amendment of the Criminal Law so as to make penal the commendation of assassins. National Archives Identifier-PR_000005003321
[30] Ref-file no. HOME_POLITICAL_I_1941_NA_F-4-8_41, topic-
Trial of Benoy Bhusan De Roy and Kalipada Mukherji by A Special Tribunal Appointed Under the Bengal Criminal Law amendment Act
Identifier-PR_000003012021
[31] Kalpana Dutta, “Chittagong Armoury Raiders – Reminiscences’’
[32] B. R. Tomlinson, “The Indian National Congress and the Raj ’’, 1929-1942
[33] Ref-file no. HOME_POLITICAL_I_1942_NA_F-146 topic Report of A Strike In the Tata Work at Jamshedpur and Representation Made by the Indian Federation of Labour Registration Regarding the Action Taken by Government Against Several Members of Mr MN Roy’s Radical Democratic Party, National Archives Identifier PR_000003014133
[34] G. D. Birla, “ In the Shadow of the Mahatma: A Personal Memoir’’
[35] C. Markovits, “Indian Business and Nationalist Politics”