In The Indian Struggle, Subhas Chandra Bose had outlined the reasons why he foresaw that communism would never be adopted in India. Firstly, he wrote, communism had no sympathy with nationalism, whereas the freedom movement was a national movement. Lenin’s thesis on the relation between nationalism and communism had been sidestepped after the failure of the Chinese revolution. The second reason was Russia’s disinterest in sparking a world revolution, with its focus on internal affairs and a decline in its prestige due to its pacts with capitalist countries and the joining of the League of Nations. Thirdly, the anti-religious and atheistic character of Russian communism would not fit into the Indian environment, where ‘a national awakening is in most cases heralded by a religious reformation and a cultural renaissance’. The fifth reason, he felt, was that although communist theory had made ‘certain remarkable contributions in the domain of economics’ such as state planning, it was weak in other aspects Bose. Later, however, he retracted his argument about the conflict between nationalism and communism at an interview with Rajani Palme Dutt in January 1938, where he said:
I should point out also that Communism, as it appeared to be demonstrated by many of those who were supposed to stand for it in India, seemed to me anti-national, and this impression was further strengthened in view of the hostile attitude which several among them exhibited towards the Indian National Congress. It is clear, however, that the position today has fundamentally altered. I should add that I have always understood and am quite satisfied that Communism, as it has been expressed in the writings of Marx and Lenin and in the official statements of policy of the Communist International, gives full support to the struggle for national independence and recognises this as an integral part of its world outlook.
His later utterances, however, indicate that this statement was more a tactical retreat than a change in belief.
Subhas had urged Jawaharlal to preside over the All-Bengal Students’ Conference in Calcutta, held on 22 September 1928. Like Subhas, Jawaharlal too sang paeans to the youth, and had similar things to say about empowering different disadvantaged groups in the society, but the thrust of his message was very different. His was a message of socialism in contrast to nationalism. ‘I have placed before you the ideals of internationalism and socialism as the only ideals worthy of the fine temper of the youth’, he told them. As far as his attitude to communism was concerned, he said that:
. . . though personally I do not agree with many of the methods of the communists and I am by no means sure to what extent communism can suit the present conditions in India, I do believe communism as an ideal of society. For essentially it is socialism, and socialism I think is the only way if the world is to escape disaster.
Speaking at the same conference, Subhas outlined where he differed with Jawaharlal in the sphere of ideas. He too believed in internationalism, but not in the form which obliterated distinctive characteristics of different nations. The expression of nationalism by Chittaranjan, a humanist, poet, essayist, thinker and a politician fiercely proud about his Bengali heritage rolled into one, was in stark contrast to the critique of nationalism by Tagore. In their quarrel, Subhas was completely on his political mentor’s side. From Mandalay Jail, he had criticized the ‘shallow internationalism in life and literature of Tagore and his school which did not realize the fundamental truth in nationalism’. He would touch upon the topic now and then, but his speeches and writings lacked the lyrical exuberance of his guru. While speaking at the Maharashtra Provincial Conference, Subhas responded to the charge of nationalism being ‘narrow, selfish and aggressive’ from the perspective of ‘cultural internationalism’: his response was more in the nature of a political project that he envisioned rather than at an abstract, conceptual level. He pointed out that Indian nationalism, far from being any of these, was ‘inspired by the highest ideals of the human race, viz., Satyam (the true), Shivam (the good), Sundaram (the beautiful)’:
Nationalism in India has instilled into us truthfulness, honesty, manliness and the spirit of service and sacrifice. What is more, it has roused the creative faculties which for centuries had been lying dormant in our people and, as a result, we are experiences a renaissance in the domain of Indian art.
In fact, he would return to the philosophical aspects of the independence movement repeatedly in his speeches around this time. Organizing the movement was the immediate problem, but equally important was to impart a character to it. Subhas was not yet advocating a particular form of political and social organization for independent India. Rather, he focused on defining the components which would make up the whole, and wished to lay the ground for post-independence reconstruction. He was preoccupied with questions such as: What was the most desirable political system for India’s development? What were the roles of the students and the youth? How should India balance nationalism and internationalism?
The ideal of the youth was to break the shackles of all oppression, injustices, and malpractices to create a new nation, he told a youth conference at Pabna. Creation of a new order had to follow the destruction of status quo. Subhas invoked Krishna’s stern castigation of Arjun in the battlefield of Kurukshetra— ‘Klaivyam masma gamah Partha’— as the message which contained the essence of immortal youth. The youth movement, just like the national movement, was not merely a political movement. It had to weave together varying strands of art, literature, philosophy, science, commerce, and sports for the development of national life.
