Tripuri Congress redux - 2

Gandhi as an avatar of Machiavelli

The name of the famous Italian intellectual Nicolo Machiavelli has been associated with all sorts of unethical means for achieving political goals. Machiavelli laid more importance on the goal than on the means and advocated the dissociation of religion from politics. In the second sense Gandhi was not Machiavellian since he advocated just the opposite, which is, associating religion with politics. In the first sense he did follow the Machiavellian way to remove Bose out of his way. Bose was ready to follow any path for the attainment of independence for India, but never adopted Machiavellian ways in case of internal politics of Congress. This is where he is different from Gandhi.

Although Bose understood perfectly the nature of the British Raj, he dangerously failed to understand Gandhi. It has been rightly said by Amalesh Tripathi that Bose did not realize that his real conflict was with Gandhi himself. In his letter to Jawaharlal Nehru on 28 August 1939 he complained, "If the old guard wanted to fight why did they not do so in a straightforward manner? Why did they bring Mahatma Gandhi between us?" On 4 April 1939 Sarat Chandra Bose, Bose\\'s elder brother had written to Nehru along the same lines, "I believe I shall not be unjust if I say that the members of the Working Committee would have shown greater courage and straightforwardness if they had decided to act on their own and not used Mahatmaji as their cover. Their plain duty was to keep Mahatmaji above all controversy as he should be in our political life." Both put on the dock Gandhi\\'s followers like Sardar Patel, Bhulabhai Desai etc.

Sarat Bose expressed his displeasure in a sharp letter written to Gandhi on 21 March 1939. He wrote, "Tripuri was an eye opener to me. The exhibition of truth and non-violence of your chosen disciples stunk in my nostrils. The election of Subhas was not a defeat for yourself, but of the high command of which Sardar Patel is the shining light." In fact the conservative leadership comprising of Patel, Desai and others kicked up a vilification campaign against Bose at Tripuri after calling his illness a \\'political fever.\\' Bose wrote about this painful experience in his essay "My strange Illness." Patel was the focus of his wrath in his letter of 28 March too. Bose wrote to Nehru, "Was there nothing wrong in Sardar Patel making full use of the name and authority of Mahatma Gandhi for electioneering purposes?" He failed to understand that his true opponent was Gandhi who was actually controlling the unfolding of events from behind the curtain. In that sense Patel and others did not take recourse to any trickery and confronted Bose openly. The allegations that Bose brought agains them should have been raised against Gandhi. Why was he fighting a proxy war instead of playing a frontal role?

Gandhi wrote to his secretary Mahadev Desai on 29 January 1939 that he might not attend the Tripuri session if Bose wins the election. On 3 February 1939 he wrote to Nehru that he will serve the country although he will not attend the Congress session. He left for Rajkot on 27 February and the infamous Pant resolution was proposed on 8 March 1939: a classic example of pure Machiavellian politics.

Gandhi knew well that the Pant resolution will be proposed in his absence, but then he will be able to deny any responsibility for the proposal. At a time when Bose was repeatedly asking for Gandhi\\'s opinion and seeking his intervention, all he could say was that he did not want to impose his choice on Bose. He wrote on 10 April 1939 that the more he read the Pant proposal the worse he feels, but he can\\'t explain. Today many intellectuals who have high regard for both Gandhi and Bose can\\'t see any dishonesty in Gandhi\\'s action.

They however cannot be blamed since Bose himself failed to see any dishonesty in Gandhi. He even rebuked Narendra Narayan Chakrabarty when he suggested so. The question that now arises is whether Gandhi would have felt it necessary to carry on with his programme of fast at Rajkot if Bose was defeated. Secondly, if Gandhi was unhappy with the Pant proposal why did he not ask for an amendment? Thirdly, while advising Bose to constitute his cabinet of similar thinking leaders, was Gandhi not aware of its impossibility at that point of time? It would be over simplification to say that Gandhi was revengeful, but the fact remains that such a crafty politician has rarely been seen in this country.

That was one area where Bose could not equal Gandhi as he was a staunch opponent of the trend of politicking in Congress. The British Raj however knew Gandhi as a clever Machiavellian politician. Although Bose opposed Gandhi\\'s politics, he had high regards for him. Perhaps that is why he could not comprehend the true nature of Gandhi\\'s politics. Now the question is, did Gandhi play this game of war by proxy to maintain his image? If that was the case, it was a terrible miscalculation because the Tripuri events pained even many of his followers. In general his image suffered a blow. His true intentions were clear as daylight.

When he described Bose\\'s victory as his own defeat, there was no deception. Rather such straight talk is laudable. Had be provided the leadership to the conservative politicians in opposing Bose then surely his image would have gained a new high and he would have been praised. But instead he chose a path which was murky. He gained a victory which was but temporary. It was impossible for Gandhi to suppress Bose. The evidence of that has been written in golden letters in future history.

Did Bose have a weakness for Gandhi?

Bose started making efforts to bring an end to his conflict with Gandhi after the Tripuri session. Manabendra Nath Roy rightly advised him in a letter written on 1 February 1939 to accept Gandhi’s challenge and constitute a cabinet of his liking. However Bose did not accept the advice. This was one reason of losing the support of the leftists. Revolutionary of the Juagantar group told the writer that Bose’s seeking of Gandhi’s support, who had meted him such undignified treatment, also led to anger in certain sections of the revolutionary groups. Late Manohar Mukhopadhyay, another revolutionary of the Jugantar group, also told the writer that Bose was hesitant act against Gandhi.

Perhaps there is some truth in such opinion, but if Bose showed any soft attitude in certain situations towards Gandhi it was due to strategic reasons, not due to any weakness. The former Prime Morarji Desai has made a laughable statement in his autobiography that Gandhi accepted Bose as the President in the Haripura Congress only after Bose promised that he will go by Gandhi’s directions. Those familiar with Bose’s character know well that he was not one to submit to Gandhi in such a way, but might have just restrained his extreme revolutionary identity for the time being.