Tripuri Congress redux - 3

Of course democracy was ultimately stifled in Congress due to Gandhi and his followers, but Bose was not involved with that. He did not sign the death warrant of democracy in Congress. It can of course be asked that why did Bose allow Pant resolution to be raised knowing that it was unconstitutional and undemocratic? He explained to Gandhi in a letter written on 25 March 1939 that he could have vetoed this proposal but did not do so because his democratic outlook had the priority over the issue of constitutional validity. He also wrote, “I felt it would be unmanly to take shelter behind the constitution at a time when I felt that there was the possibility of an adverse vote.”

This is where Bose committed a blunder since it made easy for Gandhi to write on 30 March 1939, “Since you think that Pant’s resolution was out of order and the clause relating to the Working Committee is clearly unconstitutional, and were ultra vires your course is absolutely clear. Your choice of the committee should be unfettered.” Even if this might appear to be transparent, so certain questions are bound to arise. Firstly, why didn’t Gandhi clearly comment on the Pant resolution? Gandhi asked Bose to form the cabinet of his choice only because Bose thought that the proposal was unconstitutional. In other words, Gandhi himself did not think that the proposal was unconstitutional. He told Bose on 10 April 1939, “The framers meant well. But it does not answer the present difficulty. You should therefore give it your own interpretation.” By talking about the good intention of the proposal Gandhi supported it indirectly, but never spelt it out clearly. It would have been manly if he had stated his opinion clearly, but instead he created a situation where there was no other way for Bose than to resign.

It is true that Bose sought Gandhi’s intervention repeatedly at that time, but that was not from his weakness for him. He hoped against hope that Gandhi will resolve the internal conflict of Congress in the larger interest of the country. He wrote to Gandhi on 31 March 1939, “We are not vindictive and we do not nurse grievances. There is no doubt that today there is a wide gulf between the two main blocs or parties in the Congress. But the gulf can be bridged – that by you.” In another letter he wrote, “I am temperamentally not a vindictive person and I do not nurse grievances. I have the mentality of a boxer that is to shake hands smilingly when the boxing bout is over and take the revolt in a sporting spirit.” Bose could never imagine that his sportsman spirit will have no impact on Gandhi’s mind. Gandhi was so disturbed by him that he had already thought up his course of action. Usually action agenda in politics is determined according to time and expediency, but in this case it was determined much earlier in what can be called fait accompli. Gandhi can be asked if he had started considering himself as weak. His innovativeness shows through the methods he adopted to remove Bose from his position. It is unfortunate that instead of applying such political methods against the British Raj, he used it against a great son of India.

Bose was a staunch anti-imperialist, but due to irony of fate he became a victim to both imperialist oppression and subversive internal politics of Congress. He wanted a compromise with Gandhi in the interest of the larger interest of the country. The British Raj always wanted to split India by its divide and rule policy. Bose wanted to rise above personal grievances realizing that the internal conflict will only strengthen the British policy of divide and rule. But Gandhi was immovable from his position and thus all efforts of Bose failed. It must be remembered that despite all this Bose kept the path of cooperation with Gandhi open. He also joined the special session of Congress on Gandhi’s invitation at Wardha after being expelled from Congress. Bose-baiters might see an effort of appeasement in this but if Bose truly had any weakness for Gandhi he wouldn’t have searched for an alternative to the Gandhian way.

Probably he had hoped that he would be able to convince Gandhi to accept the relevance and importance of his plan of action. When he realized that he was only chasing a mirage, he decided to leave the country. Whether the country gained or suffered a loss will be judged by history but the fact remains that Bose was the only leader who showed the courage of proposing an alternative to the Gandhian way. The main source of his conflict with Gandhi can be found in his unique nature.

Paradoxical ethics

Many people have charged Gandhi for adopting unethical means to get rid of Bose. According to this writer, the whole issue needs to be judged from a different point of view. As Krishna advised the Pandavas to take recourse to action which apparently was Adharma to be able to ensure victory of truth, Gandhi wanted to achieve a larger ethical framework by going through apparently unethical means. This can be called paradox of morality. Concepts of right and wrong etc are never absolute. These are relative and can vary according to the time, place, persons involved etc. Gandhi’s stubborn attitude towards Bose actually proves the flexibility of his mental makeup because it clearly shows that he did not cling on to any particular idea about morality.

Many people have opined that the rigid attitude shown initially by Gandhi towards the issue of violence and non-violence was much relaxed during his later years. According to this author, it was on the issue of morality that Gandhi showed the most flexibility. He surpassed even Machiavelli in political maneuvering. Yet many intellectuals are still skeptical about this. Actually they have accepted absolutely accepted whatever Gandhi said, that is, they think that whatever he propounded is equally applicable in all cases. However, Gandhi himself changed his position on many occasions without being bound by the fetters of so-called traditional morality. Those who want to show Gandhi as an idealist by ignoring his practical nature, forget that he himself had said, “I am a practical idealist.” The practical side of his character was exposed during his campaign to oust Bose. There is a need to remove the illusion of the learned scholars on this issue.

Let there be no illusion

A few years back a learned argument through letters between two historians was published in the pages of Jayasree. Shri Sandip Das and Shri Girish Chandra Maiti expressed their opposing views about the role of Gandhi in the Tripuri Congress. Girish Chandra provided the evidence that Gandhi was aware of the Pant proposal well beforehand and it is clear from his statement given on 5 May 1939 at the Gandhi Seva Sangh in Vrindavan that he was told about this proposal while he was fasting at Rajkot. Gandhi said that he himself would have gone beyond, that is, he would have introduced a no-confidence motion against Bose. He dared his followers in Wardha to introduce a no-confidence motion. Sandip Das, ignoring this vital piece of evidence, said that he learnt from many revolutionaries that Gandhi was not dishonest in his behaviour.

It has already been said in this essay that it was not possible for the revolutionaries to know the real intention of Gandhi at that time. Secondly, the above evidence emanates directly from Gandhi. Therefore it is pointless (unless the evidence is disproved) to say that Gandhi was not aware of the Pant proposal. If there is any doubt regarding the veracity of Gandhi’s statement, that should be stated clearly. Historians have to depend on two kinds of sources – primary and secondary. Although oral history has gained currency at present, still rigorous research should place more importance on primary evidence rather than hearsay. Gandhi’s statement is without doubt a primary evidence. It would be contrary to convention of historical research to reject that based on hearsay. If any documentary evidence to the contrary cannot be presented then the reliability of the above mentioned source is definitely established beyond doubt.

A critic definitely has the right to interpret and analyse events, but it is desirable to be rational rather than be driven by emotions. Thirdly, Shri Das has cited the following quote from Gandhi, “No doubt I like politics too. But it is a different kind. There is no place for scheming in it.” There is no doubt about the veracity of the quote, it should be interpreted with an open mind. To say that there was no place of scheming in Gandhi’s political activities or in his thoughts is to belittle him. Although the appeared as a saint actually he was a shrewd politician. Otherwise he couldn’t have bothered the British Raj to that extent. The saintly prophetic image covered his true identity of a political leader of unlimited intelligence. Nothing is unmixed right or wrong in politics, but depends on the situation. What Gandhi meant by the above quote is that he cannot accept scheming for fulfilling petty ambitions of individuals. That does not mean he was indifferent to use of political maneuvering for achieving political goals. The tendency to paint Gandhi as a superhuman or a saint has stemmed from the traditional concepts of morality. Any assessment of Gandhi will be one-sided, nebulous and irrational if this illusion of traditionalism is not transcended.

The purpose of this essay is not to belittle Gandhi. The reader will notice that nowhere has Gandhi’s campaign to oust Bose been termed as immoral or unethical. At the same time it is not possible to know the truth by imposing divinity on Gandhi. It is not possible to stay above conflicts after entering the world of politics. It is also a fact that once inside the political whirlpool, even great men show self-contradicting attributes. It is not desirable to ignore such attributes due to blind devotion. The centre space of politics is focused towards human beings and not divinities. Therefore any search for political values should be focused on human nature and not divine ones. The spiritual politics that Gandhi refers to is primarily morality-based politics but such morality is dynamic and ever changing. It is not bound by any ideological limits. It is the humble submission of this writer that many problems will be solved more easily if neither Gandhi nor Bose is treated as superhuman or divine beings, but as humans of flesh and blood.