Who Brought Freedom, Gandhi or Netaji?
Recent research shows that Netaji Subhas Bose and the INA were responsible for the British leaving in 1947 in a hurry. The Fall of Singapore to the Japanese in 1942 rather than Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India Movement was the beginning of the end of the British Empire. Dr. N.S. Rajaram finds out more.
There is a story that the late Mao Zedong, when asked his opinion about Napoleon as a leader replied: “How can I say? He is too recent.” Napoleon’s career ended in the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 and Mao died only in 1976. So what could Mao have meant when he said that Napoleon was too recent? He meant that a certain amount of time has to pass before we can view historical events and personalities objectively. Our reading of recent events is bound to be colored by our closeness to them. This truth was brought home to me a few years ago when I was visiting Penang in Malaysia as the guest of some veterans of World War II, but first some background.
In India, people are brought up on the story that Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru—with others receive grudging notice if at all—led a heroic struggle freeing India from the British rule. Miraculously, the whole thing was accomplished without resort to violence, by the application of a mighty spiritual force called ahimsa (non-violence) unleashed by the Mahatma. If true it is a tribute not only to the power of Gandhi’s (and Nehru’s) spiritual vision, but also a lasting tribute to the spiritual sensitivity of the British rulers. Like the tiger in the children’s poem (govina kathe in Kannada), which killed itself rather than eat the calf, the British gave up the empire and left.
This received a jolt during a recent trip to Southeast Asia where I had occasion to visit some people who had served with my late father during World War II. Their account of their experience in the period from 1942 to 45 casts serious doubt on this beautiful story. Here we are faced with a dilemma— the conflict between what we read in history books and what the people actually saw on the ground. The usual story is that after some initial reverses the British defeated the Japanese. But those who actually served there, now in their late 70s and 80s, remember it quite differently. Uniformly, this is what I heard everywhere and from everyone.
“When the Japanese attacked, the British ran away. They were very clever. They had a wonderful life with bungalows and butlers and cooks and all that, but as soon as the Japanese came, they ran away. And once they got back to India, they sent Gurkhas, Sikhs, Marathas and other Indians to fight the Japanese. They knew it was too dangerous for them. That is how we got independence in Malaya.” Malaysia was then called Malaya and Singapore was its capital.
Not one of them remembered the British fighting the Japanese— only running away. They remember also Indian soldiers coming and fighting; some of them stayed back in countries like Malaya (as it was then called), Singapore and other places. One man, who as a youngster had been my father’s orderly during the War, invited me to his home in Penang for the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Singapore. What he told me took my breath away.
“That is why the British left India also. When the war was over, all the Indian soldiers who had defeated the Japanese returned to India, and the British got scared. They didn’t want to fight the Indians who had just fought and defeated the Japanese. So they ran away from India also.”
I tried to explain to him that Gandhiji’s nonviolence was the force that convinced the British to leave. But this man, not an intellectual but a battle-hardened soldier with sound commonsense would have none of it. “If it was non-violence, why didn’t they leave earlier? Gandhi and the nonviolence were there before the war also. Did they have to wait for the Japanese to come and teach them non-violence?”
One may smile at this simple way of looking at history, but as will be seen later, this revisionist view has good support. The ‘authorized’ version with Gandhi and Nehru as central figures continues to be taught in India because it benefits those in power. It shows the British also in favorable light as a magnanimous and even spiritual people, which of course they don’t mind. But history shows a different picture.
The year 1942 was momentous. It was the year in which the British Empire suffered a massive defeat at the hands of an Asiatic people (Japanese); it was also the year in which Mahatma Gandhi launched his famous but ill-fated Quit India Movement. Subhas Bose also entered the picture at about that time, first in Germany and later in Southeast Asia. But first it is necessary to get an idea of the momentous impact of the Japanese victory on the psyche of the colonized people as well as on that of the colonizing powers. What triggered it was the Fall of Singapore.
The fall of Singapore in 1942 heralded the end of the British Empire and of European colonialism in general. Indian independence came in 1947, but what really ended the Empire was the fall of Singapore. This has received scant notice by Indian historians who remain trapped in Eurocentric thinking, but there is ample evidence supporting it. Among Indian historians, only R.C. Majumdar has seen its significance: the fall of Singapore broke the spirit of Imperial Britain. As we shall soon see British historians have themselves admitted it. Let us look at what really happened to the British in 1942.
When the Japanese attacked Singapore in February 1942, its large and well-equipped British garrison surrendered without a fight. These well-attended ‘pukka sahibs’—used to good living—had little stomach for war. For decades, the ruling authorities had avoided facing the truth that they were not a fighting force. They had deluded themselves with resounding slogans— calling Singapore the ‘Bastion of the Empire,’ ‘Impregnable Fortress,’ ‘Gibraltar of the East’ and such. None of it helped when Singapore fell to a Japanese army less than a third the size of the defending forces.
Yet, so far removed from reality were Singapore’s British residents, that even on the verge of surrender, a gunnery officer was refused permission to mount guns on the golf links for defending the city. He was told that he needed permission from the golf club committee. And the golf club committee would not be meeting for at least a week, so he better hold off!
In the fall of Singapore, its symbolic significance was infinitely greater than the military defeat. It destroyed the myth of European superiority over the Asiatics once and for all. Historian James Leasor wrote in his Singapore, the battle that changed the world:
“Dazed by the incredible superiority of the Japanese, the defenders’ will to win had withered. … The psychological damage was even greater than the military defeat— and this had been grotesque enough. …Under the lowering Singapore sky lit by the funeral pyres of the British Empire … a door closed on centuries of white supremacy … ” Actually the Japanese had planned it that way— to break the sense of superiority exuded by the Europeans, by the British in particular, in their dealings with the Asiatics. Leasor wrote:
“At the start of the campaign, each Japanese soldier had been issued with a pamphlet that set out Japan’s reasons for fighting the British and the Americans. Her [Japan’s] claim was that she would liberate East Asia from white rule and oppression,” for since “We Japanese, as an Eastern people, have ourselves for long been classed alongside the Chinese and the Indians as an inferior race, and treated as such, we must at the very least, here in Asia, beat these Westerners to submission, that they may change their arrogant and ill-mannered attitude.”
The Japanese attack on Singapore accomplished much more: it ended the British Empire to be followed swiftly by the end of European imperialism itself. To return to the fall of Singapore, as with the fall of Hong Kong a few weeks earlier, the only worthwhile resistance had come from the Indian garrisons— the Sikh and the Gurkha regiments. The prestige and the mystique associated with the British Empire were shattered by these ignominious defeats.
And this is how my gracious host in Penang and his friends, men who had seen it at first hand, remember it. As they saw it, the massive defeat destroyed the British morale. It was the specter of the whole nightmare being reenacted in India, with nearly three million Indian soldiers just returned from war, which made the British leave India. “They ran away,” the old soldier kept telling me repeatedly.
I may point out that this is also the view of many Indians who saw action in the war— both in the Indian Army and those who fought in Subhas Bose’s INA. Indian soldiers saw that their British officers were frightened to death of the Japanese, while they themselves were prepared to fight them.
After the War, the British defeat in Singapore was followed by the French defeat in Dien Bien Phu at the hands of Ho Chi Min’s soldiers in Vietnam. This laid the groundwork for the American defeat in all of Vietnam and their inglorious flight from Saigon. No one today talks about the superiority of the ‘White Race’. The first nail in coffin was driven by the Japanese in Malaya in 1942.
It was this changed perception, that the British were just ordinary mortals like the rest that allowed Netaji Subhas Bose to recruit Indians in Southeast Asia into the Indian National Army (Azad Hind Fauz or the INA). Subhas Bose saw that the Indian armed forces were the prop of the Empire— not just in India but everywhere the British went. But Gandhi and Nehru, preoccupied with their utopian dreams of nonviolence failed to realize its significance. When the opportunity arose, Bose seized it to transform the armed forces into a nationalist force, while Gandhi and Nehru started the Quit India Movement which collapsed in a few weeks.
Before we look further, we need to ask: what support do we have for this revisionist view, that Subhas Bose and the INA brought freedom to India? The evidence is ample and impeccable. Several have noted it, but the most distinguished historian to highlight Bose’s contribution was the late R.C. Majumdar, one of modern India’s greatest historians. In his monumental, three-volume History of the Freedom Movement in India (Firma KLM, Calcutta) Majumdar provided the following extraordinary evidence:
“It seldom falls to the lot of a historian to have his views, differing radically from those generally accepted without demur, confirmed by such an unimpeachable authority. As far back as 1948 I wrote in an article that the contribution made by Netaji Subas Chandra Bose towards the achievement of freedom in 1947 was no less, and perhaps, far more important than that of Mahatma Gandhi…”
The ‘unimpeachable authority’ he cited happened to be Clement Attlee, the Prime Minister of Britain at the time of India’s independence. Since this is of fundamental importance, and Majumdar’s conclusion so greatly at variance with the conventional history, it is worth placing it on record (Volume III, pages 609 –10).
When B.P. Chakravarti was acting as Governor of West Bengal, Lord Attlee visited India and stayed as his guest at the Raj Bhavan for three days. Chakravarti asked Attlee about the real grounds for granting independence to India. Specifically, his question was, when the Quit India movement lay in shambles years before 1947, where was the need for the British to leave in such a hurry. Attlee’s response is most illuminating and important for history. Here is Governor Chakrabarti’s account of what Attlee told him:
“In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important were the activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the very foundation of the attachment of the Indian land and naval forces to the British Government. Towards the end, I asked Lord Attlee about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhi’s activities. On hearing this question Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, putting emphasis on each single letter— ‘mi-ni-mal’.” (Emphasis added.)
Another point worth noting: after the fall of Singapore that ended the British Empire, the most dramatic national event was the INA Trial at the Red Fort— not any movement by Gandhi or Nehru. This led to the mutiny of the naval ratings, which, more than anything helped the British make up their minds to leave India in a hurry. They sensed that it was only a matter of time before the mutiny spread to other parts of the armed forces and the Government. None of this would have happened without Subhas Bose and the INA.
The crucial point to note is that thanks to Subhas Bose’s activities, the Indian Armed Forces began to see themselves as defenders of India rather than of the British Empire. This, more than anything else, was what led to India’s freedom. This is also the reason why the British Empire disappeared from the face of the earth within an astonishingly short space of twenty years. Indian soldiers, who were the main prop of the Empire, were no longer willing to fight to hold it together. This is the essence of leadership.
This brings us back to Mao’s half joking reply— that it takes time to get the proper historical perspective. It is now more than sixty years since India became free. We can afford to look back and see the real reasons for British leaving India in a hurry. To sum up, by the end of the War, Gandhi was a spent force, and Subhas Bose was India’s most popular leader.
Now, sixty years and more later it is time to recognize the truth: first, it was the Fall of Singapore in 1942, not the Quit India Movement that was the beginning of the end of the British Empire; and finally, it was Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose more than anyone else who was responsible for India’s freedom in 1947.
Very simply and convincingly written. Have circulated it widely, including to the CBSE and NCERT !
Excellent article.. Is this written by N.S. Rajaram or by your teamfoks?
Dr. Rajaram himself. We don’t have the capability or competence to write such a scholarly article.
Thanks teamfolk.. Is there any solid evidence to facts mentioned in this article? While some times, we have to rely on personal hearsays, it would be better, if we could provide any relative evidences for the historic facts we are mentioning..
Pls refer to the following blog comment for more details ..
http://www.sastwingees.org/2009/10/07/real-world-ahimsa/comment-page-1/#comment-12878
No question that Netaji played an immense role in the British decision to leave India in a hurry.
But why should one defer to ‘Atlee’s’ dismissal of Gandhiji. Still relying on the British to assess our leaders ?
The Fall of Singapore ended white supremacy, in this case British. Not sure if a Japanese invasion would have been any better.
They came as far as the Vizag harbour.
Certainly, our Indian troops were A+. No need to pull down Gandhiji either. Both were necessary.
Would like to refer the reader to our present situation. There is a very important article by Bharat Verma in Indian Defence Review: ‘Strategy for Incremental Influence in Asia’ (October,2009; reprint).
While I understand that truth has to be told and record of history has to be maintained in an impartial way as it had happened, would it not be counter-productive to our longheld belief that the partition took place ’cause Muslims can’t live with Hindus?
What a Whole Lot of Crap! The analysis and interpretation is the very result of a person educated in the incredibly warped school and college system that is prevalent in India, today. Understanding History is a process of interpretation subject to availability of evidence. Thus as more evidence is brought to light or newer methods (technological, social or otherwise) are brought to bear on the available information, the canvas of History, a complex interplay of forces, reveals itself bit by bit.
Unlike the sciences or technology, History has no fixed textbook. Every moment, every scholar at every university across the globe adds his bit to the greater understanding of History. Thus studying history is a continous process and what every scholar needs to guard against is a) simplification and b) sensationalisation of interpretation and analysis of the information available.
The author may send me a reply for further discussion, if need be.
Anaswer to the points – a) simplification and b) sensationalisation by history
1. why? Gandhi ->Nehru->Indira-> Rajeev->Sonia->Rahul-> …. ONLY leaders of India…is it not Over-simplification in history books..check the CBSE books in class 3rd, Sonia Gandhi is described as an icon
2. why do you think it as sensationalisation? cannot digest the actual facts? its decades of propaganda that has made even simple facts as sensational for the brain-washed lots.
There have been other leaders of India apart from the one you have mentioned in your first point…..actually what are you mentioning are the people who led the congress party after independence. However soon after we got independence, Mahatma Gandhi was of the view that the congress(INC) should be dissolved so that the leaders cannot use the name of INC for their own benefits. He was of the view that INC was formed for independence of India and hence once it was achieved it was not needed and it had to be dissolved but other leaders/politicians knew that this step would not be beneficial for their own benefits and hence for their selfish needs they didn’t let Mahatma Gandhi dissolve Congress and and within less than 6 months he got killed….so I hope you can understand…
As Neelu Chitrapu put it “History has no fixed textbook. Every moment, every scholar at every university across the globe adds his bit to the greater understanding of History.” Nevertheless, the writer has presented a very convincing perspective, but I have read many other versions that were just as impressive. I’ll refrain from debating so convincingly about any event of the past I wasn’t a part of, by merely drawing from others’ perception of the incident.
But I definitely have an objection to what precipitates in the school text books. I’d hate to see my kids grow up thinking of Sonia and the current batch of politicians as heroes. History books also have an ulterior motive – of inculcating human values in young minds and Gandhi, portrayed as the Father of the nation, the matter we grew up reading and believing in, did produce that intended effect, did it not? Which is saying, historical truths will continue to be what the majority believes in and which appears to be the right thing to believe.
Mind blowing article…………just superb…!
Brilliant… this also explains why only in the last five or six years there is much promotion of Gandhi brand happening in Singapore. People know the role of INA and Bose and that needs no promotion at all.
The new “Global Indians” are responsible for promoting to the world the culture and bathos of post-British “free” India, within which a large part is the sycophancy, lip service to ideals, rather base materialism and corruption. I wish these upwardly mobile Indians would pay better attention to historical facts !
Great research !
Japan agreed to eliminate Netaji;
In WW-I, Jap was an ally of British. Before WW-II, Jap-US trade war and political war started, this led to actual war between US and Jap. So British became an enemy to Japan by diplomatic manipulation as US – British alliance was there. After WW-II, Jap revived their old connection with British via spies. Jap and British spies were enough linked before WW-II. Jap spies agreed to eliminate Netaji. Motive was to appease the British and purchase security for Jap royal family. Thus, Japan sold Netaji to British and British eliminated him. The false news of air crash was Japan’s fabrication. In any controversial case, liar is to be suspected first.
Netaji’s plan to start second independence war with the help of USSR was known to Japan. There was enough scope for British and Japanese spies to develop a common minimum program against pro-communist agenda of Netaji. Why should Jap imperialism agree to patronize emergence of independent India as a permanent communist ally? Is it not more logical to fulfill British condition and purchase favor? Why Jap royal family was not tried as a war criminal? What is the mystery behind this favor?
[...] embedded into the Indian history books. [Folks Magazine's cover story dating October 10, 2009 "Who brought freedom Gandhiji or Netaji?" should be a good read.] He did nothing except to oppose the English “peacefully” and [...]
Truely an excellent article.Unfortunately in our country it is showcased that only Gandhi and Neheru brought freedom to India which is basically a politicised agenda of a national party.The conntibution of INA lead by Netaji was immense to our struggle of freedom but that great man never gets the due respect.Thanks for writing this article and for bringing some truth into focus.
according to me netaji is only one of the person through which India gets freedom becuz they have their own strategy to fight
if possible then plz send some intresting & knowledgable articals on same topic or
relation between Gandhiji & Netaji
Bose was a political leader in forties and in not the best of health when he left India. He had no military training, either. How could he provide effective military leadership to his fauz? His actions were more like the lead sheep taking the flock to slaughter house.
Who provided the financial and logistic help to his Army? It would have been a surprise if the nations that Bose courted and worked with have not claimed their pound of flesh had they been winners!
Bose is an Indian icon because he successfully dodged the official machinery in leaving India. Nothing else matters. His creation of army adds glitter to the perception!
Fantastic article. Hope this real incidents become the part of Indian history taught to the present and forth coming generations.
I salute Netaji.
This is absolute nonsense and I don’t know where to start if people believe the drivel in this article.
Bose was a puppet of the Japanese. If India was liberated by the INA, it would have become a client state of the Japanese and would have suffered the atrocities that were the hallmark of Imperial Japan. Please refer to the facts surrounding the invasion and occupation of Andaman Islands during World War II. Japanese forces used local women as “comfort women”, they tortured locals and even INA members. Bose didn’t have a clue or was not bothered. One can only imagine what would have happened to the rest of India if INA had “succeeded” under Japanese patronage.
Japanese patronage dropped towards the end of WWII as they started suffering setbacks in the Pacific. The INA were pretty much left to fend for themselves in their campaigns in Burma and North East India. Without strong Japanese support the INA was routed by the British. The INA admirably fought bravely though they suffered through tropical disease lack of ammo, difficult terrain and desertions. Bose on the other hand was busy hobnobbing with Holocaust hero Hitler. INA didn’t even come close to any of their objectives. If they had, India would have turned into a military state as a client under the axis powers of Japan and Germany. Any half-wit who has studied history will know the atrocities committed by the axis powers on their colonies.
Nonsense??? No doubt Japanese and German forces committed a lot of atrocities during WWII. Subhash got military while he was a youth and he was not at all a puppet of Japan. When Japanese and Germans considered Indians as inferior to them, it was bcoz of Subhash only they realized the glory of Indians. He used to sleep just 3 hours a day during WWII.”Patriotism”,”Determination”,”Sacrifice”,”Hospitality”,”Administration”,”Bravery”,”Political Diplomacy” means ultimately Subhash only, He is the role model for a mass leader. He is not like Nehru/Jinnah who were battling for power. He is not the founder of dynasty politics/corrupt/pseudosecular/coward government unlike Mr.Nehru.
My only question to the author is if we apply the same logic that British were afraid of fighting our battle hardened soldiers to 1857 Sepoy mutiny, the logic fails. This is because British fought us at that time, they were not only successful but suppressed the rise of another mutiny, it took another 100 years to appear in the form of INA and Bose. I don’t think Bose played a crucial(here I mean crucial, his contribution is there but not like the way this article suggest) role in driving them away, I cannot come up with anything else. Anyways, we are free now, thanks to whomever responsible for it.
I agree with all others who have commented before me– Indeed a very good article and I hope atleast after reading this many will agree that it’s not Gandhi’s famous ‘Ahimsa’ which brought independence to India… may this shed some light to many who are still living in the dark…
Within an year INA started, it was getting immense response from the Indian soldiers all over the world working for the “Queen”.. Comparing this to Gandhi’s– ‘Quit India Movement’, ‘Purna swaraj’, ‘Non-coperation Movement’ were initially a partial success and it dried away…
Actually all the movements by Gandhi’s were started by Bhagat singh– Another Legend….
It was Bhagat who started the ‘Complete Independende” (Gandhi renamed it to ‘Purna Swaraj’ later), Quit India movement before Simon’s shoot out..
Bhagat & Subhash are the real heroes who brought Independence to India, not Gandhi & Nehru…
it wasn’t a movie that needs to have one hero
while gandhi, nehru and the lot were politicians who sat in the governments, made representations, etc and launched some big but not effective campaigns.. they had significant civilian and intelligentsia support, news coverage..
bose who inspite of majority support in the congress had earlier been driven out of the congress by the gandhi faction set about using the turmoil in the world to india’s advantage.. though he came close, he could not seize a significant part of india to declare legitimacy and liberate/inspire the rest..
the british having been battered in all ways by germany and japan knew they had not the resources nor the will to fight even a moderate uprising in india.. also the pro-colonial churchill govt was replaced by the opposition govt which had different political leanings and was looking to damage control and exit with dignity and some benefits if possible.. the british establishment obvi preferred the “gentlemen” who said please to the person with comparatively extreme view who had raised arms against the empire and the “gentlemen” found this agreeable too..
also the sheer number of controversial and shadowy things done by the allies at the end of ww2 do cast doubts on the air crash story but that is an unanswered question.. also the congress did not feel particularly patriotic when it came to help the british sniff out extremist indians as several were communist,etc.. everybody was jockeying for power in the great game..
p.s. also referring to “barbarism” by the axis powers, it needs to be remembered that in war usually the more barbaric nation wins and the winners write history
It is true that Nethaji was instrumental in the British’s departure. It’s not accurate to say that they were afraid of us. The war left them with nothing in their coffers, they were a spent force, their economy was in shatters and they decided wisely to leave without losing the moral high ground.
The author is trying to portray as if Bose is the only person to have brought the freedom to India – which by itself shows that the article is biased and meant to be written to downplay Gandhi and Nehru. I am not a great fan of Gandhi or Nehru, but the truth of the matter is that – you can’t tie it to one single person or single reason for the British to leave India, it is more of a set of reasons and more people at various stages made them to leave.
And the fact that I see here in the comments are more grudges towards Congress Party and their leaders. I think people need to understand that we are in democracy and we are the people who vote them to power. If we feel that it is dynasty rule then you could very well bring them down right?
Why shout unnecessarily.
And i don’t think history books are denying Netaji or Bhagat Singh, they all have a place in history for freedom fighting. As always, the man who could inspire and win hearts of people would be the hero – in this case Gandhi, he definitely inspired people to fight ahimsa way.