ESSAY

Topic: If there is any one aspect that you can change about Indias independence
movement, what would it be?

History is written by the victors-Winston Churchill

The above saying is an accurate one and nowhere is its veracity more evident than in the
perspective of Indias freedom struggle. All of us fondly recall with nostalgia the Satyagraha
movement, the Congress with Gandhi at its helm and the large peaceful protests. But none
of us seem to recall the horrors of the Partition, the execution of Bhagat Singh and his
comrades, and the oppression of thousands in the country. Is it merely a coincidence that
every individual who dared take a stand against Gandhi and the Congress is now
conveniently forgotten? Their deeds gone unsung and their achievements forgotten. The
greatest of these unsung heroes is Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, the firebrand patriot from
Bengal who, for a magical span of time, rivaled Gandhi in popularity, and captured the
imagination and spirit of an entire nation.

Herein lies the aspect of the freedom movement that I would like to alter. I wish that the
Indian National Army, formed under the aegis of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, would emerge
victorious in the Second World War against the forces of the British Raj and further, that
Netaji lead the nation after Independence. That Netaji was a leader of pan-India appeal is
undeniable, and can clearly be seen in Boses victory in the Congress presidential election
over Gandhis favored candidate P. Sitaramayya. His victory was made even more
noteworthy by the fact that Gandhi and his yes-men openly opposed Boses candidature.

One can draw many striking parallels between the beliefs of Netaji and George Washington,
the father of the US. Both Washington and Netaji advocated the use of any and all means to
obtain absolute independence. One can safely assume that both statesmen were staunch
supporters of militant nationalism. Further, Netaji resembles Washington in that both leaders
commanded massive respect and support among the armed forces of their respective
countries. Indeed, there resulted massive mobilization of funds and manpower for the INA
after Boses call to arms among his countrymen. This is similar to the colonial army that
Washington helped raise in the American War of Independence.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey, and Netaji shared similar beliefs
regarding secularism and social authoritarianism. Netaji firmly believed in the ethos of interreligion unity and strongly supported the practicing of ones preferred religion. I would like to
deviate a bit now and point out that one of the crucial causes of the formation of the Muslim

League was the fact that Muslims begin to think that Gandhi and the Congress favored the
Hindu majority at their expense. This was mainly due to the use of Hindu-inspired phrases in
speeches made by Gandhi and other Congressmen. Out of this rose the collective desire of
Muslims to start their own political organization. However, this was not the case with Netaji,
who never used religious rhetoric in any of his addresses to the public. So, we can safely
assume that if Netaji would have steered the nations politics, then there would have existed
a much weakened Muslim League, perhaps even a non-entity, from the beginning and the
present scenario of minority and majority vote-bank politics would not have existed.
Moreover, Netaji after witness to Indias fractious and tumultuous political landscape and the
average Indians need for a single charismatic Icon was deeply convinced that India needed
a social authoritarian regime on the lines of Turkey. If it were to progress and ameliorate the
rigors and hardships of Independence. However, Bose drew a clear line between social
authoritarianism and dictatorial autocracy, and vowed to relinquish power after his mission
for the Motherland was fulfilled. This is similar to Ataturks withdrawal from active politics
after the realization of his vision. Having social authoritarianism as its form of government
would have been beneficial for India in a multi-faceted manner; red tape and bureaucracy
would have decreased along with better accountability and only a single power center.

The third statesman with whom Netaji shared political and social ideologies was Chairman
Mao Zedong. Both the leaders were in favor of armed rebellion which is clearly seen in the
formation of the Red Army and the Indian National Army. If the INA would have won the
World War II campaigns in Eastern India, then Netaji would have returned triumphant as the
liberator of India. Both Netaji and Chairman Mao were characterized by steely determination
and indefatigable spirit. This is clearly seen by observing Netajis activity after his
resignation from the Congress. Even after this setback, Netaji swiftly recovered and formed
the Forward Bloc, which engendered
massive support among Indias masses. However,
Netajis true display of will-power and perseverance was observed when he escaped India
for Europe. Indeed, Netaji did not set foot on British India again before raising the Indian
legion in Germany and the INA in Singapore.

Since we have intensively studied Netajis ideologies and beliefs, we can attempt to modify
the consequences of Indian Independence and the events that took place. The first thought
that comes to mind is the greatest tragedy in the history of modern India, i.e. the Partition.
There are three ideological factors, supporting the likelihood that Netaji would have
prevented the Partition. First, owing to his strong sense of sovereignty, Netaji would not have
allowed any external influence to incite sedition or secession among the Muslims. Secondly,
due to Netajis secular credentials, the minorities may have been more accepting of him
than they were of Gandhi and the Congress. Lastly, Netaji would not have hesitated in
deploying the INA to quell any rebellion or dissenters among the minorities. Another tragic
event that shook the spirit of the nation and made it clear that diplomacy, however skillful,
stood no chance against sheer military might, occurred in 1962. This event was the 1962
Indo-China war. Jawaharlal Nehru, Indias first PM, was held in high regard as a statesman by
the world and partly because of this, Nehru grew overconfident of his diplomatic prowess
and the power of diplomacy. In addition, he resorted to the sole use of diplomacy in
international disputes. All of this was compounded by the fact that Nehru completely ignored
the armed forces and viewed them with barely concealed contempt. Finally, as war ensued,

the Indian military was shamelessly underprepared and unequipped so much so that the
Army chief quoted, The Army will fight with what it has. Now, let us contemplate what the
situation would have been if Netaji would have been in charge. Netaji would have never
ignored the armed forces and instead, would have helped build it to one of the worlds
finest. In addition, he would have adopted an aggressive stance against China from the
onset to let the Chinese know that India was not weak.
Also, Netaji would have saved the lives of thousands of martyrs, including Bhagat Singh,
Sukhdev and Rajguru. Netaji was opposed to their hanging and supported their activities and
beliefs. Netaji was also opposed to the Gandhi-Irwin pact because it failed to provide
pardons for Bhagat Singh and the other patriots. Further, Netaji would have granted full
freedom to the revolts that took place among the ratings of the Royal Indian Navy.

Thus, to conclude,
"Only one outstanding personality of India took a different and violent path, and in a sense
India owes more to him than to any other man even though he seemed to be a failure."
-Michael

Edwards

Netaji was an exceptional patriot, a born leader of men, with boundless reserves of willpower and perseverance in attaining his goal of unqualified Swaraj for his motherland. If he
and the INA would have prevailed in our freedom struggle, then the face and fabric of the
Indian sub-continent would have been completely different.
Infosys Technologies founder-chairman N. R. Narayana Murthy, delivering the annual Netaji
oration, said, "We have not paid him due respect. It is time this is corrected." Adding, "If
only Netaji had participated in post-independence nation building."
We as proud Indians should remember his actions, his beliefs and his immense selfless
contribution to Indias very existence. This was a man who fought relentlessly and untiringly
for our countrys liberation, a modern Maharana Pratap. In a way, we are his legacy. And this
is his legend.

THANK YOU