Political views of Subhas Chandra Bose

Subhas Chandra Bose 's political views were in support of complete freedom for India with a classless society and state socialism at the earliest, whereas most of the Congress Committee wanted it in phases, through a Dominion status.

Gandhi and Bose

Even though Bose and Mahatma Gandhi had differing ideologies, the latter called Bose the "Patriot of Patriots" in 1942. Bose admired Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and called him Bapu, recognising his importance as a symbol of Indian nationalism and giving him political expediency as told by Bose to Rash Behari Bose; called him "The Father of Our Nation" in a radio broadcast from Rangoon in 1944, in which he stated, "I am convinced that if we do desire freedom we must be prepared to wade through blood", a statement somewhat at odds with Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence. Thus, although they shared the goal of an independent India, by 1939 the two had become divided over the strategy to achieve Indian Independence, and to some degree the form which the post-Independence state should take: Gandhi was hostile to industrialisation, while Bose saw it as the only route to making India strong and self-sufficient (in this he may have been influenced, like many other Indian intellectuals of the time, by reports of the success of the Soviet five-year plans). Jawaharlal Nehru disagreed with Gandhi on this point as well, though not over the tactics of protest.

During the mid-1930s Bose travelled in Europe, visiting Indian students and European politicians, including Benito Mussolini. In this period, he also researched and wrote the first part of his book The Indian Struggle. The book contains Bose's evaluation of Gandhi's role and contribution to the independence struggle, his own vision for an Independent India and his approach to politics. In the book, Bose was critical of Gandhi accusing the Mahatma of being too soft and almost naive in his dealings with the colonial regime and who with his status quoism had become "the best policeman the Britisher had in India". Bose also predicted a left-wing revolt in the Indian National Congress that would give rise to a new political party with a "clear ideology, program and plan of action" that would among other things "stand for the interests of the masses", advocate the complete independence of the Indian people, advocate a federal India with a strong central government and support land reforms, state planning and a system of Panchayats.

Bose and Germany

Bose was accused of collaborating with the Axis, after he fled to Germany in 1941 and offered Hitler an alliance. He criticized the British during World War II, saying that while Britain was fighting for the freedom
of the European nations under Nazi control, it would not grant independence to its own colonies, including India. In 1937 he published an article attacking Japanese imperialism in the Far East, although he betrayed some admiration for other aspects of the Japanese regime.

Bose's earlier correspondence (prior to 1939) also reflects his deep disapproval of the racist practices of and annulment of democratic institutions in Nazi Germany. He also, however, expressed admiration for the authoritarian methods (though not the racial ideologies) which he saw in Italy and Germany during the 1930s, and thought they could be used in building an independent India. Nevertheless, Bose's tenure as Congress Party President (1938–39) did not reflect any particular anti-democratic or authoritarian attributes. Nirad C. Chaudhuri, Anton Pelinka and Leonard Gordon have remarked that Bose's skills were best illustrated at the negotiating table, rather than on the battlefield. At the Tripura Congress session of 1939, he demanded giving the British Government a six-month deadline for granting independence and of launching a mass civil disobedience movement if it failed to do so. He believed that "... the country was internally more ripe for a revolution than ever before and that the coming international crisis would give India an opportunity for achieving her emancipation, which is rare in human history."

Bose and Japan

Bose's judgment in allying with the Japanese has been questioned, as many argue that he would have been unable to ensure an independent India had he ridden to power on Japanese bayonets, and was in danger of becoming a puppet ruler similar to the fate that befell Puyi, the last Chinese Emperor of Manchuria. In 1943 Rash Behari Bose had urged this on him during his last visit to Subhas Bose in Singapore, pointing out that the Japanese had claimed right of conquest in Manchuria and would do so in India, while Quit India had shown that this would not be accepted by the Indian Nation.

Nevertheless, given the Indian National Army's (INA) overwhelming dependence on Japanese military support, he would have been in a weak position. Bose also seems to have ignored the appalling treatment meted out by the Japanese to the Asian inhabitants of the lands they conquered as part of the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity sphere, which included the forcible recruitment of labour from the overseas Indian population to build projects such as the Burma Railway, and massacres of Malayan Chinese in Singapore where he spent most of the war.

Bose has been branded as a fascist in some quarters. Others believe that Bose had clearly expressed his belief that democracy was the best option for India.

Had either of the alliances he forged during the war resulted in Indian independence in the manner he envisaged, it would have been at the cost of an Allied defeat in the Second World War, a price that some Indians would argue is too high: Gandhi himself, in the immediate aftermath of the war, said that Bose had been "foolish in imagining, that by allying himself with the Japanese and the Germans, who were not only aggressive Powers, but also dangerous Powers, he could get Indian freedom". The alternative of non-violent protest within India espoused by Gandhi and the rest of Congress ultimately led to British withdrawal, albeit at the expense of the partition of the country along communal lines. Even before 1939, Congress had secured political concessions from the British in the form of elected provincial assemblies, and an agreement that the British taxpayer would foot the bill