| |
|
 |
Our aim is to create an online archive of all information related to Subhas Chandra Bose.
If you have any unpublished document, photograph or audio-visual material, or even out of print books/magazines,we request you to share it with us, so that we can share it with everyone through this site.
|
|
|
| |
 |
| |
| Copyright Information |
| |
| MN believes that all of Netaji's works are national property, and information on him should be easily available at the lowest cost, if not for free. You are free to use any material from this site with proper acknowledgement. At the same time, MN respects the copyright of authors of original works and would not intentionally violate their copyright or any part of the Indian Copyright Act. If you think you have noticed any infringement, please do let us know. |
|
| |
|
|
Netaji's Philosophy of Life |
Netaji a Marxist?
|
Netaji has rejected Marxism. He is against importing Marxism to India. He does not believe that Marxism is a catalyst for progress of humankind – whether for India or the whole world. Current scientific knowledge provides universal solutions to all the fundamental problems that have been discussed by Marxism. While people have not hesitated to accept the beneficial aspects of Marxism, its serious flaws that are against progress, have made it unacceptable in many countries. The reasons for which Netaji has proclaimed Marxism as unacceptable, are applicable not only to India, but to the whole world. If Marxism is not beneficial for the people of India, it cannot be beneficial for people of other countries. In today’s world, no ideology can remain within the boundaries of a country. Surpassing all boundaries, people across the world have converged on the platform of ideas. Therefore, his thoughts on Marxism belong not only to India, but based on modern science and philosophy, can be said to be applicable to all humanity. His ideas on Marxism are also grounded in this era. The ideal of synthesis therefore can be acceptable in and applicable to all countries. That however does not mean that its application cannot vary in different countries. All forms of integration and assimilation are influenced by time and place to reflect their own uniqueness, which differentiates one from another. Netaji’s Samyavada therefore can adopt unique Indian characteristics. Whatever form it takes, there is no doubt that Netaji has discarded Marxism, not on the basis of narrow nationalism, but on the basis of universally applicable scientific logic and reasoning.
|
There have been attempts in this country to prove Netaji a Marxist, by highlighting some of his utterances out of context. For instance, in his editorial piece, “The Role of Forward Bloc”, Netaji pointed out that the Socialist Party had not made any progress after 1938, because they failed to fulfil the main requirement of the moment – that of an anti-imperialist leftist force. “I felt further that only by that means could the onslaught of the Right be resisted and the soil prepared for a Marxist party,” he wrote in the Forward Bloc of 12 August, 1939. The Socialist Party calls itself a Marxist party, but in 1939, instead of supporting the leftist forces under Netaji, it remained in the rightist camp. The implication of Netaji’s opinion here is that it is meaningless to have a Marxist party that does not follow leftism.
|
|
Netaji spent most of the time between 1933 and 1938 in Europe. This was the time when Europe saw an upsurge in ideologies such as Marxism, Fascism, etc. Therefore, he had a chance to see these movements from close quarters and understand their dynamics. He organised his thoughts during this period to give a form to his ideals. He explained his outlook in The Indian Struggle . He cited five reasons in the book for not accepting Communism. He wrote:
|
“There are several reasons why Communism will not be adopted in India. Firstly, Communism today has no sympathy with nationalism in any form and the Indian movement is a nationalist movement…Secondly, Russia is now on her defensive and has little interest in provoking a world revolution…Thirdly, while many of the economic ideas of communists would make strong appeal to Indians, there are some other ideas which will have a contrary effect…In India… there is no feeling against religion as such…Fourthly, the materialist interpretation of history, which seems to be a cardinal point in communist theory will not find unqualified acceptance in India even among those who would be disposed to accept the economic contents of Communism. Fifthly, while communist theory has made certain remarkable contributions in the domain of economics (for instance the idea of state planning) it is weak in other aspects…”
|
The above-mentioned points clearly explain that Netaji’s objections to Marxism emerged from economic and sociological grounds.
|
Economic interpretation of history
|
Economic or materialistic interpretation of history forms the foundation of Marxism. According to it, economic systems and production relations are the key drivers of whatever has happened, or will happen, in human history and society. The central driving force of all human activities – literature, art, religion, statecraft - in a society is his need to earn a livelihood. This economic self-interest gives rise to two classes in the society: in the capitalist era, a society is divided into capitalists and the proletariat. The expressions of human mind - in the form of literature, religion, etc. - are governed by the struggle of the interests of these two classes. Thus, the whole world is divided into these two classes based on their economic self-interests – the workers of the world and the capitalists of the world. This Marxist outlook cannot and does not have any place for patriotism. Class interests transcend geographical boundaries to unite in the same way all workers in the world, as well as the capitalists, into two homogenous groups, at loggerheads with each other. According to this view, neither is there any sovereign united entity called India nor any national interest or emotion surrounding it. It is only economic interest that influences human psychology. Emotions around geographical boundaries are meaningless and are nothing but a capitalist conspiracy to prevent the world’s proletariat from coming together. Thus, Marxism is international in its character. According to it, there is nothing called patriotism, and whatever exists in the name of patriotism is actually capitalist propaganda. Netaji doesn’t accept the economic interpretation of history. In his ideology, nationalism is a living truth and patriotism is an irrefutable reality. The materialist world and sense of worldly interests are not the only drivers of human life. Spiritual feelings, emotions, and desires in the mental sphere also shape human life, society and history. Geographical boundaries too are a stark reality, and emotional outbursts around geographical boundaries and patriotism are also fundamental forces driving history. Those who acknowledge the role of mind and spirituality in explaining history also accept patriotism as a historical force. Netaji belongs to this group of people. Therefore, patriotism and nationalism are real forces in his social interpretation. The predominance of nationalism has been established all over the world in all events of this era. It is also the root of the national movement in India. Therefore, according to Netaji, ignoring patriotism is a grave flaw of Marxism. For this reason, its influence cannot be lasting in India. Accepting nationalism and patriotism means rejecting the economic interpretation of Marxism. Thus, Netaji rejects Marxism not from the perspective of narrow nationalism, but because he disagrees with the fundamental Marxist tenets of interpreting society.
|
Subsequently, Netaji points out that the Marxist materialist interpretation is also flawed. According to him, this interpretation will not be accepted in India. Many people think that Marxism is all about its economic social theory. But it is not only about removing disparity between the rich and the poor or uprooting capitalism; Marxism also includes materialistic philosophy and interpretation of history. Many people admit the need for removing economic disparity and establishing socialism. Even Netaji has said so clearly many times. But according to him, even those who will accept aspects of Marxism related to economic equality and socialism, will not accept its materialist interpretation of society and history. The reason for this non-acceptance is Marxism’s excessive stress on the economic motive. This emphasis is unscientific. It is undeniable that materialism does influence human life and history, but to view the entire human history through the prism of materialist tenets is to be partial.
|
|
Netaji cites the Marxist attitude towards religion as his third reason for the unacceptability of Marxism. Now what is the Marxist attitude towards religion? Religion has been an important component of human history since the primitive ages, and even today religion is inseparable from human life. History has progressed through numerous crises and social revolutions, but religion has emerged from each crisis with new vigour and has influenced society in new ways. As it has been an integral aspect of history, Marxism explains it too from the economic and materialist perspectives. An economic interpretation of religion implies that it is only an expression of economic self-interest: an expression of the class interests of the capitalists. With the emergence of private property, the propertied class discovered religion to protect their property. The direct implication of this interpretation is that religion will disappear with the abolition of private property in the future society. Religion is nothing but a capitalist conspiracy to fool people. Thus, atheism and anti-religious stance are core components of Marxist sociology.
|
One might say that religion has been recognised in the Soviet Union, and that abolishing religion is not a routine activity of the State – therefore, being anti-religion and pro-abolition of religion are not essential aspects of Marxism. This argument is erroneous. If a State or an individual temporarily suspends its atheist programme or allows religious activities under certain circumstances, that does not change the fundamental tenets of Marxism. As long as materialism and materialist interpretation of history remain a part of Marxist theory, abolition of religion and atheistic outlook will remain integral to it. In Marxist discourse, religion is as harmful as opium – explanations offered by Engels and Lenin are clear on this.
|
Religion, on the other hand, is the bedrock of Netaji’ outlook. Connecting with the all-pervading consciousness through Yoga Sadhana has been the driving force of his work and political struggle. The role of religion in the life of a common Indian is also beyond any doubt. Those who recognise the power of spiritual force and consciousness cannot accept the materialist interpretation of history and atheism. The role of consciousness in Netaji’s philosophy of life is well known. That is why, according to him, even though many people in India may accept many tenets of Marxist economics, they will find its atheism unacceptable. It can be argued that atheism and anti-religious sentiments can develop in India too, under the influence of external factors. But, according to Netaji, any anti-religious sentiment can never grow strong in India even under external influence. There are social and political reasons for anti-religious feelings being so strong in Russia. The Church there has oppressed people through its rigid command and control system, as well as its mechanical functioning. The Church being the institution and instrument for propagating religion, the negative reaction to its misdeeds naturally affected religion as a whole. The State has therefore taken it upon itself to demolish religion, forgetting religion’s beneficial influence. This too, is an extreme measure, and a distortion. India’s social setting was never the same as Russia’s. There has never been an oppressive machinery such as the Church in Europe. Therefore, no anti-religious sentiment has gained ground here due to any external influence. In short, the Marxist theory and outlook toward religion is inapplicable to India.
|
Development of Netaji’s Philosophy
|
The foundation of Netaji’s philosophy discussed above was in place by 1938. One can argue that these were his earlier opinions which could have changed in the subsequent years. There is, however, no basis of such argument. The philosophical foundation that Netaji had created through many years’ thought and Sadhana did not change in later years. His outlook towards Marxism did not differ from his ideas during The Indian Struggle era.
|
His last thoughts are available in his speech to the students of the Tokyo University in 1944. This speech provides a clear blueprint of his vision of the future India, and his line of thought. He has clearly mentioned in the speech that the ideas which he had ten years ago while writing The Indian Struggle hadn’t changed. His first charge is, “Where communism is deficient is that it does not appreciate the value of national sentiment.”
|
The Marxist variant of socialism cannot be integrated with nationalism because according to the economic interpretation of history, socialism is international in nature. But this interpretation of Socialism is not tenable because the economic interpretation itself is not tenable. Nationalism is an undeniable aspect of society. Netaji demanded a system in India which, along with meeting the social needs of the country, will be based on nationalism. In his words, “What we in India would like to have is a progressive system which will fulfil the social needs of the whole people and will be based on national sentiment.” His ideal, therefore, is a synthesis between Socialism and Nationalism. He, however, did not support the National Socialism of the German Nazi, because even as the Nazis talked about Socialism, they did not establish a socialist system.
|
Thereafter, Netaji has clearly laid out his objections on the economic interpretation of history. A rich and varied experience of the ten intervening years only strengthened his philosophical outlook. On the economic interpretation of history, his point of view is unchanged ― “Another point on which we do not fully agree is that, according to Marxism too much importance is given to the economic factor in human life. We fully appreciate the importance of the economic factor which was formerly ignored, but it is not necessary to over-emphasise it.”
|
Importance of Class Struggle
|
Netaji’s views on class struggle and the social role of the proletariat also differs from the Marxist point of view. Russia’s interpretation and implementation of Marxism has exaggerated the social role of the proletariat. The proletariat is the focus of all measures in Russia, with all other problems having been relegated to the background. But Netaji thinks that India is a land of peasants and their problems will be more pressing than those of the proletariat.
|
| |
India’s next struggle will be that of attaining freedom and establishing socialism. The most important aspect of this struggle is the close link of freedom with Socialism. This struggle will break the shackles of foreign dominance and establish a people’s state (janarashtra). Therefore, in India, there will be no need to wage a class struggle separately. If the free Indian state is set up as a people’s state, then it will serve the interests of the people and benefit everyone. Therefore, it will not be necessary to wage a class struggle and aggravate it to a civil war. The same struggle will accomplish the results of the nationalist, socialist, political and economic revolution.
|
| |
There is no problem however in learning the lessons of organisational tactics and statecraft from Marxsim. Although Netaji has accepted many aspects of Soviet state policies, he hasn’t accepted Marxism as the fundamental philosophy of his life. The socialism that he wants to establish is not of the Marxist variety. His Socialism includes only economic collectivism and not the materialist interpretation of history. His slogan of “All power to the Indian people,” summarises his view on Socialism. According to him, India wants Socialism, not Marxism.
|
|
