It was under strained circumstances that the election to the post of Congress president was held. Subhas secured 1580 votes against Sitaramayya’s 1377 votes. In a public statement Gandhi stated that as he did not allow Sitaramayya to withdraw from the contest it was more his defeat than Sitaramayya’s. He expressed his happiness at Subhas’ election but made it plain that he did not agree with his views. He praised his nationalism and mentioned his sufferings. He also thought that the election had provided Subhas with an opportunity to have a homogenous team so that he could implement his programme unhindered.
Subhas expressed his dismay at Gandhi’s statement, as Gandhi was not the candidate. He added that he had all his personal respect for Gandhi but the differences were on policies. In a conciliatory tone he added that it would be tragic that he had won the confidence of others but not of India’s “greatest man”. This sordid episode ended with the Pant proposal which stipulated that the Congress would not only follow Gandhi’s policies but choose working committee members with Gandhi’s approval.
Even after all these assertions by Gandhi loyalists Subhas tried to patch up with Gandhi by placing two alternatives: (1) Gandhi could form the working committee accommodating Subhas’ views and (2) to form the committee the way Gandhi wanted. He then added a significant rider that if Gandhi chose the second alternative, it would be the “parting of ways”.
Gandhi did not reply directly to Subhas but advised him to form his own committee without clarifying as to whether he would approve of it or not. But Subhas knew fully well that his choice would be vetoed and therefore insisted on seeking Gandhi’s advice. He elaborated his vision of attaining Poorna Swaraj within 18 months which Gandhi did not endorse.
On 29 April 1939 he heard from Gandhi who expressed his incompetence to suggest names to the Working Committee pointing out to their fundamental differences, the fact his suggestion would be understood as an imposition and thereby gave him a free hand to choose his own committee.
When the AICC met Subhas was in the peculiar situation of being the president without a Working Committee.
Realising its untenability, Subhas had no choice but to resign, proving MN Roy’s observation of the Congress being Gandhi’s Congress as correct. Subhas unlike Nehru did not want to compromise at the cost of his principles and sensibilities. Tagore openly supported Subhas.
Subhas formed the Forward Bloc within the Congress immediately hoping to unite all the radical elements against the right-wingers. His unity plans however was received lukewarmly by the various left groups as they were keen on preserving their distinct identities but agreed to form a Left Consolidation Committee with Subhas as chairman. The latter embarked enthusiastically on a tour to various parts of the country to garner support for his plank of “an uncompromising anti-British campaign”.
The right wing that was in total control of the Congress passed two resolutions to thwart Subhas’ efforts especially among the youth: one, to allow satyagraha with the prior permission of the party only and second, freeing provincial ministers from taking directions and orders from provincial parties. These measures were considered by Subhas and his associates as efforts in throttling intra party democracy and in response they organized a protest on 9 July in Mumbai.
The Congress establishment considered it as a breach of party discipline and banned him from holding any elected office within the party for the next three years. Subhas on his part proclaimed his loyalty to the Congress but added that the aforesaid action against him was indicative of the increasing “Right consolidation” within the party. His two-decade old relationship with the Congress which was mostly turbulent and unorthodox came to an end.
A defiant Subhas organised an All-India Anti Compromise Conference in Ramgarh at the same time as the Congress session in March 1940. He argued for immediate action as time was ripe, quoting examples from Lenin and Mussolini though he continued in his attempt to renew contact with Gandhi whom he met in June 1940. The ice between the two did not thaw. Gandhi in January 1940 wrote: “I had thought I had gained Subhas babu for all time as a son. I have fallen from grace”. Earlier he commented on Subhas behaving like a spoiled child of the family.
A major reason for their sharp difference was their very different perceptions of contemporary Indian reality. Gandhi feared the possibility of an outbreak of violence and anarchy which he wanted to avoid as far as possible. Subhas on the contrary was convinced that India’s salvation could never be achieved by the path indicated by Gandhi and wanted therefore to radicalise the Congress.
His deep interest in history and his belief in the theory of the rise and fall of civilizations led him to conclude that the West was in turmoil in the 1930s and 1940s and the time had come for India’s renewal. Hence, he wanted an ultimatum to be served to the British Government in India when the Munich crisis shook the world in 1938 but Gandhi refused.
Gandhi showed considerable impatience and unnecessary anger toward a young leader, elected democratically, one whom he acknowledged as sincere, principled and one had endured immense suffering. He perhaps knew that most Congressmen followed him not out of conviction but because of convenience. Perhaps he underestimated Subhas’ resolve to fight for India’s independence through means other than the ones that he subscribed to.
Subhas’ dramatic escape and tales of heroism of the INA which came to be known only after the Second World War electrified the nation like no other movement. An immediate fallout of it was the revolt by RIN ratings that conveyed to the British that their days in India were numbered. As Herman rightly observed “Ironically, the one Indian mass movement that he (Gandhi) did not start, did the most long-lasting damage to British rule including the Indian army”. It is for this reason that Subhas is rightly recognized as the co-architect of India’s freedom. (Concluded)