Form of Government

In his early writings, Bose expressed the opinion that democracy was the acceptable political system for India. But later, he seemed to have veered towards the idea that, at least in the beginning, a democratic system would not be adequate for the process of nation rebuilding and the eradication of poverty and social inequality. In an address to students in Tokyo University in 1944, Bose is quoted as saying: “You cannot have a so-called democratic system, if that system has to put through economic reforms on a socialistic basis. Therefore we must have a political system—a State—of an authoritarian character. ”

[When Bose proclaimed, on October 21, 1943, the formation of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind (Free India), he held on to his post as Supreme Commander of the Indian National Army, and also named himself head of state, prime minister, and minister for war and foreign affairs. He anticipated retaining the position of head of state in a free India. This, say some scholars, indicated the authoritative streak in Bose.]

As early as 1930, Bose expressed the opinion that in India there should be “a synthesis of what modern Europe

calls Socialism and Fascism. We have here the justice, the equality, the love, which is the basis of Socialism, and combined with that we have the efficiency and the discipline of Fascism as it stands in Europe today.” He called this ‘samyavada’. Bose admired discipline and orderly approach to anything. He admired these qualities in the Fascists of Italy and in the Nazis of Germany. Indeed, it is clear from his letters that, despite his dislike of colonial power and his desire to oust the alien British rule from India, he was impressed by the methodical and systematic approach of the British and their disciplined way of life.

Bose, however, was not a Nazi or a Fascist, for he supported empowerment of women, secularism and other liberal ideas. Neither was Bose a communist: he considered himself “a socialist, but that was a very different thing from being a communist”. He laughed at the idea of internationalism as espoused by the communists; he said nationalism was important before going on to internationalism. He also felt that the theoretical ideals found in Marx’s writings could not be applied in India without a lot of modification. Nor did he discard religion which was important to him. Bose was a leftist in the sense that he was an anti-imperialist and believed in attaining complete independence. After the achievement of independence, Bose considered leftism would mean socialism; the reconstruction of national life would have to be on a socialist basis. Indeed, it would appear from many of his writings that, after an initial stage of authoritarian rule, there could be formed “a new India and a happy India on the basis of the eternal principles of liberty, democracy and socialism.”

Gandhi’s ideas on government can be found in the Hind Swaraj (1909); it was “the nearest he came to producing a sustained work of political theory.” Gandhi’s idealised state, his Ramrajya—a utopia, in fact—did not need a representative government, a constitution, an army or a police force. Capitalism, communism, exploitation and religious violence would be absent. Instead, the country was to be modelled on the India of the past. In many ways, Gandhi’s writings call for a pre-modern, morally-enlightened and apolitical Indian state. Swaraj lays stress on self-governance through individuals

and community building. “At the individual level Swaraj is vitally connected with the capacity for dispassionate self- assessment, ceaseless self-purification and growing self- reliance.”

Gandhi said: “I look upon an increase in the power of the state with greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimising exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which is at the root of progress”. He was sceptical of the party system and sure that representative democracy could not provide people with justice. He advocated a stateless society in which life becomes perfect.

Gandhi was opposed to centralisation. He believed in decentralisation of political as well as economic power, and this could come about only by beginning from the basic unit. In his vision of swaraj, society would be composed of “innumerable… ever-widening, never-ascending” village republics. The basic unit would be the village whose people will always abide by the ideals of truth and non-violence. Every village would be a self-sufficient republic or panchayat. (Self-sufficiency did not mean that in times of need help could not be taken from other villages.) The panchayat, the unit of local self-government, will consist of five persons

– male and female – elected annually. It would represent the village community and be the custodian of all authority. Moreover, it would be an autonomous political institution in the context of village administration.

Significantly, Gandhi said: “In the ideal State. . . there is no political power because there is no State. But the ideal is never fully realised in life. Hence the classical statement of Thoreau that the government is best which governs the least –is worthy of consideration.” As Judith Brown writes, Gandhi “seems to have visualised a loose linkage of independent village republics as the ideal form of the State… he can therefore properly be called an anarchist.” In Gandhi’s view, democracy would not be possible without high morality. It is morality that develops a sense of responsibility in human beings, and the strength of this sense of responsibility would help them to respect and protect the rights of each other. Gandhi laid more emphasis on duties than on rights.