UPSC MainsGENERAL-STUDIES-PAPER-I201612 Marks200 Words
हिंदी में पढ़ें
Q5.

Highlight the differences in the approach of Subhash Chandra Bose and Mahatma Gandhi in the struggle for freedom.

How to Approach

This question requires a comparative analysis of the ideologies and methods employed by Subhash Chandra Bose and Mahatma Gandhi in the Indian freedom struggle. The answer should highlight their differing perspectives on non-violence, the role of mass mobilization, and the means to achieve independence. A structured approach comparing their philosophies, strategies, and organizational approaches is crucial. Focus on specific events and movements led by each leader to illustrate the differences.

Model Answer

0 min read

Introduction

The Indian freedom struggle witnessed a diverse range of ideologies and strategies aimed at achieving independence from British rule. While both Mahatma Gandhi and Subhash Chandra Bose were pivotal figures in this movement, their approaches differed significantly. Gandhi, advocating for Satyagraha and non-violent civil disobedience, aimed to appeal to the moral conscience of the oppressor. Bose, on the other hand, believed in a more assertive and, if necessary, violent approach, seeking external support to expedite the liberation process. Understanding these contrasting philosophies is crucial to comprehending the complexities of India’s path to freedom.

Philosophical Differences

The core divergence lay in their philosophical underpinnings. Gandhi’s philosophy of Satyagraha (truth force) emphasized non-violence as a means to convert the adversary. He believed in self-suffering and moral persuasion. Bose, influenced by socialist and nationalist ideologies, considered violence as a legitimate tool, particularly when faced with a ruthless colonial power. He famously stated, “Blood alone can redeem India.”

Strategies and Methods

Gandhi’s strategy revolved around mass mobilization through non-violent civil disobedience movements like the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-22), the Salt Satyagraha (1930), and the Quit India Movement (1942). These movements aimed to paralyze the British administration through peaceful resistance. Bose, disillusioned with the slow pace of the Congress’s non-violent approach, advocated for a more direct and forceful confrontation. He formed the Forward Bloc in 1939 as a platform for radical nationalism and later sought alliances with Axis powers during World War II.

Organizational Approaches

Gandhi’s leadership was characterized by a decentralized, mass-based organization relying on the participation of ordinary Indians. He focused on building a strong grassroots network through constructive programs like Khadi and village industries. Bose, while also aiming for mass mobilization, favored a more centralized and disciplined organization. He established the Indian National Army (INA), comprising Indian prisoners of war and volunteers from Southeast Asia, with a military structure and a clear objective of armed liberation.

Seeking External Support

Gandhi largely opposed seeking external assistance, believing in India’s self-reliance and moral strength. He aimed to win independence through internal pressure and moral persuasion. Bose, recognizing the limitations of internal resources, actively sought support from foreign powers. He travelled to Germany and Japan, seeking military and financial aid to overthrow British rule. This decision drew criticism from within the Congress, who viewed it as compromising India’s principles.

Feature Mahatma Gandhi Subhash Chandra Bose
Philosophy Satyagraha, Non-violence Assertive Nationalism, Pragmatism
Strategy Mass Civil Disobedience Armed Struggle, External Alliances
Organization Decentralized, Grassroots Centralized, Military-style
External Support Opposed Actively Sought

Impact and Legacy

Gandhi’s methods played a crucial role in mobilizing the Indian masses and exposing the brutality of British rule, ultimately creating an environment conducive to independence. His emphasis on non-violence inspired movements for civil rights and social justice globally. Bose’s efforts, though controversial, demonstrated the willingness of Indians to fight for their freedom and instilled a sense of national pride. The INA’s participation in the war, though ultimately unsuccessful, shook the foundations of British authority and accelerated the process of decolonization.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while both Gandhi and Bose were dedicated to India’s freedom, their approaches were fundamentally different. Gandhi’s non-violent resistance appealed to the moral conscience of the world, while Bose’s assertive nationalism sought to exploit the vulnerabilities of the British Empire. Both strategies, though distinct, contributed significantly to the eventual attainment of independence, reflecting the multifaceted nature of the Indian freedom struggle. Their legacies continue to inspire and shape India’s political and social landscape.

Answer Length

This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.

Additional Resources

Key Definitions

Satyagraha
A philosophy and practice of non-violent resistance developed by Mahatma Gandhi, emphasizing truth and non-cooperation with evil.
Forward Bloc
A political organization formed by Subhash Chandra Bose in 1939, advocating for a more radical and socialist approach to the Indian independence movement.

Key Statistics

Approximately 60,000 Indians served in the Indian National Army (INA) under Subhash Chandra Bose.

Source: Based on historical records and research (knowledge cutoff 2023)

The Quit India Movement (1942) led to the arrest of over 90,000 people by the British authorities.

Source: Government of India records (knowledge cutoff 2023)

Examples

Dandi March

Gandhi’s Dandi March (1930) against the salt tax was a prime example of his non-violent civil disobedience, mobilizing thousands and garnering international attention.

Frequently Asked Questions

Was Bose’s alliance with Axis powers justified?

Bose’s decision remains controversial. He argued it was a pragmatic necessity to leverage resources against the British, while critics view it as a compromise of India’s principles. The context of a global war and the perceived intransigence of the British are key considerations.

Topics Covered

HistoryModern IndiaPolitical ScienceIndian NationalismPolitical IdeologiesFreedom MovementLeadership