• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

How would India have fared under S.C. Bose's continued leadership?

SinghSong

Well-known member
Location
Slough
Pronouns
he/him
So ITTL, let's say that Subhas Chandra Bose's faction won out in his power struggle with the Gandhi-led clique in the Congress Working Committee, enabling him to retain his presidency over the Indian National Congress (rather than being forced to resign from the Congress Presidency in April 1939, in spite of Bose having been democratically elected over Gandhi's preferred candidate Pattabhi Sitaramayya). And that in light of his presidency, rather than the unilateral decision being made by Viceroy Lord Linlithgow to declare war on India's behalf without consulting the Congress leadership, and to reject the Congress' request for a declaration that India would at the very least be given the chance to determine its own future (via an independence referendum) after the war, the British instead consult the Congress leadership first ITTL, and accept the Congress' demands for a post-war independence referendum, with the immediate granting of Dominion status providing sufficient mollification to keep the Bose administration on their side.

Looking at Subhas Chandra Bose's ideologies, he described himself as a leftist and socialist, having called in his book The Indian Struggle for a hypothetical "left-wing revolt" inside the Congress, after which the party will transform and will "stand for the interests of the masses, that is, of the peasants, workers, etc, and not for the vested interests, that is, the landlords, capitalists and money-lending classes", governed by Soviet-style central planning "for the re-organisation of the agricultural and industrial life of the country", having also proposed the adoption of "a synthesis between communism and fascism" throughout the 1930s, and expressed the belief that an independent India needed socialist authoritarianism, along the lines of Turkey's Kemal Atatürk, for at least two decades- as well as advocating a similar non-aggression pact between socialist authoritarian India, under his leadership, and the USSR.

Bose's core ideology was essentially a Hindi-nationalist variant of Kemalism; to an even greater extent than Hitler (who himself described Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as the "star in the darkness" in the early 1930s, and proclaimed Kemalist Turkey to be a "postgenocidal paradise" worthy of emulation), Bose greatly admired Kemalist Turkey, and proclaimed it to be the country which India should try its utmost to emulate. And IOTL, after he was elected the Congress president at the Haripura session in 1938, he'd also proclaimed that “to promote national unity, we shall have to develop our lingua franca and a common script... I am inclined to think the ultimate solution would be the adoption of a script which would bring us in line with the rest of the world. Perhaps some of our countrymen would gape with horror when they hear of the adoption of the Roman script, but I would beg them to consider this problem from the scientific and historical point of view.”

Bose said he was inspired by a trip to Turkey in 1934, when “Ataturk enforced a new national script in 1928”. But this source of inspiration for his proposed universal enforcement of Hindi was the enforcement of the Citizen, speak Turkish! initiative. Which had been accomplished via widespread book-burnings, and outright criminalization of all citizens found to be using any language other than Turkish who used a language other than Turkish, the imposition of fines upon and arresting any persons (including foreigners) who spoke a non-Turkish language in any public place, and citing of "insulting Turkishness" as a legal justification for prosecuting those who spoke any languages besides Turkish even in their own homes.

As such, we can speculate that under Bose's continued leadership, if he'd have the chance to implement his promised policies, language rather than religion had been the decisive dividing factor in India under his administration; and that it would have almost certainly been greatly exacerbated by the ‘Hindification’ policies which he loudly advocated imposing upon the Indian population, paralleling the 'Citizen, Speak Turkish!' initiative (but on a far larger, grander and more ambitious scale), which would have increasingly criminalized the use of all other written and spoken languages across India in the name of ‘national unity’. So then, how do you think that Bose's India would have fared? Better, or worse, than it did IOTL? And how'd you rate its potential for stability and long-term national unity, as opposed to instability and wholesale Balkanisation?
 
Considering that, in OTL, India’s attempt to impose Hindi as only a second language in South India resulted in widespread agitations, an attempt to impose it as the first language everywhere (the Kemalist model) would result in the secessionist tendency in Dravidian-Tamil politics become far stronger. For that matter, it would be faced with massive opposition in places like Gujarat which, while accepting of Hindi as a second language, feel immense pride in their regional languages and would never want to give it up. Combined with his aversion to democracy, it would end up very badly.
 
Considering that, in OTL, India’s attempt to impose Hindi as only a second language in South India resulted in widespread agitations, an attempt to impose it as the first language everywhere (the Kemalist model) would result in the secessionist tendency in Dravidian-Tamil politics become far stronger. For that matter, it would be faced with massive opposition in places like Gujarat which, while accepting of Hindi as a second language, feel immense pride in their regional languages and would never want to give it up. Combined with his aversion to democracy, it would end up very badly.
Was that attempt before or after Operation Polo?

In fact, assuming that many of Bose's positions are known pre-independence, how many of the princely states would still sign up to it? Would any (beyond Hyderabad and Jammu & Kashmir) take a look at Bose's prospectus and decide "I'll take a chance going alone thanks"?
 
So ITTL, let's say that Subhas Chandra Bose's faction won out in his power struggle with the Gandhi-led clique in the Congress Working Committee, enabling him to retain his presidency over the Indian National Congress (rather than being forced to resign from the Congress Presidency in April 1939, in spite of Bose having been democratically elected over Gandhi's preferred candidate Pattabhi Sitaramayya).

It should be noted that the Congress presidency was not a strong thing at this point - it was an annually-elected position, and it typically replaced presidents quickly. It would not guarantee its holder unlimited power over the Congress party, and his opponents would have ample position to oppose him within the party even if he were to retain that position - especially if he were to make motions about communism or mass imposition of Hindi as the first language.

Was that attempt before or after Operation Polo?

In fact, assuming that many of Bose's positions are known pre-independence, how many of the princely states would still sign up to it? Would any (beyond Hyderabad and Jammu & Kashmir) take a look at Bose's prospectus and decide "I'll take a chance going alone thanks"?
There were anti-Hindi agitations in South India even before Indian independence, but for the most part afterwards. Though I don't think there's much of a connection, as Telugu people were the most anti-Nizam (Telangana had a large pro-India communist rebellion in the one year in which Hyderabad tried to go independent), and the feudal elite of Hyderabad spoke a very similar language to Hindi.

Most princely states were strongarmed into joining India and I can't really see many of them successfully go independent because they weren't popular and they generally had strong national movements. And most of them were in Hindi-speaking territory, which wouldn't be irritated by the one-nation one-language model. In OTL, Bhopal tried to go independent and, despite shooting protestors, was ultimately forced to sign accession. In South India, Travancore and Cochin are likely most viable as independent states and even in OTL the ruler of Travancore tried to go for independence before a communist rebellion forced him to backtrack. The other large princely state in South India is Mysore, but that was entirely inland - how viable was it as an independent state? Not very, probably, unless it were to grab land from India. Another large princely state is Baroda in Gujarat. Though it vigorously supported Indian independence, it would be irritated by such extreme Hindi imposition - on the other hand, it did not form a contiguous domain. So, the only two princely states which could have made a plausible run for independence without being crushed are Travancore and Cochin.
 
So, the only two princely states which could have made a plausible run for independence without being crushed are Travancore and Cochin.

I do like the idea of an independent state on the southern end of the subcontinent thematically (even leaving aside plausibility), but wonder if those two are are big enough to really stand up on their own in the long run.
 
Could Subhas Chandra Bose have prevented the partition of India? For all his flaws, Bose was very secular. He even wanted a 50% quota for Muslims in the Indian Parliament.
 
Considering that, in OTL, India’s attempt to impose Hindi as only a second language in South India resulted in widespread agitations, an attempt to impose it as the first language everywhere (the Kemalist model) would result in the secessionist tendency in Dravidian-Tamil politics become far stronger. For that matter, it would be faced with massive opposition in places like Gujarat which, while accepting of Hindi as a second language, feel immense pride in their regional languages and would never want to give it up. Combined with his aversion to democracy, it would end up very badly.
How much chance do you see of a Tamil secesionist party eventually winning an election in Tamil Nadu in this timeline? If it happened, how would Bose's government respond?
 
How much chance do you see of a Tamil secesionist party eventually winning an election in Tamil Nadu in this timeline? If it happened, how would Bose's government respond?
Bose's India would not be a democracy, as he believed India was not ready for it. Elections in it would be a farcical affair.

The DMK was initially a Dravidian secessionist party before it was forced to change its position because it wasn't doing well with such a position, and then advocating secession was banned. Now, the leading intellectual of the Dravidian movement was a man who advocated secession, EV Ramasamy or "Periyar". He was an "interesting" individual - he believed Tamil Brahmins were Jews (not in the positive sense), he believed Malaylis were "bastard sons of Brahmins" who secretly controlled the Indian government and plotted to outbreed Tamils, and he viewed the mass slaughters of Partition as a good thing and praised Jinnah for achieving independence "by the sword". In OTL, that part of his ideology achieved little steam, but if the Indian government is plotting to destroy Dravidian languages and replace them with Hindi as India's official language, it would be far more popular. And with no free elections, the result, I think, would be civil war.
 
And that in light of his presidency, rather than the unilateral decision being made by Viceroy Lord Linlithgow to declare war on India's behalf without consulting the Congress leadership, and to reject the Congress' request for a declaration that India would at the very least be given the chance to determine its own future (via an independence referendum) after the war, the British instead consult the Congress leadership first ITTL, and accept the Congress' demands for a post-war independence referendum, with the immediate granting of Dominion status providing sufficient mollification to keep the Bose administration on their side.

Why should we assume that Bose having more democratic support, within a non-governing party, and being more demanding, automatically means Britain concedes so many of the demands? If Britain really wants something, and it is dealing with more defiant Indian politicians, aren't its administrators going to do more unilateral things, not less?
 
Why should we assume that Bose having more democratic support, within a non-governing party, and being more demanding, automatically means Britain concedes so many of the demands? If Britain really wants something, and it is dealing with more defiant Indian politicians, aren't its administrators going to do more unilateral things, not less?

We shouldn't assume that, but the alternative outcome, of an Axis-aligned Bose-governed India seceding during WW2, opens up a whole different kettle of fish, with an overabundance of other entirely different potential butterflies- potentially enough to alter the outcome of WW2 itself, greatly increasing the plausibility of a British surrender and an Axis victory.
Could Subhas Chandra Bose have prevented the partition of India? For all his flaws, Bose was very secular. He even wanted a 50% quota for Muslims in the Indian Parliament.
Most likely scenario, IMHO, would be an Indian partition or break-up along different lines; i.e, ethnic and/or linguistic, rather than based upon religious affiliations as was the case IOTL. Emulating Indonesia (which has had a bunch of militant secessionist movements, with its first President Sukarno having also had similar political views, policies and ambitions to those proposed by Bose) would probably be an absolute best case scenario; but with India's population being so much larger, more multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and religious, and with the British still being so much more powerful and influential than the Dutch were, I wouldn't count on it.

I do like the idea of an independent state on the southern end of the subcontinent thematically (even leaving aside plausibility), but wonder if those two are are big enough to really stand up on their own in the long run.
Doesn't necessarily have to be just those two, or the princely states themselves. Looking at all those communist revolts, predominantly across South India in the princely states, their respective feudal elites' alleged lack of respect for their cultural and religious traditions was a common grievance. But with Hindification by Bose's clique in full swing, would these communist rebels be pro-India pro-Unionists ITTL? Or would these rebels be more likely to seek to 'go their own way'?

Or alternately, with Ceylon administered separately as a Crown Colony of the British Empire, mightn't the British be markedly more inclined to support Tamil secessionism, by way of their remaining stronghold of Ceylon, than the Dutch were to support Maluku secessionism (lacking any remaining bases of operation in the Dutch East Indies from which to support the RMS, after their decision to cede West Papua to Indonesia in order to improve relations)? And would the Pakistan movement simply magically go away, or could it present a greater threat to post-war newly independent India's stability than the far smaller and less supported Darul Islam group did in Indonesia?
 
Bose's India would not be a democracy, as he believed India was not ready for it. Elections in it would be a farcical affair.

The DMK was initially a Dravidian secessionist party before it was forced to change its position because it wasn't doing well with such a position, and then advocating secession was banned. Now, the leading intellectual of the Dravidian movement was a man who advocated secession, EV Ramasamy or "Periyar". He was an "interesting" individual - he believed Tamil Brahmins were Jews (not in the positive sense), he believed Malaylis were "bastard sons of Brahmins" who secretly controlled the Indian government and plotted to outbreed Tamils, and he viewed the mass slaughters of Partition as a good thing and praised Jinnah for achieving independence "by the sword". In OTL, that part of his ideology achieved little steam, but if the Indian government is plotting to destroy Dravidian languages and replace them with Hindi as India's official language, it would be far more popular. And with no free elections, the result, I think, would be civil war.
Another note, but Bose was highly popular among Tamils and still is today.
 
Considering that, in OTL, India’s attempt to impose Hindi as only a second language in South India resulted in widespread agitations, an attempt to impose it as the first language everywhere (the Kemalist model) would result in the secessionist tendency in Dravidian-Tamil politics become far stronger. For that matter, it would be faced with massive opposition in places like Gujarat which, while accepting of Hindi as a second language, feel immense pride in their regional languages and would never want to give it up. Combined with his aversion to democracy, it would end up very badly.
I frankly do not think Bose would do this. He was a realist, and being a Bengali himself in a government with numerous Tamil and South Indian members, it would cause much conflict. At the end I think a compromise like dualism would be forced on him.
 
We shouldn't assume that, but the alternative outcome, of an Axis-aligned Bose-governed India seceding during WW2, opens up a whole different kettle of fish, with an overabundance of other entirely different potential butterflies- potentially enough to alter the outcome of WW2 itself, greatly increasing the plausibility of a British surrender and an Axis victory.

Most likely scenario, IMHO, would be an Indian partition or break-up along different lines; i.e, ethnic and/or linguistic, rather than based upon religious affiliations as was the case IOTL. Emulating Indonesia (which has had a bunch of militant secessionist movements, with its first President Sukarno having also had similar political views, policies and ambitions to those proposed by Bose) would probably be an absolute best case scenario; but with India's population being so much larger, more multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and religious, and with the British still being so much more powerful and influential than the Dutch were, I wouldn't count on it.


Doesn't necessarily have to be just those two, or the princely states themselves. Looking at all those communist revolts, predominantly across South India in the princely states, their respective feudal elites' alleged lack of respect for their cultural and religious traditions was a common grievance. But with Hindification by Bose's clique in full swing, would these communist rebels be pro-India pro-Unionists ITTL? Or would these rebels be more likely to seek to 'go their own way'?

Or alternately, with Ceylon administered separately as a Crown Colony of the British Empire, mightn't the British be markedly more inclined to support Tamil secessionism, by way of their remaining stronghold of Ceylon, than the Dutch were to support Maluku secessionism (lacking any remaining bases of operation in the Dutch East Indies from which to support the RMS, after their decision to cede West Papua to Indonesia in order to improve relations)? And would the Pakistan movement simply magically go away, or could it present a greater threat to post-war newly independent India's stability than the far smaller and less supported Darul Islam group did in Indonesia?

you’re not reckoning with the other alternative- Congress leaders, or at least any of them attempting a secession or insurgency, being jailed, and Britain controlling India through martial law, the Indian army, and political support of the Muslim league and the princes. Didn’t the British do that in OTL in 1942 after that year’s ‘quit India’ movement?

even a successful Indian revolt, not a likely short term outcome, isn’t leading to a British surrender to Germany or other Axis powers.
 
Back
Top