Subash Chandra Bose, an American Historian and Politics A Terrible deplorable Mixture

A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books

The book on the right is a collection of short essays. reviews and reflections of a Historian well entrenched in the "South Asia" baliwick. A Jewish heritage amkes him natrually drift to the left of the political spectrum, but when it comes to India we find him squarely with the Congress on all key issues. His book Brothers Against the Raj was based on material found and curated in the Netaji Research Bureau and and therefore presents the lives of Sarat and Subash from a perspective that does not annoy the family. However there is one very offensive line that I eake stong exception to: "British documents of the period note the he (Subash Chandra Bose) was presumed dead. If found alive, he would have been the only civilian tried (p.385). Tried for what Mr, Gordon? The implication of this sinsiter line is that Bose was guilty of collaborating with the Germans and the Japansese on whom the British Raj had declared war. Now it is very clear that being a subject state India had no say in this decision and Indians are at liberty to use the situation created by World War II to puruse its Independence. Leonard Gordon has crossed a line in making this absurd remark. Let me bring in the analogy of General Charles de Gaulle.

After the defeat and surrender of France, Col De Gaulle deserted Ftance and set up the Fighting France and sought soldiers in Algiers to join his force. It was only the good will of Winston Churchill that made de Gaulle join the victory parade after Liberation though his Fightin France had done precious little. And France will not question this politically convenient interpretation as (a) avoided the stigma of collaboration (b) avoided the consequences of defeat in that France was rewarded a victor and got a permanent seat on the Security Council. A defeated nation that collaborated with Germany becamr free of moral and political stain and Subash Chandra Bose who like Gaulle faught for his Nation has to be "tried" as Japan was defeated. Had the tables been turned the results would have been different.

Leonard Gordon has shown how easily his "white privilege" got his easy access to the Indian political and cultural elite. When Indira Gandhi's regime refused visa, he got Jyoti Basu and Satyajit Ray sign a joint letter requesting visa and the then Chief Minster of WEst Bengal Siddhartha Shankar Ray signed it and sent it to the PMO. If this is not privilege what else can we call it. And western scholars are able to suborn Indian loyalties very easily and this unfortunate tendency is still goin on. Every week we have the same suspects joining hands with white American scholars to lambast India. Colonialism still endures,

een

The Bose Deception is germane to this discussion. There has been virulent controversy over the alleged plane crash in August 1944 in which the regime in power in India at that time and the Congress playing to the gallery declared Bose dead. As far as India is concerned the people at large refused to buy this self serving theory especially as the British Government under Clement Atlee decided to Transfer Power to Jawaharlal Nehru and his Party. Bose dead would have been very convenient to this arrangement and this explains why the Intelligence Bureau kept track of Bose and kept up very close surveillence on the family.

Subash Chandra Bose remains the only Hero of the Freedom Struggle.

Pierre Laval:: Patriot, Traitor or Collaborator Laval needs to be reviewed critically

A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books

Pierre Laval 

    Pierre Laval (1883- 1945) was Prime        Minister of France three thrice, served       as a   Minister of the Third Republic        13   times and   was Foreign Minister         and President of the   Council. A socialist   by conviction and a   French patriot, by   choice he became the   victim of Charles   de Gaulle's politics and   his  execution in   1945 after a trial that even   Stalin would   have found embarrassing,: a   grotesque   

Kafkaesque political drama in   which Laval was denied a fair trial without   witnesses, documents or evidence. And his meeting with Hitler as Prime Minister and with Mussolini earlier held up as evidence of treason, collaboration and therefore guilty.

The great Athenian Historian, Thucydides wrote with great insight, nearly two thousand five hundred years back, "to fit in  with the change of events, words too  had to change their usual meaning." Ideology and political expediency demanded a new Hero and a new Church and the hero and the church required a sacrifice in blood and that was paid by Laval. On the night preceding his execution he tried to kill himself and it was decided to shoot him on a stretcher, if he  could not walk. De Gaulle claimed that his "Fighting France" had "liberated" France from the Germans. The truth is that he was allowed to march a small contingent of 500 men at the head of the Anglo American column and thus the keystone of the Gaullist ideology rests on a piece of contrived propaganda. Gaulle did not liberate France and neither was Pierre Laval a collaborator or a traitor. De Gaulle with the help of the Communists and elements of the French Right whipped up a cloud of passion which cast deep doubts on the motives and actions of Pierre Laval. Unfortunately, the Gaullist State institutionalised the self serving ideologically potent myth and like marionettes Historians are dancing ever since to this absurdity. In fact anyone even suggesting a more nuanced and balanced opinion or assessment is usually hollered down by the rabid defenders of de Gaulle. 

Few Historians recognise today that Pierre Laval was the first European statesman to understand the danger posed by Hitler. After  becoming Prime Minister in 1931 he sought to bring Social Insurance and succeeded and to this day his scheme lasts. In 1935 as Prime Minister he met Mussolini in Rome and convinced him to accept the responsibility of defending Austria and when the Germans assassinated the Austrian Chancellor, Dollfuss, it was Italy that forced Germany and Hitler to back off from outright annexation. Recognizing the danger posed by Germany and responding to that danger by creating an international coalition with Italy and Britain fell through as Britain was going through it "appeasement" phase and when Britain accepted the remilitarization of the Rhineland without a whisper of protest, Laval realised that in any confrontation France would be left high and dry. The same fear took him to Moscow, but Stalin too was in no mood to confront Germany. Given this track record of diplomacy against Hitler's Germany, Laval can be termed a "fascist" and "collaborator" only by those who use History  as a tool of political legitimation. Samuel Hoare the Foreign Minister of Britain signed an agreement with Laval but it created a storm in Britain which did not quite see Germany as an existential threat to civilization, and Laval clearly did. When Laval's policy of containment fell through, he became more prudent. 

In 1940 when Germany invaded France and concluded an  Armistice which was hugely popular, Laval had no role in this at all as he became Prime Minister under Marshall  Phillipe Pe'tain after the Armistice. Does this transfer of power which took place with  the concurrence of the National Assembly constitute treason. The charge of treason cannot be made unless we take into consideration the fact that the Armed Forces, Police and territory were firmly controlled by the existing Government. I hesitate to use the very word Vichy as it carries the stain of Gaullist invective. De Gaulle went to France where he was permitted to claim that he represented "Free France", the Cross of Loraine that Sir Winston Churchill and the Allies carried reluctantly. Pierre Laval was dismissed in 1940 and for the next two years he remained out of office. He was recalled in 1942 and held office until 1944. Only the retrospective judgement marinated in expediency and political need can lead to the imposition of the construct of Traitor and Collaborator on Laval.

Pierre Laval kept French institutions clear of German influence and all the judges on the hastily constituted a High Court of Justice including the chief, Paul Mongibeaux were all servants of the Vichy Government and they did not see the irony of sitting in judgement on a man who was its head. The fact is de Gaulle wanted Pierre Laval punished and executed so that he could build his political future on dead Laval. The jury consisted by Socialists who were politically opposed to Vichy and a death sentence was handed down and on 15th October 1945 Laval faced a firing squad. The trial and sentence were timed so that before the Elections in 1945, de Gaulle could appear before the French as the Grand H'omme the saviour of "Eternal France" and refurbish its image as a Great Power. And the removal of Laval did accomplish all this. France's defeat and neutrality (not collaboration) could be wiped clean and the Gallic Coq was free to strut its stuff on the world's stage. 

The most egregious charge against Pierre Laval was with regard to the French Navy anchored in North Africa. The British planes bombed the ships destroying the ships killing 1300 sailors on board, an attack similar to the Pearl Harbour Attack by Japan. Even this provocation did not lead to France declaring war against England and thereby proving the neutrality of Vichy. How could this incident be brought as evidence of a hostile attitude towards France. Political necessity had created a climate in which honest assessment of Laval's role was neither made nor attempted. And de Gaulle was waiting in the wings to erect his political future on the corpse of Pierre Laval.

An assessment of Pierre Laval must consider the circumstances of his regime and with the exception of Rousso few Historians have taken those under consideration. Pierre Laval preserved France as State and Country in the face of huge challenges. Nazification of French public institutions was resisted almost till the bitter end. German demands for labour was met but with reluctance and Jewish persecution was resisted till the end of 1943 when it became impossible for France to fight Germany.

An assessment of Pierre Laval must consider all  these facts.