historians and politicians alike, directly affected the Chinese notion
about Bose.
September 2, 2006
Professor Priyadarsi Mukherji
The colonial era in India and the semi-colonial phase in China saw a
series of cooperation and exchanges between the two peoples. The
colonial domination by the British over India and China brought about
misery and therefore prolonged struggle for freedom. However, certain
misconceptions have been noticed, and to a great extent deliberated,
so far as the Chinese interpretation of the Indian freedom struggle
and some Indian political figures are concerned.
We all know that an Indian medical mission was sent to China in 1938.
But the Chinese historians have chosen to emphasize that it was sent
by Jawaharlal Nehru. Whereas, the person solely responsible for
sending the mission along with an ambulance, after having collected a
sum of Rs 22,000 on the All-Indian China Day and China Fund days on
July 7-9, was none other than the President of the Indian National
Congress -- Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. He had made an appeal to the
people through a press statement on June 30, 1938. In Modern Review he
wrote an article on Japan's role in the Far East and denounced her
assault on China, "our whole heart going out to China in her hour of
trial". Therefore, the Chinese assertion is wrong and biased.
Bose in his broadcast from Berlin on May 1, 1942 agued saying, "Those
were the days when Marshal Chiang Kai-shek was fighting for his
national principles and that was why he could win sympathy of Indians
in an overwhelming degree. But the Marshal who came to India the other
day to ask the Indian people to fight for England was quite a
different man, a puppet of the Anglo-American forces.
One should notice that Bose while touring the Japanese-occupied
South-East Asia in 1943, had been quite active in saving the lives of
several ethnic Chinese from Japanese atrocities. Yet Marshal Chiang
and later the communists branded Bose as a "traitor". Ironically in
September 1931 when Chiang gave up the whole of north-east China to
Japanese occupation, he was branded by the communists as a "big
traitor" (maiguozei). Later his aligning with the Anglo-American
forces brought him closer to his arch enemies, the communists,
ofcourse, temporarily.
While professing national salvation and frequently visiting India for
more funds, Chiang Kai-shek conveniently chose to ignore the cause of
Indian freedom from the British yoke. The "egalitarian" worldview of
the communists too failed to extend the logic of national liberation
in the case of India. As Bose was vilified as "the running dog of
Tojo" in his own motherland by the communists, on the other hand his
goodwill for all freedom-loving people was conveniently disregarded by
the Chinese historians in the name of his alliance wit the Japanese
fascists without going into the truthful details.
Even our scholarly historians have been quite unfair and ruthless
while dealing with Bose. They did not want to take cognizance of
Netaji's serious differences with Hitler and later with the Japanese
military authority. Netaji had a one-point programme in his life, the
complete independence of India.
... In this world, either total and uncritical acceptance, or total
repudiation especially in the political sphere is quite foolish and
diehard position. That is exactly what has happened in the Chinese
interpretation as well as some Indian outlook about Subhas Bose.
With Nehru at the helm of country, in post-independence India,
brutally partitioned by power-hungry statesmen, Bose's name found no
significant mention in the pages of modern history of India ... The
lopsided view about Bose, taken by Indian historians and politicians
alike, directly affected the Chinese notion about Bose. Thus, no
genuine effort has been made, either by the Indian government, or by
other states across the world, to unravel the mystery behind Bose's
alleged disappearance. There is no doubt that the Chinese side too has
been affected by such negative approach.
After 1949, despite Nehru's unconditional support to China, the latter
hesitated the least to squarely accuse him for perpetrating the border
crisis in 1962. His acceptance of Tibet as part of China became less
significant for China compared to his sheltering the Dalai Lama. His
alliance with the US during the days of Sino-Indian crisis, though
viewed very critically, was considered necessary by China so as to
counter Soviet Union in the late 1970s.
So, there has been no uniform parameter in China's policies or
viewpoints except that with Subhas Bose. If the British intelligence
officer Hugh Toye can change his views about Bose and become his
admirer, then why can't China? A thorough retrospection as well as
introspection are needed in this regard. An objectively realistic
vision would help dispel these misconceptions. For that, of course,
Bose has to be portrayed in the correct perspective firstly at home.
And then we can expect others to follow suit.
There are indeed many aspects in this history of Sino-Indian contacts
that remain shrouded in mystery or are simply unexplored. The reasons
primarily being the inaccessibility of material, and due to certain
erroneous policies of both Indian and Chinese governments so far as
mutual perceptions are concerned. New horizons of knowledge and
interactive relations must be explored so as to promote greater
understanding between the two cultures. A concerted effort is needed
to study the primary sources, to do field work, to make a knowledge
bank by pooling talents, to translate large number of works and to
disseminate and popularise those among general public.
Extracted from the paper India-China relations: A journey to the
unexplored domains of history and culture published in the journal of
the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. Vol 2, Number 4
(October-December 2003).
Reproduced with the permission of the writer, a Professor in Chinese
and Sinological Studies in Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi.
link is here
http://www.missionn
No comments:
Post a Comment