How do you look at Nehru and Bose as a pair in freedom struggle
Answers
Answer:
Nehru and Bose were the 'revolutionaries' of th Gandhian era of India's freedom struggle. Both of them also formee very important parts of the Indian government system today (tye army and the govt.)
Answer:
Bose's reluctance
These differing reactions were determined by their contrasting attitudes to Gandhi and his role in India’s freedom movement. Both admired and respected Gandhi but Subhas was reluctant to surrender completely to Gandhi’s influence and control. Jawaharlal was critical of Gandhi but dependent on him. Gandhi, in his turn, saw Jawaharlal as his chosen heir, and Subhas more as a somewhat rebellious and prodigal son. The friendship of Jawaharlal and Subhas could not escape all these influences ‒ they made and unmade their relationship.
The book looks at these factors and also at the contrasting personalities and intellectual orientations of the two men. They were friends but never soulmates and confidants. Their friendship was moulded less by personal affinities and affections and more by politics. It fell apart because of politics. It was not a relationship that could transcend and override political differences.
Yet, as far as one can tell from the existing documentation, there was no sense of rivalry between the two of them. This book tries to tell this complicated story of two men caught in turbulent times, testing their convictions sometimes against each other but always for India and its freedom.
Nuanced about Nehru
By the time I was nearing middle age my views on Nehru had become more nuanced and complex than they had been when I was in my teens or even in my early twenties. This book in many ways is my coming to terms with these two remarkable individuals whose presence I could not escape because of when and where I was born.
This book is also an exploration of a friendship that did not quite blossom. It withered only to have a brief afterlife. It is remarkable how closely, on parallel lines, the lives of Jawaharlal and Subhas moved: less than ten years separated them chronologically; both were born to relative affluence; both went to Cambridge; both gave up what could have been lucrative careers and joined the Indian national movement under the leadership of Gandhi; both were aware of what was happening in Europe and in Asia, and their exposure to these developments radicalized their own ideas; both saw themselves as men of the left and were attracted to socialism.
Given this background, it was not surprising that they were drawn to each other. For a few years in the 1930s, they were close enough to be called friends ‒ sharing views, reading similar books, and championing the same causes within the national movement. But by the late 1930s, the growing political distance between the two men was obvious. Their disagreements grew from their differing understanding of the course of the national movement, their attitudes towards Gandhi, their views on fascism and from the very different mental landscapes they inhabited.
By the early 1940s, the friendship and the affection were things of the past. But after Subhas’s sudden and untimely death, Jawaharlal could not forget the bonds they had shared and he revised his views about Subhas and the Indian National Army. Subhas, alas, was not there to experience this afterglow which is obvious from what Jawaharlal had to say and write immediately after Subhas’s death.
The Jawaharlal–Subhas relationship was not smooth but it was a poignant one. This relationship, however, has not received the attention it deserves from historians. The perception of this lack made me think about reconstructing their friendship and its unravelling. The focus of the book is their relationship and there is no attempt to tell the full story of their rich lives. The book is expressly not a biography of the two men.
Explanation:
this is your answer I hope it help you please amrk me as brainlist