72 HIS MAJESTY’S OPPONENT
The Simon Commission seemed to deny the very basis of Indian
nationhood, seeing the country as a collection of squabbling commu-
nities and interests over which British parliamentarians alone could
arbitrate. Its composition and mandate were seen as an affront not
only by the Congress, but also by the Liberals, under the leadership of
Tej Bahadur Sapru, and the All- India Muslim League, represented by
Mohammed Ali Jinnah. All parties decided to boycott the Simon Com-
mission, which arrived in February 1928. The Simon seven were met
with shouts of “Go back!” and black- flag demonstrations wherever
they went. An all- parties conference tried to draw up a constitutional
framework that Indians could agree on, and in May 1928 the Congress
formed a small committee for that purpose. It was chaired by Motilal
Nehru, and Subhas Chandra Bose was invited to be a member.
In addition to taking part in deliberations among the inner circle of
the Congress leadership, Bose vigorously pursued his active interest
in student and youth or ga ni za tions, labor unions, and the incipient
women’s movement. He emerged along with Jawaharlal Nehru, eight
years his elder, as the leader of the radical, left- leaning youn ger genera-
tion of anticolonial nationalists. His spell in Burmese prisons had cre-
ated an aura around him, and he was already being seen as the rising
star in all- India anticolonial politics. In May 1928, he called on Ma-
hatma Gandhi at his ashram in Sabarmati and asked him to lead a new
mass movement. He then undertook an extensive tour of the country,
addressing countless student and youth or ga ni za tions and labor con-
ferences. “Democracy,” he told the Maharashtra provincial conference
over which he presided, “is by no means a Western institution; it is a
human institution.” He also put forward a reasoned defense of nation-
alism against its critics. Refusing to believe that nationalism necessarily
hindered cosmopolitanism in the domain of culture, he espoused a
variant of Indian nationalism that was not narrow, selfish, or aggres-
sive, but instilled “the spirit of ser vice” and aroused “creative faculties”
in its people. He argued the case for “a coalition between labor and
nationalism,” using the term “labor” “in a wider sense to include the
peasants as well.” India, he believed, should become “an in de pen dent
Federal Republic.” He warned Indian nationalists not to become “a