Netaji, Throughout His Life, Stood Against the Values That Hindutva Propagates – 2 Articles
❈ ❈ ❈
Replug: Netaji Wasn’t a Friend of Hindutva, But its Adversary
Shubham Sharma
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been infatuated with India’s anti-colonial nationalist leadership; not necessarily out of love and respect for the values that they stood for, such as anti-imperialism, a commitment to democracy and secularism. Their infatuation stems from a thirst for co-option as they barely have icons within Hindutva’s ideological past who participated in the national freedom struggle. Their icons do not match the contributions of the Indian National Congress (INC) leadership, including M.K. Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Maulana Azad, Badshah Khan, etc. Then, the selective co-option is designed to drum up their empty credentials by putting leaders who stood together against the colonial powers against one another in the most insulting manner.
After Patel, Hindutva’s latest catch is Netaji Bose. Recently Prime Minister Narendra Modi has declared that Netaji’s birthday would be celebrated as Parakram Diwas. An act that appears harmless on the surface becomes problematic when one looks at how it gets organised and bandied about in public by the government, wider Hindutva apparatus and worst of all, the PM himself.
During the West Bengal elections, the RSS-BJP tried its best to milk Netaji’s legacy by including one of his many surviving kins into the BJP and displaying some obscure and unsubstantial documents in public. However, none of this helped, and BJP comprehensively lost the Assembly elections in the state.
We are sure that the same theatrics will start once Netaji’s birth anniversary celebrations commence. But we should keep some crucial aspects in mind before we fall into the BJP’s trap and start counterposing and vilifying other leaders vis-à-vis Netaji. For example, even though Netaji left the Congress in disagreement with Gandhi, he never vilified Gandhi, Nehru, and the Congress. This could be best gauged from how he named the regiments of the Indian National Army (INA). He named them Gandhi Brigade, Nehru Brigade, Azad Brigade and Rani Lakshmi Bai Brigade. Barring the great Rani, all the regiments were named after the stalwarts of the Congress.
Netaji did so out of sheer deference and respect for the Congress leadership even though he had parted ways with them. No regiments were named after VD Savarkar, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, or any other RSS ideologues who were active at the time. For him, the true leaders of the national movement were Nehru, Gandhi and Azad. This is proved by a 1943 speech that Netaji made from exile from Bangkok on Gandhi’s 74th birthday, wherein he described Gandhi’s contribution as ‘unique and unparalleled.’ Netaji went on to say that ‘‘no single man could have achieved more in one single lifetime under similar circumstances.’’
Netaji identified openly with the Left-wing of Congress. He counted Nehru among his comrades on the Left and described him in his book The Indian Struggle as ‘‘while his brain is with the Left-wingers, his heart is with Mahatma Gandhi.’’ Netaji spoke highly of the Bolshevik Revolution and connected India’s destiny to it in the same book. He wrote,
‘‘During the twentieth century, Russia has enriched the culture and civilisation through her achievement in the proletarian revolution, proletarian government and proletarian culture. The next remarkable contribution to the culture and civilisation of the world, India will be called upon to make.’’ (p. 372)
He further elaborated,
‘‘I am quite satisfied that Communism, as it had been expressed in the writings of Marx and Lenin and the official statements of policy of the Communist International, gives full support to the struggle for national independence and recognises it as an integral part of its world outlook. My personal view today is that the Indian National Congress should be organised on the broadest anti-imperialist front and should have the two-fold objective of winning political freedom and the establishment of a socialist regime.’’ (p. 394)
Since the RSS-BJP has always lampooned socialism in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution and hailed communists of all shades as “anti-nationals”, they should also label Netaji the same because he openly harboured pro-socialist and pro-communist sympathies. But they will never dare to do so. Instead, they will present a picture of Netaji in opposition to Nehru and Gandhi to gain false political brownie points among the people of India.
Since Netaji learnt his lessons of politics from Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das, who readily allocated 60% of seats for the Muslims in Bengal for their socio-political upliftment, he was a secular nationalist at heart. Netaji declared, “If we want to make India really great, we must build up a political democracy on the pedestal of a democratic society. Privileges based on birth, caste or creed should go, and equal opportunities should be thrown open to all irrespective of caste, creed or religion.” He also warned Indians that “religious fanaticism is the greatest thorn in the path of cultural intimacy…and there is no better remedy for fanaticism than secular and scientific education.”
Commenting on Netaji’s version of secularism, Harvard University historian Sugata Bose (who also happens to be Netaji’s grandnephew), in his book His Majesty’s Opposition, has written that “Netaji was staking out a middle ground between Nehru’s secularism, with its distaste for expressions of religious difference, and Gandhi’s harnessing of various religious faiths in energising mass politics.” ([p. 59)
Today when politicians are busy temple-hopping to prove their Hindu credentials, Netaji observed a strict divide between politics and religion.
Abid Hasan, a long-time compatriot of Netaji, recalls an incident in Singapore when Netaji was reluctantly made to enter a Chettiar temple. Tilaks made of sandalwood paste were put on the heads of Netaji, Hasan and Mohammad Zaman Kiani. Netaji wiped it off after leaving the temple, and so did his followers. Interestingly, Netaji decided to enter the temple only because the temple authorities agreed to host a national meeting open to all castes and communities. (Ibid, 256)
Netaji was also careful to use eclectic Hindustani instead of Sanskritised Hindi. As a result, a simple Hindustani translation of Tagore’s Jan Gan Man was adopted as the national anthem. Along with this, three Urdu words, Itmad (Faith), Ittefaq (Unity), and Kurbani (Sacrifice)—encapsulated the INA’s motto.
Netaji also adopted the springing tiger from Tipu Sultan for the shoulder badges of the INA soldiers.
Just like socialism, secularism is also the big fly in the ointment for the RSS-BJP, whereas Netaji was its hardcore and uncompromising votary. Would the RSS-BJP dare to lampoon Netaji for his secular credentials? Of course not. They will recourse to lies and speak of his military heroism without emphasising the crucial predicate of Hindu-Muslim unity.
Of Hindutva and its inglorious progenitor Savarkar, Netaji spoke in distasteful terms. In his book The Indian Struggle, Netaji recounts a meeting with Savarkar and Jinnah. He concluded that the politics of Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League greatly converged, and he placed them on the same political pedestal. Netaji wrote,
‘‘Mr Jinnah was then thinking of only of how to realise his idea of Pakistan (division of India) with the help of the British. The idea of putting up a joint fight with the Congress for Indian independence did not appeal to him…Mr. Savarkar seemed to be oblivious of the international situation and was only thinking how Hindus could secure military training by entering Britain’s army in India. From these interviews, I was forced to the conclusion that nothing could be expected from either the Muslim League or the Hindu Mahasabha.’’ (p. 344)
In Bengal, Netaji’s radicalism also invited the ire of the upper-caste/class Brahmanical elements which today have a solid footing within the RSS-BJP. The Bangiya Brahman Sabha criticised Netaji and his brother Sarat Bose and said,
‘‘The Congress has been swept off its old moorings and changed its character. Its politicians and their followers are now largely ill-educated and ill-informed men, fed on the imported literature of modern Irish history, Italian and Austrian revolutions, French republicanism and Soviet rule. They are anxious to try on India the experiments of Western Civilisation … and to do away with established institutions like Brahmanical hierarchy and zamindari landlordism as one allied system … which, in the name of social reform, strikes at the very roots of Hinduism.’’ (Chatterjee, J., Bengal Divided, p. 134)
In this context, the Hindu Mahasabha grew in Bengal and got strong support from the big businesses in Calcutta. They were dissatisfied with the radicalism of the Bose brothers. Hindu Mahasabha also gained the support of the wealthy Bengalis, who raised a handsome purse of Rs 10,000 for its inaugural conference.
And when the spectre of Muslim tyranny was raised to drum up Hindu support, Netaji came out scathingly against it. In his autobiographical sketch An Indian Pilgrim, Netaji pounded the ‘Muslim period’ logic in Indian history and represented the Battle of Plassey as an instance of Hindu-Muslim cooperation against a common enemy. It is pertinent to quote him at length. He wrote,
‘‘History will bear me out when I say that it is a misnomer to talk of Muslim rule when describing the political order in India prior to the advent of the British. Whether we talk of the Moghul Emperors at Delhi, or of the Muslim Kings of Bengal, we shall find that in either case the administration was run by Hindus and Muslims together, many of the prominent Cabinet Ministers and Generals being Hindus. Further, the consolidation of the Moghul Empire in India was affected with the help of Hindu commanders-in-chief. The Commander-in-chief of Nawab Sirajudowla, whom the British fought at Plassey in 1757 and defeated, was a Hindu.’’ (Bose. S (ed). Netaji Collected Works Vol-1. p. 15)
To conclude, on January 23, when the Prime Minister will set up a jamboree, we must recall the real Netaji. And as secular, democratic Indians longing for socialism we must distance ourselves from the BJP’s (mis)appropriation of the great leader.
(The author is an independent research scholar. Courtesy: Newsclick.)
❈ ❈ ❈
Ram Temple Consecration Stands in Sharp Contrast to Netaji’s Vision of Secular India
S.N. Sahu
On January 23, the birth anniversary of Netaji Subhas Bose is being celebrated. Just a day before, on January 22, Prime Minister Narendra Modi participated in the consecration of the under-construction Ram Temple being built in Ayodhya where the 500-year-old Babri mosque was demolished in 1992. It was, in the words of the Supreme Court, an “egregious violation of rule of law”.
Had Subhas Bose been alive today, he would have been shattered to see his vision of India, rooted in protection of cultural liberties all people regardless of their faiths, being violated. That violation was manifested in a sinister manner when the destruction of the Babri Mosque took place, and Prime Minister Modi, representing the secular State of India, actively associated himself with the consecration of Ram Temple riddled with religious values and rituals.
Netaji would have found such participation of the elected Prime Minister, owing allegiance to the Constitution of India, unacceptable. He would have recalled the proclamation of the Provisional Government he established in 1945 in South East Asia and took oath as its Prime Minister.
The proclamation of that government, set up for the whole of India, declared, “It guarantees religious liberty, as well as equal rights and equal opportunities to its citizens”. In addition, it declared “…its firm resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation equally and transcending all the differences cunningly fostered by an alien Government in the past.”
At the centre of that proclamation remained the freedom of India and religious liberty of all Indians. Such an inclusive vision of our country remained integral to Netaji’s worldview which got shaped by his understanding of Indian history free from any distortion or bias rooted in communalism or religious discord.
In his book, An Indian Pilgrim, Netaji flagged the shared cultures of all religious groupings, be they Hindus or Muslims, who took pride in their commonalities fostered over thousands of years of coexistence in the face of all the challenges. In the book, he interpreted the Battle of Plassey as one in which both Hindus and Muslims jointly fought against British occupation of India.
He also rejected the false narrative that Mughal rule in India was an era of slavery. He wrote in the aforementioned book, “History will bear me out when I say that it is a misnomer to talk of Muslim rule when describing the political order in India before the advent of the British. Whether we talk of the Moghul Emperors at Delhi, or of the Muslim Kings of Bengal, we shall find that in either case, the administration was run by Hindus and Muslims together, many of the prominent Cabinet Ministers and Generals being Hindus’ ‘.
Netaji proceeded to add, “Further the consolidation of the Moghul Empire in India was affected by the help of Hindu commanders-in-chief. The Commander-in-chief of Nawab Sirajudowla, whom the British fought at Plassey in 1757 and defeated, was a Hindu and the rebellion of 1857 against the British, in which Hindus and Muslims were found side by side, was fought under the flag of a Muslim, Bahadur Shah.”
With such an understanding of history, Netaji would have been shocked by Prime Minister Modi’s formulation that there was slavery in India for 1,200 years and that there was a movement spanning 500 years to reclaim the Babri Mosque and build the Ram temple on that very spot. The narrative of Modi while consecrating the temple in Ayodhya, that Ram is Vidhan, Ram is the law of the land, Ram is Rashtra, etc., would also have shocked Netaji, whose understanding of India and the idea it represented had nothing to do with any God or deity.
He would have found it very troubling to see nationalism in 21st century India being woven with the religion of the majority community at the behest of the powers that be. People belonging to the ruling Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) and its affiliates shouting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ and employing it against those pursuing a different faith, would have caused deep anguish to him because ‘Jai Hind’, the rallying slogan of the Indian National Army, united all Indians for the cause of freedom and liberation of India from British rule.
Netaji would have been horrified to see important people attending the Ayodhya meeting on January 22, and shouting slogans for Hindu Rashtra. That meeting was addressed by the Prime Minister.
Netaji lived and died fighting for the freedom of secular India in which there is no scope for defining the State and country in terms of the divisive idea of Hindu Rashtra. No wonder, that an INA soldier famously said that when Netaji was taking oath as Prime Minister of the Provisional Government in 1945, at a time when religion was used in India to divide people, the Indian National Army rallied around the slogan of ‘Jai Hind’.
Such slogans of pan-India significance are of critical significance for unifying people who often get divided by religious slogans, dismembering the unity and harmony of society. Mahatma Gandhi hailed Netaji as a ‘prince among patriots’ and appealed to people to learn from him the lessons of communal harmony to sustain India’s unity and integrity, which was being threatened by highly polarised narratives spun on a continuous basis by those controlling the State apparatus.
(The author served as an Officer on Special Duty to the President of India, KR Narayanan. Courtesy: Newsclick.)
