As Prime Minister Narendra Modi unveiled a hologram statue of freedom fighter Subhash Chandra Bose at India Gate in New Delhi last month, the honour was largely presented as an undoing of the great wrongs that were done to the legacy of Netaji by the previous government. This sparked a heated debate which had the political and intellectual world divided.
Till the grand statue of Netaji Bose is completed, a hologram statue of his would be present at the same place. I will unveil the hologram statue on 23rd January, Netaji’s birth anniversary. pic.twitter.com/jsxFJwEkSJ
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) January 21, 2022
Netaji is the most recent addition to the list of “forgotten icons” of Indian history according to the BJP, the previous ones being Sardar Patel and Savarkar.
In what appears to be a dig at the previous government, the prime minister said, “India’s freedom struggle involved the sacrifices of lakhs of people, but attempts were made to limit their history. But today, decades after independence, the country is correcting those mistakes.”
The media, as usual, followed suit and tried to highlight the honour as the first and the most unique one in which Bose has been celebrated at the national capital.
Although, one of Netaji’s statues is present at Subhash Park, right next to the Red Fort in the national capital, much more accessible to the public and definitely more economical and less power-consuming than the current holographic one.
The statement of the prime minister pushed the debate into the territory where history and politics essentially collide.
Should our leaders dwell in the past? And should past icons be presented in the light of political tussles which are more reflective of the polarisation of the present than the past?
Was there any real non-recognition and erasure of the legacy of Bose or is this just another mudslinging in which the BJP and Congress parties have numerous times landed themselves?
Dividing The Past On Today’s Lines
Does the conjecture that an over-emphasis on the Gandhi-Nehru family in the freedom struggle of India has kept the light away from other revolutionaries stand the test of critical scrutiny?
Educators of modern Indian history viewed the current government’s newly found interest in Bose as an “appropriation in the garb of recognition” and a politically motivated step to achieve suitable ends.
Renowned historian Professor Aditya Mukherjee while addressing this debate on India Today, stated, “This is not history writing, this is not how great societies are built, if we are going to look at the future like this and every wrong that has happened, then we’ll be dead before we’ve taken one step forward.”
What one can pick from the discussion is that applauding the heroes of the national movement with the intent to posit one historical icon against another is a huge disservice to the history of the freedom movement.
The Vilification Of Gandhi And Nehru
Gandhi seems to have fallen out of favour in the current political climate because his message of communal harmony is of lesser avail when an overtly divided populace fetches more votes and applause than constructive work does.
Firstly, in a bid to reduce Gandhi to only cleanliness, “swachhta abhiyans” were emphasised more instead of his political ideals of unity and religious tolerance crucial to nation-building.
And secondly, a sinister demonisation was achieved by posing him in conflict with the other personalities of the freedom struggle like Sardar Patel, Subash Chandra Bose and B R Ambedkar.
Earlier it had surfaced that the government dropped Gandhi’s favourite hymn, “Abide With Me“, from the Beating Retreat ceremony, performed at Vijay Chowk in Delhi in the evening of 29 January every year, which marks the end of Republic Day festivities.
If this is not erasure, then what is? Why should the government indulge in something it is vehemently accusing the opposition of?
Nehru, on the other hand, is seen more as a former Congress politician instead of a stalwart who had a pivotal role in India’s independence and one of the makers of modern India.
On social media, particularly on Twitter, along with Nehru-bashing, right-wing influencers and trolls alike promote conspiracy theories of Nehru having a role in the “mysterious disappearance” of Netaji.
Is the removal of Nehru’s name from state-sponsored history textbooks in schools one of the many wrongs done by the ruling party?
Locating Netaji’s Legacy In The Age Of Dharma
Instead of dwelling in the rifts between the iconic leaders of the freedom movement, the emphasis needs to be on the constructivist agreement they shared against a common enemy: the British.
These leaders openly condemned the communal forces dividing the masses more often than the current dispensation. And we need these voices more than ever now, even as calls of genocide are erupting from the very heartland of Hinduism at Haridwar.
The core of Bose’s ideals was keeping religion separate from politics; he also withheld the idea that Muslims were an integral part of the nation and was a staunch advocate of communal harmony as enshrined in his editorial in the political weekly, Forward Bloc titled Towards Communal Unity.
Bose was a strong critic of communal and sectarian bodies like the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League.
The dead silence of the ruling party over the Dharma Sansad in which the right-wingers pledged genocide of the 20% Muslim minority would have shaken the conscience of our nationalist leaders had they been alive.
These icons had imbibed the binding force and values of unity to the core of their existence and had displayed it numerously. Turning them into statues would be a bigger disregard if we aren’t able to delve deep into the ideological concerns they had for the nation.
The message is clear in what Sugata Bose, grandnephew of Bose, said on India Today, “The best monument to Netaji is to adorn and enlarge his legacy of equality and unity. He was a leader of our freedom struggle who united Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians in his Azad Hind Fauj by giving equal rights and equal respect to all. That is something we must remember today.”
By cherry-picking the differences Bose had with Gandhi or Nehru, the intention is not to honour Bose but instead find clashes and cleavages in history to suit a more rigorous polarisation. In this manner, we aren’t respecting Bose but demonising our great leaders.
Ideological Differences, Not Discord
Contrary to the majoritarian make-believe, Gandhi, despite having ideological reservations with Bose, had repeatedly asserted the instrumentality and importance of Bose in the freedom struggle.
As Gandhi discusses his political philosophy in the Hind Swaraj of “the means justifying the ends”, he believes that it is only fair means that can yield fair results. By this, he meant that we could not fight the fascists by aligning ourselves with another fascist regime.
This was the exact negation of the maxim “enemy’s enemy as a friend”, by which Bose stood, in striking an alliance with Nazi Germany and Japan to achieve India’s freedom against the British.
To Gandhi, the law of Karma necessitated that the means to achieve something fair should themselves be fair, an idea rooted in the Bhagavad Gita. But these differences, as the contemporary leaders believe, were not rooted in hatred and malice but mutual respect and shared motives of a free India. Free not just from the British colonists but also from the shackles of communalism.
Such was the resilience of our past leaders that they could work together for a common aim despite their differences.
We need to understand that those rooting on these divisions care not for Gandhi, Nehru or even Bose. What they care for is communal division, blame-shifting and a fuller dose of nationalism draped in fascism.
Would those who believe that Gandhi or Nehru stole the limelight from Bose care to address the historical fact that it was Bose who first addressed Gandhi as “the Father of the Nation” in 1942.
And it was Gandhi who awarded the epithet “Prince Among Patriots” to Bose, recognising his achievement in integrating women and men from all the regions and religions of India in the Indian National Army.
Alas, these leaders would lament if they were to reckon with the narrow tussles in which we are entangling them today.