Although “Parakram” means valour, in the era of the Sangh Parivar, it has also come to mean aggression against the weak and defenceless.

Subhas was never a “Parakrami” in the sense that the Sangh interprets. He was a true hero who united the weak and oppressed against the mighty British, risking his life in the struggle.

On this day, the Sanghis claiming to be “heirs” to Netaji’s legacy were the ones who diligently served the British army’s efforts to defeat Subhas during World War II. While Subhas was rallying soldiers worldwide against the British, these Hindutvavadis under Savarkar’s leadership,were brokering the recruitment of Hindus into the British army.

Yet, they now praise Netaji with clear ulterior motives.

Firstly, the Sanghis, who have no legacy of participating in the freedom struggle, are attempting to hijack the legacy of all non-Congress or dissident heros who were leaders of different streams  of the freedom struggle, portraying themselves as the heirs to these streams.

Secondly, they exploit the natural and healthy political and ideological differences that existed within the Congress and between Congress and other streams, and around them, they craft a false narrative to claim that all who disagreed with Gandhi and Nehru were pro-Hindutva nationalists, utilizing this for their current Hindutva nation agenda.

This is the real intention of the Sangh Parivar.

With this malicious intent, they have engaged in propaganda backed and filled with lies and fabrications that Gandhi and Nehru conspired against Subhas Chandra Bose and that the Hindutvavadis like Savarkar stood by him, thereby insulting Subhas to a great extent.

To fulfil their ulterior motives, they obscure the political, ideological, and secular perspectives between themselves and Gandhi-Nehru that Subhas had, as well as publicly expressed disdain towards communalists like the Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League.

At the same time, they conceal the disdain Subhas had for communalists like Savarkar, the Hindu Mahasabha, and the Muslim League.

This article primarily attempts to explain Subhas’s views on secularism, Hindu-Muslim unity, and his opinions about people like Savarkar. It relies mainly on Subhas’s own writings in “An Indian Pilgrim” and “Indian Struggle” and on works by his grandson and scholar Sugata Bose in “His Majesty’s Opponent” and the edited volumes “Collected Works Of Subasha Chandra Bose.”

All these books are available online, and interested parties can read them to understand the political-historical misdeeds of the Sangh Parivar.

Subhas Chandra Bose was not only a prominent leader of Congress but also martyred in the effort to oust the ruling British during World War II by forming the Azad Hind Fauj.

History textbooks have recounted to non-Bengali students anything more than this bare fact.

Subhas was above all else, an exceptional proponent of communal harmony and Hindu-Muslim unity. As a top-notch nationalist, he dreamed of building a future India based on socialist ideals. His views on the history of India, the way he formed the Azad Hind Fauj, and his clear disdain for figures like Savarkar are evident in these respects.

The Tiger of Tipu was the flag of the Azad Hind Fauj!

The Sanghis who attempt day and night to demonise the revered Tipu-Haider as fanatic monsters should be ashamed when considering the respect Subhas Chandra Bose and the Azad Hind Fauj held for them. Subhas used the flying tiger symbol of Tipu as a symbol of anti-British struggle on the first flag of the Azad Hind Fauj. While unveiling the flag, Subhas explained to his soldiers that this flying tiger was a symbol of Tipu Sultan’s resistance against the British.

That is not all. On October 21, 1943, the Azad Hind Fauj declared the provisional government of India. While making this proclamation, the Azad Hind Fauj and Netaji acknowledged several real leaders of the country along with Tipu and Haider, expressing their gratitude. Reading this makes it clear that it is impossible to appropriate Subhas for the RSS agenda.

The proclamation of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind begins like this:

“Ever since Bengal first faced defeat at the hands of the British in 1757, the people of India have continuously waged a struggle against British rule for a hundred years. This period is filled with the unmatched courage and selfless sacrifices shown by the people of India. During this period in the history of India, the names of Sirajuddaula of Bengal, Mohan Lal, Hyder Ali, Tipu Sultan, Velu Thampi….and others are inscribed in golden letters…”

Interested parties can read the full text and see pictures of this proclamation at the following web address:[https://www.roots.gov.sg/Collection-Landing/listing/1278996]

Hindu-Muslim Unity: the foundation of the Azad Hind Fauj

The Modi government is intent on imposing Brahminical Hindi as the sole language of the country. In contrast, the official language of Subhas’s Azad Hind Fauj was Urdu-Hindustani, commonly used by the people of North India, and English was used to be understood by the soldiers from South India. The motto of the Fauj was written in Urdu:

“Itmad (Trust), Ittefaq (Unity), and Qurbani (Sacrifice).”

In 1857, during the First War of Indian Independence, the Indian forces under the leadership of the last Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar called for “Delhi Chalo.” In September 1943, Subhas’s Azad Hind Fauj also embarked from Rangoon (now Myanmar) to expel the British from India, remembering the 1857 uprising, and Subhas called for “Delhi Chalo” during this grand departure.

That is not all either. On September 26, 1943, a special prayer meeting was held by the Azad Hind Fauj near the tomb of Bahadur Shah Zafar.

As described by Subhas’s grandson Sugata Bose in his scholarly work, the proportion of Muslim soldiers in the Azad Fauj was slightly higher than others, and many of Subhas’s closest associates were Muslims. In 1943, during a secret submarine adventure journey, the only companion who travelled with him was Abid Hasan from South Hyderabad. Throughout his travels across Europe and Asia, Hasan was Subhas’s close assistant.

The first division commander of the Azad Hind Fauj was Mohammad Zaman Kiani. The first to hoist the Tricolor flag of India in Imphal, Manipur, was Fauj officer Shaukat Malik. On their tragic last journey, Habibur Rahman perished alongside them. However, this uprising failed, and the soldiers of the Fauj were captured by the British, who charged them with sedition and held a trial. The three Azad Hind Fauj soldiers who were symbolically tried at the Red Fort were:

Prem Sehgal, a Hindu, Shah Nawaz Khan, a Muslim, and Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon, a Sikh.  This also symbolically represented the secular patriotism prevailing in Subhas’s Fauj.

(His Majesty’s Opponent, p. 4)

Netaji’s rejection of the Hindu-Muslim division in Indian history

The Hindutvavadis depict the history of India as having been engulfed in 1200 years of aggression to suit their communal polarisation agenda. Thus, they portray the entire era under Muslim rule before the British and the Muslim rulers before them as a period during which Hindus suffered under Muslim aggressors.

However, Subhas rejected this communal view of Indian history as propagated by the British, aimed at dividing India along Hindu-Muslim lines. He also noted:

“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 effected 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, and the rebellion of 1857 against the British, in which Hindus and Moslems were found side by side, was fought under the flag of a Muslim, Bahadur Shah.” (An Indian Pilgrim, p. 15)

Subhas’s outrage against communal organisations like Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League

During the period of the freedom struggle, Subhas held deep contempt for the Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League, which were working for the British and causing divisions among the people. When he was elected president of Congress in 1938, he emphasized this issue, saying:

“We often hear talks of a Hindu Raj. This serves no purpose. Can these communal organizations solve the problems faced by India’s working class? Do these organisations have any solution to the issues of unemployment and poverty?” he questioned vehemently.

He also banned members of the Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League from holding Congress memberships. The reason? Because:

“Jinnah’s idea is to obtain his dream of Pakistan with the help of the British, not to fight jointly with Congress for India’s liberation.”

“On the other hand, Savarkar’s only goal is to collaborate with the British and get military training for Hindus by joining the  British army. After meeting both, I have concluded that nothing can be expected from them for India’s independence.” (The Indian Struggle, p. 344)

Thus, even if one reads Subhas Chandra Bose’s own writings and the scholarly works about him, it becomes clear how malicious the portrayal of Subhas by these fascist Sanghis is.

Beyond the servitude to British colonialism, corporate capitalism, and communal hatred, these fascists have no history of building or fighting for the country. Now, they are hijacking leaders who had differences with Gandhi and Nehru and were non-Congress, and portraying them in a way that insults these leaders, this country, and its history.

A staunchly secular, anti-communal, and socialist nationalist like Subhas Chandra Bose can never be appropriated by the RSS. Nor should he be allowed to be.

The only way to do this is to expose their false narrative through an exposition of real history, which itself must become a movement, right?

(The writer is a political commentator based in Bengaluru)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia. 

Related:

Debunking “Popular Myths” through a study of Bose

Second killing of Bhagat Singh & Subhash Chandra Bose by the Hindutva Gang

India’s Post Truth Era in ICHR’s Book on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose

PM Modi to attend Subhas Chandra Bose’s 125th birth anniversary celebrations in Kolkata

The post Can RSS co-opt Subhas Chandra Bose, a staunch secular-socialist and a fond admirer of Tipu Sultan? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We shall make an attempt to debunk the more “popular myths” associated with Bose through his own writings and correspondence. The three primary myths to be debunked are about one, Nehru and Bose’s relations, two, Bose and Patel’s relations and three, why and how Bose’s appropriation by the majoritarian communal forces reflects a greatest irony.

‘The rift between Nehru and Bose’

It is one of the most favourite pastimes of various right wing organizations to pit Bose against Nehru in their attempt to show how they were antagonistic to each other. However, the reality is contrary to what is being portrayed. Subhash Chandra Bose had been deferential to CR Das and Motilal Nehru since his inception in politics. With the passage of time, Subhash and Jawaharlal came to be seen in a similar light, both representing the left wing within the Congress. Both of them surged ahead as icons and the favourite leaders of youth. Their popularity could be gauged from the fact that the charismatic youth leader of the time, Bhagat Singh, himself wrote an article on the two titled, ‘New Leaders and their Different Ideologies’ in Kirti magazine in 1928. The two had opposed the dominion status of the Nehru Report and had been adamant to amend this clause at the Calcutta session of the Congress in 1928. The All India Congress Committee passed Gandhi’s resolution that, if the British did not accede to their demand for Dominion status within two years, then a call for complete independence should be given, by 118 votes. Subhash got 45 votes in his favour.

A meeting of the left wing within the Congress had taken place in Lucknow in 1928 attended by both Nehru and Bose. After the meeting both of them began organising branches of the Independence League all over the country. (Subhash Chandra Bose, An Indian Pilgrim: The Indian Struggle, 1935, pp.136-137) The first All Bengal Conference of Students was held in August 1928 at Calcutta presided by Jawaharlal Nehru. (Bose, 1935, p.137) The Independence League was formally inaugurated at Delhi in November and according to Bose it attained the importance that it did largely because of Nehru’s association with it. (Bose, 1935, p.152)

At the time when the Gandhi-Irwin pact was about to be signed, Bose hoped that Nehru would be successful in getting Gandhi to agree to more favourable terms for the nation. He wrote that there was no one with sufficient personality to force their views on Gandhi except Jawaharlal Nehru. (Bose, 1935, p.181)

The difference between Bose and Nehru regarding Gandhi was that while both were deferential to him, Nehru was not ready to break with him, unlike Subhash. We shall see this more vividly as we move forward. The relations between Nehru and Bose were extremely friendly during this time and as argued by Rudrangshu Mukherjee in his Nehru and Bose: Parallel Lives (2014), Bose had started to think of Nehru as an elder brother and mentor but Nehru was perhaps unaware about the change. Bose took great care of Kamla Nehru during her treatment in Europe and regularly kept himself updated regarding her health despite his peripatetic nature of stay. (Letter from Bose to Nehru dated October 4, 1935, p.121, Bunch Of Old Letters). He was also with Nehru in his hour of bereavement and wrote a letter to him to that effect on 4th March 1936 (Bunch Of Old Letters, p.166).

On his return to India, Bose was detained and shortly imprisoned. This did not go down well with the youth of the nation and their admiration for Bose was given expression by Nehru who declared the day, May 10, to be celebrated as Subhash Day. (Rudgranshu Mukherjee, Nehru And Bose: Parallel Lives, 2014, p. 213)

In Bose’s letter to Nehru dated June 30, 1936 he expressed his concern for Nehru’s health and went on to advise him a couple of things regarding his priorities as Congress President.(Bunch Of Old Letters, p.195) The two had grown e quite close and spoke in almost one voice over all matters of the Congress. When the infamous Tripuri incident took place and he saw no cooperation forthcoming from his Working Committee, Bose resigned. At the time, he wrote a letter to his nephew. This letter which is quoted by almost all the accusers as “evidence of Nehru’s malice towards Bose” should be read in context and in entirety. Though the letter says, no one had done more harm to me than Nehru in my cause, this comment was meant in the context to the Tripuri incident. This emerges from the fact that Bose despite his admiration for Gandhi was ready to part ways with him which Nehru was not. Rudrangshu Mukherjee points out that at this time Bose even invited Nehru to discuss the situation (Rudrangshu Mukherjee, Nehru and Bose: Parallel Lives, 2014, p.243)

We must also not forget that Nehru was made the chairman of the Planning Committee during Bose’s tenure as Congress President and Nehru makes it a point to mention this. (Nehru, Discovery Of India, Classic Reprint, 2010, p.412)  When the news of Bose’s death reached Nehru, he was moved to tears, one of the very few occasions when he cried in public. He even donned the lawyer’s coat after 25 years to defend the INA prisoners alongside Bhulabhai Desai. Nehru contrasts Bose’s heroic resistance from Japan with the lethargic attitude of a few Congressmen. (Nehru, Discovery of India, Classic Reprint, 2010, p.521). Bose on his part named one of the battalions of his army after Nehru. They had their differences but those were probably very few and their mutual respect and admiration was tremendous. As Rudrangshu Mukherjee highlights, it is their friendship, the partnership they had, which has been overlooked by historians.

‘Patel and Bose did not see eye to eye’

There can hardly be any misconception as great as this, for which, often, historians have been responsible. Bose and Patel had their differences and often quite sharp ones but they greatly admired each other. When Patel had become the ‘Sardar Patel of India’ after the Kheda satyagraha, Bose referred to his achievement at Kheda as a “glorious victory.”(Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel: A Life, 1991, p.168). While Bose was closer to Nehru, when Nehru was made the president of Congress in 1929, Bose wrote in his Indian Pilgrim that the general feeling in Congress circles was that the honour should go to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. (p.169) The Karachi session, apart from vital interjection/inclusion of the section/chapter on fundamental rights, was notable for the unity displayed by Gandhi, Patel, Nehru and Bose. (Rajmohan Gandhi, 1991, p. 204)

Rajmohan Gandhi also narrates an incident which displays Patel’s curiosity to learn from Bose as well as a competitiveness between the two through Mahadev Desai’s diary. Mahadev Desai notes in his diary on May 29, 1932 that Patel asked him a question which he found interesting, even amazing. He asked who was Vivekananda?  Mahadev Desai thought that this thought might have risen because of Bose claiming Vivekananda his inspiration in an article in Leader. He suggested Romain Rolland’s books on Vivekanand and Ramkrishna Paramhans. While the latter part is correct, it appears to have transpired in June and not on May 29. Also, Mahadev Desai himself offers this suggestion to Patel and not on any particular query raised by Patel. If this fact, what was said is true, then Rajmohan Gandhi might have used a different version of Mahadev Desai’s diary –one which may be in physical existence —as against the one accessible on the Internet.

Vithalbhai Patel (Sardar’s brother) was in Austria where he met Bose. Vithalbhai’s health had been on a decline and in September 1933 it reached a position where he had to be attended by doctors most of the time, aound the clock. As his last but not insignificant political act, Vithalbhai Patel along with Subhash Chandra Bose signed a joint statement against Gandhi’s passive resistance stating that he had failed as a leader and India now needed new methods for its independence. (GI Patel, Vithalbhai Patel: Life And Times, Volume 2, 1950, pp.1217-1218) Vallabhbhai Patel was in prison at this time but he was deeply attached to his brother despite a few bitter memories which marred Vithalbhai’s move to Europe. Vallabhai rote multiple letters to Vithalbhai. It was probably the close monitoring (surveillance) by the the British that ensured these letters never reached Vithalbhai who thought that his brother had probably neglected him. (GI Patel, Vithalbhai Patel: Life And Times, Volume 2, 1950, p.1226) Bose who had this remarkable gift of nursing and doting on the ill, looked after him extremely well. Gandhi remarked on this aspect; observing that Bose had outdone himself in his care of Vithalbhai.

Vithalbhai made his Will at the Clinique de Linegeure, Gland in which he wrote that three fourth of his estates were to be used by Subhash for India’s political upliftment and publicity work on behalf of India’s freedom struggle. He appointed Dr. P.T. Patel and G.I. Patel as executors of the Will.(G.I. Patel, Vithalbhai Patel: Life And Times, Volume 2, pp.1250-1251) GI Patel further mentions that though he asked Bose for the original Will several times, he could only muster a copy of the Will that he sent to GI Patel. GI Patel met Vallabhbhai in Nashik prison and showed him the Will. Vallabhbhai subjected the Will to cross examination enquiring why Vithalbhai’s signature was not attested by a medical person when he was in failing health. Since he would not have been able to dictate the Will in one go because of his illness, why was the original handwritten copy not produced? He was also suspicious as to why all three men who attested Vithalbhai’s signature were Bengalis and two of them merely students when eminent people like Bhulabhai Desai and others were present nearby.

Despite this fact we must keep in mind that Gordhanbhai Patel and not Vallabhbhai Patel moved the Bombay High Court in January 1939. Bhulabhai Desai, Chimnalal Setalvad and Motilal Setalvad represented GI Patel and others whereas PR Das (CR Das’s brother) and Manekshaw represented Bose. Justice B.J Wadia held that the reference in the Will to objects on which Subhash was to spend Vithalbhai’s money was vague and thus invalid. Vallabhbhai Patel announced that the money would go to Vithalbhai Memorial Trust. Subhash Chandra Bose appealed against the judgement but Justice Sir John Baumont and Justice Kania reaffirmed Justice Wadia’s ruling. (Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel:A Life, 1991, p.237)

Now studying the relation between the two, Rajmohan Gandhi tells us about the Haripura session of the Congress at which the relation between Patel and Bose seemed free of friction and consensus marked the session’s decisions (Patel: A Life, 1991, p.265). When Khare had accused Patel of malicious intent towards him in side-lining him, Bose had defended Patel in this episode. Similarly, when the Muslim League headed coalition government fell in Assam, Patel backed Subhash who said Congress should make a bid to power as against Azad and Prasad’s opinion on the matter.(Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel: A Life, 1991, p.277) When life was made difficult for Bose as president at the Tripuri session Sarat Bose (Subhash Chandra Bose’s brother) wrote to Gandhi that Patel had a hand in the mean, malicious and vindictive propaganda against Bose.( Patel: A Life, p.281) While Patel was apprehensive of Bose’s candidature for President at Haripura, at Tripuri, Patel and others were simply toeing the line of Gandhi.

When Subhash was leading the INA, Vallabhbhai claimed Subhash as a colleague and fellow-fighter and was willing to help the personnel and dependents of the INA. He also headed the Congress Committee set up to assist relatives of those in a members killed by the Allies. (Patel: A Life, p.348)

Thus, we find that despite all their differences Bose and Patel had immense respect for each other and assisted each other for the attainment of the goal of Indian independence.

‘Bose was closer to Hindu communalists’

This myth emanates from the fact that Bose had gone on a hunger strike in support of the Durga Puja celebration in Burmese jail. The entire episode is reproduced in Bose’s own book An Indian Pilgrim’s chapter 7, “In Burmese Prisons.” Bose wrote that “in October 1925, our national religious festival — the Durga Pujah …falling …, we applied to the Superintendent for permission and for funds to perform the ceremony. Since similar facilities were given to Christian prisoners in Indian prisons, the Superintendent gave us the necessary facilities, in anticipation of Government sanction.” (An Indian Pilgrim, pp.123-124) The Government, however, refrained from giving sanction and censured the Superintendent, Major Findlay, for acting on his own steam. Thereupon, Bose was forced to commence a hunger-strike in February 1926. Three days after the hunger-strike began, the Calcutta paper, Forward, published the news of the hunger-strike and also the ultimatum Bose had sent to the Government. Bose further wrote that, “about the same time Forward published extracts from the report of the Indian Jail Committee of 1919-21. Before this Committee a high official of the Prison Department, Lieutenant Colonel Mulvany, had given evidence to say that he had been forced by his superior officer, the Inspector-General of Prisons of Bengal, to withdraw the health reports he had sent of some state-prisoners in his jail and to send in false reports instead.”(An Indian Pilgrim, p.124) T.C. Goswami, a Swarajit member of the Legislature, moved an adjournment motion in the house over the hunger strike in Mandalay jail. This alongside the disclosures of the report and Lieutenant Colonel Mulvany’s evidence ensured that after 15 days of hunger strike Subhash Chandra Bose carried the day. This clearly shows, he was rooting for fundamental rights of freedom and appealing to reason as he gave the example of the cultural rights enjoyed by Christian prisoners.

Like Gandhi and Nehru, he too was a staunch believer of Hindu-Muslim unity and believed in the shared cultural heritage of India. His appeal for the demolition of the Holwell monument and celebration of July 3, 1940 as Sirajuddaula Day was not just a tactical move to gain Muslim League support but came from a deep conviction in Hindu -Muslim unity that he firmly believed in. He named one of the battalions of the INA after Maulana Azad. He accorded a place of honour to General Shahnawaz in the INA and adopted as the slogan of the army, Jai Hind, a secular slogan praised by Mahatma Gandhi himself. The man had no bigoted bone in his body.

Conclusion

Bose was a charismatic leader of the national movement who gave his all for the freedom of the nation. He might have had differences with people but was not an enemy with anyone. None of the leaders of the national movement acted with malicious intent against one another. They were all fellows in arms often with different views but with a common aim. These facts need to be reiterated frequently and often in the public domain so that myths regarding the national movement and the a-historicity of those myths can be countered.

(The authors are both PhD candidates at the department of history, Aligarh Muslim University-AMU)

Related:

Second killing of Bhagat Singh & Subhash Chandra Bose by the Hindutva Gang

India’s Post Truth Era in ICHR’s Book on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose

PM Modi to attend Subhas Chandra Bose’s 125th birth anniversary celebrations in Kolkata

The post Debunking “Popular Myths” through a study of Bose appeared first on SabrangIndia.

File Photo

The guest of honour, was the organising secretary of RSS sponsored Akhila Bharatheeya Itihasa Sankalana Yojana (ABISY-All-India project for chronicling history), Balmukund Pandey. Pandey, also a senior RSS man from the cadres went on to declare: “There has been an attempt to demonise our country’s icons and heroes and Subhas Chandra Bose was the biggest victim of this effort. If there is one person who represents the country’s freedom struggle, it is Subhas Chandra Bose. But, Bose and INA are missing from our national archives and our primary school textbooks. His contribution was so great that in spite of the efforts of a few governments, Subhas continues to rule in the hearts of the people,”

Balmukund Pandey while congratulating ICHR for organising a seminar for Subhas called upon them to carry stories of Subhash and INA to every India household, “there is no other way to save this country.” YS Rao, chairman of ICHR and a senior RSS cadre, agreeing with Pandey promised that ICHR in collaboration with ABISY would organize a national seminar on Vivekanand and Bose as both “had imbibed the spirit of Goddess Kali.”

The treacherous role of organisations wedded to Hindutva (a Hindu Theocratic State) like the Hindu Mahasabha (HM) led by VD Savarkar and the RSS led by MS Golwalkar against Netaji Bose’s plan of liberating India from the clutches of British colonial masters, if widely disseminated would be not just revealing but source of great embarassment to the present rulers. The pre-Partition archives of both the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS hold a treasure trove of this evidence.

Netaji escaped from India in 1940 in order to organize a liberation army (INA) outside the country. He and his comrades wanted to use it as a force to liberate India militarily at a time when England, the colonial master was trapped in the World War II. The Congress led by Gandhi refused to back the British rulers in this War, declaring it as an imperialist war. But it was Savarkar, an icon of Hindutva politics and the RSS who decided to back the British war efforts. To what extent Savarkar helped the British would be clear by the following words of his:
“So far as India’s defence is concerned, Hindudom must ally unhesitatingly, in a spirit of responsive co-operation with the war effort of the Indian government in so far as it is consistent with the Hindu interests, by joining the Army, Navy and the Aerial forces in as large a number as possible…Again it must be noted that Japan’s entry into the war has exposed us directly and immediately to the attack by Britain’s enemies. Consequently, whether we like it or not, we shall have to defend our own hearth and home against the ravages of the war and this can only be done by intensifying the government’s war effort to defend India. Hindu Mahasabhaits must, therefore, rouse Hindus especially in the provinces of Bengal and Assam as effectively as possible to enter the military forces of all arms without losing a single minute.”

The HMS M under Savarkar organised recruitment camps throughout the country under its banner for the British army. The British Government was in regular touch with Savarkar so far as the organisation of its highest war bodies was concerned. It included individuals whose names were proposed by Savarkar. This is made clear from the following thanksgiving telegram Savarkar sent to General Wavell, the Commander in-Chief; and the Viceroy of India on the 18th instant (July 18, 1941):

YOUR EXCELLENCY’S ANNOUNCEMENT DEFENCE COMMITTEE WITH ITS PERSONNEL IS WELCOME. HINDUMAHASABHA VIEWS WITH SPECIAL SATISFACTION APPOINTMENT OF MESSERS KALIKAR AND JAMNADAS MEHTA. [As per the original text. Kalikar and Mehta were two senior HM leaders]

It is important to note here that even the Muslim League, otherwise an organisation that was subservient to the interests of the British rulers, refused to align in these war efforts or join Defence Committees established by the government.

Savarkar's presidential address at Madura (1940) is a living testimony to his unabashed support to the British imperialistic designs. He rejected out rightly Netaji’s attempts to liberate India. He declared:
“Not only on moral grounds but on the grounds of practical politics we are compelled not to concern ourselves on behalf of the Hindu Mahasabha organisation with any programme involving any armed resistance, under the present circumstances.”

He shamelessly declared that it would be a,
“political folly into which the Indian public is accustomed to indulge in thinking that because Indian interests are opposed to the British interests in general, any step in which we join hands with the British government must necessarily be an act of surrender, anti-national, of playing into the British hands and that co-operation with the British government in any case and under all circumstances is unpatriotic and condemnable”.

He demanded complete loyalty from the Hindu recruits who joined the British forces:
“One point however must be noted in this connection as emphatically as possible in our own interest that those Hindus who join the Indian [read the British] Forces should be perfectly amenable and obedient to the military discipline and order which may prevail there provided always that the latter do not deliberately aim to humiliate Hindu Honour.”
 
Astonishingly, Savarkar never felt that joining the armed forces of the colonial masters was in itself a great humiliation for any self-respecting and patriotic Indian. He went on to inform the Hindu recruits that through the efforts of Hindu Mahasabha alone, one lakh Hindus were recruited in the British armed forces in one year. 

The HM archives are full of records of meetings between ‘His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief and Shri Jwala Prasad’ second in command of HM in which British Commander-in-Chief “expressed his grateful appreciation of the lead given by Barrister Savarkar in exhorting the Hindus to join the forces of the land with a view to defend India from enemy attacks.”

Significantly, pre-Partition RSS literature did not have a single reference to the liberation struggle of Netaji, on the contrary, has records of Savarkar regularly addressing RSS meetings regarding recruitment in the British armed forces.

Related Articles:

1. Collaborator Savarkar versus Freedom Fighter Bose

2. Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee the Hindutva Icon was a Collaborator, with the Muslim League as much as the British

The post India’s Post Truth Era in ICHR’s Book on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose appeared first on SabrangIndia.