Independence, history and the politics of national memory

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat* 

August 15 is an extremely important day in world history, not only because it marks India's independence, but also because it is associated with the end of the Second World War in Asia. On August 15, 1945, Japan announced its surrender to the Allied powers, bringing the war in the Pacific to an end, although the formal surrender was signed on September 2. By then, American forces had established a decisive military position in the Pacific and the Soviet Union had entered the war against Japan. A different outcome in 1945 could have profoundly altered the history of the Indian subcontinent.

An interesting aspect of this history is how countries once described as fascist by Western powers are viewed today. Japan, Italy and Germany were the principal Axis powers, and their wartime regimes were responsible for enormous destruction. At the same time, the United States used atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing and injuring vast numbers of civilians. Yet modern Japan rarely frames its relationship with the United States primarily through demands for accountability. Germany, too, has developed a close relationship with the Western political order that defeated Nazi Germany. This does not erase history; rather, it demonstrates a fundamental reality of international politics: states are ultimately guided by what they perceive to be their national interests.

Numerous questions are raised by liberals emerging from Western institutions about Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and his association with Hitler, often without adequately examining the larger trajectory of his political thought and his struggle against British colonialism. The right wing, on the other hand, wants to celebrate his heroism and sacrifice while often avoiding the complexity of his political idealism. For some liberals, his engagement with the Axis powers becomes sufficient reason to dismiss him altogether. Both approaches fail to understand the historical complexity of Bose.

Narendra Modi and the BJP have also attempted to appropriate Netaji for their own political purposes, but Bose cannot easily be confined within anyone's narrow ideological framework. The man who, along with Jawaharlal Nehru and others, stood for complete independence was among the most iconic figures of his generation. His political legacy is too complex to be reduced to contemporary partisan categories.

In West Bengal, where Netaji remains deeply embedded in the public imagination, attempts to politicise or denigrate his memory have naturally generated strong reactions. Statements attributed to BJP leader and Rajya Sabha member Ananta Maharaj, also known as Nagendra Roy, questioning Bose's contribution and describing him in deeply controversial terms have caused anger and distress. In Bengal, figures such as Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, Rabindranath Tagore and Raja Ram Mohan Roy occupy a place in public life that should remain above narrow partisan politics. Their legacies cannot be appropriated or denigrated simply to serve contemporary political purposes.

We need to be categorical about one thing: India's freedom movement was the collective expression of the aspirations and sacrifices of millions of Indians, led by Gandhi, Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and many others. There were also leaders such as B. R. Ambedkar, Periyar and others who fought for social justice and the rights of communities historically denied equality. Even political figures who differed sharply from the Congress leadership, including Syama Prasad Mukherjee, became part of the larger nation-building process after independence. Therefore, celebrating India's Independence Day while deliberately erasing Nehru, the Congress movement or other major strands of the freedom struggle is historically dishonest.

I have always maintained that Nehru, Gandhi, Patel, Azad, Ambedkar, Periyar and Syama Prasad Mukherjee were contemporaries who had profound ideological differences. They belonged to different political traditions and, in some cases, different political parties. Yet disagreement did not necessarily mean hatred or personal hostility. They could respect one another, work together when necessary and recognise that the future of India required democratic institutions and a shared national framework.

Today, we have weakened many of those links. Abusing national icons simply because they belonged to different ideological traditions is dangerous for democracy. We can and should critique historical leaders, their ideologies and their public record. Every political figure emerges from a particular social and cultural context, and historical evaluation requires understanding that context. But personally targeting leaders, distorting their lives and manufacturing scandals around them should be unequivocally condemned.

The misuse of photographs of Nehru, Indira Gandhi and other national leaders by political activists and social-media campaigns is particularly disturbing. Photographs of Indian leaders with foreign statesmen and political figures should be understood in the context of the diplomatic and international relations of their time, rather than selectively presented as evidence of some imagined personal scandal.

The same applies to photographs from India's engagement with the Non-Aligned Movement. Fidel Castro, who led Cuba for decades, became an important figure in the politics of the Global South and the Non-Aligned Movement. At the 1983 Non-Aligned Movement summit in New Delhi, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi became chair of the movement. Castro's warm embrace of Gandhi became an iconic image of international solidarity. Similarly, Yasser Arafat regarded Indira Gandhi with great affection and publicly expressed his appreciation for India's longstanding support for the Palestinian cause.

These photographs represented India's foreign policy and its engagement with the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. They were not scandals. They reflected India's historic attempt to maintain strategic autonomy and solidarity with the developing world.

India's relationship with the Global South has historically been an important part of its foreign policy. Its engagement with the Non-Aligned Movement, its support for decolonisation and its position on Palestine were central elements of that tradition. India's participation in groupings such as BRICS continues that engagement, even though its foreign-policy priorities today are necessarily shaped by a far more complex global environment.

When elected representatives take perfectly legitimate diplomatic photographs and attempt to transform them into political scandals, that should be condemned. When photographs of Nehru with women in his family or of other leaders with colleagues and international figures are presented in a sexually suggestive or deliberately defamatory manner, the political class should have the courage to reject such behaviour. National politics cannot be reduced to social-media insinuations.

The same principle should apply to Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. The historical relationship between Bose and the Axis powers deserves serious scholarly examination. Bose sought international assistance for India's liberation from British rule and, during the Second World War, worked with Germany and Japan in pursuit of that objective. His political choices can certainly be debated and criticised. But reducing his entire political life to his dealings with Hitler or the Axis powers is intellectually dishonest. Equally, turning Bose into a simplistic contemporary right-wing icon is an equally serious distortion of his legacy.

We should also stop dragging national icons such as Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, Indira Gandhi, Gandhi, Ambedkar or Syama Prasad Mukherjee into the lowest forms of contemporary political combat. They can and should be criticised for their ideas, decisions and public work. But there is no justification for manufacturing sexual scandals from ordinary public photographs or deliberately distorting historical relationships.

I have repeatedly expressed my appreciation for Rahul Gandhi's concerns about the state of Indian democracy and for his efforts to raise important political questions. At the same time, I do not agree with every choice of language or every political formulation. Some controversies surrounding his remarks could have been avoided. The media, however, also needs to exercise greater responsibility instead of routinely turning political statements into sensational controversies or attributing words to politicians that they did not actually use.

Our national icons should not become instruments in today's political battles. Nehru, Bose, Gandhi, Ambedkar, Indira Gandhi, Patel, Azad and even Syama Prasad Mukherjee belong to India's complicated and contested history. We have every right to disagree with them, challenge their ideas and examine their failures. But we also have a responsibility to understand them in the historical circumstances in which they lived.

India's independence was not the achievement of one individual, one party or one ideology. It was the result of a long and complex struggle involving millions of people and many competing political and social traditions. The best way to honour that history is not by claiming exclusive ownership of it, but by recognising its diversity.

On Independence Day, my wish is simple: let democratic debate flourish, but let us stop abusing the icons of our freedom movement. The Speakers and Chairpersons of both Houses of Parliament, political parties and the government have a responsibility to ensure that elected representatives do not turn the country's national icons into objects of personal abuse, distortion or partisan hatred.

The strength of a democracy is not measured by how loudly we praise our own heroes. It is measured by our ability to respect history, acknowledge disagreement and still recognise that we belong to the same nation.

---

*Human rights defender