The erasure of the INA and Bose’s contributions to India’s Independence is a wilful desecration of their memory and sacrifices.
India is gearing up to celebrate the 127th birth anniversary of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose [23 January 1897], a leader whose contribution is central to India’s independence, but unfortunately neglected. Even more is the role of the Azad Hind Fauj or the Indian National
Army, which really fought the might of the British Empire. The INA fighters were given a very raw deal by the Nehruvian state. We are also commemorating the 75th Republic Day. This occasion serves as a moment for reflection and remembrance and a source of pride forevery Indian. Every such occasion of national celebration is an opportunity to honour our history and the sacrifices of the INA freedom fighters.
It is these fighters who gave their all to fight militarily for India’s freedom. In an interview to the BBC in February 1955, Babasaheb Ambedkar elucidated the reason why the British left India in 1947. Subsequently, Richard Attlee agreed Netaji was the toughest challenge
the empire faced. Several defence and intelligence experts agreed, too. This has been again substantiated by Ardhendu Bose: “It was not Gandhi’s peace movement that brought independence to India. The activities of Azad Hind Fauj and Netaji brought independence to
this country and it was ad mitted by the then PM of England Clement Richard Attlee.”
While it is true that history is often written by the victors, the danger arises when the narrative is incomplete. An incomplete history breeds ignorance; more importantly, it disrespects and insults the sacrifices of those left behind. The history of India’s Independence Movement is a grim tale of this reality and the dangers it brings. The omission of the Indian National Army (INA) and Subhas Chandra Bose’s contributions is not just a such perspectives to prevail could lead to the articulation of an alternative vision. What unnerved opponents further was how receptive these ideas could be to the masses.
The Indian National Army cardinal error but a wilful desecration of their memory and sacrifices. Despite the INA’s remark able achievements, post-Independence India witnessed
a deliberate sidelining of the INA and its charismatic leader, Subhas Chandra Bose. Disguised under the exigencies of nation-building and the imperative to forge a unified identity, their stories and successes were suppressed. Their narratives did not align with the chosen historical narratives that emphasised non-violence and political negotiation while eclipsing the significance of armed struggle and military prowess in securing freedom. As such, the exploits of the INA were relegated to the background as an inconvenient truth. Yet, why were INA and Bose relegated to the peripheries of historical discourse? Bose’s evident charisma and appeal caused apprehensions among the emerging post-British elites. However, attributing his influence solely to charisma and tactical skills would be an oversimplification. The crux of the matter lay in the divergent vision of India held by Bose and his contemporaries compared to the ruling dispensation. It is well known that figures like Sardar Patel had a different vision, illustrated in the consolidation of unitary bodies into independent India into the Bharat we know today. However, like Bose, these voices were sidelined due to the fear that allowing (INA), built by Subhas Chandra Bose on the broad frame work given by Rash Behari Bose, was the military arm of the League. Although Mohan Singh had angered the Japanese Army Command through his actions, they relented to form a second Indian National Army. Mohan Singh himself recommended Subhas Chandra Bose for the leadership role. His reputation as a committed nationalist was known to both the Indian diaspora of South East Asia and the Imperial Japanese Army. As such, they were more open to the idea of a nationalist army led by Subhas Chandra Bose. The activities of Subhas Chandra Bose in India had forced the British authorities to impris on him, but he escaped and reached Berlin in 1941.
In essence, the apprehension of the INA as a potent military force frightened opponents to condemn it through unfounded charges lacking both merit and moral grounds. The INA and Bose, among the masses, were given less attention so that the role of those in power afterwards could be glossed over while their role was cast out. The INA embodied another vital element of Indian ethos—the value of sacrifice for the nation, a sentiment deeply ingrained in the Indian military tradition. It appeared that there was a particular disdain for
a robust sense of nationalism and military strength, a sentiment that the Nehru government ironically supported and admired in other countries across the globe.
What’s more regrettableand condemnable than the sidelining of the INA is their post-Independence treatment. The fact that the disrespect and persecution during the infamous Red Fort Trialswere never revisited until recently highlights the deep seated apprehensions within the post-British dispensation in honouring their legacy and contribution. The marginalization of figures like those from the INA and Bose reflects a broader trend in post-independent India, where numerous revolutionaries and even historians who dared tell
their stories faced marginalisation. This alienation can be attributed to two primary factors.
Firstly, although celebrated in their villages and small towns with statues and busts, many local freedom fighters struggled to gain recognition beyond their immediate locales. Their sacrifices and contributions remained confined to the local narrative. Secondly, and more significantly, those who played prominent roles in the fight against the British often found themselves at odds with emerging power hier archies post-Independence. Whether due to their lack of homage towards the selected few or their open criticism of the ruling dispensation, these individuals were systematically sidelined, discarded, and sometimes even demonised.
The last decade has been a course correction and a resolute and unapologetic affirmation and acknowledgement of the contributions of INA, Subhas Chandra Bose, and many freedom fighters from Manipur to Kutch. The government’s efforts have ensured that the sacrifices made by these individuals are finally receiving the long overdue recognition they deserve. Even in his “defeat”, Netaji delivered a massive blow to the British rule in
India. And then when India needed him the most, he “disappeared”. Today as we reflect, one may feel solace in the realisation that this legacy and history are not entirely forgotten but are being revived and celebrated. It is necessary to get the Russian archives opened to know what really happened to Netaji after 1945. The statue of Bose on Kartavya Path and the release of Netaji Papers stand as a testament to col lective efforts to rectify historical oversights and foster a more comprehensive and inclusive narrative of India’s struggle for Independence.
Prof Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of JNU