Removing relic of colonial rule and following path of Netaji Subhash is a mockery par excellence


BJP Prime Minister’s claim of removing relic of colonial rule and following path of Netaji Subhash is a mockery par excellence

Unveiling the 28-foot statue of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose at the India Gate, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on 8 September last that a new India, free from its colonial hangover, was born as he renamed the Rajpath to ‘Kartavya Path’ (Path of duty). The Kingsway, later known as the Rajpath, was a relic of India’s centuries old slavery to the British before Independence, opined BJP PM Modi in his address. ‘‘The Rajpath belonged to the British and their ideals of slavery…By renaming the Rajpath, the history of slavery has been removed forever. A new history has been made where Indians will, now, walk the path of duty, and not slavery any longer…Now, we have our own resolution, our own symbol and we are charting our own destiny, free from any bondage’’, said Modi. Highlighting Netaji’s invaluable contribution to India’s freedom struggle, Modi pointed out that the post-independence government did little to acknowledge Netaji’s great achievements. ‘‘Today, Netaji has been given his rightful place as his statue has been installed near India Gate at the same spot where King George V’s marble statue once stood. We have removed all signs of British slavery’’, he said.

Saga of removing relics of colonial rule
It sounds great when one claims of removing relics of colonial rule. But what is meant by removing relics? Is it simply renaming a road or removing a statue? Or it is establishment of a regime that is free from all the oppression, repression and suppression that an imperialist rule continued for years. When the Indian people participated in the glorious freedom struggle, they dreamt of a country free from all shackles of imperialist bondage and slavery. They hoped that in free India, the scope for uninterrupted development of all Indians will be ensured, remunerative jobs and other decent means of earning would boost their economic life. Rising poverty, soaring price line, reigning corruption, hoarding, black-marketing, starvation, famine, hunger deaths, flood, draught, deprivation, injustice, coercion, persecution, curtailment of democratic rights including right to speak, right to dissent, attempts to precipitate divide among the toiling masses by inciting communal-casteist-chauvinist fanaticism and hatred, brutal police atrocities and rising inequality—which marked the colonial rule would cease to exist. Exploitation of man by man would be eradicated forever. Indians would have all rights on the natural resources and agricultural produce. No alien ruler or external agencies would plunder them for self-aggrandizement.
Are those maladies, malaises, anomalies and aberrations gone with the departure of the British imperialist rulers? Has the political power been handed over to the people? Experience says, no. Power has simply been transferred to the Indian capitalist class who has not only attained monopoly stage but assumed imperialist character itself. Imperialism-capitalism is based on maximum exploitation of man by man. Hence, the rulers have changed, but not the rule which is becoming ruthlessly oppressive as capitalism enmeshed in an insolvable crisis created by its own law and hence wreaking havoc in people’s life by squarely passing the burden of capitalist crisis on them. And, as shown by Comrade Shibdas Ghosh, Founder General Secretary, SUCI(C), and an outstanding Marxist thinker of the era, fascism has now become a common feature of all imperialist-capitalist countries. Such features like more and more economic and political concentration, fostering of cultural regimentation, abolition of values and moralities, growing state terrorism, snatching away democratic rights, throttling voice of protest, abjectly punishing dissent, etc., are all glaringly manifest in independent India. The government, as any student of political science knows, is a caretaker of the capitalist state. The BJP, like its predecessor Congress, is also in servitude of the ruling Indian monopolists and hence pursuing policies which are rabidly anti-people and visibly pro-monopolist. So, in its rule, life has become much worse, if not virtually being pushed to the precipice of ruination with every passing day.
So, how farcical is the claim of removing the vestiges of colonial rule! What is more, the BJP government led by Shri Modi declared one-day national mourning on 11 September 2022 as a mark of respect to Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who passed away on 8 September 2022. The National Flag was flown at half-mast on that day throughout India on all buildings and all scheduled official entertainments on the day were postponed. A statement by the Ministry of External Affairs said that in the 70 years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, India-UK ties have evolved, flourished and strengthened immensely. She played an important role in the welfare of millions of people worldwide as Head of the Commonwealth. But the fact is, the Queen, as head of the British imperialist state, has only given seal of approval to what the state wanted. She was no ‘‘tireless servant of British common people’’ as the British rulers sought to paint her with. A tiny interbreeding sect of a decaying aristocracy, it is easily understood, could not, cannot and will never reflect the interests of working people in Britain. This monarchy continues to be an important symbol and tool of the British state and its apparatus for maintaining control. The Royal Family’s wealth and the Crown estates, vast tracts of land and resources across Britain, are centuries of stolen wealth from the working people of this country and the oppressed and exploited peoples in Britain’s colonies. The monarch’s position as the head of state not just of Britain, but of various former colonies and as head of the Commonwealth plays an important symbolic and ideological role in maintaining British imperialism around the world—a view shared by the progressive right-thinking section of the British citizens.
Eulogizing such a Queen of having ‘‘played an important role in the welfare of millions of people worldwide’’ by the Indian bourgeois government under the BJP is, therefore, nothing but abetting the age-old slavery that our countrymen were subjected to for so many decades. Hence renaming a road is no mark of abolition of relic of British imperialist rule as the Indian imperialist rulers are only following its footsteps.

RSS-BJP-Hindu Mahasabha vis-a-vis Netaji on nationalism and religion-orientation
‘‘As a country, we have embraced Netaji’s ideals of a strong and modern India’’—such has been another claim of the BJP PM. This is another hoax par excellence! Let us flip over the pages of history to see how the mentors and predecessors of the BJP viewed Netaji, what had been their views vis-a-vis those of Netaji. In Proletarian Era dated 01-02-22, we had elaborately shown how the philosophy and political activities of Netaji Subhash were fundamentally different from those of RSS-BJP-Sangh Parivar. Yet, in the context of the BJP PM’s renewed claim of being a follower of Netaji’s path, we reiterate the essential points once more. M S Golwalkar, the RSS ideologue, had categorically stated that ‘‘The theories of territorial nationalism and of common danger, which formed the basis for our concept of nation, had deprived us of the positive and inspiring content of our real Hindu Nationhood and made many of the ‘freedom movements’ virtually anti-British movements. Anti-Britishism was equated with patriotism and nationalism. This reactionary view has had disastrous effects upon the entire course of the freedom struggle, its leaders and the common people.’’ (We or our nationhood defined) Golwalkar opined that ‘‘The Hindus are a nation or nationality by themselves…No sane man can question the proposition that Hindus are a nation…our ‘Nation’ means, and independently of the question of majority always must mean the Hindu Nation and nothing else.’’ (ibid) He also hastened to add that ‘‘Those only are nationalist patriots, who with the aspiration to glorify the Hindu race and Nation next to their heart, are prompted into activity and strive to achieve that goal. All others are either traitors or enemies to the National cause’’. It obviously meant that he branded Netaji Subhash, the iconic hero of the uncompromising trend of Indian freedom struggle, as either traitor or enemy to the national cause. V D Savarkar, the Hindu Mahasabha leader and considered an icon of communal Hindutva whom the BJP government thought of conferring the title ‘Bharat Ratna’, coined the word ‘Hindutva’, the concept that forms the ideological core of the RSS-BJP. While addressing the 19th session of the Mahasabha in Ahmedabad, he declared: ‘‘There are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India. Several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so…. India cannot be assumed today to be a unitarian and homogenous nation. On the contrary, there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Muslims, in India.’’ While Golwalkar-Savarkar brushed aside any thought other than Hinduism as guiding philosophy, Netaji discarded such thoughts as useless. He strongly espoused a democracy rising above all casteist and religious divides and said: ‘‘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.’’ He categorically stated: ‘‘Religion should be totally kept out of politics. Religion should be one’s personal matter. There should be full liberty for an individual to profess any religion he wants as a human being. But politics should not be guided by religion or any supernatural concepts. Politics should be guided by economic, political and scientific reasoning.’’ (Crossroads) In this context it needs to be mentioned that religion was fully kept out of the Indian National Army (INA) of Netaji Subhash. Abid Hossain and some others composed a song for the INA calling for harmony and fraternity among all religions. Netaji was very much displeased with this and told him, ‘‘Listen, I want to make one point clear to you. I shall never allow religion to be admixed with our activities. Nationalism should be our only basis. You want to unite them in the name of religion. If this happens, then one day they will be divided again in the name of religion. There are gurudwaras, mosques and temples; they may go anywhere according to their choice. But in my world, there is no place of anything that is devoid of nationalism.’’ (ibid) The realisation of the correctness of Netaji’s analysis led Abid Hasan to think about a greeting for all Indians which had no religious connotations whatsoever and the result was ‘Jai Hind’—which remains a popular greeting to this day. Pertinent to mention that Savarkar reserved his special ire for none other than Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. He called him a ‘Jehadi Hindu’ and criticized his readiness to adopt many symbols to promote Hindu-Muslim unity. (The Wire, 22-09-22)

RSS-BJP-Hindu Mahasabha vis-a-vis Netaji on communalism
The defining credo of the BJP since 1989 has been ‘‘Hindutva,’’ a political ideology that promotes the ‘‘values’’ of the Hindu religion as being the cornerstone of Indian society and culture. The politicization of the Hindu religion has also been combined by the BJP in recent years with more aggressive policies, that India’s Muslim community says, treats them as second-class citizens. Hate speech against Muslims in India has gained momentum, with several leaders belonging to RSS-BJP-Sangh Parivar calling for a Muslim ‘genocide’. Despite most of the Indian Muslims expressing their unconditional faith in the accepted symbols of Indian nationalism, the ruling Hindutva brigade often castigate the Muslim minorities for not conveying their allegiance to Indian nationalism in symbolic terms. A few years back, the BJP-government suddenly floated a new scheme of NRC (National Citizen’s Register) in Assam with a clear objective of branding bona fide Indian citizens professing Islam as ‘‘foreigners’’ and hence liable for being deported or held in detention camps. Lynching of Muslim minorities by Sangh Parivar-backed cow vigilantes, razing their houses with bulldozer by BJP-led UP government, launching lethal attacks on them in Delhi by the armed hooligans masqueraded as foot-soldiers of Hindutva incited by filthy provocative slogans by some BJP leaders-all are aimed to surcharge the atmosphere with communal frenzy and persecute the Muslim minorities from pure communal mindset. Pertinent to recall what Golwalkar had said in this regard: ‘‘…foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e. of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment not even citizen’s rights.’’ (We or our nationhood defined) He further said: ‘‘The positive conviction that this is my Hindu Rashtra, this is my dharma, this is my philosophy which I have to live and set up as standard for all other nations to follow—well, this should be the solid basis for Hindu re-organization….We must be able to see through the game and revert to the truth of our nationalism as an ancient fact and the Hindus being the national society of Bharat…We must once again stand up in our true and full stature and boldly assert that we shall elevate the Hindu National Life in Bharat to the peak of glory and honour which has been its birthright since hoary time.’’ (ibid)
On the other hand, Netaji severely criticized those who raised the slogan of ‘Hindu Bharat’ in those days, ‘‘We hear voices of ‘Hindu Raj’ in India owing to a majority of Hindu population. Since the Hindus are majority in India, there is a bogey of Hindu state. These are all useless thoughts’’ (Speech at Cumilla, 14 June 1938). He also said, ‘‘There can be no bigger a lie than saying that the interests of the Hindus and the Muslims are different. Those who say that the interests of the Hindus and Muslims are not the same actually do not speak the truth. Hunger, unemployment, illiteracy, these are the basic questions.’’ (Address at Rajsahi, 13 April, 1928) He warned that ‘‘Hindu Mahasabha has started to foment rabid communalism, day after day it is belching communal poison to vitiate the mind of the Hindus…Communal organizations like Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League have become even more communal than before.’’ (Signed Editorial, Forward Bloc, 4 May, 1940) ‘‘Hindu Mahasabha has sent male and female sannyasins with trident in their hands to seek votes. Any Hindu would bow his head before a person with saffron robes and trident. Taking advantage of religion and polluting religion, Hindu Mahasabha has appeared on the political scene. All Hindus must condemn it…Banish these traitors from the political field. Don’t listen to them at all.’’ (Ananda Bazar Patrika, 14 May, 1940) He also pointed out: ‘‘A group of self-seeking people are creating ill-feelings and conflicts between the two communities. In our freedom struggle such people are to be considered as enemies…Like all other religions, Islam has also a place in India. It is necessary to be acquainted with the traditions, ideals and history of each religion, because mutual cultural familiarity pave the way for communal peace and unity…For this cultural tie up, it is necessary to have somewhat scientific and secular education. Religious orthodoxy is a serious obstacle to cultural association…’’ (Speech at Maharashtra Provincial Conference, May 3, 1928) Suggesting the way to solve the communal problem, he said, ‘‘In the situation today, it may seem impossible…to uproot the cancer of communalism. But the task will become much easier if we can develop revolutionary mentality covering the entire nation…In the freedom struggle when the people become comrade-in-arms of one another, their life will be kindled with a new inspiration for one common goal, and together with this will develop a new approach, a new vista will be opened up, and a new vision will unfold. When this revolution happens, the Indian people will be transformed to a new type of people.’’ (Speech at Cumilla 14 June, 1938) Netaji pointedly opined that ‘‘In the situation today, it may seem impossible…to uproot the cancer of communalism. But the task will become much easier if we can develop revolutionary mentality covering the entire nation…In the freedom struggle when the people become comrade-in-arms of one another, their life will be kindled with a new inspiration for one common goal, and together with this will develop a new approach, a new vista will be opened up, and a new vision will unfold. When this revolution happens, the Indian people will be transformed to a new type of people.’’

Outlook of RSS-Hindu Mahasabha vis-a-vis that of Netaji towards fascism and racism
Explaining further as to what does their version of Hindu nationalism mean and how it would be operationalized, Golwalkar wrote: ‘‘…foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e. of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment not even citizen’s rights.’’ (We or our nationhood defined) It meant that those who do not profess Hinduism would have to compulsorily respect Hindu religion, Hindu culture and Hindu language i.e. Sanskrit. Otherwise, they would have no right in this country and, as elaborated by Golwalkar elsewhere, they would have to live as second grade citizens. Golwalkar also was effusive in praise for Hitler and his wanton racist thoughts, when the entire world and democratic minded people branded Hitler as the worst enemy of humanity. To quote from his open declaration: ‘‘To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic Races—the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifest here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.’’ (ibid) Dindayal Upadhyaya, another RSS man having complete unison with the thoughts of his Guruji (Golwalkar), was a front-ranking Muslim-basher and hater. He never shied away from using fiery rhetoric and incite mass hysteria against the Muslim community. He even went to the extent of saying that, ‘‘it is observed that Hindus even if they are rascals in individual life, when they come together in a group, they always think of good things. On the other hand when two Muslims come together, they propose and approve of things which they themselves in their individual capacity would not even think of. They start thinking in an altogether different way. This is an everyday experience.’’ (Quoted by Pavan Kulkarni in ‘The Wire’ dated 30-10-17) For being familiarized with an archetypal of the vyaktinirman (man-making) of the RSS had conceived, its leader A B S Munje visited Mussolini’s Italy to learn their fascist methods of training youth with regimentation and military training. The RSS units were thus based on fruits of Munje’s mission. All these bear eloquent testimony as to how Hindu nationalism of the RSS-BJP find in Hitlerite fascism a unity of thought.
In contrast, bitterly criticizing Nazism and Hitler, Netaji wrote to the director of German Academy at Munich Dr. Theirfelder in 1936: ‘‘I must say with regret that the new nationalism in Germany is not only narrow and self-centred but also arrogant—I am returning back to my country with this impression. The essence of Nazi philosophy is expressed in Hitler’s recent speech at Munich. This new philosophy of racial inequality based on weak scientific evidence is preaching the superiority of the white races specially the German race…In Mein Kompf, Hitler has criticized the old colonial policy of Germany, but Nazi Germany has started to raise demands about its old colonies.’’
In his Ramgarh speech of 1940, he said: ‘‘In 1922, Italy was ready in every way for socialism, only it needed a leader like Lenin. But the socialists lost that opportunity because of the absence of such a leader. Fascist leader Mussolini immediately utilized that opportunity. After his march to Rome and seizure of power, history took a totally different turn, and fascism was established in Italy instead of socialism.’’ Obviously, can an apologist of fascism and racism be an inheritor of a Netaji, a true nationalist, patriotic and believer in socialism?

RSS-BJP-Hindu Mahasabha vis-a-vis Netaji on concept of state and class division
Golwalkar’s view about the state was that it ‘‘…is not a class agent of the upper class, according to Indian shastras or political and social science. Nor it is an exploiting agency. It is an agent of morality or dharma. It precludes socialism in the sense of adding economic to political power.’’ (ibid) He further added: ‘‘Another advantage of the Indian view of society is that it eschews class-war. It postulates social harmony as a potentiality, if not as a full actual order of law and custom, observances and enforcements.’’ (Bunch of Thoughts) Contrarily, Netaji’s view was that ‘‘If there is a conflict between the worker and capitalist owner, the entire state machinery stands by the owner. In the days to come, the working class will not only play important role in bringing about political emancipation but also in freeing the society from the shackles of economic oppression.’’ (Speech at Kharagpur Railway Workers Meeting, 1928)

RSS-Hindu Mahasabha were opposed to freedom struggle
Further, V D Savarkar, the founding ideologue of Hindu Mahasabha, was first to coin the word ‘Hindutva’, the concept that forms the ideological core of the BJP, was the first to espouse the ‘‘two nations’’ theory based on religion and who shamelessly sought clemency from the British imperialist government giving assurance of being ‘‘ready to serve the Government in any capacity they like…’’ and further sought to curry favour with the British rulers by saying that ‘‘…His Majesty’s government must now turn to the Hindus and work with their support…. Our interests …the same and we must therefore work together… Our interests are so closely bound together, the essential thing is for Hinduism and Great Britain to be friends and the old antagonism no longer necessary.’’ (Linlithgow, the Viceroy of India, report to Lord Zetland, the secretary of state for India, on 9 October 1939) He then put forth the theory of ‘‘responsive co-operation’’ with the British government. While addressing the 24th session of the Hindu Mahasabha at Cawnpore (now Kanpur) in 1942, Savarkar outlined the strategy of the Hindu Mahasabha of co-operating with the rulers in the following words: ‘‘The Hindu Mahasabha holds that the leading principle of all practical politics is the policy of Responsive Co-operation. And in virtue of it, it believes that all those Hindu Sangathanists who are working as councillors, ministers, legislators and conducting any municipal or any public bodies with a view to utilize those centres of government power to safeguard and even promote the legitimate interests of the Hindus… The policy of responsive co-operation which covers the whole gamut of patriotic activities from unconditional co-operation right up to active and even armed resistance, will also keep adapting itself to the exigencies of the time, resources at our disposal and dictates of our national interest.’’
RSS-Hindu Mahasabha, as per their political stand, opposed the historic Quit India movement of 1942. Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, the second-in-command of the Hindu Mahasabha, also the Deputy Chief Minister in the then Hindu Mahasabha-Muslim League coalition government of undivided Bengal, in a letter to Bengal governor said: ‘‘The question is how to combat this movement (Quit India) in Bengal? The administration of the province should be carried on in such a manner that in spite of the best efforts of the Congress, this movement will fail to take root in the province. It should be possible for us, especially responsible Ministers, to be able to tell the public that the freedom for which the Congress has started the movement, already belongs to the representatives of the people. In some spheres it might be limited during the emergency. Indians have to trust the British, not for the sake for Britain, not for any advantage that the British might gain, but for the maintenance of the defence and freedom of the province itself.’’
At that time, the Second World War was in full swing. While addressing 23rd session of Hindu Mahasabha at Bhagalpur in 1941, Savarkar said: ‘‘The war which has now reached our shores directly constitutes at once a danger and an opportunity which both render it imperative that the militarization movement must be intensified and every branch of the Hindu Mahasabha in every town and village must actively engage itself in rousing the Hindu people to join the army, navy, the aerial forces and the different war-craft manufactories…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. Let the Hindus therefore come forward now and enter the army, the navy and the air-forces, the ordnance and other war-crafts factories in their thousands and millions.’’ (Cited in Savarkar, VD, ‘‘Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan’’, Vol. 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindusabha, Poona, 1963, pp 460-61.)
But Netaji’s firm stand was just the opposite. He called upon the patriotic Indians to ‘‘…take advantage of the World War and strike at the British imperialism during this war. If we fight in other times the British imperialism would deploy the full might of their military power, but now they are pre-occupied with war in many fronts, so they will be unable to deploy the full military power against the freedom movement. It is easiest to defeat the enemy by striking at the moment when it is weakest.’’ (Crossroads)
While RSS-Hindu Mahasabha was advocating a ‘‘Hindu Rashtra’’, Netaji made it clear that: ‘‘The first objective …is to earn total freedom (purna-swaraj); the next objective is the establishment of socialism; the workers and the peasants have to be drawn into the freedom movement, landlordism is to be abolished.’’ (Crossroads) He also clearly said: ‘‘Through all these years by freedom we meant only political freedom. Now we have to declare that we will free the people not only from political bondage but from all types of bondage. The principal object of freedom movement ought to be to free the people from all three forms of exploitations—political, economic and social. When all the chains are broken, we shall establish a new society based on communism. The main aim of freedom struggle will be to establish a free classless society.’’ (Letter to Barin Ghosh, 1930, Lokmat, Netaji Special issue) He had no hesitation to candidly state that, ‘‘When the imperialist conspiracy is raging in the world, only one country is standing up – Soviet Union—whose existence is putting tremors in the heart of the imperialists.’’ (Crossroads)

What prompts BJP PM to feign toeing Netaji’s line
It is thus evidently clear that Netaji and RSS-BJP stand in two diametrically opposite poles in every respect. Netaji was secular in his approach and was contemptuous of the RSS-Hindu Mahasabha. Yet why did the BJP PM become so eager to install Netaji’s statue at the historic India Gate in Delhi and then claim that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose would have been proud to see that the country has become strong and is following his footsteps? First of all, he is aware in what esteem the countrymen hold Netaji Subhash. Secondly, he is well aware that discontent is mounting among the toiling masses against the rabid misrule of the BJP. Hence, he needs to divert people’s attention in different directions and plunge them in confusion and convolution. Singing peans in favour of Netaji is such a cunning ploy. Secondly, the BJP, excellent in messaging as it is, wants to downplay the role of the Congress in the Indian freedom struggle and is hence highlighting Netaji Subhash, who had sharp difference with the Gandhite leadership, and was forced to leave the Congress and yet emerged as a towering personality of the Indian freedom struggle, whose greatness, moreover, is also been demonstrated concretely by his ability to successfully integrate and unite people from different castes and religions in his army, through firmly established practice of democratic norms, values, and his rule that religion had no place in politics. Hence paying lip service to Netaji’s greatness and at the same time carrying out everything that runs counter to Netaji’s ideology is the hallmark of a craftily woven scheme typical of fascist autocratic rulers like the RSS-BJP. But as part of their shrewd opportunistic and utterly deceptive politics, the Sangh Parivar has been attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable—to appropriate some part of Netaji Subhas’ legacy riding on utter falsehood, distortion and customary gimmick while remaining true to the arch reactionary preaching of Golwalkar, Savarkar, Shyama Prasad, Munje. People ought not to be misled by such fake gestures but need to understand the hideous intention underneath.

Please share
scroll to top