Claiming Netaji as their own is rank hypocrisy of BJP: Sugata Bose

Sugata Bose with Narendra Modi at Netaji Bhavan on 23 January in KolkataCollected

The family of Indian freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose (Netaji ) did not let India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) leaders enter Netaji’s residence in south Kolkata, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the place on 23 January, the birthday of Bose. The family also communicated to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) that Mr Modi may visit the Netaji Bhavan if he comes as the Prime Minister without any political identity. The event triggered controversy. Besides, BJP’s overtures to claim Netaji as one aligned with Hindu rights’ ideology has also not gone unnoticed. Prothom Alo spoke to Netaji’s grand nephew and Harvard historian Sugata Bose, the chairperson of Netaji Research Bureau at Netaji Bhavan, about the event and Netaji’s relationship with India’s Hindu right.

Sugata Bose
Collected

Q :

You decided not to let the BJP leaders enter Netaji Bhavan. The PMO was told that the prime minister may come but only as the prime minister. Was it an action on your part as a politician, as you were an MP of ruling party in the state Trinamool Congress, or as a member of the Bose family, driven by its legacy?

In Netaji Bhavan, in the Netaji Research Bureau, I do not have a political identity and it never created any problem for us. My mother, Krishna Bose, as chairperson of Netaji Research Bureau, shared the stage with Lakshmi Sahgal, a Communist Party member, but there never was a problem. Jawaharlal Nehru to Manmohan Singh – many prime ministers’ visited the Bhavan. Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe came and more recently we have had the prime minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed from Bangladesh. We never experienced any problem. In case of the prime ministers’ visit, the PMO gets in touch beforehand and everything gets properly organised.

But this is for the first time that we heard a few hours before the visit that the prime minister will visit. I received highly objectionable messages indicating BJP leaders will receive the prime minister.

Subhas Chandra Bose
Collected

Q :

At Netaji Bhavan?

Yes, in Netaji Bhavan. It was completely out of question. So just before 1 pm, when the PMO finally got in touch I clearly told them that only the chairperson of Netaji Research Bureau (Sugata Bose) and the director (Sumantra Bose) will receive the prime minister. It was shocking that low level party functionaries – who never stepped into Netaji Bhavan in their lives – have the temerity to suggest that they would be greeting the prime minister at Netaji Bhavan. I told PMO that the Prime Minister must come as Prime Minister. Fortunately, the PMO understood, apologised for the communication gap and so we were able to go through the prime minister’s visit. He was shown the highlights of the Netaji Bhavan, as much as it can be done in a 15-minute visit.

Q :

The prime minister came to Kolkata quite a few times but never visited Netaji Bhavan, whereas the prime minister of Bangladesh did.

Sheikh Hasina’s visit was an emotional one. In January of 1971, when my father (Dr) Sisir Kumar Bose met Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman it was decided that Bangabandhu may visit Netaji Bhavan on 23 January 1972. But he just reached Dhaka around that time and thus could not make it to Kolkata. He sent Nilima Ibrahim with a tape where Bangabandhu said how Netaji’s ideology is absolutely important to the freedom loving people of the world. We played that speech on the day in 1972 at Netaji Bhavan and I gave it to Prime Minister Hasina. We also gave her ‘Amar Sonar Bangla’ written by Netaji in his song book printed on a silk scroll which my father gave to Bangabandhu, we gave a similar scroll to Sheikh Hasina.

Q:

On January 23, in your speech at Netaji Bhavan you spoke about Netaji’s idea of India – about ‘unity of India’, a pluralistic India. Is it possible to align the idea of Netaji’s India with BJPs’?

My grand aunt Anita (Anita Bose Pfaff, Netaji’s daughter) said so too on that day.

Q :

BJP is claiming Netaji as one close to them. However, Netaji's idea of a pluralistic India is nowhere close to that of Syama Prasad Mukherjee (founder of Bharatiya Jana Sangh, the forerunner of the BJP). Is it possible to put them together by one party, under the same ideology?

No, it is not possible. Netaji used to treat all – Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Christians – as equals, reason why they were part of Netaji’s fight against the British. The so-called minority community used to trust him hugely. It is rank hypocrisy for the BJP to claim Netaji as their own.

BJP could have stuck to Syama Prasad as he used to believe in Hindutva, advocated for the interest of one community. However, as an historian I believe Syama Prasad and Hindu Mahasabha were responsible for the plight of the Hindus who had to migrate from east to west Bengal as refugees during partition. Syama Prasad and Mahasabha demanded the division of Bengal and Punjab in February of 1947. It is a very narrow strand in Bengal’s politics.

A much liberal strand was also there in Bengal’s politics at the time which was led first by Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das, then by Sarat Chandra Bose (Sugata’s grandfather) and later by Subhas Chandra. Das or Sarat Bose undoubtedly had deep faith in their religion but have always spoken about the equal rights of the Muslims. Those who do not believe in equal citizenship…it is hard for me to understand how they may claim these men.

Q :

Sarat Chandra Bose and Fazlul Huq conceived the idea of united Bengal whereas Syama Prasad Mukherjee’s politics was diametrically opposite...How can they be brought together?

Yes, it was diametrically opposite. However, Congress too made mistakes. Both Sarat and Subhas said in 1937-38 that nearly everyone of the Krishak Praja Party (with A K Fazlul Huq as founding vice president) wanted to have a Coalition government in Bengal with both Hindu and Muslim representation. But Congress High Command never listened to them till December of 1941. But a day before that government assumed office, Sarat Bose was arrested and sent to jail for four years. The attempt to unite Hindus and the Muslims collapsed.

Q :

Do you think BJP is trying to exploit the differences between Mohandas Gandhi and Netaji?

There was some difference between Gandhiji and Netaji for a very small period in 1939. But they had a very cordial relationship from 1921. When Netaji was planning for the Great Escape (leaving Kolkata secretly in 1941), Gandhiji wrote “you are irrepressible whether you are ill or well. Do get well before going in for fireworks.” Gandhiji told Louis Fischer (one of his biographers) that Netaji was “Patriot of Patriots”, while Netaji addressed him as the “Father of the Nation.” We need both Gandhiji and Netaji now. However, while Netaji was consistently saying since the 1920s that India needs cultural intimacy between the communities, Gandhiji took his time to decide. In the early 1920s Gandhi was not even eating with his colleagues like Mohammad Ali or Shaukat Ali but it changed later. Netaji influenced Gandhiji, he recognised the significance of cultural intimacy.

Q :

Netaji had another side to him – the military side. BJP has now marked his birthday as Parakram (Bravery) day. Since BJP has this philosophy connected to militarization, do you think they are playing up this particular aspect of Netaji?

Netaji was just not a warrior. He had a very specific opinion about India’s social and economic reconstruction. From the 1920s onwards he advocated for an independent federal republic.

And even if we explore warrior Netaji, we have to find out about his co-fighters in Indian National Army (INA), formed by Netaji. My father and Netaji left home for Gomo (Jharkhand) as they escaped and went to Peshawar. Now, who received him there? Mian Akbar Shah (Freedom fighter of North West Frontier Province, now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) and then when he was coming back from Europe to Asia who was accompanying him? Abid Hasan, he was with Netaji in Europe, then in the submarine for 90 days, during his return. Abid Hasan told us that they were not just a few in INA but the small regiments too were truly mixed ones. Mohammad Zaman Kiani was the commander of the First Division of INA that fought in Imphal, Inayat Jan Kiani headed the Gandhi Brigade of the First Division, Cyril John Stracey built the INA memorial and the flag of India was raised at Moirang (in Manipur) by Shaukat Malik. The three who were tried at Red Fort – Prem Kumar Sehgal, Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon, Shanawaz Khan – were from three different communities. In the last flight of Netaji, Habibur Rahman accompanied him. If we mention only these names, it would be clear enough who all were there with Netaji in his fight for freedom. But their names are never mentioned when Netaji’s valour is discussed.

Besides, Netaji totally demolished the British theory of a martial race. In INA people from various linguistic groups were there, from Tamils to Bengalis, besides the Pathans and Punjabis.

Q :

At this time when West Bengal is possibly at a historic political crossroad, do you think you should be back to politics in the state?

At this critical point in history we have to fulfill our responsibilities as active citizens. I came to active politics in 2014 as I felt that Indian National Congress was collapsing. To stop the march of Hindutva a credible federal alternative is what we were looking for but it did not happen as Congress or other regional parties did not do well, though we (Trinamool Congress) did well. In such a situation, I did what I could; provided a principled opposition against religious majoritarianism. In my speeches, I said that there is an attempt to confuse majoritarianism with democracy and uniformity with unity. These are not the same thing.

Besides, I rose above political party interest in matters of external affairs or national interest. Today, if I may say little emphatically, if I was not in the Parliament’s External Affairs Committee and would not have taken a firm stand on the Land Boundary issue then the agreement with Bangladesh may not have materialised. However, it is unfortunate that the ruling party at the Centre in Delhi has not been able to rise above narrow political interest. They are routinely trying to win elections by conducting a divisive politics of hate. They are now trying it in Bengal as well, trying to win election by cultivating a politics of spite and animosity. We have not witnessed such a crisis in Bengal after 1947.

My primary identity is that of a scholar and historian. In 2019 I decided not to contest the elections but that does not necessarily mean that I am leaving public life. I would request others also to take principled positions as active citizens. I will have to think through how I may engage myself effectively. But I will.