After the capture of West Bengal, The Hindutva Brigade has successfully completed its eastern expedition. On the very eve of the electoral victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), it resorted to vandalism and violence against its political opponent Trinamool Congress (TMC) and Muslims. It also began renaming places named after patriotic Muslims with names of secular icons like Subhas Chandra Bose and Rabindranath Tagore.Even the swearing in ceremony of the new BJP government was planned for May 9, the birth day of Tagore. His iconic poem, ‘Where the head is held high’ was given a communal colour by depicting that Hindus can hold their head high now. All this is a part of the BJP’s politico-cultural project to capture the Bengali society and its icons to its side. BJP’s victory is only the beginningFor the BJP and the Sangh parivar, this electoral victory is not the end but a new beginning since its agenda is not only the realisation of Hindu Rashtra but also Hindutva Brahminical Social Order. Since it is a civilisational and historic project, the Sangh would embark on rewriting history and reconstruct historical personalities to suit their agenda. In this project, Aryan colonialism is depicted as indigenous and as a great epoch in Indian history while the rest is treated as colonialism, especially the medieval Mughal rule. In the history of Indian independence, all those who were opposed to the Congress, like B.R. Ambedkar and Bhagat Singh, or against Nehru post-independence, like Lal Bahadur Shastri or Ram Manohar Lohia, are rechristened as having sympathy for the RSS and BJP or its predecessor, the Jan Sangh. In fact, except Sardar Patel, neither Subash Bose nor Ambedkar had any sympathies towards the Sangh’s politics or ideology. While Ambedkar had warned a Hindu Rashtra is antithetical to democracy and a great menace, Netaji had actively persuaded the Congress to sever all links with the Hindu Maha Sabha and denounced the Hindutva project as a colonial conspiracy. Nevertheless, the Modi government has been trying to saffronise Netaji in its pursuit to breach West Bengal. For example, the BJP government began commemorating January 23, the birth day of Subhas Chandra Bose, as Parakram Diwas (“Day of Valor”) two years ago.While parakram conventionally denotes courage or heroism, within the ideological framework of the Sangh parivar, the term has also acquired connotations of aggression toward vulnerable communities. In contrast, Bose was a leader who mobilised the oppressed and marginalized people against the powerful British empire and engaged in anti-colonial struggle at great personal risk.Fake narratives will be peddled as historyThus, the Hindutva organisations are attempting to portray themselves as inheritors of Bose’s political legacy despite their historical distance from the anti-colonial movement. For example, during the Second World War, while Bose sought to organise military resistance against British rule through the Indian National Army (INA), Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and Hindu nationalist groups encouraged Hindu participation in the British Indian Army.There are two principal motives behind the contemporary appropriation of Bose:Construction of Historical Legitimacy:Since the Sangh parivar lacks legacy within the mainstream anti-colonial struggle, it seeks to appropriate various non-Congress leaders and ideological currents from the freedom movement to establish nationalist legitimacy. Reinterpretation of Ideological Differences:The legitimate ideological disagreements within the freedom movement – between Congress and non-Congress groups, as well as among Congress leaders such as Gandhi, Nehru and Bose – are selectively interpreted to construct a narrative that all critics of Gandhi and Nehru were aligned with Hindu nationalist ideology. This reinterpretation serves present-day political objectives associated with the idea of a Hindu Rashtra. As a part of this strategy, proponents of Hindutva have been trying to amplify fake narratives claiming that Gandhi and Nehru conspired against Bose while Hindutva leaders supported him. But Bose’s admiration for Gandhi and Nehru, despite ideological and strategic disagreements, is often omitted in such narratives. Similarly, his commitment to secularism and his criticism of communal organisations such as the Hindu Mahasabha, the Muslim League, and leaders like Savarkar are said to be deliberately minimised.Now, that the BJP is in power both at the centre and West Bengal, such fake narratives will become official history. Hence, reclaiming the actual history about Netaji should become a part of the resistance against fascist forces. The below discussion draws upon several historical works, including Bose’s own writings – An Indian Pilgrim and The Indian Struggle – as well as His Majesty’s Opponent by Sugata Bose and the Collected Works of Subhas Chandra Bose edited by Sisir Kumar Bose.All these open sources provide unrefutable evidence to challenge Hindutva and establish Bose as not merely a prominent Congress leader and founder of the Indian National Army, but also a strong advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity and communal harmony. Bose’s vision for independent India, was deeply informed by socialist principles, a perspective reflected both in his political writings and in the organisational character of the INA. Tipu’s tiger as the emblem of the Azad Hind FaujWhile Hindutva organisations attempt to portray Tipu Sultan and Hyder Ali as religious extremists, the respect accorded to them by Subhas Chandra Bose and the INA completely counters such representations.Bose adopted Tipu Sultan’s “springing tiger” symbol on the first flag of the Azad Hind Fauj as an emblem of anti-British resistance. Bose himself is said to have explained to INA soldiers that the symbol represented Tipu Sultan’s valiant struggle against British colonialism, a point reportedly mentioned in his autobiographical writings.On October 21, 1943, when the Provisional Government of Azad Hind was proclaimed, the official declaration issued by Bose and the INA paid tribute not only to several major anti-colonial figures but also specifically to Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan. The opening section of the proclamation is paraphrased as follows:“After the first defeat suffered at British hands in Bengal in 1757, the people of India continued an unbroken struggle against British rule for nearly a century. This period, marked by extraordinary courage and selfless sacrifice, immortalised figures such as Siraj-ud-Daulah and Mohan Lal of Bengal, and Hyder Ali, Tipu Sultan, Velu Thampi, and others from South India.”This historical acknowledgment demonstrates the incompatibility of Bose’s political outlook with contemporary RSS ideology.The Hindu-Muslim unity within the Azad Hind Fauj was exemplary. Whereas Sangh parivar and the BJP seek to impose Hindi as a singular national language, the INA adopted Hindustani/Urdu – the lingua franca of large sections of North India – as its official language, while English was also used to ensure comprehension among South Indian soldiers.The INA’s motto is cited in Urdu:Itmad (Faith) Ittifaq (Unity) Qurbani (Sacrifice) There is also a symbolic connection between the Revolt of 1857 and the INA campaign of the 1940s. Just as Indian forces in 1857 had rallied under the leadership of the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, Bose’s INA marched from Rangoon (Yangon) toward India in 1943 under the slogan “Delhi Chalo” (“Onward to Delhi”), consciously invoking the memory of the earlier anti-colonial uprising.The recorded history also illustrates that on September 26, 1943, a special prayer meeting of the INA was held at Bahadur Shah Zafar’s tomb.Sugata Bose’s His Majesty’s Opponent, provides insights into the structure of INA where Muslims constituted a slightly larger proportion of INA soldiers relative to other groups, and that many of Bose’s closest associates were Muslim. One notable example mentioned is of Abid Hasan of Hyderabad, who accompanied Bose during his secret submarine journey in 1943 and served as his close aide throughout his travels across Europe and Asia.Other examples cited in the book include:Mohammad Zaman Kiani, commander of the INA’s First Division. Shaukat Malik, the INA officer credited with first hoisting the Indian tricolour at Moirang in Manipur. Habibur Rahman, who accompanied Bose during his final, fatal journey. The British trials of INA soldiers after the failure of the campaign are also of symbolic significance. Especially the Red Fort trials. The the three officers of INA that were prosecuted for treason were:Prem Sehgal (Hindu) Shah Nawaz Khan (Muslim) Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon (Sikh) This composition itself symbolised the secular and inclusive patriotism practiced within Bose’s Azad Hind Fauj.Netaji’s rejection of the Hindu–Muslim binaryThe Hindutva organisations interpret Indian history through a communal framework by characterising the subcontinent’s past as a “1200-year history of foreign invasion.” Within this narrative, the Mughal period and earlier Muslim-ruled kingdoms are portrayed as an era in which Hindus were oppressed under Muslim domination.In contrast, Bose rejected such communal interpretations of history. He viewed this framework as a colonial construction introduced by the British as part of their “divide and rule” strategy aimed at separating Hindus and Muslims politically and socially.In An Indian Pilgim, Bose argued:“To describe the political order in India before the arrival of the British as simply ‘Muslim rule’ itself is misleading. When we speak of the Mughal rulers of Delhi or the Muslim rulers of Bengal, we find in both cases that Hindus and Muslims jointly participated in governance. Under Muslim rulers, many military commanders and important ministers were Hindus. Mughal administration itself was consolidated with the support of Hindu generals. The commander of Siraj-ud-Daulah, defeated by the British at the Battle of Plassey in 1757, was a Hindu. Likewise, during the Revolt of 1857, Hindus and Muslims jointly rebelled against the British under the banner of the Muslim ruler Bahadur Shah.” Likewise, Bose’s views on the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League were completely dismissive. Bose regarded both organisations with deep suspicion because, in his view, they collaborated with British interests and contributed to social division during the freedom struggle.During Bose’s presidential tenure in the Indian National Congress in 1938, he criticised communal politics in the following terms: “We repeatedly hear talk of ‘Hindu Raj.’ What practical benefit does this offer? Can these communal organizations solve the problems faced by India’s working classes? Do any of these organizations possess solutions to unemployment and poverty?”Bose also prohibited members of both the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League from obtaining Congress membership. He also strongly criticised both Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. “Jinnah’s sole concern appears to be how Pakistan may be secured with British assistance. He has no intention of joining Congress in a united struggle for India’s liberation,” he said.Similarly, in The Indian Struggle, Bose reportedly commented:“Savarkar’s objective is merely to cooperate with the British and encourage Hindus to join the British army in order to obtain military training. After meeting both of them, I have concluded that nothing can be expected from them in the struggle for India’s independence.”Thus, a close reading of Bose’s own writings, as well as scholarly works about him, reveals a great contrast between Bose’s political worldview and the image attributed to him by contemporary Hindutva groups.Such groups – having little historical association with anti-colonial nation-building – attempt to symbolically appropriate leaders outside the Congress tradition. This process distorts both the historical legacy of those leaders and the broader history of India’s freedom movement.Bose, a committed secularist, anti-communal nationalist, and socialist, cannot be legitimately assimilated into the ideological framework of the RSS. But Sangh is out to make all its concocted narratives the official history using state power. Bose and the real spirit of Indian Freedom Movement can only be reclaimed if Hindutva is defeated both in politics and ideology, in the streets and in the intellectual world.Shivasundar is a columnist and activist in Karnataka.