The freedom struggle is the magic mantra that gives credibility to Indian leaders and legends. It defines the anti-colonial stand of each, their methods, and the result. The maxim, ‘One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter’, created controversy over the role of Bhagat Singh in the Independence struggle. The late Marxist historian Bipan Chandra—who dominated the shaping of Indian minds through his interpretation of history—called Bhagat Singh a “revolutionary terrorist”, a description found in school textbooks. It will be expunged now after an MP objected to it. It is ironic that the objection to this came from a member of Nitish Kumar’s party and not the BJP, which has never reconciled to the Congress monopoly of the struggle for independence.
It is difficult to deal with education without resorting to history. The iconography of the freedom struggle has been controlled by the Congress and its Left wing lackeys through control of education. The relationship between the two go back to the independence movement and the Communist party’s worship of Russia. The Communists functioned like a limb of the Congress during the freedom movement. They believed in violence while Gandhi, whose novel platform combining Hinduism and non-violence (the first instance of a religion and politics cocktail in India) was vehemently opposed to it. Signs of a rift became apparent at the 1942 AICC session, where the Communists attacked the Quit India movement and lost. Viceroy Lord Linlithgow wrote on August 16, 1942, that the Communist Party was “solely interested in the speedy and violent overthrow of British rule in India”.
Jawaharlal Nehru, however, had a strong Marxist streak which later segued into Fabian socialism, but socialism nevertheless, which shaped Indian economy and politics. The Congress, under Gandhi and Nehru, rejected all franchises and consolidated as the only champion of the freedom struggle and appropriated patriotism. Not only was the role of the nationalists ignored, but the Congress found it convenient to endow the deaths of Bhagat Singh and Chandrasekhar Azad with a doubtful martyrdom.
Meanwhile, the Left’s pathological hatred of nationalism was reflected in its communal stance on the struggle for independence. The pre-Partition Communist Party view was that India was not a single nation but a collection of separate nationalities. It claimed the demand for Pakistan is a just and democratic one because Hindus would oppress Muslims in future, and that the Congress must concede to the Muslims’ right to self-determination. The CPI claimed that its membership was fattening thanks to Muslims supporting its demand for Pakistan. The Communists, thus, were willing to play communal politics even before the Congress had discovered its advantages.
In the 1970s, Indira Gandhi almost made India a Soviet satellite. Many in her inner circle had Leftist, socialist leanings, whose convenient Nehruvian ideology made them powerful in the establishment. This gave the Marxists an opportunity to practice what Stalin had implemented in the Soviet Union—subversion of history. Chandra’s description of Bhagat Singh, and by implication any freedom fighter who did not toe the Congress and Gandhi line, was a token of the Left’s gratitude to Indira. It also allowed Left intellectuals and academics the freedom to determine how young minds would be shaped for generations.
It is time academic terrorism is expunged from textbooks. History cannot be a victim of a lost ideology. ravi@newindianexpress.com