British imperialism took up a non-stop publicity campaign for marking him as a Fascist. Many groups and people in this country have also helped in propagating this view. Those who could defend Netaji’s ideology were all incarcerated from 1940 to 1946. Therefore, Netaji’s opponents got the opportunity to run a one-sided propaganda to rally public opinion against him. But their efforts failed when the Indian National Army appeared in the national scene. The truth regarding his ideology came in front of the country, overpowering all efforts in painting a false picture.

Such a propaganda gained momentum as early as the 1930s. On his second trip to Europe in 1934, after his father’s death, Netaji met Mussolini and praised the work of Italy’s youth groups. About him, Netaji said in 1935, “A man who really counts in the politics of modern Europe.” Earlier, Netaji had alluded to his concept of Samyavadai Sangha in his presidential address to the Indian conference in London. The Tory newspapers severely criticised his speech and the idea of Samyavadai Sangha. The underlying theme of the offensive was that Netaji had come under the influence of Fascism. In response, Netaji released a strong statement from Geneva, in which he said, “In view of the certain statements made in the British Press and reproduced thereafter in the Indian press, which may have led to some misunderstanding of my socio-political views, I desire to say that there has been no fundamental change in my position. Since I came to Europe, I maintain more strongly than ever that while it is imperatively necessary that we should study all the modern movements abroad, it is equally necessary for us in India to chalk out the future lines of our progress in conformity with our past history and our present and future requirements. The geographical and intellectual isolation which India has enjoyed for centuries should enable us to adopt a sympathetic but critical attitude towards the other lands and nations. It is necessary for us in India to distinguish once for all clearly between our internal and external policy… In determining our internal policy, it would be a fatal error to say that the choice for India lies between Communism and Fascism. No standpoint or theory in socio-political affairs can be the last word in human wisdom. The socio-political theories and institutions of modern nations are the product of their history, environment and needs…Time must elapse before they could be declared successful, and in the meantime we should not mortgage our intellect anywhere. My own view has always been that India’s task is to work out synthesis of all that is useful and good in the different movements that we see today. For this purpose, we should have to study with critical sympathy all the movements and experiments…” Thus, Netaji himself protested. There was no change in his socio-political views.

Fascism appeared in Europe in 1922. Thereafter, Hitler and Nazism appeared in Germany in 1933. Nazism can be said to be another form of Fascism. Usually both can be, and are, bracketed under Fascism. Netaji thought it necessary to critically observe Fascism and explore the good and bad aspects of it. But he never advocated acceptance of Fascism. His was a rational mind that never accepted anything without rigorous scrutiny. His attitude towards Fascism was the same as towards Communism – if there are relevant and useful aspects, he wouldn’t hesitate to accept them, while not hesitating to reject any untruth in such dogmas. He was against accepting Fascism as an ideology.

Many are of the opinion that in today’s world one has to accept either Fascism or Marxism; that there is no other way. Pandit Nehru is also a believer of this extreme outlook. But Netaji protested against this kind of straitjacketing because he believed that such ideologies are not entirely mutually exclusive and specific elements could be assimilated from each. Nonetheless, he has repeatedly pointed out that Fascism is not acceptable and it is not the culmination of social and political science.

While Netaji was in Europe, Hitler once said that the white race is destined to dominate the coloured race. Netaji protested vehemently. In 1936, he clearly said, “I am opposed to Hitlerism, whether in India, within the Congress, or any other country, but it appears to me that Socialism is the only alternative to Hitlerism. (12 November 1936, Delhi)”

Netaji didn’t hesitate to acknowledge Mussolini’s strength, efficiency and strong personality. But that was not reason enough for him to gravitate towards Mussolini’s ideology. In the international field, India would need to take everyone’s help. Whoever is opposed to British imperialism is a potential friend of India. This diplomatic line has been the central theme in Netaji’s struggle. That’s why he differentiates between internal policy from foreign policy. Whatever may be India’s policy in reconstruction of its society and form of government, she can develop ties with countries of any ideological leaning in order to win independence and defend it. This, in short is his view.

Thus, he did not have any objection in India’s development of relation with Mussolini. Fascism is to be rejected, but the anti-British stance of Fascist Mussolini would have to be put to good use. For this reason, when Gandhiji went to participate in the roundtable conference, Netaji came out in support of his meeting with Mussolini. He wrote, “This meeting was certainly a historic one. It was the only occasion on the continent that the Mahatma came into contact with a man who really counts in the politics of modern Europe. The Mahatma’s attitude towards the Fascist authorities… was severely criticised in the anti-Fascist circles. But there is no doubt that from the point of view of India, the Mahatma rendered great public service by this visit to Italy. (Netaji 1935)”

It can be seen from this statement that according to Netaji, having a good relation with Italy would work in India’s favour. He has attached considerable importance to Mussolini’s position in European politics of that time. Friendship with Italy and acknowledgement of Mussolini’s importance – these are two issues which Netaji’s opponents have sought to present in a distorted way. Citing Netaji’s statement, they have sought to impress that Netaji had indeed a favourable attitude to Fascism. But people need to understand that accepting Mussolini’s importance is not the same thing as accepting his ideology. Similarly, if it works in India’s favour, a friendly relationship with Italy should be established. This is the basis of Netaji’ philosophy. This is for the in the interest of the nation and its struggle – there is no scope of philosophical or theoretical ‘ism’ here. The starting point of Netaji’ principle of struggle is that help has to be taken from wherever it is available. There is no question of untouchability here. This is the reason why he did not hesitate to take the help of Germany, Italy and Japan. While any help for the sake of India’s independence was welcome, it also became necessary to apply brake to Japan’s arrogance and her narrow self-interest. When the one and only objective is India’s freedom, all else can be sacrificed for it. Without understanding this simple truth people in this country did not hesitate to call him a puppet of Japan. But Netaji had clearly denounced Japanese imperialist designs on China in 1937 in the following words: “Japan wants to drive out western imperialist forces….our heart goes out to China.”

“Standing at the threshold of a new era, let India resolve to aspire after national self-fulfilment in every direction – but not at the expense of other nations and not through the bloody path of self-aggrandisement and imperialism,” he wrote in the Modern Review. Intense disapproval of imperialism was the cornerstone of Netaji’s philosophy. Therefore, fascist imperialism was equally unacceptable, and he used the Fascist countries only to serve India’s interest. Those who term this as his Fascist inclination are blind.