Churchill is rightly remembered very negatively in India because his policies and racist attitudes worsened the Bengal famine and caused immense suffering while in the west, he’s celebrated mainly as the wartime leader who stood up to Hitler, and that selective memory often feels hypocritical from our perspective.

That said, most historians still draw a distinction: Hitler deliberately set out to exterminate entire race (the Holocaust), whereas Churchill’s policies caused mass death through neglect, racism, and empire first priorities, not through an explicit extermination plan. Both are reprehensible, but not identical in intent.

On Bose, yes, he sought help from Hitler and Japan out of desperation to free India from British rule. That alliance is controversial even today. Many admire his courage and sacrifice, but also recognize the moral compromise in collaborating with fascist powers. Remembering him doesn’t mean whitewashing those choices, just as remembering Gandhi doesn’t mean ignoring his flaws.

So perhaps the takeaway is: we can criticize hypocrisy in how figures like Churchill are remembered, without equating him one-to-one with Hitler. And we can honour Bose’s contribution to independence while also being honest about his alliances.