There is a distinct attempt by the RSS and its allies to detract from the enormous contribution that Gandhi, Tagore, Nehru and others had in India's freedom movement by positing "alternatives" such as Patel, Bhagat Singh and Bose. Never you mind that the latter leaders, had they been alive would have been (and in their lifetime often were) far more scathing of the Sangh and its religiosity than the former (who felt it was important to accomodate diversity in political thought). The real reason is that the RSS wants to shift the spotlight around so that it would never shine on the fact they (and some of their allies) not only often stayed away from protests against British Rule, but often collaborated with the British in their divide-and-rule strategy.
Here is some evidence of the current absurdities.
Many alumni of IIT's, which would not have existed without the foresight of our first Prime Minister in setting up these Institutes, miss no chance to slam the "socialist" Nehru. That their corporate jobs with zero innovation are a slap in the face of the dreams with which IIT's were set up is apparently not enough for them.
The Sangh would like to put the Indian Flag on par with their own flag. They would tell you that this is because the national flag reminds them of the INC flag. 1 What they would not tell you that is that it reminds them of how little they did towards India's freedom.
The Sangh would like to put the National Anthem on par with "Vande Mataram". They would tell you that this is because the Anthem was composed by Tagore to sing praises of India to the then British ruler. What they would not tell you that is that it is because "Vande Mataram" invokes the idea of idol worship which is abhorrent to some minority religious communities whom they would like to marginalise.
The Sanghis waste no chance in telling their opponents to "go to Pakistan". They want and need Pakistan to exist in support of their two-nation theory; an idea that they have promoted (along with the British government of the time) since before independence.
Many of the Sangh's allies support the "many nation theory" (which would have horrified Patel!). The Sena would like Mumbai (and Maharashtra) for the Maharashtrians, the Akalis would like Punjab for the Punjabis. Sangh supporters from Bengal and Karnataka just need to be prodded a little to evoke their nation-dividing chauvinism; just get them started on Biharis (or Assamese) and Tamilians (or Malayalees) respectively!
Nehru (and Patel and Ambedkar) wanted us to build a modern united nation. Traditional Hinduism is based on a (set-theoretic) union of (sometimes co-operating, sometimes fighting) communities, each with its own rituals and rules and exclusion principles. At their heart, the hard-core Sanghis are "neighbour-haters", they hate having to live and work side-by-side with people whose lifestyles and beliefs are different from their own.
If you don't believe me, just ask the next Sanghi you meet how much they know about the people of a faraway (for them) region of India; or ask them if they like the people from their neighbouring state.
The Sangh does not believe in India, whatever they may tell you. So don't be fooled.
There is a strong anti-Congress sentiment among the people for a variety of reasons. The Sangh is trying to take a free ride on this. This is why you will see "congi" used as a denigratory term by Sangh supporters; they know that their opponent (very likely) dislikes being identified with the Congress. ↩