No announcement yet.

Stalin killed Netaji, Subramanian Swamy says

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What my countrymen are trying to say is that Bose is an icon who is worshipped in India.

    We don't claim that he was a great military leader, but his attempts to seek a military solution are respected.
    We don't claim that he was trying to win a war, but he was only seeking to free his motherland.
    He failed as a military leader, but he was part of the same team that sought Indian independence.

    Bose had first gone to Soviet Union and when he got no help from Stalin, he went to Germany. He did not even get an acknowledgement from Hitler when he tried to seek his assistance in 1941, in fact he was ignored. Just one battalion was created from Indian students and POWs, IR 950 (known as the Indian Legion). Did they do anything operational?....apart from some sabotage ops in Baluchistan,...nothing much.

    Bose's efforts were no military success, but his efforts are acknowledged as they led to the ultimate aim of freedom from British colonial rule.

    Will Indians feel bad if we got to know that he was murdered?....damn right Yes.
    Why?..because most Indians respected the British for their sense of justice and fair play. When they left India, they were sent off with respect and decorum and not with hate.
    But if we are told that the British held a grudge against Bose, then many would hold one against them too.

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!


    • Originally posted by lemontree View Post
      Bose's efforts were no military success, but his efforts are acknowledged as they led to the ultimate aim of freedom from British colonial rule.

      That would be an exaggeration.Even if you cite the mutiny at the INA trial, it cannot be divorced from the process of growth of indian nationalism in
      india in general since 1857.

      Britain left because they took stock that indian nationalism has grown strong enough and its allies in the indian adminstratration(ICS) and armed forces are increasingly unreliable.

      different strands of nationalist movements-the predominant one led by congress,militancy (in bengal,Punjab,INA)- demonstrated and also contributed to further growth of indian nationalism that eventually dislodged british rule.

      To use one incident to say one day the armed forces became nationalist and were ready to throw the british into the sea is fiction.In any case, even some british commanders like auchinleck and slim were in favour of indian independence

      Rationally speaking bose's venture was quixotic and his choices questionable.

      By the martial races theory certain regions like Punjab dominated the armed forces. The percentage
      of Punjabi muslims was very high.

      Most of them cared two hoots for indian nationalism. To build INA with such a large
      percentage of unreliable men is never going to end pretty.

      little wonder Japanese commander mutaguchi was not enamoured of the effectiveness of the INA .

      Bose's methods were morally dubious without a doubt but politics makes for strange bedfellows.

      he accepted Japan's help for pure expediency and not as a stooge but its difficult to see what he could have achieved eventually.

      he is respected for his idealism and taking initiatives for indian independence,quixotic and morally questionable his venture mightbe.

      The INA trial was a warning shot for any remaining ambition of british imperial rule without a doubt.but let's not make it bigger than what it is.


      • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
        You said prevented a civil war. Partition was a civil war.

        Partition was a decision taken by Nehru and patel to "cut the diseased part off".

        Nehru challenged the muslim league to show their strength.

        The muslim league showed their ability to make trouble by direct action day in Calcutta and theaftermath which erupted into riots all over.
        also muslim league was making inroads even into Punjab and nwfp.

        so partition was agreed

        1. to prevent a civil war

        2. increasing loss of control over administration with quarrels between congress and ML, the british being hapless rulers ready to run away

        3. in recognition of Islamic political traditions that gives importance to religious laws and a muslim ruler(incompatible with a one man one vote democracy).ofcourse they naively believed Pakistan would come back after a decade or so.

        4 to give priority to a strong central state by integrating all states into the union(which was not a given at that time)


        • The disconnect we have seen between indian posters and others i feel arise from a few factors

          1. In India, Bose is regarded as one of the founding father and we are well informed with his evolution into an ally of
          the axis powers. Bose was impatient with the congress leadership and matters eventually reached an head that the congress
          and he disowned each other in a bitter split. however Gandhi praised his efforts after he died.He is also mostly treated favourably in the

          In india Bose and bhagat singh are respected for patriotism,initiative and inspiration even though some regard their methods as dubious.
          So its like methods questionable but intent and vision appreciated. Atleast for some like me anyway

          2. Allying with the axis powers and lack of success has made INA a vicious target. I noticed these when I started reading books from british historians from the british council
          library.However it would be a disservice to the vision and ideals of bose to solely view through such a prism.

          In India,there is a strong culture of anti imperialism.i deeply resent any justifcation of british rule or portuguese rule .Even I am no right winger , i feel a rage how can anyone be insensitive to justify slavery.This may explain attempts to disown or be indifferent the british indian army which fought for a colonial government and was loyal to the crown for "too long" according to some indian nationalists.Infact Nehru's hostile attitude to the army owed a huge deal to this. Its not easy answer - whether to honour those who were loyal to the empire.

          3. not everyone in india shares the hatred for axis powers especially those with an aversion to western powers. There are no dearth of hitler fans in educated urban india who say the western powers manipulated history as victors.

          Anti west attitudes can easily translate into pro Germany and pro japan attitudes.

          i regard this as misguided.i am more aware of the scale of barbarity by Nazis especially and to a lesser extent japan.but many others are not.


          • That's a pretty admirable attempt at objectivity. But I feel it should be added that, if you disregard nationalist bias, ultimately we are talking about men who sought the ticket out of imperialist dominance of GB by throwing themselves at the feet of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan which are rightly viewed by US and UK historians as racialist imperialists par excellence and so the clarity of their vision and effectiveness as leaders are called into doubt, and having good intentions is not something that historians accept as a reason to heap praises on somebody.
            All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
            -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.