Jawahar Lal Nehru referred to Subhas Chandra Bose as a 'war criminal'

Anorion

Sith Lord
Staff member
Admin
ok. like history is not so sequential. if one event follows another, it is not always because of that event. like one common understanding is that atomic bombs forced the Japanese surrender in WWII... but many Japanese cities had sustained such heavy destruction in the war till then, and a whole bunch of other events may have lead to it The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did | Foreign Polic

so similarly, it is very simplistic interpretation but conveys the basic idea. What if India won it's Independence when Bose met with future prime minister Attlee and the labour party at the start of his career. What if it didn't matter what Gandhi or Bose did in the intervening time.
 

icebags

Technomancer
The discussion had to be restricted to only Bose, i would have loved to discuss about Indian Modern History (20th Century)..

if u its positive and contributing, you can always ask mods to change the title and find a suitable place for the thread..... :hug_NF:
 

Anorion

Sith Lord
Staff member
Admin
done here > *forum.digit.in/chit-chat/196417-discuss-indian-modern-history-20th-century.html#post2278883
 

Raaabo

The Dark Lord
Staff member
Admin
I'm not so sure that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The independence of India had as much to do with what the common Britisher in the UK thought about it. At the end of World War II, with the trigger happy Americans looking to bomb anyone with their new atomic toy, are you seriously suggesting that allying with Hitler was the smartest choice?

You're forgetting that just like the Japanese, Indian's aren't white, and thus there was no guilt for white men to kill them back then. It was Gandhi that really caught the average Britisher's imagination. A well spoken and polite person dressed like a naked fakir was something new.

They are the ones who would vote to elect new governments in Britain. They are the ones who needed to see Indians as people (I would say equals, but they probably still don't do that). Just as it's really easy for you to hate Kasab, or any "terrorist" that killed some of your own, it would be really easy for the average brit to hate a person who was a killer of other brits.

One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. Our violent heroes were painted as terrorists in the "civilised west".

Of course Bose was important. He made the Brits want to deal with Gandhi. Without him (and thousands others like him) there would be no need to indulge the naked fakir in dialogue, to show to the world that they were not unreasonable. If not for the violent freedom fighters, the UK would never be exposed to Gandhi. Or maybe Gandhi himself would have been bumped off much earlier. Every person who took part made some effect on the freedom struggle.

However, those of you who still resent the fact that we didn't get our freedom at gunpoint, I guess you're the type who would rather fight when outnumbered by 10 bullies, and get beaten up, but hold on to some weird sense of "pride". Others just prefer to win, even if it's a few years later, with much plotting and planning.

I think Gandhi didn't choose like a "man" he chose like a "father", and swallowed personal pride for the sake of making sure that independence is what we got. In no way was he perfect, in fact he made a lot of mistakes, but his decision to support the Allies in the WWII did turn out to be the right decision.
 

freshseasons

King of my own Castle
As a free independant nation and its citizen, the outlook to events, i'm sure is quite different than what would had been of a citizen of a oppressed ,humilated person of an imperial colony almost begging for freedom and rotting in poverty, left to fate with rest of the world accepting Imperalism as a way of life.

Perhaps Subhash Chandra Bose had run out of all the options and may be he didn't quite believe in Ghandhiji's ways of acheiving freedom.Or that he actually believe but thought non-cooperation was pretty time consuming and may be he was looking to the actual freedom in his life time if nothing but so as to acclerate the way towards it.

Right now having seen the history its easy to see how wrong in a few ways Mr bose was. But to a person then in total despondency, helplessness, who saw himself as a sole hope of winning freedom for India, it seems not much were choices open to him.

Gandhijis first priority were humanity and its dignity so he always looked at the larger picture. He was almost a sait.
Mr Bose's outlook to life seemed to be centered around as common human and Indians welfare. How much of a mistake is that, and who would i pick up if i were to choose one, right now it seems ,i just havent the won right to comment from the comforts of an Air Conditioned Luxrious room with a Free Indias Passport at my hand.
 

Raaabo

The Dark Lord
Staff member
Admin
Oh no doubt. Bose's ways of dealing with the British were certainly effective in their own way. Like I said, they surely must have lived in a little bit of fear, which was good, you don't want colonizers to get comfortable. He considered it war, and so it was. It's not like he went to Britain and bombed them, on the contrary he's said to have vacationed there and met many people who he even sought advice from. He's said to have hated the British, but respected them for their efficiency and strengths.

I'm just adding to the pool of hypothetical thinking that asked what if he'd "Won" his war. I dare say it's in the realm of possibility that we might have seen a few atomic bombs dropped on us because of being seen as Japanese allies (had Bose's INA beaten the British). It's actually funny to say "British" there because majority of the "British" Army in India was made up of Indians... So basically Indians killed other Indians based on what uniform they wore... Then it was uniforms, now it's religions... some things never change. *sigh*
 

icebags

Technomancer
It's actually funny to say "British" there because majority of the "British" Army in India was made up of Indians... So basically Indians killed other Indians based on what uniform they wore... Then it was uniforms, now it's religions... some things never change. *sigh*

that's the weird part.
 

Anorion

Sith Lord
Staff member
Admin
Hmmm.... somehow I get the feeling that Bose was only played to give trouble to British in India, by Germany and Japan, to achieve their own ends. So alternate history and consequences, would be them getting more involved, giving more support, than anything Bose could have done different.

the British-Indian and Bose's Army troops must have had some interesting encounters, but in the end Japan failed to exploit anti British sentiment in the British Indian Army
The first encounter between British-Indian and INA troops, a surprise engagement, took place a few miles north of Buthidaung in Arakan. INA units were successful through trickery and civilian disguise in over-powering British-Indian sentries and enabling the Japanese to capture a divisional headquarters. In the next encounter, however, an INA Sikh, who had been encouraged to leave cover shouting slogans and invitations to desert, was riddled with British-Indian bullets.

Optimism aroused among the puppet Indians by initial military successes quickly disappeared. The ineffectiveness of the INA was clearly demonstrated at the time of the farthest Japanese advance into India in the spring of 1944. Japanese expectations had obviously been high and the British themselves had been uncertain how much confusion Bose’s Indians could cause. But actual encounters proved that British-Indian troops would fight the enemy whether he was Indian or Japanese.

The virtual disintegration of Subhas Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army (INA) in the general Japanese retreat from Burma marked the failure in Japan’s attempt to exploit Indian nationalism in her war against the Allies in Southeast Asia. In the early months of 1945, after Germany's surrender in April 1945, large-scale surrenders revealed a radical decline in morale, rapidly reduced INA ranks. Remaining troops presumably retreated with the Japanese into the Shan mountains towards Thailand. Bose, the INA Commander in Chief, reportedly fled to Bangkok, from where he was allegedly reorienting his propaganda to longer range objectives.
Indian National Army (INA - Azad Hind Fauj)

Gandhi was perhaps a little more sympathetic towards the British than Bose. Im thinking how most of India was when it came to British. Did most of them think more like Gandhi, or like Bose? Im thinking Gandhi.
 

ShankJ

Been There, Done That!!
I'm not trying to belittle Gandhi but the truth is that B.G.Tilak had introduced the same revolutionary ideas (Civil Disobedience, Non-Cooperation & Congress Working Committees) as early as in the late 1890's but was rebuked for the same.. Gandhi might have had a little bit of luck on his hand that he was present at the perfect turn of events in the independence struggle..
 

Raaabo

The Dark Lord
Staff member
Admin
Every famous person through history has rarely ever had a totally original idea. They have had success where no others have before, sometimes because of some special personal trait, or just being at the right place at the right time. That's just how it works.
 

ShankJ

Been There, Done That!!
Hmmm.... somehow I get the feeling that Bose was only played to give trouble to British in India, by Germany and Japan, to achieve their own ends. So alternate history and consequences, would be them getting more involved, giving more support, than anything Bose could have done different.

the British-Indian and Bose's Army troops must have had some interesting encounters, but in the end Japan failed to exploit anti British sentiment in the British Indian Army

Indian National Army (INA - Azad Hind Fauj)

Gandhi was perhaps a little more sympathetic towards the British than Bose. Im thinking how most of India was when it came to British. Did most of them think more like Gandhi, or like Bose? Im thinking Gandhi.

I wouldnt bet my money on that because post every big movement that happened, the common people or the masses were let down by Gandhi in some way or the other.. Eg: When after the Chauri Chaura incident, Gandhi called off the Non Cooperation Movement the whole nation was in shock and disbelief (the non-coopeeration was hurting the interest of the capitalist class is said to be one of the major reason for Gandhi coming onto this decision) ; post the Civil Disobedience Movement when Irwin had no other option but to give in to Gandhi's demand, Gandhi did not put in the demand to pardon Bhagat Singh, RajGuru and Shukhdev's death sentence which left the whole nation weeping on 21st March 1931 (day of the hanging)..
 

Anorion

Sith Lord
Staff member
Admin
Ok, then what exactly was stopping most people from adopting more hardline tactics, kicking the British when they were down. Gandhi could have stopped one Bose using his political muscle, but what about all the other people living in India. Why did Bose have to struggle so much to get anything done.

So say there was a soldier family, grandfather of a sepoy was in the 1857 revolt. He joins the British Indian Army, because it is traditional in his family. He was deployed to Malaya. The Japanese won there. He became a POW. He joins the INA. Bose leads him to Arakan. He dresses up in civilian clothes, and infiltrates the British Indian army. Im imagining a betrayal, a look of utter shock and horror, a satisfied and treacherous smirk. He helps the Japanese take over his countrymen, and against what used to be his army. Then a bullet from his countryman, and his ex-army kills him.

This is so messed up on so many levels. What kind of brainwashing did he go through, or was he also just played.
 

Raaabo

The Dark Lord
Staff member
Admin
That's inaccurate. Gandhi did ask for the commutation of their death sentences, and it was denied. The British were never going to let those 3 get away with what they considered to be terrorism. It's not like the 3 of them didn't know this. They did what they did knowing fully well that they would be hanged.

Plus, history is usually divided into opposing views based on different beliefs. For example, for every account you will find that demonizes Gandhi, you will find another that criticises his opponents.

None of us can really know what the whole truth is. It's probably unwise to throw mud on people who actually fought in the independence struggle (non violently or violently), based on current opinions that are biased, and being used for political ends today.
 

Anorion

Sith Lord
Staff member
Admin
Asia has waaay tooo muuuch infighting

alt history would basically be a world where that would not have happened
pan-asia
I love that when you say it out aloud, it is a slightly weird panacea
 

ShankJ

Been There, Done That!!
What i wanted to put light on was that Gandhi sometimes choose means which were not understood by anyone including his close ones such as Nehru.. Like Gandhi's statement during the Tripuri session that Bose's win as Congress president was not Pattabhi Sitaramayya's defeat (Bose's rival in the election) but his (Gandhi's) defeat is seen as unfair as this statement made a large part of Bose supporters to change sides as no-one back then could imagine going against Bapu's wish..
Bose was a man who left his ICS post because he thought it amounted to being disloyal to the nation and then set out on the mission to free the nation from the British despotic rule but somewhere in the way his ideology and means to achieving it rubbed up even his fellow revolutionary the wrong way.. And as he found himself being ostracized, his actions grew even more severe..
Having said that i would like to add that Bose can never be called a 'terrorist' as it demeans revolutionaries like him, Chandrashekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh etc who decided to chose a more 'extremist' approach as compared to Gandhi's struggle-truce-struggle approach..

- - - Updated - - -

That's inaccurate. Gandhi did ask for the commutation of their death sentences, and it was denied. The British were never going to let those 3 get away with what they considered to be terrorism. It's not like the 3 of them didn't know this. They did what they did knowing fully well that they would be hanged.

Plus, history is usually divided into opposing views based on different beliefs. For example, for every account you will find that demonizes Gandhi, you will find another that criticises his opponents.

None of us can really know what the whole truth is. It's probably unwise to throw mud on people who actually fought in the independence struggle (non violently or violently), based on current opinions that are biased, and being used for political ends today.

Congress Gandhi-Irwin pact demands-
1. Immediate release of all the political prisoners not convicted of violence
2. Remission of all fines
3. Returning all the confiscated property
4. Right to make salt
5. Inquiring into excesses made by the police during the movement (rejected)

Source - India's Struggle for Independence - Bipin Chandra (I might have missed some of the lesser important demands but the pardoning or even commutation of the death sentence was not mentioned in the Congress demands.)


(Off-topic - Can someone p.m me the link to the page where it explains which moderator is what i.e green, orange etc etc..)
 

Anorion

Sith Lord
Staff member
Admin
hey found this
When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’."

The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum
 

Raaabo

The Dark Lord
Staff member
Admin
“As I listened to Mr. Gandhi putting the case for commutation before me, I reflected first on what significance it surely was that the apostle of non-violence should so earnestly be pleading the cause of the devotees of a creed so fundamentally opposed to his own, but I should regard it as wholly wrong to allow my judgment to be influenced by purely political considerations. I could not imagine a case in which under the law, penalty had been more directly deserved.” – Lord Irwin

The deal between the British and the Congress was established after much discussion. The initial demand was that ALL political prisoners be freed. This was whittled down to political prisoners not charged with violence. The British refused to budge on this point.

You also have to remember that at the time millions of Indians were suffering and farmers were dying, starving and their will about to break. The congress was almost all in jail, and Gandhi was desperate to get out of that situation where he was not the one suffering but India certainly was. Some would say his hands were tied.

Not to forget that Bhagat Singh also knew that he would be a much better influence to his movement dead than alive. He refused to "apologise" (obviously), and was actually searching for a martyrs death.

Plus, don't misread or misunderstand. I said the British considered Bose to be a terrorist. To Indians he was a hero.

The problem, however, with violence, is that you can be painted as a terrorist by those whom you attack. It was easy to paint Bose or Bhagat Singh (for the British people) as that.

Personally, as someone who was (still is perhaps?) hot-headed, and who has got into many fights because of a short fuse, I can easily relate to Bose or Bhagat Singh. I cannot imagine being persecuted, shoved around, jailed and ridiculed, and also keeping my "civility", or staying cool. That's an alien concept for me, and thus, perhaps why I respect the non-violent movement a little more - it seems a harder thing to do.

Remember this scene from Gandhi (the movie), where people keep walking to the gates of a salt factory and keep getting hit with lathis, while the women tend to the wounded, only for them to get back up and quietly be beaten again?

That visualisation -- of what I had only read before as boring history lessons -- made me realise that it took much more courage to do that than I could ever dream of having.

It certainly made me appreciate the contributions of the non-violent movement (which, as an uneducated teenager, I thought was non-violent because they were too scared to fight).
 
Top Bottom