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

[snap]

"Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth."

 

[ShankJ]

“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).

I'l have to watch the movie but i guess that scene was of the Dharasana Salt factory that was being raided by Sarojinin Naidu and Gandhi's son plus some 2000 more agitators..

- - - Updated - - -

What i'm pointing out in my discussion here is that had Bose, Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Rash Behari Bose and many others like them not seen as outsiders even among the ranks of Indian revolutionaries who were so pro-Gandhian ideology of ahimsa, the Indian independence might have been won before 1947.. What the Gandhians (not Gandhi) failed to fathom was that people like Bose were also fighting for the same Swaraj that they were demanding, just the means were different.. Its sad to see that while some freedom fighters have 'jayantis' and 'days' dedicated to them, while some are not even remembered while others get termed as 'war criminal'..

 

[Raaabo]

I don't know about the earlier than 1947 independence. That seems like a leap of faith based on bravado and not facts. I certainly think a violent protest would play into the hands of the British government at the time, and justify the use of more force without seeming inhuman to their own people.

Who is called a terrorist in free India?

Nathuram Godse?

I don't know who you're referring to.

 

[ShankJ]

I don't know about the earlier than 1947 independence. That seems like a leap of faith based on bravado and not facts. I certainly think a violent protest would play into the hands of the British government at the time, and justify the use of more force without seeming inhuman to their own people.

Who is called a terrorist in free India?

Nathuram Godse?

I don't know who you're referring to.

Edited..

No idea about Nathuram Godse, will have to go through his book of reasons for assassinating Gandhi..

And British could not use any more of violence as half of its British official in India had already deserted their posts and gone back (eg: for 65 ICS posts in Bengal, there were only 19 ICS left), the Indian sepoys were already showing there discontent and there was a possible chance of mutiny in the future (i dont remember the British governor who had made this statement), their economy had taken a hit back home and moreover USA had emerged as the new center of power which was pressurizing the British to let the colonies decide their own future.. Under all these circumstances it seems highly unlikely that British would have tried to go on an all out offensive..

 

[Anorion]

yeah about that
there is a narrative, often said as a joke, "the British tried to civilise India for 200 years, then just gave up". Official version is like, yeah they sensed that their navy and army would not hold together and it would revolt soon. It seems fair to me to agree that they would have seen it coming, when push came to shove, especially because it had been happening all along since 1857. So Gandhi, Bose, whoever used whatever tactics for freedom and all is ok, it was the Indian troops in the British Military that finally won our independence, that too, with just their thoughts and moods.

Also, I don't know all the things that happened, what are the implications, connotations and the etymology, these are things I want to explore - but it is kind of weird that up to independence, Indians were referred to as "hindus" or rather "hindoos" in books. Like one prominent example is Jules Verne's Around the World in 80 Days.

 

[Raaabo]

And British could not use any more of violence as half of its British official in India had already deserted their posts and gone back (eg: for 65 ICS posts in Bengal, there were only 19 ICS left), the Indian sepoys were already showing there discontent and there was a possible chance of mutiny in the future (i dont remember the British governor who had made this statement), their economy had taken a hit back home and moreover USA had emerged as the new center of power which was pressurizing the British to let the colonies decide their own future.. Under all these circumstances it seems highly unlikely that British would have tried to go on an all out offensive..

I was talking about the violent opposition succeeding more than Gandhi's movement. Say, for instance, had Bose been successful in siding with the Japanese and Germans, and had taken over India (freed India before 1947). Don't you think it would be quite possible that the US and the British would have attacked here after dealing with Japan? The US especially were itching to use their new bombs, and the WWII setting was ideal. They bombed Japan even though they were all but finished anyway, I fear that a Nazi and Japanese aided overthrow of the British would have delayed our independence for a LOT longer.

The US was pressuring Britain to give us our freedom because we were allies in WWII, but to think they would do the same had we been Axis aided... that's just unreal.

 

[ShankJ]

I was talking about the violent opposition succeeding more than Gandhi's movement. Say, for instance, had Bose been successful in siding with the Japanese and Germans, and had taken over India (freed India before 1947). Don't you think it would be quite possible that the US and the British would have attacked here after dealing with Japan? The US especially were itching to use their new bombs, and the WWII setting was ideal. They bombed Japan even though they were all but finished anyway, I fear that a Nazi and Japanese aided overthrow of the British would have delayed our independence for a LOT longer.

The US was pressuring Britain to give us our freedom because we were allies in WWII, but to think they would do the same had we been Axis aided... that's just unreal.

Britain attacking India once the independence was won and the WWII was over was not a possibility and the fact that they had to take a loan of 400 million USD just to keep their domestic economy going is the proof of it..
Secondly, USA would not have dared to bomb India just on the context that it had supported Japan because the reason given for attacking Japan to the world countries was that it was to act as a deterrence to Japan to prolonging the war any more.. The fact that Inida had not been the active member of the WWII and had indirectly been fighting for the British was enough to favor India in this aspect.. So, the USA had no substantial ground to bomb India (same was the case during the Cold War as both the sides had no substantial reason to attack the other thus it just lead to an arms race..)
I'm looking at the bigger picture taking into account the economic as well as the international consequences into account..

 

[Raaabo]

Do you realize that you're trying to shoot down a suggestion of an alternate reality with events from this reality?

You cannot counter a hypothetical scenario where Bose would have freed India very early on in WWII (or before), while Hitler was still a big threat, and had killed all the British in India, and turned the free Indian army against the Allied powers, and also moved East to help the Japanese, with the argument:

"The fact that Inida had not been the active member of the WWII and had indirectly been fighting for the British was enough to favor India in this aspect"

The hypothetical scenario by definition says what if Bose had won earlier or that Gandhi never existed and the ouster of the British was violent, at the start of WWII itself. In such a hypothetical scenario, India would be considered an Axis power because Indian leaders would have certainly gone against the British.

At the end, however, the Italians would have surrendered early, the Germans would have lost as well, and if only India and Japan remained (we can assume India would not surrender to the Brits or US in a hurry), who knows what could have happened.

Because the US and UK both didn't want to lose more lives and waste more money, and of course the US had a dozen bombs it was dying to use (on non-white people preferably), I think it is certainly in the realm of possibility that India could have been bombed to be made to surrender and to pay for supporting the Japanese and Germans (officially, as a country).

Given the very strategic geographic location of India, I seriously doubt the US would support India's claim to freedom if we had been a German and Japanese ally, and if we had actually fought alongside the Japanese in the Pacific against US soldiers, we would be the enemy. The US would either want to colonise or support the UK's desire to continue colonisation of the "dangerous Indians", and freedom could have been just a short-lived memory.

In the hypothetical, anything's possible, of course. But I dare say this isn't an impossible scenario.

 

[icebags]

I was talking about the violent opposition succeeding more than Gandhi's movement. Say, for instance, had Bose been successful in siding with the Japanese and Germans, and had taken over India (freed India before 1947). Don't you think it would be quite possible that the US and the British would have attacked here after dealing with Japan? The US especially were itching to use their new bombs, and the WWII setting was ideal. They bombed Japan even though they were all but finished anyway, I fear that a Nazi and Japanese aided overthrow of the British would have delayed our independence for a LOT longer.

The US was pressuring Britain to give us our freedom because we were allies in WWII, but to think they would do the same had we been Axis aided... that's just unreal.

hitler was only looking for an arrangement for a little trouble in asia for the british i think. he was well surrounded by battle experienced generals and military experts himself, he would have surely known however determined ina was, with little supply and experience they would not match the british. he probably wanted the distraction for the british, so that he gets a cleaner road in europe for his own.

about freedom though, it was eventually gonna happen, 20th century was not same as 17th century, people were connected through new technologies, and ideas. when a huge connected population living thousands of miles far, it gets difficult for a small nation to keep control. well, eventually britain had to give up all of their colonies, including hongkong a few years ago.

gandhiji, netaji and leaders played their great roles at their times, and those did catalyze our independence.

about bombing, it would not have yielded similar effects as japan. some of them probably felt huge pride by crushing a formidable enemy, who challenged them fiercely for some years. (they probably did not want to bomb germany either - too much side effects)

 

[Raaabo]

hitler was only looking for an arrangement for a little trouble in asia for the british i think. he was well surrounded by battle experienced generals and military experts himself, he would have surely known however determined ina was, with little supply and experience they would not match the british. he probably wanted the distraction for the british, so that he gets a cleaner road in europe for his own.

The hypothetical scenario doesn't involve a weak INA, but a whole lot of support from within India, a revolt against the British. The whole point of it being hypothetical is to move away from what actually happened, not stick close to the script. It's a thought experiment that involves you assuming that Bose and other fighters had rallied the support of India the way Gandhi did – ie. millions would be willing to die for him... Assume instead of Gandhi, the whole of India was willing to follow Bose instead. Then what do you think would have happened?

about freedom though, it was eventually gonna happen, 20th century was not same as 17th century, people were connected through new technologies, and ideas. when a huge connected population living thousands of miles far, it gets difficult for a small nation to keep control. well, eventually britain had to give up all of their colonies, including hongkong a few years ago.

Ah of course, no one is suggesting we'd still be colonised. Just saying the cost of freedom could have been much greater than even the lives lost in partition.

gandhiji, netaji and leaders played their great roles at their times, and those did catalyze our independence.

about bombing, it would not have yielded similar effects as japan. some of them probably felt huge pride by crushing a formidable enemy, who challenged them fiercely for some years. (they probably did not want to bomb germany either - too much side effects)

Yep, no arguments there obviously, everyone played a part, and that's why it turned out the way it was. I'm just saying take a leap and imagine if things had been drastically different. We don't only have to stick to my leap of imagination, come up with your own. I just like playing out the "What if" game with history. Like what if the Confederate States had won the war in the US? What if Einstein had not been a Jew, and stayed in Germany and was put to use developing the bomb for the Germans, which in turn would mean Hitler got the bomb first... then what?

 

[icebags]

^ i get what you are saying, but unity in indian subcontinent is a far cry. even though we live in a same country and we are unified, we still have not achieved unity.

well, leaving that aside, considering bose had received whole hearted support from all over india, i think we could still get freedom, a little before or after. but the map would be very much different. whole hearted support means, no pakistan, no bangladesh etc, otherwise it still remains diversified.

ina would still remained an army of rookies, without the backing of heavy industries and piles of money. not to mention educated military strategists. what maximum they could do, as much as i can imagine, was, raise a civil war.

for the bombing part, india was not direct threat to usa, so i guess no bombing for that reason. for germany though, no gurantees, if they could unlock the potentials of einstein. ig_NF:

 

[Anorion]

hmmm... hinted at it before, but will type it out clearly now
When British was occupying India, their whole administrative approach, and policies, their language used in books about India, were all with the understanding that India is a nation of Hindus
Muslims were treated horribly during this time by Hindus

also, think the bombs were an early form of "shock and awe".
if we are being as callous with human lives as an authoritarian dictator state, yeah sure, Indian population gives a unified INA a lot of capacity for tanking, perhaps more than anyone else engaged in WWII including Russia. That means we could take a few nuclear bombs, lose more lives, but still "win".

If that were the case though, where country gives whole hearted support for Bose, then Bose would not have needed to tag team with Japan, Germany or Italy at all.

 

[icebags]

^ true with the tanking part, a big diverse country supposed to have higher tanking capability than a smaller size country.

 

[Raaabo]

hmmm... hinted at it before, but will type it out clearly now
When British was occupying India, their whole administrative approach, and policies, their language used in books about India, were all with the understanding that India is a nation of Hindus
Muslims were treated horribly during this time by Hindus

also, think the bombs were an early form of "shock and awe".
if we are being as callous with human lives as an authoritarian dictator state, yeah sure, Indian population gives a unified INA a lot of capacity for tanking, perhaps more than anyone else engaged in WWII including Russia. That means we could take a few nuclear bombs, lose more lives, but still "win".

If that were the case though, where country gives whole hearted support for Bose, then Bose would not have needed to tag team with Japan, Germany or Italy at all.

Don't agree.

Even with a quarter of a million youth willing, they'd still need guns and strategic partnerships to ensure the Brits and Yanks didn't come back to bomb the crap out of us and retake what was a very strategically placed country. And come back they would.

You are also totally underestimating pride. There's a huge difference between people agitating with dharnas and people being violent.

Having their officers killed (as Bose surely would have done) would only make them dig in their heels. They knew the support Bhagat Singh had and still they hung him (despite having the opportunity to save face and commute his sentence - claiming that they did it for Gandhi). They chose to risk riots to hang popular men who killed one British officer, can you imagine the backlash if thousands were slaughtered?

In order to prevent such a backlash, surely the enemy of my enemy policy would see India ally with Germany and Japan, which would have totally changed the China-Burma aspect (which in reality was the China-Burma-India campaign) of the war because China would then be vulnerable from two sides, which would force the Americans to also engage in war with India - thus the possibility of the use of the bomb, or at least the invasion and killing off of top leaders.

With the top leaders gone (who in this hypothetical scenario were all the violent freedom fighters), it's likely that India would again break up and divide itself by languages and states, and we'd regress 500 years. A lot of opportunists would jump at this, including the British and the Portuguese (again).

I certainly don't think Bose winning the freedom of India violently would have resulted in "no partition" as suggested earlier, because it would probably result in the fracturing of India across language borders at the least; perhaps religion too, because of how persecuted the Muslims felt. I think Pakistan was an eventuality, before or after independence doesn't matter.

Of course there are contrarian views, and some hilarious ones by obvious Netaji supporters can be found here:
How India would have evolved if Subhash Chandra Bose would have been the first Prime Minister of India instead of Pundit Nehru? - Quor

The funniest suggestion there was: INR being the world standard as opposed to the US dollar. Looks like Bose still has the capability to rally people into a frenzy!

 

[ShankJ]

Don't agree.

Even with a quarter of a million youth willing, they'd still need guns and strategic partnerships to ensure the Brits and Yanks didn't come back to bomb the crap out of us and retake what was a very strategically placed country. And come back they would.

You are also totally underestimating pride. There's a huge difference between people agitating with dharnas and people being violent.

Having their officers killed (as Bose surely would have done) would only make them dig in their heels. They knew the support Bhagat Singh had and still they hung him (despite having the opportunity to save face and commute his sentence - claiming that they did it for Gandhi). They chose to risk riots to hang popular men who killed one British officer, can you imagine the backlash if thousands were slaughtered?

In order to prevent such a backlash, surely the enemy of my enemy policy would see India ally with Germany and Japan, which would have totally changed the China-Burma aspect (which in reality was the China-Burma-India campaign) of the war because China would then be vulnerable from two sides, which would force the Americans to also engage in war with India - thus the possibility of the use of the bomb, or at least the invasion and killing off of top leaders.

With the top leaders gone (who in this hypothetical scenario were all the violent freedom fighters), it's likely that India would again break up and divide itself by languages and states, and we'd regress 500 years. A lot of opportunists would jump at this, including the British and the Portuguese (again).

I certainly don't think Bose winning the freedom of India violently would have resulted in "no partition" as suggested earlier, because it would probably result in the fracturing of India across language borders at the least; perhaps religion too, because of how persecuted the Muslims felt. I think Pakistan was an eventuality, before or after independence doesn't matter.

Of course there are contrarian views, and some hilarious ones by obvious Netaji supporters can be found here:
How India would have evolved if Subhash Chandra Bose would have been the first Prime Minister of India instead of Pundit Nehru? - Quor

The funniest suggestion there was: INR being the world standard as opposed to the US dollar. Looks like Bose still has the capability to rally people into a frenzy!

You are making an assumption of 'either or or', either Gandhi or Bose but the fact that Bose had announced that the INA would not attack in India untill Gandhi did not ask them to is enough to see that post independence, there would not just be 'Bose + 500 more violent revolutionary' but Bose + Gandhi + Nehru + etc etc.. Gandhi and Nehru would have still been at the helm but now even Bose would have been there..
And as for Bhagat Singh being hanged and the same being repeated in mid 40s, Bhagat scenario was way back in 1931 and after that British had already faced the CVM and QIM where the Indians had clearly shown their resilience to getting suppressed any more.. Added to this fact was the fact that Britishers no longer had the physical + economic strength to carry on another full fledged war with any country..
I agree that the partition was inevitable because the seeds of communalism had been sown in 1887 ( Syed Ahmad Khan) and was now entrenched in the Indian society.
USA bombing India can not be a cogent hypothesis taking all the factors into consideration.. It was highly unlikely that USA would go around bombing every country which was with Germany ( India wasnt even 'with' Germany per se ).. It was easier to bomb a small nation like Japan back then but bombing India or Germany would have had more cons than pros..