You cant really blame the indian 'elitemen' for not publicising the INA. The british were very vqry of the effect that the news on the INA woudl have had on the general public - thus they did an awfully good job of suppressing all news on the INA.
by the time the bits and pieces of the INA started trickling down to the common public, the Japanese were already losing and the INA was not a viable force.
Can someone knowledgeable try and see when the indian public came to know of the INA? I know Bose made broadcasts and all, but when did the janata became aware of all this?
INA History Thread
Acharya general consensus amongst contemporary historians and also the folks at mission netaji says he was captured by Soviets at the Mongolian border and was murdered in some Siberian prison camp ,could you provide a source for the above article, havent read about Americans capturing him anywhere.The historians believe the following subsequent set of events: After the Japanese surrender, Subhash evacuated the Andaman on 15 August 1945, in a plane with Japanese markings. This plane was shot down by American gunners over Manila, en-route to Tokyo. Three POWs were taken in this crash. In accord with the Geneva convention, they stated their rank, name and age. The American captors did not realize who their prisoners were.
One thing many folks hven't noticed is the appalingly low percentage of new recruits in the INA...... most were POWs from the China/SE Asia theatres. It's not like one could waltz off to Jap controlled Singapore from Calcutta harbor in a tramp steamer or cross into Burma at the dead of the night..... there was a world war going on! A number of Psy-Ops/recruitment teams landed by submarine all over the southern coast but most were picked up..... in my state alone a team of six INA men were betrayed to their deaths by the commies. Still a few managed to trickle into the INA ranks. And as I said before in this very thread the Japs didn't want to lose momentum by waiting for a "critical mas" of recruits and train them. They preferred the well trained BIA POWs to do the job for them.
The INA initiative was seen as a breach of the "rules", as something not factored into the model (and hence possibly a dangerous threat) and therefore the INC didn't touch it with a ten foot pole..... Well, not until they became martyrs and the Brits were as good as gone.
Free India leagues (based in berlin, Tokyo, Switzerland et) broadcasts were heard even in the interior IIRC.... and this was long before the INA broadcasts. The number of radios and the reach of these foreign broadcasts weren't substantial in India I guess. Moreover, you didn't have the tech to jam broadcasts those days.... think Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose who provided quality entertainment.
Plus, given the amies of INC workers and netas walking amongst them 24/7 with a different M.O and plan, how could the layman TRUST just a voice in a box.... from farway Tokyo or Berlin? Even if it was Subhash Chandra Bose himself?!
The INA initiative was seen as a breach of the "rules", as something not factored into the model (and hence possibly a dangerous threat) and therefore the INC didn't touch it with a ten foot pole..... Well, not until they became martyrs and the Brits were as good as gone.
Free India leagues (based in berlin, Tokyo, Switzerland et) broadcasts were heard even in the interior IIRC.... and this was long before the INA broadcasts. The number of radios and the reach of these foreign broadcasts weren't substantial in India I guess. Moreover, you didn't have the tech to jam broadcasts those days.... think Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose who provided quality entertainment.
Plus, given the amies of INC workers and netas walking amongst them 24/7 with a different M.O and plan, how could the layman TRUST just a voice in a box.... from farway Tokyo or Berlin? Even if it was Subhash Chandra Bose himself?!
Last edited by Anand K on 08 May 2007 17:35, edited 1 time in total.
Quote Parikh
Reminds me of those segments from "The Last Jet Engine Laugh" by Ruchir Joshi. Anyone read this? All I remember is an excerpt where an ailing Netaji dies a sad, sad death (I'm intentionally not putting it down here) in the arms of a fellow INA prisoner....Acharya general consensus amongst contemporary historians and also the folks at mission netaji says he was captured by Soviets at the Mongolian border and was murdered in some Siberian prison camp ,could you provide a source for the above article, havent read about Americans capturing him anywhere.
the only place INA could get new recruits was from the Indian diaspora in Japanese held Asia, which meant Hong Kong, Thailand, Malaya and Burma. Many Malayan and Burman Indians did join up, but the bulk of the force were the POW's from Singapore
you also have to remember that Japan then viewed India as a pool of resources for their hungry economy. They belived (and still do) in their racial superiority and inherent uniqueness. They had no vision of brotherliness towards us - just another cog in the greater economic co prosperity zone or whatever it was called. The INA was to them never more than a propaganda tool. They never trusted the Indian POW's who 'defected', nor did the Germans. The Italians actually decided early on not to bother subverting Indian POW's to the axis cause because they thought that the POW's would fake it for easier treatment and defect back to allied lines at the first chance
The big difference in the BIA of WW2 was the Indian officer class, men who thought for themselves and who well understood that the days of the empire were numbered. That participation on the allied side would compell Britian to release the colonies - something that had been politically acceptable since the 30's. It had always been a question of 'when' and not 'if'. Even the British officers understood that, very few of them believed they could hold onto the Empire after WW2 was over - not least because of the social upheavals underway in their home countries... Europe pretty much saw a class revolution at the end of WW2 as well which permanently altered the social order
and ofcourse, the Americans would not support Britian in holding onto India either
you also have to remember that Japan then viewed India as a pool of resources for their hungry economy. They belived (and still do) in their racial superiority and inherent uniqueness. They had no vision of brotherliness towards us - just another cog in the greater economic co prosperity zone or whatever it was called. The INA was to them never more than a propaganda tool. They never trusted the Indian POW's who 'defected', nor did the Germans. The Italians actually decided early on not to bother subverting Indian POW's to the axis cause because they thought that the POW's would fake it for easier treatment and defect back to allied lines at the first chance
The big difference in the BIA of WW2 was the Indian officer class, men who thought for themselves and who well understood that the days of the empire were numbered. That participation on the allied side would compell Britian to release the colonies - something that had been politically acceptable since the 30's. It had always been a question of 'when' and not 'if'. Even the British officers understood that, very few of them believed they could hold onto the Empire after WW2 was over - not least because of the social upheavals underway in their home countries... Europe pretty much saw a class revolution at the end of WW2 as well which permanently altered the social order
and ofcourse, the Americans would not support Britian in holding onto India either
Huh, what point? That Siberian camp thingie just rung a bell.....
----------------------
BTW, does it really matter how he died? Even if he survived the war and the war crimes tribunals, how would he have fared in Independent India? Despite all the halo and glory and saga aspects (bulwarked by his disappearance too), a large section of the political class saw Bose's war policy and actions as an indelible stain on his otherwise spotless record. And this included all those AICC folks who voted for Subhash, against the Mahatma's quite explicit disapproval of Bose's candidacy. This was not just another Neta who took to the sword (even the Mahatma went quite scary on Aug 8, 1942)..... here was a NATIONAL leder who allied with a terrible militaristic regime, no matter his motivations or zeal. His tragic disappearence has subdued that aspect and discussions on that regard, but it still hung in the air.....
Anyway, Persona non Grata/Jail I don't think so! But surely it would have been the political wilderness for Bose..... in company of his AIFB pals and others like Rajagopalachari, Kripalani etc.
Do not get disheartened.ajay pratap wrote:Dear Acharaya Sir,
Sir, my family lost three members in INA. one great grandfather two grand uncles. the fourth my uncle was in logistic at bangkok.he survived.according to him INA soldiers were never fully fitted according to their needs. he had to depend on the donation of the Indian diaspora to buy the food. then again no transport were available. in the end INA men fought with whatever clothes they had when they were pows. many perished due to hunger & illness. only few died of enemy bullets.matter of fact they were used as mere propodanada tools by the Japs and Britsh.
by the above naration you can imagine the real picture. An army without supplies is a paper army. their war plans,just war plans. so sir before any one can think that INA would have liberated India, they should talk to the men who were there, the people who lost their family members, according
to them INA liberating India was just a dream. though great dream a dream nevertheless.
INA is not a regular army of a normal country. It is an army of liberation and freedom from tyranny of centuries.
Leadership is the most important thing in liberation. Netaji counted on the support of ordinary people like your family inside INA and outside INA to wage war against the British.
Suppression of news and disinformation was widely used in WWII but in India it was used in a major way to make sure that Indians and Indian leadership do not revolt against the British between 1941-1946. Churchill was very angry of the Quit Indian movement of 1942 and to avenge that he supported the partition of India.
Read Rahul Mehta post since it is very important. Use of Gandhi even after 1942 Quit India movement was a Brilliant strategy by the British so that Indian were pacified and given the promise of freedom and devolution after the war. They wanted a way such that India could be broken up with no national leaders of INC controlling the govt. They did not want another alternative leadership among Indians who would be completely independent of UK/west.
After 1942 Gandhi and Nehru became tools of the British propaganda and machinations so that INA and armed revolt would never gain foothold inside India.
Bingo on the censorship and information control observations!Jagan wrote:You cant really blame the indian 'elitemen' for not publicising the INA. The british were very vqry of the effect that the news on the INA woudl have had on the general public - thus they did an awfully good job of suppressing all news on the INA.
by the time the bits and pieces of the INA started trickling down to the common public, the Japanese were already losing and the INA was not a viable force.
Can someone knowledgeable try and see when the indian public came to know of the INA? I know Bose made broadcasts and all, but when did the janata became aware of all this?
Anecdotally I know that by early 1944 existence of INA was known in many urban areas. Less known was the scale of the INA. It was largely believed in most areas that INA was just another militant organization like the ones that had been active since parition of Bengal and Tilak's followers in Bombay. Most people of that time probably thought a violent revolution would either have an economic dimension (due to rationing) or a religious dimension, not a foreign dimension (barring say Afghan or Iranian help for Muslims).
Saar the Kangress party needs you.here was a NATIONAL leder who allied with a terrible militaristic regime, no matter his motivations or zeal. His tragic disappearence has subdued that aspect and discussions on that regard, but it still hung in the air.....
I don't think so! But surely it would have been the political wilderness for Bose
As for Political wilderness ? He would have kicked Nehru's butt anyday if he had returned , the guy put together an army during a world war (however ineffective or rag tag it may have been) . Despite Gandhiji's numerous under the belt ways of undermining him ,he won the Calcutta mayor elections before he escaped.
As for terrible militaristic regime , please name a country in World War II which was noble. in Geo politics there are only common interests the Japs and ours matched so we worked together ,at least the Japs helped out in some way whatever their reasons may be.
Thanks for taking this point. I was wondering who would take it.parikh wrote:Acharya general consensus amongst contemporary historians and also the folks at mission netaji says he was captured by Soviets at the Mongolian border and was murdered in some Siberian prison camp ,could you provide a source for the above article, havent read about Americans capturing him anywhere.The historians believe the following subsequent set of events: After the Japanese surrender, Subhash evacuated the Andaman on 15 August 1945, in a plane with Japanese markings. This plane was shot down by American gunners over Manila, en-route to Tokyo. Three POWs were taken in this crash. In accord with the Geneva convention, they stated their rank, name and age. The American captors did not realize who their prisoners were.
I dont have the links for this. So you can research further by digging into some archives. You need to connect lot of information available to bring the story together.
At any rate, Subhash planned to strike against the British and it is very likely that they would have been unable to face an attack by the INA. On 6 August 1945, before the deadline set by Bose was to expire, Hiroshima would be bombed, and then on 9 August, the second bomb would be dropped on Nagasaki. The historians believe the following subsequent set of events: After the Japanese surrender, Subhash evacuated the Andaman on 15 August 1945, in a plane with Japanese markings. This plane was shot down by American gunners over Manila, en-route to Tokyo. Three POWs were taken in this crash. In accord with the Geneva convention, they stated their rank, name and age.
The American captors did not realize who their prisoners were. So they telegraphed the information to the British, who responded "Discard the Baggage". The Americans GIs refused to obey this instruction. The British advised them to hand over the three prisoners to Stalin's red army. This handover was done somewhere in the Sakhalin/Okhostk/Kuriles.
Netaji would languish in the concentration camps of Siberia till his recent death. The Japanese who were reeling under the atomic attacks had no choice but to toe the version of the Western Elite, that Subhash Chandra Bose had died and that they had buried him in Rongji temple, near Tokyo.
The question is why was Netaji kept in Siberia prison Camp. The only reason seems to be that they made sure that Nehru and INC seek recognition with govt of Soviet Union under the threat of Netaji coming back to India and replacing the leadership of Nehru and INC.
general consensus amongst contemporary historians and also the folks at mission netaji says he was captured by Soviets at the Mongolian border and was murdered in some Siberian prison camp
Stalin could have recognized the govt of Netaji in exile and overthrow Nehru and INC govt. But eventually he agreed to Nehru and INC and recognized their govt. At independence these recognition was very important.
When japan surrendered netaji was in seremban (suburb of Kuala Lumpur)After the Japanese surrender, Subhash evacuated the Andaman on 15 August 1945, in a plane with Japanese markings. This plane was shot down by American gunners over Manila, en-route to Tokyo
The speculated itenary was as follows
Aug 16 ,Singapore - Bangkok (Eyewitness accounts )
Aug 17 Bangkok - Saigon - Tourane ?? no account
Aug 18 Tourane - Taihokou (Taiwan) ?? no account
Aug 18 Taihokou - Dairen (Manchurian Border) ?? no account
Regarding the Manila route , why would he fly over allied airspace to go to Tokyo ,and why Tokyo when Japan surrendered.
If Bose was accepted back into India after a British victory and somehow pushed/pulled into a position of power, how would Indian Army have reacted?parikh wrote: As for Political wilderness ? He would have kicked Nehru's butt anyday if he had returned , the guy put together an army during a world war (however ineffective or rag tag it may have been) . Despite Gandhiji's numerous under the belt ways of undermining him ,he won the Calcutta mayor elections before he escaped.
IMHO the fledgling Officer Corps would be deeply disturbed by the turn of events. Most officers of that time were convinced India would get its freedom in a short while under Gandhi and INC's leadership; most of them were also related to prominent INC or ML supporters and local leaders. If it appared that ex-INA members tried to dilute or erode their command, they might well have gone ballistic. The bulk of the soldiery were in an even more precarious position: There were entire battalions with full British officer corps who at best would have been left rudderless, more likely would have incited them into something violent. Even in the very peaceful withdrawal of the British there are so many stories of Regimental silver and trophies shipped off to England, junior officers telling Gurkhas to go home than serve on under Indian command, support weaponry being rendered unuseable etc.
Sir! ji... not just post 1940 stuff... remember earlier in 1910s.. the Ghadar Movement. When Lala Hardyal, Kartar Singh Sarabha and Harnam Singh, et all... got many Indian soldiers agree to mutiny (Ambala, Jalandhar and Meerut) for India's independence. All the units in Ambala, etc were de-weaponized and these guys were arrested., Kartar Singh Sarabha was 17 years old who left his college studies (Stanford, California) to take part in this Independence war., he was arrested and put to gallows along with scores of other. Harnam singh and Hardyal escaped.it really pisses me off when i read of Sardar Patel and how he died just 3 years after independence and left India to Nehru. and now this thing about Bose makes me even more pissed off. how in the god-damned hell did our country fall into Gandhi-Nehrus' hands when there were several other figures like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Sardar Patel, Bose, and many others....if there is a single thing that i could change about India, i would go back in time and erase (for the lack of a better word) Gandhi and Nehru from the time, early in their political careers.
Sandeep:SBajwa wrote:Sir! ji... not just post 1940 stuff... remember earlier in 1910s.. the Ghadar Movement. When Lala Hardyal, Kartar Singh Sarabha and Harnam Singh, et all... got many Indian soldiers agree to mutiny (Ambala, Jalandhar and Meerut) for India's independence. All the units in Ambala, etc were de-weaponized and these guys were arrested., Kartar Singh Sarabha was 17 years old who left his college studies (Stanford, California) to take part in this Independence war., he was arrested and put to gallows along with scores of other. Harnam singh and Hardyal escaped.
Related topic.
I think that the British, after the Ghadar Movement and the 'Komagata Maru (sp)' incident began to deliberately reduce the recruitment of Sikhs in the BIA, and increased the intake of Punjabi Muslims to compensate the numbers. 'Jallianwala Bagh' reinforced the trend. The British always adjusted their 'Martial Race Theory' to accommodate those they considered 'reliable and favorable towards British Raj' and discard those whom they suspected of any nationalist tendencies. Thus, the Sikh 'Reliablity Meter' that was very high in the British eyes during the second half of 19th century post the events of 1857, dropped precipitously during the first half of 20th century, as the Sikhs started participating disproportionately in the freedom movement. With it dropped the number of Sikhs recruited in the BIA. An adverse side effect of this was that the Pakis got a disproportionately large percentage of trained BIA men at Partition, and this has fed their own martial delusions ever since.
What do you think?
I think JCage posted this in the Pak forces watch thread by accident, so I'm cross-posting it here;
JCage
BRFite
Joined: 09 Oct 2000
Posts: 6997
Posted: 08 May 2007 05:30 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rahul Mehta,
Needless to say you have a very simplistic take on things. Bose was also a dedicated communist. And you think that he would be the ideal leader of India? In several ways, his ideas were equally quixotic, and he too wanted to centralize power. We suffered decades of socialism with Nehru & co, but at least its effect was mitigated to some extent by the fact that they werent totalitarian. Who knows what having Bose in charge would have caused!
And you call Sardar an "eliteman"- what a joke!! The man practically created modern India, and prevented Paks plans for Hyderabad, Junagadh etc. Without his forthright approach, we might have lost Kashmir as well.
Get off your conspiracy stuff and use your time for something useful. Is putting Bose on the Rs notes instead of Gandhi productive?
The past is past, move on!!!
Back to top
Bose was a true nationalist , please do your research before mouthing off, the forward bloc was hijacked by communist morons after 1947.Bose was also a dedicated communist. And you think that he would be the ideal leader of India? In several ways, his ideas were equally quixotic, and he too wanted to centralize power. We suffered decades of socialism with Nehru & co, but at least its effect was mitigated to some extent by the fact that they werent totalitarian
He had the most clear cut vision for the country ,please elaborate on the quixotic ideas.
And in your own words we are still suffering from the socialism ,cronyism and all 'isms introduced by Nehru and co.
Stalin was *highly* suspicious of the Western allies after the leadership changes in the US and Britain in April and July of 1945 - he had built a relationship of mutual respect with Roosevelt, and reached some kind of modus vivendi with Churchill.
But he didnt know Truman or Attlee, and they didnt seem to want to know him. In Stalin's opinion Western Allied behaviour changed and became anti-Soviet after this change in leadership.
It seems *very* unlikely that Stalin in August-September of 1945 would have had Bose either killed or mistreated in any way - on the other hand he would have nurtured a card of that sort, to use either against the British, or to expand Soviet influence against the INC (which had just expelled the CPI from its ranks).
After all, Bose had already had contact with the NKVD during his stay in Russia. He was not in any way anti-Soviet, or anti-Communist, even though he had worked initially with the Nazis.
If he indeed died on Soviet soil, it seems unlikely that it was by any deliberate ommission or commission on the Soviets part - but rather that he was injured or ill and the Soviets were unable to save him.
But he didnt know Truman or Attlee, and they didnt seem to want to know him. In Stalin's opinion Western Allied behaviour changed and became anti-Soviet after this change in leadership.
It seems *very* unlikely that Stalin in August-September of 1945 would have had Bose either killed or mistreated in any way - on the other hand he would have nurtured a card of that sort, to use either against the British, or to expand Soviet influence against the INC (which had just expelled the CPI from its ranks).
After all, Bose had already had contact with the NKVD during his stay in Russia. He was not in any way anti-Soviet, or anti-Communist, even though he had worked initially with the Nazis.
If he indeed died on Soviet soil, it seems unlikely that it was by any deliberate ommission or commission on the Soviets part - but rather that he was injured or ill and the Soviets were unable to save him.
Typical emotional post!! Are you even aware of how many Indian "nationalists" were motivated by socialism and communism? You would do well to take up your own advice! Clearcut vision is the da*n problem-- even Nehru had a clear cut vision. Even Gandhi had a clear cut vision. I'd rather take pragmatists who are less on vision and more on performance, and dont put idealogy first!parikh wrote:Bose was a true nationalist , please do your research before mouthing off, the forward bloc was hijacked by communist morons after 1947.Bose was also a dedicated communist. And you think that he would be the ideal leader of India? In several ways, his ideas were equally quixotic, and he too wanted to centralize power. We suffered decades of socialism with Nehru & co, but at least its effect was mitigated to some extent by the fact that they werent totalitarian
He had the most clear cut vision for the country ,please elaborate on the quixotic ideas.
And in your own words we are still suffering from the socialism ,cronyism and all 'isms introduced by Nehru and co.
Today, you can sit and draw a comfortable line between commie and non commie, since its clear. In the good old days, almost every other Indian nationalist was motivated by grandiose ideas of the "humanitarian left".
Quixotic ideas? "Scientific socialism - sure, the description of the term makes me very happy!!
These gents remember him well.
http://www.forwardbloc.org/cons.htm
What did Bose do with the Azad Hind Fauj in Europe? What became of them? Did he realise what he was getting into by supporting the Japanese? Was he not aware of the brutalities suffered by captured BIA soldiers who refused to give up their oath? What of his plans after his glorious defeat of the British, for India? Why do you think he called Hitler a madman?
Realise this- there are greys. The man had good intentions, was a staunch anti-Imperialist and wanted what he thought was best for India. But whether he would have been a good choice in lieu of Gandhi & Nehru, is a discussion best avoided.
I respect him for his fighting spirit, and his willingness to take the fight to the British, something NO indian had done in such an organized manner since 1857. But that does not mean that I will unquestioningly put him on a pedestal and believe that whatever he would do, would have no negative consequences for India. Especially given his leftist tilt.
Would Bose have been any more leftist than Nehru? Would he have allowed the Mahalnobis types the run of the economy?
Would he have run down the military post-independence as Nehru did?
Would he have strutted around on the world stage bearing the torch of non-alliance, or would he have struck alliances of convenience with global powers based upon national interest?
The freedom movement had leaders ranging from leftists to rightists, all within the Congress umbrella. Would Bose have been able to reconcile differences, and carry all of them along in nation building? Nehru's personality was uncompromising. Would Subhash have been more accommodating of views different from his own?
The integration of the INA into the IA would have been difficult though.
Personally I think Sardar Patel should have been the first Prime Minister.
Would he have run down the military post-independence as Nehru did?
Would he have strutted around on the world stage bearing the torch of non-alliance, or would he have struck alliances of convenience with global powers based upon national interest?
The freedom movement had leaders ranging from leftists to rightists, all within the Congress umbrella. Would Bose have been able to reconcile differences, and carry all of them along in nation building? Nehru's personality was uncompromising. Would Subhash have been more accommodating of views different from his own?
The integration of the INA into the IA would have been difficult though.
Personally I think Sardar Patel should have been the first Prime Minister.
There are two kinds of leftists, the ones who are serious about liberal democracy, and those who see it as an obstacle to their grand visions.Kakkaji wrote:Would Bose have been any more leftist than Nehru? Would he have allowed the Mahalnobis types the run of the economy?
Nehru despite his flawed assumptions about socialist 3rd world brotherhood, and his aversion to the vital role of exports in economic growth did secure the Indian Republic's future as a liberal democracy, which besides its own merits is a vital part of the Republic's cohesion.
Would Bose have been a democrat, or would he have turned authoritarian and therefore ultimately divisive, like Sukarno in Indonesia, Tito in Yugoslavia, Nasser in Egypt, Burma after Aung San, the revolutionary post-independence leadership in Ghana, Tanzania, etc?
JCage Saar i am aware of the political leanings of our Kangressi leaders ,as i stated before the Forward Bloc has hijacked Netaji's name please do not associate them with him ,have read through many of his speeches during his period in south east asia and did not find any reference to commie speak.
With regards to Azad Hind Fauj in europe ,the original plan was for them to tag along the Germans through Ukraine - Caspian oil wells - Afghanistan ,plan did not go through for well known reasons so was abandoned.
With regards to be allied with the Japanese,why stigmatize them the Japs were onlee doing empire building like the goras did before them and are still doing now ,they just lacked the finesse (chopping heads compared to nuking,fire bombing,napalming etc) .
The arrangement with the Japs was on common interests as was the one with the germans.
Regarding the atrocities on BIA Pow's ,during a war stuff happens the Americans in Eyeraq do not exactly garland the insurgents when they capture them.
Besides no one forced them to sign up and fight for their masters.
Netaji was the original contemporary uber jingo cannot see his name being tarnished in a jingo forum ,hence my 2p rant.
With regards to Azad Hind Fauj in europe ,the original plan was for them to tag along the Germans through Ukraine - Caspian oil wells - Afghanistan ,plan did not go through for well known reasons so was abandoned.
With regards to be allied with the Japanese,why stigmatize them the Japs were onlee doing empire building like the goras did before them and are still doing now ,they just lacked the finesse (chopping heads compared to nuking,fire bombing,napalming etc) .
The arrangement with the Japs was on common interests as was the one with the germans.
Regarding the atrocities on BIA Pow's ,during a war stuff happens the Americans in Eyeraq do not exactly garland the insurgents when they capture them.
Besides no one forced them to sign up and fight for their masters.
Netaji was the original contemporary uber jingo cannot see his name being tarnished in a jingo forum ,hence my 2p rant.
Why not? In fact he was more "revolutionary" than Nehru.Kakkaji wrote:Would Bose have been any more leftist than Nehru? Would he have allowed the Mahalnobis types the run of the economy?
No- that he wouldnt have, but consider- given his close ties to the military INA and its fight against the BIA, what would have been the impact on the BIA when the INA-Bose were in charge? Also, consider- Nehrus achievement, whether intentional or not, he did set the stage, was that the IA is uninvolved with politics. In Boses case, the reverse could have been possible.Would he have run down the military post-independence as Nehru did?
Or he might have been another revolutionary socialist leader! Might have even tied India closer to the Soviet flag!Would he have strutted around on the world stage bearing the torch of non-alliance, or would he have struck alliances of convenience with global powers based upon national interest?
Good questions- and frankly, who knows!The freedom movement had leaders ranging from leftists to rightists, all within the Congress umbrella. Would Bose have been able to reconcile differences, and carry all of them along in nation building? Nehru's personality was uncompromising. Would Subhash have been more accommodating of views different from his own?
That if they were integrated..The integration of the INA into the IA would have been difficult though.
Same here..but then if Nehru was Home Minister?Personally I think Sardar Patel should have been the first Prime Minister.
The Sardar died early, and that by itself limits his overall impact..
Johaan have you switched to hadia , please peddle your spin machine on other threads ,the British very well knew what Netaji would have done for India hence they eliminated him.Would Bose have been a democrat, or would he have turned authoritarian and therefore ultimately divisive, like Sukarno in Indonesia, Tito in Yugoslavia, Nasser in Egypt, Burma after Aung San, the revolutionary post-independence leadership in Ghana, Tanzania, etc
Hope we Indians return the favour to HMG one day.
(Our brotherly Paksi and Beedis are on the job already)
Parikh,
It is an honest question - was Bose a democrat?
If he was things could have worked out.
But if he wasnt, the results for India would not have been good, however militant his nationalism.
My perception was that questions of democracy were what ultimately separated a nationalist like Patel from a nationalist like Bose
It is an honest question - was Bose a democrat?
If he was things could have worked out.
But if he wasnt, the results for India would not have been good, however militant his nationalism.
My perception was that questions of democracy were what ultimately separated a nationalist like Patel from a nationalist like Bose
Last edited by Johann on 10 May 2007 01:44, edited 1 time in total.
The ANC military wing and the south african army integrated ok after few initial problems ,and they had a far bigger axe to grind , so on what grounds would the theoretical INA and BIA integration have failed.The integration of the INA into the IA would have been difficult though.
The BIA clerks (officers) would have had a problem (promotions ,cold turkey from not saluting gora officers etc) perhaps not the jawans.
Wah bhai ! if he put together an armed resistance to fight for freedom ,he gets tarred as a dictator.Its an honest question - was Bose a democrat?
By that standard Churchill was also a dictator ,why did he organize a defence for his country , he should have adopted non violent means like organising all night candle light vigils along the Dover Coast, putting "Bomb Me" signs on the spitfire factories etc.
Would request folks to discuss historical facts regarding INA and not get into what if scenarios.
(If Bose was not a democrat and came back alive ,Commisar Parikh would have deported all those who doubt the Dear Leader to re education gulag at Tawang under the able guidance of Kommandant Vivek Ahuja and monitored by CCCP members Raju and Singha)
Please! South African military today is a joke compared to Apartheid days; its saving grace is that enemies are so much more incompetent than itself... and thats largely because of equipment and doctrine left over. They are living on seed grain, and you call that "integration"? Look, I am no friend of the racist Apartheid regime or the Afrikkans officer corps... in fact I am rather happy to see them run into obscurity in the West or disappear into mercenary annonymity. However those lessons are precisely what I tried to warn against - India would have collaped under internal and foreign threats if Indian Army post-Independence was as incompetent as SADFs today.parikh wrote:The ANC military wing and the south african army integrated ok after few initial problems ,and they had a far bigger axe to grind , so on what grounds would the theoretical INA and BIA integration have failed.The integration of the INA into the IA would have been difficult though.
The BIA clerks (officers) would have had a problem (promotions ,cold turkey from not saluting gora officers etc) perhaps not the jawans.
Do you have any idea of the feelings among the Officer Corps you call "BIA clerks" on issue of Independence? Their hard climb to officerhood? Their war record? Most officers came from middle and professional class families firmly supporting INC and Independence movements - not just feudal lords who sucked up to the British. All officers had to struggle to get and maintain their commanding position and dignity - it was easier for an Indian officer to command White troops in England than Indians in India. "Clerks" don't win Victoria Cross and Military Crosses... but wait, in BIA maybe "clerks"do: the founder of the British Raj certainly was a clerk.
The grounds for not integrating INA into Indian Army is quite simple and fundamental to proper functioning of ANY military force: Discipline. Presence of INA in any military position would erode the legitimacy and command of every Indian Armyman. It would require sending them all to "reeducation camps"... meanwhile Pathans would be reminding Delhi of Ahmed Shah Abdali's last visit.
Parikh,
Its not a question of what-ifs.
The INC's ideological appeal didnt just come from the fact that they promised to bring independence to India, it also came from promising that independent India would give all Indians a voice in government.
That's why I'm asking what sort of political system Bose offered, because it would clearly have mattered to a discerning Indian public.
Even though the INC called for non-cooperation with the British war effort, 2 million Indians volunteered to fight. They didnt volunteer out of fondness for the Empire. They did it partly out of distate for the fascists, partially out of a conviction they could accelarate India's transition to self-rule.
Its not a question of what-ifs.
The INC's ideological appeal didnt just come from the fact that they promised to bring independence to India, it also came from promising that independent India would give all Indians a voice in government.
That's why I'm asking what sort of political system Bose offered, because it would clearly have mattered to a discerning Indian public.
Even though the INC called for non-cooperation with the British war effort, 2 million Indians volunteered to fight. They didnt volunteer out of fondness for the Empire. They did it partly out of distate for the fascists, partially out of a conviction they could accelarate India's transition to self-rule.
The ANC SADF was just an example to show integration was possible ,i did not comment on their past or present military capability.I am not an expert on military re organization but with the required political will ,danda and common sense change can happen across a period of time.
As for the Indian officers in the BIA ,they enlisted for their own selfish interest either economic or career wise not as part of any cause and in the process if they suffered or won some medal fighting their master's battles ,why should the nation or I care.
I am aware of the other point of view ,read Gen Maneckshaws account of the 'moral dilemma' they faced and was advised by INC leadership to stay put until the war as independence was close.
It was business as usual after Aug 1945 except for the naval mutiny, the BIA would have maintained the status quo till the Brits got tired ,if not for the INA.
The good thing was we had a trained army at independence but still does not take away the above facts.
As for the Indian officers in the BIA ,they enlisted for their own selfish interest either economic or career wise not as part of any cause and in the process if they suffered or won some medal fighting their master's battles ,why should the nation or I care.
I am aware of the other point of view ,read Gen Maneckshaws account of the 'moral dilemma' they faced and was advised by INC leadership to stay put until the war as independence was close.
It was business as usual after Aug 1945 except for the naval mutiny, the BIA would have maintained the status quo till the Brits got tired ,if not for the INA.
The good thing was we had a trained army at independence but still does not take away the above facts.
The average indian jawan who was enlisting during that time could not have pointed out Germany and Japan on a map leave alone knowing the definition of fascism. Fascism was definitely a lesser evil than living as a slave .Even though the INC called for non-cooperation with the British war effort, 2 million Indians volunteered to fight. They didnt volunteer out of fondness for the Empire. They did it partly out of distate for the fascists, partially out of a conviction they could accelarate India's transition to self-rule.
They enlisted for economic reasons plain and simple and to a very lesser extent responding to senile INC's leaders brainwaves.
The history of the Indian Army before 1947 is best forgotten.
The average jawan may not have had a clear idea of what fascism was, but to assume they were cut off and disinterested in the debates within Indian society, and totally ignorant of the outside world is to do them a disservice.parikh wrote:The average indian jawan who was enlisting during that time could not have pointed out Germany and Japan on a map leave alone knowing the definition of fascism.
Certainly it doesnt apply to the men who directly led them - the tens of thousands of Indians of all sorts of backgrounds who volunteered and were commissioned as officers in WWII.
Most of them were idealistic young men who wanted to see India independent, and acutely aware of the situation.
Men who fight for nothing but money make for very poor soldiers - why would you charge a machine gun nest? Why would you slog through mud in disintegrating shoes? Why would you endure hunger and thirst?They enlisted for economic reasons plain and simple and to a very lesser extent responding to senile INC's leaders brainwaves.
Much easier to desert. But the reality is that such behaviour was rare.
The jawans would fight and suffer as long as their commanders shared their hardships, and showed both resolution and compassion.
The IA doesnt take that view because it cant afford to. No army can afford to forget its own history. Regimental history and tradition is the one of the most powerful binding and motivating forces.The history of the Indian Army before 1947 is best forgotten.
A strong and healthy institution cant be created overnight - if the IA has honourably and effectively served the Indian Republic after 1947 it is because *the very same* officer and NCO corps was just as honourable and effective before independence.