Mahatma and Netaji – A little bit of history
In my previous post, I has asked the question: What could be the reason(s) for the Government’s continued silence on the matter of Netaji’s disappearance?
It would be tempting to blame this on partisan politics but actually it is not just the Congress that has failed us in this regard. As Anuj Dhar mentions: “The BJP seems to be in unison with the Congress over the Subhas Bose death case. That’s why you haven’t heard anything on this matter from their senior leaders, with the notable exception of Dr Murli Manohar Joshi”
Time for a little bit of history.
In the early days of the struggle for India’s freedom, Netaji’s influence and impact on the freedom movement was equal to (if not more than) that of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru…Unfortunately the relationship between Netaji on one hand, and Mahatma on the other was uneasy and fraught with disagreements.
As many of you may know, his re-election to the post of Congress President in 1939 created further tension between him and the Mahatma – especially as he had won the post defeating Pattabhi Sitaramaiah (who was Gandhiji’s nominee).
Gandhiji apparently took Sitaramayya’s defeat personally and is believed to have remarked: “I consider Pattabhi’s defeat as my own”.
There were other reasons behind the tension, including disagreement over the immediate goals and objectives of the movement. Soon after his re-election, Netaji “…brought a resolution to give the British six months to hand India over to the Indians, failing which there would be a revolt. There was much opposition to his rigid stand, and he resigned from the post of president and formed a progressive group known as the Forward Block… [link]”
Here is another account and interpretation of events around the time:
In a letter dated March 28, 1939, from Manbhum, Bihar – Bose complained bitterly to Nehru of Gandhi’s quiet campaign of non-cooperation with him. Bose had just won the Presidency of the Indian National Congress, defeating Gandhi’s chosen nominee, Dr Pattabhi. At first, Gandhi had tried to talk Bose out of running for the post, and tried to work out a backroom deal for Dr Pattabhi’s ascension (as he had done on many earlier occasions). But Bose was determined to seek the mandate of Congress activists, and won by a handsome margin in an election where the official machinery of the Congress had put all its weight behind Gandhi’s hand-picked nominee.
Bose’s historic election signified the mood of the Indian masses, who were becoming increasingly impatient with Gandhi’s tepid nationalism. Bose had always strived to accelerate the freedom struggle, and the mass of Congress Party workers appreciated his sincerity and unswerving commitment to the national cause. In many ways, he was the best person to lead the Congress, with intellect and vision that exceeded Gandhi.
But Gandhi, along with Patel and Nehru formed a tactical block against Bose, and prevented him from functioning effectively as leader of India’s preeminent national organization. In vain did Bose make his case with Nehru, who remained unmoved, and eventually, it led to Bose having to quit the Congress, and organize outside it’s tedious confines.
But there was more to this than met the eye…
In the words of Prof Satadru Sen, Gandhi certainly saw Bose as a rival and a dangerous upstart, and did his best to destroy him politically
What follows is probably the most truthful (and detailed) account of what actually happened during the months following Netaji’s re-election that ultimately led to his ouster as Congress President.
From:Â Subhas Chandra Bose 1897-1945, by Prof. Satadru Sen
The break (between Gandhi and Bose) came in the fall of 1938, when war in Europe became a distinct possibility. Bose and the left saw the possibility of war as a tremendous political opportunity, and wanted to use this opportunity to pressure the colonial government for immediate concessions. Gandhi and the Congress right, on the other hand, wanted to issue a much weaker resolution, hoping that the British would simply do the right thing if war broke out. Bose and the left refused to give in, and Gandhi was furious. Even though Bose was the Congress president at this time, Gandhi had long enjoyed the status of the unofficial super-president of the Congress, and he did not like Bose’s disobedience.
Bose was up for re-election in January of 1939, and Gandhi decided to block him. Quite apart from his personal animosity, there were real issues involved. Bose wanted the Congress to walk away from implementing the Government of India Act of 1935. He also wanted to give the colonial government an ultimatum demanding immediate independence, and to begin all-out civil disobedience if the government refused. Gandhi and the Congress right felt otherwise. In any event, Bose won his re-election, narrowly defeating P. Sitaramayya, who was Gandhi’s chosen candidate.
Gandhi now worked actively to bring Bose down. The Congress constitution provided only two ways for getting rid of the president: he could be voted Out of office, or he could resign. Since Gandhi was unwilling to wait for the next election, he decided to force Bose to resign. Even though Bose was the Congress president, Gandhi’s supporters controlled the party’s Working Committee. Without their cooperation, the president could not operate effectively; it was a system of checks and balances similar to what we have in the US government.
Gandhi’s supporters now resigned, and Bose found himself unable to form a new Working Committee against Gandhi’s opposition. He tried hard to work out a compromise with Gandhi. He even offered to let Gandhi nominate the entire Working Committee, if Gandhi would only accept Bose’s plan to launch an agitation for immediate independence. Gandhi politely refused, and Bose had no option except to resign, four months into his second term as president.
One of the interesting things about this whole episode is that Bose blamed Nehru more than he blamed Gandhi. He never completely cut his ties with Gandhi, and continued to try to rebuild his bridges. But he never forgave Nehru for not helping him during this crisis.
…Bose, meanwhile, had been busy organizing his own party, called the Forward Bloc. This was initially within the structure of the Congress. But by 1940 it had become an independent political party, mainly because the Congress had refused to tolerate its allegiance to Bose instead of to Gandhi, and had kicked its officers out of office. Things were happening very fast for Bose, as usual. In July of 1940, he was arrested and sent to prison again for planning to lead a march demanding the removal of a memorial to the victims of the Black Hole of Calcutta. He went on a hunger-strike, and in December he was released.
Then began his great adventure. Even before his last arrest, Bose had begun to think about getting himself out of India. He felt that there was little that he could achieve in India under the circumstances. His career in the Congress had stalled, and besides, the Congress was unwilling to do what he wanted it to do. The war, he felt, was too important an opportunity to waste. So he came up with a plan. He would escape from India, get to the Soviet Union, and then go on to Germany. When he got to Germany, he would persuade the Germans to help him in his fight against the British in India.
Click here to continue reading a fascinating account of Netaji Bose’s journey out of India.
What happened afterwards is a sad story of unfulfilled promises, bad luck and a turn of fate…While Netaji remained in the public consciousness for many many years after 1939, his influence began to wane and his absence from the public eye led to the leadership of the movement firmly gravitating towards Gandhiji and Nehru..
The rest, as they say, is history.
Recommended Read: Gandhi – ‘Mahatma’ or Flawed Genius? National Leader or Manipulative Politician?
Unexpected Find of the Day: Nathuram Vinayak Godse’s statement in court during his trial for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi.
Related Post: Let the truth be known: What really happened to Netaji?
Image courtesy: Kamat.com
Also read: “Bose, not Gandhi, Ended British Rule in India: Ambedkar” from which this brief excerpt: Babasaheb Ambedkar would not have been surprised with Attlee’s admission, for he had foreseen it. He told the BBC in 1955 that from his “own analysis” he had concluded that “two things led the Labour party to take this decision” (to free India).
I dont think Gandhiji had any personal issue with Bose, only the path they were following was different. They had disagreement over it. It is the same way father can agree with the way one son is following and disagree with the one who he thinks is not going in the right direction.
Today also if someone is planning to organise anything through rigid way is condemn. I dont say Bose way was wrong at all. He is our one of the best freedom fighter. But the difference what we are planting as personally betweenGandhiji and Bose may not be true. It is nothing like one tried to over shadow other.
Tamilite band in Srilanka is using all technology to get their rights but they hardly get anything.
But it is really a sad story that we lost Bose very early, we needed him and still needs him. He was the true fighter. I salute him.
Many thanks to Shantanu for providing the link to Prof. Satadru Sen speech about Netaji. Very enlightening. And even more convincing proof that we should be grateful that Netaji’s efforts to collaborate with the Axix did not succeed. First of all, in all certainity, we would have ended up directly under the control of a very repressive Japanes ‘Empire” ! Secondly, had Netaji succeeded in retaining independent control over India, without doubt he would have been dictatorial and imposed soviet style central control over free India. Let us than our stars that he did not succeed!
*** COMMENT COMBINED ***
Suresh,
Similarly you should thank your stars, that Prithviraj chauhan didn’t succeed in eliminating the Mohd.Ghouri! Else, we would have been victims of hindu imperialistic scoundrels!!!
***
Similarly, let us thank our stars that, Naren didn’t succeed in totally curbing the influence of christian missionaries over india, inspite of his best speech at chicago. Else, the hindus would have taken hold over a free secular india and subjugated it.
***
Suresh,
However, one unfortunate thing happened. That is, Sardar patel sending the army to Hyderabad against the Nizams. Let us blame our stars for this. Else, we would have a truly secular india, “co-existing” with peaceful neighbours in the south. How sad!
According to my information at the time of independence Indian National Congress signed a bill which says that even after the independence if any of the freedom fighter who used war method for freedom is found then they would be returned to the British government. I think this is surely the reason for which government kept quite on Netaji’s matter.
Even Netaji would have preferred to live under ground(if he didn’t died in the plane crash) because he knew he would be handed to British government
ASHU
Excerpts from “Looking for the real Nehru” by Swapan Dasgupta
A post from Atanu on Netaji – worth reproducing in full.
Netaji’s Ghost: The Freedom Struggle by N. S. Rajaram
{I have not been able to properly date this article and I am not sure about the source. It is probably from the Organiser. When I am able to, I will post the exact reference to this piece. I came across it around April 2001.}
Revisiting the years before Independence shows that Subhas Bose was the key figure in India’s freedom. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose is back, at least in spirit. Like Banquo’s Ghost in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Netaji’s ghost is beginning to cast a heavy shadow on the national political and intellectual scene. This is the message coming out of the hearings of the Justice Mukherji Commission, from the testimony of Dr Puriba Roy of Jadhavpur University in particular, who has been tirelessly investigating little known sources, especially in the Soviet Archives. And the picture emerging from her investigation has the potential to change the historical and even the political landscape of India.
Following India’s Independence in 1947, generations of Indians have been taught that the real heroes of the Freedom Movement were Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, with grudging respect paid to Sardar Patel. Subhas Bose is all but forgotten. Even worse, he is the victim of a propaganda campaign by the Nehru Government and its successors that runs along the following lines: (i) Subhas Bose was an ineffective dreamer who played an insignificant part in the Freedom Struggle; and (ii) anyone questioning the official ‘truth’, including the account of his death, is some kind of a crackpot. The following passage by Surjit Mansingh in the Historical Dictionary of India illustrates both:
“Many Indians, especially in Bengal and Maharashtra, refused to believe [in his death in an air crash]…, perhaps because of a deep seated need to believe in an immortal hero, a saintly warrior king, even a Kalki or a future incarnation of Vishnu who would return to the nation when needed.†And later, writing about Subhas Bose himself: “…the Bose cult has not died despite his lack of a broad political base or solid political achievement when alive.â€
So, according to Mansingh, who incidentally is a JNU professor and a former fellow at the Nehru Museum and Library, Subhas Bose is nothing but a cult figure who did little when he was alive. While this happens to be the ‘official’ (read Congress-Communist) line, not many historians today are prepared to buy it. Probably the most distinguished historian to highlight Bose’s real contribution was the late R.C. Majumdar. In his monumental, three-volume History of the Freedom Movement in India (which the Congress-led by Maulana Azad tried to suppress), Majumdar provided the following extraordinary information:
“It seldom falls to the lot of a historian to have his views, differing radically from those generally accepted without demur, confirmed by such an unimpeachable authority. As far back as 1948 I wrote in an article that the contribution made by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose towards the achievement of freedom in 1947 was no less, and perhaps, far more important than that of Mahatma Gandhi…†The ‘unimpeachable authority’ he cited happens to be Clement Attlee, the Prime Minister of Britain at the time of India’s Independence. As this is of fundamental importance, and Majumdar’s conclusion so greatly at variance with conventional history, it is worth placing it on record. (See Volume III, pp. 609-10). When B.P. Chakravarti was acting as Governor of West Bengal, Lord Attlee visited India and stayed as his guest for three days at the Raj Bhavan. Chakravarti asked Attlee about the real grounds for granting Independence to India. Specifically, his question was, when the Quit India movement lay in ruins years before 1947, what was the need for the British to leave in such a hurry. Attlee’s response is most illuminating and important for history. Here is the Governor’s account of what Attlee told him:
“In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important were the activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the very foundation of the attachment of the Indian land and naval forces to the British Government. Towards the end, I asked Lord Attlee about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhi’s activities. On hearing this question Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, putting emphasis on each single letter-â€mi-ni-malâ€.â€
This ‘unimpeachable’ truth will come as a shock to most Indians brought up to believe that the Congress movement driven by the ’spiritual force’ of Mahatma Gandhi forced the British to leave India. But both the evidence and the logic of history are against this beautiful but childish fantasy; it was the fear of mutiny by the Indian armed forces-and not any ’spiritual force’- that forced the issue of freedom. The British saw that the sooner they left India the better for themselves, for, at the end of the war, India had some three million men under arms. Majumdar had reached the same conclusion years earlier, as far back as 1948 as he records. The most dramatic event after the end of World War II was the INA Trials at the Red Fort—not any movement by Gandhi or Nehru. This led directly to the mutiny of the naval ratings, which, more than anything, helped the British make up their minds to leave India in a hurry. They sensed that it was only a matter of time before the spirit spread to other sections of the armed forces and the rest of the Government. None of this would have happened without Subhas Bose and the INA.
The crucial point to note is that thanks to Subhas Bose’s activities and the INA, the Armed Forces began to see themselves as defenders of India rather than upholders of the British Empire. This, more than anything else, was what led to India’s freedom. This is also the reason why the British Empire disappeared from the face of the earth within an astonishingly short space of twenty years. Indian soldiers, who were the main prop of the Empire, were no longer willing to fight to hold the Empire together.
Subhas Bose did not see the country become free. According to official accounts he left Saigon in a Japanese bomber and arrived at Taihoku in Farmosa (Taiwan) on August 18, 1945. He left in another plane for an unknown destination, after which there is a complete blank. The official version is that his plane crashed almost immediately after the take off, but there are serious gaps in the account. Japan surrendered on September 15, 1945, formally ending the war. After the war, the British Indian Government put on trial three men of the INA—a Hindu, a Muslim and a Sikh—for desertion and treason. This historic trial, held at the historic Red Fort at Delhi was a national sensation. The country, including many in the armed forces, regarded these men as patriots rather than traitors. The British Indian Army was now for all practical purposes the Indian National Army. This was Subhas Bose’s great achievement. After this the British had no choice but to leave. And now some historians are questioning official accounts even of his death. They claim that interested parties in three governments—India, Britain and the Soviet Union—had their own reasons for concealing the truth about Subhas Bose, who, according to them, died in a prison in the Soviet Union then under Stalin. This raises serious questions about Nehru’s conduct of foreign policy.
Netaji’s legacy
Although fifty years of Congress-Communist propaganda has succeeded to a substantial degree in erasing the memory of Subhas Bose and his true contribution, while turning Nehru into a colossus, the scene in India just before Independence looked quite different. Both Patel and Subhas Bose towered over him in the eyes of the public. In particular, during the crucial War years, with the Congress and its leadership in the wilderness following the collapse of the Quite India Movement, it was Subhas Bose and the INA that was the vanguard of the Freedom Movement. This is reflected in the major national events after the War—the INA Trials and the Naval Mutiny that led to British exit. Both stemmed from Subhas Bose’s activities—not anything that the Congress did. Now there is something else that may prove to be equally important: crucial foreign policy decisions in the first decade of Indian Independence might have been influenced by the possibility of Netaji being still alive in a Soviet prison-and of his return.
In a story on the Justice Mukherji hearings probing ‘Netaji’s alleged disappearance’, The Times of India (January 19, 2001) reported: “The Commission will ask the Centre to take up the matter with the Russian authorities; researchers, including Purabi Roy of Jadavpur University, have provided several documents which indicate that the final solution to the Netaji mystery may be resting in the Russian archives.â€
This bland report does not do justice to the potentially explosive impact of the true facts. The Pioneer columnist Sandhya Jain wrote: “The now credible theory that he was not aboard the airplane that crashed fatally off Japan’s Taihoku Island in August 1945 has damning repercussions for the historical legitimacy of Jawaharlal Nehru as free India’s first Prime Minister. A truthful unravelling of the Netaji story-with every moment of his life and the manner of his death (murder?) in a Soviet concentration camp fully accounted for-cannot but have a wintry effect on Nehru’s personal reputation, the political and economic policies he foisted upon the nation, his sordid compromises in foreign policy, and finally, the credibility of his intellectual heirs…†These are serious charges, but a question naturally arises: Why should the Nehruvians and their allies (the Communists) fear the truth about Netaji’s ‘disappearance’ more than fifty years ago? To understand this it is necessary to recognise that both the British and the Soviets wanted the Anglophile, pro-Soviet Nehru rather than a firebrand nationalist like Subhas Bose as Prime Minister of India. As Nehru’s conduct of foreign policy shows, he could be made to subordinate India’s national interests to those of Britain (in Kashmir) and the Soviet Union’s most important ally, Communist China. Here are some new details relating to Netaji’s ‘disappearance’, as reported by Jain:
“Researching for the Asiatic Society in Moscow, Dr. [Purabi] Roy found archival evidence that Netaji was in Russia long after the plane crash that allegedly took his life. Deposing before the Commission, she revealed the startling contents of Document No. 22, a statement by the then Soviet envoy to Teheran. The ambassador had delivered a letter from Nehru to Stalin in October 1946, in which Nehru referred to Netaji’s stay in the USSR at that time. Another document records a meeting at Moscow in October 1946 between Stalin, Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov and other high officials, in which Netaji is referred to “in the present tenseâ€, and as present in the USSR at that time. …Reports suggest that Netaji went to the Soviet Union some time in 1945, via Manchuria. It is not clear how he was captured by the Soviets… According to the stray bits of information coming out, Netaji was spotted alive till at least 1949.â€
This is extraordinary! From all this it may be surmised that in 1946, when it was clear that India would soon be independent, leaders in three countries—Britain (Mountbatten), India (Nehru) and the Soviet Union (Stalin)—knew that Netaji was alive and in a Soviet prison. And as previously noted, they wanted Nehru rather than a staunch nationalist like Subhas Bose (or Sardar Patel) as Prime Minister. If Subhas were available, Nehru had little chance. Even without Subhas, the Congress wanted Sardar Patel, but for reasons that are unclear, Gandhi prevailed on Patel to withdraw in favour of Nehru. It would be a different matter with Subhas Bose who had split with Gandhi in 1938. The question is-did the fact that Subhas Bose was alive in Soviet custody have a bearing on Nehru’s conduct of foreign policy? Put another way, why did Nehru pursue a policy that consistently favoured China at the cost of India’s interests?
Choosing China over India
In the year 1950, two momentous events shook Asia and the world. One was the Chinese invasion of Tibet, and the other, Chinese intervention in the Korean War. The first was near, on India’s borders, the other, far away in the Korean Peninsula where India had little at stake. By all canons of logic, India should have devoted the utmost attention to the immediate situation in Tibet, and let interested parties like China and the US sort it out in Korea. But Nehru did exactly the opposite. He abandoned Tibet to China while getting heavily involved in Korea. Nehru later complained that he had been “led to believe by the Chinese Foreign Office that the Chinese would settle the future of Tibet in a peaceful manner…†The truth is that he knew about the coming Chinese invasion for at least a year. In fact, he had himself written in September 1949: “Chinese Communists are likely to invade Tibet.†This came true in October 1950!
Even after this foreign policy disaster, Nehru continued to support Chinese interests at India’s cost. Panikkar, the Indian Ambassador in Beijing, went so far as to pretend that there was ‘lack of confirmation’ of the presence of Chinese troops in Tibet and that to protest the Chinese invasion of Tibet would be an “interference to India’s efforts on behalf of China in the UNâ€. This made Sardar Patel warn Nehru that Panikkar “has been at great pains to find an explanation or justification for Chinese policy and actions.â€
Amazingly Nehru concurred with his pro-Chinese Ambassador. He wrote, “Recent developments in Korea have not strengthened China’s position, which will be further weakened by any aggressive action [by India] in Tibet.†So Nehru was ready to sacrifice India’s national security interests in Tibet so as not to weaken China’s case in the UN! The two greatest influences on Nehru at this crucial juncture in history were Krishna Menon and K.M. Panikkar, both Communists. He ignored Sardar Patel’s warning: “Even though we regard ourselves as friends of China, the Chinese do not regard us as friends.†Patel wrote a celebrated letter in which he expressed deep concern over developments in Tibet. He noted that a free and friendly Tibet was vital for India’s security, and everything including military measures should be considered to ensure it. Patel recognized that in 1950, China was in a vulnerable position, fully committed in Korea and by no means secure in its hold over the mainland. For months General MacArthur had been urging President Truman to “unleash Chiang Kai Shek†lying in wait in Formosa (Taiwan) with full American support. India had little to lose and everything to gain by a determined show of force when China was struggling to consolidate its hold. In addition, India had international support, with world opinion strongly against Chinese aggression in Tibet.
The highly influential English publication The Economist echoed the Western viewpoint when it wrote: “Having maintained complete independence of China since 1912, Tibet has a strong claim to be regard as an independent state. But it is for India to take a lead in this matter. If India decides to support independence of Tibet as a buffer state between itself and China, Britain and USA will do well to extend formal diplomatic recognition to it.†All this raises a fundamental question: did Nehru commit these colossal policy blunders because of his idealism, or was he influenced by the knowledge that China’s ally Soviet Union still held Subhas Bose in captivity who may be released any time? As Sandhya Jain puts it: “Since it is nobody’s case that the Congress would have suffered Nehru if Netaji were still alive, the former would logically have had to pay a price for such stupendous assistance. We will have to look very closely at the long road from August 15, 1947 as we seek the answers to these questionsâ€. In other words, was India being made to pay for Nehru’s ambition to be Prime Minister, which was only possible as long as Subhas Bose was away from the scene?
Finding answers to these questions calls for full access to the records of the period. Scholars have found that important records in the Nehru Library and even the National Archives are not available to them without the permission of the ‘dynasty’, which means they are unavailable. As long as this situation prevails, with information coming in bits and pieces, there will be no end to conspiracy theories. These are state papers–not family property. The Government should help clear the air by releasing the Nehru papers to the public. It is also in the interests of the members of the dynasty.
Gandhi had purposely tried to mow down Netaji and he used his influences through his aide our first Prime minister (ewho did not want the british to quit India also, please go through his love letters to Lady Mountbatten, where he had asked them to stay and he would form the puppet government (One of the most corrupted Prime Ministers India had ever had. Gandhi wanted power which he enjoyed and also lacked clairvoyance he knew had Subhash rose to fame the way he was going and was elected to power he would not have the same power he enjoyed unduely,His policies,most of which were based on his whims like his estension of cooperation to the Bristish Imperial army (As if Indians were his servants) not to create any problem his association with the Khalifat movement One fails to understand why he agreed to give his consent to send troops to Kashmir after Nehru pressed him instead of sending non violence supporters was it becasue it was Nehru’s home land? How does historians and Gandhi supporters claim that their so called non violence movement made the Brits leave India? IT was INA which aroused the flame within the countrey men (we have seen it in the Naval revolt) which led them Our Honurable? Prime Minister did not even want to fight the case for the INA men. Our first prime minister who is our national shame was a hand in glove with stalin and also other communist for trying to eradicate netaji and it was for his fireband nature Gandhi feared him and britsh feared him infact their most feared person was netaji and not gandhi
Interesting Read: Who Brought Freedom, Gandhi or Netaji?
Both were failures… Gandhi and Bose. India didn’t get freedom, it was given, by Britishers, at their terms and conditions. While Gandhi is despicable, loath able because he never gave up politics to embrace nationalism even as millions of sanatan dharmis were wiped out, the countrymen would always remain unsatisfied by efforts of Subhash but will never be able to question his spirit of nationality and righteousness and always end up wishing if only we had a leader like Subhash Chandra Bose taking over the reigns of nation.
One should not forget contribution of Shaheed Udham Singh. His story and his speech in court in Britain, in the court, will make your hair stand from end to end. The Britishers still piss in their pants. The Britishers have classified his trail details as secret till 2016 so one can imagine the span of influence his speech wields and I am sure that this man’s speech will make them wet their pants for another millenia. Here are some excerpts
http://www.panjab.org.uk/english/Udhtrial.html
“I say down with British Imperialism. You say India does not have peace. We have only slavery. Generations of so called civilisation has brought for us everything filthy and degrading known to the human race. All you have to do is read your own history. If you have any human decency about you, you should die with shame. The brutality and blood thirsty way in which the so called intellectuals, who call themselves the rulers of civilisation in the world are of bastard blood…”
“I DO NOT CARE ABOUT SENTENCE OF DEATH. IT MEANS NOTHING AT ALL. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT DYING OR ANYTHING.” (Thumping the rail of the dock, he exclaimed): “WE ARE SUFFERING FROM THE BRITISH EMPIRE. (He continued more quietly): “I am not afraid to die. I am proud to die. I want to help my native land, and I hope when I have gone, that in my place will come others of my countrymen to drive the dirty dogs. I am standing before an English jury in an English court. You people go to India and when you come back you are given prizes and put into the House of Commons, but when we come to England we are put to death. In my case I do not care about it, but when you dirty dogs come to India – the intellectuals they call themselves, the rulers – they are of bastard blood caste, and they order machine guns to fire on Indian students without hesitation… Machine guns on the streets of India now down thousands of poor women and children wherever your so-called flag of democracy and Christianity flies. I have nothing against the public at all. I have more English friends in England than I do in India. I have nothing against the public. I have great sympathy with the workers of England, but I am against the dirty British Government. You people are suffering the same as I am suffering through those dirty dogs and mad beasts. India is only slavery. Killing, mutilating and destroying. We know what is going on in India, people do not read about it in the press. Hundreds of thousands of people being killed by your dirty dogs…”
SHAHEED UDHAM SINGH WAS THE COMMON MAN WHOSE SINGLE ACT OF DEED REKINDLED FIRE IN EACH AND EVERY CITIZEN OF NATION AND THIS FIRE WAS USED TO BAKE THE BREADS BY LIKES OF GANDHI
All intelligence reports of the British Government point to the relevance of this common person’s single act, A 21 years of long wait to rekindle the spirit of self importance and dignity, crushed deliberately by Dwyer and Dyer and when he did so, he did it under name of RAM MOHAMMED SINGH AZAD. His sacrifice raised rebel in ranks and file of Congress too.
An excerpt from: Subhas Chandra Bose: A hero forgotten by the nation:
The only piece of documentary evidence which seems to highlight the importance of Bose’s military operation with the help of the Japanese Army comes from a letter written by PB Chuckraborty, the then Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, who had met Clement Attlee at a tea party in 1956 in Kolkata when the latter had visited India and asked him about the role of Bose and his INA in the transfer of power.
The following is an extract from his letter to a friend dated March 30, 1976 (as reported in a blog, Friends of India, on August 13, 2007):
“When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement Attlee who as the British Prime Minister in post-War years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan, Calcutta, for two days and I put it straight to him like this: ‘The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time, which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?’
“In reply, Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. 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 a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’.â€
For a long time this was the sole evidence of the most important decision-maker in the transfer of power about the important role played by Bose. I want to draw the attention of the readers of The Pioneer to circumstantial evidence in support of this document which was furnished by the eminent historian, Prof Barun De, in an article published in The Telegraph, Kolkata. I met Prof De on January 18 and again he confirmed the incident, although he could not recount the exact date. The incident is as follows:
One morning, while studying at Oxford University, Prof De and his friend Kamal Hasan had gone for breakfast at Nuffield Hall where they chanced upon old Earl Attlee. Prof De and his friend went up to him, introduced themselves and put the question raised in the letter of PB Chuckraborty, about the crucial role of Bose and his INA in hastening the independence of India by completely shaking the confidence of the British Government in the loyalty of Indian troops. Attlee confirmed the statement he had purportedly made earlier and also his assessment of the relatively unimportant role of Gandhi’s movement on the transfer of power.
Prof De’s brief article in The Telegraph is very important because this is a confirmation in writing by a leading historian of the Left about the assessment of the then British Prime Minister on the role of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, the forgotten national hero whose birth anniversary is observed on January 23, in hastening India’s independence.
— The writer is a former Secretary to the Government of India.
I found this recently about the origin of our national anthem:
http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?633266
Subhas Chandra Bose chose it while living in Germany.
Relevant quote:
The Centre had a flag of its own but it did not had a national anthem. Netaji discussed several options and decided on 'Jana Gana Mana' as the national anthem of the Free India.How did then it become the national anthem under CON party then?
According to the radio programme, when India became became independent, there was no National Anthem. Early in January 1950, a delegation from India attended the UN General Assembly in New York. One of the members of delegation carried a record of 'Jana Gana Mana' which was produced in Singapore.He handed this record to the UN Orchestra which then played 'Jana Gana Mana' along with national anthems of other countries.
The delegation came back to India in the 3rd week of January 1950 and reported to Jawaharlal Nehru that 'Jana Gana Mana' was played at the United Nations and was highly appreciated by all those present.
As January 26 was approaching fast and no other national anthem had been found, it was decided that the Tagore's poem should be bestowed the status of National Anthem on January 26, 1950.
Another grand example of monumental incompetence that CON party showed from the beginning.
From Netaji could have taken us past China: Murthy:
KOLKATA: India would have seized its opportunities better and faster than China and climbed to the second spot on the world economic ladder by now had Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose played a role in building the nation, Infosys chief mentor N R Narayana Murthy said here on Sunday.
He would have been a perfect foil to Jawaharlal Nehru’s more conservative approach to industrialization, opposed the licence raj and might even have prevented Partition, Murthy added while delivering the Netaji Memorial Oration in Kolkata on Sunday.
..
“He was bold, upright and could take on anybody. He could question even Mahatma Gandhi and dared to disagree with him, which he did on the dominion status issue. Netaji knew that areas like population control, industries, agriculture and health were key to the country’s growth and had expressed his views on these. His views were strikingly modern and practical which makes me conclude that India would have done better than China with him in the front seat of the government,” Murthy said.
Critcizing the Centre for not paying “due respect to this great son of India”, Murthy felt it was time to correct the mistake. “I have heard that Delhi doesn’t have a single prominent avenue named after him. This is a shame and I hope our wonderful Prime Minister will soon correct this lacunae,” he added.
I liked your blog and the way in dispassionate matter of fact way things are placed. Here is my blog that I launched in 2010 in quest for pressing for release of unclassified documents related to Netaji.
Here is a small extract from the blog which may be of relevance to your this blog.
http://quest4truth-on-netaji.blogspot.com/2010/08/dichotomy-of-netajis-classified.html
Quote
But Subhas showed in every turn of his eventful interactions from college compound to last pronounced fake air crash that he remained the last unconquered bastion of Indian territory floating the firsts – first Indian Legion, first provincial Govt of India, the first Indian head of Provincial govt, the first Indian national flag hoisted in Kohima and Moirang, the first Indian currency ….Had the front line few leaders of Congress back home were more liberal than being influenced by aroma of Mr. And Mrs Mountbaten and had Gandhiji been more realistic and became a truly secular leader than a Hindu religious follower abiding with the dream of Ram rajya and had Gandhiji reduced his admiration for everything that was British including pretending to be a messiah of non-violence in organishing Indians to join British militarty to join the world war I , and the dichotomy of Gandhiji being pretending to be democratic while playing tricks from the background to create road blocks for democratically elected INC president Netaji from assuming presidentship for the second term.
There are many ifs and buts…..Now world global village of information knows despite the Congress’s Herculean concerted effort under the invisible direction of a family that assumed royalty within democracy, that IF Netaji was allowed to continue as Presedent of Congress, the forces that would rule for independence would be a different force and a different breed than the one we are witnessing in the last 63 years.
And it would be foolish to ignore Jinnah’s statement that had Subhash been at the helm of Congress, Jinhah would not go for Pakisthan and in the process the South asia would not have faced the tragic loss of many a unaccounted millions of life and many a million destruction of dreams. At this critical time in history what we witnessed was Gandhiji’s selective fasting to control Hindu rioters while on a not a single instance going for a fast to disuade Muslim rioters as history of nation shows that he was not that giant stalwarth to command unflenching trust of majority of Muslims or even the Muslim leaders like Jinnah who became the “father†of another section of Indian population in the western front and in a part of eastern front of erstwhile India.
Unquote
Thanks for the read
@Shantanu,
The link to Godse’s statement is not working. Seems like the site has been banned!
Thanks Gyan..have updated the link..
Here it is: http://library.thinkquest.org/26523/mainfiles/nathuram.htm
All this haste to get freedom led this nation into the hands of a group of corrupt, self-seeking, unfit, men (and women) of straw! British rule was a thousand times better, than the rule of these barbarians.
Japan agreed to eliminate Netaji;
In WW-I, Japan was an ally of British. Before WW-II, Japan-US trade war and political war started, this led to actual war between US and Japan. So British became an enemy to Japan by diplomatic manipulation as US – British alliance was there. After WW-II, Japan revived their old connection with British via spies. Japanese and British spies were enough linked before WW-II. Japanese spies agreed to eliminate Netaji. Motive was to appease the British and purchase security for Japan royal family. Thus, Japan sold Netaji to British and British eliminated him. The false news of air crash was Japan’s fabrication. In any controversial case, liar is to be suspected first.
Netaji’s plan to start second independence war with the help of USSR was known to Japan. There was enough scope for British and Japanese spies to develop a common minimum program against pro-communist agenda of Netaji. Why should Japanese imperialism agree to patronize emergence of independent India as a permanent communist ally? Is it not more logical to fulfill British condition and purchase favor? Why Japan royal family was not tried as a war criminal? What is the mystery behind this favor?
Japan sold Netaji and Netaji-dummy to British;
In WW-I, Japan was an ally of British. Before WW-II, Japan-US trade war and political war started, this led to actual war between US and Japan. So British became an enemy to Japan by diplomatic manipulation as US – British alliance was there. After WW-II, Japan revived their old connection with British via spies. Japanese and British spies were enough linked before WW-II. Japanese spies agreed to eliminate Netaji. Motive was to appease the British and purchase security for Japan royal family. Thus, Japan sold Netaji to British and British eliminated him. The false news of air crash was Japan’s fabrication. In any controversial case, liar is to be suspected first.
Netaji’s plan to start second independence war with the help of USSR was known to Japan. There was enough scope for British and Japanese spies to develop a common minimum program against pro-communist agenda of Netaji. Why should Japanese imperialism agree to patronize emergence of independent India as a permanent communist ally? Is it not more logical to fulfill British condition and purchase favor? Why Japan royal family was not tried as a war criminal? What is the mystery behind this favor?
There is another point about gumnami baba. Who was he? Gumnami baba was a dummy created as a part of common minimum program of Japanese imperialism and British imperialism. In axis camp, creation of dummy by plastic surgery was a common practice. Hitler and Mussolini were having number of dummies. Japan sold Netaji-dummy to British. British deputed this dummy at faizabad of Uttar Pradesh, with a purpose to create confusion that as if Netaji’s death or life is doubtful. The confusion prevented the nation to be doubtful about role of Japan or British. So gumnami baba of faizabad is a common creation of Japanese spies and British spies. Never had he told the truth. If he had told anything, that must be lie. In a controversial case, liar is to be suspected. So, Japan sold Netaji to British and British executed him in secret. Japan sold Netaji-dummy to British and British deputed him at faizabad of Uttar-Pradesh. Japan surrendered to US-UK side on 15th august 1945. Netaji’s last flight was on 18th august 1945. A surrendered Japan was no longer an ally of azad hind. They worked as per their new mentors, the British.
This is quite an old post. May not be entirely relevant but definitely worth a read
http://barunroy.wordpress.com/2007/12/14/speech-by-nathuram-ghodse/
Gopal: The link is already there on the post (See Unexpected Find of the Day). In addition, you can read excerpts here: https://satyameva-jayate.org/2009/02/08/godse-nataraj-good-doctor/
Please please ONLY post comments on the relevant threads. Thanks
Excerpts from Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was an EXTREME fascist socialist/communist: no role model for modern India!:
While I admire Netaji for his bold nationalism, he was unfortunately a creature of his times and was EXACTLY LIKE NEHRU on the subject of socialism – only MUCH more extreme. Nehru was a Fabian, i.e a democratic socialist. Netaji was a fascist (authoritarian) socialist.
Had he lived and come to power, India’s fate would have been as bad or worse than its current fate – a poor nation ravaged by corruption and injustice.
He had good intentions, but as a rule, good intentions do NOT translate into good results. It is a deeper understanding of human nature, like Chanakya had, that India needs. Idealism is fatal. Because it is often very stupid.
We need to be clever at how we do things. To deal with humans as if they were robots who will work according to one’s “plans” for them is the great folly.
…
***
On a slightly different (but related) note, pl read comment #6 by Sarvesh here.
But aren’t most of the criticisms that Mr. Sabhlok is accusing Netaji of, also applicable to Mr. Sabhlok?
1. “He had good intentions, but as a rule, good intentions do NOT translate into good results.”
-same applies to Mr. Sabhlok
2. “It is a deeper understanding of human nature, like Chanakya had, that India needs. ”
– don’t think Mr. Sabhlok has demonstrated that “deeper understanding of human nature” through his posts.
3. “Idealism is fatal. Because it is often very stupid.”
– same applies to Mr. Sabhlok – he, too, is an idealist. Like the cranky uncle at family dinner who keeps on ranting and talks of “my way or the highway.”
Somewhat relevant excerpt from NO HOLDS BARRED by Virendra Kapoor:
…Meanwhile, before the Congress megaphones start harping on the divisive nature of Modi vis-a-vis the BJP, they would do well to remember that the founder of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty had become the first Prime Minister only because Mahatma Gandhi had overruled the Congress Party. Out of 15 Pradesh Congress Committees in 1946, as many as 12 had in no uncertain terms recommended Sardar Patel; the other three did not vote for Nehru. No, they remained neutral.
Yet, Gandhi nominated Nehru for the job, because the latter said he would break the Congress if denied prime ministership, but would not work as Patel’s number two.
Good article and discussion to learn some history, although tone is mostly pro-Bose and anti-Gandhi, but that’s not surprising it’s really hard to find balanced analysis of both these people (for that matter any iconic personality from history).
As far as Nathuram’s statement is court is concerned it sounds no different than any jihadi or fanatic rioter who also nicely justifies or even glorify killing of innocent people…they all have their own rationale and reasons to justify their actions and if they are good orators (which Nathuram was) then their speeches mesmerize people who are looking to find martyr in them…
Link to a documentary of Netaji
A great write-up on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and what he means for Indians Netaji’s Statue: Why it’s time to get over the romanticisation of the British Empire vis-a-vis the Third Reich.
Brief excerpts:
…
o reduce Netaji to a ‘Nazi collaborator’ is like saying Winston Churchill was an intermittent fasting enthusiast. Lest we forget, the Empire that Bose sought to overthrow was the upholder of a bloodstained legacy that stretches from Africa to Asia to North America, having started as a venture for a few corrupt avaricious businessmen seeking to make a quick buck before graduating to the forceful sale of opium and eventually transforming into the most genocidal empire that has existed in the history of mankind. Yeah, let’s start using the G-word when it actually fits.
There’s absolutely no atrocity that was committed during the regime of the Third Reich that wasn’t also carried out by officers of the British Empire. In fact, leaders of the the British Empire can probably add a few atrocities missing from Hitler’s bucket list.
Shooting down innocent and unarmed civilians in cold blood? Check.
Gassing tribes with chemical weapons? Check.
Putting kids, including women and children in concentration camps which killed thousands? Check.
Taking over 3 million slaves in ships in extreme inhuman conditions from Africa to the Caribbean, and in the process killing scores? Check.
Hiding the deaths of thousands when imprisoning Kenyans in a British gulag and then passing it off as a civilising mission? Check.
….
Indeed, Hitler can be classified as a veritable humanist if one were to confirm the total extent of the atrocities carried out under the British regime everywhere. After all, the horrific brutalities are not diminished simply because they were committed by men speaking in clipped Queen’s.
The only difference is that Hitler’s chosen victims comprised more of white Europeans whose lives have historically been valued more. When officials went out of their way to help Indians during the famine, they were castigated for their ‘extravagance’ and was slammed by The Economist for “allowing lazy Indians to think it’s the duty of the Government to keep them alive”.
Image
There will be no Nuremberg trials for Britain’s crimes, because as one adroit Twitter user pointed out: “The difference between Nazism and the British Empire is that Nazism was destroyed before it could get an image makeover.”
…
Hitler did terrible things, but his treatment of Jews is a faraway crime which would bother Europeans more than Indians. On the other hand, the atrocities of the British Empire are far more real for us. Of course, you will have the odd idiot who will know more about the Holocaust was somehow worse than the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, just like the Indian chap who takes a knee for Black Lives Matter to protest police violence in America.
…
There’s another reason Bose’s legacy was played down in India over the ages, beyond person scruples with Nehru and Gandhi. Accepting Bose’s legacy would mean accepting an alternative to the Quixotic myth that India’s independence was thanks to Gandhian ahimsa.
As geo-strategist Brahma Chelley wrote in 2019: “Had the post-1947 India been proactive and forward-looking in securing its frontiers, it could have averted both the Kashmir and Himalayan border problems. China was in deep turmoil until October 1949, and India had ample time and space to assert control over the Himalayan borders. But India’s pernicious founding myth gave rise to a pacifist country that believed it could get peace merely by seeking peace, instead of building the capability to defend peace.”
A somewhat related excerpt from Sh MV Kamath’s book, “Reporter at Large” in which he quotes Dr B.R Ambedkar on Gandhiji’s Death: “Mr. Gandhi had become a positive danger to his country. He had choked all the thoughts. He was holding together the Congress which is a combination of all the bad and self-seeking elements in society who agreed on no social or moral principle governing the life of society except the one of praising and flattering Mr Gandhi. Such a body is unfit to govern the country“.
(Source: “A Reporter At Large”, page 238/239) by M V Kamath)