1. "Enemies enemy is my friend" is an old and proven strategy that is still being used across the world.
2. The atrocities of Germany and Japan became known to the world after the war, that was not an age of internet and very active media.
Bose knew of the atrocities the imperial Japanese forces committed in Manchuria and China.He even led protests whilst being the President of Congress. And yet, he collaborated with the very same Imperial Japanese forces and the INA, under his command, allegedly committed atrocities along with the Japanese forces. What does that speak of the man? Bose was a fascist and wanted a socialist authoritarian kind of government for independent India. That would have put us directly under the Soviet control. We wouldnt be what we are now, if that had happened.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who was quite an autocratic leader of a democratic party.
Funny you call Gandhi an autocratic leader when Congress had many giants then who held their own and even opposed Gandhi's policies. FYI, Nehru opposed Gandhi's views on industrialization. And yet, Indians at the time loved him and the British feared and respected him. Just FYI, Modi, marginalized the entire BJP bigwigs and is promoting his 'cronies' like Ajit Shah. Why doesnt anyone critize his "autocratic" leadership here? He is as popular today as Gandhi was in his day.
So, are we completely discarding the role of INA and the subsequent RIN Mutiny from the history of our freedom movement?
The military campaigns of INA had no role or consequence whatsoever on the freedom movement. INA failed to achieve any objectives, political or military. However, the capture and subsequent trial of INA officers for treason led to RIN Bombay mutiny, expedited and added fuel to the Indian Freedom Movement. Thats all. Even without the INA, India's freedom from the British Empire was a foregone conclusion.
Yes our first PM promoted dynastic politics. And they all, they all right from Indira downwards used the same good name of congress you mention above for their own gains and to keep power within congress, effectively changing congress from a pan India party to a gandhi family outfit. Keeping the power within the hands of jawaharlal nehru our first PM's bloodline, refute it if you can. And they are going to do so in the future too. When Priyanka's son comes out of India's Eton, he too will take mahatma gandhi and indira gandhi's name sometime around 2025. Mark my words.
Yeah right. Indira was Nehru's chief of staff. So what? She made her 'bones' and got elected as the Congress president. Leaders select and groom their successors. It happens in politics all the time. If you were expecting 'Raja Harishchandra' types in politics, then you really are very naive to believe so.
Motilal pushed son Jawaharlal into it, Jawaharlal pushed Indira into it, Indira had to push Rajiv into it, and you know the rest, I don't have to write all the way now, do I ?
Except for Rajiv Gandhi being dragged, unwillingly, into politics after Sanjay's death and subsequently his wife Sonia who was asked to take up the reign of the party to save it, every other member of Gandhi family was groomed as a politician. So whats new in that? It happens in BJP, BD, JD etc. Take the AIADMK, DMK, TDp...regional parties. Even their leaders groomed hand chosen successors. So what is it that you are complaining about?
Good, name calling. What am I trying to say here ? Nehru turned out to be rather a bad PM. Like some one mentioned he did the IITs and the steel plants...I mean come the f*** on me lads, he was a british cambridge/oxford product of those days, he used to practice law for a living, he wasn't a waza waza to not have made IITs. The steel plants were ALL collaboration projects. He was rather a guy who used to have his say over things in the end. In this light, the opening post of this thread makes so much sense. He did poor planning in my book. He was not a great visionary statesman we are oh so fortunate to have. That is what I'm trying to say here.
Again, what was Bose's vision for India? AFAIK, he had none, except total independence from the British. On the contrary, Nehru and other leaders in Congress had a vision for a socialist secular India where fundamental rights are of paramount importance. And they made sure that such a thing happened. People like Dr. Ambedkar were given a free hand to draw up a Constitution which epitomizes the values envisioned. And yet, you call them all sycophants? Atleast they were not fascist or authoritarian.
The only way to change that would be to gather that military power, secure borders and take that place which you aspire to be. I would expect a british trained lawyer to be that. Look at Jinnah, he did exactly that. word by word.
To be a great military power, a country needs to be a great institution first. Democracy, rule of law, prosperity, freedom, safety of its citizens are the hallmarks of a great institution. Look at the erstwhile Soviet Union. A great military power but a failed country. It ultimately broke down into smaller states, many of which are still fighting among themselves.
As for Jinnah, although his vision was great, he had no people around him who could support him and they failed to put into place institutions in Pakistan which would be trusted to carry out that vision. Look at where Pakistan is now.
In the end what happened ? We literally became a USSR satellite, thank god the USSR died...if USSR had been there today, how it would have taken a capitalist India since 1990 is anybody's guess. We still would have been Nehru's socialist experiment.
India never became a USSR satellite. India had good relations with the European countries and even the US. The only problem with US was our nationalized economy and Indira's bad personal relationship with US presidents like Nixon. Apart from that FYI, US had helped India, covertly, in the '62 war against China with intelligence. Yes, agreed, Nehru was naive when it came to foreign relations and did not heed sound advice.
Was Bose killed ? Who killed him ? What role the indian government or its officials, the pre 1947 congress party had to do with it ? what role did the Nehru family and Mahatma Gandhi play in it or did they not ? I want to know.
If Bose had succeeded, I know it for a fact that Bose's grandson's grandson wouldn't have played India like Nehru did.
Conspiracy theories and rumors. The fact that Bose died so young and his remains could not be found contributed a degree of romanticism to his stature. Just like Che Guevara. The concept of Che is very romantic, but practically he failed. His ideologies failed. Even Castro distanced himself from Che when Che went to export 'revolution' to Bolivia. Same with Bose. Theres no knowing that had Bose lived and implemented his authoritarian communist govt in India, he would definitely have hand chosen his progeny as his successor. Who knows.
