Only leader who was close to Netaji was Pandit Nehru infact it was Azad Patel and Gandhi who were always opposed to Netaji.It was Patel who argued hard over Netaji's attempt to get re-elected as Congress president in 1939. Sarat Chandra Bose, Subhas Chandra's brother, wrote a strong letter to Patel for allegedly carrying on a 'malicious and vindictive propaganda against the Bose.
Even in the Tripuri session of INC 1939 it was only Nehru who didn't resign from Congress Working Committee when all including patel azad rajaji prasad formed a group and resigned.To prevent Congress split Netaji himself resigned .But lately RSS and its rightwing propaganda machinery is very active to demolish Panditji's image.I know all people here including me hates congress dynasty but always remember it was Indira Gandhi who started this dynasty not Nehru. Panditji is the greatest Prime Minister India ever had. To see the difference he made just look at our neighbor Pakistan which was more prosperous land at the time of partition but irony the more Muslims are being killed in the country which was created for "Muslims".
Why Nehru was one of the worst PMs we've had
Everything started in early 1946 when the Indian National Congress had to elect a new president. It was an accepted fact that the leader chosen as Congress president would become the first prime minister of independent India. Three candidates were in the race: Acharya Kripalani, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Sardar Patel. The working committee of the INC and the pradesh committees had to send their nomination for one of the three candidates.
Sardar Patel was easily the most popular. Everyone knew his efficiency and his toughness for tackling difficult problems. Twelve out of 19 Pradesh committees nominated him. None nominated Nehru.
From the start Gandhi had indicated that he favoured Nehru. His reasoning was that his British education was an asset: 'Jawaharlal cannot be replaced today whilst the charge is being taken from the British. He, a Harrow boy, a Cambridge graduate, and a barrister, is wanted to carry on the negotiations with the Englishmen.'
Another point Gandhi made was that while Sardar Patel would agree to work as Nehru's deputy, the reverse might not happen. He also felt that Nehru was better known abroad and could help India play a role in international affairs.
Eventually, in deference to Gandhi, Kripalani nominated Nehru and withdrew from the race. Patel had no choice but to follow his colleague 'so that Nehru could be elected unopposed.' Dr Rajendra Prasad later stated: 'Gandhi has once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the glamorous Nehru.'
It is how India got a Kashmiri Pandit as its first prime minister.
1. After his election as Congress president, he gave his support to his friend Sheikh Abdullah (he called him his 'blood brother') who had been jailed by Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir. In June 1946, he decided to go to the valley to free Abdullah. The situation was certainly not shining in Kashmir (as in the rest of India), but to take on the maharaja at this point in time was a serious mistake. In 1946 Kak then PM of Kashmir objected to accession because of Nehru's attitude otherwise it would have been acceptable in other circumstances. In September, he decided to offer Kashmir's accession to India. This was refused by Nehru, who first wanted Sheikh Abdullah to be freed and installed as prime minister of the state. This was not acceptable to the maharaja. Things came to a head at the end of October 1947 when raiders from the North West Frontier Province entered the state, killing, looting, and raping along. On October 26, they had reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Hari Singh agreed to sign the Instrument of Accession.
On the same day a historic meeting was held in Delhi with Mountbatten, the governor general, as chairman. A young army colonel named Sam Manekshaw, who attended the meeting,
recalled: 'As usual Nehru talked about the United Nations, Russia, Africa, God Almighty, everybody, until Sardar Patel lost his temper. He said, 'Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away?' He [Nehru] said, 'Of course, I want Kashmir.' Then he [Patel] said: 'Please give your orders.'
2. Nehru declined a US offer to India to take the permanent seat on the UNSC in 1953 & suggested that it be given to China. Situation could be different if Nehru accepted that proposal. India would got Veto power 59 years back which would be helpful in many ways.
3. Nehru called for a UN ceasefire at a time the Indian troops were going to win back J&K in 1948. Few more days and whole Kashmir (Including Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan) would be part of India.
4. Years later, his Panchsheel and India-Chini-bhai-bhai, was put to the sword by the same Chinese, who back-stabbed him and invaded and occupied a portion of Kashmir in 1962. It is said that 1962 Chinese invasion, was a brutal shock to Nehru, that he died of Heart Attack in May 1964.Again the foreign policy of Nehru failed. He could have taken American help to repulse China but he didn't.
5. Speaking English is not Secularism. Speaking Sanskrit and Singing Vande Mataram is not communalism. Nehur was a secular and Liberal leader. He was secular that he forget everything about India. When Cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir Valley and Hindus in East Pakistan and West Pakistan happened during 1947-1965. He didn't even tried to allow them for rehabilitation in India. Due to this, Millions of Hindus were either Killed, Raped or Forcefully converted into Islam. Once Indira gandhi came into power, Things changed a bit (Rehabaltion of Kashmiris in India and Hindus of East Pakistan settlement in West Bengal but it was too late and too little.)
In retrospect, despite Nehru's love for great principles, his incapacity to take decisions in time, his inability to work with colleagues like Patel, and his friendship with individuals such as the Mounbattens or Abdullah, who had their own interests, blinded him so much that he did not further India's national interests. The consequences have been tragic and the muddle created 64 years ago remains far from being sorted out.
I guess I am going to be hugely unpopular in stating this, but I respectfully beg to disagree with anyone who says that Netaji had a greater impact on our independence than Gandhiji/INC(not today's Congress, btw).
Netaji, NO DOUBTS, was a great Patriot, perhaps India's finest! But his strategy of allying with two overtly racial and genocidal Regimes just to remove the British(who were as fair as Colonialists came in those days) wasn't a good plan. Netaji's desperation and his commitment to achieve his goals are highly commendable, but the means were dubious, sort of.
Netaji's Azad Hind Fauj failed to win even border towns like Imphal and Kohima, and Netaji himself tragically disappeared(or killed) in 1945. Yet, India got her independence in 1947. Now don't tell me this was because of Netaji or Azad Hind Fauj.
Nehru, on the other hand, would definitly benefit from the disappearance of Netaji. One can only imagine the kind of tremendous impact he could have if he were to take up a senior Ministry or position in the Government. Given their diverging views, if someone like Netaji again broke away from the Congress and formed a new Party, it would have definitely grown into a large Party to rival the Congress, something that couldn't happen until the 1980s.
In conclusion, pre-Independent India did not miss his services, as there was a Gandhiji and INC to ensure independence, but post-independent India has severely missed one of her most devoted Sons.
Did You read the article???
"I had then a long talk with Attlee about the real grounds for the voluntary withdrawal of the British from India. I put it straight to him like this:
The Quit India movement of Gandhiji practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in Indian situation at that time which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry? Why did you then do so?
In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which are the activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the very foundations of the attachment of the Indian land and naval forces to the British Government.
I also asked Attlee about the extent to which their decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhiji’s activities.
On hearing this Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered slowly, putting strong emphasis on each single letter: ‘MI-NI-MAL’.”
Are you a Flase Falgger...............
He was bang on target!!!
Your points are very valid ---
1.) Post independence Netaji would have prevented congress turning into the dynastic rot it is today. As soon say Netaji would have played a role similar to Mustapha Kemal Pasha of Turkey and build India into a strong nation in its own right. It took successive Governments decades to achieve the same.
2.) Netaji's means of getting Independence were the only possible alternative Imho. Since Britain under Churchill had already maintained that the freedom they were fighting for was only for those countries overun by Hitler. This is British Double Standards.
Netaji became convinced that only a military solution was the way to drive out the British since after India had co-operated whole-heartedly with the British in the WW1 with millions of soldiers , arms , food and money , we ended up without anything---without even Dominion Status.
So he took the only path left , that was to ally himself with Britain's Enemies to liberate India. It is well documented that he in no way ever supported the Nazis in extermination of jewish people. To him , even if he had to shake his hands with the devil he would do it.
Netaji's battlefield command and grasp of strategy was poor -- This was noted in the journals of many Japanese Commanding Officers. A Japanese Commander said " He was constantly arguing to give greater operational roles to the INA without understanding its operational capabilities" ---Perhaps this was because the INA did not achieve much success directly.
However the impact of the INA CANNOT be measured solely by its military capabilities. The INA instilled fear in the minds of the British Administration, Fear about the loyalty of their Indian Troopers and this fact was documented in a secret cable sent by the then Viceroy To Clement Atlee--" That if a revolt broke out on the scale of 1857 , then England would not be able to control it without the help of a very large number of Troops"
Again the INA actions inspired the Royal Navy mutiny in Bombay which left 300 casualties on both the British and the Indian Side in the city of Mumbai alone.
The Red Fort Trials were equally historic in galvanizing the Mainstream Indian Population into giving the soldiers who served in the INA the epithet of real heroes . This prevented even a single execution of these officers on charges of treason, war crimes etc.
So to conclude the INA had a tremendous impact in hastening our Independence , even if like the First Indian War of Independence , its effect was indirect rather than direct.
Very well put!!