What's new

Should we be grateful that Bose failed?

Is it a good thing that Japanese were defeated in Kohima?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 40.0%
  • No

    Votes: 5 16.7%
  • can't say

    Votes: 13 43.3%

  • Total voters
    30
Make no mistake about it, the Japanese forces were a plague during the Second World War, they laid waste to everything.
Bose's naivety would have led to the mass murder of the collective sub-continent, mainly due to the fact there would have been too many mouths to feed. The pretty girls of our ancestral lands would have served in rape camps for the entertainment of Japanese troops, and the rest of the population was doomed to a fate of slave labour.
Practically though Bose's venture was bound to fail. The collective British Indian army was twenty times the size of his force, along with heavy weapons and years of fighting experience, which was backed by the British, and eventually American might would have come to rain down on them. It was a pursuit of futility.
My entire elder generation fought against the Japanese Imperial Army. Boy I can write-up some crazy accounts....
 
Last edited:
.
you cant counter one evil with another.
japanese viewed all others as lesser then themselves.bigger possibility would be them having indian as slaves rather as an equal partners.
 
.
In the hypothetical scenario, just to state that had the Japanese won the war (not just the battle of Kohima) India would have fallen into a tyrannical autocracy under Bose is simply an underestimation of the three decades of powerful secular mass movements(of which Bose was a gleaming participant), fostered by Gandhi and a gross disregard of the financial and administrative bureaucracy which unified India into a political and geographical entity. If Bose became head of the state, India still would have walked the path of a liberal, socialist democracy if we take Bose's reiterations on his different ideological, spiritual and political contemplations into our considerations.

Future often makes a typical and erratic interpretation of the losing side of the past. Bose might have been a romantic Idealist, but was not Gandhi and Nehru too, the two founding fathers of modern India? His attempt to negotiate with Germany and Japan had often drawn harsh criticisms and contemptuously described him as an admirer of fascism. But a simple, casual look in the history would have show us how both Britain and France in the initial years of the third Reich ardently admired the Nazis and how prominent Industrialists and politicians in the US fell into the hands of Nazi racial theories.

Those who call him a fascist are often seen heaping praise for the Soviets whose historical atrocity against the Poles goes completely unnoticed deliberately. In the most inexorable sense, Bose might be called an 'opportunist' who became irritated with the growing lack of decisiveness in the upper Congressi ranks and felt for an immediate revolution to throw out the British.Bose tried the above within constitutional framework of Congress but was refused by Gandhi. Ironically Gandhi resorted to the idea that Bose was trying to convince him to adopt but it was too late.

Lastly, about the safety of India from Nazis and the Japanese; India is too vast and too populated country for these two even combined to be ruled. It took the British hundred years to bring it into its iron grip and once the chain of continuity broken and with the emergence of a new, politically aware India led by the civil movements of Congress it had become virtually impossible for a new power to emulate the British.
I cant believe people think it would have actually happened, japanese would have allowed him to rule the way he wanted, and we would have got a secular democratic republic anyway.
If imperial japan won, democracy would have been the last thing in their mind.... they would have ruled with iron fist, and would have bumped off Bose within hour of him dissenting. We will be considering Bose, a modern day Mir Jafar.
People always look back from present scenario and think its almost inevitable that the we would be seeing something similar if not exactly same. Japanese need not keep india intact, they could easily break it into 4 part for ease of governance. May be we would have seen large scale armed insurgency(depending on availability of weapon in late 40s), but japanese would have put it down with more brutality, and there would have been enough indian who worked for them.
 
.
We were not a golden bird either.

Famines used to come every year and by mid 50's, situtation was comparable to Bengal Famine. Soviet was in no position to help and we did not have any forex. US came to our rescue with "in"famous PL-480. Its just that our leaders were too stubborn (stupid perhaps ?) to continue ranting against US imperialism while feeding Indians with US donated wheat.

If US really was against India, we would have starved to death.

Lol
The same America which used food aid as a policy lever??
With every morsel India had to swallow a lot humiliation.
Now this happened not once but twice
1. Mid 1960's- After Indira Gandhi's visit Amwrica promised us 10million tons of wheat. But India was expected to keep its mouth shut on the Vietnam war like a Vasal state.
India like other countries did not support the Vietnam war. Even the UN sec.gen and Pope were against it but this is what the American president had to say "The Pope and the Secretary-General do not need our wheat." Also the Americans put food shipments on such a tight leash that India literally lived from ship to mouth.

2. 1949: Nehru visited America, he was promised help. But later America back tracked and tried to barter wheat for strategic material. Americans had more reasons to not send wheat to India, one being India's bonhomie with China and Korea and non-alignment.
Do you wanna know how the Indian ambassador,Vijayalakshmi Pandit, was humiliated by the American speaker of the house, Rayburn(who is supposed to be a legendary figure)???
Well this is what he said" Why don't you buy wheat from Pakistan which has wheat in surplus? The only reason you don't is because Hindu India wants to do down Muslim Pakistan," When she told him that India had "more Muslims than Muslim Pakistan.", then this what he had to say "Oh, you have Muslims in India! Honey, why didn't you say so earlier?"


jha said:
One must not forget such things

:lol:

I'm sorry could not help but laugh at this.
 
.
Do you wanna know how the Indian ambassador,Vijayalakshmi Pandit, was humiliated by the American speaker of the house, Rayburn(who is supposed to be a legendary figure)???
Well this is what he said" Why don't you buy wheat from Pakistan which has wheat in surplus? The only reason you don't is because Hindu India wants to do down Muslim Pakistan," When she told him that India had "more Muslims than Muslim Pakistan.", then this what he had to say "Oh, you have Muslims in India! Honey, why didn't you say so earlier?"

Probably a fictional quote, very inaccurate if not. India did not have more Muslims than Pakistan.
 
.
Probably a fictional quote, very inaccurate if not. India did not have more Muslims than Pakistan.
Is that all that you saw in those lines?
Did you even understand in what context it was said???
It doesn't matter if it was true or not but what matters is the way India was humiliated....atleast to me that's what matters.
 
.
About that pic, let me add more news
50148721.cms
Questionable...
And what about the files regarding his death, i think they should be released or something.
second,those who term Bose as "Romantic and Passionate" or whatever,they should know one little fact about Bose.When Bose fled and was in Afghanistan(as far as I remember),SU's ambassador approached Bose to pledge
their support to free India from British rule.Bose replied,"Oh yeah??And whom I've to invite to free India from Soviet rule??"

Bose knew geopolitics better than all the greenhorns here.He formed an Army which was quite capable to invade and fight British,the then superpower out of nothing.He knew,Japanese support was evident as if anything could beat British firepower,it was Japan.Sadly enough,Japan blundered on this key point and so did AHF.

Yes,Japan commenced enough atrocities.During occupation of A&N,they committed atrocities in there as well,and probably commenced in India as well.But did not British commenced an atrocity several times harsher??And who knew this better than the Bangalis,right??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

Yes buddies,it was a choice between staying under British rule and begging for independence for indefinite timeframe ,or strike when opportunity knocks your door.Bose chose later one,and yes,these plans were not made by Bose himself.Rather,it was work of a lifetime of this guy..

Rash_bihari_bose.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rash_Behari_Bose

Possibly greatest revolutionary India has seen,but there is very less "Chatter" about him,because this guy,single handedly formed a massive organization on which INA was formed.
I think initially he thought British could only be removed by force, could i be correct in this assessment?

Do you wanna know how the Indian ambassador,Vijayalakshmi Pandit, was humiliated by the American speaker of the house, Rayburn(who is supposed to be a legendary figure)???
Well this is what he said" Why don't you buy wheat from Pakistan which has wheat in surplus? The only reason you don't is because Hindu India wants to do down Muslim Pakistan," When she told him that India had "more Muslims than Muslim Pakistan.", then this what he had to say "Oh, you have Muslims in India! Honey, why didn't you say so earlier?"
Didn't know. That's harsh.
 
.
Didn't know. That's harsh
Indeed.
There's more to this story.
What you just read was the conversation which happened 2 years after Nehru had pleaded for wheat.
India had lost its patience and declared that it would prefer wheat as loan instead of food aid, and that's when American nerves soothed.
Americans finally sent their wheat to India but India, for obvious reasons, wasn't too happy with the delay.
A smaller shipment from USSR got a bigger applause and that got Americans sulking.
Lol
History!!!
Source: B.K. Nehru, then minister for economic affairs at the Indian embassy in Washington.
 
.
Some counter questions...
  1. Don't you think he played the role he played to help India in a larger scheme of things?
  2. I was watching a documentary on him, Discovery Network(please note: i don't have much knowledge about him). I have a question, did he really die? i think he went missing on a plane, please correct me if i am wrong.
This image was also shown in the documentary...
netaji-VH1YY.gif


@Spectre ,@PARIKRAMA ,@scorpionx ....


Edit:
Aftermath
Conspiracy theories began immediately after his death, believing that Bose had not actually died but lived on instead.[1][75] These theorists also demanded the declassification of various top secret files in the Indian government about his death called the "Netaji files". Subsequent Indian government have declined declassification, arguing that it would cause "law and order problems" in India, along with a potential "spoiling" Indian relations with other nations.[75] In December 2014, the government of Narendra Modi continued to decline declassification, dropping the law and order rationale, but due to concerns over Indian international relations.[75]
Werent those declassified last year?

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/repor...nd-living-in-shalumari-ashram-in-1963-2217986

http://www.netajipapers.gov.in/

Not really a topic of my interest but still.
 
.
Lol
The same America which used food aid as a policy lever??
With every morsel India had to swallow a lot humiliation.
Now this happened not once but twice
1. Mid 1960's- After Indira Gandhi's visit Amwrica promised us 10million tons of wheat. But India was expected to keep its mouth shut on the Vietnam war like a Vasal state.
India like other countries did not support the Vietnam war. Even the UN sec.gen and Pope were against it but this is what the American president had to say "The Pope and the Secretary-General do not need our wheat." Also the Americans put food shipments on such a tight leash that India literally lived from ship to mouth.

2. 1949: Nehru visited America, he was promised help. But later America back tracked and tried to barter wheat for strategic material. Americans had more reasons to not send wheat to India, one being India's bonhomie with China and Korea and non-alignment.
Do you wanna know how the Indian ambassador,Vijayalakshmi Pandit, was humiliated by the American speaker of the house, Rayburn(who is supposed to be a legendary figure)???
Well this is what he said" Why don't you buy wheat from Pakistan which has wheat in surplus? The only reason you don't is because Hindu India wants to do down Muslim Pakistan," When she told him that India had "more Muslims than Muslim Pakistan.", then this what he had to say "Oh, you have Muslims in India! Honey, why didn't you say so earlier?"




:lol:

I'm sorry could not help but laugh at this.

We have different POV. You remember quotes, I remember my village ration shop opening with arrival of PL-480 ships and people making kilometer long queue in front of my house.

BTW when in mid 60's Indira Gandhi chose to go to Washington on an official visit, Prez. Johnson gave her a warm welcome and promised as many as 10 million tons of PL480 wheat. However we "chose" to severely criticize bombings of Hanoi, which then prompted response from them and then "India literally lived from ship to mouth". I have hear somewhere a quote about beggars and choosers. Applies here ?

The quote you have attributed to American President is correct and many in India wanted Indira Gandhi to say No to American wheat. Guess what happened ? She stayed silent as she understood that" "If food imports stop, these ladies and gentlemen won't suffer. Only the poor would starve." Why was this stance not taken at the Hanoi bombings ? Why wait till some more Indians die of starvation ?


We may look at events anyway we want to, and laugh at them. But some hard realities of past can not be wished/laughed away.
 
.
Is that all that you saw in those lines?
Did you even understand in what context it was said???
It doesn't matter if it was true or not but what matters is the way India was humiliated....atleast to me that's what matters.

It doesn't matter if it was true? Vijaylakshmi Pandit was no fool, how did she use a line that couldn't possibly make sense before 1971?
 
.
Probably a fictional quote, very inaccurate if not. India did not have more Muslims than Pakistan.

Cant vouch for authenticity of that quote. But may very well be accurate. She was very busy spending our money left and right in US. Probably lost count of Muslims... Read Reminiscences of the Nehru Age . M-O-Mathai has given some details about her.


I guess I should applaud Nehru for taking ideological stance which got us the moral high ground ? At least till 1960's ?
Does not matter that few people perished due to starvation in the meantime. I am sure our stance in Korea war and "bonhomie" with China turned out to be very fruitful for us..

Here is what Inder Malhotra has to say about those times..

"In 1949 the Indian food situation was as difficult as in the '60s and the foreign exchange position even worse. In November that year Nehru made his first visit to the US amidst a tremendous welcome. During his talks with Harry Truman he did mention the scarcity of food in India. Truman's response was positive. But there were bureaucratic obstructions, resistance in the US Congress, procedural delays and other difficulties, including the American attempt to barter wheat for strategic materials. There could therefore be no agreement even though there was a glut of wheat in America. India said that the US was "ungracious" and "stingy". What annoyed New Delhi the most was that the US had tried to use food aid as a "policy lever". For their part, American officials complained that the Indian government had not "followed up" on Nehru's vague request to Truman. "

As the member said in one of posts... History!!!
 
.
It doesn't matter if it was true? Vijaylakshmi Pandit was no fool, how did she use a line that couldn't possibly make sense before 1971?
Cant vouch for authenticity of that quote. But may very well be accurate. She was very busy spending our money left and right in US. Probably lost count of Muslims... Read Reminiscences of the Nehru Age . M-O-Mathai has given some details about her.


I guess I should applaud Nehru for taking ideological stance which got us the moral high ground ? At least till 1960's ?
Does not matter that few people perished due to starvation in the meantime. I am sure our stance in Korea war and "bonhomie" with China turned out to be very fruitful for us..

Here is what Inder Malhotra has to say about those times..

"In 1949 the Indian food situation was as difficult as in the '60s and the foreign exchange position even worse. In November that year Nehru made his first visit to the US amidst a tremendous welcome. During his talks with Harry Truman he did mention the scarcity of food in India. Truman's response was positive. But there were bureaucratic obstructions, resistance in the US Congress, procedural delays and other difficulties, including the American attempt to barter wheat for strategic materials. There could therefore be no agreement even though there was a glut of wheat in America. India said that the US was "ungracious" and "stingy". What annoyed New Delhi the most was that the US had tried to use food aid as a "policy lever". For their part, American officials complained that the Indian government had not "followed up" on Nehru's vague request to Truman. "

As the member said in one of posts... History!!!


Lol
Now I guess this debate has become an ego clash.
You can go ahead and assume whatever you wanna assume.
But I maintain my stance that if America was genuine in its approach,then it didn't have to humiliate India.


Ciao
 
.
On the matter of US food aid to India, article of interest:


How an American With a Knack for Math Saved India From Famine

Eric Roston eroston
May 19, 2015

Lester Brown has spent his career making shrewd projections about the food, water, and energy people need to survive, and pushing governments to respond. None of this math brings tears to his eyes except the time in 1965 he made some calculations and risked his career advising the president of the United States to save India from starving.

Brown's eyes misted over as the 81-year-old resource economist recalled the reaction of a U.S. agriculture attache in New Delhi to his discovery that famine was imminent in India that autumn. Few saw it coming, he warned the attache, and the U.S. would have to take extraordinary measures, transporting millions of tons of grain, to prevent mass suffering and death.

"If you're right, it's the biggest shipment ever," the man told Brown, then 31, in New Delhi. "But if you're wrong, you're going to be a statistical clerk the rest of your life."

Brown, a soft-spoken walking encyclopedia of global natural resources in sports jacket, slacks, and New Balance 785's, isn't prone to displays of emotion. Perhaps, responding to an interview question about his most meaningful accomplishment, he was moved by the audacity of the young man who told Lyndon Johnson to send a nation's worth of food halfway around the world — or just by the impossibly swift passage of half a century.

His newest book, The Great Transition, is a counterpunch to the typical environmental gloom and doom, telling of how market forces, often despite policy, are championing renewable energy over the dirtiest fossil fuels.

But the near-disaster in India, 50 years ago this fall, shows how a crumbling pyramid of natural resources can suddenly become an avalanche. Here is Brown’s account of what happened when science and policy met in a crisis, and actually talked to each other.

Clues to a nightmare
Brown, who grew up on a tomato farm in southern New Jersey, would go on to serve as a foreign policy aid to the secretary of agriculture, Orville Freeman. His breakthrough as a prognosticator came in 1963, when, as a staffer in the department, he wrote a report combining population and food production projections that U.S. News & World Report featured in a cover story. "The conclusion: in most of the world, creeping hunger looms," the magazine wrote.

488x-1.jpg

Lester Brown, founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute
Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
When the department received a request from the U.S. Agency for International Development in New Delhi, someone needed to fly over to evaluate a draft of India's five-year economic plan for agriculture. The country’s grain production had been failing, with the U.S. sending some of its surplus east to help.

Brown describes that 1965 trip to India as if he had walked into a nation-size jigsaw puzzle and started collecting pieces.

He’d begin his days reading newspapers from around the country, each of which seemed to carry isolated accounts of local droughts. That was one puzzle piece. The head of Esso (now ExxonMobil) in India, whom he met at a diplomatic reception, glowed about business: Indian farmers had doubled their diesel purchases over the previous year to power irrigation pumps running full throttle to water dying crops. One more piece of the puzzle. An embassy official Brown knew showed up at work unexpectedly one day when he had said he'd be in the north duck-hunting. The man had canceled his annual trip because the lake had run dry. Another piece.

The anecdotal evidence piled up and pointed to one conclusion. The country's farmers would fall dramatically short of the grain needed by Indians, then numbering 480 million. Famine was imminent.

From whatever data he could assemble, Brown projected a deficit of at least 10 million tons of grain below the Indian government’s official demand estimate of 95 million tons. Previously India had never imported more than 4 million tons a year. If Brown's calculations were correct, feeding the nation would require a huge mobilization.

Working against him, and the clock, was a villain common enough in action movies: bureaucracy. With critical days ticking by, diplomats would not dispatch the message to Washington until they received official permission to do so from their embassy superiors. At last they got it, and Brown's estimate found receptive ears back in Washington. President Lyndon Johnson would say that India’s food problem “ought to be attacked as if we were at war,” according to India and the United States: Estranged Democracies, 1941-1991, by Dennis Kux, who is now a senior policy scholar at the Wilson Center in Washington.

Johnson had an “intense, obsessive personal involvement” with India's over-reliance on food aid, particularly from the U.S. “The India food question went right to where he lived,” Walt Rostow, a National Security Council member, told Kux. “It was part of Johnson’s fundamental concern for human beings and his hatred of poverty.”

Yet, fighting an actual war in Vietnam, Johnson was probably also conscious that if bread prices started rising because of Indian food aid, it wouldn't help boost his popularity.

The president's gamble
488x-1.jpg

President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965.
Photographer: PhotoQuest/Getty Images
If mobilization was to happen, it needed to happen fast. It was October, the monsoon was nowhere to be seen, and inventories of grain were running low.

The president charged Freeman, and Freeman charged Brown, with drawing up a bilateral agreement that would cover both his short- and long-term concerns. Johnson wanted a policy to solve two problems: avoid the coming disaster, but also set India on a path to independent and stable agriculture. If necessary, he wanted to use the former as a tool to extract the latter.

The stakes, in politics and people's lives, were high. Johnson didn’t want to be seen as pressuring India to change its agriculture policies by withholding food aid, even though that's what he was doing. He instructed Freeman to negotiate in secret.

“If anybody finds out about this, your *** will be hanging from a yardarm,” Johnson told Freeman, according to Kux’s book.

India in 1965 was not yet 20 years old. In the 1950s and 1960s, the government prioritized industrialization over agricultural development. It capped food prices so that people in the cities needn't fear emptying their pockets to eat. But the same price cap kept farmers from earning enough to modernize their equipment and practices.

They needed the reverse, a price floor. They also needed the state to deregulate fertilizer production. Government-backed plants took a decade to build. Private companies could do it in a tenth of that time, Brown said.

Brown wrote those points into a three-page draft policy for the president, which Johnson immediately adopted and which would eventually be called the Treaty of Rome.

A 10,000-mile bucket brigade
The USDA tapped logistics specialists who had served in the Army Quartermaster Corps in World War II. They leased an Esso supertanker longer than a football field, the Manhattan, and anchored it in the Bay of Bengal to act as a floating harbor, because India's ports were insufficient to handle so vast a scale of imports.

Trains delivered U.S. Midwestern wheat to ships awaiting them in Galveston, Texas, and New Orleans. About two ships a day left for India, more than 600 in all, according to Brown’s 2013 memoir, Breaking New Ground. They docked to the Manhattan and emptied their grain into it. Thirty-foot boats called dhows then filled up with grain and carried it up the Ganges. About one-fifth of the U.S. wheat harvest in 1965 was shipped to South Asia. India produced only 77 million tons of grain, 18 million tons below the official demand projections.

"It was the largest movement of grain between two countries in history," Brown said. "We managed to get the grain in there and avoid the famine, but time became everything in that effort."

Diplomacy didn't stop when the first ships left. The new agreement, and Johnson himself, made clear that emergency food aid would be contingent on the Indian agricultural reforms price floors, instead of ceilings, and deregulation of fertilizer plants. To ensure the changes went through, the president personally managed the release of grain ships to India.

The reforms took hold, and the “green revolution” in Indian food production was under way. "India doubled its wheat harvest in seven years," Brown said.

488x-1.png

Brown left government in the late 1960s to begin a career in research and advocacy. He founded the Worldwatch Institute in 1974. A recipient of the MacArthur "genius grant" in 1987 for his research on "global economics and the natural systems that support it," Brown launched his current research group, the Earth Policy Institute.............

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...with-a-knack-for-math-saved-india-from-famine
 
.
There's more to this story.
What you just read was the conversation which happened 2 years after Nehru had pleaded for wheat.
India had lost its patience and declared that it would prefer wheat as loan instead of food aid, and that's when American nerves soothed.
Americans finally sent their wheat to India but India, for obvious reasons, wasn't too happy with the delay.
A smaller shipment from USSR got a bigger applause and that got Americans sulking.
Lol
History!!!
Americans were very cocky in that time of history, look at what they did with Japan in the name of revenge. And India wasn't really coming under it's alliance or control, thus the harsh reaction i guess.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom