You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: India

    The strategy of Subhas Chandra Bose for liberating India was wise or not?

    This question is lingering in my mind for the past few weeks. Gandhiji and Subhas Chandra Bose had two things in common. Both are great patriots of the country and the goal for both of them was the liberation of India from the British rule. The paths chosen by them are diametrically opposite. Gandhiji chose the path of non-violence and Bose was not in favor of it. Bose strongly believed that force is the only way to throw Britishers out.

    Subhas Chandra Bose wanted to take advantage of the World War-II to fight the British. He believed that enemies enemy is a friend. Bose wanted to enlist the support of Hitler's army along with Azaad Hind Fauz. With great difficulty he reached Berlin. It took him one year to meet Hitler. Germany at that time was engaged in the war on other fronts. Hitler expressed his sympathy and inability to help him. Bose then went to Japan to enlist their support. Japan agreed to fight the British along with Azaad Hind Fauz. They were successful in the beginning and were later conclusively defeated. This shattered the hopes of Bose.

    Now the question is whether Subhas Chandra Bose was wise enough to try and enlist the support of Nazi army and then The Japanese army? Looking at the history everyone knows the genocide caused by the Nazi army in WW-II. They killed six million Jews and twenty million Russians. Apart from this, the Germans had their eye on India. Coming to the Japanese they killed millions of people while coming to fight the British. They raped, killed thousands of women and children. Many women were kidnapped and imprisoned to serve as comfort women for the Japanese army. Had the Japanese or Germans succeeded in liberating India would they have left or stayed back to rule India? I shudder to think of the eventuality of India being ruled by such countries. I salute the freedom fighters who liberated India from British without violence and without help from outsiders. What is your say in this regard? While responding go through the content and post your comments.
  • #609279
    Both of them worked diagonally opposite way. their schools are different. Their thoughts are different their approaches are different. Subhas Chandra Bose tried on his way to fight it out. Whatever may be the reason he was not successful. Even today I feel the support he got from other freedom fighters is seldom. No big man supported by him. But he has done well. Gandhi worked in a different way. he was able to get support from many. But the way Britishers has given us the freedom is never as per our wish. They are successful in dividing India and by that act, India will suffer decades together. So I don't really understand we got the freedom we wanted or they have given the freedom whatever they wanted to give. Anyway, we should appreciateMahatma Gandhi for his sacrifice for getting India freedom.
    always confident

  • #609280
    It is a very good thread on which detailed discussion is required. Mohandas Gandhi and his sidekick's attitude towards Netaji Subhas when he was democratically elected as Congress President in consecutive years, is well-documented. Only due to such attitude, he disassociated himself from Congress and later started armed struggle for which Rashbehari Basu, another great revolutionary, and Mohan Singh prepared the background of INA. The details can not be discussed in limited space. However, the enmity of one of the sidekicks of Mohandas Gandhi, who later became the first Prime Minister, continued till the time of his death in 1964. Even his daughter had been following the same trend. As a result, Netaji's wife Emilie Shenkel Basu never visited India. Netaji's daughter, Anita Basu Paff visited India much much later due to this attitude of Congressmen.

    "Now the question is whether Subhas Chandra Bose was wise enough to try and enlist the support of Nazi army and then The Japanese army? Looking at the history everyone knows the genocide caused by the Nazi army in WW-II. They killed six million Jews and twenty million Russians. ''-Netaji never supported the policy of Hitler and he directly mentioned it on his face. But what about Stalin? How many Russians did Stalin kill? Much more than Hitler's tally! Even then, the first Prime Minister never hesitated to have good relationship with Stalin.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #609284
    Gandhi and Subash Chandra Bose are diametrically opposite leaders but had huge respect for each other. Gandhi's popularity as a political leader was on wane ever since Chauri chaura incident 1922 and his leadership was symbolic rather than real. Gandhi was not able to protect revolutionary in leaders RTC 1932 which led to his further downfall. But fortunately for Gandhi he had a respectful support base like Pattabi sitaramaiya, Patel, Rajendra Prasad. These leaders had strong roots in congress but looked to Gandhi for symbolism. The next leader of great stature was the Nehru family and their supporters like Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad. They controlled congress by being heavily influential in funding and bought in capitalists of the country to fund congress. The next string of leaders were the left with Subash Chandra Bose as their head. They had stein workers support and youth of the country. So congress was represented of farmers by Gandhian leaders, Capitalists by Nehru family and Labor and youth wing by Bose. Indian capitalists at that time supported left for obvious reasons. Now in 1938 congress general election was won by Bose. Technically congress was under the command of president. But in congress there is a committee called CWC. Now this CWC was responsible for executive functions of congress and it was dominated by Gandhian leaders. Bose couldn't implement his reform due to this. In 1939 he resigned and started his own path.
    In this circumstance gandhi was right in supporting Britain in 2nd WW morally( in actuality congress never supported Britain).
    In ww 2 no side is morally right. Each side killed millions and war of attrition was favoured. So there is no argument in supporting this side or other. It is like the winners version of events became true. If hitler had won he would have changed the narrative and we would have now studied in our history books that fascism is the best policy as it promotes nationhood etc. And democracy is a mad policy and it is a situation of muscles power and money.
    So Bose and Gandhi were product of their situations and nothing more. If congress would have followed Bose then Gandhi would have been left alone and he would have pursued a different strategy and we would have discussed agains the same. But the matter of fact is Britain couldn't drain any further and its bureaucracy costs were increasing. Britain didn't have the force for its colonies, it needed security personnel for its domestic and no more it had any to mobilise further. So the only way is to go back. As Britain was democratic there were cries for call back of soldiers from the parliament.
    But in Germany case India would have been under its rule as it was a single party rule. So it is better Britain won the war and that is all.
    By this I am not demeaning any sacrifice. It is Basically because of them Britain left. If there were peace everywhere and no need for police Britishers would have stayed. So basically freedom fighters are main reason, in that violence based freedom fighters gave more pressure for additional forces and when RIN itself rebelled it nailed the last coffin. So Gandhi decision was right and Bose method to follow the decision was right.

  • #609286
    ''Gandhi and Subash Chandra Bose are diametrically opposite leaders..."-This is nothing but over-simplification. During his first 15 years of political life, Subhas had been a follower of Gandhi. Only after the terrible and megalomaniac attitude of Gandhi towards Subhas, he was forced to leave Congress and ultimately left India for armed struggle against the British.
    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #609304
    @Partha Kansabanik :

    Your response disappointed me. The point raised here is whether Subhas Chandra Bose was wise in soliciting the help of Germans and Japanese at that point in time. Instead of responding to that question, you are bringing irrelevant points. Where is the necessity of bringing the names of Gandhiji, Nehru, Mrs. Bose, Anita Bose and Stalin?

    It is obvious that you hate Gandhiji, Nehru and for that matter the entire Congress party. You take every opportunity to bring their names into the discussion whether relevant or not and make derogatory remarks. I just cannot understand how a person can develop such a deep hatred towards some persons with whom he never had any contact.

    Let us be focused on the content of the thread and continue to have a meaningful discussion.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #609305
    Mr. KVRR: I I don't think my response is irrelevant. If Netaji was wrong in seeking help from Germans and Japanese to oust the British from India, Nehru was also equally wrong to have friendly relation with Stalin, who killed much more people in his own country on the guise of ideology.

    So far as my so-called 'hatred' against Gandhi or Nehru is concerned, if I give my explanation about my views (not hatred) on these two leaders, you will again term it 'irrelevant' to this thread.

    So coming back to the issue raised in this thread, I feel that Netaji's aim and objective was to oust the British from Indian sub-continent. He tried to do it by any means. So, I think his action was appropriate at that point of time.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #609323
    Nehru as Prime Minister of India maintained a cordial relationship with the USSR. He did not maintain a personal relationship with Stalin. All the countries in the world maintain such relations with each other. Nehru did not seek military help from them. The intention of Bose may be good but seeking the help of other countries army at that point in time was not good knowing fully well their barbaric nature. By seeking military help from Germany and Japan, Subhas Chandra Bose brought our country to a very dangerous situation. Luckily for our country, the attempt of Japanese army and INA to defeat British had failed.

    you are always welcome to express your views about Gandhi or Nehru at an appropriate forum thread. Coming to Netaji's aim to achieve his objective by any means, I personally feel means are as important or even more important than achieving the objective.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #609324
    I simply don't agree to your view. Netaji only took logistic support from Germany and Japan. The soldiers were from INA. In fact, Netaji himself clarified this in many interviews. His INA colleagues also said so (Shahnawaz Khan, Abid Hussein, Lakshmi Saigal, etc.). In fact INA entered into India in Manipur from Burma. INA also reached Andaman & Nicobar. Not even a single foreign soldier was there in the troop (only INA soldiers).

    I am sorry to say that you have fallen prey to the vicious but subtle propaganda of anti-Netaji group of Congressmen and Communists.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #609328
    @Partha :

    You are an avid reader of history. I want you to check the facts and respond.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #609471
    #609324 :
    History is something that has already happened. It cannot be changed. Historical events remain the same whether we accept or not. Your facts are absolutely wrong. The INA collaborated with Japanese in Ha-Go and U Go offensives in Burma and Manipur region.The Andaman and Nicobar islands were captured by the Japanese on 23-03-1942. The political control of the islands was passed onto the Azad Hind Government on 29-12-1943 by the Japanese.It was not INA which captured the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #609497
    Subash Chandra Bose was a great patriot as well as a warrior. He has a different method than Gandhi as he believed that Britishers will not be leaving this country so easily and best thing was to defeat the enemy with army action. His intentions were as good as that of Gandhi but unfortunately he could not mobilize the necessary means to that extent.

    Gandhiji on the other hand could motivate the whole of Indian population to his line of thinking and was completely successful in his objective. The ultimate aim of making India free from the clutches of England was achieved.

    Knowledge is power.

  • #609499
    'There is always more than one way to skin a cat'. Both Mahatma Gandhi and Subhas Chandra Bose had the same aim (to gain Independence) but those chose different ways and means. History is full on instances wherein Man has fought to gain Independence, Wealth, and Power. In this process, military option has often been chosen over diplomacy and dialogue.

    Gandhiji chose the path of non-violence and Subhas Chandra Bose chose a military option. Playing the Devil's advocate here, if Subhas Chandra Bose was successful, then it would have been an entirely different history lesson that we would have read at school. Historians would be praising his approach too.

  • Sign In to post your comments