Netaji- Subhash Chandra Bose

[Guest]

Mitradena,
Netaji might not have known about Hitler, the genocidal maniac he supported. But we do. So I feel that it is wrong <i>for any of us</i> to support Netaji.

Also, it was not a choice between two evils - that is, between the Allied Forces which included Britain on one hand and the nazi Axis Powers on the other. We had a third option: to stay out of it (only as long as India was still ignorant of the genocide that was happening).

The Hindu Mahasabha chose to support Britain for different reasons. As Elst wrote in one of his articles, the HM wanted Hindu men to become trained as soldiers so that after the war they could be an intimidating and formidable force for the Empire to reckon with. Which is what actually happened. See http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/article...varkarnazi.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In these conditions, the foremost Hindu leader of the time, Swatantryaveer<b> Savarkar, refused to support the Axis and advocated a massive enlistment of Hindus in the British army.</b> The point is proven even by the very nadir of the Hindu Mahasabha’s history, viz. the murder of Mahatma Gandhi by its activist Nathuram Godse: of the seven conspirators, three had served in the British-Indian Army during the war. <b>Savarkar calculated that massive Hindu enlistment in the war effort would provide a winning combination in the war. And indeed, in the successful retreat from Dunkirk and in the British victories in North Africa and Iraq, Indian troops played a decisive role. It would earn the Hindus the gratitude of the British, or at least their respect. And if not that, it would instill the beginnings of fear in the minds of the British rulers: it would offer military training and experience to the Hindus, on a scale where the British could not hope to contain an eventual rebellion in the ranks. After the war, even without having to organize an army of their own, they would find themselves in a position where the British could not refuse them their independence.</b>

It is in this context that in 1940, Savarkar launched his slogan: “Hinduize all politics, militarize Hindudom.” This slogan is nowadays often quoted out of context to impute to Savarkar a fascist-like fascination with “war for war’s sake”. But it meant nothing of the kind. He wanted Hindus to get military experience for a specific purpose, viz. that after the war, England would find a vast number of combat-ready Indian troops before her. <b>More than a preparation for war, this combat-readiness was the right preparation for a peaceful showdown, in which the British would be made to understand that fighting was useless, that the Indian march to independence had become unstoppable.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You asked <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is wrong in getting help from one rogue to defeat another rogue?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is something wrong in this particular case, because the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" does not apply. Both were our enemies, and not just because Hitler was murdering Jews, Romany, homosexuals (although that should have been enough: the enemy of humanity is our enemy). If you were only considering India's independence, you should know that Hitler supported Britain's rule in India. In fact, it was one of the few things he actually agreed with Britain about ( http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/article...ndhihitler.html ):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the advice which Hitler had tendered to the British government concerning the suppression of India’s freedom movement. During a meeting with Lord Halifax in 1938, <b>Hitler had pledged his support to the preservation of the British empire and offered his formula for dealing with the Indian National Congress</b>: <b>kill</b> Gandhi, if that isn't enough then kill the other leaders too, if that isn't enough then two hundred more activists, and so on <b>until the Indian people will give up the hope of independence</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> So Netaji was doubly wrong. And in the end it amounted to nothing.
The "rogue" (Axis powers) you speak of was even worse than the one we already knew (Britain). But fortunately, nazism ended before we ever got a taste of it.

Actually, you'd already answered your question:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as Adharma is concerned, <b>Hitler was adharmic</b>, no doubt there. But <b>so was Britain</b>! Both were Christian fundamentalist nations. What is wrong in getting help from one rogue to defeat another rogue?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> In which case, why support either form of adharma? If aware of the genocide, we should have supported the Allieds. Otherwise we could have watched the two imperialist powers defeat each other and wake up out of their imperialism. Or of course, the other option is what the Hindu Mahasabha did.

Finally, I repeat the question, when we have heroes like Aurobindo, why give recognition to Bose when he was at best foolishly* supporting the Axis powers led by Hitler who was against India's autonomy from Britain?
*foolish only if he was ignorant about nazism's genocide. If he had known (after all, he must have met with some Axis representatives and couldn't have been completely in the dark throughout the war), then he was evil.

And this was Aurobindo's position (as per http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/article...varkarnazi.html ): <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sri Aurobindo was one of the most outspoken enemies of Hitler in India, supporting all-out involvement in the British war effort.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Aurobindo, who was so opposed to British rule in India, who was the earliest and foremost proponent of an Independent India - he decided that in the situation which presented itself, Hindu India needed to ally itself with Britain.
We have in Aurobindo and many others truly worthy heroes of Independence. All of whom acted in the Hindu spirit. Forget Netaji.