05-08-2006, 04:36 PM
Most of these muslim INA with a very few exceptions, joined the Pakistan movement
Many of them were active in Direct Action Day type actions
<b>
nope. even the INA battalions which fought in burma and nagaland had its fair share of muslims. some of netaji's top aides from beginning to end were muslims. even if 60% of the INA muslims joined the pakistan movement, the other 40% remain the only examples of muslims doing sometihng positive for india.</b>
I submit that Netaji was seriously lacking in judgment.
<b>i counter that he was the most versatile leader india ever produced and way ahead of his time.</b>
In 1939, there were many anti-hindu forces of Communism, Nazism, Islam and the British
<b>
yes. but of these 4 the ones who kept us from being independent and looted our wealth were the brits. the problem of lack of sovreignity/self governance over rides all others.</b>
Several previously anti-british militants such as savarkar and Aurobindo felt that the british were the lesser evil.
<b>
yet they never hesitated to fight against the brits. cos thats the order in which india's enemies needed to be tackled. first get the brits off our backs - then other problems, even if those problems were, at least in the opinion of Auribindo and Sarvarkar greater than the problem of brits.</b>
Remember Netaji initially look to the USSR
<b>netaji was spot on in insisting that india needed to take a socialistic approach in the first few years aftae independence. when a nation starts from scratch, the centre has to lead the way, before a capitalistic private sector emerges to share the burden of nation building. the way ussr had recovered from the tzarish regimes was indeed remarkable. Netaji would have been the Kemal Ataturk of india but for beevis and butthead.</b>
and later to Hitler
<b>thats not for any love he had for the wiermacht but for the hatred he had fo the poms, for which reaon he quit the IAS cadre (to join politics) despite being one of the toppers.</b>
Taking a long term view, remember the British left all their colonies by 1960 without any freedom movement
<b>the brits were significantly weakened by the WW2. none of thir colonies were half as lucrative as india was, and the brits had already managed to loot whatever there was to loot from most of the countries. hell theyalmost managed to loot everything there was to loot from india as well (reducing our industrial output to less than 1% by 1900). besides all colonials knew that their games were up and soner or later they'd be kicked out. only france in vietnam waited to find out.
the brits didnt, not even in india - cos they knew that after the switch of the raj army to INA, after the naval mutiny, a hammering was not a question of "if" but "when". wisely they didnt wait to find out and left - but not before planting their chamcha nehru on the throne, as the last englishman ruler of india.</b>
After 1921, western women did not breed adequately , much lesser than their colonial subjects and this made it impossible for the west to hold onto their colonies without resorting to genocide on a very large scale
<b>breed or not, they were still powerful enough to have held on to their colonies. but for ww2, every colony would have been forced to get their independence in an all out war. not a single colony of any colonial power became free BEFORE the ww2.
</b>
Many of them were active in Direct Action Day type actions
<b>
nope. even the INA battalions which fought in burma and nagaland had its fair share of muslims. some of netaji's top aides from beginning to end were muslims. even if 60% of the INA muslims joined the pakistan movement, the other 40% remain the only examples of muslims doing sometihng positive for india.</b>
I submit that Netaji was seriously lacking in judgment.
<b>i counter that he was the most versatile leader india ever produced and way ahead of his time.</b>
In 1939, there were many anti-hindu forces of Communism, Nazism, Islam and the British
<b>
yes. but of these 4 the ones who kept us from being independent and looted our wealth were the brits. the problem of lack of sovreignity/self governance over rides all others.</b>
Several previously anti-british militants such as savarkar and Aurobindo felt that the british were the lesser evil.
<b>
yet they never hesitated to fight against the brits. cos thats the order in which india's enemies needed to be tackled. first get the brits off our backs - then other problems, even if those problems were, at least in the opinion of Auribindo and Sarvarkar greater than the problem of brits.</b>
Remember Netaji initially look to the USSR
<b>netaji was spot on in insisting that india needed to take a socialistic approach in the first few years aftae independence. when a nation starts from scratch, the centre has to lead the way, before a capitalistic private sector emerges to share the burden of nation building. the way ussr had recovered from the tzarish regimes was indeed remarkable. Netaji would have been the Kemal Ataturk of india but for beevis and butthead.</b>
and later to Hitler
<b>thats not for any love he had for the wiermacht but for the hatred he had fo the poms, for which reaon he quit the IAS cadre (to join politics) despite being one of the toppers.</b>
Taking a long term view, remember the British left all their colonies by 1960 without any freedom movement
<b>the brits were significantly weakened by the WW2. none of thir colonies were half as lucrative as india was, and the brits had already managed to loot whatever there was to loot from most of the countries. hell theyalmost managed to loot everything there was to loot from india as well (reducing our industrial output to less than 1% by 1900). besides all colonials knew that their games were up and soner or later they'd be kicked out. only france in vietnam waited to find out.
the brits didnt, not even in india - cos they knew that after the switch of the raj army to INA, after the naval mutiny, a hammering was not a question of "if" but "when". wisely they didnt wait to find out and left - but not before planting their chamcha nehru on the throne, as the last englishman ruler of india.</b>
After 1921, western women did not breed adequately , much lesser than their colonial subjects and this made it impossible for the west to hold onto their colonies without resorting to genocide on a very large scale
<b>breed or not, they were still powerful enough to have held on to their colonies. but for ww2, every colony would have been forced to get their independence in an all out war. not a single colony of any colonial power became free BEFORE the ww2.
</b>