01-24-2006, 01:04 PM
If Netaji's efforts to organize the Indian prisoners of war against the british were fundamentally evil then so was Gandhiji's Quit India movement. Because Quit India movement tried to hurt Britain when it was busy fighting evil Hitler. So would the same adjectives as foolish and stupid be applied to Gandhi also?
Why don't we go back little further in time. Whole of Indian independence movement and Hindu renaissance had been instrumental in weakening the British. The same British who were to fight the evil Hitler during the WWII. So does it mean whole Hindu renaissance and independence movement were evil too?
We need to get off this line.
Subhas Chandra Bose was a great patriot and he did whatever he could to liberate India. Due to his efforts British were weaker than what they would have after their victory in WWII. That added weakness hastened their departure from India. retrospect is always 20/20, but even in retrospect I can't find any fault with what Netaji did.
As far as he saw, the war could have gone either way. He was trying to position Indian interests so that even if the axis won, Indian interests would have some protection. One can always argue that it is foolish to hope for any decent deal from Hitler type of evil. But the deal would have been far worse if Hitler had won and there were no Indian party in his good books.
I am a great admirer of Sri Aurobindo and have read him avidly and received much help. He was a great yogi and had far deeper insights. His contention was that Congress should have gone fully in support mode for British during the war. He thought India would have had a much better deal if Congress hadn't launched Quit-India movement and put British in an awkward position when they were most vulnerable. But for those who are not blessed with the foresight that Sri Aurobindo had, that is still hindsight being 20/20.
Netaji did what he considered best for India with full devotion and lost his life doing it. He deserves Indians' full respect for that. Calling him names while acknowledging that he was doing everything in good faith and while being unaware of Hitler's evil deeds, is uncalled for. Even an earlier post mentioned that when he became suspicious of Hitler's motives he managed to take a submarine ride to Japan to try organizing Indian prisoners of war there. He was all out for India. Hitler and Japan were just incidentals for him. His small victories on India's eastern front had elevated the national mood unprecedentally. His efforts led to weakening of British faith in Indian recruits in the army too. So, all of it helped India gain freedom one way or another.
Why don't we go back little further in time. Whole of Indian independence movement and Hindu renaissance had been instrumental in weakening the British. The same British who were to fight the evil Hitler during the WWII. So does it mean whole Hindu renaissance and independence movement were evil too?
We need to get off this line.
Subhas Chandra Bose was a great patriot and he did whatever he could to liberate India. Due to his efforts British were weaker than what they would have after their victory in WWII. That added weakness hastened their departure from India. retrospect is always 20/20, but even in retrospect I can't find any fault with what Netaji did.
As far as he saw, the war could have gone either way. He was trying to position Indian interests so that even if the axis won, Indian interests would have some protection. One can always argue that it is foolish to hope for any decent deal from Hitler type of evil. But the deal would have been far worse if Hitler had won and there were no Indian party in his good books.
I am a great admirer of Sri Aurobindo and have read him avidly and received much help. He was a great yogi and had far deeper insights. His contention was that Congress should have gone fully in support mode for British during the war. He thought India would have had a much better deal if Congress hadn't launched Quit-India movement and put British in an awkward position when they were most vulnerable. But for those who are not blessed with the foresight that Sri Aurobindo had, that is still hindsight being 20/20.
Netaji did what he considered best for India with full devotion and lost his life doing it. He deserves Indians' full respect for that. Calling him names while acknowledging that he was doing everything in good faith and while being unaware of Hitler's evil deeds, is uncalled for. Even an earlier post mentioned that when he became suspicious of Hitler's motives he managed to take a submarine ride to Japan to try organizing Indian prisoners of war there. He was all out for India. Hitler and Japan were just incidentals for him. His small victories on India's eastern front had elevated the national mood unprecedentally. His efforts led to weakening of British faith in Indian recruits in the army too. So, all of it helped India gain freedom one way or another.