<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->and i'd prefer to read the koran in a free india over reading the gita or anything else in a india under poms.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do you say so?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->how the hell does gita and other theology factor into a discussion about a war of independence. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It does factor in because Indian Civilization is inseparable from Sanatana Dharma, from its inception Indian nationalism went back to Sanatan Dharma and our scriptures for inspiration, during the 1857 revolt sadhus like Swami Omanand went around and in their appeals they also mentioned religion, the Bengal revolutionaries (in the early stages) used to ask Kali for blessings and used to invoke the Gita, Madhan Lal Dhingra for example had the Gita in his hands before he was executed, the following illustrates my point:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Organisationally, the Dhaka Anushilan Samiti was an independent body under the supreme direction of Pulin Bihari Das. But it was connected with Pramathanath Mitra's Calcutta Anushilan Samiti where Das used to stay during his visits to Calcutta.
Appeal to Hindu spirituality and religion provided dynamic power to the Samiti. The profoundly Hindu character of its inspiration is evident in the reading list of its members, which was predominantly Hindu mythology. Among the books recommended for its members, the works of Swami Vivekananda were given the first place. The Gita was employed at the time of administering the vows when one was admitted to the fold of the Anushilan Samiti and this was a technical reason why a Muslim could not be admitted.
http://search.com.bd/banglapedia/Content/HT/A_0270.HTM<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Lokmanya Tilak (1856-1920)Â was known as the âFather of Indian Unrestâ. He was the very first person to demand full independence from Britain in the Congress sessions. He explained: "The most practical teaching of the Gita, and one for which it is of abiding interest and value to the men of the world with whom life is a series of struggles, is not to give way to any morbid sentimentality when duty demands sternness and the boldness to face terrible things." And âIt is my firm conviction that it is of utmost importance that every man, woman and child of India understands the message of the Gita.â He write a commentary on the Gita called âGita Rahasyaâ, which even today is one of the best books written on the Gita.
Bankim Chandra Chatterji (1858-1930) â Bankim Chandra was not a freedom fighter, but through his writings he sparked of an intense freedom struggle and breathed a new passion and life into the nation, particularly his native region of Bengal, which became kindled with religious, nationalistic and artistic fervour after being infused with the powerful visions contained in his writings. Virtually all of you will have heard the famous slogan âVande Mataramâ (I bow to the Mother). The poem and song by this name was first written by him in his famous novel âAnandamathâ. The Anandamath story is set in 18th century India, when a group of warrior sannyasis mounted a guerilla war against Muslim rule (based on a true historical attempt by sannyasis to do precisely this). It was a riveting story line with amazing characters and meaningful dialogues. Yet more importantly, hundreds of thousands of Indians took the story as a metaphor for their own present day situation, understanding it as a call to arms to drive the new tyrants (the British) away from the sacred soil. âVande Mararamâ became the slogan of the freedom struggle. Bankim Chandra drew deep inspiration from the Gita. He wrote a commentary on the Gita, which was only three quarters complete when he died, and an inspiring life sketch of Krishna based on historical and literary research, titled Sri Krishna Charitra.
Mahatma Gandhiâs (1869-1948)Â role in the freedom movement of India needs no explanation. His very name invokes images of Indiaâs Independence. He was a kshatriya who fought his battle with unique weapons. He drew great inspiration and courage from the Gita, âI find a solace in the Bhagavad-Gita that I miss even in the Sermon on the Mount [Gandhi felt that the Sermon was the most deep and meaningful dialogue in the Christian teachings]. When disappointment stares me in the face and all alone I see not one ray of light, I go back to the Bhagavad-Gita. I find a verse here and a verse there , and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming tragedies -- and my life has been full of external tragedies -- and if they have left no visible or indelible scar on me, I owe it all to the teaching of Bhagavad-Gita.
Sri Aurobindo Ghose (1872-1950) was one of the greatest revolutionaries in the early phase of the Indian freedom struggle, and is recognised throughout the world as a great mystic, intellectual and visionary. He felt that Indiaâs weakness had been due to a weak-minded and cowardly group of leaders, who did not have the nerves to face hardship and take risks for the better of the nation. He emphasised the necessity of the Gita in uplifting India as well as liberating humanity from the bondage of our lower nature into the bliss of divinity. He wrote a beautiful selection of essays on the Gita and its secrets. âA certain class of minds shrink from aggressiveness as if it were a sin. It is an error, we repeat, to think that spirituality is a thing divorced from life.... It is an error to think that the heights of religion are above the struggles of this world. The recurrent cry of Sri Krishna to Arjuna insists on the struggle; "Fight and overthrow thy opponents!", "Remember me and fight!", "Give up all thy works to me with a heart full of spirituality, and free from craving, free from selfish claims, fight! Let the fever of thy soul pass from thee."
Damodarpanth Chapekar (executed 1898) - In the late 1890âs, in the Maharashtra province of India, there was a devastating plague, which killed many people. The British colonial government was very unhelpful about relief for the suffering people. Indeed, the British agricultural policies (enforcing production of cotton rather than traditional food crops) seriously compounded the problem. The celebrations of Queen Victoriaâs Golden Jubilee (50 yearâs of rule) were held in the Poona city of Maharashtra. The celebration was carried out with such immense pomp and splendour, in a region where innumerable people were suffering. This sent a wave of resentment amongst the Indian populace, against the colonial government. It was at this time that the erstwhile limited freedom struggle against the British gained support and momentum. As a mark of the peopleâs resentment against the British administration, an important incident occurred which was to breath a hitherto unknown fire into the revolutionary freedom movement. Outraged by the countless miseries of the famine and plague stricken masses and the excesses committed by the British soldiers, Damodarpant Chapekar shot dead the British plague commissioner, Mr Rand, and the British officer Mr Ayerst on June 22, 1897, in Poona (the city which has been a cradle of heroes throughout history). He was later betrayed by two friends, and was sentenced to death. He embraced the gallows with the Bhagavad Gita in his hands on April 18th 1898.
Madanlal Dhingra (1887-1909) was the assassin of Sir Cyrzon Wyllie, in London in 1909. He was executed in London on 17 August 1909. Bhagat Singh acknowledged Dhingra as his predecessor. A colourful and brave personality throughout his short life, he died with the Gita in his hands.
Khudiram Bose (1889-1906) was a young revolutionary from Bengal. He was brought up with a deep knowledge of the Hindu heritage, and he was constantly pained that a country which had once achieved so much was now bankrupt and under foreign yoke. He was arrested and hung at the young age of 17 for his part in an attack on British targets. He had the words âVande Mataramâ on his lips and the Bhagavad Gita in his hands when he died.
Hemu Kalani (1923-1943) was a freedom fighter from Sindh, who participated in all aspects of the freedom struggle, from the boycott of British goods, to Gandhiâs campaigns and revolutionary activities. He was caught in a plot to steal British munitions and supply it to Indians. While marching to the gallows, he consoled his distressed mother by quoting verses from the Gita regarding the indestructibility of soul. This shows the bravery and coolness that the Gita can inspire, even in the face of calamity. He said as he was about to be executed that he would like to be born again to finish the job of liberating India. Little did the young revolutionary know that India was to become free within a few years after his death. He was hung on 21st January 1943.
http://groups.msn.com/hindu-history/rawarc...487690063540078<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Gita and the Nationalists
The Gitaâs stress on true manhood and âdesireless dutyâ or nishkama karma was to be Sri Aurobindoâs prime inspiration during his revolutionary days. It is little known that Sri Aurobindo was, in 1906, the first Indian to openly call for complete independence from the British Empire,[6] at a time when the Congress Moderates were busy praising the âprovidential characterâ of British rule in India and swearing their âunswerving allegiance to the British crown.â Through the pages of the English daily Bande Mataram and in his speeches, Sri Aurobindo exhorted his countrymen to find in themselves the strength to stand up to their colonial masters. He soon became the leader in Bengal of those whom the Moderates contemptuously called the âExtremists.â In April 1908, a few days before his arrest in the Alipore Bomb Case, he wrote :
A certain class of minds shrink from aggressiveness as if it were a sin. Their temperament forbids them to feel the delight of battle and they look on what they cannot understand as something monstrous and sinful. âHeal hate by love, drive out injustice by justice, slay sin by righteousnessâ is their cry. Love is a sacred name, but it is easier to speak of love than to love.... The Gita is the best answer to those who shrink from battle as a sin and aggression as a lowering of morality.[7]
Clearly, Sri Aurobindo anticipated here the rise of non-violence as a creed ; but he took Sri Krishnaâs admonition of Arjuna literally and, like Swami Vivekananda, put his faith in strength, not in ahimsa. Shortly after his release from jail the following year, Sri Aurobindo developed this point in a speech on the Gita at Khulna :
The virtue of the Brahmin is a great virtue : You shall not kill. This is what Ahimsa means. [But] if the virtue of Ahimsa comes to the Kshatriya, if you say âI will not kill,â there is no one to protect the country. The happiness of the people will be broken down. Injustice and lawlessness will reign. The virtue becomes a source of misery, and you become instrumental in bringing misery and conflict to the people.[8]
The teaching of the Gita, he said in his concluding words, âmeans perfection of action. It makes man great. It gives him the utter strength, the utter bliss which is the goal of life in the world.â[9]
Indeed, the revolutionaries in Bengal and Maharashtra drew such inspiration from the Gita that the colonial authorities came to regard it as a âgospel of terrorism,â and it became one of the most sought-after pieces of evidence in police raids ; it is also one of the chief influences cited in the 1918 Rowlatt Sedition Committee Report, side by side with Swami Vivekanandaâs works.[10] Sri Aurobindo himself is said to have given initiation to several revolutionaries by making them swear on the Gita that they would do everything to liberate India from the foreign yoke..[11] But in the columns of the Karmayogin, he took objection to this summary characterization of the Gita :
We strongly protest against the brand of suspicion that has been sought to be placed in many quarters on the teaching and possession of the Gitaâour chief national heritage, our hope for the future, our great force for the purification of the moral weaknesses that stain and hamper our people..[12]
http://micheldanino.voiceofdharma.com/gitalecture.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(A disciple There is a marked difference between the national workers of the Swadeshi period and those at the present time. The former workers drew their inspiration from the Gita; the present workers have discarded the Gita, they laugh at spirituality, they draw their inspiration from the Bolshevists or similar other European movements.
    That is the reason why they have degenerated and cannot do anything. They only take the forms adopted in the previous movement without realizing the changed circumstances and fresh requirements of the time. http://voiceofdharma.org/books/ir/IR_part3.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Jan 25 2006, 08:59 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Jan 25 2006, 08:59 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->ben ami
what is your opinion about bose's alleged leftism, or is this just another nehruvian lie? What was the relationship between Savarkar and Bose?
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.indialife.com/History/freedom...shbose.htm
One of Subhas' major contributions was setting up of a National Planning Committee, for the development of an economic program running parallel to the national movement. Differences between Gandhiji and Subhas led to a crisis when Gandhiji opposed Subhas' idea that the Bengal Government (a coalition between the Krishak Praja Party & Muslim League) be ousted and the Congress take charge in coalition with the Krishak party. <b>The idea was criticized by Gandhiji and Nehru, which resulted in the strengthening of the Muslim League in Bengal and ultimately partition of India. It is obvious today that had Subhas been able to carry out his plans, Bengal would be a different entity on the atlas.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]45523[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
thats right.
bose was not a right wing extremist, but a left winger (in this he had nehru for company - both were socialist) who took to extremist/millitary tactics, cos the time was ripe for it and india needed freedom asap.
as to the quotation - i didnt know about that.
i know little of his "political career" - except that he chucked a plum IAS posting after finishing as one of the toppers - cos he didnt want to serve the poms and that he went on to head the annual meetings of the INC twice, despite gandhi's full opposition. but i am not surprised to learn that he had contributed significantly as a political leader too, before becomming a millitary leader.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jan 25 2006, 09:08 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jan 25 2006, 09:08 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->and i'd prefer to read the koran in a free india over reading the gita or anything else in a india under poms.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do you say so?
i meant to say that i'd prefer an indepedent india over anything.
freedom of indians>>>>>>>>>> hinduism, anyday.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->how the hell does gita and other theology factor into a discussion about a war of independence. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It does factor in because Indian Civilization is inseparable from Sanatana Dharma, from its inception Indian nationalism went back to Sanatan Dharma and our scriptures for inspiration, during the 1857 revolt sadhus like Swami Omanand went around and in their appeals they also mentioned religion, the Bengal revolutionaries (in the early stages) used to ask Kali for blessings and used to invoke the Gita, Madhan Lal Dhingra for example had the Gita in his hands before he was executed, the following illustrates my point:
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no what i meant to say was this -
say india under netaji founght a DBP style war with the poms and we had our bloody freedom.
would you say that netaji is still not be considered a hero, cos from a theological stand point he is a murderer??
i think one should judge patriots from a reference frame thats applicable to patriots and nationalists. not from a religious or business or any other stand point.
thats like saying laloo yadav's contribution to the nation is greater than for ex, jaiprakash narain, cos jaiprakesh narain used to drink and eat beef white laloo was a veggie non-alcoholic. now thats not a yardstick i'd apply to political leaders, nevermind dharma. but yes if there was a sadhu who drank scotch then i wouldnt think much of him.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->bose was not a right wing extremist, but a left winger (in this he had nehru for company - both were socialist) who took to extremist/millitary tactics, cos the time was ripe for it and india needed freedom asap.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
it was fashion to be a "socialist" in those days, which was basically same as being for rapid industrialization . any two bit could understand the need for factories, for infrastructure, as against Gandhi's village industry fantasy.. my question is what was bose's understanding of the muslim problem. was he a leftist with regard to the muslim problem. savarkar's militarization was aimed at both muslims and british..
Despite opposition from the Congress brass, Subhas was a favorite amongst the majority as he was re-elected for a second term in March 1939. Gandhiji considered Subhas's victory as his personal defeat and went on a fast to rally the members of the Working Committee to resign. Subhas resigned and Dr. Rajendra Prasad assumed the Presidency of the Congress.
LMFAO ... what a begger... damn...how come indians are so happy to brand a bad loser like him as the father of the nation..... its bad enough that india has been gandhificated beyond repair... last thing we need is to call a wimp the father of a nation thats 10,000 year old and is today one of the world's few living civilizations.
<!--QuoteBegin-ben_ami+Jan 25 2006, 09:43 AM-->QUOTE(ben_ami @ Jan 25 2006, 09:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->from the same page that DHU alluded to -
Despite opposition from the Congress brass, Subhas was a favorite amongst the majority as he was re-elected for a second term in March 1939. Gandhiji considered Subhas's victory as his personal defeat and went on a fast to rally the members of the Working Committee to resign. Subhas resigned and Dr. Rajendra Prasad assumed the Presidency of the Congress.
LMFAO ... what a begger... damn...how come indians are so happy to brand a bad loser like him as the father of the nation..... its bad enough that india has been gandhificated beyond repair... last thing we need is to call a wimp the father of a nation thats 1000 year old and is today one of the world's few living civilizations.
[right][snapback]45532[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All*h ke naam pe baba........
No wonder we do not win a single Gold in the Olympics.
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Jan 25 2006, 09:38 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Jan 25 2006, 09:38 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->bose was not a right wing extremist, but a left winger (in this he had nehru for company - both were socialist) who took to extremist/millitary tactics, cos the time was ripe for it and india needed freedom asap.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
it was fashion to be a "socialist" in those days, which was basically same as being for rapid industrialization . any two bit could understand the need for factories, for infrastructure, as against Gandhi's village industry fantasy.. my question is what was bose's understanding of the muslim problem. was he a leftist with regard to the muslim problem. savarkar's militarization was aimed at both muslims and british..
[right][snapback]45530[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes right. a sort of fashion - all over the world, including amongst labour circles of capitalistic/colonial countries.
and yes... the real reason was the chance of rapid grassroot level-up industrialisation that it afforded. by 1960, ussr had more villaged electrified than usa. socialism is good up to a point, especially when a country is starting from scratch.
you point out correctly about the need for industrialisation. a stand netaji is seldom given credit for - yet only nehru, despite his million short commings was the only other dude who believed in dams and factories.
the other reason why netaji had a soft corner for socialism - was control. he liked the idea of him being in total control of things if only for a little time window.
as for muslims - bose put independence above everything. one of his right hand men was muslim when he went in a jerry submarine to meet the japs. i do not know if he was for or anti muslim, but know for a fact that he had enough charisma to make even the muslims join his azad hind fauz. the numbers prove it.
he wasnt a marxist kind of leftist - ie. muslim genocide of hindus didnt happen - type, if thats what you are asking. but as i said, he was not much into religion like say a vivekananda, not much into socio-religious issues like a sarvarkjar or aurobindo - just had a one point agenda.
as for a question you asked me earlier - what was netaji's relation with sarvarkar.
so far i know they come from different sources - sarvarkar's stand derived from a hindu (both hindu ethnicity and hindu religion) pov and then he started believing in extremism against poms.
netaji's stand was political, first like the rest of inc and then laced with socialistic ideals ands objectives - after which he also like sarvarkar started believing in millitary action against the poms.
<!--QuoteBegin-Aryawan+Jan 25 2006, 09:47 AM-->QUOTE(Aryawan @ Jan 25 2006, 09:47 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-ben_ami+Jan 25 2006, 09:43 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ben_ami @ Jan 25 2006, 09:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->from the same page that DHU alluded to -
Despite opposition from the Congress brass, Subhas was a favorite amongst the majority as he was re-elected for a second term in March 1939. Gandhiji considered Subhas's victory as his personal defeat and went on a fast to rally the members of the Working Committee to resign. Subhas resigned and Dr. Rajendra Prasad assumed the Presidency of the Congress.
LMFAO ... what a begger... damn...how come indians are so happy to brand a bad loser like him as the father of the nation..... its bad enough that india has been gandhificated beyond repair... last thing we need is to call a wimp the father of a nation thats 1000 year old and is today one of the world's few living civilizations.
[right][snapback]45532[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All*h ke naam pe baba........
No wonder we do not win a single Gold in the Olympics.
[right][snapback]45533[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes.. time we started teaching our athletes to go on fasts after failing to run fast enough..... we could be gifted a few medals and then the athlete would ofcourse be given the gandhi award for bravery by one of nehru's progeny.
Subhas Chandra Bose was born on January 23, 1897. His father was Rai Bahadur Janakinath Bose, a prominent lawyer of Cuttack, Orissa. His mother was Prabhavati Bose, a remarkable example of Indian womanhood. Later, the world came to know him as Netaji. After completing his early studies at the European Protestant Collegiate School in Cuttack, he came to Calcutta to study at Presidency College in 1913. Upon completing his graduation, he left India for England to appear at the Indian Civil Service Examination, but he was reluctant to work under the British Government. Thus he resigned and returned to India on the call of Chittaranjan Das.
Subhas Chandra Bose felt that young militant groups could be molded into a military arm of the freedom movement and used to further the cause. Gandhiji opposed this ideology because it directly conflicted with his policy of ahimsa (non-violence). The British Government in India perceived Subhas as a potential source of danger and had him arrested without any charge on October 25, 1924. He was sent to Alipore Jail, Calcutta and in January 25, 1925 transferred to Mandalay, Burma. He was released from Mandalay in May, 1927 due to his ill health. Upon return to Calcutta, Subhas was elected President of the Bengal Congress Committee on October 27, 1927.
Subhas was one of the few politicians who sought and worked towards Hindu-Muslim unity on the basis of respect of each community's rights. Subhas, being a man of ideals, believed in independence from the social evil of religious discord.
In January 1930 Subhas was arrested while leading a procession condemning imprisonment of revolutionaries. He was offered bail on condition that he signs a bond to refrain from all political activities, which he refused. As a result he was sentenced to a year's imprisonment.
On his release from jail, Subhas was sworn in as Mayor of the Calcutta Corporation. In 1931 the split between Gandhiji and Subhas crystallized. Although the two never saw eye to eye on their view of freedom and the movement itself, Subhas felt that Gandhiji had done a great disservice to the movement by agreeing to take part in the Second Round Table Conference. Subhas viewed freedom as an absolute necessity, unlike the freedom which Gandhiji was "negotiating" with the British. Subhas was arrested again while returning from Bombay to Calcutta, and imprisoned in several jails outside West Bengal in fear of an uprising. His health once again deteriorated and the medical facilities diagnosed him with tuberculosis. It was recommended that he be sent to Switzerland for treatment.
Realizing that his avenues abroad were greater with the restrictions of the British, Subhas set sail for Europe on February 23, 1933. Subhas stayed in various parts of Europe from March 1993 to March 1936 making contacts with Indian revolutionaries and European socialists supporting India's Struggle for Independence. Subhas met Mussolini in Italy and made Vienna his headquarters. Subhas was opposed to the racial theory of Nazism but appreciated its organizational strength and discipline. On March 27, 1936 he sailed for Bombay and but was escorted to jail immediately after disembarking.
After lying low for a year, he was able to work actively. He attended the All India Congress Committee Session in Calcutta, the first one he attended after a lapse of nearly six years. Time had healed the tensions between Subhas and Gandhiji, and Gandhiji supported Subhas in his efforts to become the President of the next Congress session, 1938. He went to England for a month in 1938 and rallied for the Indian freedom cause amongst Indian students and British labor leaders sympathetic toward India's cause. It was a bold move since he was constantly under British surveillance. Upon his return to India in February 1938, Subhas was elected President of the Indian National Congress. An excerpt from his Presidential address read, "I have no doubt in my mind that our chief national problems relating to the eradication of poverty, illiteracy and disease and the scientific production and distribution can be tackled only along socialistic lines... ." Subhas emphasized that political freedom alone would not be sufficient, as the ills of the British reign would continue to haunt post-Independent India. He stressed the need to solve linguistic and religious prejudices and to achieve a high literacy rate amongst Indians. Gandhiji found Subhas's ideologies far too leftist and strongly disagreed with Subhas's criticism of village industries and stress on competing with the rest of the world in the Industrial age. Opposition from Sardar Vallabhai Patel, lack of support from Gandhiji and Nehru's indecision marked Subhas's year as the President of the Congress. One of Subhas' major contributions was setting up of a National Planning Committee, for the development of an economic program running parallel to the national movement. Differences between Gandhiji and Subhas led to a crisis when Gandhiji opposed Subhas' idea that the Bengal Government (a coalition between the Krishak Praja Party & Muslim League) be ousted and the Congress take charge in coalition with the Krishak party. The idea was criticized by Gandhiji and Nehru, which resulted in the strengthening of the Muslim League in Bengal and ultimately partition of India. It is obvious today that had Subhas been able to carry out his plans, Bengal would be a different entity on the atlas.
Despite opposition from the Congress brass, Subhas was a favorite amongst the majority as he was re-elected for a second term in March 1939. Gandhiji considered Subhas's victory as his personal defeat and went on a fast to rally the members of the Working Committee to resign. Subhas resigned and Dr. Rajendra Prasad assumed the Presidency of the Congress.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->sush, but you are talking as if Netaji teamed up with hitler to kill the jews, and not to fight the english.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> I did not say that Netaji teamed up with H to kill the Jews, Romany and homosexuals. I said he shouldn't have teamed up with Hitler - another imperialist (and, unknown to others at the time, also a genocidal maniac).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->but apparently, <b>according to some</b>, one jewish life is worth a 1000 indian lives. so all this dont count. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> You could <i>not possibly</i> be implying me with this statement.
But you're wrong, it's supposed to be "according to <b>most</b>, one Christian or Muslim life is worth millions of Hindu lives."
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->their bit to ensure that the holocaust is considered the greatest crime of all time<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is <i>among</i> the greatest crimes of the 20th century. They're ensuring that it's remembered - fair enough with their tiny population size and considering what the nazis had done. Also, they keep bringing it to our attention since there are people who are denying that the holocaust ever took place (neo-nazis in the US mainly, but with links to universities and the government - surprise, surprise).
Other countries need to do their bit to make sure no one forgets the crimes committed against them: Under Mao 100 million Chinese died (many due to Mao's famine) and yet no American knows this, but the US knows to whine about the WTC.
When the Bangladesh genocide is mentioned (which is hardly ever) people say 3 million Bangladeshi <i>Muslims</i> were killed by Pakistanis. No, about 80% of them were Hindus, of the others there were considerable numbers of Buddhists also. Another media whitewash.
Having Christianised East Timor, no one focussed on the Christian-Muslim wars there and all eyes of the media was on the killing fields of Cambodia - even though Cambodia and East Timor had comparitive levels of casualties.
The US helped kill countless people in Central and South America, by supplying weapons and supporting terrorist/authoritarian regimes because it suited the US.
Europe indirectly caused the deaths of millions of African people and the wars they caused are still continuing.
The US army was killing and terribly mistreating the South Vietnamese who were supposed to be their allies - because the army was trained to think of all Vietnamese people as subhuman. The Vatican and the US gave support to the Catholic dictator of Vietnam to turn the Buddhist country into Christianity by force. Buddhist monks protested by setting fire to themselves. That Vietnamese dictator reminds me of Sonia in India.
The Turks genocided the Armenians. Regularly. The Iraqis and Turks did the same to the Kurds.
And oh, yes, the Romany killed by the nazis. They should actively remind people of that too.
That's just some of what happened last century. The list goes on and on. The holocaust was not the worst crime of all time, it might seem that way to Jewish people, but that might be because they're not familiar with other's histories.
No, the 2 worst crimes of all time would have to be the Christianity (which gave birth to its estranged child, Communism) and Islam.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->arjuns main duty at that time was to prevent the kuravas from winning.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, because the Kauravas were the cause of adharma. If they came to power, the country would be ruled by and the people would sink into adharma.
Arjuna can't be compared to Netaji, because the latter had sided with the greater adharma (Britain compared to Hitler). It's like Bhishma taking sides with Duryodhana (except that I like Duryodhana better than nazism or Britain).
No one is denying that the Brits were a great evil, but Hitler's plans for domination and lebensraum weren't restricted to distant Europe.
[quote]sush, but you are talking as if Netaji teamed up with hitler to kill the jews, and not to fight the english.[/quote] I did not say that Netaji teamed up with H to kill the Jews, Romany and homosexuals. I said he shouldn't have teamed up with Hitler - another imperialist (and, unknown to others at the time, also a genocidal maniac).
should or should not is decided by whats the need of the hour, and by the ends at hand. hitler was just a means to arm indians against the poms. netaji frankly could not care less if the muscle came from germans or gremlins.
[quote]but apparently, <b>according to some</b>, one jewish life is worth a 1000 indian lives. so all this dont count. [/quote] You could <i>not possibly</i> be implying me with this statement.
But you're wrong, it's supposed to be "according to <b>most</b>, one Christian or Muslim life is worth millions of Hindu lives."
well you certainly did put the holocaust above all the deaths caused to hindus by the poms. and even were appaled by the prospect of danger that indian jews (of which there are about 20000) faced, so what if indians continued to die under poms.
[quote]their bit to ensure that the holocaust is considered the greatest crime of all time[/quote] It is <i>among</i> the greatest crimes of the 20th century. They're ensuring that it's remembered - fair enough with their tiny population size and considering what the nazis had done. Also, they keep bringing it to our attention since there are people who are denying that the holocaust ever took place (neo-nazis in the US mainly, but with links to universities and the government - surprise, surprise).
yes and indians should do their bit to ensure that no one forgets their genocides and also honour people who put a stop to further hindu genocides in pom hands by making us independent. charity begins at home.
Other countries need to do their bit to make sure no one forgets the crimes committed against them: Under Mao 100 million Chinese died (many due to Mao's famine) and yet no American knows this, but the US knows to whine about the WTC.
When the Bangladesh genocide is mentioned (which is hardly ever) people say 3 million Bangladeshi <i>Muslims</i> were killed by Pakistanis. No, about 80% of them were Hindus, of the others there were considerable numbers of Buddhists also. Another media whitewash.
Having Christianised East Timor, no one focussed on the Christian-Muslim wars there and all eyes of the media was on the killing fields of Cambodia - even though Cambodia and East Timor had comparitive levels of casualties.
The US helped kill countless people in Central and South America, by supplying weapons and supporting terrorist/authoritarian regimes because it suited the US.
Europe indirectly caused the deaths of millions of African people and the wars they caused are still continuing.
The US army was killing and terribly mistreating the South Vietnamese who were supposed to be their allies - because the army was trained to think of all Vietnamese people as subhuman. The Vatican and the US gave support to the Catholic dictator of Vietnam to turn the Buddhist country into Christianity by force. Buddhist monks protested by setting fire to themselves. That Vietnamese dictator reminds me of Sonia in India.
i never tried to defend usa or brand them as good samaritans.
but then, i also didnt try to villify netaji (of all people!!) and gave credit where it was due.
The Turks genocided the Armenians. Regularly. The Iraqis and Turks did the same to the Kurds.
And oh, yes, the Romany killed by the nazis. They should actively remind people of that too.
That's just some of what happened last century. The list goes on and on. The holocaust was not the worst crime of all time, it might seem that way to Jewish people, but that might be because they're not familiar with other's histories.
No, the 2 worst crimes of all time would have to be the Christianity (which gave birth to its estranged child, Communism) and Islam.
fine.
then surely netaji isnt much at fault. after all he only teamed up with hitler, and not the pope or the khalif.
[quote]arjuns main duty at that time was to prevent the kuravas from winning.[/quote] Yes, because the Kauravas were the cause of adharma. If they came to power, the country would be ruled by and the people would sink into adharma.
Arjuna can't be compared to Netaji, because the latter had sided with the greater adharma (Britain compared to Hitler). It's like Bhishma taking sides with Duryodhana (except that I like Duryodhana better).
No one is denying that the Brits were a great evil, but Hitler's plans for domination and lebensraum weren't restricted to distant Europe.
compared to the poms, the nazis are saints.
arjuna cant be compared to netaji maybe, but netaji could easily be compared to arjuna or any other hero, real or mythical india has produced.
<!--QuoteBegin-ben_ami+Jan 25 2006, 10:27 AM-->QUOTE(ben_ami @ Jan 25 2006, 10:27 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->i'd like to know how many of you agree with sushmita that its time we stopped calling netaji a hero??
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ben Ami,
This kind of thing is counterproductive. Nothing worthwhile is gained by trying to score points or ganging up on a productive and valuable member. If at the end of the day all of us feel that we have learnt something new, then the debate was fruitful.
And thanks to a flurry of participation by many, including you, with excellent posts, this thread has achieved something worthwhile.
Bharatvarsh,
May be collating all the references to the use of Gita in the freedom struggle would make for a nice article.
<b>Bharatvarsh</b>,
I was looking for the statement by Aurobindo that you posted: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->âA certain class of minds shrink from aggressiveness as if it were a sin. It is an error, we repeat, to think that spirituality is a thing divorced from life.... It is an error to think that the heights of religion are above the struggles of this world. The recurrent cry of Sri Krishna to Arjuna insists on the struggle; "Fight and overthrow thy opponents!", "Remember me and fight!", "Give up all thy works to me with a heart full of spirituality, and free from craving, free from selfish claims, fight! Let the fever of thy soul pass from thee."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is what I mean. Dharma should be central to all our actions: not just our peace but also war. We must fight when there is wrong. Thanks to Gandhi and Nehru, we did nothing for the Hindus in Pakistan during partition. Thanks to Nehru's imagined friendship with China, we did nothing for the Tibetans. Many mistakes have been made. We never fought when we should have fought. And we're still not fighting.
I wish we'd take some action though (not saying we should declare war or something that extreme - we're not that desperate yet). Hindus in India today are facing a really big, combined threat and most of us are ignorant, the remaining ones are either complacent or feel dejected looking at the scale of what we're up against.
I have some serious ideas that I think might actually work (if people got rid of the unfeasible bits) although it would require great organisation on the part of Indians. But I'd like to discuss them in a more private setting rather than a public forum that anybody can access. Is there such a possibility?
<b>Sarangadhara</b>,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1.What would you have wanted Bose to do ? Where would he find the ammunition to launch his armed struggle<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good question. I think he should have followed Savarkar's plan. When the war against Hitler was won, Indians should have turned on the British and fought to oust them from the land. If Bose was as charismatic as he's presented, he could have done that or at least attempted it.
His siding with Hitler to later soften Hitler's views on Indians wouldn't have worked had Hitler won anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->2.Why should Bose's patriotism be any less than that of gandhi or nehru(if it exists)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> This question is wasted on me, because (nehru fans please skip down) I don't recognise Nehru as a patriot. Gandhi's patriotism was impotent and made others impotent. I mean that Gandhi's methods were dangerous if they outlived the British rule, as they have been proven to be. I criticise him mainly for his fanatic application of ahimsaa in every situation. Even in extreme ones. And for advocating his mass of admirers to do the same.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->to a race that had not tasted freedom in so many years , dying like warriors on the battlefield would have been much better than living like slaves or the division of our nation and destruction of culture and society.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> In that hypothetical scenario again: The Germans wouldn't have even bothered fighting us. They'd have used other methods (Islam) or their trademarked race-brainwashing.
Nazism (via a Catholic nazi priest's book) put the idea into Croatians' heads that the latter were partly descended from the "Aryan" Goths and that they were better than their "Untermensch" Slavic neighbours, the Serbs. Likewise nazism influenced many of the Iranian Muslims and Yugoslavian muslims too. The German nazis left it up to the Croatians to murder out the Serbs, Jews and Romany in Croatia. The Germans didn't have to lift a finger themselves. Likewise, I doubt they would have bothered dealing with us, but they'd have employed others or other methods to keep us down.
Nazi-inspired racism in Yugoslavia is not dead yet and one sees it surfacing often in their anti-Serbian rants. Look at Croatia today: in football matches they are still siegheiling and singing Ustashi chants, and their streets are named after Ustashi and German SS nazis. In the 90s when the Croatians were ethnically cleansing the Serbs from their territories, they used the same methods, the same torture techniques, the same chants etc as the Ustashe in nazi times. In fact, some of the Ustashe war criminals of WWII had returned from N & S America, UK and Australia to "finish the job" they'd started during the war. This race-thing doesn't die fast enough, if at all. No genetics study is going to change Croatians' minds. They have to will the veil to lift from themselves.
The Brits' AIT has had a severe impact, but what if nazi race-brainwashing was applied throughout India and started affecting the North-South and caste relations? After all, nazism wielded so much control in Europe because of the self-sustaining power of the idea of racial-superiority.
So far the AIT has been stumped in that respect: there is no racial discrimination in India but the one imagined by Witzel et al and the anti-Hindu "Dravidianist" groups. But prolonged exposure to nazi idiocy in other cases has been proven to be effective. What if we were not immune? We have seen people take to communism - nazism is practically the same disease albeit drenched in racism.
If Bose was a leftist, I understand why he went to Hitler's side. But I'm surprised he didn't first try joining the Red Army (so that after the war he could ask for their help to fight the British). I'm content with admiring Hindu nationalists who fought for Independence. I can most definitely live without a marxist/commy one that, to top it all off, joined Hitler.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Jan 25 2006, 10:40 AM-->QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jan 25 2006, 10:40 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-ben_ami+Jan 25 2006, 10:27 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ben_ami @ Jan 25 2006, 10:27 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->i'd like to know how many of you agree with sushmita that its time we stopped calling netaji a hero??
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ben Ami,
This kind of thing is counterproductive. Nothing worthwhile is gained by trying to score points or ganging up on a productive and valuable member. If at the end of the day all of us feel that we have learnt something new, then debate was fruitful.
And thanks to a flurry of participation by many, including you, with excellent posts, this thread has achieved something worthwhile.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you misunderstand me, i didnt ask for opinions to gang up on anyone.
i wanted explicit stands instead of talking in circles. till now, only sushmita, me and 1 or 2 others have made their stand on netaji (pro or against) amply clear.
PS:
and again i request the MODS, to please move the netaji related posts of this thread to the netaji thread, so others can read this debate time and again. else tomorow this thread will have some other hot topic and this discussion will get buried deep.
Ben Ami,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i'd like to know how many of you agree with sushmita that its time we stopped calling netaji a hero?? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're right that it was none of my business to try and steal a hero away from you. I would hate it if someone did that to me. You and the others here have behaved better than I'd have in your place.
At least, for the sake of that <i>other reason</i> I mentioned, can you keep your admiration for him a little bit more quiet. It's a serious issue. (I know you don't support Bose for any other reason than his wanting to free India -> <b>This is meant to be: </b>I understand that it's not nazism's racism that Bose supported and that that's why you suport Bose's siding with Hitler to free India.)
Ben Ami, this is not meant to be a provoking question, so don't be angry: if Bose was a leftist, and you sensibly hate communism*, then why do you approve of Bose? Or do you only approve of his patriotism, but not of any leftist plans he might have had for a free India? I'm not saying he did have leftist plans but he was a leader, and it's hardly unlikely that he might have had aspirations to lead in some capacity after the war.
*I'd assumed you meant to insult me with that "Romila Thaparish" statement - and I took it as an insult. Which is why I thought you disapproved of communism.
IMHO if a poll is done in India asking people to rank Netaji, Gandhiji and Nehru, according to their admiration as national leaders then it is quite likely that Netaji will beat Gandhi and Nehru. Partition and 1962 debacle have done permanent damage to the Gandhi-Nehru aura in the minds of a large number of Indians.
As HH put it, Indian leaders responded in many ways to the realities of WWII. Neither side in the war was a clear-cut friend or a foe. In fact the British were more the immediate oppressors than the remote unconnected Germans or the Japanese. Individual leaders formed their judgements and acted on those. Which was just as well. It would have been an anomaly if the leaders had unequivocally sided with the Allies. Even Gandhi led the Quit-India movement in 1942, right in the thick of WWII, because even in their time of need, the British were behaving as their usual mean self towards the Indians.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Quit India Movement, 1942 an important event of the Indian freedom struggle, was the outcome of a compound of anti-white fury. The cripps mission, with its vague proposals of a post-war Dominion Status for India, a constitution making body elected by provincial legislatures and the native states, provincial opt out clause, the immediate participation of Indian leaders in war effort but the retention of the control of Indian defence by the British, satisfied none and threatened to Balkanise the Indian subcontinent.
The retreat of the British from Malay, Burma and Singapore, leaving their dependants to fend for themselves, the indescribable plight of the Indians trekking back home from these places, the racial ill-treatment meted out to Indians by white soldiers stationed here and there in India, the 'scorched earth' policy pursued by the British in Bengal to resist probable Japanese invasion which resulted in the commandeering of all means of communicating, war-time price rise, black-marketeering and profiteering - all these contributed to the creation of an anti-white fury. Above all, there was the attempt of the British bureaucracy right from the outbreak of the war for a wholesale crackdown on the Congress on the pattern of 1932.
...
During and after the Quit India upsurge, the British in documents like Tottenhams' Report painted the whole outburst as a 'deliberate fifth columnist conspiracy', intending to strengthen the Axis powers. This interpretation not only ignored the consistent anti-fascist international stance of the Congress throughout the 1930s, but also made a historical travesty of the facts that being arrested in the early morning of 9 August the Congress leaders could hardly lead the outburst and that the Quit India resolution was also remarkably vague about the details of the coming movement. Far from ruling out further negotiations, the whole thing may conceivably have been an exercise in brinkmanship and a bargaining counter which was followed by an explosion only because the British had decided on a policy of wholesale repression. Despite strenuous efforts, the British failed to establish their case that the Congress before 9 August had really planned a violent rebellion.
The movement was, in reality 'elemental and largely spontaneous'. It was sparked off by a variety of factors and of an expectation that British rule was coming to an end. Bureaucratic high-handedness and provocation worsened the situation. Financial losses incurred in Malay and Burma induced sections of Indian business community to give some covert support to a movement (even if violent) for a short while.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sushmita+Jan 25 2006, 11:12 AM-->QUOTE(Sushmita @ Jan 25 2006, 11:12 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ben Ami,
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i'd like to know how many of you agree with sushmita that its time we stopped calling netaji a hero?? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're right that it was none of my business to try and steal a hero away from you. I would hate it if someone did that to me. You and the others here have behaved better than I'd have in your place.
At least, for the sake of that <i>other reason</i> I mentioned, can you keep your admiration for him a little bit more quiet. It's a serious issue. (I know you don't support Bose for any other reason than his wanting to free India.)
Ben Ami, this is not meant to be a provoking question, so don't be angry: if Bose was a leftist, and you sensibly hate communism (I'd assumed you meant to insult me with that "Romila Thaparish" statement - and I took it as an insult), then why do you approve of Bose? Or do you only approve of his patriotism, but not of any leftist plans he might have had for a free India? I'm not saying he did have leftist plans but he was a leader, and it's hardly unlikely that he might have had aspirations to lead in some capacity after the war.
[right][snapback]45545[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well you cant take or give a hero from.to anyone.
at the same time i dont see why i should be quiet about him or anyone who is in my good books. you dodnt keep quite in your tirade against him either.
we just voiced each others opinions and backed them with arguements. i now would like to know explicitly what are the opinions and stands of the others regarding the person in question.
as for your question - netaji was not the leftist in the commie sense.
he liked the leftist idea of centre led industrialisation (which was the only way out for india, or any other country starting from scratch, cos there was hardly any private player back then), and liked the idea of synchronised if not total control. a country like india comming out of 1000 years of chaos could do with a kamal attaturk-esque person. china would not have made the rapid strides it made in the last 20 years if they had a 30 partyu circus like in india. hes leftist love affair was purely for these 2 reasons - namely central (public) initiative is often the only way out for devastated countries and it helps to have a highway with no one on it, for some time.
as for his aspirations - i dont know. what i know was his abilities.
as political leader he was twice chairman of INC against all odds. before that he was head of various lesser and reagonal commettees.
as a military leader he used to move on par with rommel, mussoulini and tojo, and did what others could not even dream of - only sarvarkar came closest.
what makes you think nehru made a better leader???
i can think of only 2 names (as pm) better/equal than netaji - sardar patel and sp mukherjee.
<b>Hauma,</b>
regarding Post #182. I do agree. There is something viciously evil in the careless way the British treated us Indians. The nazis inexplicably hated their victims, but the Brits didn't even consider us humans. We were some kind of pests for them if they ever did notice us. (I think the grandparents of everyone here would have told them about the famines and other horrid events, and the way they were treated.)
It is strange that Europe is so forgetful or ignorant about what it has done to its colonies. Looking at Africa, a recent news report on the African Union or something was talking about Congo and Sudan's war crimes' records. And then the reporter mentioned the words "the problems of Africa". They all say it as if it is an enigma to them as to how Africa got into this mess. The same with South and SE Asia.
Their callousness is amazing. They wreck entire countries, populations, economies, invent divisions (usually racial ones) and then 50 or so years later, they wonder why these countries are suffering from poverty, misery, war and "ethnic strife and genocide". They have a curious amnesia. But they'll be surprised to find that their victim countries don't suffer from the same.
<b>Mitradena</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Genocide of Hindus in the British Empire will not get the attention it deserves until one of us writes a book on it<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Someone most definitely needs to do this. I've come across (non-political) forums were some ignorant English person (male I'm guessing) said how "at least the British empire brough civilisation to countries like India,...". I fumed but had no pictures then to show of how they killed Indians with famines and robbed India till it was beyond poor. Besides, I did not know how to register back in those days... www.atributetohinduism.com's page on "European Imperialism" has a few unbearable pictures of the famines in India.
<b>Ben Ami,</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->what makes you think nehru made a better leader???<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you confused me with someone else there. I hadn't said anything positive about Nehru in the two (or so) instances I ever mentioned his name. In fact, if I had a time machine, I'd make sure he never entered politics and kept to his silly book "The Discovery of India" or whatever it was.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->well you cant take or give a hero from.to anyone<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> My words were "try and steal" - of course one can't.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->at the same time i dont see <b>why i should be quiet about him</b> or anyone who is in my good books.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> I gave the reason (Post #177). It has nothing to do with Bose's patriotism or anything. It is however a rather important reason.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->as a military leader he used to move on par with rommel<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Shudder. You and I are very different people, Ben Ami. But you realised that since the beginning and I've only now come to that conclusion.
There is a marked difference between the national workers of the Swadeshi period and those at the present time. The former workers drew their inspiration from the Gita; the present workers have discarded the Gita, they laugh at spirituality, they draw their inspiration from the Bolshevists or similar other European movements.