charles shobraj is a very special guy, as is carlo the jackal (carlos ramirez sanchez).
rommel was a very special guy and so was napoleon and moshe dayan.
if you fail to admire rommel as a military leader, then i have nothing to say.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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...
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even I am fuming mad for the exact same reason!
But I could do nothing about it, without evidence.
It annoys me to see an Englishman tell me, "...but we built your railways and gave you the English language..."
Another new one I am hearing now is, "... we saved you Hindus from Muslim rule...".
So we badly need a History of the British Raj written from the Hindu perspective especially focusing on the genocide of 40 million Hindus through famines.
we will have one soon enough.... if my plans fall in place.. i'll have a history channel (mine or vicarious) of our own which would put evrey one in their place and tell everyone just how much the west owes to india materially and intellectually.
As I said in other thread I have moved all Netaji posts here. Pls continue.
Just FYI, moving posts in this forum has a clumsy interface and a big pain so please try and post in the right thread..
If by mistake or intentionally one wants to copy a post to another thread one can use the "Quote" button. For example, I would click on the posts' "quote" button and then go to the thread that I want the post copied. Then click on "ADDREPLY" button and that will give you the complete post with username and time etc..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
1.What would you have wanted Bose to do ? Where would he find the ammunition to launch his armed struggle
Good question. I think he should have followed Savarkar's plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you are using a very ideal situation but are not willing to stand in bose's shoes and understand his compulsions ,like hauma and kaushal pointed out in the other posts , the british are not so naive to wait till the indians armed themselves and let themselves be overrun .They would have used similar methods .All i wanted to convey was Bose was no less of an patriot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
2.Why should Bose's patriotism be any less than that of gandhi or nehru(if it exists)
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.
<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> me no fan of gandhi or nehru neither , Bose is miles ahead of them
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
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.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The british already had unleashed a genocide albeit a distributed genocide is what i would call it by means of inflicted famines , oppresive taxation and many other measures , they were no less of a evil.
last but not least want to correct my statement before it is taken in the wrong sense ...
Bose had left leanings is what i had meant , even bhagat had them but it was with respect to uplifting the masses , they were heroes with hearts of gold , the quality of a leader is to identify with his followers , both bose and bhagat did that.
and thats where it stops , nothing more nothing less.
I hold all the brave sons of mother india who died fighting for her as Patriots and Bose is definetly one period.
<!--QuoteBegin-sarangadhara+Jan 25 2006, 10:24 AM-->QUOTE(sarangadhara @ Jan 25 2006, 10:24 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Subhash Chandra Bose was a leftist , his right hand man being captain shah nawaz khan who later certified Bose's death , he crossed over to nehru
[right][snapback]45538[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The right hand man crosses over to his leader's killer and covers up the tracks. Sorry to say this, but it seems like a serious judgement error on the part of Bose. Delivering India to the NAzis is a hypothetical farshot, rather reviving Mughal empire may have been a more possible outcome. Even Savarkar was not religious but that is besides the point.
Another confusing point.. INA appears to have been founded at the instance of a Major Fujiwara of the japanese army. Why then did Bose have to ply so diligently for Axis support or was he negotiating other things.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.indiastar.com/wallia6.htm
Ghosh skillfully outlines the history of the INA. Founded in February 1942 by Captain Mohan Singh in collaboration with Sardar Pritam Singh, president of the Indian Independence League, and under the sponsorshop of Major Icheiri Fujiwara of the Japanese Army, the INA, a year-and-a -half later, was placed under the command of Subhas Chandra Bose. By the time, Bose appeared on the scene, Mohan Singh, now a General, had already been imprisoned by the Japanese because of his demand that the Japanese government make "an unconditional commitment to Indian sovereignty." Fujiwara found Bose to be much more pliable than General Mohan Singh -- Bose didn't make any such demand. Had the Japanese succeeded in penetrating Bengal, the scenario would very likely have been horrendous -- just look at the Japanese record in Korea, northern China, and the Philippines. Ghosh's essay sidesteps this issue.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ben Ami, I overlooked a few things you said earlier:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i meant to say that i'd prefer an indepedent india over anything.
freedom of indians>>>>>>>>>> hinduism, anyday.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Freedom to be ... nobodies? So a Christian India, independent from the British Empire is alright? An independent Islamic India? An independent Marxist India? (<i>What</i> India?)
I'd rather have an India where the Hindus (and Jains and Buddhists) have kept their culture, a country which will break the oppression and gain its independence but retain its Dharma.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->arjuna cant be compared to netaji maybe,<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You seem to indicate that your ancestors' religion means nothing to you (<i>Hindu</i> atheism* is alright and part of Indian Dharma), that it's nothing more than a quaint part of historical Indian culture. You're right, though. Arjuna can't be compared to Netaji, or vice versa. The two shouldn't have been written in the same sentence. My mistake.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bharatvarsha:Indian Civilization is inseparable from Sanatana Dharma<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is no India, independent or otherwise, without Sanatana Dharma. There is no Arya without Sanatana Dharma and there is nothing to admire about India or its people without the Sanatana Dharma. It is that which has made us great and has shaped us. It is that which made our ancestors the bravest, the wisest, the most resourceful, the most organised, artistic, humanistic - in short, it's what made them excel at all things and be divine.
They should rename India "Mughalstan", the "Holy Christian Empire of India" or the "Socialist Republic of South Asia" or something (United States of America Part II even) if the Dharma ever dwindles in India. It will no longer be my country and its people no longer my people if that ever happens. I won't care what happens to it then and not rejoice in any of their accomplishments. Similar to how the Parsees have broken ties with Islamic Iran (even though they are sympathetic to the minority Zoroastrians in Iran).
What India are you working towards? What's your driving goal? What's your problem with communism, Islam or Christianity? Only that they are rewriting Indian history?
Why should India not break into pieces? What kept it together historically and what should keep it together in future? I want to know.
*A Hindu atheist India is still Hindu, but that's not what you are according to your writings. Because a Hindu atheist is still spiritual and a Hindu in all acts of their life (I have several Hindu atheists in my family, so I know). What are you and what is it you want India to be? Why do you care about Indians as a group? Because we are separated by language, sub-ethnic group, subculture - we have some shared history, over-arching culture and language (Samskrt in the past), that's all. These are not enough to keep a future India together, as the separatists inside and outside are attempting to prove, with some temporary success.
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Jan 25 2006, 02:28 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Jan 25 2006, 02:28 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Another confusing point.. INA appears to have been founded at the instance of a Major Fujiwara of the japanese army. Why then did Bose have to ply so diligently for Axis support or was he negotiating other things.
more likely, INA was found with the nod/approval of major fujiwara.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.indiastar.com/wallia6.htm
Ghosh skillfully outlines the history of the INA. Founded in February 1942 by Captain Mohan Singh in collaboration with Sardar Pritam Singh, president of the Indian Independence League, and under the sponsorshop of Major Icheiri Fujiwara of the Japanese Army, the INA, a year-and-a -half later, was placed under the command of Subhas Chandra Bose. By the time, Bose appeared on the scene, Mohan Singh, now a General, had already been imprisoned by the Japanese because of his demand that the Japanese government make "an unconditional commitment to Indian sovereignty." Fujiwara found Bose to be much more pliable than General Mohan Singh -- Bose didn't make any such demand. Had the Japanese succeeded in penetrating Bengal, the scenario would very likely have been horrendous -- just look at the Japanese record in Korea, northern China, and the Philippines. Ghosh's essay sidesteps this issue.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]45567[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
thatlast one is another of those had-bose-survived-india-would-have-gotten-a-saddam-hussain type arguement.
i mean, what makes the author think that the japs would do to india, what they did to the chinese, after helping us raise an army and equipping them??
what makes the believers in that bose=dictator analogy think that the person who had such a checkered career, becoming civil servant, than political leader of such stature, would need to become dictatorial in his later political career (if he had one, in independent india)???
i believe the info you posted, also brings out bose's ability to negotiate.
someone said that diplomacy is the art of letting someone have YOUR way.
bose knew just when to draw the line at asking favours.
he didnt demand that the japanese make any commitments, bar raise us an army of sorts. then he took it from there, fought with that rag-tag army and went on to announce india's new free govt from an fm station instead of trying to get the japs to do it.
[quote=Sushmita,Jan 25 2006, 04:31 PM]
Ben Ami, I overlooked a few things you said earlier:
[quote]i meant to say that i'd prefer an indepedent india over anything.
freedom of indians>>>>>>>>>> hinduism, anyday.[/quote]Freedom to be ... nobodies? So a Christian India, independent from the British Empire is alright? An independent Islamic India? An independent Marxist India? (<i>What</i> India?)
I'd rather have an India where the Hindus (and Jains and Buddhists) have kept their culture, a country which will break the oppression and gain its independence but retain its Dharma.
i mean sovreinity comes above all.
the moment a hindu exists he is a hindu - our religion is what we are, unlike say with muslims.
retain its dharma is fine, but there's no law that says that the independence need be gained in a dharmic ways against the scoundrels. criminals should be paid back in kind. just get off that utopian/moral high horse and you will see the point. are you the hinduism = love for humanity and ahimsha sort of fantasyser
[quote]arjuna cant be compared to netaji maybe,[/quote]You seem to indicate that your ancestors' religion means nothing to you (<i>Hindu</i> atheism* is alright and part of Indian Dharma), that it's nothing more than a quaint part of historical Indian culture. You're right, though. Arjuna can't be compared to Netaji, or vice versa. The two shouldn't have been written in the same sentence. My mistake.
yes your mistake.
you said that "arjuna cant be compared to netaji" .
so i said maybe he cant - and went on to make my point.
never said that arjuna doesnt compare with netaji.
besides i have a lot more reverence for a real life person and recent hero, than some semi mythological ancient character.
i am not a religious person, just a proud hindu, not a pious hindu.
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Jan 25 2006, 01:31 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Jan 25 2006, 01:31 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The right hand man crosses over to his leader's killer and covers up the tracks. Sorry to say this, but it seems like a serious judgement error on the part of Bose. Delivering India to the NAzis is a hypothetical farshot, rather reviving Mughal empire may have been a more possible outcome. Even Savarkar was not religious but that is besides the point.
[right][snapback]45563[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
can you back the words in bold - i would be most interested.
i have only heard it doing the rounds, but would like to have concrete evidence, that when the poms liquidated netaji (netaji either was kiled and the taiwan crash myth invented, or he was kept imprisoned in russia and the same crash myth hatched), they did it with nehru's full knowledge. cos they preferred a chamcha like nehru over a fire brand like bose at the hot seat. or that nehru himself helped them do it, cos that way his line to the throne would become clear.
as for the muslim dude's switch - well it does say a few things.
explains just how trustworthy the muslims are, explains that netaji had only one crieteria (patriotism, willingness to die fighting) and agenda when he rigged up an army, and also suggests that the same person who later turned traitor, was a steady help as long as netaji was alive - so that says a lot about netaji's "presence".
and as for the trial of ina members, what do you all have to say to that???
should the only few people who were prepared to martyr themselves, have been tried for attempting to get us freedom??
doesnt it say a lot about the character of the indian people and just how much they had been rendered servile by the poms??
and what about nehru's oh-so-patriotic gesture of doning his legal clothes to defend the ina soldiers in court??
what of nehru's policy of never quite recognising or financially supporting ina veterans, but considering raj indian soldiers who killed fellow indians and freed poms from burma as heroes??
why wasnt the likes of nehru and gandhi - who killed more indian soldiers in various battlefields than germans killed french oldiers, ever tried or at least given the tag of complete spineless traitors??
when will indians learn the true story of beevis and butthead, and stop voting in their progeny and having roads named after these two criminal clowns??
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->just a proud hindu<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're using the term Hindu as "Indian". None of our ancestors will recognise the kind of "Hindu" you are. They will recognise you as an Indian, no doubt - not contesting that. They will recognise atheist Hindus (who are always pious Hindus, there is <i>no other kind</i> by the way), but you will be a question mark if not straightaway identified as a non-Hindu.
Whether Arjuna is real or mythical is beside the point for Hindus. He represents something to aspire to.
What is it you want India to become? Free from Islam, Christianity, Marxism - to become what?
<!--QuoteBegin-Sushmita+Jan 25 2006, 05:14 PM-->QUOTE(Sushmita @ Jan 25 2006, 05:14 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->just a proud hindu<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're using the term Hindu as "Indian". None of our ancestors will recognise the kind of "Hindu" you are. They will recognise you as an Indian, no doubt - not contesting that. They will recognise atheist Hindus (who are always pious Hindus, there is <i>no other kind</i> by the way), but you will be a question mark if not straightaway identified as a non-Hindu.
Whether Arjuna is real or mythical is beside the point for Hindus. He represents something to aspire to.
What is it you want India to become? Free from Islam, Christianity, Marxism - to become what?
[right][snapback]45573[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
nope i am not.
i am using the term hindu as hindu.
indian people who do their duty follow their dharma (duty). no two ways about that. mugging slokas and taking bribes doesnt help. rather know not a single sloka but be dutyful and honest.
you seem to lok at hinduism, as a set of laws to be followed. hinduism isnt a religion (as the abrahamics understand it) - its a way of life, and of the people, by the people and for the people.
i always thought hinduism ws something that followed the peope of india, cos its the bell curve of all our existing religious belief.
and firstly i'd want india to be free - and then free from islam, marzists and free from lunatic analogies and free of a theocratical hindu central command.
Following Dharma is Hinduism/Jainism/Buddhism. No set of laws in Hindu Dharma (other than the Dharma itself of course).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->theocratical hindu central command<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Don't know that there was such a thing.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->and then ... free of a theocratical hindu central command.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So what exactly does this mean? Pax Americana? Go with the flow of progress (whatever's fashionable), calling it Hindu Dharma so you get popular support? It's not the Hindu religion at all.
More importantly what is it you want to change - what do you identify as a theocratical Hindu central command? You've obviously identified this as a problem, but there is no central command. This is not Islam, Christianity or Marxism as you yourself admitted. So I'm really curious what you are referring to here.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->indian people who do their duty follow their dharma (duty).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And not being able to distinguish right action/duty from wrong is known as adharma. So what's the source (book, sloka, whatever you've learnt from your Hindu environment) which helps you decide what is dharma and what is not? Do you randomly decide that what your mind tells you to do is dharma? Then everyone in the world follows dharma. Why oppose the commies/Muslims/Christians/imperialists when they attack Hindus? They're following their "duty" (which you've equated with dharma).
If you refer to humanism as being your guide to duty, then that's a different matter. But it still isn't Hindu Dharma.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->hinduism isnt a religion (as the abrahamics understand it) - its a way of life, and of the people, by the people and for the people.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is a way of life, but it is the way of life our ancestors had and improved upon. Your suggestions don't seem to be improvements. The people didn't invent it ("by the people") but the ancient rishis were great Yogis who gleaned universal truths and passed them on for the betterment of humanity. To forget and bypass all of that and call whatever goes "Hinduism" isn't Hinduism at all.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->mugging slokas... doesn't help. you seem to lok at hinduism as a set of laws to be followed.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> You know nothing about me.
And these statements seem to indicate you know little of Hinduism too. I suggest you read the Gita and the Upanishads. If that doesn't interest you, read the Dhammapada (Buddhist) or any Jain scriptures in English translation. Or the Tao teh Ching. Some of this is bound to interest you. If nothing appeals to you, look at Bertrand Russell or some other western atheist/agnostic authors (I don't think Thomas Paine et al's Deism will appeal to you, because it involves a God).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->and firstly i'd want india to be free - and then free from islam, marzists and free from lunatic analogies and free of a theocratical hindu central command.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> (Assuming "free from Christianity" is included somewhere in there)
And then....? Pax Americana, sorry Pax Indiana?
By the way, if you get the India you want, quite a few Hindus will want to seccede. It's no Hinduism we know, nor an India we want. It's odd that at some point you accused me of being a greater evil than any of the 3 ideologies threatening India. And yet, the more you post, the more I get the feeling that you are not quite certain what Hindu Dharma is and what it isn't.
- If you want an atheist country, one that is proud of a historic "Hindu culture and thought" (but which is nevertheless confined to history), fine. Say that then.
- If you want to just exist with your wife and children and coexist with others, fine. I guess that's a form of Hinduism... and Deism... and many other religions.
- But if you want to <i>guide</i> the country down a path that is beyond anything that is familiar or acceptable to the part of the Indian population that does follow Dharma, then know that it is not Hinduism you are following.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i always thought hinduism ws something that followed the peope of india, cos its the bell curve of all our existing religious belief.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> So I guess if we all became Christians - then Christianity is Hinduism. "Whatever we do, whatever we become - it's Hinduism." Interesting concept, but it's wrong.
It is supposed to be: <i>as long as we follow and are guided by the Eternal Dharma</i>, what we do and become adds to the evolution of Hinduism.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i am not a religious person, just a proud hindu, not a pious hindu.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're a proud Indian who prefers Hinduism to Christianity/Marxism/Islam. If born a Buddhist or Jain you would identify yourself as a "proud Jain/Buddhist and proud Indian". Or would you have gone out of your way to convert to the mainstream Hindu Dharma?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->what makes the believers in that bose=dictator analogy think that the person who had such a checkered career, becoming civil servant, than political leader of such stature, would need to become dictatorial in his later political career (if he had one, in independent india)???<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Reminds me a lot about a mix of Hitler and Stalin's carreers. I guess dictator isn't such a stretch of the imagination. Bose is a confusing character. Some of what he did seems alright, then other things bother me again.
Hitler was very patriotic. He unified the country and the willing German people. It was "all for the love of his people and country". Nevertheless he was still adharmic.
Does anyone have access to any letters or something that Bose wrote that indicate his intentions for an independent India, that is, what direction he saw it going/wanted it to go? It would clear up my mind about him once and for all.
Reminds me a lot about a mix of Hitler and Stalin's carreers.
meanwhile it reminds me those few peopel in all of history who rose to the occation and carried out their duty. cometh the hour, cometh the man.
linclon comes to mind - a political leader who became a millitary leader (sort of) when the time demanded
I guess dictator isn't such a stretch of the imagination.
it is - thinking of netaji as a dictator takes a lot of imagination and of a very bad type that too.
netaji was a leader first and last - he won the chairmanship of INC not by the sword. not by begging like the naked fakir either.
dictators are murderers/murderous from day one. saddam husain, mao et all.
netaji was first political leader and then, being versatile, a millitary leader. which dont make him a dictator.
Bose is a confusing character.
while you are a confused character.
Some of what he did seems alright, then other things bother me again.
and who are you to decide if bose was right or wrong??????
he is right if he seems right to you and not so if not????
Hitler was very patriotic.
and bose wasnt???
He unified the country and the willing German people.
no one has managed to unify indians yet - not even gandhi (the indian leader who for some reason had the max appeal). bose comes close in a different way - in that most of the youth of the whole nation back him to the hilt.
besides indian people, unlike germans, were anything but willing to join an armed struggle. they prevered gandhi's servile atitude and beggary.
It was "all for the love of his people and country". Nevertheless he was still adharmic.
who was?????
netaji??? and if he was adharmic so what???
whats dharma got to do with patriotism or nationalism???
and why the hell is dharma so important that you should bring it into all sorts of discussion - thats just what muslims do - judge everything from a koranic reference frame.
Does anyone have access to any letters or something that Bose wrote that indicate his intentions for an independent India, that is, what direction he saw it going/wanted it to go? It would clear up my mind about him once and for all.
[right][snapback]45577[/snapback][/right]
yes someone please supply the letters - she needs some serious mind clearing.
not that the oninion of a single person, that too no luminary, matters in regard to a towering personality such as bose.
for a start you could do well to learn that his main slogan and promise was "give me blood and i will give you freedom". so thats what his intention was. and after that he believed in a socialistic sort of industrialisation.
Subhas Chandra Bose(1897-1945) Born in the state of Orissa, became a revolutionalsit during his struggle in bringing Freedom for his great motherland. After he became chairman of the Indian National League in 1938, as for his radical sentiment, he was expelled from his official status by Mahatma Ganghi. Then he formed a radical front called "Forward Block", and reengined his own struggle for independence in India.
He made a great exodus from Culcatta to Berlin in 1941, via Ahganistan and the Soviet Union, to seek support from Hitler in Germany, which became a legent of his own. Subhas Chandra Bose could not recognize World War 2 as a fight between democratic coutries and the dictatorship. British was brutal enough for the Indian people during their long colonialism. Subhas Chandra Bose had some hope in his mind that once War is broken, there would be a anti-British force who could stand on the side of India.
But unfortunately Hitler was not a person who would share struggle with Asian country. During his days in Berlin, another war broke out in the Pacific. Japanese forces made a gerat victory in the beginning of the war. American Naval fleet was wholly destroyed at Pearl Horbour, British warship, Prince of Wales and Repulse were severely dameged and sunk on the first day of war. Singapore and Hongkong fell on the hand of Japnese Forces, within 100 days.
It was natural for Bose to make a close contact with the Japanese Embassy in Berlin.
In one of the most startling revelations since independence, a historian from Trinity College has presented documentary evidence that the British Foreign Office had ordered the assassination of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in 1941.
Netaji's family in Kolkata briefed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about the revelations before making the documents public on the eve of Independence Day.
The assassination was ordered on March 7, 1941 when Netaji was in hiding in Kabul after escaping virtual house arrest in Kolkata. The order was reconfirmed in June.
The assassination was to be attempted in Turkey, a country Bose was expected to pass through on his way to Germany.
Evidence found
Professor Eunan O'Halpin of Trinity College, Dublin, found evidence of the assassination orders at the Public Records Office in London.
"As far as I know, he was the only significant political leader in any colony fighting British colonization, who was explicitly targeted for assassination," said O'Halpin.
"Now the reason he was targeted is because of his intentions to not simply lead India out of the empire, but to do it by force and in conjunction with the Axis," the professor added.
The professor disclosed his findings publicly for the first time at a lecture at Netaji Research Bureau in Kolkata on Sunday.
Rare find
Netaji's grand-nephew and Harvard historian Sugata Bose said that the papers are a rare find because most documents about Netaji are still classified and references to him are largely blanked out in the few papers that have been made public.
"Part of the reason why we have found this dramatic revelation is that the assassination decision is actually listed under Turkey, because that was where the assassination was going to take place," said Sugata.
"Clearly whoever was reading through the Turkish papers did not see the enormity of what was being suggested in relation to an Indian political leader," he added.
Netaji never went to Turkey. He reached Berlin via Moscow.
Not only do the documents reveal the Netaji assassination plot, they also suggest assassination was official British policy to quell rebellion in the colonies and that Netaji may not have been their only target.
The death of Subhash Chandra Bose, remains one of the biggest unsolved mysteries of the Independance Era. But if NDTV is to be believed, it was the British who did him in.
Netaji's stand to take up arms against the British, was contrary to the popular stand of Ahimsa led by Mahatma Gandhi.
"As far as I know, he was the only significant political leader in any colony fighting British colonization, who was explicitly targeted for assassination,"
The article is inconclusive in its hypothesis, but I have a feeling that this is not the last we hear on this topic.
UPDATE Follow the discussion on this @ Sepia Mutiny
Documents reveal British plan to kill Netaji
Monday, August 15, 2005 (Kolkata):
In one of the most startling revelations since independence, a historian from Trinity College has presented documentary evidence that the British Foreign Office had ordered the assassination of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in 1941.
Netaji's family in Kolkata briefed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about the revelations before making the documents public on the eve of Independence Day.
The assassination was ordered on March 7, 1941 when Netaji was in hiding in Kabul after escaping virtual house arrest in Kolkata. The order was reconfirmed in June.
The assassination was to be attempted in Turkey, a country Bose was expected to pass through on his way to Germany.
Evidence found
Professor Eunan O'Halpin of Trinity College, Dublin, found evidence of the assassination orders at the Public Records Office in London.
"As far as I know, he was the only significant political leader in any colony fighting British colonization, who was explicitly targeted for assassination," said O'Halpin.
"Now the reason he was targeted is because of his intentions to not simply lead India out of the empire, but to do it by force and in conjunction with the Axis," the professor added.
The professor disclosed his findings publicly for the first time at a lecture at Netaji Research Bureau in Kolkata on Sunday.
Rare find
Netaji's grand-nephew and Harvard historian Sugata Bose said that the papers are a rare find because most documents about Netaji are still classified and references to him are largely blanked out in the few papers that have been made public.
"Part of the reason why we have found this dramatic revelation is that the assassination decision is actually listed under Turkey, because that was where the assassination was going to take place," said Sugata.
"Clearly whoever was reading through the Turkish papers did not see the enormity of what was being suggested in relation to an Indian political leader," he added.
Netaji never went to Turkey. He reached Berlin via Moscow.
Not only do the documents reveal the Netaji assassination plot, they also suggest assassination was official British policy to quell rebellion in the colonies and that Netaji may not have been their only target.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> me no fan of gandhi or nehru neither , Bose is miles ahead of them
