Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango

Maharana: greetings. I have two simple, obvious points, namely that Bose was either (1) incredibly dumb for thinking the japs, if they were victorious over the brits, would treat indians any differently than the rest of the asian nations they over-ran, or (2) he was smart but couldnt care less as long as he got to play puppet for the japanese.

Your post has vague generalities about what all ``educated pakistanis`` think and what not, but fails to address these simple, obvious points I have raised.

Dost Mittar (see below) started with trying to defend Bose with similar generalities, and ended by simply claiming that in fact the japs were fine fellows and would have treated indians differently. Stuka too expressed the view that the japs had nothing against indians and therefore would have treated them nicely. And all this after being reminded of the vast scale at which the japs butchered people after they defeated them.

What else do they teach you in India other than the wonders of your glorious ``netaji``?? :-)

Tahmed,

I`m not surprised that all the educated pakistanis like you think so highly of Bose. Could you tell me which leader apart from Jinnah is admired in pakistan for freedom movement?
You mention Bose, and there`s a pavlovian reaction to his position vis a vis Nazis. His meeting with Hitler and the impression it had on him is well documented. Following passage explains his position well: Here`s an excerpt

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,943230,00.html

``But the much-awaited meeting on May 27, 1942, ended in disappointment for the Indian revolutionary. ``In that meeting, he [Bose] asked Hitler to cut out passages in ``Mein Kampf`` dealing with Asians and [Hitler said] that it was better for India to remain under British domination. Hitler refused to help him``

Tahmed mian, Please understand that the fight for freedom in india was fought on many fronts, including one led by Bose. He was no fool. Your nation stands on a misguided notion that independence was won by jinnah against hindus and british. If the indian freedom fighters had not fought for freedom, jinnah would be practising law in england.

Adios

dost mittar #221 Your basic point now is that it was mere british propoganda and the japs were in fact fine fellows seeking to free the rest of asia from colonial rule.

And you say this after I have referred to more than once to the tens of millions of chinese, philipinos, koreans who were butchered by the japanese and who hate the japs to this very day. So, nothing I say will make you change your mind.

As I said to stuka, ignorance is bliss. Dont let me shake you out of your bliss. Emperor Hirohito loved people like you (until, of course, he saved his own skin by re-incarnating himself as a harmless biologist at the end of the war when he realized that the third atomic bomb could fall on his own head in Tokyo).

stuka #211 here are my comments to the various points you raise.

1. You write ``It was our right to kick them (brits) whenver we chose to. `` I am not saying anything about the ``rights`` of the British. What I am saying is that it was extremely short-sighted of Indian leadership (excluding Jinnah) to not understand that if the nazis/japs won World War II, they would treat India no different than the way they treated other nationalities they overran. And what I am saying is that this short-sightedness was uniquely Indian - Asian leaders who were beholden to no one other than their own people (Mao, Chiang kai shek, Ho chi minh, Soekarno and so forth) all were very clear on their priorities: which was to fight the jap menace. .

2. I do not share your confidence that the japanese would have treated Indians differently than whites. As I keep repeating, go talk to the chinese, koreans, philipinos who were butchered in the tens of millions by the japanese and maybe you will learn something. Japanese were not brutal because they ``liked`` or ``disliked`` any nationality - the Japanese military couldnt give too hoots about Indians or anyone else. Their job was to show the occupied nations who was boss.

But you are welcome to to keep believing that the japanese would have treated indians with kid gloves.

3. Same response as 2.

4. Again. Same response as 1 above. The Indian leaders (excluding Jinnah) were unique in their short-sightedness in thinking that the trade-off was british rule vs. freedom when in fact the rest of the Asian leaders of the time recognized the far bigger menace that the japs presented.

Finally you write ``The Japanese at least paid lip service to Asian Co-Prosperity and nothing in their treatment of Indian POWs or Indian civil populations in Burma, Singapore and Andamans suggested otherwise. ``

I think my friend that you need to educate yourself a bit on japanese treatment of Indian POWs. As I wrote earlier, I have myself seen pictures of a jap soldier doing bayonet practice on a sikh prisoner whose hands were tied behind him, with a bunch of other japs looking on. On the other hand, ignorance is bliss.

Dont let me shake you out of your bliss. keep on believing the rubbish they teach you people in India about ``netaji`` and what not.

tahmed#210
Stuka gave a good reply in #211.

Where is the debate? All you are doing is pointing out to Bose seeking the help against the British. Bose was loved and adored in India more than either Jinnah or Gandhi and by the followers of both of them. He was so popular that he was able to win the presidentship of the Congress party even when Gandhi campaigned against him. There was only one leader in India who was and is called Netaji (The Leader) and it was Bose. His popularity multiplied after his adventures during the war became known.

You have every right to criticise him and say that he made mistakes. But if you are to call him ``stupid``, ``low character``, ``willing to ellout``, ``puppet``, ``excusefor a human being``, you need more than merely say that he sought the help of the Japanese against the British. The British were our enemy, not the Japanese. He simply went to get their help to free his slave country from its masters.

And one should be careful in swallowing everything the British say about the Japanese. From what I have seen, the Japanese people do not seem to me to be savages or ogres, far from it. I would like to read the Japanese side of the history before I make a fair judgement about them. However, I would like to point out to another point in addition to what Stuka stated about Malaysia.

If you had read the history of India during the early 20th century, which I presume you haven`t, you would have known that Japanese were considered heroes in India at that time (Read Nehru`s Discovery of India). When they defeated the Russians, Indians were proud that Asians had defeated Europeans and had proven that they were not inferior to them.

None of the above suggests that the Japanese did not have an axe to grind in India. But it is a far cry from saying that they were out to enslave Indians.

#219


No body ever doubted that Savarker was a british bootlicker and goochatter. (if I may take liberty with echo`s proprietory code words.)

``....Savarkar started off as a revolutionary in England. On March 13, 1910, he was arrested in London and transported to India. In two trials, he was sentenced to 50 years of imprisonment and sent to the Cellular Jail in the Andamans. He was unable to stand up to solitary confinement and hard labour. While most other revolutionaries remained adamant, Savarkar cracked up and decided to make terms with India’s British rulers.

When Sir Reginald Craddock, Home Minister of the Vicerory’s Council, came to inspect the Cellular Jail, Savarkar personally gave him a petition for mercy. I quote his exact words: ``I am ready to serve the government in any capacity they like, for as my conversion is conscientious, so I hope my future conduct would be. The Mighty alone can afford to be merciful and, therefore, where else can the prodigal son return but the parental doors of the government ?``

His 50-year sentence was reduced to 14 and he was transferred to a jail in Maharashtra and then allowed to settle in Ratnagiri on the condition that he would not leave the district and not take part in any political activity. This did not prevent him from organising the Hindu Mahasabha, converting Muslims to Hinduism (shuddhi) and exhorting Hindus to go for the defence services to fight for the British against Netaji’s INA. He also came round to the view that Hindus and Muslims were separate nationalities.

In his presidential speech at the Mahasabha conference in Ahmedabad in 1937, he said: As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supporting that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. These well-meaning but unthinking friends take their dreams for realities.``

Seven years before Jinnah and his Muslim League put up the demand for Pakistan (1940), Savarkar in Nagpur said `` I have no quarrel with Jinnah’s two-nation theory. We, Hindus, are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations.``

The Hindu Mahasabha had no problem joining the Muslim League government in Sindh and Bengal. He was also the supporter of the princely order and thought it would not be a bad idea if the King of Nepal became the Hindu Emperor of India. Though acquitted in the Gandhi murder trial, there were many, including Sardar Patel who believed that Savarkar inspired Godse to commit the trial.

If you want to recheck what I have written, take a look at Savarkar: Myths and Facts by Shamsul Islam
.........``

by Khushwant Singh

217,

((no one stands up to deep analysis..not even the prophet.))

In many cases, the prophets don`t stand up to even Shallow analysis.

``Its funny how BJP gets dragged into every issue of import from Quit India movement to Netaji Bose and his INA ....because BJP came into prominence in India only in the late 1980s. Before that , they got as many as 2 seats out of 550 in the 1984 general election. BJP/RSS were always small fry in India until very recently. ``

Sardar Patel, a Congressi, actually came far closer to the BJP than Bose. However, this is not to say that the BJP only came into prominence in the late 80s. The predecessor, Bhartiya Jana Sangh, always had a following among refugees and urban professionals and traders. (mirror equivilant of Jamaat e Islami constituency in Pakistan till recently).

The BJP got screwed after Vajpayee became Party President in 1980 and introduced ``Gandhian Socialism`` (whatever that means) and it was rejuvenated by Advani post 1985 after Congress gave the gift of Ram Mandir to BJP.

Bong Dongs:

You have to understand with TAhmed, its a family issue. His fathers, uncles etc probably fought WWII in the BIA.


I did not know that. I actually had family members in the Army and Airforce who joined pre-independence as well. My grandfather on my mom`s side was working for AIR during Angrez times. I am not saying that they were bad people, but they were certainly not nationalists or freedom fighters. Tthey were basically apolitical people who joined government service or the military for professional reasons. That si fine. But then we have no right to glorify them and condemn those who sacrificed.

Haha....tahmed must be really enyoying talking trash against Netaji...for he has discovered that if there is one Indian leader every Indian is is proud of , one man Indians feel about the way Pakis feel about their Jinnah , its Netaji Bose. Not Gandhi , not Nehru.

So manto can take a few pointers from this. If you wanna rile up the Indians ,forget ol`gandhi , talk crap about Bose. That guy really means something to each and every one of us.

Netaji failed. He lost. But we love him. Maybe because we wanted our freedom to be won by the old fasioned way - blood and guts . Like men.

Gandhi`s silly effete non-violent way of begging for freedom the our opressors , appealing to the goodness and conscience of the enemy...is disgusting to say the least.

---

1.Tahmed`s theory about Japs using Netaji to fulfil their dreams of ruling over India is a theory with too many ifs and buts. And for the Indian people - the British were the the only enemy. An enemy that starved to death 3 million Indians virtually every year. We would take the devil`s help the slit the british throat if need be. All the crap about Netaji joining hands with fascist Hitler makes no sense because for Indians of that era the only fascists and racists were the British.

2. Its funny how BJP gets dragged into every issue of import from Quit India movement to Netaji Bose and his INA ....because BJP came into prominence in India only in the late 1980s. Before that , they got as many as 2 seats out of 550 in the 1984 general election. BJP/RSS were always small fry in India until very recently.

#213

stuka, I would eschew the strong language.

You have to understand with TAhmed, its a family issue. His fathers, uncles etc probably fought WWII in the BIA.

One thing I would like to add is that the Japanese occupation of Asia was not uniform. Malaysia is a good excample where the Chinese oppsed the Japs and the Malays were pro-Japanese and the Indians were following the lead of the INA. The Brits had their own reasons for manufacturing history to paint all Japanese as devils. It was only White and Chinese POWs who were used for Bayonet Practise, no Indian soldier (non INA) was used for that.

Also, whereas Bose may have been unsuccessful in turning the majority of the POWs, he certainly got loads of support, monetary as well as labor, from Indians settled in Malaysia, Singapore, Burma etc. If they are to be called traitors, u might as well refer to the Ghaddar movement as traitors as well. It is a fact that overseas Indians were more nationalist than the Uncle Toms who joined Police and Army during British times.

in india, we treat our freedom fighters as icons of some good qualities. we dont do the kind of analysis tahmed wants us to do. these icons are useful to instill good character in our kids, put them on calendars etc. study of history is a differnet thing and that is more dispassionate.

no one stands up to deep analysis..not even the prophet.

TAhmed:

The only fact that you presented is that Bose got a ride in a Japanese Submarine. The rest is either hindsight or hypothetical suggestions on your part.

Let us consider:

1. Kicking the British when they are down: From the Indian nationalist perspective, we were ruled by the Brits against our will. It was our right to kick them whenver we chose to.
We owed them nothing in terms of fair play.

2. Japanese Occupationary Behavior: The Japanese did occupy the Indian Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Their behavior towards Indians was markedly different from the treatment extended to Whites. Maybe it was a tactical propaganda move, maybe it was not. Maybe there was a lack of histrocal animosity against India unlike China. We do not know. But, facts as they existed proved that Japs were making a distinction between white and non white in a manner superior to the British method of making that distinction.

3. Role of Congress: Unlike Bose, Nehru and Gandhi were certainly not pro-fascist and Nehru publicly came out in support of Republican forces fighting Franco (Unlike Jinnah) Their point of opposition to India being drawn in to the war came because of British refulsal to give guarentees and start the process of discussing Indian independence. We are not the servants of the British that we would fight their dirty wars. In light of this background it is the Congressis who come out as Nationalists and Jinnah who comes across as a Toady.

4. Experience of World War 1. The British government had promised India Home Rule after ww1. This led to massive recruitment and support for the British war effort. Yet, when the War ended, the British response, instead of giving home rule or discussing Dominion Status, was the Simon Commission and the Rowlatt Act. This is around the same time that it DID discuss Self Rule and Dominion Status with White colonies like Australia and Canada.

In light of the Indian Nationalist experience with British policies based on race and colonialism, India had no reason to support the British effort to fight for ``freedom`` because it meant freedom for others and not for Brown People. The Japanese at least paid lip service to Asian Co-Prosperity and nothing in their treatment of Indian POWs or Indian civil populations in Burma, Singapore and Andamans suggested otherwise. Therefore, as an Indian, I am proud of the fact that Bose at least made an effort and a supreme sacrifice for his country.

As far as your attempts to connect Bose to Hindu reactionaries is concerned, that is plain ridiculous. If there is one thing common between the Quislings of the Muslim League and the RSS, it is that they both sat out the Quit India movement in relative comfort.

#209

who were the greater danger to India:

- the Japanese who MAY have killed a lot of Indians?

OR

- the british who did contribute to the starvation death of 3 million people in the Bengal famine

whatch the movie ``Ashani Shonket``