Battle of Kohima and Imphal World war 2 Forgotten martyrs

[karanbest4]

Battle of Kohima and Imphal World war 2 Forgotten martyrs


Please Discuss and SHARE!

 

[Peter]

This is actually a controversial battle. While it was a victory for the British Indian army and many Indian soldiers perished, one must not forget that Netaji`s dream of Azad Hind also died with this battle.

 

[Voldemort]

There is hardly any controversy. Netaji's INA was fighting against British forces. Note that the Indian forces who fought for British Indian Army was serving Bristish interests and not Indian. They were in fact fighting the very force that was trying to liberate India from foreign forces.

 

[Free Karma]

I've had so many arguments about this on the net, a lot of people seem to not understand the importance of the INA, and even though they lost, how the results acted as a spring board from the mutinies of the army and the navy later on.

 

[karanbest4]

Today article posted on times of india, They remembering this now, 1500 vs 15000

 

[Simple_Guy]

There was too much Japanese control and domination over INA. India would not have been "liberated". Just a part of the Japanese empire.

 

[Ray]

There is hardly any controversy. Netaji's INA was fighting against British forces. Note that the Indian forces who fought for British Indian Army was serving Bristish interests and not Indian. They were in fact fighting the very force that was trying to liberate India from foreign forces.

Let me play the Devil's advocate.

It was not only the Army which was working for British interest, but the whole of India, be the bureaucrat, police, lawyers, the traders (by selling to the British), the workers (working for British interests).

Actually, the whole of India should have boycotted anything British or serving British interest.

Even sending telegram was serving the British Raj P&T increasing British Indian coffers, so was it by travelling by Railways. So, can we take it that Mahatma Gandhi by using the rail or eating food in the jail, paid by the British Raj Govt was also serving British interests?

Also was going to England for studies including getting professional degress, as many of the leaders did, including Mahatma Gandhi, they were serving British interest since the money they paid was for benefiting the British?

The argument is what is known as 'The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle'.

 

[Voldemort]

Let me play the Devil's advocate.

It was not only the Army which was working for British interest, but the whole of India, be the bureaucrat, police, lawyers, the traders (by selling to the British), the workers (working for British interests).

Actually, the whole of India should have boycotted anything British or serving British interest.

Of course. But it was not realistically possible. The non co-operation movement can be linked to this.

 

[Ray]

Of course. But it was not realistically possible. The non co-operation movement can be linked to this.

That is why I said Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.

 

[Peter]

@Simple_Guy

Netaji was the only true patriot among the so called patriots of India. He was the patriot of patriots. If any person discredits INA or Netaji he is simply delusional. He was the only person who visualized "Akhand Bharat". If you take that panditji Nehru then he was nothing but a weak and delusional freedom fighter. I have seen that many people here on this forum debate Aryan Invasion theory.I have read Nehru`s"Discovery of India" and even there panditji Nehru not only acknowledges but glorifies the Aryan Invasion. Yet people of India today deify pandit Nehru and completely forget Netaji.

The battles of Kohima and Imphal were part of Netaji`s valiant struggle against the British. He did not want a Japanese India but a completely free India.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

self delete. Double post.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

netaji was great. But it doesn't means other were inferior. What about bhagat singh. Many calls netaji as the one who first formed indian military but what about Vasudev Balwant Phadke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
he too left govt job and later formed army and fought against british. How all patriots was fake? What about bhagat singh,azad, gandhi,patel ? @Peter

 

[Ray]

netaji was great. But it doesn't means other were inferior. What about bhagat singh. Many calls netaji as the one who first formed indian military but what about Vasudev Balwant Phadke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
he too left govt job and later formed army and fought against british. How all patriots was fake? What about bhagat singh,azad, gandhi,patel ? @Peter

All are patriots differentiated by the subtext - single act, collective act and organisation of a revolution.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

All are patriots differentiated by the subtext - single act, collective act and organisation of a revolution.

yes sir, I am saying same. Everyone have difference ideology and different ways to serve his motherland.

 

[ITBP]

yes sir, I am saying same. Everyone have difference ideology and different ways to serve his motherland.

If any one serves British Indian Government how can he serve India?
@Ray that's why Gandhiji started non-cooperation movement.

I personally find no reason to honor British Indian army. Apart from very few wannabe British boot lickers, most were doing for $$$$.

Now why many common people helped British when they knew British was evil? Because Indian leaders only could have provided them promise(we will bring you heaven after Swaraj) but promise cant not solve your hunger problem, so they supported British just for $$$$

Over all British Indian army's loyalty to British was zero but who can uproot this evil which is certainly evil as we know? At least you or me cant, so until whole army revolts lets work for British to get $$$, when massive rebellion will start we attack British then.

Those Indian soldiers were from India but not of India.

 

[Ray]

If any one serves British Indian Government how can he serve India?
@Ray that's why Gandhiji started non-cooperation movement.

I personally find no reason to honor British Indian army. Apart from very few wannabe British boot lickers, most were doing for $$$$.

Now why many common people helped British when they knew British was evil? Because Indian leaders only could have provided them promise(we will bring you heaven after Swaraj) but promise cant not solve your hunger problem, so they supported British just for $$$$

Over all British Indian army's loyalty to British was zero but who can uproot this evil which is certainly evil as we know? At least you or me cant, so until whole army revolts lets work for British to get $$$, when massive rebellion will start we attack British then.

Those Indian soldiers were from India but not of India.

You must read and study or else you will trot out only memes about Gandhi.

Would this shock you? And would you say that you are not proud of him for what he did for India, inspite of what he did for the British?

'Mahatma fought for British army'

Sainik Samachar, a journal brought out by the Ministry of Defence, has whipped up a controversy by claiming that Mahatma Gandhi donned a British military uniform during the Second Boer War (1899–1902).
Historians, however, insist that Gandhi, the quintessential symbol of non-violent resistance against British rule, never fought alongside them in Africa.

An article published in the journal's edition dated October 9, 1977, opens with these lines: "It might seem surprising but it is true that in the year 1899 Mahatma Gandhi donned a British military uniform." The article headlined "When Gandhi donned soldier's uniform" forms part of a coffee-table book being brought out by the defence ministry to mark the centenary of the defence journal on January 2, 2009.

The coffee-table book opens with congratulatory messages from the President, Prime Minister and the three service chiefs. Well-known historian Ramachandra Guha has trashed Sainik Samachar's claim that Gandhi was a British soldier. "Gandhi was never employed by the British forces. He had only raised a voluntary ambulance corps consisting purely of non-combatants to render medical aid to British troops. It is incorrect to say he served the British army," he told HT.

The war most commonly referred to as the Boer War is the Second Boer War.

It was a protracted conflict involving a substantial number of British troops and ended with the conversion of Boer republics into British colonies with an assurance of limited self-governance.

Gandhi's ambulance corps, a non-military entity, was raised with some 1,100 men.

Insisting that Gandhi was a British soldier, the Sainik Samachar article says: "This was not an easy decision for Gandhi to take and it became still more difficult for the Britishers to accept Gandhi as a soldier. But the circumstances forced it."

The article says Gandhi saw the Boer War as a golden opportunity for India to win its freedom by helping the British. It concludes saying that Gandhi never donned the military uniform after 1900 but remained a soldier in spirit.


'Mahatma fought for British army' - Hindustan Times

Would you say Gandhi is from India but not of India as you say about the soldiers who died at Kohima?

One must have the courage and morals to stand up for reality and understand the compulsions of the time which made one do what.

Judging by hindsight would not do the people justice.

And hindsight history can be fudged to suit an agenda.

History is made and told as one would like one to know. The reality is sometimes lost and fiction become facts!

Now why many common people helped British when they knew British was evil?

One would think that the British were evil from the day they started occupying what is called India today.

And what did they do?

 

[ITBP]

There was too much Japanese control and domination over INA. India would not have been "liberated". Just a part of the Japanese empire.

Really? Japan wanted INA to use against Anti-Japanese Burmese fighters, but Netaji refused because he said freedom fighter of 1 country cant be used against freedom fighter of another country.

Btw Japanese empire by 1944 was already too much expanded, there was no way for them to rule India while continuing war against Americans and Chinese.

 

[ITBP]

You must read and study or else you will trot out only memes about Gandhi.

Would this shock you? And would you say that you are not proud of him for what he did for India, inspite of what he did for the British?

Would you say Gandhi is from India but not of India as you say about the soldiers who died at Kohima?

One must have the courage and morals to stand up for reality and understand the compulsions of the time which made one do what.

Judging by hindsight would not do the people justice.

And hindsight history can be fudged to suit an agenda.

History is made and told as one would like one to know. The reality is sometimes lost and fiction become facts!





One would think that the British were evil from the day they started occupying what is called India today.

And what did they do?

You are thinking too much. BIA was mercenary army like any Colonial army. Period.

Take it as simple.

One must have the courage and morals to stand up for reality and understand the compulsions of the time which made one do what.

Then Paki soldiers who killed 3 million Bengalis in 1971, should be forgiven as their officers and Government policy made them commit that atrocity. And WW2 German and Japanese soldiers who killed Millions of people should be forgiven as their reality and situation made them do that. So they should not have been tied in court.

As for Gandhiji he was always under process of mental evolution, at first he supported British, then advocated dominion status and then total freedom.

The only thing I like about him is his non-cooperation theory, which was realistic.

 

[Ray]

You are thinking too much. BIA was mercenary army like any Colonial army. Period.

Take it as simple.



Then Paki soldiers who killed 3 million Bengalis in 1971, should be forgiven as their officers and Government policy made them commit that atrocity. And WW2 German and Japanese soldiers who killed Millions of people should be forgiven as their reality and situation made them do that. So they should not have been tied in court.

As for Gandhiji he was always under process of mental evolution, at first he supported British, then advocated dominion status and then total freedom.

The only thing I like about him is his non-cooperation theory, which was realistic.

And Gandhi working for the British Army?

All fair, right?

Answer factually and not on fantasy.

Your justification of Gandhi is disingenuous and most lame.

So, Gandhi is mentally evolving and others are horrid!!

Try to understand that all are human and they respond to the events as per their circumstances at that time.

 

[ITBP]

And Gandhi working for the British Army?

All fair, right?

Answer factually and not on fantasy.

As I said Gandhiji was always frustrated, for example when civil-disobedience was about to start then suddenly Gandhiji gave some proposals(with no connection with India's independence) to British that if these were accepted movement would be postponed.

Now where is our freedom and where are those?

In 1939 when Netaji wanted to start freedom movement then Gnadhiji said India should not dsturb when british is in real danger(then WW2 started) but same Gandhiji started Quit India movement in 1942 when WW2 was still going on.

I dont think BIA as traitors, just think them poor people forced to enlist in Army for money. Most of them did not like British but forced to join for $$$$.

And Indian soldiers is always faithful to one who gives him namak

Nevertheless I understand your logic that you say situation forced him to do so, That's why I said $$$, you perhaps failed to understand meaning of my first post here.