Between Gandhi and Hitler - Documentary on Netaji Subash Chandra Bose

[pmaitra]

Re: Between Gandhi and Hitler - Documentary on Netaji Subash Chandra B

Ok, everyone post your opinion(s), and avoid name calling.

 

[amoy]

Re: Subhash Chandra Bose

Good documentary, I watched the whole thing.

Of all our nationalist leaders I feel that he is the greatest. His only concern was his nation's freedom and he was determined to use any means necessary to achieve it. A great role model of a pragmatic and patriotic leader; someone who we could definitely use today.

totally echo the bold part. I find a lot of similarities btwn Bose and General Aung San father of Suu Kyi Aung San - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was a founder of the Communist Party of Burma and was instrumental in bringing about Burma's independence from British colonial rule in Burma, but was assassinated six months before independence. He is recognized as the leading architect of independence, and the founder of the Union of Burma. Affectionately known as "Bogyoke" (General)

He went first to China, seeking assistance from the nationalist government of the Kuomintang [4], but he was intercepted by the Japanese military occupiers in Amoy, and was convinced by them to go to Japan instead.[

In February 1941, Aung San returned to Burma, with an offer of arms and financial support from the Fumimaro Konoe government of Japan. He returned briefly to Japan to receive more military training, along with the first batch of young revolutionaries who came to be known as the Thirty Comrades.[2] On 26 December 1941, with the help of the Minami Kikan, a secret intelligence unit that was formed to close the Burma Road and to support a national uprising and that was headed by Colonel Suzuki, he founded the Burma Independence Army (BIA) in Bangkok, Thailand.[2] It was aligned with Japan for most of World War II.[2]

Netaji seems a legend, making his way through Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, and Japan

However not so sure abt @The Messiah 's big IF

focussed on authorotarian state machinery. Something between ussr and china. I think we would be in a stronger position economically and geopolitically

 

[JBH22]

Between Gandhi and Hitler

Between Gandhi and Hitler

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Re: Between Gandhi and Hitler

Thread exists.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...r-documentary-netaji-subash-chandra-bose.html

 

[pmaitra]

Re: Between Gandhi and Hitler - Documentary on Netaji Subash Chandra B

Threads merged.

 

[JBH22]

Re: Between Gandhi and Hitler - Documentary on Netaji Subash Chandra B

thanks for the merge did not know, any update on the Gumnaam Baba urban legend.

 

[trackwhack]

Re: Subhash Chandra Bose

It is the unfortunate truth. A clear sense of national identity was not present when the wankers first arrived.

But had existed for centuries, broken often by time. So saying the british unified us is utter crap. i would say that british rule reunified us, rather than the british themselves.

 

[civfanatic]

Re: Subhash Chandra Bose

But had existed for centuries, broken often by time. So saying the british unified us is utter crap. i would say that british rule reunified us, rather than the british themselves.

The concept of "nationalism" and national identity is poorly understood. Nationalism does not mean political unity. You can have nationalism where there is no state or political unity (e.g. Polish nationalism in the 19th century, when Poland did not exist but was divided between Prussia, Russia, and Austria). Likewise, you can have a state that "unifies" a bunch of regions but has no nationalist identity (pretty much every state in existence before the 1800s).

"Nationalism" is a completely modern phenomenon that only emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries with rising literacy rates and budding mass media, especially newspapers. You have to understand that, until relatively recently, the vast majority of people around the world were illiterate peasants who neither cared nor had much understanding of the state to which they were subject and paid taxes to. These pre-modern states were dominated by elites who justified the existence of the state to other elites through a variety of means, often by proclaiming some divine origin for themselves; the views of the masses themselves were largely ignored because they were not seen as politically relevant. This all changed with the rise in political awareness among the masses, which led to them associating with other people who shared their culture (language in particular), i.e. their "nation". The basic idea of nationalism is that the state (the political entity) should exist as the political representation of the nation (a group of people with a recognized, shared heritage). Such a state is called a "nation-state".

The fact that the nation-state derives its legitimacy from the masses rather than some ruling dynasty claiming divine origin has huge implications; it means that the state will continue to exist despite any changes in government or leadership. To illustrate with an example, the Mughal Empire could only exist as long as the ruling dynasty (the Mughals) continued to exercise political power, because the government of the Mughal Empire was essentially an extension of the Mughal imperial household. If the Mughal dynasty/household was overthrown, the state would cease to exist, and new state institutions would have to be created. The Mughals treated their realm as a personal possession, as did virtually all kings and dynasties; the opinion of the masses did not matter for much. The same is true for all preceding Indian states and empires: the Mauryas, Satavahanas, Guptas, Palas, etc. etc. All of these states were simply the personal possessions of their rulers. No sense of "nationalism" existed in any of them. On the other hand, a nation-state like France, Italy, or Germany will continue to exist in spite of any changes in government or leadership, because these states represent not some ruling elite but the French, Italian, and German people, respectively. The case of Germany offers perhaps the most illustrative example. Since its unification in 1871, Germany has experienced vastly different types of government, from a monarchy (Deutsches Kaiserreich) to a fascist dictatorship (Großdeutsches Reich) to a liberal democracy (Bundesrepublik Deutschland). However, the German nation-state remained intact despite all these drastic regime changes, because the German people remain.

Now, it is indeed true that a sense of greater cultural identity existed among ancient Indians, and that they were aware that they formed a distinct civilization. This is why foreigners from outside India, but not other Indians, were called "mlecchas". But it is important to understand that such views only existed among the educated elite, and not the illiterate masses; moreover, such views did not have much bearing on political realities of the time. For the great mass of people, anyone from outside their locality was an outsider; there was no concept that all the Tamil people (for example) should be represented as a unified political entity, much less Tamils, Telugus, Biharis, Punjabis, and all the rest. The concept of an Indian nationality only developed in the late 19th and early 20th century, when railroads, telegraphs, newspapers, and other such media improved pan-Indian communication and led to people from all over the subcontinent associating with on another.

I hope all this makes sense.

 

[trackwhack]

Re: Subhash Chandra Bose

bharat as a concept is not 200 years old. bharat was not a name given by outsiders referring to the subcontinent but a name we gave ourselves. it is as old as the vedas. i know your views on this and this subject has been discussed to death on the forum.

 

[civfanatic]

Re: Subhash Chandra Bose

bharat as a concept is not 200 years old. bharat was not a name given by outsiders referring to the subcontinent but a name we gave ourselves. it is as old as the vedas. i know your views on this and this subject has been discussed to death on the forum.

I don't think you understand my post.

"Bharat" (Aryavarta would be more accurate, as it is the term that the ancients more frequently used) is all fine and good. No one doubts that it is an old concept, and an indigenous one too. But did the masses of India identify themselves as "Bharatis" in, say, 500 C.E? If so, why was there never a nation-wide mass uprising against the imposition of foreign rule, until Gandhi's time? How do you explain the total lack of any united, pan-Indian political action until modern times? Why was there never a movement to create a pan-Indian political entity which represents the Indians themselves, until modern times?

"Bharat" can be as old as the universe itself. That doesn't change the fact that Indian nationalism is only around 100 years old. Nationalism did not exist anywhere in the world until the 18th century, much less in India.

 

[trackwhack]

Re: Subhash Chandra Bose

I don't think you understand my post.

"Bharat" (Aryavarta would be more accurate, as it is the term that the ancients more frequently used) is all fine and good. No one doubts that it is an old concept, and an indigenous one too. But did the masses of India identify themselves as "Bharatis" in, say, 500 C.E? If so, why was there never a nation-wide mass uprising against the imposition of foreign rule, until Gandhi's time? How do you explain the total lack of any united, pan-Indian political action until modern times? Why was there never a movement to create a pan-Indian political entity which represents the Indians themselves, until modern times?

"Bharat" can be as old as the universe itself. That doesn't change the fact that Indian nationalism is only around 100 years old. Nationalism did not exist anywhere in the world until the 18th century, much less in India.

i said in my first post that it has existed all along, broken often, never completely dead. the brits did not unify us, their misrule rejuvenated the nationalism that existed all along.

 

[civfanatic]

Re: Subhash Chandra Bose

i said in my first post that it has existed all along, broken often, never completely dead. the brits did not unify us, their misrule rejuvenated the nationalism that existed all along.

Okay. I will try again. Please notice the highlighted portion of my original post:

The concept of "nationalism" and national identity is poorly understood. Nationalism does not mean political unity. You can have nationalism where there is no state or political unity (e.g. Polish nationalism in the 19th century, when Poland did not exist but was divided between Prussia, Russia, and Austria). Likewise, you can have a state that "unifies" a bunch of regions but has no nationalist identity (pretty much every state in existence before the 1800s).

"Nationalism" is a completely modern phenomenon that only emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries with rising literacy rates and budding mass media, especially newspapers. You have to understand that, until relatively recently, the vast majority of people around the world were illiterate peasants who neither cared nor had much understanding of the state to which they were subject and paid taxes to. These pre-modern states were dominated by elites who justified the existence of the state to other elites through a variety of means, often by proclaiming some divine origin for themselves; the views of the masses themselves were largely ignored because they were not seen as politically relevant. This all changed with the rise in political awareness among the masses, which led to them associating with other people who shared their culture (language in particular), i.e. their "nation". The basic idea of nationalism is that the state (the political entity) should exist as the political representation of the nation (a group of people with a recognized, shared heritage). Such a state is called a "nation-state".

The fact that the nation-state derives its legitimacy from the masses rather than some ruling dynasty claiming divine origin has huge implications; it means that the state will continue to exist despite any changes in government or leadership. To illustrate with an example, the Mughal Empire could only exist as long as the ruling dynasty (the Mughals) continued to exercise political power, because the government of the Mughal Empire was essentially an extension of the Mughal imperial household. If the Mughal dynasty/household was overthrown, the state would cease to exist, and new state institutions would have to be created. The Mughals treated their realm as a personal possession, as did virtually all kings and dynasties; the opinion of the masses did not matter for much. The same is true for all preceding Indian states and empires: the Mauryas, Satavahanas, Guptas, Palas, etc. etc. All of these states were simply the personal possessions of their rulers. No sense of "nationalism" existed in any of them. On the other hand, a nation-state like France, Italy, or Germany will continue to exist in spite of any changes in government or leadership, because these states represent not some ruling elite but the French, Italian, and German people, respectively. The case of Germany offers perhaps the most illustrative example. Since its unification in 1871, Germany has experienced vastly different types of government, from a monarchy (Deutsches Kaiserreich) to a fascist dictatorship (Großdeutsches Reich) to a liberal democracy (Bundesrepublik Deutschland). However, the German nation-state remained intact despite all these drastic regime changes, because the German people remain.

Now, it is indeed true that a sense of greater cultural identity existed among ancient Indians, and that they were aware that they formed a distinct civilization. This is why foreigners from outside India, but not other Indians, were called "mlecchas". But it is important to understand that such views only existed among the educated elite, and not the illiterate masses; moreover, such views did not have much bearing on political realities of the time. For the great mass of people, anyone from outside their locality was an outsider; there was no concept that all the Tamil people (for example) should be represented as a unified political entity, much less Tamils, Telugus, Biharis, Punjabis, and all the rest. The concept of an Indian nationality only developed in the late 19th and early 20th century, when railroads, telegraphs, newspapers, and other such media improved pan-Indian communication and led to people from all over the subcontinent associating with on another.

I hope all this makes sense.

Is there any part of the above post that is not clear? I understand that my writing might be a bit complex and difficult to comprehend at times. I am happy to clear any doubts.

Anyway, this discussion may be better off moved to another thread.

 

[trackwhack]

Re: Between Gandhi and Hitler - Documentary on Netaji Subash Chandra B

chief, this is what you wrote


It is the unfortunate truth. A clear sense of national identity was not present when the wankers first arrived.

that is what i argued against. dont cover your ass with irrelevant counter arguments. you said there was no national identity that existed before the british. so stop playing with words and man up. maybe you meant something else when you wrote that.

 

[civfanatic]

Re: Between Gandhi and Hitler - Documentary on Netaji Subash Chandra B

chief, this is what you wrote


It is the unfortunate truth. A clear sense of national identity was not present when the wankers first arrived.

that is what i argued against. dont cover your ass with irrelevant counter arguments. you said there was no national identity that existed before the british. so stop playing with words and man up. maybe you meant something else when you wrote that.

What I said was correct. There was indeed no sense of national identity when the British first arrived. What do you think a "national identity" is, and what makes you think it existed before?

Based on your posts, it doesn't seem like you understand what "nationalism" or "national identity" mean.

 

[trackwhack]

Re: Between Gandhi and Hitler - Documentary on Netaji Subash Chandra B

What I said was correct. There was indeed no sense of national identity when the British first arrived. What do you think a "national identity" is, and what makes you think it existed before?

Based on your posts, it doesn't seem like you understand what "nationalism" or "national identity" mean.

Look at my first response again, I did not mention 'nationalism'. You did in the next post.

you said

It is the unfortunate truth. A clear sense of national identity was not present when the wankers first arrived.
civfanatic ↑

and i replied

But had existed for centuries, broken often by time. So saying the british unified us is utter crap. i would say that british rule reunified us, rather than the british themselves.

I was only referring to national identity - the concept of bharat, which has existed for ages. now since you asked, only national identity can translate into nationalism.

p.s. civ - your subtle references to my comprehension disability is making this debate distasteful and I am not known to be very temperamental. lets be objective and not write essays, maybe your lack of being able to communicate effectively through writing and my lack of comprehension can both be helped if you are short and concise in your arguments.

 

[roma]

Re: Between Gandhi and Hitler - Documentary on Netaji Subash Chandra B

firstly we should consider the source of the video , its information and whatever built-in biases
is the video accurate ?

according to it , the moment SCB revealed that he would not exclude violence as a possibility, Gandhi had him removed from the party ....and basically that was the end of his political career ! - he had to run for his life every stage after that

again accdg to the vid - the moment that happened SCB had to run here and there to seek resources and recognition - first the austrians, then the germans who had little time for him except for a ceremonious handshake with hitler and little else - and then a run to the japs who supplied him with captured indians

- then SCB being the poker player who reveals his cards - revealed his plans to some traitor and the INA was butchered as a result - you want that as your leader ?

- then a run to the russians in which he apparently lost his life

so if the vid is correct, here was a man who in politics ( which is like a game of poker, but of course much more ), here is a man who in a game of poker instead of hiding his cards, he revealed them out on the table for all to see, and even then , right at the first round

now what kind of poker player is that ? indeed what kind of politician ?
so either the video is grossly wrong or the man really amounted to that little - he ran foul of the brits right from the start and his whole career was involved in being on the run ? .... not too much of a politician

personally - i'd say he was very intelligent , very selfless , very talented, but ( according the the video) he failed politics 101 !!