If He Had Reached Delhi.....

[Tshering22]

If he had reached Delhi...

Imagine if the troops of Azad Hind Fauj had marched into Delhi after running over the Anglo-American forces at Imphal and Kohima in 1945. Imagine if Subhas Chandra Bose, dressed in khaki, wearing round-rimmed glasses and a baton in hand, had reached Delhi as the head of the "Provisional Government of India " to unfurl the tricolour at Red Fort. Imagine if Netaji had become the first Prime Minister of India.

There were too many "ifs" in Bose's life. Probably that's why he still remains an enigma 66 years after his death in a plane crash. Or why India is still craving for a real leader. In the past six decades, numerous people have "seen" him: as Gumnami Baba on the ghats of Ayodhya; as an "unidentified man" who made a brief appearance at Mahatma Gandhi's funeral; and as a prisoner of war in a Russian gulag. Historians are yet to give a clear verdict on his politics. For the Indian right, Bose is just a nationalist military hero. The left hasn't made peace with him yet. And for the liberals, Bose is an untouchable for his dangerous liaisons with the Axis powers.

So, what was Bose like actually? In this brilliant biography of Netaji, Sugata Bose, professor of history at Harvard and grandnephew of the INA leader, puts all speculations to rest as he tracks the leader's life from his birth in Cuttack to death in Taiwan. The book, packed with interesting anecdotes about his struggles in India, love life in exile, proves beyond doubt that Bose was not an adventurer who jumped from one ideology to another in pursuit of personal glory. And it also dismisses all conspiracy theories about his "mysterious disappearance". But that's not the central idea of the book. It's a remarkable book because it shows Bose as a politician who had a plan — both for India's freedom as well as for the post-Independence scenario. And that's what led to his conflict with Gandhi and Congress ' right wing represented by the likes of Vallabhbhai Patel and also with Nehru, who he considered his "elder brother". Bose collided with Gandhi because he thought the "premier nationalist party had no definite policy" and it "should depend, for its strength, influence and power on such movements as the labour movement, youth movement, peasant movement, women's movement, student's movement." For people like Patel, this was unacceptable.

In the Congress circle, Bose was closest to Nehru but didn't agree with him on everything as the two had very different world views. "Subhas's discovery of India, unlike that of his great contemporary Jawaharlal Nehru, occurred very early in his life, while he was still in his teens. It happened before rather than after (as in Nehru's case) a direct encounter with Europe, and was intimately connected with a spiritual quest," writes the Harvard professor who went through his grand uncle's letters and personal diaries to put together this book.

Nehru and Bose drifted further away from each other as the INA leader decided to take on the British with help from Hitler and Mussolini. For Nehru there was "no middle road between fascism and communism." For Bose, with Stalin's Soviet Union in a peace pact with Nazi Germany, "fascism and communism were entwined in a cynical and awkward embrace." With the forces of imperialism and nationalism, fascism and communism arrayed against one another in Europe, Bose believed that India's destiny would unravel in conjunction with global conflict.

Bose never reached Delhi and Nehru became India's first Prime Minister amid the bloodbath of Partition. Bose wanted India to be a "federation of cultures " as he thought a federal state for India was better than a centralized state.

Under Nehru, India moved in a different direction. Many passionate admirers of Bose believe that had their leader been on the scene, India would have been a much better place. It is because of this craving that people keep "seeing" him here and there. "It is one those 'ifs' of history to which there can be no definitive answer," writes the historian. A biographer couldn't have said it in a better way.

 

[civfanatic]

If Netaji had reached Delhi, there would be no Partition. That much is certain.

 

[Yusuf]

India could possibly have been under a dictator. I think it's better to revere him as a great freedom fighter than to get into ifs and buts that might sully his name.

Look he was influenced by communism as well as dealt with three dictatorial regimes which would have had an effect on him. We never know what would have happened if Netaji had thrown the Brits out by force.

 

[devgupt]

Netaji's campaign was completely dependent upon Japanese support. Hence assuming India coming under Netaji's control would imply a world ruled by Germany and Japan. And that would have been a horrifying world to live in. A world divided along racial lines, a world where men are not equal.

I wouldn't want to live in such a world.

 

[Oracle]

Netaji was a great freedom fighter. But he lacked comprehension skills.

 

[Yusuf]

Netaji was a great freedom fighter. But he lacked comprehension skills.

Elaborate please...........

 

[devgupt]

While I am not a supporter of Netaji's win in WW2, I am not harshly critical of Netaji's plan to use Axis powers for India's independence.It must be understood that while Netaji was deeply nationalistic, he was also a communist .In 1939 when he was making his plans Soviets and Nazis were allies.So more specifically his choice was not for Nazis but for Soviets. And we must remember Soviets were popular in India back then.Remember Nehru ?
Also back in 1939 nobody outside Germany knew about there are death camps for Jews- that there was a complete plan for extermination of entire Jewish people .In fact in 1935 there was even a statement from Churchill that he wants someone like Hitler to born and lead Britain.
In the east Japan had lauched Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and the prospect of Asians rising to the level of Europeans was very tantalising.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

If Netaji ruled India.

* He would have never agreed for the Partition of India.

* We may have ended up with a Military dictatorship, like Burma.

* Half of India would be fighting for succession from India and for the creation of Pakistan.

* Indian Government would have 10 times more blood on its hands.

* We may have collapsed like Soviet Union.

 

[Blackwater]

If Netaji had reached Delhi, there would be no Partition. That much is certain.

No partition will be a disaster. We are glad pak is separate. Yes Kashmir blunder would not have happened by our prime minister Mr nehru

 

[The Messiah]

No partition will be a disaster. We are glad pak is separate. Yes Kashmir blunder would not have happened by our prime minister Mr nehru

More in deapth analysis is required rather than ignorance.

First if there was no partition then pakiis that are today radicalised wouldn't have been radicalized because they wouldn't have learned wrong history in school that they do now in land of pure.

Id even go as far to claim that there would be no terrorism (al quida style) in the subcontinent. Sure there would be radicals but which country doesn't have them ? Main thing is keep power away from radicals.

 

[GPM]

Like it or not,m he had fired the imagination of the masses. A groundswell was waiting to be unleashed. After all, the British were not invincible. But Japanese faltered and practically lost interest in India, as their own homeland was under threat.

This popular support is what forced even Nehru, a failed lawyer, and Gandhi to threaten to appear for defence in the court martials.

 

[The Messiah]

Like it or not,m he had fired the imagination of the masses. A groundswell was waiting to be unleashed. After all, the British were not invincible. But Japanese faltered and practically lost interest in India, as their own homeland was under threat.

This popular support is what forced even Nehru, a failed lawyer, and Gandhi to threaten to appear for defence in the court martials.

Dare i say the japanese would have been twice if not countless times more worse than the british. Just ask the chinese about there antics.

 

[Sabir]

The Japanese were never interested in building INA as something more than a symbolic force with few thousands soldiers. The INA leadership had to do lot of hardwork for it. They often used INA soldiers for menial works and objected when INA tried to hoist Indian flags after entering India. And ultimately the backed down leaving INA soldiers at the mercy of the British. Had they succeeded in WW2, they would have tried to make India a colony (they fought the war to get some colonies of their own) and Netaji and many of his followers would have been killed in attempt to resist them.

Netaji was a great person, you can find hardly one such patriotic person among millions , but removing an imperial power with the help of another one was not a brilliant idea. If Netaji were there there would have been no partition, there would be more development, there would be no corruption- these are just speculations.

 

[Oracle]

Elaborate please...........

1. Even though he was one of the most charismatic leaders of that time, he failed to impress Indian masses to join INA.

2. He went for help to the devil, to get rid of the devil.

GK did sum up most of everything.

 

[pankaj nema]

STOP dreaming GUYS

The British Indian army was 25 LAKHS in SIZE during the second world war

Netaji's INA and Japanese army and other forces were DEFEATED in second world war in the Battle of KOHIMA and battle of IMPHAL in 1944

 

[Phenom]

I like 'what if' scenarios...

Let's say INA defeats the British and Indian forces in the Burma border and capture Delhi, ( highly unlikely but let's just presume for the sake of argument).

Then what would have happened is, India would have to become part of the Axis forces and India infrastructure would have been bombed into oblivion by the allied airpower. Since Netaji would oppose partition, Jinnah and the Muslim League would have joined the allied powers on the condition that they grant the partition wish. They would probably convince the allies to not bomb present day Pakistan (what was called Muslim areas back then).

The course of the Second World War is unlikely to change, Americans are eventually going to split the atom and nuke Japan, so India would have ended up on the loosing side, its cities would have been bombed to bits. Jinnah and the Pakistani would end up on the winning side.

To punish India the Brits would probably have encouraged secessionist leaders in other regions and would have divided India into several pieces instead of just two.

So overall not a very good scenario for India.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

I like 'what if' scenarios...

Let's say INA defeats the British and Indian forces in the Burma border and capture Delhi, ( highly unlikely but let's just presume for the sake of argument).

Then what would have happened is, India would have to become part of the Axis forces and India infrastructure would have been bombed into oblivion by the allied airpower. Since Netaji would oppose partition, Jinnah and the Muslim League would have joined the allied powers on the condition that they grant the partition wish. They would probably convince the allies to not bomb present day Pakistan (what was called Muslim areas back then).

The course of the Second World War is unlikely to change, Americans are eventually going to split the atom and nuke Japan, so India would have ended up on the loosing side, its cities would have been bombed to bits. Jinnah and the Pakistani would end up on the winning side.

To punish India the Brits would probably have encouraged secessionist leaders in other regions and would have divided India into several pieces instead of just two.

So overall not a very good scenario for India.

Hitler was against granting Independence of India from European rule. So i think Netaji would surely have ruined India if in-case he took over. I think the four points mentioned in my previous post would have very likely happened.

 

[Phenom]

True,

one of the justifications for nazi attack on Russia was citing the British rule over India. His argument was something like ,if smaller but superior Britain can rule over a much larger India, then a smaller and superior Germany should be allowed to rule over a much larger Russia.

 

[civfanatic]

True,

one of the justifications for nazi attack on Russia was citing the British rule over India. His argument was something like ,if smaller but superior Britain can rule over a much larger India, then a smaller and superior Germany should be allowed to rule over a much larger Russia.

Lol, this idiotic German logic cost them everything.

Anyway, on topic I think the 25 lakh Indian soldiers should have fought for their homeland rather than a meaningless war in North Africa and Southeast Asia. If even a portion of these soldiers joined the INA, it would have tipped things in favour of the Azad Hind Fauj.

 

[Rahul M]

it's a mistake to think that INA's objective was to gain independence by fighting the BIA. quite the contrary, netaji knew throughout that he was never going to be successful by militaristic means, the whole point of INA was to inspire Indians and especially the soldiers in the armed forces to rebel against the british. in the end this is exactly what happened, post the red fort trials there was a massive nationalistic mutiny in the RIN and sporadic isolated cases of insubordination and mutiny in military bases across the country.
that, more than anything else convinced the british that India was too hot to handle and it was time to leave quickly and cut losses.

as for his relations with the germans and japanese, they were always uneasy and he was forever trying to become independent of their influence.