Would India have been better off had the Axis won World War II?

[LETHALFORCE]

Avoid personal attacks in future posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[civfanatic]

No, it would not have been able to maintain a democracy. That's interestingly the point. Netaji thought very much like Mao, he felt that India was too backward a country to sustain a democracy right away, and that it needed a single-party authoritarian regime, till a time when it can "afford" to have a multi-party democracy. He felt that authoritarianism was required to get rid of countless social ills, the caste system, and to homogenize the Indian society at large.

Do you think India would have developed faster and more efficiently if Netaji's plan was implemented?

 

[tarunraju]

Do you think India would have developed faster and more efficiently if Netaji's plan was implemented?

Our development wouldn't have been much different from that of China (at least qualitatively). Over time, our politicians and elite classes would have accumulated much more power and authority than they do now. Given how they already treat the man on the street like dirt, the situation would have been much worse in Netaji's India.

you first learn the total work & principle of netaji then discuss about him,the problem is like half illiterare persons loke u allways thought they know everything,boy our country will be different if netaji take charge about it and those corrupt english foot licking leaders like nehru would be nowhere.

No, I've done adequate amount of study on Netaji. I needn't be a fanboy of Netaji's principals to comment about him. I don't buy into the "paradise theory" that subscribers of Netaji ideology propagate. Given the kind of elites that existed in the 40's and 50's, Netaji's India wouldn't have been much different from Mao's China. The following generations of politicians and elites would have behaved in the same fashion that China's elites do now.

 

[Pintu]

Our development wouldn't have been much different from that of China (at least qualitatively). Over time, our politicians and elite classes would have accumulated much more power and authority than they do now. Given how they already treat the man on the street like dirt, the situation would have been much worse in Netaji's India.

Tarun , I agree, he could propagate 'One Party' rule for quite some time, but the glaring examples of his self sacrifices and his dealing with his comrades are making me very hard to believe your prediction of the India under Netaji's rule, however everybody has his/her own view. My opinion differs from your point. But again, all we are doing speculation of what if the 'VDay' was celebrated in Axis Camp.

you first learn the total work & principle of netaji then discuss about him,the problem is like half illiterare persons loke u allways thought they know everything,boy our country will be different if netaji take charge about it and those corrupt english foot licking leaders like nehru would be nowhere.

Debasree, everybody has his/her points of argument/s and that should be countered with sane logic, no way personal attack can be entertained , and we don't tolerate any abusive word/s and especially not against any Staff. Next time , I will be very sorry to take action.

Regards

 

[amoy]

Netaji's India wouldn't have been much different from Mao's China

frankly don't understand why u put the 2 persons together. I know many Indians think of Mao as a "ruthless" dictator. But for he is a great revoluntionary and transformer for China - resistance against Japnese that made Axis victory nothing more than a hypothesis (fortunately for Chinese at least), and social reforms/restructuring incl. land reform, and industrialization, and spiritual renaissance for Chinese. I partly buy in the theory below

was too backward a country to sustain a democracy right away, and that it needed a single-party authoritarian regime, till a time when it can "afford" to have a multi-party democracy.

and Taiwan, S. Korea, and Japan testify to this transition to demo. when people's awareness and 'competence' are ready

 

[AOE]

you first learn the total work & principle of netaji then discuss about him,the problem is like half illiterare persons loke u allways thought they know everything,boy our country will be different if netaji take charge about it and those corrupt english foot licking leaders like nehru would be nowhere.

How exactly did Nehru 'foot lick' the British, or any western power? If anything he is credited with siding with the Soviet Union early on, and co-creating the Non-Aligned Movement, neither of which has anything to do with the English at all.

 

[Pintu]

frankly don't understand why u put the 2 persons together.

Sameway , for Overwhelming majority of us, Netaji was a great patriot and revolutionary.

Regards

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Guys soon after the British left India with an power vacuum dont you think it would have been easier for an expanding Japanese Empire to fill in the void? This was pretty much like the power vacuum the Mugals and Maratha's left behind and the British simply steeped in. Both Asia and Australia would have been swallowed by the more advanced Japanese fighting machines.

Over the future there would have been a huge struggle between the Nazis, Americans and Japanese Empire for the oil reserves in the Middle East. The world would have been a Tri-polar world with Nazis ruling the West and parts of Africa with their raciest Allies in South Africa they may have taken over the whole continent and the Japanese Ruling Pacific, Asia and till Middle East region possibly till Iraq. With the Americans holding back their position across the pond in North America and may be even allied with the South Americans. Although Argentina was very close with Nazi Germany its hard to tell what would have been the fate of the South.

The world sure would have been different but i don't think it would have been good for the lot of us.

 

[tarunraju]

frankly don't understand why u put the 2 persons together. I know many Indians think of Mao as a "ruthless" dictator.

Because of the atrocities during the "Great Leap" period.

India had already seen over 1000 years of tyrannic rule, and nobody was ready for an authoritarian regime after independence. Even if it was Netaji in the driver's seat, nobody trusted that there could be a "good authoritarian" government in Delhi. Netaji's militant background only added to people's skepticism. Authoritarianism inevitably was clubbed with tyranny.

It is understandable then, that Indians sought parliamentary democracy right away, even if it came at the expense of a lethargic growth. There are many more examples of countries that opted for parliamentary democracy in a state of shambles, and eventually developing into functioning democracies. Post-war Germany is a shining example. At the same time, there are even more examples where authoritarianism downright ruined the county. North Korea is a relevant example.

But then I don't buy into the notion that Netaji would have clicked. Indian elites tend to be the most greedy and the least "giving". It was only material incentives of a free-India that attracted the elites to join the Independence movement. The country would have gone to dogs with such people eventually getting more power than they do now. Nehru's notion that India's diversity can only be sustained if everyone is given equal franchise, and that India can survive only with democracy, makes a whole lot of sense in that context.

But for he is a great revoluntionary and transformer for China

I don't credit China's success-story entirely to Mao. I credit it to Deng. I'm sure you do, too, but I somehow feel Deng isn't getting the credit he deserves. Mao was moderately successful in bringing about critical social transformations, but at the expense of a lot of lives. Mao reindustrialized China, whereas Deng gave it the right direction to transform a industry that suffices to domestic consumption, to an industry that manufactures for the entire world.

I partly buy in the theory below....

....and Taiwan, S. Korea, and Japan testify to this transition to demo. when people's awareness and 'competence' are ready

Really? Then why isn't PRC a parliamentary democracy yet? You mean to say that currently the general "people's awareness and competence" of people of PRC is inferior to that of someone from Taiwan, S. Korea, or Japan?

 

[Pintu]

Netaji's militant background only added to people's skepticism. Authoritarianism inevitably was clubbed with tyranny.
It is understandable then, that Indians sought parliamentary democracy right away, even if it came at the expense of a lethargic growth. There are many more examples of countries that opted for parliamentary democracy in a state of shambles, and eventually developing into functioning democracies. But then I don't buy into the notion that Netaji would have clicked. Indian elites tend to be the most greedy and the least "giving". It was only material incentives of a free-India that attracted the elites to join the Independence movement.

As my perception goes People of India, wanted most the 'Freedom from Oppressive Foreign Rule' , it did not matter to them, which way it was coming, be it in non-violent way or with armed struggle or armed invasion by the Indian troops with Japansese help, the goal which worked in common people's mind was to overthrow the British Raj, and there worked the 'enemy's enemy is the best friend', theory. What was the hearsay and was the fact, common people those were oppressed under the British rule, was list bothered by the plight suffered by Allied Countries in the hands of Axis.

I differ with your theory of Netaji being tyrannical or greedy as elite were, in then India, for the elite people joining in the Independence Movement, that were 'partially true' . Subhash Chandra Bose's back ground was radical rather being 'Militant', People guns for radicalism when moderate views fail to deliver. The skepticism you have mentioned may had risen to a miniscule segment of the population, most of them were 'elite'(on the contrary), and yes there were elite who had gunned for the people's power, I think we are undermining 'Deshabandhu Chitta Ranjan Das' , Motilal Nehru's contribution, even Gandhiji's family background was of 'Elite'. Ridiculously enough , the elite who has raised the figure of skepticism were none other than majority 'Communist Leaders' most of them were accustomed with British Culture and Education, when Netaji being from an 'Elite' Background was more 'Socialist' in nature.

Regards

 

[The Messiah]

No.

Because they would have invaded and occupied India. They weren't saints and there was no chance of them being better than the british.

 

[tarunraju]

As my perception goes People of India, wanted most the 'Freedom from Oppressive Foreign Rule' , it did not matter to them, which way it was coming, be it in non-violent way or with armed struggle or armed invasion by the Indian troops with Japansese help, the goal which worked in common people's mind was to overthrow the British Raj, and there worked the 'enemy's enemy is the best friend', theory. What was the hearsay and was the fact, common people those were oppressed under the British rule, was list bothered by the plight suffered by Allied Countries in the hands of Axis.

A transition from British Raj to an[other] authoritarian regime was not perceived as "freedom".

I differ with your theory of Netaji being tyrannical or greedy as elite were, in then India, for the elite people joining in the Independence Movement, that were 'partially true' .

Maybe Netaji's ideals were noble, but there's no guarantee that the people around him, or the elites that would have latched on to his movement were. Soon after establishing the authoritarian state, people with ulterior motives would have taken over, diluting the very purpose of that regime. From then on, it would have been a carbon-copy of Mao's China.

No doubt people with ulterior motives latched onto a democratic Indian state from day one, but their influence was limited by the way the state is structured. If the recent Anna Hazare's fast happened in an authoritarian India, in 2011, he and his supporters would have been met with the same lethal-force that "Jasmine Revolutionaries" are being met with in China, even as we speak.

Subhash Chandra Bose's back ground was radical rather being 'Militant'

Technically, radicalism is militancy.

The skepticism you have mentioned may had risen to a miniscule segment of the population, most of them were 'elite'(on the contrary), and yes there were elite who had gunned for the people's power, I think we are undermining 'Deshabandhu Chitta Ranjan Das' , Motilal Nehru's contribution, even Gandhiji's family background was of 'Elite'. Ridiculously enough , the elite who has raised the figure of skepticism were none other than majority 'Communist Leaders' most of them were accustomed with British Culture and Education, when Netaji being from an 'Elite' Background was more 'Socialist' in nature.

And that skepticism was valid at the time. Even as India's fate hung in the balance, at that very point in time, Mao Zedong was fighting the ROC. People were aware of what's going to happen to India if radicals took over, in real-time. Chittaranjan Das and Motilal Nehru envisaged people's power through a socialist democracy, not through a socialist authoritarian state. There's virtually no "people's power" in that.

 

[neo29]

We do not know how Hitlers germany would have been towards India. Though the Nazi symbol was holy to Indians, but this would not have any difference in Hitlers assumption that the dark race is inferior. We also do not know how Hitler would have reacted towards Islam.

May be Indians would have been in concentration camps or under Japanese imperialism.

But for sure the Indian culture would have vanished.

 

[Pintu]

A transition from British Raj to an[other] authoritarian regime was not perceived as "freedom".

Please check my point, what I have said, I have talked about general mood of common people, most of them were determined to see end of the oppressive foreign rule, that's the freedom they wanted, first thing was to put an end to British Raj, so the movement at the time were sporadic and divided in to two segments or ways rather I call , one led by Gandhiji , the mass movement called 'Quit India' movement, and second armed uprising, one in particularly rural Bengal, and another led by Netaji through INA, that was from out side of the country. To support my first point the very Quit India movement soon became controlled by Mass, when prominent leaders including Gandhiji was confined by the British Administration, in many cases this movement was not non-violent type rather vent or anguish or ire of the downtrodden and oppressed were evident in the outcome, the movement became violent. and for the second movement was armed uprising, where in Bengal parallel govt. formed in Tamluk, Midnapore, for example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satish_Chandra_Samanta, so , the motto was to end foreign rule , what may the ways be. So, it goes against the point, technically your point may be correct, but popular mood tells the otherwise.

Maybe Netaji's ideals were noble, but there's no guarantee that the people around him, or the elites that would have latched on to his movement were. Soon after establishing the authoritarian state, people with ulterior motives would have taken over, diluting the very purpose of that regime. From then on, it would have been a carbon-copy of Mao's China.

No doubt people with ulterior motives latched onto a democratic Indian state from day one, but their influence was limited by the way the state is structured. If the recent Anna Hazare's fast happened in an authoritarian India, in 2011, he and his supporters would have been met with the same lethal-force that "Jasmine Revolutionaries" are being met with in China, even as we speak.

Agree, there might very well possibility of power hungry elite or military officers or officers in the hierarchy of Administration pressed for a never-ending Authoritarian State, in the absence of Netaji, or there might be a power vaccum after him, but till this is a matter of speculation.

Technically, radicalism is militancy.

There is a confusion , resulting mixing of the two and equating both in many case , but you can check the link:

http://candobetter.net/node/2340

I quote :

Militant: "Aggressive or vigorous, especially in the support of a cause."

Radical: "Of, relating to, or characteristic of the basic or inherent constitution of a person or thing; fundamental: a radical fault...concerned with or tending to concentrate on fundamental aspects of a matter: searching or thoroughgoing thought....favouring or tending to produce extreme or fundamental changes in political, economic, or social conditions, institutions, etc."

Collins Concise Dictionary
Heroic Posturing vs. Getting The Job Done

There is some confusion about militants and radicals. The terms are frequently and wrongly conflated.

Being militant is one thing, but being radical is quite another. One is a posture while another is diagnosis.

Being militant is an attitude, a tactic, a signal of determination. But one can be militant in the pursuit of a moderate, tangential or relatively inconsequential goal, and passive in the face of more fundamental choices.

A radical, however, is one who addresses the root cause, not the symptoms of a malaise. He may indeed adopt a militant stance, but more often than not, he is a conformist in every way that does not provoke needless antipathy. Radicals are not in business to make fashion statements or attract attention. As Thomas Jefferson advised, in matters of principle, stand firm as a rock, but in matters of fashion, swim with the current. True revolutionaries are typically careful not to offend every sensibility so that their ideas can find a hearing. True revolutionaries often wear suits and ties, carry brief cases, are well mannered, gracious, and articulate without need of profanity. Martin Luther King Jr.[1] was a case in point. Such men---and women--- make their ideas all the more conspicuous by their civility. A dishevelled, poorly groomed man blockading a logging truck or camping a top an old growth Douglas Fir or tossing a paint bomb outside a G8 summit may be quite militant, but not radical. His exhibitionism may testify to his commitment or frame of mind but it does not testify to his radicalism. His antics may earn celebrity or notoriety but they do not address the root cause. Martyrdom can bring self-righteous satisfaction, but radical change is not about feeling good about oneself but effecting positive results. The object of confronting the power structure is not personal therapy but our collective release from its grip.

you can check the link.

And that skepticism was valid at the time. Even as India's fate hung in the balance, at that very point in time, Mao Zedong was fighting the ROC. People were aware of what's going to happen to India if radicals took over, in real-time. Chittaranjan Das and Motilal Nehru envisaged people's power through a socialist democracy, not through a socialist authoritarian state. There's virtually no "people's power" in that.

Please check the above para , and link and also I am still on the opinion and stick to that 'valid skepticism' was only limited to some miniscule elites most of them were 'elite communists' brought up in British culture and education not to 'the sons of the soil' and yes the general election in INC, forced Subhash Chandra Bose(Netaji) to start a new socialist party 'Forward Block'. But the valid skepticism was not an excuse for those 'elites' to support British Colonialists and oppose/sabotage the freedom movement in general.

Frankly speaking it is very easy for us now to seat in comfort and to judge whether the change that were going to happen at that time would bring air of freedom in the form of 'Authoritarianism' or 'liberal democracy' but the ground reality were different. Popular goal was to uproot the 'British Colonialism', may what ever the cost it would have.

Radicalism which has the ability to work for match stick for a revolution. A revolution may not necessarily spill the blood, but simply it changes the fundamentals swiftly. History is full of such instances. We can have the example of 'Mustafa Kemal Pasha' and the Modern Turkey, who knows might new India go that way.

Regards

 

[Phantom]

Re: Indische Legion

Honestly, I can't appreciate what Netaji was trying to do, allying himself with the Germans and Japanese just to drive away the British!

To oust a democratic European power off India, he was trying to aid two Autocratic and Brutal regimes. If the Japanese had indeed run through India, does anyone really believe they would treat us Indians any better? And what about the regime that killed 6 million Jews, some who looked similar to fellow Germans?? Does anyone really believe Hitler would treat us, the Darker race, with any greater respect?

And Gandhiji's Satyagraha? He can kiis that goodbye. Unlike the British, the Germans and Japanese would only be too happy to let him fast himself to death!

 

[Deccani]

Re: Indische Legion

Honestly, I can't appreciate what Netaji was trying to do, allying himself with the Germans and Japanese just to drive away the British!

To oust a democratic European power off India, he was trying to aid two Autocratic and Brutal regimes. If the Japanese had indeed run through India, does anyone really believe they would treat us Indians any better? And what about the regime that killed 6 million Jews, some who looked similar to fellow Germans?? Does anyone really believe Hitler would treat us, the Darker race, with any greater respect?

And Gandhiji's Satyagraha? He can kiis that goodbye. Unlike the British, the Germans and Japanese would only be too happy to let him fast himself to death!

It was linked mainly to the policies adopted by the British , the division of Bengal in 1905 . Rabindranath Tagore did opposed the division of Bengal like all the other Bengali Muslims or Hindus alike but it was not stopped because there was no political force left to stop the British after 1857 war and then in 1911 , Bengal was divided once again on the basis of language Bengali, Hindi, Oriya and Assamese areas and this was the reason Azad Hind Fauj came into existence as an political arm to stop all these divisions of the country on Religious and Linguistic lines . And the main support to Azad Hind Fauj came from East Bengal and Burma .

Subhash Chandra Bose from 1924 till 1940 was member of Indian national congress and separated himself after seeing the British Harsh policies.

 

[Phantom]

Re: Indische Legion

It was linked mainly to the policies adopted by the British , the division of Bengal in 1905 . Rabindranath Tagore did opposed the division of Bengal like all the other Bengali Muslims or Hindus alike but it was not stopped because there was no political force left to stop the British after 1857 war and then in 1911 , Bengal was divided once again on the basis of language Bengali, Hindi, Oriya and Assamese areas and this was the reason Azad Hind Fauj came into existence as an political arm to stop all these divisions of the country on Religious and Linguistic lines . And the main support to Azad Hind Fauj came from East Bengal and Burma .

Subhash Chandra Bose from 1924 till 1940 was member of Indian national congress and separated himself after seeing the British Harsh policies.

I don't doubt Netaji's intent even ONE bit. But it's the route that he chose during WW II to liberate India that wasn't right, IMO.

If either Germany or Japan had been able to make inroads into India, it would have been a case of 'out of the fire, but into the frying pan' for us. And a much hotter frying pan at that!

 

[pmaitra]

Re: Indische Legion

I don't doubt Netaji's intent even ONE bit. But it's the route that he chose during WW II to liberate India that wasn't right, IMO.

There was no choice other than prayer and petition. He picked the only option available that did not involve prayer and petition.

If either Germany or Japan had been able to make inroads into India, it would have been a case of 'out of the fire, but into the frying pan' for us. And a much hotter frying pan at that!

Maybe, maybe not! The British engineered famines that could be called genocide. It would be difficult to convince many that anything could have been worse off than that.

 

[Deccani]

Re: Indische Legion

I don't doubt Netaji's intent even ONE bit. But it's the route that he chose during WW II to liberate India that wasn't right, IMO.

It was world war in which all nations took sides because of the colonial period

If either Germany or Japan had been able to make inroads into India, it would have been a case of 'out of the fire, but into the frying pan' for us. And a much hotter frying pan at that!

If may be the british and allies would have failed in stopping the Germans and Japanese advances then for sure there would have been massarces of Indians and because of this only Subhash Chandra Bose and his Azad Hind Fauj to stop these massarces of Indian Nation join the Axis powers .

 

[Phantom]

Re: Indische Legion

There was no choice other than prayer and petition. He picked the only option available that did not involve prayer and petition.


Maybe, maybe not! The British engineered famines that could be called genocide. It would be difficult to convince many that anything could have been worse off than that.

A man of Netaji's stature should have seen the folly of allying oneself with brutal foreign regimes just to kick out another foreign power. And a violent insurrection was not needed especially when Gandhiji's tactics were bearing fruit. The British even hinted at independence after the War if the Indians supported the British war effort.

And isn't a regime that engineered a famine still better than one which mercilessly gassed it's own people or the one which raped an entire city?

To me, allying with a bigger evil to get rid of a lesser evil doesn't make good sense. The Azad Hind Fauj fought against our own troops in the Imphal and Kohima campaigns. How is that considered defending our motherland?