Totally wrong on all points.
Plz read up on all movements for freedom. You keep yapping about how this was the collective will of people, yet you miss the obvious. Ever movement needs sparks to start the fire and carry it thru. Bose was a big spark.
I did read up and that is why I repeat, Netaji was NOT the spark. If that is what you want, then the initial battle challenging the supremacy of East India Company forces in India can be called as sparks. The 1857 mutiny can be classified as the spark for real independence. Netaji was simply an ordinary politician in the grand scheme of things - the Indian independence movement. He harbored delusions of grandeur and resorted to allying with the axis powers to fight against the British forces and by extension, the Allied powers. Very poor and deplorable decisions. Even if the axis powers had won the war, Bose would have been relegated to the back ground and we would be living as secondary citizens or worse, under the Japanese!! He simply had no acumen to navigate the complex political landscape with various ideologies around.
Earlier, Bose had been a leader of the younger, radical, wing of the Indian National Congress in the late 1920s and 1930s, rising to become Congress President in 1938 and 1939.[8]
So did many of the congress leaders who rose through the ranks. What differentiated Netaji in this role was that he addressed himself as the GoC of the youth movement and had uniforms et al for the members. This whole military/militant wannabe attitude was ridiculed by many ordinary Indians, let alone the British!
In 1946, Members of the Congress initially supported the sailors who led the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny. However they withdrew support at the critical juncture, when the mutiny failed. During the INA trials of 1946, the Congress helped to form the INA Defence Committee, which forcefully defended the case of the soldiers of the Azad Hind government. The committee declared the formation of the Congress' defence team for the INA and included famous lawyers of the time, including Bhulabhai Desai, Asaf Ali, and Jawaharlal Nehru
RIN mutiny and trial of INA soldiers are separate events. INA trial was not palatable to the Indian leadership then because the British looked at it as treason against the crown while the Indian leadership considered the trial as excessive. Afterall INA consisted mostly of captured RIA POW soldiers.
Typical Congress mentality.....
Dude, you dont even know my political affiliations and you immediately bracket me in one!? How immature! Simply because I have a different opinion, I am to be 'condemned'? LOL.
See, I understand this want for hero worship, this romanticism with militant struggle, this craving to idolize an individual who, falsely or ignorantly, is being considered as the single most important reason for 'kicking' the British Empire out of India. Stories of an individual standing up and fighting against the might of the British Empire does indeed fire up the imaginations of an entire population. Stokes the embers of fervent nationalism. Lol, for a time I had idolized Che Guevera!! So I can sympathize with the feelings you harbor for Netaji. The truth is far from this fantasy.
Patel and Azzad were smart and nothing like the rest of the other idiots.
Which Azad are you talking about? I was talking about Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the first Education minster of independent India.
With b@st@rds like you,India doesn't really need an enemy.What say Mikhail??
As far as I remember, I have a right to express my opinion, based on various facts collected from many sources. Simply because I don't prescribe to your single track ideology of hero worshiping you resort to calling me names?
Yup. Stay classy, dimwit!
There were just 2 main reasons why British decided to leave India
1) lets not forget that Clement Attlee's govt was a pro-decolonisation Labour government.
Concur.
2) The contribution of INA and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose which had achieved a lot more than Gandhi Ji's quit India movement and Nehru's "freedom struggle".
What 'lot more' contributions do you speak of? Can you elaborate?
Let me be very brusque that british would not 've left India if they could afford to carry the white elephant, India. No doubt British would've ultimately left india but India secured independence in 1947 (an year before it was planned) because Britishers were in a hurry to pack their bags.
British were bound to leave India. It would have happened much earlier had it not been for the war in Europe. Colonialism was losing its flavor the world over, being replaced with the riches being brought about by capitalism and open markets. What was the point of investing into resources to physically hold onto colonies, when capitalism would bring in much more richer dividends ? We were already governing ourselves with provincial elections, political parties, creating our own laws etc...we had our own police forces, civic structure/bodies, court system etc.
.Off topic,18 te vote dichcho toh
??
!!
!!
