Bose: The extremist who refuses to die

[Nalwa]

Would you agree that it could have been Nationalism that inspired the Freedom Movement, and not Gandhi, Nalwa?

Can we compare the two? One is an emotion, other is a personality.

Gandhi couldn't have been so great a leader if not for his nationalistic feelings. And his followers couldn't be just driven by blind support for one person if not for their nationalistic passions. But yes, nationalism is a far greater factor in the freedom struggle than Gandhi alone. What Gandhi did was to embody nationalism in one way. Bose, Bhagat, Azad in another.

 

[roadrunner]

Keep the Nationalism movement. Remove the Ahimsa movement.

You would still probably get Bose's Forward Bloc coming into existence. So it was Nationalism that was important in the invigoration.

 

[Nalwa]

Keep the Nationalism movement. Remove the Ahimsa movement.

You would still probably get Bose's Forward Bloc coming into existence. [So it was Nationalism that was important in the invigoration.

'more important'. Lets not diminish the man's contribution that easily, shall we? I understand from your posts that you might think that we Indians overrate him. Maybe you're right and things could have turned out differently if Bose had been victorious. INA would have been credited with freeing the nation. But that didn't happen and it was left to Gandhi and his non-violent methods.

 

[LaBong]

Gandhi's main contribution was to give the movement which necessarily was limited to few pockets of Bengal, Maharashtra, Punjab and drawing rooms of urban intelligentsia; an Indian outlook. Without Gandhi, the India what it is today, would never have incepted. We would still be in many parts without the illusive unity.

Gandhi truly is the Father of nation, and that is coming from someone who has never been a staunch admirer of him.

 

[roadrunner]

'more important'. Lets not diminish the man's contribution that easily, shall we? I understand from your posts that you might think that we Indians overrate him. Maybe you're right and things could have turned out differently if Bose had been victorious. INA would have been credited with freeing the nation. But that didn't happen and it was left to Gandhi and his non-violent methods.

Bose was defeated. But it was the loss of control that was occurring that resulted in the end of colonialism.

I suppose you can argue that Gandhi was a part of that loss of control along with Bose. But I don't think so. Gandhi was more like the guy who said, don't fight which is what every ruler wants to here from rebel leaders.

 

[Nalwa]

Bose was defeated. But it was the loss of control that was occurring that resulted in the end of colonialism.

But where was this loss of control coming from? People were refusing to go to work, Armymen were deserting. This is fighting, if nothing else.

I suppose you can argue that Gandhi was a part of that loss of control along with Bose. But I don't think so. Gandhi was more like the guy who said, don't fight which is what every ruler wants to here from rebel leaders.

Nope. If you are trying to understand his methodology I would recommend you read his autobiography. He said fight, but not with your hands. The same as Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King did. Now you can argue did both the ANP and the Civil Rights movement had their militant arms, but so did the INC.

 

[roadrunner]

If the subcontinent refused to work, and just sat down, I think it would have been worth holding onto.

You could always get resources or send a new workforce there.

Btw I don't believe the Black Resistance movement in the US did much. It was just given much notiriety, but the government decided to empower minorities (rightly so imo).

 

[Manas]

Bose was defeated. But it was the loss of control that was occurring that resulted in the end of colonialism.

I suppose you can argue that Gandhi was a part of that loss of control along with Bose. But I don't think so. Gandhi was more like the guy who said, don't fight which is what every ruler wants to here from rebel leaders.

If thats what u think, then you don't understand the very basics of nonviolent resisticance or you are feigning an excuse to cast aspersion again the method of nonviolent resistance of Gandhiji because he was an Indian Hindu leader and as usual u hate anything indian.

You can't take away the scarifies of our freedom fighters who gave life, spent years in jail resisting the Raj in a nonviolent struggle by downgrading their method of resistance.

 

[Nalwa]

If the subcontinent refused to work, and just sat down, I think it would have been worth holding onto.

You could always get resources or send a new workforce there.

A lot of people did. Enough to make the British sit up and take the notice. Plus as other posters here have stated, there were other factors at play as well.

Btw I don't believe the Black Resistance movement in the US did much. It was just given much notiriety, but the government decided to empower minorities (rightly so imo).

I am not knowledgeable enough of the civil rights movement to commandingly state if it did enough. In my opinion it must have done enough as the US govt was forced to change its policies. A million men marching through streets, holding hands and singing songs must have been one hell of a sight, if nothing else.

 

[Hello_10]

May be it's the parochial Bengali in me talking, but wasn't the rebellion of British India armed force and navy in pretext of INA's trial which accelerated the independence of India? British would have happily put up with Satyagraha for another decade; no disrespect to Mahatma.

Salt wasn't allowed to be sold or something. So everyone in Gandhi's movement was told to get some salt and sell it. It just seems to be something that a student would do. Not really a freedom fighter of any salt.

both Mr Gandhi and Mr S.C.Bose were trying for the same thing but in different ways. Mr Bose was trying for full armed war with whatever help he could get, even from Hitler or Japan. On the other hand, Mr Gandhi and his men were trying to make British presence ‘non-profitable’ in India. And in fact, it was Gandhi’s tactics which finally worked. British finally had to understand they were losing more than what they have been earning from India till WW2. after WW2, they didn’t need Indian army and Indian high skills for their industries they kept getting even after freedom of India also. while it became very hard for them to sell British goods in India due to men of Mr Gandhi. So, what else they could get from India, whatever wealth they found, they had already shifted to Britain?

Read the government website of India as below. the intentions of Mr Gandhi through 'Satyagrah' were clear to achieve set targets. he didn't want the Indian skills to be used by British industries to give jobs to British labors and then the same British made products to be sold in India and then take the profit to Britain, which never let the industries get established in India. while India was among the top two most industrialized countries of the world till 17th 18th century, with CHina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)

Influenced by the Bhagvad Gita and Hindu beliefs, the Jain religion and the Christian teachings of Leo Tolstoy, Gandhi moved on the path of Satya and Ahimsa. ‘Satya’ meaning ‘truth’ and ‘ahimsa’ meaning ‘non-violence’ were the two weapons that Gandhi used to fight the enemy.

Gandhi inspired people to boycott British goods and refuse earthy possessions. This movement was known as Swaraj and was economically significant because Indian home industries were virtually destructed by British industrialists. He advocated renewal of native Indian industries and began to use a spinning wheel as a token of return to simple village life. Thereafter, he constantly began promoting satyagraha, non-violence, non-cooperation and swaraj to achieve independence. Finally, in August 1947, the British were forced to leave India.
http://www.indianfreedomfighters.in/mohandas-karamchand-gandhi.htm

this is a government website of India, the facts we read in Indian schools. so we would stick with the 'truths' of British Rule in India.