Nehru and Congress betrayed Netaji

[Indischer]

LOL. In war and politics everything IS propaganda. You are just to naive to understand that.

Nobody in this world can be trusted. The only person you can trust is yourself. Most grown ups know this. That does not mean you do not do business with others. You just keep your eyes open and weigh in risk and build leverages.

The Brits left us after the war BECAUSE of Netaji's effort. Without the INA and INA inspired rebellion, Brits would have no problems is bleeding out India to recover from their war efforts and make us pay for rebuilding UK and pay off their debts.

Since everything IS propoganda, how can one state with any confidence that ANY of the stories about Netaji, Nehru and what they did are true? It's not about naivete, but about objectivity.

The INA did not win anything during the War, nor did it inspire the Indians to take the law into their own hands and abandon Gandhian ways of protest. In the end, the people protested only to stay the execution of INA commanders, and for the pardon of all INA jawans.

The British had won a phyrric victory and it willfully elected Clement Attlee over Churchill in 1945. Attlee's Labour Party had earmarked independence for India as an Election manifesto! With Netaji out of the picture and most of INA in custody after WW2, it was the sustained and vociferous protests of India's mainstream parties that brought us Independece.

 

[scorpionx]

The Brits left us after the war BECAUSE of Netaji's effort. Without the INA and INA inspired rebellion, Brits would have no problems is bleeding out India to recover from their war efforts and make us pay for rebuilding UK and pay off their debts.

This is sort of exaggeration, as far as facts are concerned. The British had huge amount of debt to pay the Americans and Roosevelt despised British colonialist policies and advocating freeing the colonies since long.

 

[Indischer]

@Manvantaratruti I forgot to tell you this, but it was slightly amusing to see you warn me about Propaganda while having a fake photo of Modiji sweeping the floor as your avatar.

 

[Infinity]

Gandhi and nehru were the biggest assholes we've ever had in Indian politics. Tharki Gandhi and chutiya nehru are worshipped by congressis. But the real heroes who had sacrificed their lives for the independence of India have been forgotten.

Are you a Flase Falgger...............

 

[INDIC]

This is sort of exaggeration, as far as facts are concerned. The British had huge amount of debt to pay the Americans and Roosevelt despised British colonialist policies and advocating freeing the colonies since long.

American were forcing British to leave India due to the arrival of cold war. I also heard British were fearing some kind revolt in India, that was the main reason they were in extreme hurry to leave. But the anti-British sentiments plunged after the great Calcutta killings and the spread of riots across India.

 

[scorpionx]

American were forcing British to leave India due to the arrival of cold war. I also heard British were fearing some kind revolt in India in India, that was the main reason they were in extreme hurry to leave. But the anti-British sentiments plunged after the great Calcutta killings and the spread of riots across India.

But forcing the British to leave India meant living the ground open for the Russians,isn't? Exactly what followed next. We became a sleeping member of the Soviet cell because Nehru had long been preaching socialism.

 

[INDIC]

But forcing the British to leave India meant living the ground open for the Russians,isn't? Exactly what followed next. We became a sleeping member of the Soviet cell because Nehru had long been preaching socialism.

Their main interest was in Pakistan as Pakistan was useful for them against the Soviet since it was so close with Soviet Union. India getting closer to Soviet was the after effects of those things. Pakistan served their interests against Soviets very well.

 

[scorpionx]

Their main interest was in Pakistan as Pakistan was useful for them against the Soviet since it was so close with Soviet Union. India getting closer to Soviet was the after effects of those things. Pakistan served their interests against Soviets very well.

Good point. But decolonization was a major condition of the "Lend-lease" agreement in the 1941 and nobody then thought that North Western part of British India would form a separate country. If Roosevelt had envisioned this option, the decision is prophetic in true sense.

 

[INDIC]

Good point. But decolonization was a major condition of the "Lend-lease" agreement in the 1941 and nobody then thought that North Western part of British India would form a separate country. If Roosevelt had envisioned this option, the decision is prophetic in true sense.

North-West was very strategic and separation of Pakistan saved us from lots of outside interference after independence.

 

[shuntmaster]

LOL. In war and politics everything IS propaganda. You are just to naive to understand that.

Nobody in this world can be trusted. The only person you can trust is yourself. Most grown ups know this. That does not mean you do not do business with others. You just keep your eyes open and weigh in risk and build leverages.

The Brits left us after the war BECAUSE of Netaji's effort. Without the INA and INA inspired rebellion, Brits would have no problems is bleeding out India to recover from their war efforts and make us pay for rebuilding UK and pay off their debts.

Some even claim that India got independence because of World War 2. Since the British fought the Nazis to preserve their freedom, many British felt that they have no moral right to deny freedom to others. Britain lost all moral justification for holding on to its colonies after WW2. So, in a sense India got freedom due to Hitler.
Also, the Americans forced UK to give up its colonies in return for its support with war efforts.

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

Everyone please relax , Do remember that History cannot be altered so lets not get too worked up. We are all Indian here aren't we ? We all have Indian blood in our veins and we know how to respect our heroes and at the same time voice our disagreements on their respective strategies like civilized folk.

So here's my take on this ---Netaji was undoubtedly one of the greatest patriots India has ever or will ever produce.

My respect for him stems from the fact that after achieving a fourth rank in the Indian Civil Services, he resigned from service. When the under-secretary of India sent for him , he told him " I do not think one can be loyal to the British Raj and yet be with the Indian Independence movement , heart and Soul" --This was one of the finest examples of personal sacrifice at that moment given that his father Jankinath Bose was really upset and Netaji's own convictions speak for themselves . At this point , he told himself --"If I fail here , I shall never respect myself again" .A sure sign of dignity.
and conviction that India's destiny lay in its own hands.

Only leader who was close to Netaji was Pandit Nehru infact it was Azad Patel and Gandhi who were always opposed to Netaji.It was Patel who argued hard over Netaji's attempt to get re-elected as Congress president in 1939. Sarat Chandra Bose, Subhas Chandra's brother, wrote a strong letter to Patel for allegedly carrying on a 'malicious and vindictive propaganda against the Bose.
Even in the Tripuri session of INC 1939 it was only Nehru who didn't resign from Congress Working Committee when all including patel azad rajaji prasad formed a group and resigned.To prevent Congress split Netaji himself resigned .But lately RSS and its rightwing propaganda machinery is very active to demolish Panditji's image.I know all people here including me hates congress dynasty but always remember it was Indira Gandhi who started this dynasty not Nehru. Panditji is the greatest Prime Minister India ever had. To see the difference he made just look at our neighbor Pakistan which was more prosperous land at the time of partition but irony the more Muslims are being killed in the country which was created for "Muslims".

But then if Nehru was truly idealistic and not interested in self-power but only for the betterment of India as a nation, How does this fact fit that---- Shyama Prasad Mukherjee the founder of Bharatiya Jan Sangh , the precursor of the BJP --even when LK Advani and Vajpayee were active as young men , he was arrested while entering Kashmir and murdered in custody ( Yes murdered since he was administered penicillin despite having told the doctor he was allergic to it and Nehru's Govt had a hand in covering this up too).

So Not just Netaji's contribution but the contributions of another patriot got trampled under Nehru's feet. How is this to be taken as ? Nehru's benevolence ? I dont think so.

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

I guess I am going to be hugely unpopular in stating this, but I respectfully beg to disagree with anyone who says that Netaji had a greater impact on our independence than Gandhiji/INC(not today's Congress, btw).

Netaji, NO DOUBTS, was a great Patriot, perhaps India's finest! But his strategy of allying with two overtly racial and genocidal Regimes just to remove the British(who were as fair as Colonialists came in those days) wasn't a good plan. Netaji's desperation and his commitment to achieve his goals are highly commendable, but the means were dubious, sort of.

Netaji's Azad Hind Fauj failed to win even border towns like Imphal and Kohima, and Netaji himself tragically disappeared(or killed) in 1945. Yet, India got her independence in 1947. Now don't tell me this was because of Netaji or Azad Hind Fauj.

Nehru, on the other hand, would definitly benefit from the disappearance of Netaji. One can only imagine the kind of tremendous impact he could have if he were to take up a senior Ministry or position in the Government. Given their diverging views, if someone like Netaji again broke away from the Congress and formed a new Party, it would have definitely grown into a large Party to rival the Congress, something that couldn't happen until the 1980s.

In conclusion, pre-Independent India did not miss his services, as there was a Gandhiji and INC to ensure independence, but post-independent India has severely missed one of her most devoted Sons.

Your points are very valid ---

1.) Post independence Netaji would have prevented congress turning into the dynastic rot it is today. As soon say Netaji would have played a role similar to Mustapha Kemal Pasha of Turkey and build India into a strong nation in its own right. It took successive Governments decades to achieve the same.

2.) Netaji's means of getting Independence were the only possible alternative Imho. Since Britain under Churchill had already maintained that the freedom they were fighting for was only for those countries overun by Hitler. This is British Double Standards.

Netaji became convinced that only a military solution was the way to drive out the British since after India had co-operated whole-heartedly with the British in the WW1 with millions of soldiers , arms , food and money , we ended up without anything---without even Dominion Status.
So he took the only path left , that was to ally himself with Britain's Enemies to liberate India. It is well documented that he in no way ever supported the Nazis in extermination of jewish people. To him , even if he had to shake his hands with the devil he would do it.

Netaji's battlefield command and grasp of strategy was poor -- This was noted in the journals of many Japanese Commanding Officers. A Japanese Commander said " He was constantly arguing to give greater operational roles to the INA without understanding its operational capabilities" ---Perhaps this was because the INA did not achieve much success directly.

However the impact of the INA CANNOT be measured solely by its military capabilities. The INA instilled fear in the minds of the British Administration, Fear about the loyalty of their Indian Troopers and this fact was documented in a secret cable sent by the then Viceroy To Clement Atlee--" That if a revolt broke out on the scale of 1857 , then England would not be able to control it without the help of a very large number of Troops"

Again the INA actions inspired the Royal Navy mutiny in Bombay which left 300 casualties on both the British and the Indian Side in the city of Mumbai alone.

The Red Fort Trials were equally historic in galvanizing the Mainstream Indian Population into giving the soldiers who served in the INA the epithet of real heroes . This prevented even a single execution of these officers on charges of treason, war crimes etc.

So to conclude the INA had a tremendous impact in hastening our Independence , even if like the First Indian War of Independence , its effect was indirect rather than direct.

Comparing Apples and Oranges, eh?
How can you compare deliberate genocide with maladministration and mismanagement of a natural disaster?
Thousands of farmers commit suicide in India every year, but no one calls it a genocide by the state or national government.

Agree that in this case the comparison is like apples and oranges.

But to be clear there was no maladministration or Mismanagement. It was a concerted effort by Churchill to deny relief to millions dying during the famines.

Ships carrying relief supplies of Grain were deliberately turned away or kept in reserve for British activities elsewhere instead of being used to save millions of Indian Lives. If Hitler was devil-incarnate for Jews and Churchill was devil-incarnate for Indians during those times .

And here is the proof :

The Ugly Briton
By Shashi Tharoor Monday, Nov. 29, 2010

Read more: Books: Churchill's Shameful Role in the Bengal Famine - TIME Books: Churchill's Shameful Role in the Bengal Famine - TIME


Few statesmen of the 20th century have reputations as outsize as Winston Churchill's. And yet his assiduously self-promoted image as what the author Harold Evans called "the British Lionheart on the ramparts of civilization" rests primarily on his World War II rhetoric, rather than his actions as the head of a government that ruled the biggest empire the world has ever known. Madhusree Mukerjee's new book, Churchill's Secret War, reveals a side of Churchill largely ignored in the West and considerably tarnishes his heroic sheen.

In 1943, some 3 million brown-skinned subjects of the Raj died in the Bengal famine, one of history's worst. Mukerjee delves into official documents and oral accounts of survivors to paint a horrifying portrait of how Churchill, as part of the Western war effort, ordered the diversion of food from starving Indians to already well-supplied British soldiers and stockpiles in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, including Greece and Yugoslavia. And he did so with a churlishness that cannot be excused on grounds of policy: Churchill's only response to a telegram from the government in Delhi about people perishing in the famine was to ask why Gandhi hadn't died yet.
(See the top 10 weird government secrets.)

British imperialism had long justified itself with the pretense that it was conducted for the benefit of the governed. Churchill's conduct in the summer and fall of 1943 gave the lie to this myth. "I hate Indians," he told the Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery. "They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." The famine was their own fault, he declared at a war-cabinet meeting, for "breeding like rabbits."

As Mukerjee's accounts demonstrate, some of India's grain was also exported to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) to meet needs there, even though the island wasn't experiencing the same hardship; Australian wheat sailed past Indian cities (where the bodies of those who had died of starvation littered the streets) to depots in the Mediterranean and the Balkans; and offers of American and Canadian food aid were turned down. India was not permitted to use its own sterling reserves, or indeed its own ships, to import food. And because the British government paid inflated prices in the open market to ensure supplies, grain became unaffordable for ordinary Indians. Lord Wavell, appointed Viceroy of India that fateful year, considered the Churchill government's attitude to India "negligent, hostile and contemptuous."
(See pictures of the Red Cross during the war.)

Mukerjee's prose is all the more devastating because she refuses to voice the outrage most readers will feel on reading her exhaustively researched, footnoted facts. The way in which Britain's wartime financial arrangements and requisitioning of Indian supplies laid the ground for famine; the exchanges between the essentially decent Amery and the bumptious Churchill; the racism of Churchill's odious aide, paymaster general Lord Cherwell, who denied India famine relief and recommended most of the logistical decisions that were to cost so many lives — all are described in a compelling narrative.

Churchill said that history would judge him kindly because he intended to write it himself. The self-serving but elegant volumes he authored on the war led the Nobel Committee, unable in all conscience to bestow him an award for peace, to give him, astonishingly, the Nobel Prize for Literature — an unwitting tribute to the fictional qualities inherent in Churchill's self-justifying embellishments. Mukerjee's book depicts a truth more awful than any fiction.

Tharoor, a Member of Parliament in India, is the author of Nehru: The Invention of India and other books

Read more: Books: Churchill's Shameful Role in the Bengal Famine - TIME Books: Churchill's Shameful Role in the Bengal Famine - TIME

There are a dozen other documentaries or books I could choose from but Shashi Tharoor's account sums it up best.

Churchill was a racist --although a closet racist and his resufal to send food grains at the time of our greatest need --and his reason to stop us from "breeding like rabbits " and equating us with " a disease that needs to be controlled" ---puts him in Hitler's Category for us Indians .

 

[illuminatidinesh]

The Brits left us after the war BECAUSE of Netaji's effort. Without the INA and INA inspired rebellion, Brits would have no problems is bleeding out India to recover from their war efforts and make us pay for rebuilding UK and pay off their debts.

I agree there.... For the first time they started realizing that the foothold in India is in shatters

Your points are very valid ---
1.) Post independence Netaji would have prevented congress turning into the dynastic rot it is today. As soon say Netaji would have played a role similar to Mustapha Kemal Pasha of Turkey and build India into a strong nation in its own right. It took successive Governments decades to achieve the same.
2.) Netaji's means of getting Independence were the only possible alternative Imho. Since Britain under Churchill had already maintained that the freedom they were fighting for was only for those countries overun by Hitler. This is British Double Standards.
Netaji became convinced that only a military solution was the way to drive out the British since after India had co-operated whole-heartedly with the British in the WW1 with millions of soldiers , arms , food and money , we ended up without anything---without even Dominion Status.
So he took the only path left , that was to ally himself with Britain's Enemies to liberate India. It is well documented that he in no way ever supported the Nazis in extermination of jewish people. To him , even if he had to shake his hands with the devil he would do it.
Netaji's battlefield command and grasp of strategy was poor -- This was noted in the journals of many Japanese Commanding Officers. A Japanese Commander said " He was constantly arguing to give greater operational roles to the INA without understanding its operational capabilities" ---Perhaps this was because the INA did not achieve much success directly.
However the impact of the INA CANNOT be measured solely by its military capabilities. The INA instilled fear in the minds of the British Administration, Fear about the loyalty of their Indian Troopers and this fact was documented in a secret cable sent by the then Viceroy To Clement Atlee--" That if a revolt broke out on the scale of 1857 , then England would not be able to control it without the help of a very large number of Troops"
Again the INA actions inspired the Royal Navy mutiny in Bombay which left 300 casualties on both the British and the Indian Side in the city of Mumbai alone.
The Red Fort Trials were equally historic in galvanizing the Mainstream Indian Population into giving the soldiers who served in the INA the epithet of real heroes . This prevented even a single execution of these officers on charges of treason, war crimes etc.
So to conclude the INA had a tremendous impact in hastening our Independence , even if like the First Indian War of Independence , its effect was indirect rather than direct.

Completely agree with u there, It was sad that INA could not gather any meaningful strategic victory but they succeeded in one thing, many Indians started feeling that they were fighting for the wrong side.

 

[vicky sen]

Only leader who was close to Netaji was Pandit Nehru infact it was Azad Patel and Gandhi who were always opposed to Netaji.It was Patel who argued hard over Netaji's attempt to get re-elected as Congress president in 1939. Sarat Chandra Bose, Subhas Chandra's brother, wrote a strong letter to Patel for allegedly carrying on a 'malicious and vindictive propaganda against the Bose.
Even in the Tripuri session of INC 1939 it was only Nehru who didn't resign from Congress Working Committee when all including patel azad rajaji prasad formed a group and resigned.To prevent Congress split Netaji himself resigned .But lately RSS and its rightwing propaganda machinery is very active to demolish Panditji's image.I know all people here including me hates congress dynasty but always remember it was Indira Gandhi who started this dynasty not Nehru. Panditji is the greatest Prime Minister India ever had. To see the difference he made just look at our neighbor Pakistan which was more prosperous land at the time of partition but irony the more Muslims are being killed in the country which was created for "Muslims".

Why Nehru was one of the worst PMs we've had

Everything started in early 1946 when the Indian National Congress had to elect a new president. It was an accepted fact that the leader chosen as Congress president would become the first prime minister of independent India. Three candidates were in the race: Acharya Kripalani, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Sardar Patel. The working committee of the INC and the pradesh committees had to send their nomination for one of the three candidates.

Sardar Patel was easily the most popular. Everyone knew his efficiency and his toughness for tackling difficult problems. Twelve out of 19 Pradesh committees nominated him. None nominated Nehru.

From the start Gandhi had indicated that he favoured Nehru. His reasoning was that his British education was an asset: 'Jawaharlal cannot be replaced today whilst the charge is being taken from the British. He, a Harrow boy, a Cambridge graduate, and a barrister, is wanted to carry on the negotiations with the Englishmen.'

Another point Gandhi made was that while Sardar Patel would agree to work as Nehru's deputy, the reverse might not happen. He also felt that Nehru was better known abroad and could help India play a role in international affairs.

Eventually, in deference to Gandhi, Kripalani nominated Nehru and withdrew from the race. Patel had no choice but to follow his colleague 'so that Nehru could be elected unopposed.' Dr Rajendra Prasad later stated: 'Gandhi has once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the glamorous Nehru.'

It is how India got a Kashmiri Pandit as its first prime minister.


1. After his election as Congress president, he gave his support to his friend Sheikh Abdullah (he called him his 'blood brother') who had been jailed by Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir. In June 1946, he decided to go to the valley to free Abdullah. The situation was certainly not shining in Kashmir (as in the rest of India), but to take on the maharaja at this point in time was a serious mistake. In 1946 Kak then PM of Kashmir objected to accession because of Nehru's attitude otherwise it would have been acceptable in other circumstances. In September, he decided to offer Kashmir's accession to India. This was refused by Nehru, who first wanted Sheikh Abdullah to be freed and installed as prime minister of the state. This was not acceptable to the maharaja. Things came to a head at the end of October 1947 when raiders from the North West Frontier Province entered the state, killing, looting, and raping along. On October 26, they had reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Hari Singh agreed to sign the Instrument of Accession.

On the same day a historic meeting was held in Delhi with Mountbatten, the governor general, as chairman. A young army colonel named Sam Manekshaw, who attended the meeting, recalled: 'As usual Nehru talked about the United Nations, Russia, Africa, God Almighty, everybody, until Sardar Patel lost his temper. He said, 'Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away?' He [Nehru] said, 'Of course, I want Kashmir.' Then he [Patel] said: 'Please give your orders.'



2. Nehru declined a US offer to India to take the permanent seat on the UNSC in 1953 & suggested that it be given to China. Situation could be different if Nehru accepted that proposal. India would got Veto power 59 years back which would be helpful in many ways.

3. Nehru called for a UN ceasefire at a time the Indian troops were going to win back J&K in 1948. Few more days and whole Kashmir (Including Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan) would be part of India.

4. Years later, his Panchsheel and India-Chini-bhai-bhai, was put to the sword by the same Chinese, who back-stabbed him and invaded and occupied a portion of Kashmir in 1962. It is said that 1962 Chinese invasion, was a brutal shock to Nehru, that he died of Heart Attack in May 1964.Again the foreign policy of Nehru failed. He could have taken American help to repulse China but he didn't.

5. Speaking English is not Secularism. Speaking Sanskrit and Singing Vande Mataram is not communalism. Nehur was a secular and Liberal leader. He was secular that he forget everything about India. When Cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir Valley and Hindus in East Pakistan and West Pakistan happened during 1947-1965. He didn't even tried to allow them for rehabilitation in India. Due to this, Millions of Hindus were either Killed, Raped or Forcefully converted into Islam. Once Indira gandhi came into power, Things changed a bit (Rehabaltion of Kashmiris in India and Hindus of East Pakistan settlement in West Bengal but it was too late and too little.)


In retrospect, despite Nehru's love for great principles, his incapacity to take decisions in time, his inability to work with colleagues like Patel, and his friendship with individuals such as the Mounbattens or Abdullah, who had their own interests, blinded him so much that he did not further India's national interests. The consequences have been tragic and the muddle created 64 years ago remains far from being sorted out.

I guess I am going to be hugely unpopular in stating this, but I respectfully beg to disagree with anyone who says that Netaji had a greater impact on our independence than Gandhiji/INC(not today's Congress, btw).

Netaji, NO DOUBTS, was a great Patriot, perhaps India's finest! But his strategy of allying with two overtly racial and genocidal Regimes just to remove the British(who were as fair as Colonialists came in those days) wasn't a good plan. Netaji's desperation and his commitment to achieve his goals are highly commendable, but the means were dubious, sort of.

Netaji's Azad Hind Fauj failed to win even border towns like Imphal and Kohima, and Netaji himself tragically disappeared(or killed) in 1945. Yet, India got her independence in 1947. Now don't tell me this was because of Netaji or Azad Hind Fauj.

Nehru, on the other hand, would definitly benefit from the disappearance of Netaji. One can only imagine the kind of tremendous impact he could have if he were to take up a senior Ministry or position in the Government. Given their diverging views, if someone like Netaji again broke away from the Congress and formed a new Party, it would have definitely grown into a large Party to rival the Congress, something that couldn't happen until the 1980s.

In conclusion, pre-Independent India did not miss his services, as there was a Gandhiji and INC to ensure independence, but post-independent India has severely missed one of her most devoted Sons.

Did You read the article???

"I had then a long talk with Attlee about the real grounds for the voluntary withdrawal of the British from India. I put it straight to him like this:
The Quit India movement of Gandhiji practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in Indian situation at that time which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry? Why did you then do so?
In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which are the activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the very foundations of the attachment of the Indian land and naval forces to the British Government.
I also asked Attlee about the extent to which their decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhiji’s activities.
On hearing this Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered slowly, putting strong emphasis on each single letter: ‘MI-NI-MAL’.”

Are you a Flase Falgger...............

He was bang on target!!!

Your points are very valid ---

1.) Post independence Netaji would have prevented congress turning into the dynastic rot it is today. As soon say Netaji would have played a role similar to Mustapha Kemal Pasha of Turkey and build India into a strong nation in its own right. It took successive Governments decades to achieve the same.

2.) Netaji's means of getting Independence were the only possible alternative Imho. Since Britain under Churchill had already maintained that the freedom they were fighting for was only for those countries overun by Hitler. This is British Double Standards.

Netaji became convinced that only a military solution was the way to drive out the British since after India had co-operated whole-heartedly with the British in the WW1 with millions of soldiers , arms , food and money , we ended up without anything---without even Dominion Status.
So he took the only path left , that was to ally himself with Britain's Enemies to liberate India. It is well documented that he in no way ever supported the Nazis in extermination of jewish people. To him , even if he had to shake his hands with the devil he would do it.

Netaji's battlefield command and grasp of strategy was poor -- This was noted in the journals of many Japanese Commanding Officers. A Japanese Commander said " He was constantly arguing to give greater operational roles to the INA without understanding its operational capabilities" ---Perhaps this was because the INA did not achieve much success directly.

However the impact of the INA CANNOT be measured solely by its military capabilities. The INA instilled fear in the minds of the British Administration, Fear about the loyalty of their Indian Troopers and this fact was documented in a secret cable sent by the then Viceroy To Clement Atlee--" That if a revolt broke out on the scale of 1857 , then England would not be able to control it without the help of a very large number of Troops"

Again the INA actions inspired the Royal Navy mutiny in Bombay which left 300 casualties on both the British and the Indian Side in the city of Mumbai alone.

The Red Fort Trials were equally historic in galvanizing the Mainstream Indian Population into giving the soldiers who served in the INA the epithet of real heroes . This prevented even a single execution of these officers on charges of treason, war crimes etc.

So to conclude the INA had a tremendous impact in hastening our Independence , even if like the First Indian War of Independence , its effect was indirect rather than direct.

Very well put!!

 

[Chronos]

But forcing the British to leave India meant living the ground open for the Russians,isn't? Exactly what followed next. We became a sleeping member of the Soviet cell because Nehru had long been preaching socialism.

And Churchill wanted bases in our part of the World to keep an overwatch. Enter Pakistan.