Nehru and Congress betrayed Netaji

[dontsuspendme]

Nehru is a lier.

Nehru is a liar and gay...

The whole Gandhi family is a joke and they made india a joke...

 

[vicky sen]

Bhai, I would rather not read too much into a Politician from Bengal supposedly quoting Clement Attlee over a conversation that he alone was privy to. Moreover, in 1976, Clement Attlee was no more to confirm or deny if he ever made such a quote. There is this popular rumour that Indira Gandhi said something like we'd taken revenge for 1000 years of Muslim rule in 1971. But unless such statements are expressly endorsed by the speakers themselves or corroborated by multiple accounts of eyewitnesses, they cannot be and must not be propogated as authentic quotes.

Have a look at this post. Sums it up nicely. Britain depended heavily on the Indian Armed Forces. If they had revolted, the brits knew they had no chance. The Congress they could deal with, because they were largely non- violent.

Your points are very valid ---



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.




.

 

[Indischer]

Have a look at this post. Sums it up nicely. Britain depended heavily on the Indian Armed Forces. If they had revolted, the brits knew they had no chance. The Congree they could deal with, because they were largely non- violent.

I never said Netaji or AHF did not have any impact on our freedom movement. I'm saying they weren't greater than those of Gandhiji or INC. If all the Indian troops fighting alongside the British in WW2 gave up their loyalty and started a mutiny, the British would surely have been decimated on many fronts in the War. But question is, did it happen?? It didn't, and hence we cannot overestimate/overemphasize the contributions of certain individuals over scenarios with IFs which did not take place.

 

[vicky sen]

I never said Netaji or AHF did not have any impact on our freedom movement. I'm saying they weren't greater than those of Gandhiji or INC. If all the Indian troops fighting alongside the British in WW2 gave up their loyalty and started a mutiny, the British would surely have been decimated on many fronts in the War. But question is, did it happen?? It didn't, and hence we cannot overestimate/overemphasize the contributions of certain individuals over scenarios with IFs which did not take place.

Another source( The Tribune) of Clement Attlee quote and another very good article.Read it if u can. Notice how Gandhiji supressed the mutiny. Fact is, if the little bubbles of revolt had been supported by Gandhiji, it could have created something huge.
They had a very hostile attitude towards Netaji and there r many proofs of this. My purpose is to criticise Nehru and partly Gandhi for their betrayal of Netaji.


The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum

RIN mutiny gave a jolt to the British
The ratings mutiny in the Royal Indian Navy made the British realise it was time to leave India. Dhananjaya Bhat on the uprising that took place 60 years ago on February 18.

WHICH phase of our freedom struggle won for us Independence? Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 Quit India movement or The INA army launched by Netaji Bose to free India or the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny of 1946? According to the British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, during whose regime India became free, it was the INA and the RIN Mutiny of February 18-23 1946 that made the British realise that their time was up in India.

An extract from a letter written by P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30 1976, reads thus: "When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in post war years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan Calcutta for two days`85 I put it straight to him like this: ‘The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time, which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?’ In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN Mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’."

Strangely enough, like the chapattis which went all around India during the 1857 First War of Independence asking the nation drive away the British, it was 20 loaves of bread that started this so-called RIN Mutiny. It was a reaction against the high-handed behaviour by British officers of the RIN. On January 16, 1946, a contingent of 67 ratings of various branches arrived at Castle Barracks, Mint Road, in Fort Mumbai. This contingent had arrived from the basic training establishment, HMIS Akbar, located at Thane a suburb of Mumbai at four in the evening. The officer on duty informed the galley (kitchen) staff of this arrival. Quite casually, the duty cook, without winking an eyelid, took out 20 loaves of bread from the large cupboard and added three litres of tap water to the mutton curry as well as the gram dal which was lying already cooked before as per the morning strength of the ratings. On that day, only 17 ratings ate the watery, tasteless meals, while the rest went ashore and ate. When reported to senior officers present, this grievances practically evoked no response and the discontentment continued to build up.

These complaints continued to agitate the ratings and a naval central strike committee was formed on February 18, 1946. It was led by naval rating M.S Khan. Soon, thousands of disgruntled ratings from Mumbai, Karachi, Cochin and Vishakhapatnam joined them. They communicated with each other through the wireless communication sets available in HMIS Talwar. Thus, the entire revolt was coordinated. The unrest spread to shore establishments from the initial flashpoint in Bombay to Karachi and Calcutta, involving 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 sailors.

The next morning, the Tricolour was hoisted by the ratings on most of the ships and establishments. The third day came charged with fresh emotions. Sardar Patel’s statement of assurance did improve matters considerably. However, an unruly guncrew of a 25-pounder gun fitted in an old ship, fired a salvo, without orders from the strikers, towards the Castle barracks and blew off a large branch of an old banyan tree. By this time the British destroyers fully armed to go into action arrived and had positioned themselves off the Gateway of India in Mumbai.

The RIN Mutiny was treated as a crisis of the empire by an alarmed British cabinet and Attlee Clement, ordered the Royal Navy to put down the revolt. Admiral Godfrey, the Flag Officer commanding the RIN, went on air with his order "Submit or perish".

The next day, the RAF (Royal Air Force) threatened the defiant RIN ships by flying a squadron of bombers low over Bombay harbour even as Admiral Rattray, Flag Officer, Bombay, RIN, issued an ultimatum asking the ratings to raise black flags and surrender unconditionally.

Both Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Sardar Patel successfully persuaded the ratings to surrender. Patel wrote, "Discipline in the army cannot be tampered with. We will want [the] army even in free India". Mahatma Gandhi, criticised the strikers for mutinying without the call of a ‘prepared revolutionary party’ and without the ‘guidance and intervention’ of ‘political leaders of their choice’.

The issue remained unresolved till the morning of February 23, when the hopeless situation produced a vote of surrender. The black flags went up at six on the morning of February 23.

The negotiations moved fast, keeping in view the extreme sensitivity of the situation and most of the demands of the strikers regarding welfare measures were conceded in principle. Immediate steps were taken to improve the quality of food served in the ratings’ kitchen and their living conditions. But these were followed up by court martials and large-scale dismissals from the service. None of those dismissed were reinstated into either of the Indian or Pakistani navies after Independence.

But the brave sailors had demonstrated to the British that they would rise in defence of their motherland, thus leaving the foreign imperialists little option but to quit.

Today a memorial to the brave RIN ratings, completed by the Indian Navy in 2002, stands in the busy Colaba area in Central Bombay. — MF

 

[Indischer]

@vicky sen See how even the Tribune article is again quoting the same source for what Clement Attlee apparently said, the fateful interaction between Mr Chakraborty himself and Clement Attlee. Most articles that want any opinion of Clement Attlee on this issue have nowhere to go, but his letter.

Whatever his weaknesses, Gandhiji realised that the means were as important as the ends. And there was no way he was going to support Netaji after he advocated a military solution to oust the Brits. They did not see merit in each other's tactics, and I too agree that Netaji was rather quickly abandoned by Nehru, perhaps sensing a threat to his own eminence within the INC.

Btw, the articles that you are posting are really good to read. Good job Mate!

 

[Adler]

@Indischer Where are you based at in Germany?

 

[Indischer]

@Indischer Where are you based at in Germany?

Sorry mate, can't reveal it here. I've revealed too much about myself as it is here

 

[Manvantaratruti]

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.

When one goes around shouting 'green revolution....green revolution', its a safe bet that its propaganda Its not enough to talk about objectivity, you have to demonstrate it by rational observations and conclusions. Not parrot propaganda as views.

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.

LOL. Your ignorance shines through again. The trials of the INA heroes and the stories of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, as well as the stories of INA's fight during the siege of Imphal were already in the public-eye at the time. It is these stores that inspired the mutiny in the Indian british army, navy and airforce. India navy ratings went around Bombay on 19th and 20th Feb 1946, in lorries, holding aloft tricolor flags and the picture of Subhash Chandra Bose ....... ....and you say Bose had no impact.

The Gurkhas in karachi refused to fire on striking sailors. The strike soon spread to other parts of India. The personals in Calcutta, Madras, Karachi and Vizag also went on strike with the slogans "Strike for Bombay", "Release 11,000 INA prisoners" and "Jai Hind".

This Munity that was a repeat of 1857, except this time the Sikh and the Gurkhas were against the British too. British left India because they had NO choice. They could never rule India without the Indian soldiers obeying their orders ....and thanks to Netaji, the Indian soldiers loyalty had shifted to India and Indians and not to British.

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.

LOL again. Here is a clipping of Sir Stafford Cripps, who spoke in the debate at the British House of Commons.

"…The Indian Army in India is not obeying the British officers. We have recruited our workers for the war; they have been demobilised after the war. They are required to repair the factories damaged by Hitler’s bombers. Moreover, they want to join their kith and kin after five and a half years of separation. Their kith and kin also want to join them. In these conditions if we have to rule India for a long time, we have to keep a permanent British army for a long time in a vast country of four hundred millions. We have no such army, and money….”

Of the 2.4 million INDIAN soilders who were involved in the World war, only 2.4 lakh died. Which is around 10%. The rest of the 90% of the battle hardened troops had come back to India. Brits did not want them to join the Mutineer. ........guess what would have happened if they had ?

As to Atlee's victory, it had nothing to do with his promise of granting Independence to india ....what a hilarious and absurd assumption.

BBC - History - World Wars: Why Churchill Lost in 1945

There was a impression in UK at that time that Churchill was planning to go to war again. The repeated emphasis he gave to the need to finish the war against Japan suggested that war was his only real interest. The East End of London was flooded with rumours that he was planning a war against Russia. War weariness was probably a factor against Churchill among civilians and servicemen alike.

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.

Are you aware that by the end of the war Britain owed 1.25 billion pounds of its total 3 billion pounds war debt to India, but also much more that could not be quantified.

Safe to say this was never paid back. Contrary to what people choose to believe, there is no relationship or principle greater than MONEY. Especially for an American. Remember this the next time you propose that the US advocated freedom to colonies over repayment of debts.

@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.

LOL. This picture was a propaganda piece by one of pappu supporter. I keep it to remind me and others about the power of propaganda and how fragile it can be when faced with an intelligent observer.

 

[JanjaWeed]

& that's why they are reluctant to declassify Netaji's files!

Why no declassification of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose files?

 

[Manvantaratruti]

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.

Kindly do not give credit to the Americans in areas where they do not deserve it. They had NO direct hand in Indian Independence.

India DID get independence because of WW2. There is no doubt about it. Gandhi would have stretched our freedom struggle for infinity. It makes more political sense to give him credit to promote such peaceful methods of protests around the world and in India. ...... you do not want too many maoists running around, do you ? However legitimate their claim might be


Did you know that the Congress party was so scared of the truth getting exhumed that as late as 1965, a Bengali actor Utpal Dutt was arrested for writing a passionate play on the Royal Navy Uprising. (Utpal Dutt, also acted in the Bollywood hit movie Golmal). He was arrested on December 27, 1965 under the Preventive Detention Act.

The Government of Bengal and India feared he was "subversive". Why? Because he wrote a play called "Kallol" (Sound of Waves) on this sunk chapter of Indian freedom fighting. This would rob the sheen out of our popular heroes and gods like Gandhi, Nehru etc, right? He was detained for several months, when his show ran to packed shows at Calcutta's Minerva Theater.

 

[vicky sen]

Sorry mate, can't reveal it here. I've revealed too much about myself as it is here

Yes never do that or ISI will come after you
Your location flag shows Germany

 

[vicky sen]

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.

Such ignorance!!! If Britain had such sense of morals, they would have never occupied any country!! When you are holding on to someone else's land, what MORAL JUSTIFICATION can you give??

 

[Manvantaratruti]

Such ignorance!!! If Britain had such sense of morals, they would have never occupied any country!! When you are holding on to someone else's land, what MORAL JUSTIFICATION can you give??

Exactly !!! I am constantly amused by the hordes who clamor to proclaim British 'morality'. ....or their sense of fair play.

 

[indoPunjabi]

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

Are you stupid? Oh yes! you are...

 

[scorpionx]

Are you aware that by the end of the war Britain owed 1.25 billion pounds of its total 3 billion pounds war debt to India, but also much more that could not be quantified.

Safe to say this was never paid back. Contrary to what people choose to believe, there is no relationship or principle greater than MONEY. Especially for an American. Remember this the next time you propose that the US advocated freedom to colonies over repayment of debts.

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.

What you said is the above bold red part which is not true. The point I made was WW II acted just as a catalyst for our freedom. We did not gain our independence on a single stroke of a sword just as you said in the above post. With the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, the slow but steady process of self governance of India started way back in 1919. There were massive spirit of Independence sweeping all over India when Congress took office in 1935. British never wanted to lose their "jewel of the crown" and transmit full power to the Indians. But with the outbreak of war, spending huge expenditure to maintain colonies was simply not possible for the Brits with their large loan to the Americans (and to the Indians as well as you said). So it was just a matter of time for the total transmission of power and INA, sadly had very little to do with this.

With all due respect to Netaji, judging him on his role just as a General in Command of INA is a remarkable injustice we are making to him and to the history as well.

India DID get independence because of WW2. There is no doubt about it.

Did not read this part earlier. So, now we are following two ways some what parallel to each other talking almost on a same line, only with some additions and minor alterations.