Nehru and Congress betrayed Netaji

[Guynextdoor2]

If it doesnt suit u it becomes silly right?



However I agree with u on the above post

Silly because you're assuming 'can they fight us'? Azad Hind Fauj was not even a fully formed force. They could have been easily crushed.

 

[Kloitra]

U think after fighting entire world the Nazis and Japs would be strong enough to fight us? Now u are assuming too....

Also why are u people just not taking into account that Netaji was not begging Germany to fight for us he was asking for assistance. "Enemy of my enemy is my friend"

If you think India stood a chance against either, you overestimate the Indian capabilities of that time.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Keji with Subash chander Bose? Are u nuts?
If Hitler had won ? Given the geographical location of Germany and India he would have faced bitter failure, with Netaji as leader. People assume anything for their convenience.

You don't know your history. At least on one occasion, the Aga Khan had invited Hitler to invade India and be declared 'Emperor of India'. That was parked for later.

 

[Manvantaratruti]

Hard to say. Gandhi never held the position, but was the undisputed leader. Netaji might have been more influential than Nehru/Patel, but not Gandhi.
And with that influence, it was Gandhi's right to keep someone who so opposes his views out. And that he did. Had Netaji comparable influence as Gandhi's, he would not have been thrown out so easily.
Secondly, Netaji's approach wasn't acceptable to the majority of the country, given the kind of culture country has. That was the reason why Gandhi had such large following, much larger than Netaji ever amassed.
Third, I find it hard to believe that such an idiot, an idealistic fool as Nehru can conspire to such levels!

That is right. Gandhi never held that position. Like Sonia Maino he played the puppet master and made his puppets the leaders. Until Netaji refused to play by the mahatma's rules. (Sardar patel too had to resign as leader when gandhi asked him too.......see the pattern here ?)

Most people fail to recognize the brilliant POLITICIAN gandhi was. We tend to think of him as a 'saint' rather than a crafty hard nosed practitioner of real politiks. He was a bania in the true sense, one with a sense of misplaced morality and indomitable will.

Gandhi was playing politics for 40 years and Netaji was a new comer. Naturally he did not have the influence gandhi had. Its a simple matter of time. But he was getting there. Taking over the leadership of the congress was one of the important steps to get there.

BTW Netaji was not "thrown out", he was a man of principles (unlike gandhi) who RESIGNED and went his own way and started the INA and fought the british on his terms. Quite heroic in my book.

Also BTW, Gandhi DID NOT START the Congress.......he usurped the leadership, though admittedly by his own hard work and principled political stand and practice of deft politics.

If Buddha and Mahavir is part of Indian culture, so is Mahabharata and Ramayana. Netaji style of leadership was as much rooted in Indian culture as Gandhi. Both played their respective roles in getting independence to India. Each complemented the other.

Gandhi was NOT the architect of Indian freedom struggle. He was the one who provided moral courage and guidance. Netaji provided direction.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

That is right. Gandhi never held that position. Like Sonia Maino he played the puppet master and made his puppets the leaders. Until Netaji refused to play by the mahatma's rules. (Sardar patel too had to resign as leader when gandhi asked him too.......see the pattern here ?)

Most people fail to recognize the brilliant POLITICIAN gandhi was. We tend to think of him as a 'saint' rather than a crafty hard nosed practitioner of real politiks. He was a bania in the true sense, one with a sense of misplaced morality and indomitable will.

Gandhi was playing politics for 40 years and Netaji was a new comer. Naturally he did not have the influence gandhi had. Its a simple matter of time. But he was getting there. Taking over the leadership of the congress was one of the important steps to get there.

BTW Netaji was not "thrown out", he was a man of principles (unlike gandhi) who RESIGNED and went his own way and started the INA and fought the british on his terms. Quite heroic in my book.

Also BTW, Gandhi DID NOT START the Congress.......he usurped the leadership, though admittedly by his own hard work and principled political stand and practice of deft politics.

If Buddha and Mahavir is part of Indian culture, so is Mahabharata and Ramayana. Netaji style of leadership was as much rooted in Indian culture as Gandhi. Both played their respective roles in getting independence to India. Each complemented the other.

Gandhi was NOT the architect of Indian freedom struggle. He was the one who provided moral courage and guidance. Netaji provided direction.

You're a paid bot

 

[Manvantaratruti]

You're a paid bot

Today is Republic day ......so I will let that pass troll.

 

[illuminatidinesh]

If you think India stood a chance against either, you overestimate the Indian capabilities of that time.

Not over estimating but logic that a weak army could not do against the determined force defending nation.
1. How much force do u think a foreign nation could use away from miles home?
2. Do u really think all Indians would surrender?
3.Indians did have the Home advantage...

You don't know your history. At least on one occasion, the Aga Khan had invited Hitler to invade India and be declared 'Emperor of India'. That was parked for later.

So?

 

[Manvantaratruti]

I would not even go that far. Violence itself, even before allying with the Nazis was wrong. I prefer the Gandhian way, cause non-violence suite us better culturally.

It violence itself is wrong what are you doing in a defence forum ?
Why don't you promote fighting the Pakistani's with Non Violence ?

Ifs and buts. You think Germany after defeating entire Europe would have failed in India? What you said is clear assumption though. And imperial Japan was worst.

Germany had no chance of winning the war after US and Russia became its enemies. However what Hitler did helped us get Independence. He had a bigger role in Indian independence than Atlee

 

[illuminatidinesh]

You're a paid bot

Those who have different opinion is a paid bot?
Anyway Happy republic day

 

[Manvantaratruti]

Those who have different opinion is a paid bot?
Anyway Happy republic day

Forget Tweedledee, he is a troll who is here to push his islamic "secular" agenda onto India.

 

[vicky sen]

Nope. failure of monsoons aside, Churchill kept diverting foodstock for the war effort while famine conditions continued. Having said that the core premise of the thread is trash. Gandhi was the undisputed leader of the congress. Netaji's approach did not gel with Gandhijis, so he got Netaji out and kept him out. That is his prerogative as the leader of the movement, his vision is what drives the party, he doesn't have to accommodate anyone else's, especially if it so violently contractor to his own.

Gandhiji DID NOT kick Netaji out. Netaji resigned on his own since Gandhiji and his band of followers were opposing him. Netaji had won with an overwhelming majority in the Tripura session but Gandhiji said "Pattavi's defeat is my defeat".

And with that influence, it was Gandhi's right to keep someone who so opposes his views out. And that he did. Had Netaji comparable influence as Gandhi's, he would not have been thrown out so easily.
Secondly, Netaji's approach wasn't acceptable to the majority of the country, given the kind of culture country has. That was the reason why Gandhi had such large following, much larger than Netaji ever amassed.

Once again, Netaji wasnt thrown out. He resigned.
The fight for independence of India was not Gandhi's monopoly.

I would not even go that far. Violence itself, even before allying with the Nazis was wrong. I prefer the Gandhian way, cause non-violence suite us better culturally.

Waah re waah!!! U know, I think when Kargil or a 26/11 happened we should have followed the Gandhian way and never challenged our enemies.
What's the f*c&ing point in having an army then???
U ever heard of Ramayana, Mahabharata, Shivaji,Laxmibai??

 

[vicky sen]

You're a paid bot

And u r a troll!!!

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Gandhiji DID NOT kick Netaji out. Netaji resigned on his own since Gandhiji and his band of followers were opposing him. Netaji had won with an overwhelming majority in the Tripura session but Gandhiji said "Pattavi's defeat is my defeat".


Once again, Netaji wasnt thrown out. He resigned.
The fight for independence of India was not Gandhi's monopoly.



Waah re waah!!! U know, I think when Kargil or a 26/11 happened we should have followed the Gandhian way and never challenged our enemies.
What's the f*c&ing point in having an army then???
U ever heard of Ramayana, Mahabharata, Shivaji,Laxmibai??

This is politics not some joke. If you have a ceremonial job but not real strength, it's time for you to leave. (who asked you to reply to my post?)

 

[Kloitra]

Once again, Netaji wasnt thrown out. He resigned.
The fight for independence of India was not Gandhi's monopoly.

Netaji resigned cause he didn't see Congress going his way. But who is responsible?

Waah re waah!!! U know, I think when Kargil or a 26/11 happened we should have followed the Gandhian way and never challenged our enemies.
What's the f*c&ing point in having an army then???
U ever heard of Ramayana, Mahabharata, Shivaji,Laxmibai??

There is a difference between a trained army fighting and entire population of a country fighting. Do you think majority of our population would have resorted to violence? Gandhian way was better to unite the country and make it move. The 'krantikari' way would be limited to a very small percentage of people, albeit with moral support from many.

 

[Kloitra]

It violence itself is wrong what are you doing in a defence forum ?
Why don't you promote fighting the Pakistani's with Non Violence ?

See my post above, can you unite the entire country through violence? Hindus are culturally/religiously non-violent. Getting an army to fight is one thing. Asking an entire country to take up arms is another. I prefer the Gandhian way which moved the entire country over the Netaji's which had limited effect. Reason is not that I dislike violence, but that I prefer a way in which entire country could participate.

This course of action, as you can deduce with common sense, can only work on certain opponents under certain conditions. Against British yeah. Against Pakistan, Nazis or imperial Japanese (not equating the three!)?

Germany had no chance of winning the war after US and Russia became its enemies. However what Hitler did helped us get Independence. He had a bigger role in Indian independence than Atlee

I am sure Netaji didn't bank on the strategic stupidity of Hitler. And Hitler's defeat means Netaji's defeat, cause the allied forces didn't seem to be in any mood to forgive the remnants.

That is right. Gandhi never held that position. Like Sonia Maino he played the puppet master and made his puppets the leaders. Until Netaji refused to play by the mahatma's rules. (Sardar patel too had to resign as leader when gandhi asked him too.......see the pattern here ?)

Most people fail to recognize the brilliant POLITICIAN gandhi was. We tend to think of him as a 'saint' rather than a crafty hard nosed practitioner of real politiks. He was a bania in the true sense, one with a sense of misplaced morality and indomitable will.

Gandhi was playing politics for 40 years and Netaji was a new comer. Naturally he did not have the influence gandhi had. Its a simple matter of time. But he was getting there. Taking over the leadership of the congress was one of the important steps to get there.

BTW Netaji was not "thrown out", he was a man of principles (unlike gandhi) who RESIGNED and went his own way and started the INA and fought the british on his terms. Quite heroic in my book.

Also BTW, Gandhi DID NOT START the Congress.......he usurped the leadership, though admittedly by his own hard work and principled political stand and practice of deft politics.

If Buddha and Mahavir is part of Indian culture, so is Mahabharata and Ramayana. Netaji style of leadership was as much rooted in Indian culture as Gandhi. Both played their respective roles in getting independence to India. Each complemented the other.

Gandhi was NOT the architect of Indian freedom struggle. He was the one who provided moral courage and guidance. Netaji provided direction.

That is what I meant by throwing him out. Leaving him no other honourable way to stay, with his policies intact. And that is justified. I admire Gandhi for reaching to masses, to make this an struggle of entire country, which wan't possible for any other leader, atleast till then.