Netaji Subash Chandra Bose documentary

[jaibi]

after a long time one more crown jewel to the forum.
Bravo. I hope you retain your rational sense for ever even after seeing the mud sling that you are about to witness in PDF during your stay here.

Bravo, my salutes to you sir



The only difference is that we would have either had a quick poison and died as a nation or a quick progressing nation with out blood line politics.
Now we are consuming slow poison under the blood line politics and are slowly dieing as a nation with out realizing it.
Hope you got the difference what I am saying

Firstly, thank you, Ashok for your kind words, I'm truly flattered. Secondly, I'm painfully aware of how people react online and I've left many forums because of it but I must say that PDF is much better than a lot of forums and I'm happy to see that there are many people who do not react so defensively and crazily in arguments from both sides (Pakistan and India). So happy foruming and hope to see more of you on the forums.

 

[PRINCE_THE_SHOWSTOPPER]

Read up the history - All the provinces were self governing themselves mostly since 1935. Bose was stupid to align with fascists and he would have only brought more trouble rather. Japan would have been a worse colonial power than British as experienced by the Chinese and Koreans. How do you assume they would have spared India? Remember Stalin and Hitler were cahoots initially and Hitler turned on Stalin. Same fate would have been waiting for India as well.

And even if India was independent, what is that policy Bose would have followed? - the same socialism which Nehru followed. So what difference it would have made for India? Bose was patriotic but at the same time stupid.

See netaji did what was the need of the hour...but we all know that clearly it was clement atlee's pure intentions that gave us the freedom and we were not in a position to win it in 1947.If britishers wanted,they could have kept us for atleast 10yrs more.Now today we are seeing if axis powers would have won the WW2, then japan would have been a brutal colonizer or hitler would have been too dangerous to deal with,but we had no methods to find out then.Both bose and the gandhi brigade gambled by choosing their corners with the axis and allies respectively,but the latter's payoff was not something that was "calculated",it could have easily been the other result also.
And Narayanan Murthy,one of the greatest enterpreneurs of modern india said in the previous year in kolkata that india would have been a "better place" under bose than nehru..why??? Socialism is not that bad,look at china or the erstwhile soviet union.they have done much better than us.So what happened with us was really the best,but no one could guess it... the nehru-gandhi brigade could have aslo doomed us with their choosen path

 

[Sashan]

See netaji did what was the need of the hour...but we all know that clearly it was clement atlee's pure intentions that gave us the freedom and we were not in a position to win it in 1947.If britishers wanted,they could have kept us for atleast 10yrs more.Now today we are seeing if axis powers would have won the WW2, then japan would have been a brutal colonizer or hitler would have been too dangerous to deal with,but we had no methods to find out then.Both bose and the gandhi brigade gambled by choosing their corners with the axis and allies respectively,but the latter's payoff was not something that was "calculated",it could have easily been the other result also.
And Narayanan Murthy,one of the greatest enterpreneurs of modern india said in the previous year in kolkata that india would have been a "better place" under bose than nehru..why??? Socialism is not that bad,look at china or the erstwhile soviet union.they have done much better than us.So what happened with us was really the best,but no one could guess it... the nehru-gandhi brigade could have aslo doomed us with their choosen path

Soviet Union collapsed under a failed economic policy i.e communism. For over a period of 20 years, the economy became stagnant before the collapse happened after Gorbachev introduced glasnost. Chinese started flourishing after Deng Xiaoping introduced reforms and it became a market economy with communist government. So do not give socialism a positive spin. I mentioned that since 1935, the provinces were self-governing themselves with their own leaders elected by the people. And as early as 1928, all talks of Indian dominion was there though it did not materialize. So there were signs that independence was on the anvil as Gandhi's movement was slowly succeeding. So I will not buy into this argument that Bose did what he had to do to get independence. What more dooming Nehru/Gandhi brigade could have done to India besides not giving a proper secular country, Socialism, communal politics,removing emphasis on security thereby leading to 1962 defeat and dynasty politics?(Nehru started favoring his daughter in his last years instead of Shastri to the extent Shastri contemplated quiting politics)

Narayana Murthy has his own opinion though I do not know the reason behind why he said India would have been a better place under Bose than Nehru. If you have his reasons behind it, then we can discuss on that. Else I would not take his opinion at face value and accept it.


P.S - People may glorify Bose but I do not and I see Sardar a better and pragmatic leader who India never had. Period.

 

[arp2041]

See netaji did what was the need of the hour...but we all know that clearly it was clement atlee's pure intentions that gave us the freedom and we were not in a position to win it in 1947.If britishers wanted,they could have kept us for atleast 10yrs more.

Wrong. Britishers, though a victor of WW 2, had economically & militarily become weak in Post-war period, they were in no position to handle such a large country like India where now each & every person was against British rule. True that UK was much powerful in 1947, but for holding such a large country, they needed large local support, which was getting thinner & thinner by each passing day. Britishers came to India in search of Treasure, but of late India was turning out to be a liability, so it was in British interest to give Independence. Ur argument that It was b'coz of atlee we got freedom is utter BS, the prevailing conditions forced him to take that decision.

Now today we are seeing if axis powers would have won the WW2, then japan would have been a brutal colonizer or hitler would have been too dangerous to deal with,but we had no methods to find out then.Both bose and the gandhi brigade gambled by choosing their corners with the axis and allies respectively,but the latter's payoff was not something that was "calculated",it could have easily been the other result also.

U have to understand that Netaji only wanted support from the Axis for his cause, he never supported what the allies were doing, in fact he opposed it on the face of Hitler, his demand was only freedom from India by Hook or by Crook, he chose the later.

And Narayanan Murthy,one of the greatest enterpreneurs of modern india said in the previous year in kolkata that india would have been a "better place" under bose than nehru..why??? Socialism is not that bad,look at china or the erstwhile soviet union.they have done much better than us.So what happened with us was really the best,but no one could guess it... the nehru-gandhi brigade could have aslo doomed us with their choosen path

Again Incorrect.

First, USSR disintegrated b'coz of socialism itself, economic conditions were responsible for it since people were dying of hunger & Govt. was making nuke bombs.

Second, China has long forgotten the path of Mao, it has given-up it's socialist ideology way back in 1979, since than it has able to scale double digit growth for many years, Now it's a completely Capitalistic economy on the lines of US.

 

[PRINCE_THE_SHOWSTOPPER]

Wrong. Britishers, though a victor of WW 2, had economically & militarily become weak in Post-war period, they were in no position to handle such a large country like India where now each & every person was against British rule. True that UK was much powerful in 1947, but for holding such a large country, they needed large local support, which was getting thinner & thinner by each passing day. Britishers came to India in search of Treasure, but of late India was turning out to be a liability, so it was in British interest to give Independence. Ur argument that It was b'coz of atlee we got freedom is utter BS, the prevailing conditions forced him to take that decision.

Not absolutely true,you have to keep in mind after WW2,the labour party came to power which was long in favour of giving favour to india.Churchill himself said "indians are not matured enough to rule themselves",though there were the above said conditions which were resposible for atlee to take the decision, but if churchill were to get re-elected,then you would have realised that my arguement was not completely BS as it would easily have been few years more to get us freedom

U have to understand that Netaji only wanted support from the Axis for his cause, he never supported what the allies were doing, in fact he opposed it on the face of Hitler, his demand was only freedom from India by Hook or by Crook, he chose the later.

yeah true

Again Incorrect.

First, USSR disintegrated b'coz of socialism itself

never,in fact they grew due to socialism

economic conditions were responsible for it since people were dying of hunger & Govt. was making nuke bombs

Yes

Second, China has long forgotten the path of Mao, it has given-up it's socialist ideology way back in 1979, since than it has able to scale double digit growth for many years, Now it's a completely Capitalistic economy on the lines of US.

Though personally i hate socialism,but china never gave up socialist ideology...their economy follwed a capitalist one so though there wouldn't have been much change.yet i think bose could have been better than nehru all-round,as he was a patriot, not a power hungry faggot

 

[upriver]

Unfortunately, such people are not taught in history books in Pakistan, so many don't know of his achievements.

Its true on the indian side too.

that is sad, considering that Muslims made up a sizable portion of his force. He headquartered near the grave of the last Mughal Empire in Burma.

 

[Inqhilab]

Clement Attlee on Netaji and Independence ​

P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court "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’."

 

[timetravel]

After Bhaghat Singh



The Problem is that in Pakistan People are taught how they got Independence from India rather than Britain. I think we all should look towards Netaji, Bhagat Singh & other non-politic, selfless people as one whose only objective was to get Independence for whole of undivided India rather than just present day India.

but they were Hindus... so they cannot be famous in Pakistani textbooks..

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

Netaji with crew of Jap Sub that rendezvoused with the German sub near Madagascar&carried him to Japan.