Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose wanted ruthless dictatorship in India for 20 years

[dray]

In my view if Netaji was able to come back to India, and escape political persecution from the hands of congress, instead of becoming the P.M, he would have emerged as the primary opposition to the congress. A strong opposition could have kept spinelessness of Congress in check, and hopefully toppled congress in the late 50's or early 60's. Much of India's pressing foreign policy issues could have been avoided.

This one is a more logical scenario, Congress was the largest political party at that time, and the first PM of India was likely to come from Congress, which was to be Nehru only considering that he would have played that little dirty trick with Sardar Ballabhbhai Patel anyway. Netaji would have made 'Forward Block' a strong alternative of Congress, undoubtedly he was a strong, charismatic, honest and a very popular leader who could match the stature of Nehru in opposition. India would have got extraordinary benefits from such a vibrant and competitive political scenario, India would have become a true democracy, not a pseudo-monarchy. People of India would have an option to demand results or change the government, something we missed for 5 long decades. And Netaji was a man of action, he would have delivered when in power, and pushed the ruling party to deliver when in opposition.

More importantly, there would have been someone to tell Nehru that 'he is wrong', whenever he was wrong, and he was wrong many a times. What was most unfortunate for India, and for Nehru himself, was the fact that there was barely any credible opposition to point out when he was wrong and make him re-consider such decisions and policies, and after the death of Sardar Ballabhbhai Patel there was none within the Congress also to do the same. Surrounded by the yes-men Nehru continued with his mistakes and we as a nation paid the price, and still paying for it.

So yes, with Netaji around we probably wouldn't have made those foreign policy blunders, wouldn't have faced the 1962 debacle, and probably, probably "Indian National Congress" would not have been hijacked by one political family and reduced to a family-run party. Just look at the shameful situation today, even after such continued debacles after debacles in elections, Congress has to beg to one incompetent and visibly unwilling guy to become their leader! All hail the dynasty.

 

[scorpionx]

@Rain Man

Have you noticed a strange thing? Just take a look at all Netaji's descendants in his family. Every one, from Amiya nath Bose to Sugato Bose, all brilliant academic, self made successful lot and neither had to seek meditation in Myanmar

 

[anant_s]

He would've definitely preferred to remain in opposition while Nehru was the PM.

Maybe not as a formal opposition but certainly as an ideological opposition, unfortunately (for health of democracy) that wasn't the case. Now i can't comment that Pandit Nehru wanted that way, but being in a position of unchallenged authority, brought in a culture of coterie and family worship in Congress (it survives to this date, isn't it).
Had there been one voice to challenge first PM on issues ranging from economic policies, to national security to non aligned movement (NAM), probably the country would've been in a much better shape as a Democratic nation.

@Rain Man

Have you noticed a strange thing? Just take a look at all Netaji's descendants in his family. Every one, from Amiya nath Bose to Sugato Bose, all brilliant academic, self made successful lot and neither had to seek meditation in Myanmar

Must be in the DNA!

Surrounded by the yes-men Nehru continued with his mistakes and we as a nation paid the price, and still paying for it.

So yes, with Netaji around we probably wouldn't have made those foreign policy blunders, wouldn't have faced the 1962 debacle, and probably, probably "Indian National Congress" would not have been hijacked by one political family and reduced to a family-run party. Just look at the shameful situation today, even after such continued debacles after debacles in elections, Congress has to beg to one incompetent and visibly unwilling guy to become their leader! All hail the dynasty.

I wish to add the mistake of going UN on Kashmir issue to the list mate!

 

[Levina]

probably the country would've been in a much better shape as a Democratic nation.

!

May be '65 would have never happened.

 

[gubbi]

(in context of quoted part above). Do you think that our democracy in first 2-3 decades was really mature in a sense that there was little or no opposition to Congress (from outside) and Congress President (from inside)? If the top man in country yielded an absolute power (i'll omit Shastriji here, for his term was too brief) without any checks and balances, it was nothing but a sort of authoritarianism.
& perhaps that is why several policy decisions were taken because nobody objected them.

IMHO, No. The democracy was not mature. There were no other political parties which wielded the kind of cloud and power that congress possessed. Add to that, there was virtually no opposition to the main characters in the congress party, this simply because Indian independence was won due to a major part played by these very leaders. So everyone believed whatever they did was right and on paper it did seem like it. As pointed out earlier, these leaders committed blunders.

But lets backtrack a little. Before the British crown took over in 1857, India was a conglomeration of little and big princely states, all the while feuding amongst themselves. Democratic ideals were unknown (were elections ever held during that time anywhere in India?). East India company exploited this situation to gain a foothold.
With the British crown taking over, we were slowly exposed to the democratic process over a period of time, with the different laws and acts passed by the UK parliament. By 1935, we virtually ruled ourselves, but the mindset of being ruled by one powerful person was and is always there.
That is why, inspite of being the largest democracy, we still throw our support behind very strong leaders (one man shows)! Be it Nehru, Indira and even Modi. Rest of the party members are looked over. Mistakes were made then. However, with the years, our democracy has actually matured and we do have a system of effective and working checks and counterbalances against authoritarianism.
Had we had dictatorship for the first two decades or so, we would never have known democracy. Our situation would have been what is Pakistan's today (talking about only the political atmosphere).

 

[dray]

@Rain Man

Have you noticed a strange thing? Just take a look at all Netaji's descendants in his family. Every one, from Amiya nath Bose to Sugato Bose, all brilliant academic, self made successful lot and neither had to seek meditation in Myanmar

Rahul Gandhi is one good example of what the film "3 idiots" wanted to highlight, he is a not-so-intelligent 42 years old happy-go-lucky kid who wants to just party and chill, and he can easily afford that with the kind of money his parents have made for him. But his mama is hellbent on making him a leader of the nation and a future Prime Minister! For humanity's sake she and her party should just leave him alone to live his kind of life, and the nation will be saved.

Btw, this guy is the writer of this article, and it seems that this his his 2nd article in TOI.

Manimugdha S Sharma

 

[uparyupari]

IMHO, No. The democracy was not mature. There were no other political parties which wielded the kind of cloud and power that congress possessed. Add to that, there was virtually no opposition to the main characters in the congress party, this simply because Indian independence was won due to a major part played by these very leaders. So everyone believed whatever they did was right and on paper it did seem like it. As pointed out earlier, these leaders committed blunders.

But lets backtrack a little. Before the British crown took over in 1857, India was a conglomeration of little and big princely states, all the while feuding amongst themselves. Democratic ideals were unknown (were elections ever held during that time anywhere in India?). East India company exploited this situation to gain a foothold.
With the British crown taking over, we were slowly exposed to the democratic process over a period of time, with the different laws and acts passed by the UK parliament. By 1935, we virtually ruled ourselves, but the mindset of being ruled by one powerful person was and is always there.
That is why, inspite of being the largest democracy, we still throw our support behind very strong leaders (one man shows)! Be it Nehru, Indira and even Modi. Rest of the party members are looked over. Mistakes were made then. However, with the years, our democracy has actually matured and we do have a system of effective and working checks and counterbalances against authoritarianism.
Had we had dictatorship for the first two decades or so, we would never have known democracy. Our situation would have been what is Pakistan's today (talking about only the political atmosphere).

That is the voice of Ignorance. Here is the result of the Indian general election 1945.

Indian National congress - 59 seats (Leader Sarat chandra Bose - Brother of Subash chandra Bose)
Muslim League - 30 seats (Leader Jinnah)
Akali Dal - 2
Independents - 3
Europeans - 8

The votes were polarised along religious lines. Hindus voted as a block for Congress. Muslims as a block for ML, Sikhs as a block for Akali dal and Christians as a block for Europeans.

Muslims League was the Opposition party.

Only the Nation was split between the Majority party and the Opposition party. That is how we ended up with No opposition party in free India.

THAT is why Gandhi recommended the Congress be dissolved only Nehru and gang did not allow it for purely political greed.

Nehru was India's first career politician. Son of a wealthy father and ambitious father, he never had to work a day in his life to earn money. THAT is his family legacy and now the Congress legacy.


The first general elections in India was held 1920. Subsequently it was held in 1923, 1926, 1930, 1934,1945 and 1951.

The earlier winners of Indian elections were not the congress party, it was the Swaraj Party.


Are you sure you want to credit Nehru for introducing democracy in India ?

 

[gubbi]

That is the voice of Ignorance.

Are you sure you want to credit Nehru for introducing democracy in India ?

Yaar , kabhi poorie post read to kar liya karon!

 

[uparyupari]

Yaar , kabhi poorie post read to kar liya karon!

I did. Choosing for a strong leader is a natural selection in any democracy. Its not a sign of a weak democracy.

Panchayats in India were also elected, though not formally. The spirit of democracy always existed along with the expectation that the ruler will do his dharma.

I guess you were not crediting Nehru with establishing democracy ?

 

[Hulk]

While reading the article, I felt a bit uncomfortable with the rhythm of it; somehow it tries to put NSB in a frame that is based upon all the vices of a ruthless dictator, its emphasis on how INA would execute all those who will come in the way towards freedom. His admiration for dictatorship was a necessary evil and his words have proved to be quite prophetic given the condition of Indian democracy for the last odd seventy years.

The article sees democracy as a virtue of civilized society, championed by Nehru and Gandhi. But was it really true in reality? NSB would not have left Congress, if his victory in a democratically contested election had not have rejected by Gandhi. Nehru was not a dictator, at least he never intended to become one in his life time. But the rest of his compadres made him one. Nehru became the last word in all forms of civil and military administration. His blundered policies both domestic and international, although flawless in theory were horribly proven wrong when it met the practical world. 1962 war was the perfect example of how 'yesmen' can sleepwalk to disaster.Post Nehruvian period became even worse, with Nehru's principles vanquished when India saw emergency rule in within 13 years of his death. Newspapers were censored, all the opposition leaders put into jail and constitutional democracy was just a silent observer.

NSB might have admired Mussolini and HItler, but his admiration was strictly India centric. His patriotism never bent down before the necessity of the military assistance from the Japanese. The article perhaps ignores the fact that at a point of time, between INA and the Japanese army, there arose a moment of difference. The INA strictly demanded that once the force enters Indian territory, all civil and military decisions will be taken by Indians only; demand that was later accepted by the highest military authority in Japan. I remember a little story. When INA was moving towards Imphal, a Burmese boy of age around 17-18 years tried to assassinate NSB. Before he got nearer he was caught and badly beaten by the other bodyguards. When NSB came to know about it, he called the boy. Dressed him up in his own hand and released him, telling that all that his British handler had told him was lie; He was never going to slaughter the Burmese. Can anyone imagine the same if the Burmese boy was in Rome or Berlin?

If you look at the way the article is written, its tone suggest that someone was hired to write something to defame him.

 

[dray]

If you look at the way the article is written, its tone suggest that someone was hired to write something to defame him.

There will be many more such articles now, so that we can thank Nehru for saving us from evil Netaji. Some people are expecting that Netaji files will be declassified soon.

Check this one published on the same day.

What if Netaji had returned to India... - The Times of India

Now check the dates:

1. Apr 19, 2015, 11.05 PM IST

2. Apr 19, 2015, 04.47 AM IST

We all know what Netaji did till his "Death", and what could be so secretive about him after his "Death" that has to be kept as classified for more than 6 decades?

 

[gubbi]

Panchayats in India were also elected, though not formally.

And that was the limit of 'democracy' then. Many times the Zamindars choose people to serve on these boards.

The sprite of democracy always existed along with the expectation that the ruler will do his dharma.

BS. Kuch bhi, aivai? There was no 'sprite' of democracy!

I guess you were not crediting Nehru with establishing democracy ?

Arre baba, phirse read what I posted.

 

[Hulk]

There will be many more such articles now, so that we can thank Nehru for saving us from evil Netaji. Some people are expecting that Netaji files will be declassified soon.

Check this one published on the same day.

What if Netaji had returned to India... - The Times of India

Now check the dates:

1. Apr 19, 2015, 11.05 PM IST

2. Apr 19, 2015, 04.47 AM IST

We all know what Netaji did till his "Death", and what could be so secretive about him after his "Death" that has to be kept as classified for more than 6 decades?

Well if there was nothing to hide than why these files are not declassified?

 

[uparyupari]

And that was the limit of 'democracy' then. Many times the Zamindars choose people to serve on these boards.
BS. Kuch bhi, aivai? There was no 'sprite' of democracy!

Arre baba, phirse read what I posted.

Zamindari was new to India and arrive with the british, Panchayants existed in India for more than 1000-3000 years.(if not more)

India had at least 16 known republics called Mahajanapada within it for more than 2000 years back.

Sri. Rama ji's wife Sita was the daughter of the ruler of one such Janapada (republic) who was called Janak (from the people). Sita herself was supposed to be found when Janak was tilling his land. (Farming)

So yes, there always existed a "spirit" of democracy in India. \

 

[MilSpec]

This one is a more logical scenario, Congress was the largest political party at that time, and the first PM of India was likely to come from Congress, which was to be Nehru only considering that he would have played that little dirty trick with Sardar Ballabhbhai Patel anyway. Netaji would have made 'Forward Block' a strong alternative of Congress, undoubtedly he was a strong, charismatic, honest and a very popular leader who could match the stature of Nehru in opposition. India would have got extraordinary benefits from such a vibrant and competitive political scenario, India would have become a true democracy, not a pseudo-monarchy. People of India would have an option to demand results or change the government, something we missed for 5 long decades. And Netaji was a man of action, he would have delivered when in power, and pushed the ruling party to deliver when in opposition.

More importantly, there would have been someone to tell Nehru that 'he is wrong', whenever he was wrong, and he was wrong many a times. What was most unfortunate for India, and for Nehru himself, was the fact that there was barely any credible opposition to point out when he was wrong and make him re-consider such decisions and policies, and after the death of Sardar Ballabhbhai Patel there was none within the Congress also to do the same. Surrounded by the yes-men Nehru continued with his mistakes and we as a nation paid the price, and still paying for it.

So yes, with Netaji around we probably wouldn't have made those foreign policy blunders, wouldn't have faced the 1962 debacle, and probably, probably "Indian National Congress" would not have been hijacked by one political family and reduced to a family-run party. Just look at the shameful situation today, even after such continued debacles after debacles in elections, Congress has to beg to one incompetent and visibly unwilling guy to become their leader! All hail the dynasty.

A strong charismatic opposition leader will/would have mopped up congress into oblivion within a decade, Netaji could have done it in a decade.