Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose/Archive 2

Jai Hind
It should be mentioned that Subhash coined the term "Jai Hind", the ubiqutous patriotic chant in India. Wonder what collaborator theorist think abt THAT. --ppm 19:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

categorization
User:Alren, would you please explain the cryptic comment "Already in sub-sub-sub cat."? What is wrong with this marked as Category:Indian History? Thanks --Ragib 29 June 2005 20:23 (UTC)
 * Ragib, I'm glad U asked. First of all there's nothing cryptic about it.  Netaji is already in the sub cat Category:Indian freedom fighters, of sub cat Category:British rule in India of sub cat Category:European Rule in India of Category:Indian history.  We cannot possibly list all the freedom fighters under main category.  That's the main reason for Wikipedia having categories.   I saw that somebody had commented "Alren, SC.Bose and the I.N.A. were the reason why India became independent. If you have difficulty in accepting this fact, why not consult the reading list. Ciao".  As much as I respect and admire Netaji, I don't think that him, INA, Rash Behari Bose, Chitranjan Das were not the only reason of India's freedom.  There should not be any regional bias .  Me being from Gujarat, I can think Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was the main reason for India's freedom or whatever, does not mean I should go ahead and put SVP at the root category.  There a lot's of reasons for India's freedom from 1857 mutiny to Bhagat Singh to the Salt Satygraha to all the unknown martyrs of India's struggle for independnce.  I have not touched Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru with this aspect.  Gandhiji is more of a face of India.  Nehru whether one likes it or not (myself included) was first prime minister and was another significant figure in India's history.  That's why in my constant attempt to catagorize and re-catogrize articles so that the categories do not become overwhelming I constantly revert back SCB, INA, RB  out if Category:Indian history.  Thanks, Alren 29 June 2005 20:42 (UTC)


 * ok, now it makes sense to me. Its difficult to go thru all levels of category tree to find out the root category .... --Ragib 29 June 2005 21:59 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this is getting ridiculous, will and  settle the matter here in the talk page than going on edit/revert/categorization war on the main page? Why don't both of you talk and settle the issue .. I find 8 reverts of the category in the last 15 days. --Ragib 18:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, in the last month or so, and  have participated in repeated revert wars on the silly matter of categorization. I found 8 x 2 = 16 reverts between them. Would you *please* discuss the matter in the talk page and settle on something rather than reverting the article every few days? This is becoming a farce. Thanks. --Ragib 16:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear and, you have NOT at all bothered to discuss it here, but continuously revert the categories, the most recent being today. Would you please go to arbitration over your disputes and leave this page in peace? Why is it so difficult for you two to discuss the matter here and fix your disagreement over categorization? Please follow wikipedia's policies rather than being so stubborn. Thanks. --Ragib 03:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear . Where have you not see me discuss anything?   In general whatever edits I have made in Wikipedia, have appropriate reasoning mentioned behind that, including this categorization issue of Subhash Chandra Bose, Indian National Army, Rash Behari Bose, Chittaranjan Das.  If an issue was raised, (as you saw earlier) I'm willing to discuss.  Unlike "Alren, SC.Bose and the I.N.A. were the reason why India became independent. If you have difficulty in accepting this fact, why not consult the reading list. Ciao", I've mentioned my reasoning behind the "revert wars" few paragraphs above.  So kindly don't keep on pointing to me for not discussing.  Alren 14:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I get your point, and you are right in making the categorization correct. I only wanted to stop the recent category-reverts between you and LordGulliverofGalben. I am not questioning your edits (which in my opinion are amply justified), my only concern was that this category issue kept recurring again and again in this page. Now that the category is cleared, we can ask LordGulliver to stop or be reported for vandalism. Thanks. --Ragib 14:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Alren is right. The is no need for the article to come under the main History of India category. I have posted a message on Gulliver's page. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:25, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * LordGulliverofGalben replies:
 * Thank you all for your messages. I consider it to be a matter of ignorance of one's national history that this topic should be raised in the first place. I am not writing this from any regional bias and any charges pertaining to that may be safely ignored. As Shyam Benegal's film expostulates, Subhash Bose and the INA are confined to the dustbin of history and are sadly destined to be forgotten. Yet during the pre-Independent era Gandhi, Nehru and Bose were the three pillars of the Indian freedom movement(if we leave out Jinnah). Jinnah preferred to deal with Nehru rather than Bose, as the latter would never have allowed Partition. Gandhi referred to Bose as his son and it is perhaps this historic conflict between them in 1939 that paved the way for the armed insurrection later. Alren and Nichalp, do you really believe in the officially widespread version of history that India won freedom due to the Quit India Movement of 1942, which ensured that most of the Congress leaders would be incarcerated and humbled. Much as I respect Sardar Patel (as perhaps the lone pragmatist in a coterie of yes-saying Congress leaders), Maulana Azad (for being the lone dissenting Muslim Congress leader), and Nehru -- it is their post-Independence achievements and not that of the Colonial era -- that I admire and respect. On the contrary, the revolt of the Royal Indian Navy in 1946, gave a strong signal to the British that their tool for dominion and conquest, the British Indian army and its sepoys could not be kept at arms length from political happenings for long. 'Better leave India before they start killing us' was how the British reacted in panic. For more, read Nirad C. Chaudhuri's Continent of Circe. The British respected Gandhi, did business with Nehru, but utterly hated Bose. The reason is obvious.


 * The reason for putting Bose in the History section is that much of what he said and did (like National Planning, Hindi as national language, and putting national needs above sectarian ones)form the basis of the principles of a sovereign, secular, democratic India, a vision more plausible in imagination than in reality, as the Gujarat riots in 2002 illustrated.


 * Indians are content to learn their history from Westerners who are always predisposed to cultivate and project a very negative image. Contrarily, they (Indians) perhaps learn more of American of British history courtesy the History Channel. Alren and Nichalp, why don't you check with some Sulekha.com articles if you are really interested in knowing something on India? It is perhaps the lack of historical awareness, a sense of historical continuity that prevents India from being a developed nation, like Japan, Turkey or even South Korea.


 * :LordGulliverofGalben: I have not stated any theories on India's history. History, unlike for example Geography is largely subjective. It is impossible to point out the exact cause in India's independence. While you may claim that NSCB is the main celebrant of India's independance, someone else might refute that. If you feel that he deserves more attention, by all means improve this article with other editors and get it up to Featured Status. Do the same for the INA. You've been here for almost a year, and I consider it a little rude of you to assume, and bluntly state that we are selling out India's history as the topic is on the category, NOT the role of SCB. You claim that Bose was the main reason for India's independance is highly biased, and certainally your personal viewpoint. He may be a major factor in the country's independence, I don't deny that, but there's no reason why he should be categorised under the main category:History of India, the crux of the issue here. That category, I firmly reiterate is for different periods of India's history, NOT for individuals. The individual category is sufficient. I agree that there were some individuals, but I'll see to them that they are removed. Let's have a vote on this shall we? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * , I am not even going to discuss non-issues you brought up, viz. Turkey, South Korea being developed and India isn't or Gujarat riots. I do not want to sidetrack the issue here.


 * Firstly, Nobody doubts the contribution of Bose or INA. But for you to think only because of them India became independent is just plain insulting to Bhagat Singh, Bardoli Satyagraha, Victims of Amritsar Massacre (and such incidents), Lala Lajpatrai, all the members in  Category:Indian Freedom Fighters and all the unknown martyrs during this struggle and indeed shows ignorance of India's history.  So, before acting as if you had been personally present at all the events in Indian History and advising others on where to gain knowledge of the same, kindly broaden your view then just see what Shyam Benegal produces or what Nirad C. Chaudhuri writes (no offence or opinion on either one of them).  People reading and contributing to sulekha.com does not mean that what other learned and studied in their history classes from grade 1-12 in India is worthless/inaccurate.
 * Secondly, I can see how much depth of history is being brought forward. As you quote Gandhi, Bose was my son, Patel was considered the hands of Gandhi and admire Patel just by acknowledging Patels's post independence contributions and not pre-independence.
 * Thirdly, I'm agree that a lot of "... History of India section refers to several personalities, many of dubious repute and doubtful pedigree as well ...", I have no idea why Hannah Marshman,  Caroline Augusta Foley Rhys Davids, Mountstuart Elphinstone, etc. are in this category.  But instead of your constant rhetoric of bring Bose, et al. in to the  Category:History of India, have you given thought of creating appropriate categories, a la,  Category:Pre-Independence battles in India,  Category:Cities of Ancient India,  Category:Historical Indian empires,  Category:European Rule in India,  Category:British rule in India,  Category:Colonial Indian companies,  Category:Historical Indian regions,  Category:Indian monarchs,  Category:Ruling clans of India,  Category:Mughal empire, etc.
 * Lastly, irrespective (of your charge) "matter of ignorance of one's national history ", it is quite clear and I will reiterate the regional bias issue as you have constantly brought Subhash Chandra Bose, Indian National Army, Rash Behari Bose, Chittaranjan Das, Battle of Plassey, University of Calcutta, Alexander Duff, Hickey's Bengal Gazette or the Calcutta General Advertiser in the Category:History of India and not Bhagat Singh, Bal Gangadhar Tilak's Kesari, Amritsar Massacre, University of Mumbai etc.  It just purely smells of regionalism as if (History/People) of Bengal and Kolkatta (no bad feeling to either one of them) equals  India.
 * P.S. - I strongly echo " ..I consider it a little rude of you to assume, and bluntly state that we are selling out India's history as the topic is on the category..""  16:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * LordGulliverofGalben replies:


 * Alren and Nichalp, thank you for your responses. You have made several charges. Let me have a chance to answer them: First, you bring out the charge of regionalism against me. Some of the articles which I have contributed include: Anita Desai, Punjab University, Chandigarh, Bharatiya Jana Sangh, List of Indian playback singers, Kanupriya Agarwal, List of Heads of State who were later imprisoned, William Carey, Vilayat Khan, B. R. Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, List of Indian movie actors,Anglo-Indian, XLRI Jamshedpur, XIMB, List of TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004, Waldemar Haffkine, List of oldest universities in continuous operation, List of people who were cremated, Dharmic, Dharmic religion, Sociology, Hindustan Ambassador, Chyawanprash, School and university in literature, Contributions to liberal theory, University of Delhi, Language Movement Day, Church of North India, Albion Woodbury Small, Asterix and the Magic Carpet, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Jawaharlal Nehru University, The Doon School, ISC, The Times of India, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan among others.


 * Does this reflect a regionalist bias or a bias towards enrichment and understanding of human (not merely Indian) experience? For your information I had included Jawaharlal Nehru and B.R.Ambedkar in the previous Indian history section and I have no problems if Bhagat Singh, Sardar Patel etc. are included in the same. So before making a charge, please check it thoroughly.


 * But please make a uniform rule: either include all historical figures or include none.


 * Secondly, it would be a great idea to include other categories like Category:Pre-Independence battles in India,  Category:Cities of Ancient India,  Category:Historical Indian empires,  Category:European Rule in India,  Category:British rule in India,  Category:Colonial Indian companies,  Category:Historical Indian regions,  Category:Indian monarchs,  Category:Ruling clans of India,  Category:Mughal empire as you(Alren) have suggested.


 * Last but not the least, I have taken the liberty of removing all other personalities from that list --- to conform to a same standard of having no personalities on that list. Surely Shabeg Singh doesn't deserve to be on the same list as Jawaharlal Nehru. And Alren, you had mentioned that you identified Mahatma Gandhi as the face of India. Sorry, with all respect to Gandhiji, I do not share or accept that view. Living in the West I assure you that it conveys a very negative image of an emaciated underfed India, constantly at odds with modernism. Here the image of India is that of a rising youthful one, able to successfully challenge the best in the world.
 * 9:46 EST, July 19, 2005.LordGulliverofGalben


 * -To LordGulliver-:
 * It would have certainly helped if you had raised queries on the appropriateness of the category. I'd asked you not to add the category to the page and I had clearly explained the rationale behind it. Instead you rant about Subash Chandra Bose and his importance and accuse us of ignorance. We did not for once dispute or glorify his status; all we wanted was the appropriate category on his page. If you had instead cited your reasons for the inclusion of the category, things might have been sorted out in a more civil matter.


 * Categories, unlike pages cannot be added to a user's watchlist. It is impossible to ascertain when a new page is added to a category unless you check the page day in and day out. Some editors blindly put the category India or History of India to an article knowing fully well that someone will find a more appropriate category. I'm glad you have realised your mistake and hopefully this issue is now settled. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * -To LordGulliver-: (from )
 * Firstly there's a difference between contributing to items of varied area of interest and consistently bring topics related to Kolkota and West Bengal under the main categories. That's what I call regionalism.  It can be clearly seen from the examples I brought up and the other items to by you (which you list above).


 * The rules are uniform, but there are always exceptions. There's a difference between historical figures of India and Mahatma Gandhi as there's a difference between historical figures of South Africa/Nelson Mandela or h.f. of turkey/Kamal Attaturk, etc. (even though both of these examples are not included in the history of their resp. countries).  As some other contributor aptly put in " ..if any person deserves to be in History of India, it's Gandhi..".


 * The categories I mentioned are (which U say should be included) were always created as sub (or deeper) categories of Category:History of India.


 * I agree that Shabeg Singh does not equate with Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi but the fact that it was under the category in question does imply it also. It might have been under this cat., for the sole reason, that there are no other appropriate sub-cats under History of India.  So instead taking "the liberty of removing all other personalities from that list"", it should have behooved you to either put then in appropriate sub-cat or create one or just leave it there, lest articles like Ajatashatru and Aspavarman are forever disconnected from India or it's history in this humongous encyclopedia.


 * "Sorry, with all respect to Gandhiji, I do not share or accept that view." - Ah! So the billion minus 1 people of India should change it and confirm to yours! Just because you do not like Gandhiji does not change the fact that History of recent India was charted through him.  If you do not like Gandhi, that's fine, many people would not agree with some of the actions of Gandhiji, but accept it for a fact that he is indeed the face of India.  "Living in the West I assure you that it conveys a very negative image of an emaciated underfed India, constantly at odds with modernism."  Thanks for assuring me what the image of India is in the West, sure you would know better as I live in the West ( I dunno, the world or India ;-} ..). "Here the image of India is that of a rising youthful one, able to successfully challenge the best in the world." And which India do U think I came from?  Just because U live in India, does not mean you have a complete understanding of India or it's history.  I don't know about U, but I bet U that User:Tom Radulovich does have a much better knowledge of the history of India then me.


 * Whether U like it or not I will shortly bring back Gandhi in the category in question (if you want a vote for the one, I can start one). Also the pages which were blindly de-cat might meet the same fate.


 * Thanks 14:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Voting
LordGulliver wishes to have the category: category:History of India added to SCB. There is a sub category category: Indian freedom fighters under the History of India cat. meant for this. The HoI category is meant for time periods and individual locales' histories. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  08:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * In favour of the above:


 * Not in favour:
 * =Nichalp  «Talk»=  08:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sundar \talk \contribs 08:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 14:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * --Ragib 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * pamri 10:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Prevent a new edit war
Hi, this is with reference to my rv of multiple edits by Nirav.Maurya & 129.237.189.68 to that of 134.130.240.109. I have specified the reasons below.

It is an undeniable fact that Mahatma Gandhi supported Pattabhi and viewed his defeat as defeat of Gandhi's principles. Nirav's deletion of these phrases is unwarranted. At the same time, it is not proper to say that Gandhiji ensured Bose's resignation by bringing pressure on him. Here, Nirav's deletion may make sense; however, a better way to view it is "Bose understood that congress is not the ideal vehicle for his views, given the extent of Gandhiji's influence on the congress philosophy." Nirav's statements about Bose's sycophantic supporters do not cut much ice; It is a large body of All India Congress Committee that elected the congress president and a few sycophantic supporters either side cannot really sway the result. Also, Nirav should give some reference with respect to Vithalbhai Patel's estate happenings. 129.237.189.68 edited most of these, by simply deleting them; It doesn't solve the problem - since the article is incomplete without Bose's endeavours at the Haripura and Tripuri sessions of the Congress, which mark an important change in the path of his life. Hence, I reverted these edits to an edit before Nirav.Maurya's first edit. However, some of the points raised by Nirav, such as Bose preferring any means (violent or non-violent) as long as ends are justified, need to be incorporated in the article.

I take justifiable pride in India's freedom struggle and am a great fan of both the Mahatma and SCB (probably more in favor of the former). However, despite personal biases, our primary job on wikipedia must be to maintain a NPOV, so I've reverted the edits. Since some of Nirav's points need incorporation in the article (though probably not in the same tone and tenor), i request others to join me in editing this article further. ---Gurubrahma 07:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

About Soviet captivity conspirancy theory
One such claims that Bose actually died in Siberia, while in Soviet captivity.

i am refer at some information why support these conspirance theory,this appareing in Axis history forum "Japanese POW's in the USSR?":

Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posted: 28 Mar 2004 19:25

The Soviets attacked Manchuria and Korea after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fighting did not stop in Korea until late september 1945.

Some of those captured were reputedly nuclear scientists of Japan's project to build an atomic bomb in North Korea (F-Go Project). Others were involved with Unit 731 which pursued biological warfare methods. Me thinks the real reason why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed was to force Japan's surrender before Stalin could capture these laboratories.

Some of those captured in Manchuria may have been Indians fighting for Japan recruited by Indian nationalist Chandra s Bose. Bose was sent by Hitler on the U-180 to help with Japan's war effort against the British.

Japanese POW's in the USSR? Simon Gunson

Member

If these comment poses any sustain,acase indicate the existance of some indians was captured in Manchukuo by Soviet Forces for conduct to siberian gulags? or more specifically between these captured INA indians stayed the "Netanji" Chandra Subhas Bose?

if only one historical curiosity.

Slight Alteration
"was one of the two most prominent leaders of the Indian Independence Movement against the British Raj (the other being Gandhi)." Whatever you think of him, Nehru has to be mentioned here. I have altered this sentence accordingly. Sikandarji 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Spellings
Should be Subhas and not Subhash. MarcAurel 05:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

POV
The political views section seems rather POV to me. It seems devoted to taking down anti-Bose arguments rather than giving a general overview of his political views.

Opening Sentence
"was one of the two most prominent leaders of the Indian Independence Movement against the British Raj (the other most prominent leader was Mahatma Gandhi)."

This sentence is completely tendentious, and I've had occasion to alter it before. I'm sorry to see that somebody has changed it back. I appreciate that Nehru was insufficiently violent and authoritarian in his beliefs to appeal to those who tend the immortal flame of Bose's memory, but the fact is that his role in the Indian Nationalist movement was actually more important than Bose's. He can't just be written out like this. Others might wish to push the claims of Vallabhai Patel, Lokmanya Tilak and Maulana Azad as being just as important as Bose as Nationalist leaders, but that at least is a matter for debate. This sentence should be changed either to:

"was one of the three most prominent leaders of the Indian Independence Movement against the British Raj (the others being Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi)." or (perhaps better):

"was one of the most prominent leaders of the Indian Independence Movement against the British Raj" Sikandarji 10:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with you fully, and changed it as per the second option. I too had changed the opening previously, but it seems it has been removed. --Gurubrahma 10:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * An anonymous user has changed that sentence again. I think the page ought to be reverted.Sikandarji 22:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it - someone has done it again. Clearly this one sentence means a lot to someone out there who is EXTREMELY Childish. Sign in and give your reasons if you want to make changes like this, otherwise they'll just be reverted. Sikandarji 00:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And again - as you can see User:130.132.248.61 (anonymous: what a surprise)! has now forced this pernicious non-NPOV on the page three times. I have reverted it twice but don't wish to invoke the three-revert rule. Can somebody else do it? Sikandarji 16:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I have reverted the change. It's really bad. The anon is adamant!!--Dwaipayanc 18:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Political Views
This section is partisan and extremely poorly written. Even Bose's most ardent supporters must realise that he remains an extremely controversial figure, through his association with the Nazis and Adolf Hitler. There is no word to describe his actions during World War II other than collaboration - the facts are not in doubt. It is up to the reader to decide whether or not the ends justified the means. Personally I do not think so, nor do I think that Bose's actions brought India's Independence one day closer, though unlike some I do not intend to force this view on the reading public. A couple of passages really caught my eye: firstly, the reference to "a small minority" of Indians who fought for the British during World War II. Over four million Indians, all volunteers, fought in the Indian Army against the Axis powers during World War II, and only 85,000 joined the INA, some under duress after seeing the appalling treatment the Japanese meted out to their prisoners. Which is the minority here? The former men were fighting to prevent the invasion of their homeland and. more generally, the triumph of evil. Has anyone ever stopped to think what would have happened had the Japanese succeeded in invading India with Bose's help? You only have to look at the horrors they perpetrated in Burma, Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. It would have set the cause of Indian independence back fifty years, knocked Britain out of the War and quite possibly led to an overall Axis triumph. India would have acquired new, crueller masters, and the World been given up to the horrors of Nazism. The INA were Japanese stooges who would have been ruthlessly discarded had their masters got what they wanted. Given all this I find the cult of Bose quite incomprehensible, and the only explanation I can find for the continuing reverence in which he is held is Bengali chauvinism, well expressed by the lines below:

"He has been given belated recognition in India, and especially in West Bengal; Kolkata's civil airport and a university have been named after him. Unfortunately however, this recognition has been limited to West Bengal."

In fact I have never heard anyone refer to the airport as anything other than Dum Dum, and the University as Presidency College. However, the writer will be glad to hear that the Shiv Sena in Bombay have renamed Marine Drive "Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Marg" (although, not surprisingly, nobody actually uses this cumbersome title). Bal Thackeray is, of course, another admirer of Hitler. Go figure...... Sikandarji 10:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * One or two factual corrections, Sikandarji ! Dum Dum airport has been christened Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, and just like all the other such christenings, people refer most of the time in the older name! How many people do you hear to say Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus?People still call, at least, in daily usage, Victoria Terminus, VT. Or, for that matter, your own example of Marine Drive being renamed "Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Marg". However, in official use, the new official name is used. And another point that you have pointed out wrongly is the Netaji Subhas Open University, which is NOT the Presidency College, Kolkata.The two are absolutely different entities, and both are known in their individual names.The university is known as, and people call it, Netaji Subhas Open University.
 * Regarding your views on the article, I shall comment soon.I have not read the article thouroughly, so I do not think I should comment now.
 * I agree with you that most of the Bengalees revere Subhas Bose as a great hero, and they are so blinded by their hero-worship that pointing out the faults of Subhas often enrages one or two die-hard fan of Bose.On the other hand, we have people (both in Bengal, though small in number, and other states especially Western states of India) where certain groups of people simply loath at Bose.Both of these extremes are bad.Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, should involve comments with proper resource.This article contains a reading list, but lacks proper referencing.We should pay attention to that.Anyway, your comments border on the extreme of anti-Bose, and I think soon you shall get some resourced replies.In the process, the article itself will gain ! Thanks! Bye.--Dwaipayanc 11:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out about the airport & university (it raises the question: why bother renaming things at all)? I accept that my views on Bose are unusually negative, although I have tried to give my reasons: that is why I haven't attempted to alter the page itself. I simply think that the bald facts of his political career and beliefs should be given, rather than a lengthy litany of excuses for his activities during the War which is what this section currently consists of. The reference to "a small minority" of Indians fighting the Japanese is both misleading and somewhat insulting. Allow the reader to make up his own mind about the man. Sikandarji 12:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As to the amount of people fighting for either side of the conflict, figure alone doesn't cover everything. The British colonial authorities had recruited Indians for decades to fight in their armed forces, and the military provided livelyhood to a vast sections of Indians. Bose's INA was set-up in the mist of open war in just a few months. Anyone attempting to organise recruitment for INA in the areas under British control would have met with immediate imprisonment. The British closed Forward Bloc offices around the country. Thus its not strange that the Indian forces fighting for the British were numerically superior to those of INA.
 * But if you rather ask, with whom did the Indian people sympathize with, the answer with get quite different. It is difficult to judge the exact popularity of Bose during the war, but that the Indenpendence movement as a whole (which in many ways sabotaged British war efforts) had an overwhelming popular support as opposed to those factions that maintain support for the Allied war effort (CPI, Royists) is hardly questioned today. --Soman 13:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, people overwhelmingly supported Gandhi and the Congress, led by Nehru, but it is too simplistic to say that their views chimed with Bose's. Had Linlithgow been less stupid in declaring war without consulting the Congress leadership, they would probably have agreed to support the war effort against the Axis powers, with the proviso that the British leave India as soon as it was over. Instead the Viceroy snubbed and insulted them, and they were compelled to espouse a policy of non-cooperation with the British. This is hardly the same thing as cooperating with the enemy, or assisting a foreign power to conquer India. The INA had very little impact domestically upon the Nationalist movement because few were aware of its existence, and (fortunately) its military contribution was small. The contribution of over 4 million Indian soldiers to defeating Fascism (never mind which flag they did it under) is of far greater value, and deserves more than a slighting reference to Bose being 'forced' to fight "a small section of his own countrymen who defended India with the British Army." Sikandarji 14:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In view of the last point I have changed the wording of the 'forced to fight' section. There's no way the British Indian Army can be described as a 'small section'. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Gandhi called Bose the 'Patriot of Patriots'". It would be enlightening to have a date for this quote, anyone? DJ Clayworth 18:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Found it. 1942. DJ Clayworth 18:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a very NPOV
I think this passage is a little suspect:

"Although Bose has been branded as a fascist in some quarters, it is mostly the result of malicious propaganda. Bose had clearly expressed his belief that democracy was the best option for India. His authoritarian control of the Indian National Army was based on political pragmatism and a post-colonial recovery doctrine rather than any anti-democratic belief."

is the author protesting too much here? I have written above about how the 'Political Views' section mainly seems to be an attempt to explain away Bose's embarrassing actions during the war. His alliance with Hitler and Tojo, his posturing in uniform, his militarism, his call to violence, and his stated belief that India would require a strict authoritarian regime led by him after the war, for the process of 'national rebuilding' (how often have we heard that excuse from budding dictators)? All this means that there are at least legitimate grounds for accusing him of Fascist tendencies, and such arguments cannot simply be dismissed as 'malicious propaganda'. P.G. Wodehouse was accused of being a Fascist sympathiser simply because he made radio broadcasts from a prison camp in Germany, so it is difficult to see how one can avoid at least questioning Bose's political beliefs: his democratic credentials are hardly watertight given the unsavoury company he kept, and that ought to be made clearer. I am not an admirer of Bose as you can tell, and would not wish to push my own POV (given above) on the main page. Nevertheless I think it is very far from being neutral to say that all suggestions that Bose had Fascist sympathies are 'malicious propaganda'.Sikandarji 22:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is pretty poor as well:

"In fact, the plan to liquidate Bose has few parallels, and appears to be a last desperate measure against a man who had thrown the British Empire into complete panic."

Or it might have been because they considered him to be a traitor who was a legitimate target because he had gone over to the Axis. Bose was now an enemy combatant, and this is quite sufficient to account for an assassination attempt. This, lest we forget, was in 1941, and while some people in Britain might have been panicking about the Germans, it was before Pearl Harbour and the Fall of Singapore, and Britain's position in Asia looked relatively secure. In any case Gandhi and Nehru (and in particular the Quit India Movement) represented a far greater threat to the British Empire than Bose ever did, and they were never assassinated even when the British had complete power over them in gaol: partly because it would have provoked uncontrollable outrage in India, and partly because for all their opposition to the Raj, they were not collaborating with the enemy. Sikandarji 16:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not know why the British ordered assasination, but what I do know is there is a respectable reference for all the claims in that line and the subsequenr sentences. See this. I have shortened that paragraph, and added the reference. Thank you for pointing out. I shall wotk on this article very slowly! It's comments bordering on MPoV, if not blatantly! Bye.--Dwaipayanc 17:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't question the fact that the British ordered his assassination (and in typically bungling fashion failed to carry it out). I do question the notion that he had already thrown the British Empire into a 'panic'. This seems in the highest degree unlikely given the state of the war at the time, and the fact that Congress leaders were far more dangerous to the British inside India than out (as Bose would belatedly discover). It would be interesting to see citations showing that he 'disapproved' of Nazi racial policies (my! Hitler must have been upset!) - but in this instance I think actions speak louder than words. He helped to set up a unit of the Waffen SS (!), and only left Germany because he disapproved of Hitler's assault on the U.S.S.R., the only other country with a regime approaching Nazi Germany's in its inhumanity: even then the Nazis gave him a lift to the other side of the world so relations can't have been all that frosty. Take this and his chumminess with the Japanese (not known for their respect for democracy at the time), add onto that his statements about the need for an authoritarian socialist regime (like Comrade Stalin's perhaps)? in India after the war - and I think you'll find they will outweigh any statements made before the war expressing his disapproval of Fascism and support for democracy: after all, who's to say they weren't based on political 'pragmatism' too? Sikandarji 20:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You say, "I do question the notion that he had already thrown the British Empire into a 'panic'. This seems in the highest degree unlikely given the state of the war at the time, and the fact that Congress leaders were far more dangerous to the British inside India than out (as Bose would belatedly discover)." The first sentence has the reference of BBC, where the historian tells exacly the same words. (the reference I added to the text)
 * The second question - has differing references, of course. Just yesterday I found out a reference here, where, with secondary reference, Clement Atlee is quoted to have said that the influence of Gandhi to quit India decision by the British was "m-i-n-i-m-a-l" !! This sounds quite interesting. Doesn't it? It contradicts the usual notion, as also the idea of your comment. However, some book reference is needed, as you may point out, rather than only web references. And I do not have the time to go through books now. I wish there were some learned person to help us out here!
 * I agree that from a neutral standing, it does not seem that Bose 'disapproved' of Nazi racial policy. Because, any pragmatic person could not really vehemently oppose the policies of his/her allies in a war! However, I do not have any reference in this regard. Again, I wish there were some learned man!! Without resolving this matters with solid reference, this article cannot go far.
 * Thanks and bye.--Dwaipayanc 05:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Caption
The German officer in the photo with Bose is NOT, and does not remotely resemble Erwin Rommel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthorNeubius (talk • contribs) 03:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Article
How did more than half of the article disappear! The article on escape disappeared, him leading the Indian National Army, and much more have disappeared. May I know the reason why that happened. Dewan S. Ahsan 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Grammar
I corrected a bit of grammar and slightly reorganized the opening section so that is flows chronologically. All the original information is intact. --Daydreamer302000 11:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am afraid that much of this article suffers from "Indian English" grammar!124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Spellings
His name is correctly spelt "Subhas". Adminstrator, please change the spellings in the name of the page.

Pronunciation
Could somebody who speaks Bengali/Bangla please add a phonetic pronunciation of Subhas Chandra Bose's name? Particularly the last part - I've heard it mangled to everything between 'bows' and 'boozer'. Thanks! -- TinaSparkle 14:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Henry's Quote is not similar to Netaji's
Virginia's Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" in the sense that he would rather die than live in a society filled with ludicrous acts (by British)

Netaji's "Give me blood and I'll give you Freedom". The Blood here means sacrifice. He's saying that People must Sacrifice their nation for Freedom.--Milki 21:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "must sacrifice their nation for Freedom" ? I think it is more like sacrifice for their nation's freedom, Jeroje 06:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)jeroje

Political views status
At present, those comments in "Polical views" that indicate Bose was fascist have been referenced, primarily because of the fact a ready-made web reference was available! No book reference, mentioning the exact page number, have been added as of now.

Now, coming to the other aspect, that is the pragmatism of Bose's decision to ally with Axis power. I have not been able to find out good web-reference, except This. There are many books references. However, this point of view should be referenced ASAP. And also, that Congress' decision not to utilise the crucial momment of WW2 to pressurise British was not also of much benefit - as evidenced by the fact the British did not consult Congress before going to the war, and Congress resigned from the ministry as a lame protest - should be discussed. This discussion could point out the necessity of Bose's decision.

However, any discusssion/ comment have to be properly referenced, preferably from respectable sources like university pages, encyclopedias, or, best, accepted views of the historians. So it is a request to the wikipedians not to make own comments in the article, this is not a place of original research. Please, find out references and help make a really nice and balanced article. Thanks,--Dwaipayanc 09:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking through this article Roy, Dr. R.C. 2004. Social, Economic and Political Philosophy of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose

It reads like a poorly-referenced hagiography, I'm afraid. Without giving a proper page reference the author selectively quotes the passage I have given in note No.20 on the main page (which shows clearly that by 1944 Bose favoured an authoritarian system), and claims it proves precisely the opposite! Really very poor and not a reliable, neutral source at all. Sikandarji 13:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

To User:ScBose - your views are clear enough from the name you've chosen, and I hope you won't take offence at the changes I've made (I've left most of your edits in place) but you must understand just how bad Bose's conduct looks: he allied himself with the Nazis, he set up a unit of the Waffen-SS, he then switched his allegiance to the Japanese despite their actions in South-East Asia, and by reviving the INA brought about a fratricidal war between its troops and the much larger numbers of British Indian troops fighting against the Japanese on the Assam frontier and in Burma. He took to wearing military uniform, he stated quite clearly that he no longer believed democracy to be suitable for India, he seems almost to have fetishized violence when there were alternative means of driving the British out of India which ultimately proved much more successful. Given all this, I think the article is as generous and neutral towards him as can reasonably be expected. His leanings towards Fascism are well-documented, and the list of other 'authoritarian' rulers in post-independence Asia (The Burmese Junta, Lee Kuan Yew, Mahathir Mohammed, Suharto) does not make very encouraging reading: even if few can be characterised as out-and-out Fascists their regimes are or were pretty nasty, and if that's what Bose had in mind for India then, as Sen says, India was probably better off without him. Sikandarji 09:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, and as for the INA and the RIN mutinies 'scaring' the British into leaving India: the INA was a broken and defeated force well before the end of 1945. The protests over the trial of its officers certainly came as a shock to the British, but they were already committed to leaving India by that stage anyway (and Congress knew this, or they would never have agreed to participate in Provincial Elections in 1945-6). The RIN Mutiny was a minor incident which had no effect on Wavell and Attlee's plans, and was actually condemned by Congress! The references you have provided are to a newspaper article and to another (entirely unreferenced) wikipedia entry, and that proves nothing. If you want more references I can go and dig through the 'Transfer of Power' collections, but almost all historians are agreed that the British left India because Congress had ensured that they no longer received sufficient cooperation from Indians to remain there, and that the political price had consequently become too high. I'm not quite sure why some Indians seem so insistent on claiming that the British were driven out by force, and talking up the more violent episodes and individuals (such as Bhagat Singh, who shot the wrong man) at the expense of Gandhi and the Congress. The fact is that with only 150,000 Englishmen in India, only 50,000 of whom were troops and 1,000 ICS, and with a much larger Indian army of between 120 and 150,000, the British presence in India was always based to some extent on cooperation, and on the use of agents such as the Princes, tribal leaders, Sufi pirs (in Sind), the Indian Army, and the lower bureacracy which was almost entirely staffed by Indians. Gandhi saw with brilliant clarity that if the cooperation the British depended on was withdrawn, they would eventually have to leave, and the hartals he organised which caused government clerks, railway and telegraph workers to stay away from work, worried the British far more than terrorist bombs. He also saw that If the British turned to mere violence to sustain their rule they would come badly unstuck, and might not be able to rely on Indian troops any more. That was exactly what happened at Amritsar, where the political fall-out from the Jallianwala Bagh massacre was so great, both in Britain and in India, that Dyer was sacked (he should, of course, have been tried and executed or jailed) but, more importantly, they realised that they would not simply be able to rely on brute force in the future, certainly not on that scale. With his activities in rural areas, Gandhi helped to turn the Congress from an organisation that represented mainly lawyers and other bhadralok, (and which for the first thirty years of its existence had concerned itself largely with matters of such burning import to the Indian population as simultaneous ICS exams in India) into a genuine mass-movement. The success of these tactics before the war can be measured in the reforms reluctantly wrung out of the British in these years - first Montagu-Chelmsford, then the Government of India Act 1935 which is still the basis of the modern Indian constitution (that is why already in 1944 Bose was able to refer to experience of Democracy in India, and then reject it). These were too little, too late for most of the Congress: but they were far more than the British had had any intention of giving up in 1919. This has turned into a bit of an essay, but I suggest a look at these books:

AMIN, S.: “Gandhi as Mahatma: Gorakhpur District, Eastern U.P., 1921 – 2” in Subaltern Studies III

BAYLY, C.A.: ''The Local Roots of Nationalist Politics. Allahabad 1880 – 1920'' (Oxford University Press) 1975

BROWN, Judith M.: Gandhi – Prisoner of Hope (Yale University Press) 1989

''Modern India. The Origins of an Asian Democracy'' 2nd Edition (OUP) 1994 MOORE, R.J.: “India in the 1940s” in The Oxford History of the British Empire Vol.V Historiography

PANDEY, Gyan: “Peasant Revolt and Indian Nationalism: The Peasant Movement in Awadh 1919-22” in Subaltern Studies I

SARKAR, S.: “The Conditions and Nature of Subaltern Militancy: Bengal from Swadeshi to Non-cooperation, c.1905-22” in Subaltern Studies III

SEAL, Anil: “Imperialism and Nationalism in India” in Modern Asian Studies Vol.7 (3) 1973

OMISSI, David: ''The Sepoy and the Raj. The Indian Army, 1860 – 1940'' (London: Macmillan) 1994

YANG, Anand A.: ''The Limited Raj. Agrarian Relations in Colonial India, Saran District, 1793 – 1920'' (Delhi: OUP) 1989

All these will help to give a good account both of the foundations of British rule and the reasons for its demise. Sikandarji 10:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fascism is always a reaction to the threat of working class insurrection and the breakdown of parliamentary democracy (as part of a more general breakdown of the “normal” functioning of the capitalist state and its agencies such as the army and the police, leading to a crisis in the economy). The paradigmatic cases are Italy in the twenties, Spain and Germany in the thirties, Chile in the seventies. Fascism draws its support in large measure from the petit bourgeoisie (including the property owning peasantry and small businessmen), which seeks a return to "order", as well as the bourgeoisie and seigneurial classes. It would be absurd to portray Bose as seeking a fascist solution to India – for there was no problem of the popular legitimacy of state institutions in a capitalist society such as might require a fascist “solution”. What Bose faced in India was a national liberation struggle and, like ALL national liberation fighters, he looked for external help and support.

So was Bose a “fascist” for turning to a “fascist” government for military help? No more than Attaturk was a “Stalinist” for turning to the USSR for military help or Taiwan was “Zionist” for turning to Israel for help – the demands of realpolitik do make what may seem unlikely bedfellows. Does the fact that the US has supported a long list of dubious military regimes make the USA a "fascist" regime? Bose was confronted with a situation where a few imperialist powers were engaged in a worldwide struggle for supremacy to hold on to or acquire large parts of the world – a process which started well before the First World War. Like many third world “modernisers” Bose, the founder of the National Planning Agency in 1938, was obviously impressed by the supposed success of the five year plans in modernising the Soviet Union – to argue that this means he sought the same “fascist” solutions for economically backward India as economically advanced Western societies like Italy and Germany is absurd.

Furthermore, to argue that the man who was at the forefront of Indian protests against the fascists in the Spanish Civil War, as well as against the Japanese actions in Nanking, had suddenly experienced a “conversion” on the road to Berlin and Tokyo stretches credulity. To argue that Bose was a “fascist” is a British imperialist argument – the wikipedia entry should make it clear that this is a very partial, one-sided argument and by no means a consensus view.

To User:Sikandarji Words like "Nazis" and "Waffen-SS" are there to frighten the children. To use arguments like Bose wearing military uniform to support the contention that he is a fascist lowers the debate several notches – there are many photographs of Churchill in naval uniform during world war 2, deGaulle was never out of uniform and Bose was the leader of an army and did undertake the long march to and back from Imphal – Gandhian dhoti and sandals might have been a trifle unsuitable. You yourself acknowledge the weakness of your own position that Bose was a fascist by trying to retract and by lumping him with other “authoritarian” rulers – why don’t you ask a woman breaking stones for a roadbuilding project in "democratic" Bihar whether she might not be better off in Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore? The fact is you don’t know what the term “fascist” means but you are lazy enough to attribute it to Bose. Those of us with more respect for the victims of fascism tend to use the term with more discrimination and care.

For 1 1/2 million Indians to fight for the British imperialist war machine is not as innocent an endeavour as you would have us believe. These were hired mercenaries of the British – collaborators paid to maintain a regime which dragged India into two world wars without the consent of people in India. The fact that the Indian prisoners proved so susceptible to Bose’s persuasion shows that their allegiance to the British crown was not as strong as you maintain, as do the actions of Indian sailors and workers, Muslim and Hindu, during the Bombay Mutiny. History is replete with the examples of imperial elites using native compradors to maintain imperial control – to challenge this is not considered dishonourable by most people unless they happen to be old colonels waxing their moustaches and nostalgically harking back to the good old days of imperial rule.

The truncated, neutered, compromised, "independence" granted to Congress and the Muslim League by the imperialists was a far cry from the vision of liberation which inspired so many freedom fighters and which Bose, with all his contradictions, sincerely sought to articulate.

Scbose 14:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether Professor Sen is a British Imperialist, but perhaps he's suffering from a form of false consciousness - Nirad Chaudhuri also refers to Boses's "pronounced fascist leanings" Thy Hand Great Anarch (London) 1987 p32. This is not a view confined to "British Imperialists", it is one that deserves more serious consideration. I think I made it pretty clear that whilst I find Bose's actions during the war reprehensible and counter-productive, I'm not entirely comfortable with him being described as a 'fascist' either, although you seem somehow to have twisted that into a personal attack. The article shows that there are numerous dissenting views on Boses's role during the war, and his evolving political beliefs. I added both the quotations in which he condemns Nazism and Japanese aggression in China and that in which he calls for an "authoritarian system" in post-independence India whilst rejecting democracy, so I'm sad to see that my attempts at even-handedness on the page itself appear to have gone unappreciated. Please, leave the preaching out of this. To describe the Waffen-SS as "there to frighten the children" but then claim the moral high ground as one of that virtuous and self-selecting group "Those of us with more respect for the victims of fascism" is stretching things a bit. If you think India and the world would have been better off had Bose, the INA and the Japanese won their struggle against the Indian Army you're entitled to your opinion. I maintain that it is insulting simply to describe the latter as "collaborators" and denigrate their contribution to defeating Fascism (and I do know what the term means). Whether Bihar in particular has ever been truly democratic is questionable, but I somehow doubt if even Bose could have turned it into Singapore. The fact is that he isn't tainted with the many disappointments and failures of Independence because he died at the right time. That's why he's still revered as some sort of Messiah figure. From my own study of his writings and career I see no reason to suppose that he would have been any more successful than any other Indian political leader in preventing Partition or alleviating India's poverty in the aftermath of Independence: an Independence which was taken, not granted. Sikandarji 22:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

To User:Sikandarji- The only link you can provide is to some kind of informal after-dinner ramblings (completely unannotated) for American freshmen (who presumably know even less about Indian history than they do about their own). I don't know if the augustly titled Professor Sen is suffering from false consciousness, but inebriation had crossed my mind. Your reference to Nirad Chaudhuri proves the opposite of the point you are trying to make. Nirad Chaudhuri was a celebrated and refreshingly candid apologist for British imperialism - the wikipedia entry on his life states that "To his last day, he remained the quintessential Victorian English country gentleman, if not by ownership, then by knowledge, habit, refinement and taste. He lived by his genteel squirearchical standards till he breathed his last." . Since we disagree about Bose and his relation to fascism I suggest you stick to that and not indulge yourself overly on attributing fictional motivations to me (such as my wanting the Japanese to win, seeing Bose as some kind of messiah etc.). I am touched by your veneration for the anti-fascist credentials of the British Empire and its sepoy cannon fodder, albeit somewhat incredulous that we are talking about the same institution which pioneered the use of concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer War, as well as using chemical weapons, man-made famines and eugenicist doctrines of racial superiority as instruments of imperial policy. Scbose 10:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The most cursory glance at Chaudhuri's writings would show that he had no great love for the British in India, (he distinguishes carefully between British domestic political and literary culture and that of the Empire). However, it is usual for people simply to read the deliberately provocative dedication to The Autobiography of an Unknown Indian and fail to progress any further, and I am not surprised to find that Wikipedia repeats the lazy myth that he was an Imperialist or an apologist for Imperialism. I suggest you read his books, rather than relying on hearsay. At no stage have I claimed that the British Empire was free from sin (what polity is)? and the Bengal famine of 1943 is a particularly dark stain, although I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that it was deliberate. All I am suggesting is that the British Empire was better than the regimes it was fighting during WWII, with which Bose saw fit to ally himself, and that is all which is at issue here. To describe all those who served in the Indian Amry at that time as "cannon-fodder" is infantilising (it was a volunteer army, after all) and does them a grave injustice. Sikandarji 19:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Politcal Views section needs some real work. I would suggest just a brief neutral summary of the main article as well as the reference to the link. I may get around to doing this myself later.

The Second World War
I just wanted to add, that since I have started to work on this article, I have come to sympathise with Bose and his views a good deal more than I did to begin with (and this despite him being a Cambridge man......). I still think he was wrong, and misguided, in the choices he made, but I accept that much of that knowledge comes with hindsight, as we have come to understand better the horrors of both the Nazi and Japanese regimes in this period. I would be very interested to garner further opinions from Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans about British India's role in the Second World War. By 1945 2.5 million Indians were serving in the British Indian Army against the Axis, and overall during the war about 4 million volunteered. They played a crucial role in defeating the Axis in the Middle East, in North Africa (at El Alamein, for instance) and of course in the defeat of the Japanese and the INA at Kohima and Imphal, and the subsequent reconquest of Burma. This contribution has only recently come to be fully acknowledged in Britain, and is viewed with pride and gratitude. How is India's role seen in defeating the Axis seen in India and Pakistan today? All opinions welcome.

Sikandarji 00:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can say only one thing. They are hardly remembered among the common men. In fact, that many Indians fought in the allied power remains almost unmentioned in our text books, at least in school levels. I am not aware of other parts of the subcontinent, but in the part I live (West Bengal, India) I do not see any commemoration of the soldiers. May be one of the reasons is the traditionally low Bengali presence in the Indian armies. Would be intersting to hear the scenario in Punjab.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think even in other parts of India these soldier's contributions are not much acknowledged. Many of them (those who survive) express their anguish (there are well documented oral histories) at their subsequent neglect which they feel came out of the Congress government's need to distance themselves from people who "worked for the British" (ironic, as many of the Congress leaders were staunch protectors of British interests as long as such protection did not jeopardize their share and bid for power - Gandhi and Nehru's support for this "war effort" itself is an example. Congress traded these soldier's lives for its demands for sole proprietorship of the Republic). Britain "gratefully acknowledges" ?!!! which "Britain" actually? I witnessed a very popular UK TV live show, where, the contestant sarcastically ridicules the whole idea, saying he never heard from his relative who fought in the war, that any "f***" person originating from the subcontinent ever did any "fighting". The cost of the war effort, in material and human terms, contributed by Indian people, has never been fully acknowledged, probably because of the same reasons that a British leader expressed "deep sorrow" but not that "he was sorry" for the injustices of British slave trade - the legal fear of compensation.Dikgaj 00:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Am a bit late to add points here but here is the crux. Members of Bose's INA were recognized as freedom fighters by the Govt. of India and hence got the same benefits (pensions, land, travel etc.) as Congress freedom fighters. This was clearly not the case for the British Indian Army personnel. In Indian textbooks - Bose is revered as hero. Yes, Indians serving in the British Army did become icons in India. Field Marshall Maneckshaw is an example - but he become a hero in India when he served the Indian Army not the British Indian Army. TheBlueKnight (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

JAPANESE ATTROCITIES IN THE ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS
This is something that has really been swept under the carpet, and must be given a line or two. Japanese behaviour in the Andamans brings forth very searching questions about the modus operandi of the I.N.A. - and to think Bose wanted the Japanese army in New Delhi! Let's face it, how could he call himself a potential liberator if this kind of thing was being done by his "friends" and under their very noses. I think this link: will get quickly deleted, as the article seems profoundly biased and is probably well guarded by a gang of Bengal Tigers who have as much time for other points of view as Bose himself did. -

It makes me laugh how Indian historians love to believe that the tiny isolated uprisings by the Indian armed forces in 1946, which resulted in almost no British casualties, chased the British out of India. I have even seen this portrayed as fact in Indian school books. The mutinies did not even have the support of Congress or the Muslim League, who even supported their suppression! They were nothing at all and the type of thing that the British had been actively dealing with for 200 years. There was a far bigger mutiny during WWI, Bose’s INA, consisting of former soldiers, was a kind of mutiny, and let's not even talk about the trouble in 1857 which was ten thousand times bigger, there was even a sizable military mutiny in the 1820's. The trouble in 1946 was a trifling affair. The new British Socialist government(quite rightly)had already made up its mind to get out, something India is loathed to give credit for, as kindly British acquiescence is something they just can't admit - despite a truck load of evidence. This is why they said Gandhi was not a decisive factor.


 * I think I deleted that link not because I know or intend to preserve a bias, but rather because it's to a personal website and part of a POV bit in the article. --Improv 13:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not the original contributor by the way - I think you'll find that numerous atrocities were committed by the Japanese in the Andamans (and everywhere else in South-East Asia): this is widely known and accepted. However, I agree the original link was to what looked like an unreliable and very POV site, hence this statement was essentially unreferenced. In itself though I don't think it is unacceptably POV - if the atrocities happened, they should be referred to here. If I can find a good reference I may reinstate the passage. Sikandarji 17:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

-- I have added the "netaji & Indian communists" subsection .i will add content to it later.Bharatveer 08:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Only thing that is laughable is your attitude and your pretense that you have even a pint of actual intellect while making blanket statements. --Blacksun 12:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

--

Slight POV problem.
There are parts of this article which are probabbly unintentionally ever so slightly biased. I think it is a bit of a diservice and insult to the hundreds of thousands of men of all religions who served in the Indian Army between 1939 and 1945 in both Europe and Asia who fought against nations who were totalitarian and fundementally wrong in nature. In that case it might be neccessary to adjust the article to restore the actual effect of this curious figure in history.--Pudduh 14:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's more than slightly biased. Someone above called it a "poorly-written hagiography". I wouldn't go that far, but terms like "freedom-fighter" and "martyr" have no place in an encyclopaedia.89.242.152.119 (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

I am a little puzzled by some of the claims in this article@

"In England, he exchanged ideas on the future of India with British Labour Party leaders and political thinkers like Lord Halifax, George Lansbury, Clement Attlee, Arthur Greenwood, Harold Laski, J.B.S. Haldane, Ivor Jennings, G.D.H. Cole, Gilbert Murray and Sir Stafford Cripps" followed by "It may be noted here that during his sojourn in England, only the Labour Party and Liberal politicians agreed to meet Bose when Bose tried to schedule appointments with them. Conservative Party officials refused to meet him or show him the minimum courtesy due to a politician coming from a colony"

I was under the impression that Lord Halifax was a Conservative and that the second Indian MP in the House of Commons during the 1880's and 1890's was also a Conservative. These facts seem to be at odds with the claim.

---

Why do unsubstantiated claims remain a part of this article? This is a direct quote from the article: "At a time, when no one in Germany dared criticize Hitler, Bose was openly critical of Hitler's treatment of Jews[citation needed], the destruction of democratic institutions in Germany[citation needed] and the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union[citation needed]." Well, citations are needed, and none have been provided. The assertions of "fact" should therefore be removed, especially since I am highly skeptical of their veracity in the first place given Bose's cheerful willingness to align himself with Hitler. Cbreitel 16:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

--

I have a question about the attribution of the British decision to leave India to the INA trials. I'm not sure that I see the causality and the accompanying link did not clarify things either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.157.150 (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

--

I have to disagree that there is some degree of POV here. There is a significant level of POV in the article. Also many claims that are unsupported. For instance, the suggestion that the British withdrawal from Indian resulted from the INA trials; the claim that Bose thereby posthumously achieved his aim of independence, as if he was responsible for that; the suggestion that his death is questionable. There is no basis for any doubts regarding his death. And the suggestion that he wasn't a fascist, just because he was allied to fascists, was a militant and revolutionary, had radical social and economic beliefs, etc etc. Sounds like fascism to me.124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

flag
the flag next to the place of birth is a british flag and not an indian flag.

official date of death
On Death of Subhas Chandra Bose and Mukherjee Commission, it says that the government rejected the commissions outcome, but I am not 100% clear on whether the official date of death is still 1945. This is important because copyright law is based on the official date of death. John Vandenberg 11:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The official date of death is 18 August 1945... The commission refuted this, but the government rejected the findings of the commission... - Sreejith Kumar 03:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Highly respected?
Read Avoid peacock terms and then try to justify the inclusion of this phrase. JMcC 09:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed this to a more neutral statement (leader in the Indian independence movement).

A comment on his status as an Axis/Nazi collaborator could be included in the opening paragraph.

Dn9ahx (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Flags
Please see the discussion: About displaying flags. Thanks. --Bhadani (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am just going to paste what I wrote in the noticeboard page
 * I am not sure that war time occupation of European countries by Nazi Germany falls in the same category as a country and its administration during the colonial era. Aside from the fact that India today is historically and politically different from British India. I dont have a problem with the flag not being shown, but do have a problem with the pages on Bose and INA becoming a battleground for PoV pushing Colonialists and nationalists. Facts are facts and that's the way it should be on an encyclopaedia. I have nearly single handedly build the entire Content on the Indian National Army (see Azad Hind Fauj), and am bored and tired of colonial as well as nationalist half-truths and pseudo-intellectuals pushing to have their long-disproved and now-downright-ridiculed theories in these pages. Do pardon me if I seem a bit overactive in these pages. I assure you it is in the best intentions and interests. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. This has reference to you message on my talk page: . I respect your views though all the people may not agree with the same. Moreover, I don't believe in making Wikipedia an emotional battleground: facts may be perceived in different ways by different people. And, you please feel free to do (with the flags) as you wish as I don't have any inclination to engage in discussion on matters which leads us no where except wasting valuable time which may be used more productively. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Assassination attempts
"In fact, the plan to liquidate Bose has few parallels..." Nice, but sounds more like personal opinion than fact (and would require a negative proof). As such, it belongs in quotation marks or left out altogether. 88.217.76.192 (talk) 08:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Orissa Addition
Note: WP India Project Banner with Orissa workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Orissa or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate, please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag   TALK2ME  11:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?
A major portion of this article is not seen now. Is it due to vandalism? If yes, someone please restore it. -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:INA Parade.jpg
The image File:INA Parade.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

There is a need for cultural awakening again in India recalling the ideals of Netaji to establish a ex-Soviet kind of state and abolish the poverty, dysfunctional polity that India is!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.50.37.194 (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes by user 59.92.144.209
The changes by user 59.92.144.209 at 12:39, 15 March 2009, needs review, I think the content is not suitable under [WP:NOTDIRECTORY]. The content can be restructured as a section with proper formating and retained in this page or moved to a suitable page. nihar (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Have removed the quote, as it exists on Swami Sahajanand Saraswati page also. Swami Sahajanand Saraswati link has been added to 'See Also'nihar (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an error either in this piece or in the linked piece about Chennai Central prison. The prison piece says that Bose was a prisoner in Chennai in the early days of Indian independence. This piece about Bose says he died in 1945. India did not become independent until 1947, so both statements can't be right. Which one is wrong?

Lead section too long
The lead section of this article is too long. It needs to be summarised in fewer words and the actual contents moved to the sections. Unspokentruth (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That was wrong information
Regards everybody. I have removed the sentence that Subhash Chandra's B'day is National Holiday. In fact, it is not even a Restricted Holiday. -Thanks. -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)