Netaji wanted a 20 year dictatorship in India

[Yoda-esque]

Yaar i get it.U are saying view the person and decisions through the prism of the era and environment he lived .I agree with that .Bose did what he thought was good for India at the time.Even most of the western world were unaware of the extent of the crimes of Hitler till Nuremberg Trials And no in any era he would have been revered by Hindus .He promoted Hinduism peacefully and asserted its superiority through knowledge not by violence or intolerance . And i made the RSS comparison becoz u used the same example for Godse as well

Where did I even mention Godse?

[BeautifulGame]

Where did I even mention Godse?

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=3330430&postcount=30 My mistake i apologize.I thought u were referring to Godze here rather than Netaji

[jalebi_bhai]

To understand Bose, read his autobiographies 'Indian Pilgrim' and 'Indian Struggle' and then make up your mind. I've read the former and will read the second one on a 15 hour flight I plan on taking in June. Will then follow it up with Anuj Dhar's book.

[Cricket_Hacker]

Interesting how "RSS" and "chaddi" make their way into random threads.

[amiret]

" Bose clearly admired strong, vigorous, military-type leaders, and in The Indian Struggle he listed several whom he particularly respected. These included Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and even a former British governor of Bengal, Sir Stanley Jackson. / 42 Nowhere in this book is there any criticism of these individuals (three of them dictators) for having too much power, yet another man is chastised for this: Mahatma Gandhi. " "Bose admired Gandhi for many things, not least his ability to "exploit the mass psychology of the people, just as Lenin did the same thing in Russia, Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany." / 43 But he accused Gandhi of accepting too much power and responsibility, of becoming a "Dictator for the whole country" who issued "decrees" to the Congress. / 44 According to Bose, Gandhi was a brilliant and gifted man, but, unlike Mussolini, Hitler and the others mentioned, a very ineffectual leader. Gandhi had failed to liberate India because of his frequent indecision and constant willingness to compromise with the Raj (something Bose said he would never do). " http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14_Montgomery.html

[Sachin=GOD]

He did ally/try to ally with Hitler.I don't think any one like that would be too keen on democracy. We in India tend to romanticize dictatorships and military rules. Any time we are pissed of with the govt.....military should take over.Military is made up of humans.Given too much power.....no one stays sane. To think that a country could have dictatorship for 20 years and then peace fully opt for more inclusive options is just stupid and naive.No dictator gives up power.... Even if we take this article with a huge pinch of salt...fact is ,someone like him running the country would have been a disaster. We would be Pakistan and Bangladesh.

He went with Hitler because he was ready to do anything to make India free - I admire that even though he had to deal with Hitler for that. I don't think we as a country have wanted military rule - in fact that has been a really admirable feature of our democracy. The armed forces have always kept away from politics and people haven't wanted them to interfere as well.

[amiret]

This is a beautiful photograph of a dutiful Netaji listening to Gandhi . I imagine Gandhi was saying : " It is good to see you in traditional indian clothes Subhas , i am glad you have overcome your fascination for garish military uniforms." And Sardar on the right doing a meditative

[hhunaeh]

The fault with all religions like Christianity is that they have one set of rules for all. But Hindu religion is suited to all grades of religious aspiration and progress. It contains all the ideals in their perfect form. For example, the ideal of Shanta or blessedness is to be found in Vasishtha; that of love in Krishna; that of duty in Rama and Sita; and that of intellect in Shukadeva. Study the characters of these and of other ideal men. Adopt one which suits you best. -vivekananda

“ Shivaji was the greatest Hindu king that India had produced within the last thousand years; one who was the very incarnation of lord Siva, about whom prophecies were given out long before he was born; and his advent was eagerly expected by all the great souls and saints of Maharashtra as the deliverer of the Hindus from the hands of the Mlecchas, and as one who succeeded in the reestablishment of Dharma which had been trampled underfoot by the depredations of the devastating hordes of the Moghals ” - Swami Vivekananda

So what, Yes shivaji was a great king who fought against cruel aurangzeb, and several aspects of hinduism are better than other religions, but did he say we should sterilize all muslims, snatch away their voting rights or sing one two ka four, four two ka one ? He was an inspirational figure, not petty and divisive like the chaddis today.

[Yoda-esque]

So what' date=' Yes shivaji was a great king who fought against cruel aurangzeb, and several aspects of hinduism are better than other religions, but did he say we should sterilize all muslims, snatch away their voting rights or sing one two ka four, four two ka one ? He was an inspirational figure, not petty and divisive like the chaddis today.[/quote'] What would you call somebody who made these statements in today's day and age? Remember the the word "mleccha" Also, I gather , that just like Swami Vivekananda's learnings, you haven't read much about Savarkar either. Please answer point by point. And if you still think Vivekananda would be revered in today's India by the media and non majority, I am hoping you would extend such thoughts to people who think the same way as Swamiji.

[hhunaeh]

What would you call somebody who made these statements in today's day and age? Remember the the word "mleccha" Also, I gather , that just like Swami Vivekananda's learnings, you haven't read much about Savarkar either. Please answer point by point.

Nothing, Aurangzeb and his mughal army were barbarians. Everybody knows that. How does stating that make him a chaddi?

[Muloghonto]

Its worth remembering that Bose was the ONLY person in the span of 1931 to 1945 to go live on air on Nazi radio and criticize Nazism, particularly their treatment of jews and gypsies.

[Yoda-esque]

Nothing' date=' Aurangzeb and his mughal army were barbarians. Everybody knows that. How does stating that make him a chaddi?[/quote'] So you are in favor of "ghar vapasi" as well ? I mean Swamiji was a strong supporter of that . So no issues with Mohan Bhagwat saying that right ? Also sample this: "If India embraces a foreign religion, the Indian civilisation will be destroyed. For whoever goes out of the Hindu religion is not only lost to us but also we have in him one more enemy." Who said those words? Imagine if somebody said that today.Do you think the media would be quiet about this?

[Tiger80]

1944 . Netaji was a well read man . Did he never listen to the speeches or read the demented writings of hitler or mussolini ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Subhas_Chandra_Bose Bose was accused of collaborating with the Axis, after he fled to Germany in 1941 and offered Hitler an alliance. He criticized the British during World War II, saying that while Britain was fighting for the freedom of the European nations under Nazi control, it would not grant independence to its own colonies, including India. It may be observed that along with Nehru, Bose had organized and led protest marches against the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, and of China itself in 1938, when he was Congress president[citation needed]. In 1937 he published an article attacking Japanese imperialism in the Far East, although he betrayed some admiration for other aspects of the Japanese regime.[3] Bose's earlier correspondence (prior to 1939) also reflects his deep disapproval of the racist practices of and annulment of democratic institutions in Nazi Germany.[4] He also, however, expressed admiration for the authoritarian methods (though not the racial ideologies) which he saw in Italy and Germany during the 1930s, and thought they could be used in building an independent India.[5] Nevertheless, Bose's tenure as Congress Party President (1938–39) did not reflect any particular anti-democratic or authoritarian attributes. Nirad C. Chaudhuri, Anton Pelinka and Leonard Gordon have remarked that Bose's skills were best illustrated at the negotiating table, rather than on the battlefield.

The bold part is worth more than many articles

[Muloghonto]

The only undemocratic thing Bose ever did was resign as the leader of the INC when he was elected over Gandhi's stooge Pattabhi Sitaramaiyya when the Gandhi-led faction went into a hunger strike.

[Yoda-esque]

The only undemocratic thing Bose ever did was resign as the leader of the INC when he was elected over Gandhi's stooge Pattabhi Sitaramaiyya when the Gandhi-led faction went into a hunger strike.

Nice one.:cantstop:

[Tiger80]

Subhash was realistic when he went for help with Germans and Japanese. for first 2 years there was no allied forces France was defeated and there was Germany soviet peace pact. The only resistance was almost on the verge of defeat Britishers. that was excellent oppurtunity to kick Britishers out Kh2EbuP_Y-4 watch it from 1. hour 25 minutes to know what was netaji's plan. his actual plan was to take Indian pow army from soviet to Afghanistan and India

[Clarke]

So you are in favor of "ghar vapasi" as well ? I mean Swamiji was a strong supporter of that . So no issues with Mohan Bhagwat saying that right ? Also sample this: "If India embraces a foreign religion, the Indian civilisation will be destroyed. For whoever goes out of the Hindu religion is not only lost to us but also we have in him one more enemy." Who said those words? Imagine if somebody said that today.Do you think the media would be quiet about this?

Communal

[Yoda-esque]

Communal

Thats the problem,people talking without understanding anything . Their knowledge of freedom fighters stems from Congress written single-chapters in Bal-bharatis. The thing is that Vivekananda and the Congress didn't share any history (unlike Bose).Thus, it was easy for them to try and appropriate his legacy.The Congress "secularized" the image of Vivekananda knowing very well the position he has in the hearts of the non-minority. The reality , of course, is that Vivekananda was a true nationalist who criticized Abrahamic religions more often than not.He was by extension,promulgating the philosophies of Shivaji and other nationalists before him and that ,Savarkar and RSS followed after him. Why do you think Modi quotes him?

[Muloghonto]

Thats the problem,people talking without understanding anything . Their knowledge of freedom fighters stems from Congress written Bal-bharatis. The thing is that Vivekananda and the Congress didn't share any history (unlike Bose).Thus, it was easy for them to try and appropriate his legacy.The Congress "secularized" the image of Vivekananda knowing very well the position he has in the hearts of the non-minority. The reality , of course, is that Vivekananda was a true nationalist who criticized Abrahamic religions more often than not.He was by extension,promulgating the philosophies of Shivaji and other nationalists before him and that ,Savarkar and RSS followed after him. Why do you think Modi quotes him?

Where the disconnect between Vivekananda and Modi lies, is in the fact that Vivekananda's philosophies were extremely close to Buddhist ideals and he himself acknowledged them. The RSS ideals are closer to the Abrahamic ideals that Vivekananda himself criticized. Its like Vivekananda believed the Abrahamic religions were like fire and Indic philosophies/religions were like water, the perfect counter. But the RSS tends to see it as 'fight fire with fire' and takes an Abrahamic tilt towards hinduism to counter the abrahamic.

[Yoda-esque]

Where the disconnect between Vivekananda and Modi lies' date=' is in the fact that Vivekananda's philosophies were extremely close to Buddhist ideals and he himself acknowledged them. The RSS ideals are closer to the Abrahamic ideals that Vivekananda himself criticized. Its like Vivekananda believed the Abrahamic religions were like fire and Indic philosophies/religions were like water, the perfect counter. But the RSS tends to see it as 'fight fire with fire' and takes an Abrahamic tilt towards hinduism to counter the abrahamic.[/quote'] My point was: what sort of a man would Vivekananda be perceived as were he to be born today? The quotes I have put forth are only a sample of what he actually said and would be considered blasphemy in todays day and age by our secular media. Vivekaknanda would be more Modi and less (anything remotely ) Congress/Left. On the topic of RSS, it is nothing but a punching bag for anybody who wants to take a swipe at Modi.