Who Brought Freedom, Gandhi or Netaji?

Another article I came across talking about the lack of recognition given to Subhash Chandra Bose and questioning Mahatma Gandhi's (MG) actual contribution to India's independence. Interesting read and once again - makes me question whether MG was just a facilitator for the British.

------------------------------------

Recent research shows that Netaji Subhas Bose and the INA were responsible for the British leaving in 1947 in a hurry. The Fall of Singapore to the Japanese in 1942 rather than Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India Movement was the beginning of the end of the British Empire. Dr. N.S. Rajaram finds out more.

There is a story that the late Mao Zedong, when asked his opinion about Napoleon as a leader replied: “How can I say? He is too recent.” Napoleon’s career ended in the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 and Mao died only in 1976. So what could Mao have meant when he said that Napoleon was too recent? He meant that a certain amount of time has to pass before we can view historical events and personalities objectively. Our reading of recent events is bound to be colored by our closeness to them. This truth was brought home to me a few years ago when I was visiting Penang in Malaysia as the guest of some veterans of World War II, but first some background.

In India, people are brought up on the story that Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru—with others receive grudging notice if at all—led a heroic struggle freeing India from the British rule. Miraculously, the whole thing was accomplished without resort to violence, by the application of a mighty spiritual force called ahimsa (non-violence) unleashed by the Mahatma. If true it is a tribute not only to the power of Gandhi’s (and Nehru’s) spiritual vision, but also a lasting tribute to the spiritual sensitivity of the British rulers. Like the tiger in the children’s poem (govina kathe in Kannada), which killed itself rather than eat the calf, the British gave up the empire and left.

This received a jolt during a recent trip to Southeast Asia where I had occasion to visit some people who had served with my late father during World War II. Their account of their experience in the period from 1942 to 45 casts serious doubt on this beautiful story. Here we are faced with a dilemma— the conflict between what we read in history books and what the people actually saw on the ground. The usual story is that after some initial reverses the British defeated the Japanese. But those who actually served there, now in their late 70s and 80s, remember it quite differently. Uniformly, this is what I heard everywhere and from everyone.

Report on INA“When the Japanese attacked, the British ran away. They were very clever. They had a wonderful life with bungalows and butlers and cooks and all that, but as soon as the Japanese came, they ran away. And once they got back to India, they sent Gurkhas, Sikhs, Marathas and other Indians to fight the Japanese. They knew it was too dangerous for them. That is how we got independence in Malaya.” Malaysia was then called Malaya and Singapore was its capital.

Not one of them remembered the British fighting the Japanese— only running away. They remember also Indian soldiers coming and fighting; some of them stayed back in countries like Malaya (as it was then called), Singapore and other places. One man, who as a youngster had been my father’s orderly during the War, invited me to his home in Penang for the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Singapore. What he told me took my breath away.

“That is why the British left India also. When the war was over, all the Indian soldiers who had defeated the Japanese returned to India, and the British got scared. They didn’t want to fight the Indians who had just fought and defeated the Japanese. So they ran away from India also.”

I tried to explain to him that Gandhiji’s nonviolence was the force that convinced the British to leave. But this man, not an intellectual but a battle-hardened soldier with sound commonsense would have none of it. “If it was non-violence, why didn’t they leave earlier? Gandhi and the nonviolence were there before the war also. Did they have to wait for the Japanese to come and teach them non-violence?”

One may smile at this simple way of looking at history, but as will be seen later, this revisionist view has good support. The ‘authorized’ version with Gandhi and Nehru as central figures continues to be taught in India because it benefits those in power. It shows the British also in favorable light as a magnanimous and even spiritual people, which of course they don’t mind. But history shows a different picture.

The year 1942 was momentous. It was the year in which the British Empire suffered a massive defeat at the hands of an Asiatic people (Japanese); it was also the year in which Mahatma Gandhi launched his famous but ill-fated Quit India Movement. Subhas Bose also entered the picture at about that time, first in Germany and later in Southeast Asia. But first it is necessary to get an idea of the momentous impact of the Japanese victory on the psyche of the colonized people as well as on that of the colonizing powers. What triggered it was the Fall of Singapore.

The fall of Singapore in 1942 heralded the end of the British Empire and of European colonialism in general. Indian independence came in 1947, but what really ended the Empire was the fall of Singapore. This has received scant notice by Indian historians who remain trapped in Eurocentric thinking, but there is ample evidence supporting it. Among Indian historians, only R.C. Majumdar has seen its significance: the fall of Singapore broke the spirit of Imperial Britain. As we shall soon see British historians have themselves admitted it. Let us look at what really happened to the British in 1942.

When the Japanese attacked Singapore in February 1942, its large and well-equipped British garrison surrendered without a fight. These well-attended ‘pukka sahibs’—used to good living—had little stomach for war. For decades, the ruling authorities had avoided facing the truth that they were not a fighting force. They had deluded themselves with resounding slogans— calling Singapore the ‘Bastion of the Empire,’ ‘Impregnable Fortress,’ ‘Gibraltar of the East’ and such. None of it helped when Singapore fell to a Japanese army less than a third the size of the defending forces.

Yet, so far removed from reality were Singapore’s British residents, that even on the verge of surrender, a gunnery officer was refused permission to mount guns on the golf links for defending the city. He was told that he needed permission from the golf club committee. And the golf club committee would not be meeting for at least a week, so he better hold off!

In the fall of Singapore, its symbolic significance was infinitely greater than the military defeat. It destroyed the myth of European superiority over the Asiatics once and for all. Historian James Leasor wrote in his Singapore, the battle that changed the world:

“Dazed by the incredible superiority of the Japanese, the defenders’ will to win had withered. … The psychological damage was even greater than the military defeat— and this had been grotesque enough. …Under the lowering Singapore sky lit by the funeral pyres of the British Empire … a door closed on centuries of white supremacy … ” Actually the Japanese had planned it that way— to break the sense of superiority exuded by the Europeans, by the British in particular, in their dealings with the Asiatics. Leasor wrote:

“At the start of the campaign, each Japanese soldier had been issued with a pamphlet that set out Japan’s reasons for fighting the British and the Americans. Her [Japan’s] claim was that she would liberate East Asia from white rule and oppression,” for since “We Japanese, as an Eastern people, have ourselves for long been classed alongside the Chinese and the Indians as an inferior race, and treated as such, we must at the very least, here in Asia, beat these Westerners to submission, that they may change their arrogant and ill-mannered attitude.”

The Japanese attack on Singapore accomplished much more: it ended the British Empire to be followed swiftly by the end of European imperialism itself. To return to the fall of Singapore, as with the fall of Hong Kong a few weeks earlier, the only worthwhile resistance had come from the Indian garrisons— the Sikh and the Gurkha regiments. The prestige and the mystique associated with the British Empire were shattered by these ignominious defeats.

And this is how my gracious host in Penang and his friends, men who had seen it at first hand, remember it. As they saw it, the massive defeat destroyed the British morale. It was the specter of the whole nightmare being reenacted in India, with nearly three million Indian soldiers just returned from war, which made the British leave India. “They ran away,” the old soldier kept telling me repeatedly.

I may point out that this is also the view of many Indians who saw action in the war— both in the Indian Army and those who fought in Subhas Bose’s INA. Indian soldiers saw that their British officers were frightened to death of the Japanese, while they themselves were prepared to fight them.

After the War, the British defeat in Singapore was followed by the French defeat in Dien Bien Phu at the hands of Ho Chi Min’s soldiers in Vietnam. This laid the groundwork for the American defeat in all of Vietnam and their inglorious flight from Saigon. No one today talks about the superiority of the ‘White Race’. The first nail in coffin was driven by the Japanese in Malaya in 1942.

It was this changed perception, that the British were just ordinary mortals like the rest that allowed Netaji Subhas Bose to recruit Indians in Southeast Asia into the Indian National Army (Azad Hind Fauz or the INA). Subhas Bose saw that the Indian armed forces were the prop of the Empire— not just in India but everywhere the British went. But Gandhi and Nehru, preoccupied with their utopian dreams of nonviolence failed to realize its significance. When the opportunity arose, Bose seized it to transform the armed forces into a nationalist force, while Gandhi and Nehru started the Quit India Movement which collapsed in a few weeks.

Before we look further, we need to ask: what support do we have for this revisionist view, that Subhas Bose and the INA brought freedom to India? The evidence is ample and impeccable. Several have noted it, but the most distinguished historian to highlight Bose’s contribution was the late R.C. Majumdar, one of modern India’s greatest historians. In his monumental, three-volume History of the Freedom Movement in India (Firma KLM, Calcutta) Majumdar provided the following extraordinary evidence:

“It seldom falls to the lot of a historian to have his views, differing radically from those generally accepted without demur, confirmed by such an unimpeachable authority. As far back as 1948 I wrote in an article that the contribution made by Netaji Subas Chandra Bose towards the achievement of freedom in 1947 was no less, and perhaps, far more important than that of Mahatma Gandhi…”

The ‘unimpeachable authority’ he cited happened to be Clement Attlee, the Prime Minister of Britain at the time of India’s independence. Since this is of fundamental importance, and Majumdar’s conclusion so greatly at variance with the conventional history, it is worth placing it on record (Volume III, pages 609 –10).

When B.P. Chakravarti was acting as Governor of West Bengal, Lord Attlee visited India and stayed as his guest at the Raj Bhavan for three days. Chakravarti asked Attlee about the real grounds for granting independence to India. Specifically, his question was, when the Quit India movement lay in shambles years before 1947, where was the need for the British to leave in such a hurry. Attlee’s response is most illuminating and important for history. Here is Governor Chakrabarti’s account of what Attlee told him:

“In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important were the activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the very foundation of the attachment of the Indian land and naval forces to the British Government. Towards the end, I asked Lord Attlee about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhi’s activities. On hearing this question Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, putting emphasis on each single letter— ‘mi-ni-mal’.” (Emphasis added.)

Another point worth noting: after the fall of Singapore that ended the British Empire, the most dramatic national event was the INA Trial at the Red Fort— not any movement by Gandhi or Nehru. This led to the mutiny of the naval ratings, which, more than anything helped the British make up their minds to leave India in a hurry. They sensed that it was only a matter of time before the mutiny spread to other parts of the armed forces and the Government. None of this would have happened without Subhas Bose and the INA.

The crucial point to note is that thanks to Subhas Bose’s activities, the Indian Armed Forces began to see themselves as defenders of India rather than of the British Empire. This, more than anything else, was what led to India’s freedom. This is also the reason why the British Empire disappeared from the face of the earth within an astonishingly short space of twenty years. Indian soldiers, who were the main prop of the Empire, were no longer willing to fight to hold it together. This is the essence of leadership.

This brings us back to Mao’s half joking reply— that it takes time to get the proper historical perspective. It is now more than sixty years since India became free. We can afford to look back and see the real reasons for British leaving India in a hurry. To sum up, by the end of the War, Gandhi was a spent force, and Subhas Bose was India’s most popular leader.

Now, sixty years and more later it is time to recognize the truth: first, it was the Fall of Singapore in 1942, not the Quit India Movement that was the beginning of the end of the British Empire; and finally, it was Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose more than anyone else who was responsible for India’s freedom in 1947.

Link to the article

Once upon a time

The bright side is we're halfway through. Waiting to turn a full circle now.

26/11

This day made me realise what India is made of. It took a terrorist tragedy of such gigantic proportions to finally make me understand the hypocrisy and double standards that we live amidst today. I probably sound like a cynic but here's the thing - all these protests, 'candlelight vigils' (God only knows what they're supposed to achieve), statements made by wannabe celebrities on TV news channels; is any of this going to cause even the slightest bit of change in Indian polity? For that matter Indian society?

In a summary, this is what I want to say - Don't pretend to care if you don't. Don't pretend to be concerned when all you can do is talk about it.

What gets on my nerves is not the attitudes and double standards of the politicians, but the attitude of the people, the citizens. What will you get out of drawing room discussions? Why all this wastage of time and effort criticising politicians and their policies. This person has Z plus security while citizens are dying | That person was calling the slain ATS chief a traitor yesterday, now he's calling him a martyr - Agreed, it is all wrong. So what are you doing anything about it besides talking? Have you filed a PIL against anything or anyone you felt is wrong? Ever thought of initiating a real movement with real issues? For that matter, will you even remember all this 6 months from now? How long will you keep talking and forgetting about things? If you yourself are not serious enough in wanting something, why should you get it?

If you want something you 'Indian', then you better learn to fight for it. It requires some real work, real sweat and real sacrifices. And if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Don't pretend to be concerned about what is happening around you. Because you know what? 6 months from now you'll have forgotten all this. Like you did when you forgot the martyrs of Kargil War, the money the Defence Minister made off the coffins of the martyrs, the Anti Sikh riots of 1984, the innumerable scams that have littered our socio-political history. You are an Indian, you want crap and you get it. Its time you admitted it.

I might be termed a cynic or even unpatriotic. All I am is someone intelligent enough to see and understand things, who has seen this charade a thousand times before and is too disillusioned now to do or say anything, with India and it's people. Not the politicians, but the people. This country is going down and in my little capacity, I will not do anything to about it. But unlike most others, I will not pretend to care too.

All my sympathies with the victims of the attack, my sincere compliments to the NSG and other security agencies, who I admire the most. It's our bad luck that we're born here, in India, because of which you'll never get the rewards you deserve and unlike you, no one will ever fight for you. I have lost hope in this country, which I will probably leave as soon as I can, but at times like these, it's people like you who tell me that maybe it's not as bad as it seems.

For now, I know as a nation we've reached our lowest point. News channels exploiting the tragedy, politicians exploiting the tragedy and the citizens once again befooling themselves. This country has made me lose faith in it. Today, I hate to be an Indian.

You call it resilient spirit? I think it's more to do with not having the balls to do anything. Admit your impotency Indians. Admit the fact that we have been and will keep on taking shit from everyone - the politicians, the press, the bureaucrats, everything. We shall still pretend to give it fancy names and phrases e.g. bounce back, resilience, ability to adjust, adaptability.

We are Indians and we are pathetic. Period.

Postscript - Funniest part is people actually had the time to create and join Orkut and Facebook communities on the Mumbai tragedy!

The Muck is Shining

'...A whirlwind road yatra by a Rahul Gandhi here, four days of campaigning by Sonia there, are no longer enough. Instead, each constituency has to be micro-managed, with an astute mix of caste calculations, local alliances, money power, rebel management and targeted campaign themes. In Karnataka, there were as many as 20 constituencies where the margin of defeat was less than 2,000 votes, sixteen of which the Congress lost. Four Congress rebels won their seats, while another ten got more than 10,000 votes. In a tightly fought election, these statistics suggest that the Congress was unable to handle the constituency level management which often makes all the difference between victory and defeat...'

These are the words of Rajdeep Sardesai on his blog here. It's an analysis on the whys and hows of the battle Congress lost in the recent Karnataka elections.

What surprises me is that nowhere in the whole article have good governance, welfare of the people, and in today’s scenario, other such archaic ideas been presented as the premise for winning an election. Instead all that has been talked about is how the calculations went wrong, how the management was better in the BJP camp, campaign themes etc. Sure these things matter as much, but to try and dissect a party’s electoral loss and another party’s win purely on the basis of what strategy they used and not once talk about how the incumbent fared while in power; how many roads were built, villages electrified and other such macro indicators, is to me a rude reminder of the reality of the muck that is Indian politics. Leave alone the macro indicators, not even a mention of whether one can hope for realization of the electoral manifestoes, or what kind of performance can one hope for from the candidates/ party in Congress’ case, is there.

Of course, the article is about Congress and its impending downfall, but surely governance, performance parameters of its leaders must also count for something when discussing a party’s future?

India shining I guess!

Ricky Ponting Kicked in His Balls!

Bliss!!

And while India was doing that at WACA, I was getting WACked!

Whats that you ask?

Thats WAC - Written Analysis and Communication.

The perfect way too ruin a Friday evening and a sleepy Saturday.

India Today

Source: CNN-IBN

15 August, 2007

A habit, developed over the past twenty-two years has now been ingrained deeply into my system. I am late again.

I'm a day late but on Independence Day, when I am old enough to understand a lot of things, here's a humble dedication from me to our nation and to the brave men and women who fought for my freedom to abuse/make proud my nation. I don't know what adjectives I should use to describe it. To some its a nation worth dying for, to some its just a place they were born in and where they pass their time before they get the US/UK/Canadian visa. Personally speaking I don't know if I'll ever face a situation when I need to die for it, even if I do, I don't know if I'll do it. Neither do I know if I'll ever leave this land permanently.

I do however like, even love this country. The reasons for the same though, might or might not exist.

Moving on, a few lines from a man who according to BBC made the sun set on the empire.

I believe that the civilisation into which India has evolved is not to be beaten in the world. Nothing can equal the seeds sown by our ancestry.
Rome went; Greece shared the same fate;
the might of the Pharaohs was broken;
Japan has become westernised; of China nothing can be said;
but India is still,somehow or other, sound at the foundation
~ Mahatma Gandhi


In the words of Mohammed Iqbal -
Yunan Mishra Roma, sab mit gaye jahan se,
Ab tak magar hai baaki, naam-o-nishan hamara

Kuch baat hai ki hasti, mitti nahi hamari,
Sadio raha hai dushman daur-e-jahan hamara

Happy Independence Day

"BREAKING NEWS - Shilpa Shetty broke a toenail"

That's what I expect to see on the Hindi news channels soon, with their quality of journalistic aspirations.

Just the other day, I saw an interview on Aaj-tak or some other hindi news channel. Any guesses on who was being interviewed?

The 'mehendi vyavasthi' (the person in-charge of henna/mehendi) for the abhi-ash (corniest phrase I have ever heard) wedding. I mean is this the level of journalism we'll have to now put up with? And not just him. Everyone from the tent-house guy to the saree seller to the jewellery guy got his/her 15 seconds of fame.

Another time I saw the demented Zee people showing a very angry sadhu predicting people's future. Viewers had to call up and tell him their problems and this smart-ass would tell them some weird solution. All on live air. Forget about covering serious issues. The least these so called news channels can do is not to promote superstition. The rot seems to be mostly in the Hindi news - channels, the english ones are doing relatively better and I hope people like Prannoy Roy and others of his clan look at things from the right perspective.

I understand that for Hindi news channels, their core audience would be from north India and the UP-Bihar belt. But instead of pandering to their superstitious beliefs etc., to just increase their TRP ratings, I wish to see a slightly more responsible brand of journalism.

I mean there have to be slightly more important issues than the examples I just gave. And mind you, these are just examples, from a library of such cases. In the name of Breaking News, news channels cover anything, from what Shilpa Shetty's maid thinks about Big Brother to what the pandit for the abhi-ash wedding has to say about their wedding dates. Now that's important isn't it? so all those losers who watch these news can fit in The Wedding into their schedules.

Frustrating and disgusting.