Subhas Chandra Bose wanted ruthless dictatorship in India for 20 years

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is another debate. Had Indians continued to be mute subjects instead of gathering steam for total independence, may be Britain would have found enough time to gather itself after the war. You could argue this both ways without much to show for it.

I too would like to give the benefit of the doubt to Bose. I'd like to believe he was a patriot who wasn't aware of the true horrors of Nazi Germany. But since there is nothing apart from my personal belief in support of this view, I'd like to sit on the fence regarding his true intentions on ruling India as a dictator or being in cahoots with Hitler and his genocidal propaganda.




It ruled too long. Simple as that. Any entity that is in power that long is bound to slip-up(s).
In their defense, they did have free and fair elections but in the absence of any meaningful opposition, the party won repeatedly. No wonder a strong opposition is so important in an evolving democracy!

This is somewhat OT but I'd like to share this here nevertheless. A few years back when quite a few of my friends were preparing for their MBAs, I'd often heard them bash Nehru (and his socialism) for all of India's present ills. Hindu rate of growth, East Asian fisherman colonies turning into developed nations while India sat behind, lack of competition hurting overall development often came into the picture when we talked about such stuff. Turns out most of them learned about these things from their MBA coaching classes and popular media. At the same time, they used to go on and on about MMS's LPG reforms and how they changed the course of India's economy for the better. He was a messiah who could do no wrong.

I'm not for a moment saying that the above factors didn't hurt India big time. Just want to point out how a popular perception has cast a shadow over the positives of Nehru. If you want to know his successes, just ask a Civil Service aspirant :D.

Anyways, would love to see how those preparing for their MBAs a decade or so from now would view MMS's two stints as PM!

Please read this article and most importantly comments below. This is just a brief account of Nehruvian blunders of what I read as Civil services aspirant [emoji23]

http://www.quora.com/What-were-the-...-India-a-lot-since-its-independence-until-now

Many wouldn't know, he rejected UN offer for Security Council membership in 1955 (without cabinet approval) and suggested China's name instead !! And he started the war with China in 1962 !! In 2015 we're struggling with both, a nod for UNSC membership & Chinese intrusion.

If still anybody supports achievements during his tenure, I will have to dig through my notes. [emoji23]

He wasn't corrupt or a dishonest man for sure (I'm not talking about his personal relationships, but purely as a politician) but lacked the passion. Probably his please all mentality cost the country dearly.

Achievements during his tenure were more of default.
Probably Rahul G will be equally good PM if you allow him to rule for 17yrs..

The issue with INC was it was supposed to be dissolved after achieving "Sampoorna Swarajya", even MK Gandhi was severely opposed by power hungry Congressmen when he suggested to dissolve Congress. The idea of "Sampoorna Swarajya" was borrowed from a great patriot Bhagat Singh. Otherwise Congress and Nehru were happy with partial independent functioning of India as a British colony.

Congress owned the achievement of independence; cleverly sidelining the contribution of Bhagat Singh, Bose etc who didn't share the same ideology. This gave a clear mandate to rule India for 25 odd years, as it was the party that got us independence. MK Gandhi knew the ugly side of Congressmen and he suggested Dissolution of Congress immediately after independence.

Unfortunately his murder immediately post independence was a biggest setback & Nehruji and Congress could then function in a uncontrolled fashion. Had he been alive for some more years post independence , our situation would've been different.

It took a declaration of "Emergency" for Indians to realize the blunders of voting for Congress. Luckily JUDICIARY was not under the control of the government, else with absolute power over Army, Politics and bureaucracy we would have had our first Dictator rule during emergency !

Bose files are just a small issue, there are lots of ugly secrets to be revealed.
 
Last edited:
^^

The UN SC thing is just a rumor. Nothing else. If it is not, show me an actual document where the offer to India was done. Or a source as who did?.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drkrack
^^

The UN SC thing is just a rumor. Nothing else. If it is not, show me an actual document where the offer to India was done. Or a source as who did?.
China was already a permanent member since 1945.

The Republic of China (ROC) joined the UN in 1945.
Source

At the UN's founding in 1945, the five permanent members of the Security Council were the French Republic, the Republic of China, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union.
Source

Prime Minister Nehru has categorically denied any offer, formal or informal, having been received about a seat for India in the UN Security Council. He made this statement in reply to a short notice question in the Lok Sabha on September 27 by Dr. J.N. Parekh whether India had refused a seat informally offered to her in the Security Council. The Prime Minister said: "There has been no offer, formal or informal, of this kind. Some vague references have appeared in the press about it which have no foundation in fact. The composition of the Security Council is prescribed by the UN Charter, according to which certain specified nations have permanent seats. No change or addition can be made to this without an amendment of the Charter. There is, therefore, no question of a seat being offered and India declining it. Our declared policy is to support the admission of all nations qualified for UN membership.''

source

But no. Let's hop on to Nehru Hate Train. Choo Choo!
 
  • Like
Reactions: booo
The Hindu and Wikipedia cannot and should not be taken as a source for this. No other world source or leader have ever spoke of this. Ever. Atleast one biography or an off the mark remark by a diplomat. Nothing.
 
^Saar, China was already a member in 1945, how else would Nehru offer membership in 1954? I mean... That's beyond logic. Check the years saar.
 
In regard to the original constituents of the UN Security Council, here's what the UN itself has to say regarding this:

http://www.unfoundation.org/what-we-do/issues/united-nations/the-un-security-council.html

The first sentence on the page confirms that China was never offered a seat on the UN Sec. Council by anyone. It got itself on there since it was on the winning side of WWII.

"On October 24, 1945, the victors of World War II — China, the U.S.S.R., France, the United Kingdom, and the United States — ratified the UN Charter, creating the Security Council and establishing themselves as its five permanent members with the unique ability to veto resolutions. "
 
  • Like
Reactions: m-jeri
^^

The UN SC thing is just a rumor. Nothing else. If it is not, show me an actual document where the offer to India was done. Or a source as who did?.


Thanks for updating,
It was indeed a rumor based on some Washington Post report I think,
I stand corrected... (On UN Security Council issue)

But his China policy was a blunder.

BCPwubcCUAEYHdc.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.