Untitled

India! I dare you to be rich

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was an EXTREME fascist socialist/communist: no role model for modern India!

While I admire Netaji for his bold nationalism, he was unfortunately a creature of his times and was EXACTLY LIKE NEHRU on the subject of socialism – only MUCH more extreme. Nehru was a Fabian, i.e a democratic socialist. Netaji was a fascist (authoritarian) socialist. 

 “The Congress Socialists appear at the moment to be under the influence of Fabian Socialism and some of their ideas and shibboleths were the fashion several decades ago.” — Indian Struggle.

Had he lived and come to power, India's fate would have been as bad or worse than its current fate – a poor nation ravaged by corruption and injustice.

He had good intentions, but as a rule, good intentions do NOT translate into good results. It is a deeper understanding of human nature, like Chanakya had, that India needs. Idealism is fatal. Because it is often very stupid.

We need to be clever at how we do things. To deal with humans as if they were robots who will work according to one's "plans" for them is the great folly.

A few extracts about Netaji from various sources:

1. Subhas Chandra Bose and India's Struggle for Independence By Andrew Montgomery

As early as 1930 — in his inaugural speech as mayor of Calcutta — the fervent young Bose first expressed his support for a fusion of socialism and fascism: 

“… I would say we have here in this policy and program a synthesis of what modern Europe calls Socialism and Fascism. We have here the justice, the equality, the love, which is the basis of Socialism, and combined with that we have the efficiency and the discipline of Fascism as it stands in Europe today.”

In years that followed, the brilliant, eclectic Bengali would occasionally modify this radical doctrine, but would never abandon it entirely. For example, in late 1944 — almost a decade-and-a-half later — in a speech to students at Tokyo University, he asserted that India must have a political system "of an authoritarian character. . . To repeat once again, our philosophy should be a synthesis between National Socialism and Communism." [Sanjeev: Fascism - i.e. National Socialism is already a form of communism.]

Many of Bose's admirers have been inclined to downplay or even ignore the fascist elements in his ideology, and even to pretend they never existed.
During his years in Mandalay prison and another short term of imprisonment in Alipore jail in 1930, he read many works on political theory, including Francesco Nitti's Bolshevism, Fascism and Democracy and Ivanoe Bonomi's From Socialism to Fascism. It is clear that these works on fascism influenced him, and caused an immediate modification of his long-held socialist views: as noted above, in his inaugural speech as mayor of Calcutta, given a day after his release from Alipore jail, he revealed his support for a seemingly contradictory ideological synthesis of socialism and fascism.[Source]

2) From an article sent in by Brig R S Chhikara, Founder General Secretary, Netaji Subhash Bose – INA Trust, #239, Sector-17 A , Gurgaon, (Haryana-122001), E Mail ID   netajisubhashvision@hotmail.com

Article here.

"The planned economy that Nehru followed after 1947 was very much according to Bose’s orientation: industrialization under politically set priorities and guided by the government; industrialization including international cooperation but with a strong political shield to protect Indian markets. It was Subhas who set up the first planning Committee (commission) of the Indian National Congress (INC) and appointed Nehru as its chairman."

3) From Philosophy of Subhash Chandra Bose

"While outlining his vision for a free India, Subhash Chandra Bose proclaimed that socialist authoritarianism would be required to eradicate poverty and social inequalities from a diverse country like India. He openly espoused for an authoritarian state on the lines of Soviet Russia and Kemal Atatürk's Turkey. Bose was also an exponent of socialism and opined that industrialization and Soviet-style five-year plans held the key to a vibrant Indian nation."

4) From Wikipedia

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 . He came to believe that a free India needed socialist authoritarianism, on the lines of Turkey's Kemal Atatürk, for at least two decades. [Source]

5) From Hindustan Times:

"He made this point for the first time in his speech before the Bengal Branch of the Independence for India League in October 1928. The League's manifesto … which he helped draft…. This manifesto was, for all purposes, a document advocating socialism for India. 

His proposals …included

  • Nationalisation of basic industries,
  • Nationalisation of railways, shipping and airways,
  • Ceiling on individual ownership of capital". [Source]

ADDENDUM

Some commentators are not happy with my characterisation of Netaji as fascist. They forget that he HIMSELF promoted it National Socialism (fascism) and Communism. Unless I am told that the quotations above are false, I will stick to this conclusion.

Further evidence:

6. From website of All India Forward Block (party founded by Bose):

 “Considering everything, one is inclined to hold that the next phase in world-history will produce a synthesis between Communism and Fascism and will it be a surprise if that synthesis is produced in India?” — Indian Struggle

“When we see National Socialism in Europe today, what do we find? National Socialism has been able to create national unity and solidarity and to improve the condition of the masses. [Sanjeev: Despite Bose's differences with racist forms of fascism, he was PERFECTLY AT EASE with the fascist ideology, that arose from Hegelian collectivism. He just wanted MORE communism.] But it has not been able to radically reform the prevailing economic system which was built up on a capitalistic basis. On the other side, let us examine the Soviet experiment based on Communism. You will find one great achievement and that is planned economy. Where communism is deficient is that it does not appreciate the value of national sentiment. What we in India would like to have is a progressive system which will fulfil the social needs of the whole people and will be based on national sentiment. In other words, it will be a synthesis of Nationalism and Socialism. This is something which has not been achieved by the National Socialists in Germany to-day.” — Tokyo speech

“That synthesis is called by the writer ‘Samyavada’ – an Indian word, which means literally ‘the doctrine of synthesis or equality’. It will be India’s task to work out this synthesis.” — Indian Struggle.


If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:

Breaking Free of Nehru

Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.

Google
Print Friendly

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
33 thoughts on “Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was an EXTREME fascist socialist/communist: no role model for modern India!
  1. Nigameash

    I don’t have a problem with this at all. Human beings are animals. In the absence of laws and governance, we would kill each other off; survival of the fittest. Socialism works very well. For instance, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Turkey did extremely well under Atatürk; without Atatürk, they would be no Turkey. When we talk of socialism, we often think of a failed USSR. This need not be necessarily true. You simply need a dictator with an incorruptible moral character and you can become the most DEVELOPED country. GDP growth is not equal to development.

     
  2. Harsh Vora

    Thanks for this Sanjeev. Hadn’t studied much about his philosophical leanings, but I figured he was a fascist since he was inspired by Hitler (he met Hitler a couple of times if I’m not wrong!). Scary to even imagine what India would have been under his control.

     
  3. gautam

    History is what is written and what media speak and what people spread. Gandhi-Nehru-Subhas had different paths – each had disagreement with the other yet each respected the nationalism of the other – Gandhi called him the patriot of patriots and Netaji whom the Allied power has termed as War Criminal and now some people here parroting western propaganda to call him “fascist” – that’s the price freedom fighters carry for their future generations in incredible India – the freedom fighters who sacrifice a lucrative career with a top rink and a dream secured life ( non of the blog-host and commenter , including me, will do the same blunder in our wildest dream in India, will you?) and left UK with one burning ambition for India’s wholesome well being and we arm chair “freedom loving” a section of intellectuals call him fascist. Even the Left called him with much worse derogatory term, but ;last decade on his birth centenary after a proper scrutiny of new records, apologised and said it was their historic blander to call him fascist. Please spare a small few rupees for Netaji and read the latest book making waves “India’s Biggest Cover Up” by Mr Anuj, ex-journalist and then I would like to know you and the commenters’ view again. I would love to know how people and their brain accept another side of the coin – Non-villence, Nehru-Brithish-Gandhi close rapo and the partition through non-violence and the result is more violent than if Netaji came with army to fight British – millions deaths in partion, thousands of rapes, civil war, crores of property destroyed or looted, and 30 lack people of Bengal-Bihar zone dying of hunger in 1943 due to colonial negligence. Did that not alarm us more?

     
  4. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Netaji was a fan of National Socialism. That is fascism. What evidence do you offer to counter this?

     
  5. gautam

    Thanks Mr Sanjeev, that you have posted mine and asked for evidence to counter that Netaji was not a national socialist or a fascist ? Right?

    I am not a politician so did not have the definition of fascism. But your query prodded me to search. Thanks for that. Here are the current recognised definition of the two terms as you reffered, is given below:
    Mind you, these are the definition of the capitalist block of the west and freely available on net. My evidence, I have sufficient of that, will provide on what kind of traits in Netaji’s activities you will define as fall into fascist or national socialism. There are a few varieties floatng. Now please pick one from them and let me place my view point. Thanks

    Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: National Socialism:
    “Totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of Germany’s Nazi Party (192045). Its roots lay in the tradition of Prussian militarism and discipline and German Romanticism, which celebrated a mythic past and proclaimed the rights of the exceptional individual over all rules and laws. Its ideology was shaped by Hitler’s beliefs in German racial superiority and the dangers of communism. It rejected liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, stressing instead the subordination of the individual to the state and the necessity of strict obedience to leaders. It emphasized the inequality of individuals and races and the right of the strong to rule the weak. Politically, National Socialism favoured rearmament, reunification of the German areas of Europe, expansion into non-German areas, and the purging of undesirables, especially Jews”

    http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism
    American Heritage Dictionary: fas·cism
    1.often Fascism
    (a).A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
    (b)A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
    2.Oppressive, dictatorial control.

    [Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]
    fascistic fas·cis’tic (fə-shĭs’tĭk) adj.
    WORD HISTORY It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, “bundle, (political) group,” but also refers to the movement’s emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini’s group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.

    Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism#ixzz2JVowlmE7

    Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: fascism
    Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state’s authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and ’30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems. The leaders of the fascist governments of Italy (192243), Germany (193345), and Spain (193975)Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Francisco Francowere portrayed to their publics as embodiments of the strength and resolve necessary to rescue their nations from political and economic chaos. Japanese fascists (193645) fostered belief in the uniqueness of the Japanese spirit and taught subordination to the state and personal sacrifice.

    Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism#ixzz2JVpxJaJL

    Barron’s Business Dictionary: fascism
    Doctrine; collection of concepts; and dictatorship by government of a country, often involving hostile nationalistic attitudes, racism, and private economic ownership under rigid government control.
    A fascist regime is often militarily belligerent.

    Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism#ixzz2JVqG1r2u

    Oxford Dictionary of the US Military: fascism
    n. 1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
    2. (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice. The term fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Benito Mussolini in Italy (1922-43), and the regime of the Nazis in Germany were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

    Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism#ixzz2JVqY7Dzo

    Oxford Dictionary of Politics: fascism
    A right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with a totalitarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism. In ancient Rome, the authority of the state was symbolized by the fasces, a bundle of rods bound together (signifying popular unity) with a protruding axe-head (denoting leadership). As such, it was appropriated by Mussolini to label the movement he led to power in Italy in 1922, but was subsequently generalized to cover a whole range of movements in Europe during the inter-war period. These include the National Socialists in Germany, as well as others such as Action Française, the Arrow Cross in Hungary, or the Falangists in Spain. In the post-war period, the term has been used, often prefixed by ‘neo’, to describe what are viewed as successors to these movements, as well as Peronism and, most recently, some movements in ex-Communist countries, such as Pamyat in Russia (see extreme-right parties). Given such diversity, does the term have any meaning?

    Genuinely fascist ideologies are: monist, that is to say, based upon the notion that there are fundamental and basic truths about humanity and the environment which do not admit to question; simplistic, in the sense of ascribing complex phenomena to single causes and advancing single remedies; fundamentalist, that is, involving a division of the world into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ with nothing in between; and conspiratorial, that is, predicated on the existence of a secret world-wide conspiracy by a hostile group seeking to manipulate the masses to achieve and/or maintain a dominant position.

    In content, these ideologies are distinguished by five main components. (1) Extreme nationalism, the belief that there is a clearly defined nation which has its own distinctive characteristics, culture, and interests, and which is superior to others. (2) An assertion of national decline—that at some point in the mythical past the nation was great, with harmonious social and political relationships, and dominant over others, and that subsequently it has disintegrated, become internally fractious and divided, and subordinate to lesser nations. (3) This process of national decline is often linked to a diminution of the racial purity of the nation. In some movements the nation is regarded as co-extensive with the race (the nation race), while in others, hierarchies of races are defined generically with nations located within them (the race nation); in virtually all cases, the view is taken that the introduction of impurities has weakened the nation and been responsible for its plight. (4) The blame for national decline and/or racial miscegenation is laid at the door of a conspiracy on the part of other nations/races seen as competing in a desperate struggle for dominance. (5) In that struggle, both capitalism and its political form, liberal democracy, are seen as mere divisive devices designed to fragment the nation and subordinate it further in the world order.

    With regard to prescriptive content, the first priority is the reconstitution of the nation as an entity by restoring its purity. The second is to restore national dominance by reorganizing the polity, the economy, and society. Means to this end include variously: (1) the institution of an authoritarian and antiliberal state dominated by a single party; (2) total control by the latter over political aggregation, communication, and socialization; (3) direction by the state of labour and consumption to create a productionist and self-sufficient economy; and (4) a charismatic leader embodying the ‘real’ interests of the nation and energizing the masses. With these priorities fulfilled, the nation would then be in a position to recapture its dominance, if necessary by military means.

    Such priorities were explicit in the inter-war fascist movements, which indulged in racial/ethnic ‘cleansing’, established totalitarian political systems, productionist economies, and dictatorships, and of course went to war in pursuit of international dominance. But such parties can no longer openly espouse these extremes, and national/racial purity now takes the form of opposition to continuing immigration and demands for repatriation; totalitarianism and dictatorship have been replaced by lesser demands for a significant strengthening in the authority of the state, allegedly within a democratic framework; productionism has become interventionism; and military glory has been largely eschewed.

    Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism#ixzz2JVqimS6V

    Columbia Encyclopedia: fascism
    fascism (făsh’ĭzəm), totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini, who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain. The term is derived from the Latin fasces.
    Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy
    Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state’s benefit. This “total state” is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.
    A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma.
    Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard Wagner, is closely linked with fascism’s rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and “the will.”
    The Fascist State
    Fascism has found adherents in all countries. Its essentially vague and emotional nature facilitates the development of unique national varieties, whose leaders often deny indignantly that they are fascists at all. In its dictatorial methods and in its use of brutal intimidation of the opposition by the militia and the secret police, fascism does not greatly distinguish itself from other despotic and totalitarian regimes. There are particular similarities with the Communist regime in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. However, unlike Communism, fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees desirable order only in a state in which each class has its distinct place and function. Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers, and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the corporative state is a part of fascist dogma.
    Although Mussolini’s and Hitler’s governments tended to interfere considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and many favored it as an obstacle to socialization. On the other hand, the state adopted a paternalistic attitude toward labor, improving its conditions in some respects, reducing unemployment through large-scale public works and armament programs, and controlling its leisure time through organized activities.
    Many of these features were adopted by the Franco regime in Spain and by quasi-fascist dictators in Latin America (e.g., Juan Perón) and elsewhere. A variation of fascism was the so-called clerico-fascist system set up in Austria under Engelbert Dollfuss. This purported to be based on the social and economic doctrines enunciated by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI, which, however, were never put into operation.

    Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism#ixzz2JVrCuIf9

     
  6. gomai

    Mr Sanjeev, without going into nitty gritty of so many quotes, and your interest on evidence that I may appreciate. But on a plain looking the key line is “What we in India would like to have is a progressive system which will fulfil the social needs of the whole people and will be based on national sentiment.”
    Forget the concepts, that is for the theoriticians who has no other work, but for the freedom fighters, in the complex world scenario of 20s to 40s ,
    taking the best of both is very pragmatic. And Netaji’s theory – have you studied that – you have not and seeing your point of reference in your article, your study of the national leader appears to be not at all indepth. Please study more, no harm in knowing more of Netaji, Indian people will not call you fascist for reading more on netaji. Learn how you can place your argument to age old Indian idiom – Enemy’s Enemy Is My Friend

    Do you believe why India and its financial kingdom was saved from the Global meltdown of 2008-2012? That’s because of nationalisation. You must congratulate the wisdom of your country’s forefathers for that. RBI played a gem of a regulatory control and has taken the country out of danger while the Europe and America and your favourite Britain stand in tatters and almost shattered.

    Please join the chorus to fully Declassify all govt records of Netaji kept as classified by GoI and then we can come to a re-evaluation of his and other national leaders’ role in Indian freedom struggle.

     
  7. sahasrangshu chanda

    dear brother sanjiv……i am really sorry for these lines but u must know the back deadly times and situation..Our greatest of great patriot went to that extent which we cannot think how could he?…have u read the articles of vietnam war maybe second world war and the glutter of machine guns,grenades,tank etc…..it meant a total 24 danger and death at any time. now tell me a man under control of house arrest by a bunch of top class security of the scotland yard ..The best of that time.Think a man escaping with nothing but a hope to liberate his country and alone…now the point is after jalluana bagh and several killings of innocent people by british…certainly not by black magic..by guns and offcourse he did not have any back up from the ongoing elite forces and army..imagine a man silently breching the security leaving silently for 1 goal ..FREEDOM. It is not a sentiment story but history…DEATH A CONSTANT COMPANION..that was the situation.i plead u read the horrible atmosphere of the second world war..in that situation a man crossing himalayan heights creamed with snipers or simply instrument of death who lived in plains and without proper training he crossed the limits of the harsh icy climate….next the SUPREME POWER was searching for him and our brave netaji formed an army to overcome by military operations…think about his ability….there r endless brave incidents of him in history…u can find in books about him…If u r an indian u must know it is a suicide sacrifice coz 1 bloody bullet is enough to get killed and i guess itz terrible as like deployment to fight the royal british under the blackout days…….to be continued…..

     
  8. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear SC,

    I’m not in the least questioning the unparalleled bravery of Netaji. I’m only saying that his ideas about the role of government in society were pretty much extreme leftist.

    Bhagat Singh had similarly communist ideas. That doesn’t mean he was not a brave hero.

    Let’s think critically and commend what is good even as we dissociate from what is bad.

    s

     
  9. gomai

    Fascism is as much an idea as national socialism and those who plan to implement in each country what is the best for the country specific …there are a lots of ifs and then…..But without a wide reading of the subject, commenting on such critical issue is preposterous….There are a large segment in India who call Narendra Modi and BJP a fascist force in the making for religious views of India and at the same time fall on Modi’s feet and hail him for making Gujarat a great business centre for the same authoratarian style of functioning. We call Indira a fascist as emergency was invoked in 1977 and again hail her as Ma Durga for Bangaldesh war and worship for nationalisation of banks, coals….
    So let not get de-focussed with jargons ….let peel the skin and get into the soul, that is needed as expertise for bisecting national heroes for political articles. That apart, speak to your heart after studying the problems of India in 30s and even still now …dont you think we Indians has given a lot more liberty to political leaders to spoil the country and has created a mess what India is now and India was already a much worse mess during 40s? Do you not think an amount of authoritarian in national leadership was the need of the time to get a united India under one flag and we failed to keep India united with so called democracy ?

    Your comment “I’m not in the least questioning the unparalleled bravery of Netaji. I’m only saying that his ideas about the role of government in society were pretty much extreme leftist.”
    You talked about “fascist” Netaji and on further deliberation, now accusing him to be “ultra left”. Then you should change the title of the article to Ultra-left fascist…..then we can begin another series of debate

     
  10. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Fascists and ultra-leftists both come from the SAME lineage: Plato’s Republic, Rousseau’s General Will, and Hegel’s supreme nation. These views give rise to two streams: a) National Socialism which is fascism and b) Communism. Both give greater priority to the collective (e.g. nation) than the individual. Netaji was following the predominant National Socialist (i.e. fascist) worldview, with a huge dose of socialism. That was not uncommon in those days.

    s

     
  11. raj

    The herd like mentality of fascist supporters is amazing….The end result of fascism is always disaster.

     
  12. mg

    Dear Sbhlok sir,
    I was attracted by the title of the headline “Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose …….blal bla bla …. no role model for modern India!”

    As a citizen of India with free speech and free website have right to share your views. But I fully disagree with your views and your sitings?
    In India in millions home, parents pray that they carry the spirit of nationalism like Netaji had……According to you, who should be Role Model For Modern India – Nehru or any other.

    I also read your post here on Meat habits, there you are accusing the democracy which by majority rule clamped non-eating gag order.

    Then it appears which ism you want to preach and who are your role model?

     
  13. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear MG, Netaji is a great role model for the spirit of nationalism he represented. But nationalism should NOT mean the destruction of individual liberty. Netaji wanted to impose a strongly socialist model on India, much more socialist than Nehru’s, even. So he was a good man with bad ideas. That’s generally a bad combination.

    Re: who should be a role model? There are very few in India, yet. Each has major defects, but consider combining the qualities of many leaders, and you can start getting a glimpse of what a role model could look like.

    Try Vivekananda, Gandhi, Rajaji, Chanakya, Shivaji, possibly Akbar; even bits of Netaji and Nehru (only for Netaji’s nationalism and Nehru’s focus on democracy), and you might start getting there.

    Re: meat eating – I have a clear view: you are free to eat what you like but you have no business to interfere in what others eat. This idea of being a “food police” is obnoxious. Yes, animal rights should be protected, but that doesn’t mean democracy gives someone a right to prohibit any food which is not demonstrated to be poisonous for the human body.

    s

     
  14. stalin

    Brilliant post and i like the detailed analysis voiced out,mainly the people’s misconception about good man even though one posses bad ideas=good great leader;

     
  15. mg

    Dear Mr Sanjeev,

    Thanks for the response. I have a few points of disagreements regarding who are to be nation’s role model, I place below:-

    Swami Vivekananda – I agree. Swamiji’s views on perpetuation of Hindu caste system and comments of American black slaves [– please refer Gandhi’s grandson Gopal Krishna Gandhi’s 150th lecture on Vivekananda.] Do you support Swamiji’s views on these two critical issues ? But it happens in India only. Guru is forgotten and Sishya becomes the icon. Without Ramakrishna, Vivekananda was just nothing. Ramakrishna, the illiterate saint sensation of Dakshinershwar who aroused the basic values of becoming a perfect sanyasi. This great saint with foul mouth experimented God through practicing all religion and through worship of his own wife Sarada Devi as Goddess Kali. The saint could not lie on a bed even if a coin was kept below his bed. Ramakrishna was the creator and Vivekananda was the creation as per his moulding. Media play a lot in popularising one and there by another get much small space – just a footnote. That needs a genuine correction.

    Gandhi – officially he is still not the Father of the Nation. Do you support Gnadhiji’s Sex experimentation as part of national freedom struggle. Do you support non-violent Gandhi supporting a violent war effort of the foreign colonisers in WWII and his fight with the Brithish and against the local aborogines in Booars War and non-violence emancipated through joining British backup line in WWI in South Africa. His weapon of non-violence was a matter of selective non-violence, not applicable to all situation. If non-violece crusade is the reason for which Gandhi be made one of the role model, then question arises – whom should one give credit – the inventer or the applier. In both cases, the names crop up – Gautam Budha and King Ashoka. And to know the time of Gandhi, we can get a glimpse of it from the court statement of N. Godse whose heroes were Shivaji, Vivekananda and Savarkar. One can get some truth of the time from his statement as he was not telling anything in self defense to avoid death. Gandhiji’s comments on Harijans and on dictating food choice – are serious issues that polarized somewhat already segmented society of undivided India

    Rajaji – He was a Gandhian follower . I would like to know your view -why he should be role model.

    Chanakya – Famous for his arthashastrtra ( though historians doubt whether what what we have today Is created by Chankaya ….or modified and updated over many centuries to suit the kings )and installing a new dynasty by uprooting a notorious king and yet not he himself became ruler but guided the kingdom as an advisory to indebted king. Just one act of a man ( what ever may be the reason behind it as the reason is not established) should not make one the contender for National Role Model . We hardly know about his life. And his Arthashastra was relevant to the structure of society and the time period and most has no relevance in modern world

    Shivaji – Why Shivaji become national role model of modern India? He was a great warrior like Ran Pratap, Tipu Sultan and the like and probably the first “gourella” warefare strategists in Indian land. He is projected as a warrior for protection of Hindu rights but his various connections with Muslim rulers and dependence on them, amounts to compromising with the agenda of Hindu rashtra. However, modern India and its people does not have any religious agenda. Man’s survival is priority over survival of religion.Over a 20000 year peiod how many times a man’s lineage has changed religion to suit his life, no one can say. Basically, all the followers of modern religions are ex-nature-deityies – some call it Sanatan dharma some do not.

    possibly Akbar –Akbar was a master war strategist and would marry as many Hindu wives and keep a harem for expansion of his kingdom and lead a luxurious life on the people’s revenue. He was an expansionist and wanted let violent means to win and war as the last recourse. He was apt in picking the right person for his group of advisors and that included the Hindus – and luckily for him, none betrayed him. He propagated “one God” religion. And historians have a favorable impression about the emperor who made Mughal empire stable in India for next few generations of his clan.

    bits of Netaji – Incidentally, Netaji was a hardcore disciple of Vivekananda. Though didn’t discriminate amongst caste, creed, religion including in INA army formation and implemented Swamiji’s vision of woman’s equal role in any activities of life and formed the Jhasi Bahini in the INA fauj (please may refer INA discourses and recollections by INA soldiers.) Pardoxically, those who have done intensive research and made publications would be best to refer the point that if ever one Indian who has been inspired and taken the Vivekanda Life message of nationalism and national sacrifice to the core and moulded life as per that was none other than Netaji. That’s why they are often referred as Guru-Sishya Here this list has not taken a reference of Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Ajad, Surya Sen and Khudiram – each one marked a golden chapter of India’s freedom movement .

    bits of Nehru – There are a lot of controversy surround Nehru and his engagement with various stake holders in pre-independence and post-Independence India and these controversies are sustained by not declassifying hundreds of GoI records lying in various ministries. And issues vary so wide – one extreme as the agents of the British who acted for smooth handover and preservation of British financial interest even after Independence, relates to INA soldiers treatment in post-Independence and his plan to hand over Netaji to British forces, misappropriation of INA treasure ( two tranks of golds), manipulating and influencing the report of two commissions set up by GoI under public pressure . Search google with Nehru and many disgraceful other matters get flashed up. These should end by demanding declassification of all records of independence as public demand

    Every country respect their freedom fighters and demand to declassify all info about them as public wants to know more about them and on the basis of new reports, re-evaluate each one’s role. History is not static. With time, interpretation changes.

    I believe – there are only ideas – and every idea has its time to be defined as right or wrong . From the choice of your ideals who are spread over vast time period and my disagreement with some traits of some of them, does not mean there ideas are wrong. At the time when these ideas were given birth are product of unique time and some may now pass the modern test but we cannot undermine their time and their sincere efforts for the nobler cause. For each one of them, my idea statement I hold. So a good man necessarily cannot give birth to a bad idea – there is no logic. But a good man may commit a mistake about an idea. That can be enquired – Why and Why not else. What make one take that course of action assuming him to be a good man. Or else, we have to vilify the man as Bad man with bad intent – that’s how we treat each one of the following – though standing at diametrically opposite locations – Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Bhagat Singh, MN Roly

    Anyway, I like your temperament and approach to debate and that’s why I am submitting my thoughts here only for share.

    Thanks

     
  16. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Vivekananda for his commitment to liberty
    Gandhi for his commitment to individual liberty and opposition to socialism
    Rajaji for forming Swatantra and fighting socialist Nehru
    Chanakya for an economic policy framework that is extremely modern in most ways and will do India wonders if we follow much of it
    Shivaji (not because of any “Hindu” issues – he was totally focused on merit, not on religion) for fighting oppression
    Akbar for daring to dream of a religion that could be embraced by all Indians
    Netaji for his nationalism and courage
    Nehru for his commitment to democracy (even though that was highly qualified in many ways)

    And there are many more – Nanak, Kabir, Rani of Jhansi, etc. etc.

    In brief I can only request that we take up anything which advances HUMAN LIBERTY and reject anything that is inconsistent with liberty. I can’t find a single role model for myself. I have to build a “role model” by taking the good bits of 100s of Indians and 100s of non-Indians. If I still have imperfections (and I do – that’s why the need to continuously improve) that must be because I’m only human.

    So take the good things from Netaji but reject his devotion to socialism/national socialism (fascism).

    s

     
  17. Siddharth

    MG ..I totally agree with your post as did many who I showed it to. What happened to Netaji. We know the cock and bull story of his plane crash. What did Nehru and his minions do to cover up and erase him off the political picture..One wonders. Maybe if we had Netaji’s way, the country wouldn’t have been partitioned and the millions of deaths avoided..Going by the Gandhian way..we didn’t win our freedom..but begged and received it and paid a terrible price for it. Or on a bleaker note, the British just gave the freedom back as they had no interest in holding on to the Indian Subcontinent. After 400 years, there was nothing left to loot and plunder.

     
  18. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Siddhartha, that is very poor analysis but you are entitled to your poor analysis.

     
  19. partha sengupta

    Please dont try to be modest and elite when we can feel what you mean when you say "I’m not in the least questioning the unparalleled bravery of Netaji." at least be honest in your admissions. I may not be an IAS or have some degree from some foreign University but I am intelligent enough to guess what you are up to and where you will finally lead. I am so sorry to say that your personal aspirations are thoroughly misplaced and I advice you that if you really want people to know you then focus on present rather than reaching into abyss of predictions and conclusions and involving personalities who cannot defend themselves for the obvious reason. 

     
  20. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Partha

    I am as honest as can be re: holding Netaji in the highest esteem as a nationalist. But he was wrong. I trust we are entitled to say that?

    Or are we not supposed to exercise our own thought process in India?

    I’m sorry. I like to think for myself and strongly urge you to do so as well. As Tagore, another Bengali wrote: Let us wake into the Heaven of Freedom where thought is free and we can find the best answers.

    I’m saying by all means “worship” Netaji, but reject his communist/fascist ideas.

    s

     
  21. Siddharth

    Mr. Sabhlok,

    Maybe you should take a page out of your own book. One one hand you want Indians to excercise our own thought process but on the other hand ask us to reject Netiji's ideas which you feel is communist/fascist. Well, let us figure it out by ourselves without  the 2 cents of your personal opinion..

    Thanks

     
  22. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    I’d be happy to be proven wrong. Let the truth always win, not persons. Please enlighten me of passages in which Netaji promoted individual liberty and minimal government, and criticised any form of totalitarianism. Gandhi had said such things in abundance. Where did Netaji promote such things?

    s

     
  23. Siddharth

    Mr. Sabhlok,

    You miss the point entirely. It is not about proving you wrong, and frankly, it is none of my business. All I am saying is, let people form their own opinion based on the facts at hand.    Secondly, they all say a lot of things..Actions speak. Gandhiji stood by his ideals..The rest..um not so much

    Regards

     
  24. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Siddharth, I’m afraid this approach has not done anything to increase the sum of truth in this world. When I have researched and come to an evidence based view, then what logic reason can possibly exist for others to form their “own” opinion? 

    When Newtwon discovered the laws of physics, people couldn’t just say, sorry, I have a different opinion. The truth must be valued in itself. If you have a better truth, please offer. Else do clarify that you are not into the truth but into baseless opinion. That’s your personal choice – but I don’t encourage such desire to promote untruth.

    s

     
  25. Siddharth

    Sir,

    Scientific theories are documented and subject to experimentation. It is quite different from "he said"/"she said" and anecdotal evidence..specially evidence that has been tampered with to serve ones own purpose and rule the masses. See the point is, you can call Netaji what you want..bless your heart..but please dont come to me with your analysis and try to influence my thinking. It is not working Mr. Sabhlok. End of the day, I respect your thinking but I dont subscribe to your version of truth

    Regards

     
  26. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Your approach merely confirms my view that in India hypocrisy is foremost. India says: satyameva jayate, but then refuses to search for the truth.

    I’m QUITE HAPPY to change my opinion about Netaji if you provide proof. Why can’t you do that? Because you don’t have it. That’s a very poor way and suggests that you NOT are a truth seeker.

    Let’s close this now. You are a typical Indian who forms opinions based on “feeling” not facts. Nothing can be done for such people, I have found.

    s

     
  27. Siddharth

    Mr. Sabhlok,

    First off, I dont want you to change your opinion. Even in the event I took it on myself, there would be no way for me gather evidence. Where would I go looking..historical archives, doctored documents, word of mouth…? Maybe if i were a medium, I would channel his spirt and ask him the questions. Mr. Sabhlok, you blame people of hipocracy but you are the biggest one. Not one article you have quoted above is original research conducted by you. You have merely chosen to reproduce pre-existing sources which any 10th grader can do. I know you will not publish this..puts you in a spot..but..well, i am done argueing on a pointless baseless subject…peace mr. sabhlok 

     
  28. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Siddharth I said you are incapable of understanding the concept of truth, so why bother to provide more evidence?

    In science we start with WHAT IS KNOWN. Then someone can challenge and provide better answer.

    Regardless of the sources of my research, the ONLY way to discuss this issue can be by either REBUTTING the information I’ve provided, or providing alternative information. Being incapable of either, you are continuing to waste my time, as most Indians tend to do: opinionated people without interest in any research/facts.

    I will NOT publish any more of this time wasting conversation. Either REBUT what I’ve sourced, or provide alternative facts. Else agree that you are not a truth seeker but a mindless  fanatic.

     
  29. dksingh182

    Netaji never promoted fascisims in his speech.He always talked about “samyavad” for India post independence becoz of social,cultural ,economical crisis due to decades of colonialism.Further he never advocated it for long, but something meant for progression as society matures.
    Democracy is successful when society is mature, the way US democracy is successful.Hence any doctrine and country need has to be amalgamated for success.We do even in business,we don’t just follow Porter’s model.Hence guideline and the practicle need consideration is very important.

     
  30. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear DK Singh182, Netaji, like most Indian independence movement leaders, was not tutored in economic policy or thinking. In fact he would have learnt something about economics had he joined the ICS and taken the relevant training about Adam Smith’s basic ideas (which used to be taught to ICS officers till independence, after which even that was not taught).

    For us to imagine that without any knowledge/training on a complex subject like economics he could offer India any sensible economic solutions is absurd.

    Let’s admire his greatness as a nationalist. But for his policies let’s say they were wrong and we don’t want them.

    Btw, it is incorrect to suggest that India was not ready for democracy. US got democracy when its population was barely literate. And it worked.

    Democracy needs leaders who defend individual liberty. That’s what we needed, but managed to get a bunch of socialists.

     
  31. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    DK Singh I have a rule that I don’t publish comments unless they add VALUE. This is not about freedom of speech. This is about adding value. Your lack of knowledge of the causes of GFC and mixing up with Netaji’s socialist approaches is not adding ONE BIT of value. Please avoid wasting my time and that of others who subscribe to this blog/its comments. Kindly publish your own blog posts separately. It is not my obligation to publish everything I receive.

     
  32. rudrashish

    Sir, I find you to be an erudite man and not questioning your research. However, at the outset i must say your assumption of Netaji, “Had he lived and come to power, India’s fate would have been as bad or worse than its current fate”, is pretty extreme since the man did not live to see the light of independence, neither did he hold any post in the govt by which we could know what his real intentions were or how he would have lead India. He might have had Socialist views, but had he come to power who knows he might have given a more efficient & liberal form of govt. For the sake of debate i will highlight a few points from various sources:

    1.His “fascist” outlook did not come from a drive for personal power or social elevation. While he was ambitious, and clearly enjoyed the devotion of his followers, his obsession was not adulation or power, but rather freedom for his beloved Motherland — a goal for which he was willing to suffer and sacrifice, even at the cost of his life.” – Andrew Montgomery

    The same Montgomery writes these lines, which paints him in a different colour than any other power hungry ‘fascist’ personality. Hence he can’t be really called a fascist per se. Moreover, if you can consider him to be a fascist, anyone else can assume that he might have turned into a Fabian post independence.

    2. His comment that if he had to shake hands with the devil for India’s independence he would do, is pretty famous and does show that the man met Hitler NOT because he supported his ideology but only to gather support for a free India.

    I completely respect your opinion about the man, but only responded because of the headline of this post which paints him in a villainous way.

     
  33. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    I have no doubt that Netaji was a great nationalist. However, his underlying philosophy was socialist to the hilt. We can’t talk about counterfactuals, so you may well be right. But I hold the belief that sociliasts do not readily change. Patel, Rajaji, etc. were both nationalists and anti-socialists. I still admire Netaji but not his policies.

     

Leave a Reply