What do you think?
Rate this book
Brothers Against the Raj: A Biography of Indian Nationalists Sarat & Subhas Chandra Bose
Subhas Chandra Bose and his elder brother Sarat were among the most important leaders of the Indian struggle for independence from the British and were active from the 1920s through the 1940s.
This is the definitive biography of the Boses, placing them in the context of the Indian freedom struggle and international politics of the period. The author uses materials gathered in Europe and Asia from archives, records and 150 interviews he conducted with the brothers' political contemporaries and family members.
This is the definitive biography of the Boses, placing them in the context of the Indian freedom struggle and international politics of the period. The author uses materials gathered in Europe and Asia from archives, records and 150 interviews he conducted with the brothers' political contemporaries and family members.
807 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
9 people are currently reading
227 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
October 8, 2011
An in-depth study of a freedom fighter’s life, who arguably, paved the way for India’s freedom even though the credit is taken by Gandhi and Co, a fact that is becoming even more evident from archives that are becoming declassified in Russia, Britain and America….[return][return]This is a massive scholarly book on a man who is arguably the most controversial man during the freedom movement, a man transformed into a hero and a martyr and perhaps in the process obscuring the real man, a man who was extraordinary by any stretch of imagination, a man who was so feared by the British that they contemplated assassination because unlike Gandhi, he could not be controlled or pacified by mere gestures…..[return][return]It maps the growth of his thought process and his maturing ideals for the nation and it also maps without subjectivity his ultimate tragedy – betrayed by the very men he considered to be his colleagues – Nehru, Gandhi and others….[return][return]The book can get a bit dry at times because of the incredible amount of information in it, but once you warm up to the subject, even the small parliamentary debates takes up an animated life of its own….[return][return]A must read for any Indian and for any person interested in the history where heroes are hanged and false prophets walk around with aureoles….
May 14, 2022
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
The conclusion, much like the last chapter of Gone With The Wind, seems to have been written first, after Gordon finished interviews and reading. Rest of the book is diluted form thereof, with much abuses and snide comments against the younger Bose and much lies holding up some others such as British or Gandhi. The conclusion could be read first and the rest avoided, and it too offers really nothing not known.
Gordon gives photographs at the very end, but they are not mentioned in the contents. He does not discuss them, either. It's as if anyone who could possibly care for the subject is to be dissuaded from reading it after having bought it, and those who'd love the lies could use it as another weapon.
Somewhere, a third of the book through, Gordon quotes the Nobel laureate poet of India from Bengal
"As Bengal’s poet, I acknowledge you today as the honoured leader of the people of Bengal.
"—Rabindranath Tagore to Subhas Bose, 19391"
And its a pleasure to know that he was where the title bestowed on Subhash Chandra Bose originates, especially if one is familiar with his poetry in the original.
The title "Brothers Against the Raj", by itself alone, wouldn't be clear about the subject, since it would fit several families from diverse regions.
interest in facts, but was perhaps commissioned to write indicting Hindus, and siding with every accusation however false; he isn't even very interested in the supposed topic as expected from the title, but more in portrayal of concerns regarding British, apart from Bengal muslims in particular and Muslims in general, and merely uses Bose brothers as a background, occasionally mentioned.
In addition he uses Gandhi’s dictatorial manipulations to indicate a rap on knuckles for not only Bose brothers, revolutionaries, or Hindus, but Congress too. That clears it - Gordon assigns righteousness to anyone who can bully and manipulate, more the better; so British were right in India according to him, Gandhi less so, and others don't count, deserving of every brutal atrocity if they don't shut up and suffer in silence. He doesn't say so explicitly, but indicates it in snide comments, or refraining from negative remarks about perpetrated atrocities, or not mentioning brutal murders.
Often, as one reads, one wonders if the agenda given to this author was to demean the subject, especially Subhash Chandra Bose.
If he quotes a speech by Subhash Chandra Bose, or even mentions his interaction with someone, Gordon is just as likely to make a snide comment against Subhash Chandra Bose as not, for no reason other than that Gordon isn't obvious as Asian even in Germany and he's writing about subjects of British colonial empire, from his point of view. From Gordon's perspective, mention of king of Jews as Oriental cannot be overlooked without a swipe.
He failed to realise that readers of his book would mostly be those who had an interest in the subject, and they wouldn't be likely to to share this snide view - but even more, he fails to see that, as he didn't write this for charity, such an attitude makes him a traitor to his earnings. There's a short word for that, but it's in another, Oriental language, not of Indian origin.
Gordon, moreover, is sloppy about factual details!
"While these controversies were being worked out, some other political workers were moving in a very different direction. Late in the evening of 18 April, 1930, not quite on the anniversary of the Easter Rising in Dublin, a band of some 100 revolutionaries calling themselves the Bengal branch of the Indian Republican Army acted to destroy the British hold on Chittagong district and proclaim an independent republic. They took the district establishment by surprise, and seized many arms and supplies at the armoury, but, unfortunately for them, they overlooked the ammunition for these arms. ... "
No, the most important part they'd overlooked was that that Friday was a church event, and so the English were not, as they did every other Friday, at the club.
"An intelligence summary for this period describes the impact of the raid:
"The news of the Chittagong armoury raids was received by revolutionaries all over the province with amazement…From that moment the outlook of the Bengal terrorists changed. The younger members of all parties…clamoured for a chance to emulate the Chittagong terrorists. Their leaders could no longer hope, nor did they wish to keep them back…30
"The Chittagong raid was the signal for a considerable number of violent acts in the following years, aimed particularly at officials of the Raj."
Again, Gordon misses an opportunity of exploring what effect Bhagat Singh and his group, their thinking and actions, by now publicised through India, via court trials and more, as Bhagat Singh intended, had on India.
Surely Surya Sen and his group wasn't unaware of them, surely they had followed every word?
***
"S.C. Bose may be dead but much that he did lives still."
"—Government of India, confidential file, 19452"
But the then authorities, in particular the investigating officials of intelligence, weren't, in fact, convinced of the air crash story.
"Here was Islam, his own country, more than a Faith, more than a battle-cry…he seemed to own the land as much as anyone owned it. What did it matter if a few flabby Hindus had preceded him there, and a few chilly English succeeded?
"—E.M. Forster, A Passage to India3"
Flabby? After a thousand years of victimization by invaders, looted, massacred, and mostly poor, Hindus looked flabby to Forster?
Was he limited to the rich invited to viceroy’s garden parties, and never, in fact, saw India? Did he never hear of history that was recent, of what stopped British from an assurance of control of India? It wasn't mughals.
It was Maratha empire, held together by Peshawas of Pune, whose existence didn't allow British to presume control over India.
When Nana Phadnavis died - of natural causes - the British could finally, an English historian wrote, be reassured.
***
"…one must understand the evil spirit of 1946, to understand why the partition was accepted in 1947.
"—The Indian Annual Register5"
The said spirit wasn't new in 1946 or restricted to India. It had wreaked havoc and attempted to destroy India, as it had done to Persia and Egypt, and elsewhere, destroying ancient civilisations and wiping them out in a century. It attempted in India for well over a millennium, to destroy her civilisation, and was behind genocides in Europe during WWII, before taking another swipe at India in 1946.
If Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose had been brought back by Jawaharlal Nehru, as he could have, India could have been protected.
"Sarat Bose was free at last, but his health had deteriorated seriously during almost four years imprisonment. Fearing the machinations of the Boses, officials of the Raj had been unwilling to put him in his own house near Darjeeling as they had in the 1930s. ... "
British didn't fear massacres of millions - over eleven million, according to Koenraad Elst - Hindus, and therefore went on encouraging Jinnah even after Calcutta massacre of a few thousand in three days, or Noakhali massacre of 150,000 later; but British feared Bose brothers, despite their anxiety to bring about communal harmony in Bengal, and so kept them incarcerated, exiled, both?
If that doesn't expose British, it's only to the blind fans of British.
" ... The consequence was that Sarat Bose remained in poor health for the rest of his life. He resumed his legal work in order to support his family, but his main focus was to help secure independence with unity for India. Subhas Bose was gone and Sarat was more than ever before in a crucial position as a leading Indian nationalist of Bengal."
Netaji was very much alive, could have been brought back, and benefited India immensely, but Jawaharlal Nehru chose otherwise.
"Sarat Bose had other important matters with which to deal: namely, the Indian National Army; the Azad Hind movement in Southeast Asia; and the legacy of Subhas Bose. Now that the war was over, Bose met with INA and Azad Hind government personnel, and identified the movement with the Congress and mainstream Indian nationalism as an effort to secure India’s freedom. As the British were bringing some of the INA officers to trial, he joined the large Indian chorus that shouted that no retribution must be taken against these patriots."
Notice the anti India slant there - "chorus", "shouted", ... ??????
If anything, it was a ground swell that British hadn't foreseen, exploding with a dull roar until there was a tremendous explosion, which woke London to communications from India being facts, not imaginary fears.
Had they foreseen it, they would have not brought INA prisoners to India for public trials. The hubris, the blindness to their own reality, imagining India to be not human, was what had them lose India.
"Besides Sarat Bose, every Indian nationalist—indeed, every political actor, Indian or British—had to come to terms with the INA in the fall and winter of 1945-46. ... "
In terming it "come to terms", Gordon is speaking of British attitudes, and imposing it on India, as British then did; India saw them as patriots, heroes, India's own army set to free India, and the setback of defeat and capture didn't diminish their glory. It hadn't in case of Queen Laxmibai of Jhansi, and now it didn't for Netaji.
***
"As the British Raj moved to put some leading officers of the INA on trial for treason against the King-Emperor and other charges, Indian nationalists closed ranks to defend them. ... "
This was no different from congress appropriations of other philosophies and slogans of national heroes they pushed under without giving credit - mist recently, Bhagat Singh and his group, while slogan "Inquilab Zindabad" had been taken over by congress, as well as socialist program (but more in words than action, until later), while Gandhi did an all out effort by his Salt March, to wipe out the tremendous impression created by Bhagat Singh and his group with their revolutionary act and thinking.
So congress defending INA was their only chance to pull limelight onto themselves, and wipe out memories of their mistreatment of Bose. Once they'd achieved that, they went right back to bsdmouthing Bose, ill treatment of INA, persecution and hounding of Bose clan, and far worse.
" ... The Raj made it easier for all Indians to identify with the defendants by choosing to try together a Muslim, Capt. Shah Nawaz Khan; a Hindu, Capt. P.K. Sahgal; and a Sikh, Lt. G.S. Dhillon. ... "
Gordon is desperate to assign credit anywhere, everywhere other than where it belongs - the fact that India perceived truth of INA as valiant soldiers for freedom of India led by a hero of quality that belonged to legends. But the detractors of Netaji perceived this all right, and set out yo nalign Netaji, discredit ina and take credit to themselves, whether by defending them and later claiming it as charity, or as in case of British, calling it a mistake to have tried them, and having tried these of diverse communities together.
" ... Nehru spoke about the INA in a speech demanding the release of Jayaprakash Narayan:
"The I.N.A. trial has created a mass upheaval. Wherever I went, even in the remotest villages, there have been anxious enquiries about the I.N.A. men. There are profuse sympathies for these brave men, and all, irrespective of caste, colour and creed, have liberally contributed to their defence…The continuance of the trial is sheer madness undermining the position of the British in this country. The trial has taken us many steps forward on our path to freedom. Never before in Indian history had such unified sentiments been manifested…9"
All true.
And yet, in 1946, when he had a communication about Subhash Chandra Bose being in Russia, he chose to promptly inform the then PM Clement Attlee, and forever later lie about his having died in the air crash - which never did take place, on that day in Taipei.
***
" ... What followed was a surprise to Viceroy Wavell, Commander-in-Chief Claude Auchinleck and the British military establishment. An example of British military thinking is the view of General O’Connor writing to Auchinleck during the trial: ‘Everyone knew the INA were traitors…Now they…say they were patriots…How can we expect to keep loyalty if we don’t condemn disloyalty?’10"
When they said "Everyone knew the INA were traitors", they were only counting their own race, not Indian people, who hadn't forgotten Jallianwala Bagh, brutal treatment of Lala Lajpat Rai resulting in the elderly beloved leader's death, or execution of Bhagat Singh and his group and horrible conduct of British in chopping up the dead and trying to secretly burn them on river bank without proper funerals; for that matter, they hadn't forgotten British killing the young Queen Laxmibai of Jhansi who didn't want to give up her kingdom, or her rights to adopt a son. And just because India had yo tolerate being treated with racist abuse, first mean India thought it was fair, just or proper.
British were pretty idiotic if they really were surprised, but just as likely, that surprise was a lie, and the reality was they'd expected to get away by terrorizing India again via the trials and executions.
"These military leaders had not counted on the fact that Subhas Bose was a renowned patriot who could not be labeled a mere “Japanese tool”. Furthermore, although there were many opportunists in the INA, there were also quite a few devoted patriots and they had a formidable lawyer: Bhulabhai Desai. He was considerably to the right of the Boses in the Congress spectrum, but he mounted a keen defense backed by legal and political precedents and parallels from British, American, French, Latin American and Asian traditions. ... "
Beginning right with George Washington would have been hitting the nail on head.
" ... The kernel of Desai’s defense was the following: ‘Modern international law has now recognised the right of subject races which are not for the time being or at the moment independent, to be so organised, and if they are organised and fight an organised war through an organised army…’11 Desai pressed his case that the Government of Azad Hind was a recognised belligerent opposing Britain and the British Raj and that the former’s army was operating under the Indian National Army Act. He claimed that the British had turned over the Indian prisoners in Malaya and Singapore to the Japanese and that these Indians could then take an oath to a new Indian government which superseded their oath to the King-Emperor. He differentiated Indian subjects of the King from British subjects and said that Bose’s government claimed and received the loyalty of Indians resident in Southeast Asia. Among the precedents for insurgents becoming a recognised belligerent power, Desai cited the American colonies in North America and included a recitation of the Declaration of Independence in his final speech along with a host of legal citations."
"The rallies and the impact of the INA on the Indian army, navy, and air force were one factor influencing the British to quit India. ... "
Gordon lies again! - "one factor"???? There was none other. Clement Attlee said as much, in response to a query while on a visit to India, specifically about why British left India.
As another source points out, South Africa with its nonviolence succeeded only in 1994.
" ... General Francis Tuker, GOC of the Eastern Command covering the region up to Delhi, has noted that, ‘During 1946 there were serious cases of mutiny in the Royal Indian Navy, less serious in the Royal Air Force and Royal Indian Air Force and minor troubles in the Indian Army.’16 The most serious of these was the Royal Indian Navy mutiny in Bombay, February 1946, which was shortly put down by determined repression and with calming words by Sardar Patel and Nehru."
Lies again - about "shortly put down" and about the"soothing words". Fact is British authorities desperately needed someone to make the naval men stop and surrender, and Nehru and Sardar Patel were the only options available under the circumstances. Indians believed them, but they didn't play fair, asking the Indians to surrender and promising further.
As per Clement Attlee, this mutiny was the chief reason British were terrified enough to decide to leave.
***
Here's proof of partisan attitude of the author, and perhaps of the fact that this work wasn't independent, but written according to instructions.
"The real problem to be faced in the fall of 1946 was the spreading communal violence. From Calcutta in August, the focus of the dreadful carnage moved to Noakhali District in East Bengal. What appears to have been a carefully planned attack by a Muslim force on the small Hindu minority was infact, systematically carried out. In the rural areas where one community often greatly outnumbered the other, when there was violence, it became a pogrom. The Hindus were nearly defenseless. Leaders of Hindu resistance were killed, some were forcibly converted to Islam, including some Hindu women whose marriages and lives were broken."
What he's not mentioning, apart from numbers - 150,000 massacred - is that the murdered were not only male, but Hindus of all ages including babies, and in that the last bit he's refraining from mentioning mass rapes of Hindu women.
Also, he refrains carefully from mentioning the dates or the time, saying only "fall of 1946", which is as racist in the context and as fraudulent as it gets.
Fall is at best terminology of Nordic latitudes, more of US than of England. Indian seasons - six, not four - have a fall, but its in February, roughly, not in accordance with Nordic calendar. Since ....
The conclusion, much like the last chapter of Gone With The Wind, seems to have been written first, after Gordon finished interviews and reading. Rest of the book is diluted form thereof, with much abuses and snide comments against the younger Bose and much lies holding up some others such as British or Gandhi. The conclusion could be read first and the rest avoided, and it too offers really nothing not known.
Gordon gives photographs at the very end, but they are not mentioned in the contents. He does not discuss them, either. It's as if anyone who could possibly care for the subject is to be dissuaded from reading it after having bought it, and those who'd love the lies could use it as another weapon.
Somewhere, a third of the book through, Gordon quotes the Nobel laureate poet of India from Bengal
"As Bengal’s poet, I acknowledge you today as the honoured leader of the people of Bengal.
"—Rabindranath Tagore to Subhas Bose, 19391"
And its a pleasure to know that he was where the title bestowed on Subhash Chandra Bose originates, especially if one is familiar with his poetry in the original.
The title "Brothers Against the Raj", by itself alone, wouldn't be clear about the subject, since it would fit several families from diverse regions.
interest in facts, but was perhaps commissioned to write indicting Hindus, and siding with every accusation however false; he isn't even very interested in the supposed topic as expected from the title, but more in portrayal of concerns regarding British, apart from Bengal muslims in particular and Muslims in general, and merely uses Bose brothers as a background, occasionally mentioned.
In addition he uses Gandhi’s dictatorial manipulations to indicate a rap on knuckles for not only Bose brothers, revolutionaries, or Hindus, but Congress too. That clears it - Gordon assigns righteousness to anyone who can bully and manipulate, more the better; so British were right in India according to him, Gandhi less so, and others don't count, deserving of every brutal atrocity if they don't shut up and suffer in silence. He doesn't say so explicitly, but indicates it in snide comments, or refraining from negative remarks about perpetrated atrocities, or not mentioning brutal murders.
Often, as one reads, one wonders if the agenda given to this author was to demean the subject, especially Subhash Chandra Bose.
If he quotes a speech by Subhash Chandra Bose, or even mentions his interaction with someone, Gordon is just as likely to make a snide comment against Subhash Chandra Bose as not, for no reason other than that Gordon isn't obvious as Asian even in Germany and he's writing about subjects of British colonial empire, from his point of view. From Gordon's perspective, mention of king of Jews as Oriental cannot be overlooked without a swipe.
He failed to realise that readers of his book would mostly be those who had an interest in the subject, and they wouldn't be likely to to share this snide view - but even more, he fails to see that, as he didn't write this for charity, such an attitude makes him a traitor to his earnings. There's a short word for that, but it's in another, Oriental language, not of Indian origin.
Gordon, moreover, is sloppy about factual details!
"While these controversies were being worked out, some other political workers were moving in a very different direction. Late in the evening of 18 April, 1930, not quite on the anniversary of the Easter Rising in Dublin, a band of some 100 revolutionaries calling themselves the Bengal branch of the Indian Republican Army acted to destroy the British hold on Chittagong district and proclaim an independent republic. They took the district establishment by surprise, and seized many arms and supplies at the armoury, but, unfortunately for them, they overlooked the ammunition for these arms. ... "
No, the most important part they'd overlooked was that that Friday was a church event, and so the English were not, as they did every other Friday, at the club.
"An intelligence summary for this period describes the impact of the raid:
"The news of the Chittagong armoury raids was received by revolutionaries all over the province with amazement…From that moment the outlook of the Bengal terrorists changed. The younger members of all parties…clamoured for a chance to emulate the Chittagong terrorists. Their leaders could no longer hope, nor did they wish to keep them back…30
"The Chittagong raid was the signal for a considerable number of violent acts in the following years, aimed particularly at officials of the Raj."
Again, Gordon misses an opportunity of exploring what effect Bhagat Singh and his group, their thinking and actions, by now publicised through India, via court trials and more, as Bhagat Singh intended, had on India.
Surely Surya Sen and his group wasn't unaware of them, surely they had followed every word?
***
"S.C. Bose may be dead but much that he did lives still."
"—Government of India, confidential file, 19452"
But the then authorities, in particular the investigating officials of intelligence, weren't, in fact, convinced of the air crash story.
"Here was Islam, his own country, more than a Faith, more than a battle-cry…he seemed to own the land as much as anyone owned it. What did it matter if a few flabby Hindus had preceded him there, and a few chilly English succeeded?
"—E.M. Forster, A Passage to India3"
Flabby? After a thousand years of victimization by invaders, looted, massacred, and mostly poor, Hindus looked flabby to Forster?
Was he limited to the rich invited to viceroy’s garden parties, and never, in fact, saw India? Did he never hear of history that was recent, of what stopped British from an assurance of control of India? It wasn't mughals.
It was Maratha empire, held together by Peshawas of Pune, whose existence didn't allow British to presume control over India.
When Nana Phadnavis died - of natural causes - the British could finally, an English historian wrote, be reassured.
***
"…one must understand the evil spirit of 1946, to understand why the partition was accepted in 1947.
"—The Indian Annual Register5"
The said spirit wasn't new in 1946 or restricted to India. It had wreaked havoc and attempted to destroy India, as it had done to Persia and Egypt, and elsewhere, destroying ancient civilisations and wiping them out in a century. It attempted in India for well over a millennium, to destroy her civilisation, and was behind genocides in Europe during WWII, before taking another swipe at India in 1946.
If Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose had been brought back by Jawaharlal Nehru, as he could have, India could have been protected.
"Sarat Bose was free at last, but his health had deteriorated seriously during almost four years imprisonment. Fearing the machinations of the Boses, officials of the Raj had been unwilling to put him in his own house near Darjeeling as they had in the 1930s. ... "
British didn't fear massacres of millions - over eleven million, according to Koenraad Elst - Hindus, and therefore went on encouraging Jinnah even after Calcutta massacre of a few thousand in three days, or Noakhali massacre of 150,000 later; but British feared Bose brothers, despite their anxiety to bring about communal harmony in Bengal, and so kept them incarcerated, exiled, both?
If that doesn't expose British, it's only to the blind fans of British.
" ... The consequence was that Sarat Bose remained in poor health for the rest of his life. He resumed his legal work in order to support his family, but his main focus was to help secure independence with unity for India. Subhas Bose was gone and Sarat was more than ever before in a crucial position as a leading Indian nationalist of Bengal."
Netaji was very much alive, could have been brought back, and benefited India immensely, but Jawaharlal Nehru chose otherwise.
"Sarat Bose had other important matters with which to deal: namely, the Indian National Army; the Azad Hind movement in Southeast Asia; and the legacy of Subhas Bose. Now that the war was over, Bose met with INA and Azad Hind government personnel, and identified the movement with the Congress and mainstream Indian nationalism as an effort to secure India’s freedom. As the British were bringing some of the INA officers to trial, he joined the large Indian chorus that shouted that no retribution must be taken against these patriots."
Notice the anti India slant there - "chorus", "shouted", ... ??????
If anything, it was a ground swell that British hadn't foreseen, exploding with a dull roar until there was a tremendous explosion, which woke London to communications from India being facts, not imaginary fears.
Had they foreseen it, they would have not brought INA prisoners to India for public trials. The hubris, the blindness to their own reality, imagining India to be not human, was what had them lose India.
"Besides Sarat Bose, every Indian nationalist—indeed, every political actor, Indian or British—had to come to terms with the INA in the fall and winter of 1945-46. ... "
In terming it "come to terms", Gordon is speaking of British attitudes, and imposing it on India, as British then did; India saw them as patriots, heroes, India's own army set to free India, and the setback of defeat and capture didn't diminish their glory. It hadn't in case of Queen Laxmibai of Jhansi, and now it didn't for Netaji.
***
"As the British Raj moved to put some leading officers of the INA on trial for treason against the King-Emperor and other charges, Indian nationalists closed ranks to defend them. ... "
This was no different from congress appropriations of other philosophies and slogans of national heroes they pushed under without giving credit - mist recently, Bhagat Singh and his group, while slogan "Inquilab Zindabad" had been taken over by congress, as well as socialist program (but more in words than action, until later), while Gandhi did an all out effort by his Salt March, to wipe out the tremendous impression created by Bhagat Singh and his group with their revolutionary act and thinking.
So congress defending INA was their only chance to pull limelight onto themselves, and wipe out memories of their mistreatment of Bose. Once they'd achieved that, they went right back to bsdmouthing Bose, ill treatment of INA, persecution and hounding of Bose clan, and far worse.
" ... The Raj made it easier for all Indians to identify with the defendants by choosing to try together a Muslim, Capt. Shah Nawaz Khan; a Hindu, Capt. P.K. Sahgal; and a Sikh, Lt. G.S. Dhillon. ... "
Gordon is desperate to assign credit anywhere, everywhere other than where it belongs - the fact that India perceived truth of INA as valiant soldiers for freedom of India led by a hero of quality that belonged to legends. But the detractors of Netaji perceived this all right, and set out yo nalign Netaji, discredit ina and take credit to themselves, whether by defending them and later claiming it as charity, or as in case of British, calling it a mistake to have tried them, and having tried these of diverse communities together.
" ... Nehru spoke about the INA in a speech demanding the release of Jayaprakash Narayan:
"The I.N.A. trial has created a mass upheaval. Wherever I went, even in the remotest villages, there have been anxious enquiries about the I.N.A. men. There are profuse sympathies for these brave men, and all, irrespective of caste, colour and creed, have liberally contributed to their defence…The continuance of the trial is sheer madness undermining the position of the British in this country. The trial has taken us many steps forward on our path to freedom. Never before in Indian history had such unified sentiments been manifested…9"
All true.
And yet, in 1946, when he had a communication about Subhash Chandra Bose being in Russia, he chose to promptly inform the then PM Clement Attlee, and forever later lie about his having died in the air crash - which never did take place, on that day in Taipei.
***
" ... What followed was a surprise to Viceroy Wavell, Commander-in-Chief Claude Auchinleck and the British military establishment. An example of British military thinking is the view of General O’Connor writing to Auchinleck during the trial: ‘Everyone knew the INA were traitors…Now they…say they were patriots…How can we expect to keep loyalty if we don’t condemn disloyalty?’10"
When they said "Everyone knew the INA were traitors", they were only counting their own race, not Indian people, who hadn't forgotten Jallianwala Bagh, brutal treatment of Lala Lajpat Rai resulting in the elderly beloved leader's death, or execution of Bhagat Singh and his group and horrible conduct of British in chopping up the dead and trying to secretly burn them on river bank without proper funerals; for that matter, they hadn't forgotten British killing the young Queen Laxmibai of Jhansi who didn't want to give up her kingdom, or her rights to adopt a son. And just because India had yo tolerate being treated with racist abuse, first mean India thought it was fair, just or proper.
British were pretty idiotic if they really were surprised, but just as likely, that surprise was a lie, and the reality was they'd expected to get away by terrorizing India again via the trials and executions.
"These military leaders had not counted on the fact that Subhas Bose was a renowned patriot who could not be labeled a mere “Japanese tool”. Furthermore, although there were many opportunists in the INA, there were also quite a few devoted patriots and they had a formidable lawyer: Bhulabhai Desai. He was considerably to the right of the Boses in the Congress spectrum, but he mounted a keen defense backed by legal and political precedents and parallels from British, American, French, Latin American and Asian traditions. ... "
Beginning right with George Washington would have been hitting the nail on head.
" ... The kernel of Desai’s defense was the following: ‘Modern international law has now recognised the right of subject races which are not for the time being or at the moment independent, to be so organised, and if they are organised and fight an organised war through an organised army…’11 Desai pressed his case that the Government of Azad Hind was a recognised belligerent opposing Britain and the British Raj and that the former’s army was operating under the Indian National Army Act. He claimed that the British had turned over the Indian prisoners in Malaya and Singapore to the Japanese and that these Indians could then take an oath to a new Indian government which superseded their oath to the King-Emperor. He differentiated Indian subjects of the King from British subjects and said that Bose’s government claimed and received the loyalty of Indians resident in Southeast Asia. Among the precedents for insurgents becoming a recognised belligerent power, Desai cited the American colonies in North America and included a recitation of the Declaration of Independence in his final speech along with a host of legal citations."
"The rallies and the impact of the INA on the Indian army, navy, and air force were one factor influencing the British to quit India. ... "
Gordon lies again! - "one factor"???? There was none other. Clement Attlee said as much, in response to a query while on a visit to India, specifically about why British left India.
As another source points out, South Africa with its nonviolence succeeded only in 1994.
" ... General Francis Tuker, GOC of the Eastern Command covering the region up to Delhi, has noted that, ‘During 1946 there were serious cases of mutiny in the Royal Indian Navy, less serious in the Royal Air Force and Royal Indian Air Force and minor troubles in the Indian Army.’16 The most serious of these was the Royal Indian Navy mutiny in Bombay, February 1946, which was shortly put down by determined repression and with calming words by Sardar Patel and Nehru."
Lies again - about "shortly put down" and about the"soothing words". Fact is British authorities desperately needed someone to make the naval men stop and surrender, and Nehru and Sardar Patel were the only options available under the circumstances. Indians believed them, but they didn't play fair, asking the Indians to surrender and promising further.
As per Clement Attlee, this mutiny was the chief reason British were terrified enough to decide to leave.
***
Here's proof of partisan attitude of the author, and perhaps of the fact that this work wasn't independent, but written according to instructions.
"The real problem to be faced in the fall of 1946 was the spreading communal violence. From Calcutta in August, the focus of the dreadful carnage moved to Noakhali District in East Bengal. What appears to have been a carefully planned attack by a Muslim force on the small Hindu minority was infact, systematically carried out. In the rural areas where one community often greatly outnumbered the other, when there was violence, it became a pogrom. The Hindus were nearly defenseless. Leaders of Hindu resistance were killed, some were forcibly converted to Islam, including some Hindu women whose marriages and lives were broken."
What he's not mentioning, apart from numbers - 150,000 massacred - is that the murdered were not only male, but Hindus of all ages including babies, and in that the last bit he's refraining from mentioning mass rapes of Hindu women.
Also, he refrains carefully from mentioning the dates or the time, saying only "fall of 1946", which is as racist in the context and as fraudulent as it gets.
Fall is at best terminology of Nordic latitudes, more of US than of England. Indian seasons - six, not four - have a fall, but its in February, roughly, not in accordance with Nordic calendar. Since ....
October 21, 2019
Excellent biography of two freedom fighters of India during British Raj. Details are fantastic and it is the most authentic book about life of Subhas Chandra Bose.
December 29, 2015
What a brilliant book by a non-Indian author on one of the greatest freedom fighter of India. It was first time to read about Sarat Bose on a elaborated level. Though towards the end it felt that author was biased towards Britishers, still a worth read for me.
February 7, 2018
The best book to know about the nationalists Shubhash Chandra Bose and Sharat Chandra Bose. If you want to know the chronological order of the life history of the Bose's then this is a must read
August 15, 2018
A slightly long read but definitely worth it. Especially towards the end, the action of war and the myth of Netaji comes together. Also in the absence of Subhash, Sarat's mostly unknown role and stance comes out very clearly. I finished reading the book on the Indian independence Eve with a bitter taste against the independence, and that is an alien feeling which makes quite a lot of sense though. Nationalism is no perfect concoction and has its share of politics, dirty or unacceptable to many involved in decisions taken that affect them even to date.
July 1, 2015
What a Book.....
Fantastic narration of the brother's life.
The book throws light on the insight view of Boses.
The best part was 'The Conclusion' which was described being a neutral.
Thanks for the work Gordon
Fantastic narration of the brother's life.
The book throws light on the insight view of Boses.
The best part was 'The Conclusion' which was described being a neutral.
Thanks for the work Gordon
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews