tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5268411326974045305.post5561522926443360418..comments2023-10-30T21:49:39.848+05:30Comments on The Peanut Express: The Young GunsDesi Babuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07955168775820391505noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5268411326974045305.post-755003321465358272011-08-25T00:27:35.442+05:302011-08-25T00:27:35.442+05:30@DLR: Yes!
@Sudeep: Thanks for the additional in...@DLR: Yes! <br /><br />@Sudeep: Thanks for the additional insight on ChachajiDesi Babuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07955168775820391505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5268411326974045305.post-53100399905111662332011-08-24T14:10:08.869+05:302011-08-24T14:10:08.869+05:30Dear Desibabu,
1. Subhash Bose personally had grea...Dear Desibabu,<br />1. Subhash Bose personally had great qualities, Gandhiji, did not, he just happened at the right time.<br />2. Neither movement posed any real threat to the British. Netaji, in my opinion, simpy ended up as a propoganda tool in the hands of the Axis powers.<br />3. The armed forces got a very bad deal post-independence. Having served the British they were suspect. Also, the ethos of discipline and loyalty could not be reconciled with the INA, who had broken both. This is also the reason why most professional soldiers who could have joined the INA, did not (Lt. Gen, Harbaksh Singh, Western Army Commander during 1965 war was one of them). The INA (in military terms) just ended up as a rag-tag bunch.<br />4. Leave aside the Royal Navy mutiny, there are far worser excesses that are not spoken about or known. For instance, before the 1962 China war, the Indian army not only predicted that they would be defeated, but had calculated almost exacty by how much, and where the Chinese would advance each day. These were ignored by Nehru, and hostilities were opened by the Indian Army (on Nehru's orders), unlike what we have been taught. Patel had forseen this, and warned Nehru in writing - that letter exists.Sudeephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15248954146393962106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5268411326974045305.post-1154476809842190712011-08-24T12:53:00.764+05:302011-08-24T12:53:00.764+05:30Desi Babu, i guess i know the name of the Newspape...Desi Babu, i guess i know the name of the Newspaper.I wouldn't name it here but if i am right,the name starts with a 'V' and ends with 'R'.DLRhttp://middleindian.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5268411326974045305.post-68577427752428245822011-08-24T12:30:28.061+05:302011-08-24T12:30:28.061+05:30@anon above: 'Winning' and 'losing'...@anon above: 'Winning' and 'losing' are simplifying terms when you talk about India's freedom struggle. In my opinion, both Gandhiji and Netaji Subhash won in their own ways -- since their final objective was to get India her freedom.<br /><br />@Sudeep: As always, your analysis and comments are right on!<br /><br />I agree on WWII - the greatly depleted British Army could no longer support another conflict in India after the WWII, and so, they pulled out. But, a lot of historians believe that Netaji Subhash's INA had a lot to do with this, and not Gandiji's peaceful struggle.<br /><br />After the very public INA trials, the Indian soldiers of the Royal Indian Army finally got to know, that they were fighting their brothers on the Burma front. The British could have easily experienced a revolt in the Indian Army, if things went out of control. In fact, in the final days of the British Raj, inspired by Netaji's struggle, there was a mutiny in the Royal Indian Navy (1946), which could have hurried the British off. The 'Sarkari' history books do not talk about this mutiny at all.<br /><br />In fact, our first prime minister, Chacha Nehruji, had banned Indian army soldiers from keeping any INA symbols or Netaji's photographs in their barracks. I wonder why?!Desi Babuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07955168775820391505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5268411326974045305.post-82445085193851635522011-08-24T09:16:56.084+05:302011-08-24T09:16:56.084+05:30@Anonymous 7:34 AM
1. Guns are neither a problem, ...@Anonymous 7:34 AM<br />1. Guns are neither a problem, nor a solution - people using them could be.<br /><br />2. India won her freedom, what did Gandhiji win?<br /><br />3. The British lost their 'Jewel in the Crown'. What did Subashji lose?<br /><br />The costs (not just in terms of wealth) of WW-II, compelled the British to pull out of India. Till then, I would be gald if you could tell me what concession Gandhiji was able to extract from the British. They snubbed/insulted/ignored/jailed him at will, which speaks volumes about his effectiveness.<br /><br />There are too many skeletons in his cupboard, which our 'sarkari' historians would rather ignore. For instance, he let his wife die because he would not allow her to have an injection, but did not apply the same rule for himself, when he got malaria or appendicitis. Talk about double standards...<br /><br />You really need to relearn History, and not the 'sarkari' or INC version peddled in our schools.Sudeephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15248954146393962106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5268411326974045305.post-26053892319202595642011-08-24T07:34:02.258+05:302011-08-24T07:34:02.258+05:30guns are the problem not solution....that's wh...guns are the problem not solution....that's why gandhi-ji won and subhash-ji lost...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com