UGC Alerts Students Against 18 Fake Universities. Includes National University of Electro Complex Homeopathy.
How about St. John's University, Kishanattam, Kerala United Nations University, Delhi Indian Education Council of U P, Lucknow First two have potential to become International Degree MILLs
Hey Uncle, SC BOSE is one of the greatest leaders world has seen. He was not like gandhi. Even Gandhi called him "leader of leaders". Please read below books.. may be this will change your thoughts BOSE, SUBHAS CHANDRA: The Indian Struggle 1920 - 1934: Azad Hind: Writings and Speeches 1941-3, Netaji collected Works, Volume 11 (ISBN: 8178240343 ) The Indian Struggle, 1920-1942 (Netaji: Collected Works, Vol 2) (Oxford India Paperbacks) (ISBN: 0195641493 )
Having read fair chunks of S. C. Bose's writings, having had a semester of Indian History in high school, having read biographies of most major Indian political figures from Motilal Nehru and Gokhale down through the late Mrs Gandhi, having read a couple of laudatory (!) books about the INA, having had for some thirty years an academic interest in the history and ideology of fascism (perhaps we should say fascisms), and having minored in interwar history in college--with a special interest in collaborationist movements, I see no reason to alter my assessment of S.C. Bose as a fascist. You are quite correct in pointing out that Bose was very different from M. K. Gandhi (and quite different from M. A. Jinnah, while I'm at it). Quisling was quite different from Churchill (and De Gaulle,while I'm at it). I do confess a bias: I dislike fascists and racists. Me bad.
By studying indian history for a semester in high school and reading couple of biographies you should not come to conclusions. I lived in India for 25 yrs and everybody respects him as a national hero and a great leader. I get thrilled by reading his works. I have also met a lady who was in SC Bose's Indian National Army and she respected him a lot. Please let me know what made you to come to this conclusion.
Bose was a collaborator with the Nazis and their original Axis of evil (not to be confused with the modern version). I suppose one could argue about who was using whom. In any case, the Western view of S.C. Bose is that he was a fascist, and this is unlikely to change.
Bose's explicit racism; his antisemitism (why? why on earth?); his lavish approval of Hitler; his collaboration with the genocidal Japanese; his approval of Japanese atrocities in China and elsewhere; his being on the payroll of the Japanese--not, probably, the Germans--but not for lack of trying; his sedulous aping of the public mannerisms and trappings of other fascist leaders; his contempt for democratic Indian political movements; his hope that the Allies would lose the Second World War...other than that, no, not much qualified him as a fascist. Your condescending dismissal of what I have read and studied about India ("a couple of biographies" is hardly an adequate description, and no, I don't need to defend my learning to you by giving you a booklist dating back to 1964 or so) --perhaps you regard me as your inferior because I am not of Indian origin--or perhaps you adhere to a diversitarianism which says that only members of a given national or ethnic group dare express opinions about a controversial figure of that nation or group-- this dismissal, sir, has all the logic of thinking Stalin a philanthropist because people still put flowers on his grave, or mistaking Hitler for a tzaddik because a certain dwindling type of reprobate German thinks he was just swell, or thinking St Regis is a real university because its unindicted co-conspirators say it is. That you disagree with me is fine. That you adore someone like Bose is your business. That you presume to tell me, not that my opinion is wrong, but that I have no right to an opinion, is positively electro-homoeopathic. You suggested that if I did some reading I would change my thoughts, as you put it. I explained that I had done some reading. You then dismissed my reading as unsatisfactory because I am not an Indian. Now this may just be ignorant, but if memory serves, India is a largish country with a multiplicity of political, religious, and ethnic constituencies. It is also, if memory serves, a democracy. Perhaps you do indeed speak for "everybody." On that I must reserve judgment. But not on Bose. Bose was a fascist.
Wow! I was impressed when Unk used it, but now I am doubly impressed. I will have to remember this term to use someday. BTW, what does it mean? clint
Referig to your sentences on Bose's relationship with Hitler and japs... he worked with them to raise money and unite indians to build an army against brits. He took advantage of the situation. WWII was just a coincidence. He would have done it even if there was no war or genocides. His main intention was to secure independence from brits in a different way compared to gandhi's "non-violence" which was not working (brits left india not because of gandhi .. its because of their losses in WWII). With all these things if you call Bose a racist .. i think you need to give the whole issue a new begining and think again. I dont think Base endorsed or supported hitler's activities. His main intention was to join a group who were fighting against brits and get their help to drive them(brits) out of India. Do you think USA/Allies would have helped indians to get independence from the british autocracies?. Why did'nt US troops attacked hitler during the initial stages of his "death camps" even though the then president knew about that? Do you think there was US approval of Hitler; his collaboration with the genocidal Japanese; and approval of Japanese atrocities in China and elsewhere until japs attacked pearl harbor? Where would bose go for help? He would go to somebody who dislike brits. Why did'nt US govt never talked against british illegal settlements across the world? What was US govt doing when brits were killing innocent indians illegally? Where was US govt when brits killed hundreds of innocents in "Jalianwala Bagh" massacre?. Bose was one of the revolutionaries who took a different route to make brits to quit india. Indian is the biggest/successful democratic govt in the world. They do have successful "elections". Never in the history of india .. they have illegally attacked/captured/slaughtered people of other country. India was attacked by outsiders hundreds of times and was looted and even then they never attacked back. This shows the richness of the culture not to attack and harm innocent people. Bose never advocated suppression or elimination of any opposition, achievement of a one-party dictatorship, elimination of unions and verbal or physical violence against minorities and liberals. His main aim was to secure independence from brits. His army's main aim was to fight against illegal occupaction/autocracies of brits. ANd was never against democracy. With all the above how can you call him a fascist? BOSE WAS NOT A FASCIST
Right. Right. Because India was oppressed by the British Bose wasn't a fascist. Now that's logical. Right. The Jalianwala Bagh massacre was bad, therefore Bose was good. Now that's logical. Right. India is the biggest democracy in the world. Therefore Bose was not a fascist. Now that's logical. Right. Far right, that is. -------------------------------- Clint: Haven't the vaguest! (You got my point.) Gus: You're right. I must be more careful. Sometimes a simplex and a complex look the same amid smoke and mirrors.
Please read this paper on Netaji S.C.BOSE.... Subhas Chandra Bose's Internationalism, Japan and British Imperialism. Dr. T R Sareen http://www.uoregon.edu/~iwata/_private/GEACS/new_page_7.htm
Politics makes strange bedfellows. In WWII the western allies were fighting for democracy alongside Joseph Stalin who was a more prolific butcher than Hitler. His Georgian roots aside, I would consider him equally racist because of his brutal treatment of ethnic minorities. From a third world perspective, having the 3 largest colonial powers, Britain, France and Russia allied in the struggle for democracy and freedom must have been amusing. I have talked with dozens of people from former British colonies and not surprisingly, they share few of the opinions of the benefits of British rule. In the early 1940s, where was India to look for liberation? The colonial powers?
