Gandhi or Bose?

Burma was on the first steps to independence. Letting the Burmese run Burma is a step better than being ruled by a foreign viceroy dont you think?

Yes, it was like it. However, Burma had its one of its own in power..anything could happen..a slight disagreement with the Japanese leadership and Burma goes into a cool relationship with Japan. The subjugation as you put it would end, especially when the Burmese troops took over the running of the country. Afghanistan was slightly different in the sense that the Soviet troops were kept there. From what I know Burma under the Japanese had a Burmese Army, Afghanistan's Army was the Soviets. This would have given the Burmese more independence than the Afghans.

It pressured them enough to get entry into India and also to keep Bose under house arrest.

The INA's performance was pathetic, but the British were flat out of cash to wage war half way round the world following the end of the second world war. The INA trials also created anti British feeling, and it was obvious their time was up.

It's one opinion. But all you've said is hypothetical.

I dont think they would have been ruled by the Japanese. India was too big to have a Japanese Army rule them. The Indians were simply corrupt rulers, and the British took advantage of it sticking the Rajputs in power. But make no mistake, the Japanese could not have done what the British did - to form alliances with corrupt Rajput leaders.

Japan granted Burma nominal independence. That is to say that the Burmese ruled Burma, it's economy was run in the interests of the Burmese etc, the Japanese did have some say in political aspects, such as the countries alignment to British India etc, but Japan was not taking Burmese money. This is in clear contrast to the rule of the British in India. British India was a part of the British Empire. As such the economy of the country was run in the best interests of the British rather than the Indians, through the appointment of British viceroys and governors. For example, the presidency of Madras and Bombay/Mumbai was by the East India Company, in effect making them responsible for the economy and welfare of the people, which generally was secondary to the crown. They could declare war on the other princely states on the authority of the governor general, all this resulted in the transfer of manufacturing and raw materials to the British - the Japanese on the other hand wanted to install Bose as their puppet, and the INA as the Indian Army to begin with. Giving an Indian the power to direct his country in India was all important. I do believe that if the INA hadnt pressured the British during the second world war in addition to the INA trials, that India would have been under occupation for longer than it was.

Tgat?

Burma was granted independence in 1943. A puppet government, allied with Japan was installed with Ba Maw, a Burmese as head of state. An Army consisting chiefly of Burmese soldiers, trained by Japan was created. This if you like, was a step towards liberation. The British placed non Indian people in positions of high power such as the viceroys etc, to actually rule over the people. The Japanese certainly didnt do it out of kindness, but they did give Burma independence in 1943, and they did allow Burmese to rule their country.

When was it in there? If it was, I assume it was to ensure the British could not retake Burma.

Link?

Link?

Imphal and Kohina were the campaigns that Bose and the INA was involved in together with Japanese support. Burma was in the same situation. It had been won by the Japanese in '42 and then in '43 it was granted independence. The same situation would have occurred in India. Bose would have taken the leadership under a caretaker government with the INA as the army (Japan considering Bose and the INA to be their ally), and they would have been granted independence like Burma. Japan's actions with Burma actually support this scenario.

And what exactly did Bose "know"? That the Japanese in the milk of their human kindness would just hand India over to him on a silver platter after the British left? And what do you mean "even think about taking India"? The Japanese not only did think about taking India, they actually attempted it! Or are the Imphal and Kohima battles just fairy tales? And if Bose "knew" that the Japanese could not take India, why did he get involved with them in the first place? Sounds like mighty poor judgment. He would have done well to heed what the Burmese said - "The British drank our blood, the Japanese actually sucked our bone marrow". Conjecture indeed!

Mameluke

You're missing the point, TeldeIndus. Do you seriously think the Japanese would have been content to see an independent India after liberation from the British? Do you seriously think they did not consider India part of their "Greater East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere"? How long would they have waited before marching into India themselves after the British left? I am amazed this did not strike Bose then, as it does not strike some people now.

Mameluke

Again I think we are getting emotional and veering off topic. The point of the thread is Gandhi or Bose? Let's put it this way, if Bose was successful in his mission, India would not have been independent, but just another Japanese colony. When did the Japanese honour the countries they "liberated" with independence? Bose was apparently too short sighted to realize such a fundamental fact. All this Gandhi bashing by both Muslims and Hindutva fascists (yes, fascists) is really annoying. Muslims need to show more gratitude to a man that went out of his way to see that Muslims were not massacred in the Calcutta riots. And as for the Hindutva fascists (yes, again, fascists), such people are a disgrace to their community. When I think of Hindus, I think of decent people like my colleague Ashish, and the gentleman that taught my parents Hindi, and Ravi Jaitly, the incredibly funny family friend that is also a superlative palm reader. The less I encounter Hindutva fascists (yes, fascists) with the weird make believe world they conjure out of India's past and their poisonous distortions of History, the better.

Mameluke

Bose had a political party, it was called the "Forward Bloc" and it was pro democracy and socialist.

Also Gandhi wasnt irrelevant - he was the face everyone knows. But the most important aspects of independence were not achieved by him in my opinion. If World War II did not happen, the British would have hung onto India for longer, whatever Bose or Gandhi did would not have achieved much in this case. If Bose did not launch an armed campaign during World War II, I think independence would have taken longer to have been achieved. I dont see where Gandhi fits into this except to negotiate the details of the handover, but I also dont think he's irrelevant in the achievement of independence - just not as important as the other characters and events that took place.