Discussion: Split comments from - New Commemorative: 75 years of tri-colour in Andamans

[Rabi_R]

It is surprising .......

Is it?  Why did only Nazi Germany, fascist regimes of Italy and Japan and a few other nations recognize the Azad Hind Government? Why were USSR, USA and France silent?

[repindia]

Is it?  Why did only Nazi Germany, fascist regimes of Italy and Japan and a few other nations recognize the Azad Hind Government? Why were USSR, USA and France silent?

@dheer was asking a totally different question. As for yours the WW-II allies would hardly have supported someone opposing one of their own's colonies. Also Japan was not a fascist regime. I also really doubt Bose was a fascist and only took the help of Nazi Germany since it was an enemy of the British-- the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Figleaf]

Why did only Nazi Germany, fascist regimes of Italy and Japan and a few other nations recognize the Azad Hind Government? Why were USSR, USA and France silent?

Two considerations, I think.

First, during the second world war there was no experience with losing a colony, except to another colonial power and in the case of the US. In the mind of a Western adult living during the second world war, colonialism was a fact of life and there was nothing immoral to it.

Second, there was a time during the second world war when the Germans were moving towards Cairo while the Japanese were moving towards the Indian border. Moreover, the Japanese were actively supporting puppet independence movements. Armchair strategists worried about the two linking up, with "only Afghanistan and India between them" and with the Afghan population being anti-British. An independence movement in India would have scared such people - some in responsible positions - no end. BTW, France was occupied territory. The Free French had many priorities higher up their list than India.

Fast forward to 1947. The second world war had shown the vulnerability of the colonial powers. There was a decolonisation agreement. Resistance within the British army and the British extreme right had been overcome peacefully. India should give the British some credit for that, in particular in the light of some later chaotic and bloody independence processes in other colonies. The Americans were becoming advocates of decolonisation, believing colonialism was a threat to global peace. The French still didn't care what the British did with their colonies. Devastated Japan had turned inward.

Anti-imperialism was standard communist fare, not out of moral conviction but because the communists believed it would weaken the imperialists. At this time, Moscow university, where a number of leaders of later independence movements from Western colonies studied, was a hotbed of racial hatred. The situation was actually favourable to Indian independence and there was no resistance left.

Peter

[Rabi_R]

In the mind of a Western adult living during the second world war, colonialism was a fact of life and there was nothing immoral to it.
Peter

I am not putting a counter statement or a analogy here, but this sounds some what like Hermann Goering's statement at Nuremberg - I didn't know i was doing anything wrong.

Regarding the rest of your response, i don't think the matter is so simple. Successive Governments in India have deferred or declined to declassify Netaji Files. Google - Why is the government not declassifying the Netaji files?

Read this article published in Times of India -

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Cant-reveal-Netaji-files-will-hit-international-ties-Govt/articleshow/45816654.cms

[repindia]

I am not putting a counter statement or a analogy here, but this sounds some what like Hermann Goering's statement at Nuremberg - I didn't know i was doing anything wrong.

We are getting a little off-topic here and I hope the moderators will allow this. What the Nazis did at that time was wrong even for their time. The defense of many of them at the trials was that it was an order they got and they were just executing it. What they believed was right was only their view point. I suppose an argument can be made that if they were joined in this thought by a majority of the west then it would have become a norm! Fortunately that was not the case. All of Europe were colonizers and so this became the norm at that time in their land. Sorry, I just kept on rambling. Moderators can delete these comments if out of context.

[Figleaf]

I don't by far know enough to comment on the Netaji files, but consider that they have been lying there under administrations of varying political colour and they all agreed they should not be de-classified.

Yes, repindia, please do comment. Indian history is important and an open discussion is helpful.

Sure, Rabi, people in all times didn't know about future morality, though the nazi's "Befehl ist Befehl" argument is disingenuous. It is true that the doctrine of the court of Nuremberg that everyone has a personal duty to refuse immoral orders was new in international law (and from time to time ignored even today), but, crudely put, the ten commandments say "Thou shalt not..." and not "... unless you are ordered to do so." To make that personal, future Indians may fault you for pollution, while today, you are not aware that you are doing something that future generations will see as immoral.

My argument is that the morality on colonisation was shifting rapidly between 1940 and 1950. I am a great admirer of Gandhi. I think his non-violence approach was a watershed in thinking. Before, it was all a question of power and treaties. Gandhi turned the discussion onto popular will, which, ultimately, leads to the meaning of democracy. Once you are there, you must decolonise. More, you must take care of minorities within your own borders. Think of racial minorities, language minorities and even of female non-minorities. That turns part of morality around 180°. That's what made the UK government suppress dissent in the British army to Indian independence.

However, nothing is ever easy. Colonialism started out as a commercial enterprise. Hence the UEIC, the VOC and others like them. It became government policy only with an economic theory called mercantilism. That's why you had British army troops (red uniforms with quite a few Irishmen and Scotsmen in them) fighting alongside UEIC soldiers (blue uniforms, with quite a few Indians in them) to colonise India. Now consider Gandhi's economic policies ("made in India") from that angle. Sure enough, he was a mercantilist.

Gandhi created a beginning in India, but his non-violence/popular will approach is very relevant all over the world and today. For a fascinating example, turn to the history of Lithuania and compare its short-lived independence, based on an understanding with Stalin in the interbellum period with its present independence, based on people literally joining hands against the Soviet military.

Peter