I don't think so. If someone talks about India, they would talk about Gandhi and not Bose. Additionally, he died in 1945, so as far as the west is concerned, Bose will never be relevant. This is the first conversation with anyone from this part of the world that I have had regarding Bose and that is because a couple of guys managed to do a google search to find something to argue about.
Gandhi is also dead. Being dead does not render one irrelevant. Very rarely people in the west thought of Ukraine, and yet their history and their controversial SS National hero, Bandera, has become very relevant. I would not be surprised to the see similar things happen with India. Most importantly amongst those who wish to foster a negative attitude towards India. India and Indians might do themselves a favour to look at the difficulties Bandera's national hero status has caused Ukraine, both at home and internationally, and consider uncovering more about Bose with a critical eye towards what he actually believed lest he does become a big part of the world conversation. It would be pretty embarrassing if copies of the article he was accused of writing came to light and do indeed say what he claims, or if personal writings of his are found showing he wasn't quite as benevolent as he seemed.
Perhaps it's untrue. I don't believe anyone has ever produced copies of Angriff with his article. Perhaps you are 100% right about Bose. I personally will not condemn him. I think, given the forces at work at the time, allying with Hitler against Britain, was probably the only move. Not only that, but the time was right for it. I think Bose is and should be a National hero...
I just think the benefit of the doubt given to him should extend to others as well, regardless of what country they came from. I believe in innocent until proven guilty. If evidence is found that Hunka committed war crimes, he should absolutely be tried for it. But if there isn't, simply joining the SS isn't enough for me to condemn him, especially given how many lives were spared by other Nazis more high ranking than him.
Canada turned away Jewish refugees as well So did the US and the UK.
Yes, but according to you they had views that were problematic and antisemetic and therefore you hold their citizens to a different standard. That's my point. If you argue one group is antisemetic and another guy isn't, but he did the things you said the antisemetic groups did, then your entire premise is questionable. You can't say India wasn't antisemetic because it did the things all these other countries did that you do think are antisemetic.
For the record, the Anti-Defamation League, the world's foremost tracker of antisemetic attitudes in the would, reports 20% of India as fostering antisemetic views. That's not an insignificant number, though it is lower than the average. Certainly far lower than Ukraine, where Hunka is from, but it's not 100% in Ukraine either. It's not even 50%. It's less than 40%.
I would chalk it up to political partisanship of the time, as Subhas Chandra Bose's focus was fighting English Colonialism.
This is why I have a problem with your remarks. You don't know so you assume innocence. Meanwhile you have no evidence Hunka engaged in anything antisemetic, but you assume the worst based on his ethnicity. There's a term for that.
I haven't read his anti-semitic article, or even heard that he wrote one like that but given he was fighting with the Germans, he could have said what he said to stay in Hitler's good graces so he could still fight the British.
So even if he did and said antisemitic things, he gets a pass to you because he did it for the right reasons. But if he had been a white European, you'd condemn him as an antisemite even in the absence of doing or saying antisemetic things. Do you really not see this as double standard?
Source, btw:
India was largely indifferent towards the Jewish problem and was primarily concerned with the plight of the Arabs in mandated Palestine
ebrary.net
"The Committee sees no objection to the employment in India of such Jewish refugees as are experts and specialists and who can fit in with the new order in India and accept Indian standards.
"It was, however, rejected by the then Congress President Subhas Chandra Bose, who four years later, in 1942, was reported by the Jewish Chronicle of London as having published an article in Angriff, a journal of Goebbels, saying that "anti-Semitism should become part of the Indian liberation movement because the Jews had helped the British to exploit Indians (21 August 1942)”. Although by then Bose had left the Congress, he continued to command a strong influence in the party. Commenting on the pro-Nazi influences of Subhas Chandra Bose, especially while he was Congress President during 1937-1939, Nehru remarked:
"He (that is. Congress President Bose) did not approve of any step being taken by the Congress which was anti-Japanese or anti-German or anti-Italian. And yet such was the feeling in Congress and the country that he did not oppose this or many other manifestations of Congress sympathy for China and the victims of Fascist and Nazi aggression."
Seemingly there are some people in India who thought Bose believed in some Nazi ideology, and there are certainly some who still do. The parallels between Bose and Bandera are many.
That is certainly possible. But if it is an European who joined the SS, then more scrutiny is needed on that person. Because anti-semitism was a major and to some extent still a cultural issue in Europe. This is and has never been the case with India. India is ignorant about WW2 history regarding the Jewish people, and is very pro-Israel/pro-Jewish in general.
You aren't saying more scrutiny though. You're saying condemn one with no evidence at all, but absolve the other despite there being some evidence.
Yes a Sikh who supports Khalistan voicing their opinion is not a terrorist. I have said so myself. If they protested, made social media posts, or whatever else I am okay with it. Heck I said I am even okay with these guys vandalizing the Indian high commission (even though that is violence).
I mean, that's decidedly not what you said. You said, "Canadian citizens demanding India's break up is terrorism. Canadian citizens calling for a referendum, which they have absolutely no right to conduct, is terrorism." If you want to retract that than I also retract my objections to it. But your further clarifications contradict this anyway.
As long as they dont plot to kill people, or engage in targeted assassinations in India then am good.
But if India engaged in a targeted assassination of someone who voiced an opinion on Canadian soil, that's fine?
Even so, I am okay with the referendum being conducted in Canada, UK and other western nations where you have diaspora Sikhs. But not in India. Foreign citizens should not be allowed to stir up shit in another country, where Sikhs themselves do not want Khalistan.
So then you're not ok with people voicing their opinion in India? You seem to be changing your mind here. Canada can't have a referendum on a matter that is Indian state politics. It wouldn't make sense. But people should be free to voice their opinions on anything, shouldn't they? Do you have a problem with Canadians voicing an opinion on Russian aggression in Ukraine? On Chinese aggression against Taiwan or Hong Kong? What opinions do you think Canadians should be allowed to voice, and which ones do you think justify them being killed for terrorism?
If I were to immigrate to Canada, as I have, and then try to revive FLQ, and Quebec separatism to split Canada up, then in my opinion, I would deserve to get deported. If people come to Canada, they should live as Canadians. Similarly if people are in India, they should live as Indians. Not engage in secessionism. So my point is, if you don't want to live like that, then the person should make the decision to move to a place where they'd be happy.
And if Modi were to say he supports Quebec separatism, would you support Canada engaging in his assassination as a terrorist?
It isn't hatred. It is nationalism.
Maybe that's how it seems to you, but I'm telling you how you sound to me. White Europeans should be condemned as antisemites at the slightest chance it's possible even despite no evidence, but an Indian should be completely absolved even if there is some evidence, and people who voice this opinion you don't like should be labeled as terrorists and executed. That's what I've heard you say these last few posts. If that's unfair, feel free to clarify, but that's what I hear you saying.
For the country to exist, you need strong nationalism. Otherwise today it will be the Khalistanis. Then the Ghorkas will want their Gorkhaland. The Tamils will want their Dravida Nadu. It is a slippery slope and there will be no more India.
And you don't want people to have their own sense of national pride and identity like you do? Your sense and vision of nationhood is the only correct one, and those who voice a different vision are terrorists and should be executed? But that's not hate? It doesn't sound like love or tolerance. Does it to you?
. You are just butthurt Trudeau's plane broke down
www.theglobeandmail.com
globalnews.ca
