Jawahar Lal Nehru referred to Subhas Chandra Bose as a 'war criminal'

G

Jawahar Lal Nehru referred to Subhash Chandra Bose as a ‘war criminal’ in of the files, sources who have knowledge of the Netaji files that are being declassified have said.

A letter was written to the Prime Minister of England Clement Attlee on Dec 27, 1945.

"Dear Mr Attlee, I understand from reliable sources that Suhas Chandra Bose, your war criminal, has been allowed to enter Russian territory by Stalin. This is a clear treachery and betrayal of faith by the Russians as Russia has been an ally of the British-Americans, which she should not have done. Please take note of it and do what you consider proper and fit," Pandit Nehru wrote in his letter.

The letter is signed, "Yours Sincerely, Jawaharlal Nehru,".

This letter is likely to spark political storm in the country as it has been allegedly said that Nehru was unfair to the legacy of Netaji.

This letter was written four months after Netaji Bose’s supposed death in plane crash in Taipie on August 18, 1945.The letter also reveals that Nehru did not believed that Netaji lost his life in the plane crash.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will declassify 100 Netaji files on Saturday. Out of 100 files, 33 are from the PMO and others from the MEA and MHA.

More at netajifiles.gov.in from 12:30 pm onward and more files to be sent by UK and Russia.

site working anywhere?
someone post link

not everything is black and white

G

[MENTION=110244]Nerevarine[/MENTION] They had all these files yet three commissions were told to pound sand and gave lies.

May not agree with Bose methods but freedom was because of him.
to make no efforts to get him out of FSU and spy on his family for 20 years is despicable.

- - - Updated - - -

Subhash Chandra Bose stint with Congress: Why Netaji fall apart with Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru?

*www.india.com/news/india/subhash-chandra-bose-stint-with-congress-why-netaji-fall-apart-with-mahatma-gandhi-and-jawaharlal-nehru-884827/

Everyone wanted the same thing but the methods differered, Its like Malcolm X and MLKJ

G

Try this:

*abhilekh-patal.in/Register.aspx

Lol. Mahabhakt Rahul Kanwal deleted that FB post after it was found to be fake. Here's another letter from Netaji:

*i.imgur.com/L0zvQuW.jpg

On a serious note, here's what others have to say. Also, there was no Russia in 1945. It was Soviet Union.

G

Is Nehru’s ‘Bose is a War Criminal” letter fake? – what the Declassified documents say

Is Nehru’s ‘Bose is a War Criminal” letter fake? – what the Declassified documents say

A

Why the hell is subhas chandra bose so important?

^ Wow. Are you for real?

Why do you think the Brits wanted him dead so badly?
They even let Gandhi go around freely and even made pacts with him. But not with Bose, ever wondered why?
Gandhi (and Non-violent movement) is only the one side of the coin that freedom is.

I certainly don't know much about Bose, but I do understand that he did more than he is officially credited with (for the independence of India).

A

Can you tell me 1 thing bose did for the freedom movement?

G

what did jawahar lal did in freedom movement to deserve pm post?

A

^ what an intelligent reply, im in awe

anuragingle said:
Why the hell is subhas chandra bose so important?

anuragingle said:
Can you tell me 1 thing bose did for the freedom movement?

Brother i dont know who you are and where you live but i'm gonna find you and hit you with a history book for sure..:

Well jokes apart, Bose was the founder of the Forward Bloc, the party which took care of the Quit India Movement during 1942 when all the nationalist leaders (Gandhi, Nehru, Sardar Patel etc etc) were in jail.. He was an active participant in the movement to get the laborers and workers their right and to protect them from the rising capitalism in India.. Till 1938, he was as important as Nehru in the Indian National Congress and was second only to Gandhi and was also the President of INC in 1938 & 1939(though he was removed because Gandhi did not support him in 1939).. Bose had played as an important role as Nehru till 1940's after which he was ostracized because he was a socialist/communist (just like Bhagat Singh) whereas, Gandhi was pro-capitalist..

Just some of the facts i remember..

Good Detail !

anuragingle said:
Can you tell me 1 thing bose did for the freedom movement?

someone forgot how he passed history tests in school.

adding some more infos to [MENTION=152602]ShankJ[/MENTION], he was general secretory or congress in late 20-30's, and his path was not much different from how congress was taking it. then post 1930, after travel to europe, meeting mussolini, and as time went flowing without much progress, his views changed.
in 1939, when ww2 was starting/started (i think) he was nominated for congress president's chair electiion, but seeing his extremist viewpoint, gandhiji decided not to support him.

gandhiji was rather pacifist, he wanted to go along with & talk out with british for the independence issue. he even supported the british in ww2, and wanted to further support them by providing indian soldiers to fight their battles (pl correct me if i am wrong).

netaji was other hand, was extremist, being more familiar to the weaponized anti-british revolutions in bengal, he was more towards using force against the british, as they were getting more and more occupied with ww2, and could show signs of weakness in india, as he anticipated.

he saw bombs and bullets could push british capitals from calcutta to delhi, so he wanted to use ww2 & all india armed movement to throw away british from india all together. he received all the support from non residing indians, but he did not get as much from mainland.

whether that would be fruitful, is only an alternate history could tell. (i wonder why they didn't make an alternate timeline film where netaji did not crash & events proceeded.

lol)

icebags said:
someone forgot how he passed history tests in school.

adding some more infos to [MENTION=152602]ShankJ[/MENTION], he was general secretory or congress in late 20-30's, and his path was not much different from how congress was taking it. then post 1930, after travel to europe, meeting mussolini, and as time went flowing without much progress, his views changed.
in 1939, when ww2 was starting/started (i think) he was nominated for congress president's chair electiion, but seeing his extremist viewpoint, gandhiji decided not to support him.

gandhiji was rather pacifist, he wanted to go along with & talk out with british for the independence issue. he even supported the british in ww2, and wanted to further support them by providing indian soldiers to fight their battles (pl correct me if i am wrong).

netaji was other hand, was extremist, being more familiar to the weaponized anti-british revolutions in bengal, he was more towards using force against the british, as they were getting more and more occupied with ww2, and could show signs of weakness in india, as he anticipated.

he saw bombs and bullets could push british capitals from calcutta to delhi, so he wanted to use ww2 & all india armed movement to throw away british from india all together. he received all the support from non residing indians, but he did not get as much from mainland.

whether that would be fruitful, is only an alternate history could tell. (i wonder why they didn't make an alternate timeline film where netaji did not crash & events proceeded. lol)

Thanks for the extra information, i had no idea about pre-1930 part of Bose's story..

Yes he was nominated and even selected to be the president of INC for the second time in 1939 (earlier he was the president in 1938 also) but had to resign when Gandhi withdrew his support (google Tripuri(or Tripura) Session of INC 1939). Bose kinda went guns blazing against the Gandhi supporters in this INC session, calling them pro-capitalist and anti-laborers..

WW2 started in Sep, 1939 and Gandhi wanted to support the Britain + France because he saw them as democratic nation and thus was sympathetic towards them. Whereas Bose believed that both Nazi Germany and Britain + France were capitalist nations and were fighting for gaining more colony and thus the question of India supporting any one of them did not arise..

- - - Updated - - -

anuragingle said:
Why the hell is subhas chandra bose so important?

Hopefully you understand now that why he was so important..

T

*scontent-hkg3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/12573782_803298236446750_6913747159361022890_n.jpg?oh=67975284b130836a01f8263d69bee668&oe=5733A2BE

Erm that pic is misleading in so many ways its funny. No context nothing.

Netaji's Hind army would have wiped out British from India, had not Gandhi asked him to help British in WW2 for indipendence.

Its really sad that whole indipendence was twisted to look if Gandhi nehru where the only one...people are forgetting Patel, bose and even jinnah . What ever happened due to Gandhi promoting Nehru to PM made a big blunder all togather

I wonder why you wise people @sujoyp @ShankJ @icebags,etc...,even care to teach a buffoon + jacka$$ :donkey:

about a lesson on History?You are just wasting your precious time.

sujoyp said:
Netaji's Hind army would have wiped out British from India, had not Gandhi asked him to help British in WW2 for indipendence.

Its really sad that whole indipendence was twisted to look if Gandhi nehru where the only one...people are forgetting Patel, bose and even jinnah . What ever happened due to Gandhi promoting Nehru to PM made a big blunder all togather

I would like to add to it that Sarojini Naidu had given the title of "Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity" to M.A. Jinnah and was the epitome of Hindu-Muslim solidarity till the late '20s.. The same person ended up demanding Pakistan in the beginning of the '40s. Something must have gone terribly wrong in the Gandhi-Nehru politics that things ended the way they are right now between India-Pak..

- - - Updated - - -

kg11sgbg said:
I wonder why you wise people @sujoyp @ShankJ @icebags,etc...,even care to teach a buffoon + jacka$$ about a lesson on History?You are just wasting your precious time.

Its sad to see that even though a person sacrificed his life for our country's independence, he isnt respected enough among the youth of the country..

TechGeek said:
*scontent-hkg3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/12573782_803298236446750_6913747159361022890_n.jpg?oh=67975284b130836a01f8263d69bee668&oe=5733A2BE

EPIC

sujoyp said:
Netaji's Hind army would have wiped out British from India, had not Gandhi asked him to help British in WW2 for indipendence.

Its really sad that whole indipendence was twisted to look if Gandhi nehru where the only one...people are forgetting Patel, bose and even jinnah . What ever happened due to Gandhi promoting Nehru to PM made a big blunder all togather

ina against a militaristic nation who has hundreds of years of experience in battling & nurfing revolutions in every single continent, in most of the habitats on the planet? its highly unlikely ...... netaji, gandhiji,nehruji,patelji...... it was simply not one mans job :banghead:

kg11sgbg said:
about a lesson on History?You are just wasting your precious time.

well it is not totally his fault, remembering history lessons don't fetch him food to feed the stomach.

icebags said:
ina against a militaristic nation who has hundreds of years of experience in battling & nurfing revolutions in every single continent, in most of the habitats on the planet? its highly unlikely ...... netaji, gandhiji,nehruji,patelji...... it was simply not one mans job

well it is not totally his fault, remembering history lessons don't fetch him food to feed the stomach.

Very well and realistic to mention about that [MENTION=44484]icebags[/MENTION] our friend.It was true that Netaji did gave an attempt to fight against the mighty British troops,but it was not so easy,in fact the win would have been a dream only.Since we know that the British were well experienced,well prepared,well in resources,logistics,etc. And shame for us the Indians,that despite many common people for their respect and love for Netaji + INA gave their money,jewellery,whatever they had to amass a resource for the INA,there were scores of Mirzafars(ALL ALONG THE HISTORY OF INDIA SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL)who had lead to the downfall and ultimate loot.

[MENTION=44484]icebags[/MENTION] british were experienced and all you say but they were down after WW1 and there economy suffered more in WW2 they had to send there army in WW2 and very few were actually in India...Netaji saw this as an opportunity to topple down weak british and throw them away.
Also its true that Netaji met Hitler, musolini, and japaneese army for weapons and help. British were scared of him anyway

I really dont know if Netaji would have succseeded in throwing british out of India at that time, maybe we would have a dictatorship here but definititely India would be as big as China with Burma, srilanka, bangladesh, pakistan, part of afganistan, tibbet as a part of India.

icebags said:
(i wonder why they didn't make an alternate timeline film where netaji did not crash & events proceeded. lol)

hmmm.
Im highly skeptical if we would win. Think we would sustain heavy losses, despite superior numbers, and lose out to better training.
Have no doubt that Bose could make an army stand. But highly doubt if he could make it fight.
still, can't think what would happen if we actually somehow won.

I really like this alternate time-line thingy.

The British army was getting their ass kicked by the Japanese in the WW2, they had practically abandoned many of the Asian towns such as Burma, Singapore and sailed back to Britain to save their asses and had left the colonial people to suffer at the mercy of the Japanese army.. Moreover, Bose had an army of about 30K+ Indian soldiers who had surrendered to the Japanese after their British Officers had fled the battle field in Singapore, Rangoon and Burma.
In India, British army officers (which were not a lot in number) were running scared shitless because Japanese army had captured till Burma and an attack was eminent plus they were also facing chances of mutiny or disobedience of orders by the Indian Army who were angered by the behavior of the English who had left the Indian people to to die at the hands of the Japanese..

So, Bose had the strength plus the perfect atmosphere to attack and had made the proclamation that they would not attack until Gandhi did not give the call for it.. Had the attack taken place, Britishers would have had to resort to diplomatic treaties instead of a straight head on wars as their economy was ****ed up and they were already fighting a battle on their European front..

(Mods sorry for the language)

- - - Updated - - -

icebags said:
ina against a militaristic nation who has hundreds of years of experience in battling & nurfing revolutions in every single continent, in most of the habitats on the planet? its highly unlikely ...... netaji, gandhiji,nehruji,patelji...... it was simply not one mans job

well it is not totally his fault, remembering history lessons don't fetch him food to feed the stomach.

Brother, i guess you have no idea about how much those guest speakers at the national/international conferences get paid for disseminating with the same knowledge that we have shared here in this thread!! :wink:

^well, dont exactly remember how worse the situation was for the british in eastern front, but germany & italy were there at their neck in europe, constantly poking with high grade weaponry, i guess they got disturbed a bit too much. japan however, started advancing unparalleled, but in later stages their advance forces were cut by american fleet(which would be much later in future).

well, netaji and rasbihari bose ji were a men of wisdom from many angles, they sure saw plenty enough opportunities during their time, to go for such desperate revolution. ina was lacking a bit from weapons, foods, and apart from people were not having any air or artillery support. i always guessed they were relying on japanese for the supplies and expected people of the nation would join (along with indian british military) them as they advance. if it would have been, then perhaps there could be a american civil war type freedom movement(they did that in 1800s, the whole nation was probably men at arms - idk).

and for payment, we on the internet do these for free !

Anorion said:
I really like this alternate time-line thingy.

some other people in some other countries have done some similar things - a film "2009 lost memories" & recent series "man from high castle" came to mind, if u have not seen already.

Nowdays we collect most of the knowledge from internet and give it back here...and its easy as we can give reference links too ...in real life if someday you try to have a discussion like this with some pro gandhi (someone like pro AK of delhi) or a anti bose guy then the discussion become a fight right way

fine. Bose comes to power. what happens.
Builds up the military.
Wondering what will pay for it.
There is a personality cult around him.
pan-asia with a future. woow.

No partition?

have to wrap head around Marx and Vivekanand to answer this.

that world will be definitely different...like i said we would have a twice the size india

sujoyp said:
that world will be definitely different...like i said we would have a twice the size india

u should feel good on the fact that a lot of extremists got separated with independence, and we can live considerably peaceful than what would have happened if they were here.

pakistan and to some extent bangladesh got those nasty people, and see they r still having trouble to have a stable government.

other than that, i am happy to have pakistan at our western border, they r really buffering us from those radicals. thinking of what would have happened if they were inside, just gives me nightmares.

icebags you are thinking it differently

if all were inside india then we wouldnt have trouble at soo many fronts...no kashmir issue with pakistan, no aksai chin , no issue in arunachal pradesh , no issue with tibbet democracy...
pakistan's sole purpose in this world is to fight for kashmir...if it were inside definitely that issue would not have arrived.

but I am also happy that due to Pak the redicals are not directly attaking us but trying to take over pakistan first, which kind of gives us the defence.

icebags said:
u should feel good on the fact that a lot of extremists got separated with independence, and we can live considerably peaceful than what would have happened if they were here.

pakistan and to some extent bangladesh got those nasty people, and see they r still having trouble to have a stable government.

other than that, i am happy to have pakistan at our western border, they r really buffering us from those radicals. thinking of what would have happened if they were inside, just gives me nightmares.

sujoyp said:
icebags you are thinking it differently if all were inside india then we wouldnt have trouble at soo many fronts...no kashmir issue with pakistan, no aksai chin , no issue in arunachal pradesh , no issue with tibbet democracy...
pakistan's sole purpose in this world is to fight for kashmir...if it were inside definitely that issue would not have arrived.

but I am also happy that due to Pak the redicals are not directly attaking us but trying to take over pakistan first, which kind of gives us the defence.

Which radicals are you talking about?? Taliban, LET, JEM, HEM??

Taliban and ISIS to be specific..i know they can recruit direcly but at least now there plan seems to distroy there own people first and then attack us..

sujoyp said:
Taliban and ISIS to be specific..i know they can recruit direcly but at least now there plan seems to distroy there own people first and then attack us..

Well Pakistan doesnt actually act as a buffer but it itself had created Taliban to bring instability in India and Afghan (read about Pak's policy of 'bleed by a thousand cuts' for India) and was helped by USA in this process ( Taliban's Afghan unit only and not the Inidan one) but in this attempt they have created an evil so unfettered that it is eating up it's creator itself..
As for Daesh (ISIS) there is shitload of geopolitics of the developed nation involved in it and now they have to suffer from what they help foster!!

(Extra info - 'Talib' in Islam means "student" or "someone in search of knowledge" and had actually started as a student movement in Afghan which later took an ugly turn and was provided arms and ammunition by USA and a safe haven by Pak for the terrorists..)

Folks,I think we are deviating away from the original topic.

No matter what you guys says, Netaji was very important I wish he had succeeded in his mission, non violence does not always work

Sent from my Lenovo A6000 using Tapatalk

Skyh3ck said:
No matter what you guys says, Netaji was very important I wish he had succeeded in his mission, non violence does not always work

Sent from my Lenovo A6000 using Tapatalk

We were saying the same thing.. Not exactly violence but a little might added to Gandhi's 'ahinsa' would have really added to the process of our independence..

ok. like history is not so sequential. if one event follows another, it is not always because of that event. like one common understanding is that atomic bombs forced the Japanese surrender in WWII... but many Japanese cities had sustained such heavy destruction in the war till then, and a whole bunch of other events may have lead to it The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did | Foreign Polic

so similarly, it is very simplistic interpretation but conveys the basic idea. What if India won it's Independence when Bose met with future prime minister Attlee and the labour party at the start of his career. What if it didn't matter what Gandhi or Bose did in the intervening time.

I am so blown away because this thread :reading:

NikiNfOuR said:
I am so blown away because this thread

The discussion had to be restricted to only Bose, i would have loved to discuss about Indian Modern History (20th Century)..

start one

ShankJ said:
The discussion had to be restricted to only Bose, i would have loved to discuss about Indian Modern History (20th Century)..

if u its positive and contributing, you can always ask mods to change the title and find a suitable place for the thread..... :hug_NF:

done here > *forum.digit.in/chit-chat/196417-discuss-indian-modern-history-20th-century.html#post2278883

I'm not so sure that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The independence of India had as much to do with what the common Britisher in the UK thought about it. At the end of World War II, with the trigger happy Americans looking to bomb anyone with their new atomic toy, are you seriously suggesting that allying with Hitler was the smartest choice?

You're forgetting that just like the Japanese, Indian's aren't white, and thus there was no guilt for white men to kill them back then. It was Gandhi that really caught the average Britisher's imagination. A well spoken and polite person dressed like a naked fakir was something new.

They are the ones who would vote to elect new governments in Britain. They are the ones who needed to see Indians as people (I would say equals, but they probably still don't do that). Just as it's really easy for you to hate Kasab, or any "terrorist" that killed some of your own, it would be really easy for the average brit to hate a person who was a killer of other brits.

One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. Our violent heroes were painted as terrorists in the "civilised west".

Of course Bose was important. He made the Brits want to deal with Gandhi. Without him (and thousands others like him) there would be no need to indulge the naked fakir in dialogue, to show to the world that they were not unreasonable. If not for the violent freedom fighters, the UK would never be exposed to Gandhi. Or maybe Gandhi himself would have been bumped off much earlier. Every person who took part made some effect on the freedom struggle.

However, those of you who still resent the fact that we didn't get our freedom at gunpoint, I guess you're the type who would rather fight when outnumbered by 10 bullies, and get beaten up, but hold on to some weird sense of "pride". Others just prefer to win, even if it's a few years later, with much plotting and planning.

I think Gandhi didn't choose like a "man" he chose like a "father", and swallowed personal pride for the sake of making sure that independence is what we got. In no way was he perfect, in fact he made a lot of mistakes, but his decision to support the Allies in the WWII did turn out to be the right decision.

As a free independant nation and its citizen, the outlook to events, i'm sure is quite different than what would had been of a citizen of a oppressed ,humilated person of an imperial colony almost begging for freedom and rotting in poverty, left to fate with rest of the world accepting Imperalism as a way of life.

Perhaps Subhash Chandra Bose had run out of all the options and may be he didn't quite believe in Ghandhiji's ways of acheiving freedom.Or that he actually believe but thought non-cooperation was pretty time consuming and may be he was looking to the actual freedom in his life time if nothing but so as to acclerate the way towards it.

Right now having seen the history its easy to see how wrong in a few ways Mr bose was. But to a person then in total despondency, helplessness, who saw himself as a sole hope of winning freedom for India, it seems not much were choices open to him.

Gandhijis first priority were humanity and its dignity so he always looked at the larger picture. He was almost a sait.
Mr Bose's outlook to life seemed to be centered around as common human and Indians welfare. How much of a mistake is that, and who would i pick up if i were to choose one, right now it seems ,i just havent the won right to comment from the comforts of an Air Conditioned Luxrious room with a Free Indias Passport at my hand.

Oh no doubt. Bose's ways of dealing with the British were certainly effective in their own way. Like I said, they surely must have lived in a little bit of fear, which was good, you don't want colonizers to get comfortable. He considered it war, and so it was. It's not like he went to Britain and bombed them, on the contrary he's said to have vacationed there and met many people who he even sought advice from. He's said to have hated the British, but respected them for their efficiency and strengths.

I'm just adding to the pool of hypothetical thinking that asked what if he'd "Won" his war. I dare say it's in the realm of possibility that we might have seen a few atomic bombs dropped on us because of being seen as Japanese allies (had Bose's INA beaten the British). It's actually funny to say "British" there because majority of the "British" Army in India was made up of Indians... So basically Indians killed other Indians based on what uniform they wore... Then it was uniforms, now it's religions... some things never change. *sigh*

Raaabo said:
It's actually funny to say "British" there because majority of the "British" Army in India was made up of Indians... So basically Indians killed other Indians based on what uniform they wore... Then it was uniforms, now it's religions... some things never change. *sigh*

that's the weird part.

Hmmm.... somehow I get the feeling that Bose was only played to give trouble to British in India, by Germany and Japan, to achieve their own ends. So alternate history and consequences, would be them getting more involved, giving more support, than anything Bose could have done different.

the British-Indian and Bose's Army troops must have had some interesting encounters, but in the end Japan failed to exploit anti British sentiment in the British Indian Army

The first encounter between British-Indian and INA troops, a surprise engagement, took place a few miles north of Buthidaung in Arakan. INA units were successful through trickery and civilian disguise in over-powering British-Indian sentries and enabling the Japanese to capture a divisional headquarters. In the next encounter, however, an INA Sikh, who had been encouraged to leave cover shouting slogans and invitations to desert, was riddled with British-Indian bullets.

Optimism aroused among the puppet Indians by initial military successes quickly disappeared. The ineffectiveness of the INA was clearly demonstrated at the time of the farthest Japanese advance into India in the spring of 1944. Japanese expectations had obviously been high and the British themselves had been uncertain how much confusion Bose’s Indians could cause. But actual encounters proved that British-Indian troops would fight the enemy whether he was Indian or Japanese.

The virtual disintegration of Subhas Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army (INA) in the general Japanese retreat from Burma marked the failure in Japan’s attempt to exploit Indian nationalism in her war against the Allies in Southeast Asia. In the early months of 1945, after Germany's surrender in April 1945, large-scale surrenders revealed a radical decline in morale, rapidly reduced INA ranks. Remaining troops presumably retreated with the Japanese into the Shan mountains towards Thailand. Bose, the INA Commander in Chief, reportedly fled to Bangkok, from where he was allegedly reorienting his propaganda to longer range objectives.

Indian National Army (INA - Azad Hind Fauj)

Gandhi was perhaps a little more sympathetic towards the British than Bose. Im thinking how most of India was when it came to British. Did most of them think more like Gandhi, or like Bose? Im thinking Gandhi.

I'm not trying to belittle Gandhi but the truth is that B.G.Tilak had introduced the same revolutionary ideas (Civil Disobedience, Non-Cooperation & Congress Working Committees) as early as in the late 1890's but was rebuked for the same.. Gandhi might have had a little bit of luck on his hand that he was present at the perfect turn of events in the independence struggle..

Every famous person through history has rarely ever had a totally original idea. They have had success where no others have before, sometimes because of some special personal trait, or just being at the right place at the right time. That's just how it works.

Anorion said:
Hmmm.... somehow I get the feeling that Bose was only played to give trouble to British in India, by Germany and Japan, to achieve their own ends. So alternate history and consequences, would be them getting more involved, giving more support, than anything Bose could have done different.

the British-Indian and Bose's Army troops must have had some interesting encounters, but in the end Japan failed to exploit anti British sentiment in the British Indian Army

Indian National Army (INA - Azad Hind Fauj)

Gandhi was perhaps a little more sympathetic towards the British than Bose. Im thinking how most of India was when it came to British. Did most of them think more like Gandhi, or like Bose? Im thinking Gandhi.

I wouldnt bet my money on that because post every big movement that happened, the common people or the masses were let down by Gandhi in some way or the other.. Eg: When after the Chauri Chaura incident, Gandhi called off the Non Cooperation Movement the whole nation was in shock and disbelief (the non-coopeeration was hurting the interest of the capitalist class is said to be one of the major reason for Gandhi coming onto this decision) ; post the Civil Disobedience Movement when Irwin had no other option but to give in to Gandhi's demand, Gandhi did not put in the demand to pardon Bhagat Singh, RajGuru and Shukhdev's death sentence which left the whole nation weeping on 21st March 1931 (day of the hanging)..

Ok, then what exactly was stopping most people from adopting more hardline tactics, kicking the British when they were down. Gandhi could have stopped one Bose using his political muscle, but what about all the other people living in India. Why did Bose have to struggle so much to get anything done.

So say there was a soldier family, grandfather of a sepoy was in the 1857 revolt. He joins the British Indian Army, because it is traditional in his family. He was deployed to Malaya. The Japanese won there. He became a POW. He joins the INA. Bose leads him to Arakan. He dresses up in civilian clothes, and infiltrates the British Indian army. Im imagining a betrayal, a look of utter shock and horror, a satisfied and treacherous smirk. He helps the Japanese take over his countrymen, and against what used to be his army. Then a bullet from his countryman, and his ex-army kills him.

This is so messed up on so many levels. What kind of brainwashing did he go through, or was he also just played.

That's inaccurate. Gandhi did ask for the commutation of their death sentences, and it was denied. The British were never going to let those 3 get away with what they considered to be terrorism. It's not like the 3 of them didn't know this. They did what they did knowing fully well that they would be hanged.

Plus, history is usually divided into opposing views based on different beliefs. For example, for every account you will find that demonizes Gandhi, you will find another that criticises his opponents.

None of us can really know what the whole truth is. It's probably unwise to throw mud on people who actually fought in the independence struggle (non violently or violently), based on current opinions that are biased, and being used for political ends today.

Asia has waaay tooo muuuch infighting

alt history would basically be a world where that would not have happened
pan-asia
I love that when you say it out aloud, it is a slightly weird panacea

What i wanted to put light on was that Gandhi sometimes choose means which were not understood by anyone including his close ones such as Nehru.. Like Gandhi's statement during the Tripuri session that Bose's win as Congress president was not Pattabhi Sitaramayya's defeat (Bose's rival in the election) but his (Gandhi's) defeat is seen as unfair as this statement made a large part of Bose supporters to change sides as no-one back then could imagine going against Bapu's wish..
Bose was a man who left his ICS post because he thought it amounted to being disloyal to the nation and then set out on the mission to free the nation from the British despotic rule but somewhere in the way his ideology and means to achieving it rubbed up even his fellow revolutionary the wrong way.. And as he found himself being ostracized, his actions grew even more severe..
Having said that i would like to add that Bose can never be called a 'terrorist' as it demeans revolutionaries like him, Chandrashekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh etc who decided to chose a more 'extremist' approach as compared to Gandhi's struggle-truce-struggle approach..

- - - Updated - - -

Raaabo said:
That's inaccurate. Gandhi did ask for the commutation of their death sentences, and it was denied. The British were never going to let those 3 get away with what they considered to be terrorism. It's not like the 3 of them didn't know this. They did what they did knowing fully well that they would be hanged.

Plus, history is usually divided into opposing views based on different beliefs. For example, for every account you will find that demonizes Gandhi, you will find another that criticises his opponents.

None of us can really know what the whole truth is. It's probably unwise to throw mud on people who actually fought in the independence struggle (non violently or violently), based on current opinions that are biased, and being used for political ends today.

Congress Gandhi-Irwin pact demands-
1. Immediate release of all the political prisoners not convicted of violence
2. Remission of all fines
3. Returning all the confiscated property
4. Right to make salt
5. Inquiring into excesses made by the police during the movement (rejected)

Source - India's Struggle for Independence - Bipin Chandra (I might have missed some of the lesser important demands but the pardoning or even commutation of the death sentence was not mentioned in the Congress demands.)

(Off-topic - Can someone p.m me the link to the page where it explains which moderator is what i.e green, orange etc etc..)

hey found this

When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’."

The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum

“As I listened to Mr. Gandhi putting the case for commutation before me, I reflected first on what significance it surely was that the apostle of non-violence should so earnestly be pleading the cause of the devotees of a creed so fundamentally opposed to his own, but I should regard it as wholly wrong to allow my judgment to be influenced by purely political considerations. I could not imagine a case in which under the law, penalty had been more directly deserved.” – Lord Irwin

The deal between the British and the Congress was established after much discussion. The initial demand was that ALL political prisoners be freed. This was whittled down to political prisoners not charged with violence. The British refused to budge on this point.

You also have to remember that at the time millions of Indians were suffering and farmers were dying, starving and their will about to break. The congress was almost all in jail, and Gandhi was desperate to get out of that situation where he was not the one suffering but India certainly was. Some would say his hands were tied.

Not to forget that Bhagat Singh also knew that he would be a much better influence to his movement dead than alive. He refused to "apologise" (obviously), and was actually searching for a martyrs death.

Plus, don't misread or misunderstand. I said the British considered Bose to be a terrorist. To Indians he was a hero.

The problem, however, with violence, is that you can be painted as a terrorist by those whom you attack. It was easy to paint Bose or Bhagat Singh (for the British people) as that.

Personally, as someone who was (still is perhaps?) hot-headed, and who has got into many fights because of a short fuse, I can easily relate to Bose or Bhagat Singh. I cannot imagine being persecuted, shoved around, jailed and ridiculed, and also keeping my "civility", or staying cool. That's an alien concept for me, and thus, perhaps why I respect the non-violent movement a little more - it seems a harder thing to do.

Remember this scene from Gandhi (the movie), where people keep walking to the gates of a salt factory and keep getting hit with lathis, while the women tend to the wounded, only for them to get back up and quietly be beaten again?

That visualisation -- of what I had only read before as boring history lessons -- made me realise that it took much more courage to do that than I could ever dream of having.

It certainly made me appreciate the contributions of the non-violent movement (which, as an uneducated teenager, I thought was non-violent because they were too scared to fight).

"Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth."

Raaabo said:
“As I listened to Mr. Gandhi putting the case for commutation before me, I reflected first on what significance it surely was that the apostle of non-violence should so earnestly be pleading the cause of the devotees of a creed so fundamentally opposed to his own, but I should regard it as wholly wrong to allow my judgment to be influenced by purely political considerations. I could not imagine a case in which under the law, penalty had been more directly deserved.” – Lord Irwin

The deal between the British and the Congress was established after much discussion. The initial demand was that ALL political prisoners be freed. This was whittled down to political prisoners not charged with violence. The British refused to budge on this point.

You also have to remember that at the time millions of Indians were suffering and farmers were dying, starving and their will about to break. The congress was almost all in jail, and Gandhi was desperate to get out of that situation where he was not the one suffering but India certainly was. Some would say his hands were tied.

Not to forget that Bhagat Singh also knew that he would be a much better influence to his movement dead than alive. He refused to "apologise" (obviously), and was actually searching for a martyrs death.

Plus, don't misread or misunderstand. I said the British considered Bose to be a terrorist. To Indians he was a hero.

The problem, however, with violence, is that you can be painted as a terrorist by those whom you attack. It was easy to paint Bose or Bhagat Singh (for the British people) as that.

Personally, as someone who was (still is perhaps?) hot-headed, and who has got into many fights because of a short fuse, I can easily relate to Bose or Bhagat Singh. I cannot imagine being persecuted, shoved around, jailed and ridiculed, and also keeping my "civility", or staying cool. That's an alien concept for me, and thus, perhaps why I respect the non-violent movement a little more - it seems a harder thing to do.

Remember this scene from Gandhi (the movie), where people keep walking to the gates of a salt factory and keep getting hit with lathis, while the women tend to the wounded, only for them to get back up and quietly be beaten again?

That visualisation -- of what I had only read before as boring history lessons -- made me realise that it took much more courage to do that than I could ever dream of having.

It certainly made me appreciate the contributions of the non-violent movement (which, as an uneducated teenager, I thought was non-violent because they were too scared to fight).

I'l have to watch the movie but i guess that scene was of the Dharasana Salt factory that was being raided by Sarojinin Naidu and Gandhi's son plus some 2000 more agitators..

- - - Updated - - -

What i'm pointing out in my discussion here is that had Bose, Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Rash Behari Bose and many others like them not seen as outsiders even among the ranks of Indian revolutionaries who were so pro-Gandhian ideology of ahimsa, the Indian independence might have been won before 1947.. What the Gandhians (not Gandhi) failed to fathom was that people like Bose were also fighting for the same Swaraj that they were demanding, just the means were different.. Its sad to see that while some freedom fighters have 'jayantis' and 'days' dedicated to them, while some are not even remembered while others get termed as 'war criminal'..

I don't know about the earlier than 1947 independence. That seems like a leap of faith based on bravado and not facts. I certainly think a violent protest would play into the hands of the British government at the time, and justify the use of more force without seeming inhuman to their own people.

Who is called a terrorist in free India?

Nathuram Godse?

I don't know who you're referring to.

Raaabo said:
I don't know about the earlier than 1947 independence. That seems like a leap of faith based on bravado and not facts. I certainly think a violent protest would play into the hands of the British government at the time, and justify the use of more force without seeming inhuman to their own people.

Who is called a terrorist in free India?

Nathuram Godse?

I don't know who you're referring to.

Edited..

No idea about Nathuram Godse, will have to go through his book of reasons for assassinating Gandhi..

And British could not use any more of violence as half of its British official in India had already deserted their posts and gone back (eg: for 65 ICS posts in Bengal, there were only 19 ICS left), the Indian sepoys were already showing there discontent and there was a possible chance of mutiny in the future (i dont remember the British governor who had made this statement), their economy had taken a hit back home and moreover USA had emerged as the new center of power which was pressurizing the British to let the colonies decide their own future.. Under all these circumstances it seems highly unlikely that British would have tried to go on an all out offensive..

yeah about that
there is a narrative, often said as a joke, "the British tried to civilise India for 200 years, then just gave up". Official version is like, yeah they sensed that their navy and army would not hold together and it would revolt soon. It seems fair to me to agree that they would have seen it coming, when push came to shove, especially because it had been happening all along since 1857. So Gandhi, Bose, whoever used whatever tactics for freedom and all is ok, it was the Indian troops in the British Military that finally won our independence, that too, with just their thoughts and moods.

Also, I don't know all the things that happened, what are the implications, connotations and the etymology, these are things I want to explore - but it is kind of weird that up to independence, Indians were referred to as "hindus" or rather "hindoos" in books. Like one prominent example is Jules Verne's Around the World in 80 Days.

ShankJ said:
And British could not use any more of violence as half of its British official in India had already deserted their posts and gone back (eg: for 65 ICS posts in Bengal, there were only 19 ICS left), the Indian sepoys were already showing there discontent and there was a possible chance of mutiny in the future (i dont remember the British governor who had made this statement), their economy had taken a hit back home and moreover USA had emerged as the new center of power which was pressurizing the British to let the colonies decide their own future.. Under all these circumstances it seems highly unlikely that British would have tried to go on an all out offensive..

I was talking about the violent opposition succeeding more than Gandhi's movement. Say, for instance, had Bose been successful in siding with the Japanese and Germans, and had taken over India (freed India before 1947). Don't you think it would be quite possible that the US and the British would have attacked here after dealing with Japan? The US especially were itching to use their new bombs, and the WWII setting was ideal. They bombed Japan even though they were all but finished anyway, I fear that a Nazi and Japanese aided overthrow of the British would have delayed our independence for a LOT longer.

The US was pressuring Britain to give us our freedom because we were allies in WWII, but to think they would do the same had we been Axis aided... that's just unreal.

Raaabo said:
I was talking about the violent opposition succeeding more than Gandhi's movement. Say, for instance, had Bose been successful in siding with the Japanese and Germans, and had taken over India (freed India before 1947). Don't you think it would be quite possible that the US and the British would have attacked here after dealing with Japan? The US especially were itching to use their new bombs, and the WWII setting was ideal. They bombed Japan even though they were all but finished anyway, I fear that a Nazi and Japanese aided overthrow of the British would have delayed our independence for a LOT longer.

The US was pressuring Britain to give us our freedom because we were allies in WWII, but to think they would do the same had we been Axis aided... that's just unreal.

Britain attacking India once the independence was won and the WWII was over was not a possibility and the fact that they had to take a loan of 400 million USD just to keep their domestic economy going is the proof of it..
Secondly, USA would not have dared to bomb India just on the context that it had supported Japan because the reason given for attacking Japan to the world countries was that it was to act as a deterrence to Japan to prolonging the war any more.. The fact that Inida had not been the active member of the WWII and had indirectly been fighting for the British was enough to favor India in this aspect.. So, the USA had no substantial ground to bomb India (same was the case during the Cold War as both the sides had no substantial reason to attack the other thus it just lead to an arms race..)
I'm looking at the bigger picture taking into account the economic as well as the international consequences into account..

Do you realize that you're trying to shoot down a suggestion of an alternate reality with events from this reality?

You cannot counter a hypothetical scenario where Bose would have freed India very early on in WWII (or before), while Hitler was still a big threat, and had killed all the British in India, and turned the free Indian army against the Allied powers, and also moved East to help the Japanese, with the argument:

"The fact that Inida had not been the active member of the WWII and had indirectly been fighting for the British was enough to favor India in this aspect"

The hypothetical scenario by definition says what if Bose had won earlier or that Gandhi never existed and the ouster of the British was violent, at the start of WWII itself. In such a hypothetical scenario, India would be considered an Axis power because Indian leaders would have certainly gone against the British.

At the end, however, the Italians would have surrendered early, the Germans would have lost as well, and if only India and Japan remained (we can assume India would not surrender to the Brits or US in a hurry), who knows what could have happened.

Because the US and UK both didn't want to lose more lives and waste more money, and of course the US had a dozen bombs it was dying to use (on non-white people preferably), I think it is certainly in the realm of possibility that India could have been bombed to be made to surrender and to pay for supporting the Japanese and Germans (officially, as a country).

Given the very strategic geographic location of India, I seriously doubt the US would support India's claim to freedom if we had been a German and Japanese ally, and if we had actually fought alongside the Japanese in the Pacific against US soldiers, we would be the enemy. The US would either want to colonise or support the UK's desire to continue colonisation of the "dangerous Indians", and freedom could have been just a short-lived memory.

In the hypothetical, anything's possible, of course. But I dare say this isn't an impossible scenario.

Raaabo said:
I was talking about the violent opposition succeeding more than Gandhi's movement. Say, for instance, had Bose been successful in siding with the Japanese and Germans, and had taken over India (freed India before 1947). Don't you think it would be quite possible that the US and the British would have attacked here after dealing with Japan? The US especially were itching to use their new bombs, and the WWII setting was ideal. They bombed Japan even though they were all but finished anyway, I fear that a Nazi and Japanese aided overthrow of the British would have delayed our independence for a LOT longer.

The US was pressuring Britain to give us our freedom because we were allies in WWII, but to think they would do the same had we been Axis aided... that's just unreal.

hitler was only looking for an arrangement for a little trouble in asia for the british i think. he was well surrounded by battle experienced generals and military experts himself, he would have surely known however determined ina was, with little supply and experience they would not match the british. he probably wanted the distraction for the british, so that he gets a cleaner road in europe for his own.

about freedom though, it was eventually gonna happen, 20th century was not same as 17th century, people were connected through new technologies, and ideas. when a huge connected population living thousands of miles far, it gets difficult for a small nation to keep control. well, eventually britain had to give up all of their colonies, including hongkong a few years ago.

gandhiji, netaji and leaders played their great roles at their times, and those did catalyze our independence.

about bombing, it would not have yielded similar effects as japan. some of them probably felt huge pride by crushing a formidable enemy, who challenged them fiercely for some years. (they probably did not want to bomb germany either - too much side effects)

icebags said:
hitler was only looking for an arrangement for a little trouble in asia for the british i think. he was well surrounded by battle experienced generals and military experts himself, he would have surely known however determined ina was, with little supply and experience they would not match the british. he probably wanted the distraction for the british, so that he gets a cleaner road in europe for his own.

The hypothetical scenario doesn't involve a weak INA, but a whole lot of support from within India, a revolt against the British. The whole point of it being hypothetical is to move away from what actually happened, not stick close to the script. It's a thought experiment that involves you assuming that Bose and other fighters had rallied the support of India the way Gandhi did – ie. millions would be willing to die for him... Assume instead of Gandhi, the whole of India was willing to follow Bose instead. Then what do you think would have happened?

icebags said:
about freedom though, it was eventually gonna happen, 20th century was not same as 17th century, people were connected through new technologies, and ideas. when a huge connected population living thousands of miles far, it gets difficult for a small nation to keep control. well, eventually britain had to give up all of their colonies, including hongkong a few years ago.

Ah of course, no one is suggesting we'd still be colonised. Just saying the cost of freedom could have been much greater than even the lives lost in partition.

icebags said:
gandhiji, netaji and leaders played their great roles at their times, and those did catalyze our independence.

about bombing, it would not have yielded similar effects as japan. some of them probably felt huge pride by crushing a formidable enemy, who challenged them fiercely for some years. (they probably did not want to bomb germany either - too much side effects)

Yep, no arguments there obviously, everyone played a part, and that's why it turned out the way it was. I'm just saying take a leap and imagine if things had been drastically different. We don't only have to stick to my leap of imagination, come up with your own. I just like playing out the "What if" game with history. Like what if the Confederate States had won the war in the US? What if Einstein had not been a Jew, and stayed in Germany and was put to use developing the bomb for the Germans, which in turn would mean Hitler got the bomb first... then what?

^ i get what you are saying, but unity in indian subcontinent is a far cry. even though we live in a same country and we are unified, we still have not achieved unity.

well, leaving that aside, considering bose had received whole hearted support from all over india, i think we could still get freedom, a little before or after. but the map would be very much different. whole hearted support means, no pakistan, no bangladesh etc, otherwise it still remains diversified.

ina would still remained an army of rookies, without the backing of heavy industries and piles of money. not to mention educated military strategists. what maximum they could do, as much as i can imagine, was, raise a civil war.

for the bombing part, india was not direct threat to usa, so i guess no bombing for that reason. for germany though, no gurantees, if they could unlock the potentials of einstein.

ig_NF:

hmmm... hinted at it before, but will type it out clearly now
When British was occupying India, their whole administrative approach, and policies, their language used in books about India, were all with the understanding that India is a nation of Hindus
Muslims were treated horribly during this time by Hindus

also, think the bombs were an early form of "shock and awe".
if we are being as callous with human lives as an authoritarian dictator state, yeah sure, Indian population gives a unified INA a lot of capacity for tanking, perhaps more than anyone else engaged in WWII including Russia. That means we could take a few nuclear bombs, lose more lives, but still "win".

If that were the case though, where country gives whole hearted support for Bose, then Bose would not have needed to tag team with Japan, Germany or Italy at all.

^ true with the tanking part, a big diverse country supposed to have higher tanking capability than a smaller size country.

Anorion said:
hmmm... hinted at it before, but will type it out clearly now
When British was occupying India, their whole administrative approach, and policies, their language used in books about India, were all with the understanding that India is a nation of Hindus
Muslims were treated horribly during this time by Hindus

also, think the bombs were an early form of "shock and awe".
if we are being as callous with human lives as an authoritarian dictator state, yeah sure, Indian population gives a unified INA a lot of capacity for tanking, perhaps more than anyone else engaged in WWII including Russia. That means we could take a few nuclear bombs, lose more lives, but still "win".

If that were the case though, where country gives whole hearted support for Bose, then Bose would not have needed to tag team with Japan, Germany or Italy at all.

Don't agree.

Even with a quarter of a million youth willing, they'd still need guns and strategic partnerships to ensure the Brits and Yanks didn't come back to bomb the crap out of us and retake what was a very strategically placed country. And come back they would.

You are also totally underestimating pride. There's a huge difference between people agitating with dharnas and people being violent.

Having their officers killed (as Bose surely would have done) would only make them dig in their heels. They knew the support Bhagat Singh had and still they hung him (despite having the opportunity to save face and commute his sentence - claiming that they did it for Gandhi). They chose to risk riots to hang popular men who killed one British officer, can you imagine the backlash if thousands were slaughtered?

In order to prevent such a backlash, surely the enemy of my enemy policy would see India ally with Germany and Japan, which would have totally changed the China-Burma aspect (which in reality was the China-Burma-India campaign) of the war because China would then be vulnerable from two sides, which would force the Americans to also engage in war with India - thus the possibility of the use of the bomb, or at least the invasion and killing off of top leaders.

With the top leaders gone (who in this hypothetical scenario were all the violent freedom fighters), it's likely that India would again break up and divide itself by languages and states, and we'd regress 500 years. A lot of opportunists would jump at this, including the British and the Portuguese (again).

I certainly don't think Bose winning the freedom of India violently would have resulted in "no partition" as suggested earlier, because it would probably result in the fracturing of India across language borders at the least; perhaps religion too, because of how persecuted the Muslims felt. I think Pakistan was an eventuality, before or after independence doesn't matter.

Of course there are contrarian views, and some hilarious ones by obvious Netaji supporters can be found here:
How India would have evolved if Subhash Chandra Bose would have been the first Prime Minister of India instead of Pundit Nehru? - Quor

The funniest suggestion there was: INR being the world standard as opposed to the US dollar. Looks like Bose still has the capability to rally people into a frenzy!

Raaabo said:
Don't agree.

Even with a quarter of a million youth willing, they'd still need guns and strategic partnerships to ensure the Brits and Yanks didn't come back to bomb the crap out of us and retake what was a very strategically placed country. And come back they would.

You are also totally underestimating pride. There's a huge difference between people agitating with dharnas and people being violent.

Having their officers killed (as Bose surely would have done) would only make them dig in their heels. They knew the support Bhagat Singh had and still they hung him (despite having the opportunity to save face and commute his sentence - claiming that they did it for Gandhi). They chose to risk riots to hang popular men who killed one British officer, can you imagine the backlash if thousands were slaughtered?

In order to prevent such a backlash, surely the enemy of my enemy policy would see India ally with Germany and Japan, which would have totally changed the China-Burma aspect (which in reality was the China-Burma-India campaign) of the war because China would then be vulnerable from two sides, which would force the Americans to also engage in war with India - thus the possibility of the use of the bomb, or at least the invasion and killing off of top leaders.

With the top leaders gone (who in this hypothetical scenario were all the violent freedom fighters), it's likely that India would again break up and divide itself by languages and states, and we'd regress 500 years. A lot of opportunists would jump at this, including the British and the Portuguese (again).

I certainly don't think Bose winning the freedom of India violently would have resulted in "no partition" as suggested earlier, because it would probably result in the fracturing of India across language borders at the least; perhaps religion too, because of how persecuted the Muslims felt. I think Pakistan was an eventuality, before or after independence doesn't matter.

Of course there are contrarian views, and some hilarious ones by obvious Netaji supporters can be found here:
How India would have evolved if Subhash Chandra Bose would have been the first Prime Minister of India instead of Pundit Nehru? - Quor

The funniest suggestion there was: INR being the world standard as opposed to the US dollar. Looks like Bose still has the capability to rally people into a frenzy!

You are making an assumption of 'either or or', either Gandhi or Bose but the fact that Bose had announced that the INA would not attack in India untill Gandhi did not ask them to is enough to see that post independence, there would not just be 'Bose + 500 more violent revolutionary' but Bose + Gandhi + Nehru + etc etc.. Gandhi and Nehru would have still been at the helm but now even Bose would have been there..
And as for Bhagat Singh being hanged and the same being repeated in mid 40s, Bhagat scenario was way back in 1931 and after that British had already faced the CVM and QIM where the Indians had clearly shown their resilience to getting suppressed any more.. Added to this fact was the fact that Britishers no longer had the physical + economic strength to carry on another full fledged war with any country..
I agree that the partition was inevitable because the seeds of communalism had been sown in 1887 ( Syed Ahmad Khan) and was now entrenched in the Indian society.
USA bombing India can not be a cogent hypothesis taking all the factors into consideration.. It was highly unlikely that USA would go around bombing every country which was with Germany ( India wasnt even 'with' Germany per se ).. It was easier to bomb a small nation like Japan back then but bombing India or Germany would have had more cons than pros..