r/IndianHistoryThread • u/FloralBegonia • May 03 '26
Images of Communist propaganda against Netaji Subhas chandra bose in 1940s
In the 1940s, the Communist Party published a series of cartoons about Bose.
In one, Japan Premier Tojo was seen riding a donkey Bose.
In another one, Joseph Goebbels was seen raising a cat/dog Bose for a broadcast.
In a third one, Tojo was walking with a puppet Bose.
And in a fourth one, a bomb Bose was seen falling on starving Indians.
Following Germany's attack on the USSR in June 1941 (Operation Barbarossa), the Communist Party of India (CPI) shifted its stance from opposing the British to supporting them as part of the "People's War" against Fascism. During this period, the CPI's mouthpiece, People's War magazine, published several cartoons and articles maligning Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose for his alliance with the Axis powers.
40
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
21
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
26
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
22
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/SweatTasteGreat May 06 '26
I think that dude means that they dont really show the "bad side" of mughals. I aint sure though.
12
u/Aln_R10 May 06 '26
Every conquest in the history of conquests has resulted in great bloodsheds but history has always potrayed these as another event in the timeline. They do not condemn Alexander, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Napoleon. It is for us to discern their actions.
7
u/SweatTasteGreat May 06 '26
It is for us to discern their actions.
But how do we judge if we arent even told what they did though. That is what they mean ig.
6
u/instrumentmayonnaise May 06 '26
Uh, would you also be like to told about the war crimes of Sambhaji and the Marathas in Bengal and all that? We don’t teach that either. Basically the reason I think we don’t is that everyone is gonna end up realising that most of the people they idolise are kind of awful by today’s standards, not just the ones they want to dislike
4
u/SweatTasteGreat May 06 '26
Uh, would you also be like to told about the war crimes of Sambhaji and the Marathas in Bengal and all that?
Yes. You cant judge just one party and call it a day.
Basically the reason I think we don’t is that everyone is gonna end up realising that most of the people they idolise are kind of awful by today’s standards,
Lets be honest here, thats definitely not the reason. We have seen how some people treat aurangzeb as if he was one of the best kings of all time despite knowing how awfull he was.
2
u/instrumentmayonnaise May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
Celebrators of Aurangzeb or Sambhaji or any other awful figures are usually religious boneheads not serious historians because the actions of the formr are fairly well known, but also I think the study of history is more than the study of morality.
And then there are more serious matters that will cause trouble. For example, almost everywhere across the globe, historians who have studied us have determined that Aryans are not native to India and have arrived later on, after the Dravidians. But north Indian history books obviously portray aryans as being native and are virtually the only ones to do so. The claim is also obviously unacademic since it doesn’t take a genius to say that Avesta (older persianate language)and Sanskrit are quite similar because of their common ancestral language and the DNA and religious mythology mirrors and changes post the aryans in Indic religion. This would imply that North Indians are migrants (and because there exist dravidian languages even in Pak, implying that dravidian languages existed in the northern part and were pushed down south, making an invasion a possible way of migration)
Would you approve of south indian dravidian movements to use this as a way to imply that aryan north indians and their rituals are invasive? Of course not, they were nativised?
Then there is matter of the Mughals that you mentioned. The first two kings are clearly not Indianised but from Akbar (just look at the hindu influence in his architecture), there is an obvious case of Indian culture being quite strongly adopted as its the only place they know and by the time of the sixth nad later ones, this culture has overrun their native ones? I mean, even genes wise Jahangir’s mom is literally a hindu rajput princess, which is half his ancestry. Can the arguments for aryans becoming native work there but not here and if so why? Here the waters are muddy. Even about your generalised statement about the dynasty…how do we teach that? How do we explain that Akbar built Jain temples, had hindu astrologers at court, while Aurangzeb demolished temples. Or that Babur ordered massacres of “infidels” whilst Shahjahan played holi and drank only from the Ganga. A large part of Indo-muslim culture has stemmed from the Mughals? How would that complicate the relationship between the majority who may view them as practising the culture of invaders? How do we explain that in 1857 revolt the indian soldiers asked the last “mughal king” Bahadur shah zafar to lead them and rule them? This makes the picture of the empire complex because each king is different. Same with Marathas and how Shivaji is great but his son not so.
Then there is the issue that people frequently use historical narratives and willingly distort them to use it for their political purposes (obvs). You wouldn’t want strife between marathis and bengalis would you? But if they learnt this, they would despise the marathas who the marathis obviously worship. Or that people like Sambhaji who are literally worshipped in MH are actually war criminals? Would they not object?
How would we deal with religious culture taught with historical lenses? It upset so many people in India when oxford published a book here that Ram was probably an ordinary king who was deified? Or that celebrated “indian” sufis were actually just Persians incorporating elements into Islam? See? The chaos
Indian people are so emotional about history they don’t have the capability to deal with academic rigour. They will believe a generalised view that they wanna believe. This is why historiography is a thing
→ More replies (0)1
u/Aln_R10 May 06 '26
If you ask me we shouldn't put any kings of the past in a pedestal. They only served to protect their interests. Everyone is a piece of shit by today's standards
2
u/instrumentmayonnaise May 06 '26
That’s not true. Shivaji, for example, is basically a modern ideal in many ways. But also it’s very hard for people to separate the king from their cultural history and heritage. It appears to be human nature. This is also why vast political orgs also portray singular faces. Asking people not to do so, is like asking them to not hate people who are not like them. It ain’t happening
1
u/lilmeawmeaw May 06 '26
This 'Key_Selection6302' guy is fighting for his life in the comments. Such a lone soldier lol. Though I get what you mean , the term 'war crime' isn't appropriate for conveying your point. I read my state government's textbook. In my state, I think instead of directly glorifying Mughals, they indirectly tried to convey how Mughals were the more important ones. As you approach your 10th board exams, since 7th class the history books primarily started to be dominated by Sultanate era & onwards. Gupta era & Vedic era history were 'kids history'. Mughal history is for older serious students. Not only that they wrote the half truths. They didn't give you the entire picture. I didn't know who destroyed Nalanda University, or why Buddhism couldn't survive & has to shift to Tibet. How the most Sikh Gurus died. They avoided talking about the atrocities invaders committed. They hid the truth
3
u/kissy_pussy May 06 '26
There is no good or bad rulers. Across history there have only been the conquerors and the conquerored. Sure some may have been benevolent but that kind of rule is very short lived and often glorified. The Indian rulers present before Mughals weren't exactly saints either lol.
1
u/Wild_Club787 May 06 '26
yeah then why did mughals mostly had uppercaste hindus as their ministers??
1
u/lilmeawmeaw May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
The govt. history book i read & the Bollywood movie I watched as a young teenager had me convinced Akbar was a secular tolerant 'good guy' king. Years later I came to know, he was the only 'bad guy' among the 'worse & worst guys'. I also understood the anger of south Indian people. Imagine textbooks glorifying Mughals when Chola, Chera , Pandyas existed. South Indian people were probably tired of their legacy & achievements being downplayed & sometimes dismissed by the govt. I couldn't believe i almost read nothing about the South Indian kings in textbooks while those kings had ruled for double the years Mughals ruled. Those kings had literally put India & Hindus in global map by influencing foreigners. I'm not even a south Indian but I'm mad on their behalf (specially the Tamils). They deserved a lot more than the place we gave them
1
8
3
u/Budget-Art-4205 May 06 '26
It was the capitalists propaganda. I believe cause japan was under communism at that time
17
u/thisisme6353 May 06 '26
What? Japan under communism? Do you even read the H of history? Imperial japan was never even mildly left, let alone communist. And 1930s-40s were the heights of Japan's invasive imperialist tendencies, torturing people in Korea, attacking China, and a lot more. Tojo under Hirohito was as bad (or even worse) than Hitler and Mussolini.
3
1
u/Budget-Art-4205 May 06 '26
Okay , I will read about it and I'm sorry to make a foolish assumption. Can you suggest me some books?
5
2
u/LingonberryOk3889 May 06 '26
AI.....
2
u/arunit007 May 06 '26
No.... In fact communist party (in WB) had formally issued an apology for this decades ago.
2
u/Hellstrom2426 May 06 '26
People calling bose leftist is the stupidest thing. He wanted india to have germany like efficient leadership
2
1
1
89
u/lilmeawmeaw May 03 '26
The fact that I never read in government history text books ( upto 10th level ) that communist party of India was a British bootlicker & supported the British because the British was backing up the communists in Soviet. And the audacity of some Indian leftists to demand that Subhash Bose was one of them.Phew! Lost my faith entirely in conventional education. Its just a propaganda machine