Hitler a cool hero to many Indians

The Australian ^ | December 28, 2006 | A correspondent in Kharghar, India

[Mrs. Don-o]

An Adolf Hitler-themed restaurant opened in a suburb of cosmopolitan Mumbai...(and) it is not the only example of how favourably some Indians view Hitler and his legacy.

[snip] Some experts say it is because of a belief Indians were the original Aryan race. Others say it is because Hitler used the traditional Hindu good luck symbol, the swastika.... And those who support India's rigid caste system may like Hitler's eugenics and race beliefs.

But any praise for Hitler is not reflected in national policy. India has strong ties with Israel and views it as an ally in the war on terror.

[snip]

Interviews with many young Indians indicated they had little idea of what Hitler actually did. They described the Nazi dictator as "cool" or "trendy", and did not know what happened in the Holocaust.

A poll of 400 students from the country's most prestigious universities by a leading Indian newspaper in 2002 found Hitler was their third most “ideal” leader, behind Mahatma Gandhi and Atal Behari Vajpayee.

[snip] Bal Thackeray, founder of Shiv Sena, a Hindu fundamentalist party, has openly praised Hitler....and Hitler's autobiography, Mein Kampf, still flies off the shelves of many bookstores.

[familyop]

If Hitler were alive today, he would be speaking against Hindu religion and India, as his co-religionists do now. He would favor his own kind--western Europe, Russia and other places of essentially the same religion--for business and defense. He stated his religion in Mein Kampf, in many public appearances and to some of his associates. It's interesting that Hindus are taking a liking to Hitler's Church by glorifying him.

Today, one can find many propaganda attempts to cover up the objective historical knowledge of Hitler's religion--the "Nazi mysticism" propaganda, for example--irrelevant bits and pieces dragged into seemingly coherent false narratives. But Hitler's religion assumes various practices and beliefs from other, older religions involving human sacrifice to various idols from all over the world. South of our southern US border, "Carnival" with its various other names is one example.

More objective, comprehensive education in India about fascism (including that of Italy) would be a good effort, as would public exposure of Iran'sthreats against people of other religions.

[Gengis Khan]

"It seems that G Khan's logic education is lacking."

Ok lets analyse Texan's flow of logic here:

Assumption #1:
"Ghandi's" non-violence (supposedly) worked against the Brits

Assumption #2:
British because they were basically decent people. (according to Texan's view point).

Conclusion:

"Ghandi's" non-violence worked only only with decent occupiers.

(Wonder what "decent occupiers" mean. Ones who would very politely whip your ass to make you work in an indigo plantation field maybe.)


Now which of these statements if true would most weaken the above argument?

1. The British left India not because of "Ghandi's" non violence but because there were 4 million highly trained Indian soldiers post WW2, and revolt in the army (INA) and navy had already begun.

2. Post WW2 Britain was facing a massive economic crisis that considerably weakened British resolve to hold on to India.

3. The lesser know or publicized armed revolution for India's independence was attracting larger numbers of Indian youth to fight the British Government. Those even included the INA (former British Indian army soldiers) who has joined hands with the Germans and Japanese to fight the British.

4. British Government caused the world's worst man-made hunger holocaust in Bengal that dwarfs the famine in Ethiopea and the "Cultural revolutions" under Mao's China.

5. British atrocities in India such as the "purge" post First War of Independence 1848 (or Sepoy Mutiny), "punitive military action" and incidents like the Jalianwala bagh massacre all put together matches the holocaust of Jews in Europe.

6. The British people (assuming they ARE decent people) had authority over their Imperial policies in the Empire's colonies as much as the German people had authority over their Nazi government.


7. German people are as decent as the English. It was the Nazi government that was responsible for the tyranny.

8. All of the above.


(.....waiting for you answer.)

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.
"In the story --- written largely from the point of view of a Nazi general---"

That would be General Model.

I forget the title of the anthology, but that was an impressive story.

Michael Frazier

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.
"Thats BS. Many in India dont consider Hitler to be half as bad as whats the Brits were."

MeanWestTexan is describing a work of fiction, not reality. In the story Gandhi is brought before Model who listens to him politely.

Gandhi thinks the Nazis will fold before his passiveness as the British did. Instead Model orders him shot and goes about his business.

It's a good story.

Michael Frazier

[familyop]

GK's right about the real reasons for Britain's retreat from enslaving India. Ghandi's actions contributed to the organization of an enormous Indian effort to physically destroy Britain's military forces there. Britain retreated from India for reasons similar to its final retreat from the USA (in 1815).

[Clemenza]

BRAVO! I am SO SICK of the Anglophile BOOTLICKERS on this site!

I for one will NEVER FORGET how they starved our POWs in New York Harbor in the Revolutionary War.

It was that left-wing Anglophile, Woodrow Wilson, that got us involved in supporting his British friends in WWI.

[Gengis Khan]

"MeanWestTexan is describing a work of fiction, not reality. In the story Gandhi is brought before Model who listens to him politely."

I am attacking the idea not the source.

"Gandhi thinks the Nazis will fold before his passiveness as the British did. Instead Model orders him shot and goes about his business."

My point:

1. British Empire did not fold up because of Gandhi's passive resistance.

2. Gandhi's death would have resulted in a massive armed uprising. You think the British hadn't considered getting rid of Gandhi? His survival ensured that Indian rebellion would remain non-violent and peacefull ...... in other words "controllable".

3. British were very much known for extra-judicial executions. A lot of political leaders had been permanently put away, the world (except for Indians) would never know about them.

[Gengis Khan]

In India Nazism and the British Empire were considered equal evils. Its not that the Hitler fans are ignorant, on the contrary (those who are Hitler fans) know enough about the life of Hitler and the history of Nazi Germany.

These two statements from the article are very indicative of what I think is the real reason why Hitler is so popular among Hindu youth.

"This is the state where Hindu-led riots led to the deaths of more than 1000 Muslims in 2002. Several investigations blamed the state government, led by a right-wing Hindu political party, for allowing the riots.

Bal Thackeray, founder of Shiv Sena, a Hindu fundamentalist party, has openly praised Hitler and said he was willing to wipe out the troublemaking Muslims. "


There is what I think a very deep historical reason. Britian conquered India mostly with the help of Muslim kings. At the time when Hindus Kings were breaking down the Islamic dominance over India. The Muslim King allied with the British against Hindu princes. The Hindu princes were the last ones left fighting to resist the British conquest. Sepoy mutiny was also a predominantly Hindu uprising. British divide and rule policy involved using Muslims to subdue Hindus. (Which is why the Muslims feared that in the absence of the British protection, Muslims would be left at the mercy of Hindus who would then extract revenge, and so their demand for Pakistan.) In other words the Brits held India with the help of Muslims. For the first time the Hindus found an ally in Hitler who would fight the British. An unsavory ally but an ally nevertheless. The rational being "my enemy's enemy is my friend". And to free India from the strangle hold of the British and the Muslims, Hindus were even ready to ally with the devil if thats what it takes. Hitler happened to be the the first of such (supposed) ally. Later on I believe that place was taken by the Soviet Union.

[Gengis Khan]

LOL! I can understand.

[Gengis Khan]

"It was that left-wing Anglophile, Woodrow Wilson, that got us involved in supporting his British friends in WWI."

From whatever I have read he was more concerned about protecting his British investments.

[skraut]

Ping

[bd476]

This article is terribly slanted against Hindus and Hinduism.

The group Shiv Sena, mentioned in the article is a political group, not a religious group. It was founded by and is still led by one person for the past 40 years.

Shiv Sena's alleged founding purpose was to promote only the concerns of those living in India's third largest state, Maharashtra, not the concerns of all States in India, nor the concerns of all Hindus, nor the concerns of everyone else living in India.

Shiv Sena does not represent the spiritual foundation and mores of Hinduism any more than the Jimmy Jones cult in Guyana represented the spiritual foundation and mores of Christianity.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for your accurate information. I don't think the article said that "Hindus" or "a significant number of Indians" were part of this Hitler-is-cool trend, but if it hints at such a conclusion, it's certainly a seriously misleading impression.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hm. The headline does say "many Hindus," which clearly invites a very slanted view. Looks like they're inflating something quirky into something significant.

[ReignOfError]

I saw a bit of this in Thailand. Swastikas, confederate flags, Che Guevara, hammers and sickles all sold pretty well. Their iconography is not ours.

[Gengis Khan]

Shiv Sena is not in power in Maharashtra, the Congress party is.

However the article mentions the state of Gujarat, where the BJP (Hindu Nationalist) is the ruling party. Gujarat State Board has introduced Hitler in the school curriculum. Gujarat was also the state where several thousands Muslims were killed in riots and also a state that saw many Jihadi terrorist attacks.

[x]

Historically, you could find at least a tiny bit of that feeling in Ireland, South Africa, Quebec, Palestine, Iraq, and other areas the British ruled. It was an example of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

India has an enormous population -- it's more like a continent than just another European-sized nation -- and a lot of that population is illiterate or semi-literate, so you can see where that leads.

One of the key figures in this was Subhas Chandra Bose, an Indian nationalist who sought deals with Germany and Japan during the Second World War. Apparently, he still has some fans in India. With a population so large, even a miniscule percentage of the population adds up to many people.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"1. British Empire did not fold up because of Gandhi's passive resistance."

You are letting your Anglophobia get the best of you and you are missing the point of the story which is that no particular strategy work against every enemy.

As to Britain folding because of Indian armed resistance, you might consider the fact that Britain had just survived World War Two and was exhausted in every way and ready to pull back on itself. That, combined with the growth of the British anti colonial movement and the Leftists in the beginnings of the Cold War led to Independence as much as anything.

It seems that bringing about the surrender their own nation is a familiar tactic of the Left, eh?

Michael Frazier

[Popman]

"Some indians" = "Muslims"

India Religious breakdown:

Hindu 80.5%, Muslim 13.4%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.1% (2001 census)

More likely ignorance and a anti Brit sentiment

[Osage Orange]

I'm Indian..and he's no hero. Although he stole the NAZI sign from Indians....Perverted it, but stole it.

Oh...wrong Indian.