Atul’s Song A Day- A choice collection of Hindi Film & Non-Film Songs

This article is meant to be posted in atulsongaday.me. If this article appears in other sites without the knowledge and consent of the web administrator of atulsongaday.me, then it is piracy of the copyright content of atulsongaday.me and is a punishable offence under the existing laws.

I was not around when India got freedom from British Raj. When I was growing up, we were told that India won her freedom through non violent movement. Some people like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Subhash Chandra Bose etc found passing mention who were not part of non violent movement.

I was around when Bangladesh won her freedom from Pakistan in 1971. I was surprised to know what Bangladeshis are taught about their freedom. They are taught that Mukti bahini defeated Pakistani army and secured freedom for Bangladesh from Pakistan ! There is no mention of the fact that there was a full fledged war between India and Pakistan and that Pakistanis army, with 93000 Pakistani soldiers, surrendered before Indian army in Dhaka, leading to the independence of Bangladesh. There is a famous surrender photograph to prove it.

As for Pakistan, they are taught in their text books that Pakistan had defeated India in 1971 war but the scheming Indians in collusion with the entire world got Bangladesh to separate from Pakistan. There is no mention of the fact in Pakistani history textbooks that Pakistani army massacred 3 million East Pakistanis and raped 5 lakh East Pakistani women in what was a human right abuse second only to what was perperated by Nazis on jews during second world war, which ultimately led to the liberation of Bangladesh.

Who knows, we Indians too may have been been disinformed about our freedom struggle the way Bangladeshis are disinformed about their freedom from Pakistan ! Today, in the era of internet we have access to information over and above what we were taught in India in our history textbooks. And the facts that emerge from these independent sources differ from what we have been told in India.

When the second world war ended, Britain had paid a heavy price for their war efforts. Britain, which was the largest economy in the world a few decades ago, found their economy in a bad shape. So much so that they had to take loan from USA (the new superpower) to shore up their economy. Britain had looted the resources of their colonies and they could no longer afford to hold on to their colonies as holding on to them had become prohibitively expensive for them.

Here is the lowdown about British economy in the aftermath of world war 2:-

Labour rejoiced at its political triumph, the first independent parliamentary majority in the party’s history, but it faced grave problems. The war had stripped Britain of virtually all its foreign financial resources, and the country had built up “sterling credits”—debts owed to other countries that would have to be paid in foreign currencies—amounting to several billion pounds. Moreover, the economy was in disarray. Some industries, such as aircraft manufacture, were far larger than was now needed, while others, such as railways and coal mines, were desperately short of new equipment and in bad repair. With nothing to export, Britain had no way to pay for imports or even for food. To make matters worse, within a few weeks of the surrender of Japan, on September 2, 1945, U.S. President Harry S. Truman, as he was required to do by law, ended lend-lease, upon which Britain had depended for its necessities as well as its arms. John Maynard Keynes, as his last service to Great Britain, had to negotiate a $3.75 billion loan from the United States and a smaller one from Canada. In international terms, Britain was bankrupt.

Also this:

Withdrawal from the empire
——————————
Britain, not entirely by coincidence, was also beginning its withdrawal from the empire. Most insistent in its demand for self-government was India. The Indian independence movement had come of age during World War I and had gained momentum with the Massacre of Amritsar of 1919. The All-India Congress Party, headed by Mohandas K. Gandhi, evoked sympathy throughout the world with its policy of nonviolent resistance, forcing Baldwin’s government in the late 1920s to seek compromise. The eventual solution, embodied in the Government of India Act of 1935, provided responsible government for the Indian provinces, the Indianization of the civil service, and an Indian parliament, but it made clear that the Westminster Parliament would continue to legislate for the subcontinent. The act pleased no one, neither the Indians, the Labour Party, which considered it a weak compromise, nor a substantial section of the Conservative Party headed by Churchill, which thought it went too far. Agitation in India continued.

Further British compromise became inevitable when the Japanese in the spring of 1942 swept through Burma to the eastern borders of India while also organizing in Singapore a large Indian National Army and issuing appeals to Asian nationalism. During the war, Churchill reluctantly offered increasing installments of independence amounting to dominion status in return for all-out Indian support for the conflict. These offers were rejected by both the Muslim minority and the Hindu majority.

The election of a Labour government at the end of World War II coincided with the rise of sectarian strife within India. The new administration determined with unduly urgent haste that Britain would have to leave India. This decision was announced on June 3, 1947, and British administration in India ended 10 weeks later, on August 15. Burma (now Myanmar) and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) received independence by early 1948. Britain, in effect, had no choice but to withdraw from colonial territories it no longer had the military and economic power to control.

The same circumstances that dictated the withdrawal from India required, at almost the same time, the termination of the mandate in Trans-Jordan, the evacuation of all of Egypt except the Suez Canal territory, and in 1948 the withdrawal from Palestine, which coincided with the proclamation of the State of Israel. It has been argued that the orderly and dignified ending of the British Empire, beginning in the 1940s and stretching into the 1960s, was Britain’s greatest international achievement. However, like the notion of national unity during World War II, this interpretation can also be seen largely as a myth produced by politicians and the press at the time and perpetuated since. The ending of empire was calculated upon the basis of Britain’s interests rather than those of its colonies. National interest was framed in terms of the postwar situation—that is, of an economically exhausted, dependent Britain, now increasingly caught up in the international politics of the Cold War. What later became known as “decolonization” was very often shortsighted, self-interested, and not infrequently bloody, as was especially the case in Malaysia (where the politics of anticommunism played a central role) and in Kenya.

So, as can be seen from the accounts of British historians, Britain was in no position to hold on to its colonies and they left these colonies as soon as they could. It is not just India, but also other colonies that got liberated one after other in the wake of world war 2. The circumstances that led to British haste was only partially to do with Mahatma Gandhi led movement. British historians mention Indian National Army also as a reason, something which Indian historians sought to push under the carpet.

The report also mentions rise of sectarian strifes within India. So those indulging in sectarian strifes were certainly not following non violence as preached by Gandhiji, but they too were contributing to British unease. It also shows that British rules found themselved unable to prevent these sectarian violences.

It would appear to me that British rulers did not fear non violent protest as much as they feared violence. It is the violence that began frequent in the second half of 1940s that unnerved the British. British ruled India through a machinery manned by Indians.

The INA trials, the stories of Subhas Chandra Bose (“Netaji”), as well as the stories of INA’s fight during the Siege of Imphal and in Burma were seeping into the glaring public-eye at the time. These, received through the wireless sets and the media, fed discontent and ultimately inspired rebellion in the ranks of navy.

A rebellion of Royal Indian air force, followed by a full fledged mutiny of Royal Indian Navy did take place in 1946. From the initial flashpoint in Bombay on 18 february 1946, the revolt spread and found support throughout British India, from Karachi to Calcutta, and ultimately came to involve over 20,000 sailors in 78 ships and shore establishments.

The mutiny was suppressed by British troops and Royal Navy warships. Total casualties were 8 dead and 33 wounded.

The rebelling Indian Naval personnel began calling themselves the “Indian National Navy” and offered left-handed salutes to British officers. At some places, NCOs in the British Indian Army ignored and defied orders from British superiors. In Madras and Poona (now Pune), the British garrisons had to face some unrest within the ranks of the Indian Army. Widespread rioting took place from Karachi to Calcutta. Notably, the revolting ships hoisted three flags tied together – those of the Congress, Muslim League, and the Red Flag of the Communist Party of India (CPI), signifying the unity and downplaying of communal issues among the mutineers.

The revolt was called off following a meeting between the President of the Naval Central Strike Committee (NCSC), M. S. Khan, and Vallab Bhai Patel of the Congress, who had been sent to Bombay to settle the crisis. Patel issued a statement calling on the strikers to end their action, which was later echoed by a statement issued in Calcutta by Mohammed Ali Jinnah on behalf of the Muslim League. Under these considerable pressures, the strikers gave way. Arrests were then made, followed by courts martial and the dismissal of 476 sailors from the Royal Indian Navy. None of those dismissed were reinstated into either the Indian or Pakistani navies after independence.

As can be guessed, such s revolt by a wing of armed forces is a serious matter and it must have unnerved the British. And just look at the name that these mutineers chose for themselves- India National Navy. Clearly inspired from the name “Indian National Army” that Subhash Chandra Bose had given to his army. So Subhash Chandra Bose was influencing Indian armed forces in a manner that was not to the liking of British government.

The weekly intelligence summary issued on 25 March 1946 admitted that the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force units were no longer trustworthy, and, for the Army, “only day to day estimates of steadiness could be made”. The situation has thus been deemed the “Point of No Return.”

In 1967 during a seminar discussion marking the 20^th anniversary of Independence; it was revealed by the British High Commissioner of the time John Freeman (1965-1968), that the mutiny of 1946 had raised the fear of another large scale mutiny along the lines of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, from the 2.5 million Indian soldiers who had participated in the Second World War. The mutiny had accordingly been a large contributing factor to the British deciding to leave India. “The British were petrified of a repeat of the 1857 Mutiny, since this time they feared they would be slaughtered to the last man”.

There it is. The main reason why British left India was not non violent movement of independence, but fear of rebellion like in 1857, and this time fear of rebellion by armed forces, and not just some small time rulers (as in 1857). This fact was admitted by no less than a person than the British High Commissioner to India. And this state of affairs was caused by Subhash Chandra Bose. It was this kind of influence that Subhash Chandra Bose had on collective psyche of British rulers. It is a fact that has been carefully kept hidden by Indian historians. In fact the naval mutiny was not even known to most Indians. It has become known only in later decades when gathering information became easier thanks to internet.

This view that Mahatma Gandhi’s new found weapon of non violence defeated British and that Subhash Chandra Bose was just a misguided partiot who failed to see the merits of non violence was not exactly subscribed to by British rulers. For that matter it was not even subscribed to by large sections of people in India itself, viz those who were demanding separate Pakistan through violent means such as direct action day (16 august 1946) which saw an estimated 4000 people dead in bloody violence in one day. This violence sparked off further religious riots in the surrounding regions of Noakhali, Bihar, United Provinces (modern Uttar Pradesh), Punjab, and the North Western Frontier Province. These events sowed the seeds for the eventual Partition of India.

In summary, Subhash Chandra Bose’s contribution to Indian independence is far greater than what he is given credit for. His contribution has been conveniently pushed under the carpet. Hopefully, in future, his contribution will be realised and appreciated. He was not a misguided patriot, he was a great visionary, who had the drive and energy to implement his vision. He raised Indian National Army. His army got defeated no doubt, but it was defeated by fellow Indians fighting for British army. It was the age old problem of India, where Indians, at the behest of foreign powers, would act against Indian interests. No doubt INA got defeated and a few of their personnel were subjected to trial, but these trials galvanised Indian public, including sections of Indian armed forces. That way, Subhash Chandra Bose (by that time already dead) turned the tables on the British rulers. Even though his army was defeated, his army caught the imagination of Indians and drew widespread public support for themselves during INA trials. British rulers were more afraid of the prospect of armed forces rebellion, which could have happened at any time according to the assessment of British rulers. So that was a major reason why they left India in a hurry.

We have been discussing songs from “Bose-A Forgotten Hero”(2004) on 23 January of various years. So far we have covered three songs from the movie on 23^rd January of three different years as shown below:-

The routine of these posts is always the same, Avinash Scrapala, our inhouse hardcore patriot who keeps track of the anniversaries of various freedom fighters, sends me the lyrics, with request for my writeup. 🙂 He knows that I cannot help but summon up my increasingly dwindling creative juices to come up with some heartfelt tribute on the occasion.

So here it is, yet another song from “Bose The Forgotten Hero”(2004) on the occasion of the 125^th birth anniversary (DoB 23 January 1897) of Subhash Chandra Bose.

The song is sung and composed by A R Rahman. Some chorus is also there but their words are not clear. Lyrics are by Jawed Akhtar.

Only the audio of the song seems to be available. I request our readers with keener ears to help fill in the blanks in the lyrics.

Audio

Video (Partial)

Song-Jaage hain ab saare (Bose- The forgotten hero)(2004) Singer-A R Rahman, Lyrics-Jawed Akhtar, MD-A R Rahman
Chorus

Lyrics(Provided by Avinash Scrapala)

???
dushman ko lalkaara
???
???
tiranga pyaara
jai hind ka naara

jaage hain ab saare ae
log tere
log tere ae
dekh watan
goonje hai naaron se
ab ye zameen
aur ye gagan
kal tak main tanhaa thhaa
soone thhe sab raste
kal tak main tanhaa thhaa
par ab hain saath mere
laakhon dilon ki dhadkan
dekh watan

aazaadi ee paayenge ae
aazaadi ee laayenge
aazaadi ee chhaayegi
aazaadi ee aayegi
aayegi

???
dushman ko lalkaara
???
dushman ko lalkaara
???
tiranga pyaara
????

jaage hain ab saare ae
log tere ae
dekh watan
goonje hain naaron se
ab ye zameen
aur ye gagan
kal tak main tanhaa thhaa
soone thhe sab raste
kal tak main tanhaa thhaa
par ab hain saath mere
laakhon dilon ki ee dhadkan
dekh watan

ham chaahen aazaadi
ham maangen ae aazaadi
aazaadi ee chhaayegi
aazaadi ee aayegi
aayegi

jai ???
???
dushman ko lalkaara
jai ???
???
desh ko pyaara
tiranga pyaara
????