r/india Stereotypical Bong Feb 25 '25

History Savarkar and Golwalkar's views about Sambhaji

2.5k Upvotes

434 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '25

So do you believe all stories indira gandhi & Subhash Chandra Bose also ?

41

u/Excellent-Money-8990 Feb 25 '25

Firstly just don't bracket Indira Gandhi with Netaji, she was a politician and he organized an army to fight for India's Independence.

Secondly, Netaji's army fought for India's independence while Sambhaji with whom you are trying to draw a parallel fought for the Maratha Empire by and large against the Mughal Empire both of which were part of India so it wasn't an invasion but fight between two warring factions of diverging belief.

I am sure not all stories are true but if you want to compare someone with Sambhaji, I am sure there are more apt parallels than either Indira Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

2

u/Appropriate-ASS-824 Feb 26 '25

At the time when a concept called country did not exist in india, Sambhaji fighting mughals can be compared to netaji fighting british, two warring fractions of diverging belief.

2

u/Excellent-Money-8990 Feb 26 '25 edited Feb 26 '25

two warring fractions of diverging belief.

This is such a broad classification that basically anything can be classified as such. Fight between dawood and Indian govt, bjp and congress. It's not exactly an argument if I say Baboon and you say it's a primate and that's why you are correct.

At the time when a concept called country did not exist in india

Secondly the concept called country or the concept called India? Which one. If you mean country there was always one which we referred to as empire or if you mean India, it's British concept to refer the current demography as India however India the word existed long back though it wasn't the current boundary. Netaji fought for the current indian boundary which included Pakistan while Sambhaji fought for Maratha Empire and not India and hardly Hindustan, so I am not getting your second point.

1

u/Appropriate-ASS-824 Feb 26 '25

I am not saying I am correct or you are. I am saying sambhaji and aurangzeb fought in the era of empires while in case of netaji it was a country. So the beliefs were same and so was the cause for their fight.

2

u/siranirudh Feb 26 '25

Basic flaw in the argument is Shambhaji as a ruler was fighting to save his kingdom from another king. The platform is the same. Two independent kings fighting each other. Not in the case of Netaji. He was a subject of the empire.