In this paper I do not want to examine what Nietzsche thought about India but to take the other point of view and ask what and how Indians think or thought of Nietzsche, taking as examples Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938), Sri Aurobindo (1972-1950) and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Osho) (1931-1990). The focus of their attention was especially on Nietzsche\'s Thus spoke Zarathustra and the concept of the \"over(hu)man\" (Übermensch) proposed in it. Since the concept of the overhuman is closely related to the question of god, i.e. the belief in god or the death of god, the answer to this question and how it is evaluated is decisive for their view of the overhuman. Agreement is in the goal that humanity should be and has to be developed, the differences are in the ways this goal should be achieved. According to Muhammad Iqbal, Nietzsche was \"a disbeliever in his mind, but a believer in his heart.\" Since it is Nietzsche\'s Zarathustra, who proposes the overhuman, not Nietzsche, we should distinguish between Nietzsche and his \"son\" Zarathustra, who is not only a disbeliever in his mind but also in his heart. Not only Iqbal but also Aurobindo and Osho are frequently confusing Nietzsche and Zarathustra. Iqbal, realizing, that the expression \"superman\" is inadequate to translate \"Übermensch\", replaces the concept of the \"superman\" by the \"perfect man\", whose arm is really \"God\'s arm, dominant, creative, resourceful, efficient, human, but angel-like in disposition, a servant with the Master\'s attributes.\" Whereas this perfect man is for Iqbal an expression of modesty and the overhuman a presumption and hubris, it is for Zarathustra just the opposite: the overhuman is an expression of modesty and the claim to be god’s arm a presumption to make oneself the measure of all things and at the same time infallible and impregnable. Overhuman means for Zarathustra that there is something in humanity which transcends humanity but is at the same time not completely beyond humanity like a god. Sri Aurobindo (mis)understands Zarathustra‘s overhuman on the background of his belief in god and the distinction between the Mental and the Supramental similarly as a \"titanic egoism\", whose symbol is the lion, not the child as for Zarathustra. For Aurobindo, \"Übermensch\" becomes the \"supramental man\". Osho, despite many distortions of Nietzsche\'s views, agrees basically with Zarathustra on the death of god but replaces the concept of the superman with the \"new man\", because \"super\" has for him the connotation of superiority, which the \"new man\" does not have. The adjective \"new\" is after \"super\", \"perfect\" and \"supramental\" another attempt to understand and translate the ‘über’ in \"Übermensch\", but replaces a spatial attribute (über) merely by a temporal one (new). The \'new man\' is for Osho a Buddha and after the death of god, Zen is for him the only living truth. Iqbal\'s distinction between mind and heart and Aurobindo\'s difference between the Mental and Supramental returns in Osho in the distinction between mind and no-mind. Is believing for Iqbal more basic than thinking, the supramental higher than the mental for Aurobindo, so is for Osho no-mind more fundamental than mind for the development of humanity. Zarathustra however is based in physiology and the priority of the body, where all the mentioned opposites are primarily based and united. The overhuman will appear at first as a new and higher body. Key Words : God, Superman, Perfect Man, Supramental, New Man, Overhuman, Übermensch