India and the Wars
Mar 1st 2019 | 8:43 am
#511
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
Re: India and the Wars
“all sounds like a gift of the British, a mana from heaven for an Indian people who were waiting for whitey…. “When you frame the debate as one of Britain in India, by definition you push Indians on to the defensive. “I see your point, but maybe if they can’t refrain being defensive in the manner you speak of, it is hard to have serious discussion and debate in an objective manner.The discussion initially began with Bipat’s assertions about India today and history usually contrary to all evidence- and looking at the benefits or disadvantages of British rule. The developments from Britain and the West that India benefited from, did not pop up overnight but were part of a long historical process that culminated in the scientific, technological and industrial revolution. You are right if it is too emotional for an Indian to discuss objectively British rule it could be more productive to discuss other colonies.
“The British Empire, indeed all modern European empires, were all economic empires, motivated primarily by the blockage of the routes to the East by the Ottomans in 1453. I am no authority, but it just seems this is the case. “
There were a variety of reason for expansion of the European Empires, not all economic of even principally economic. And much of the capital flows from Europe went to part soft the world that were not colonies- hardly justifying the idea that the colonies were necessarily in all instances economic.“. The British Empire is not the story of British strength so much as it is that of the weakness of others.â€Great point!
“Much of India was ravaged in the Middle Ages by a state system that was based on an essentially inferior ie less productive civilization than what India had in the centuries prior, due to reasons mentioned above. We can go on and on about the details, but with the arrival of the trade-based European empires, in India especially, the people got a breather; it was the beginning of a long process of uncorking. Nationalists praise relics of the time such as Taj Mahal etc. forgetting that these were tombs with rotting corpses at its very heart. It is an apt illustration of India at the time; it was better to be dead than alive. All talk of “the British looted India€ or “the British persecuted Indians€ omits suspiciously any mention of the looting and persecution that was taking place under the auspices of the resident alien rulers of the time, as well as the painstaking efforts taken by the British and Germans in documenting and cataloguing Indian history via bodies such as the ASI.â€Good points.“I am Indian, and stories of the humiliation of my forebears are, like for most other people, anathema. May it be suggested that to view the impact of colonialism in a more neutral light, it would be better to review other instances of colonialismâ€,I understand the sensitivity, the discussion initiated by Bipat here and elsewhere simply people were responding to.
“The British Empire, indeed all modern European empires, were all economic empires, motivated primarily by the blockage of the routes to the East by the Ottomans in 1453. I am no authority, but it just seems this is the case. “
There were a variety of reason for expansion of the European Empires, not all economic of even principally economic. And much of the capital flows from Europe went to part soft the world that were not colonies- hardly justifying the idea that the colonies were necessarily in all instances economic.“. The British Empire is not the story of British strength so much as it is that of the weakness of others.â€Great point!
“Much of India was ravaged in the Middle Ages by a state system that was based on an essentially inferior ie less productive civilization than what India had in the centuries prior, due to reasons mentioned above. We can go on and on about the details, but with the arrival of the trade-based European empires, in India especially, the people got a breather; it was the beginning of a long process of uncorking. Nationalists praise relics of the time such as Taj Mahal etc. forgetting that these were tombs with rotting corpses at its very heart. It is an apt illustration of India at the time; it was better to be dead than alive. All talk of “the British looted India€ or “the British persecuted Indians€ omits suspiciously any mention of the looting and persecution that was taking place under the auspices of the resident alien rulers of the time, as well as the painstaking efforts taken by the British and Germans in documenting and cataloguing Indian history via bodies such as the ASI.â€Good points.“I am Indian, and stories of the humiliation of my forebears are, like for most other people, anathema. May it be suggested that to view the impact of colonialism in a more neutral light, it would be better to review other instances of colonialismâ€,I understand the sensitivity, the discussion initiated by Bipat here and elsewhere simply people were responding to.
Much is made of the economic strictures imposed on British India but this was a time when the UK had gone from the world's dominant power in August 1914 to a financially bankrupt nation in debt to the US seeing that nation supplant it as the worlds most influential and richest nation in 1918..
The UK had lost a generation of its brightest and best in the mud and blood of Flanders , those who were left were stuck in the prewar " Empire " mindset , Dyer being a classic example.
With the UK in deep recession as was the rest of the world , yes it did prioritise the UK over any of its colonies , not just British India..
Slow progress , but progress was made in the interwar years with Dominion status probable but for the intervention of WW2.
1945 saw the UK in an even worse financial state than in 1918, maintaining its rule in India, was beyond its financial capability and moral appetite..
Where the UK is culpable along with those local politicians with ambitions to rule was the unseemly haste which led to the horrors of partition...
The blood of all those who suffered then and in the conflicts which are on going is on the hands of the signatories of the 1947 agreements that resulted in Independence.
British, Indian and Pakistani..
Mar 1st 2019 | 10:55 am
#512
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,295
Re: India and the Wars
An informed and open minded post one which realises that words like invasion and occupation have no relevance in any discussion on the spread of colonial governance and influence on the sub continent...
Much is made of the economic strictures imposed on British India but this was a time when the UK had gone from the world's dominant power in August 1914 to a financially bankrupt nation in debt to the US seeing that nation supplant it as the worlds most influential and richest nation in 1918..
The UK had lost a generation of its brightest and best in the mud and blood of Flanders , those who were left were stuck in the prewar " Empire " mindset , Dyer being a classic example.
With the UK in deep recession as was the rest of the world , yes it did prioritise the UK over any of its colonies , not just British India..
Slow progress , but progress was made in the interwar years with Dominion status probable but for the intervention of WW2.
1945 saw the UK in an even worse financial state than in 1918, maintaining its rule in India, was beyond its financial capability and moral appetite..
Where the UK is culpable along with those local politicians with ambitions to rule was the unseemly haste which led to the horrors of partition...
The blood of all those who suffered then and in the conflicts which are on going is on the hands of the signatories of the 1947 agreements that resulted in Independence.
British, Indian and Pakistani..
Much is made of the economic strictures imposed on British India but this was a time when the UK had gone from the world's dominant power in August 1914 to a financially bankrupt nation in debt to the US seeing that nation supplant it as the worlds most influential and richest nation in 1918..
The UK had lost a generation of its brightest and best in the mud and blood of Flanders , those who were left were stuck in the prewar " Empire " mindset , Dyer being a classic example.
With the UK in deep recession as was the rest of the world , yes it did prioritise the UK over any of its colonies , not just British India..
Slow progress , but progress was made in the interwar years with Dominion status probable but for the intervention of WW2.
1945 saw the UK in an even worse financial state than in 1918, maintaining its rule in India, was beyond its financial capability and moral appetite..
Where the UK is culpable along with those local politicians with ambitions to rule was the unseemly haste which led to the horrors of partition...
The blood of all those who suffered then and in the conflicts which are on going is on the hands of the signatories of the 1947 agreements that resulted in Independence.
British, Indian and Pakistani..
Cyril Radcliffe was commissioned by the British to draw a boundary line to split the country into two nation- states. (He had never been to India and knew nothing about the different groups---he had just 7 weeks to do it. He apparently returned home immediately after and refused a fee)
Mar 1st 2019 | 11:49 am
#513
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
Re: India and the Wars
The Mountbatten plan was finally agreed to by the Muslim League and Congress. The Indian Independence Act 1947 was then passed by the British Parliament.
Cyril Radcliffe was commissioned by the British to draw a boundary line to split the country into two nation- states. (He had never been to India and knew nothing about the different groups---he had just 7 weeks to do it. He apparently returned home immediately after and refused a fee)
Cyril Radcliffe was commissioned by the British to draw a boundary line to split the country into two nation- states. (He had never been to India and knew nothing about the different groups---he had just 7 weeks to do it. He apparently returned home immediately after and refused a fee)
There had been inter communal strife in the period leading up to Independence.
No ones finest hour..
Mar 1st 2019 | 6:42 pm
#514
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,295
Re: India and the Wars
They were not "signatories" to the agreements. The British were in charge until August 15th 1947.
The speed of action was entirely due to Attlee (Mountbatten was told what to do and had proposed various 'plans')
(Yes intercommunal strife had happened ---partly due to the divide and rule strategy--- even today it is difficult to change the separate Shariya laws for Muslims that had been introduced, although the 'Triple Talaq Bill' has been relatively peaceful).
Mar 1st 2019 | 7:07 pm
#515
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
Re: India and the Wars
No EMR-----not quite as you posted.
They were not "signatories" to the agreements. The British were in charge until August 15th 1947.
The speed of action was entirely due to Attlee (Mountbatten was told what to do and had proposed various 'plans')
(Yes intercommunal strife had happened ---partly due to the divide and rule strategy--- even today it is difficult to change the separate Shariya laws for Muslims that had been introduced, although the 'Triple Talaq Bill' has been relatively peaceful).
They were not "signatories" to the agreements. The British were in charge until August 15th 1947.
The speed of action was entirely due to Attlee (Mountbatten was told what to do and had proposed various 'plans')
(Yes intercommunal strife had happened ---partly due to the divide and rule strategy--- even today it is difficult to change the separate Shariya laws for Muslims that had been introduced, although the 'Triple Talaq Bill' has been relatively peaceful).
You do post nonsense.
It was Hindhus killing Muslims, and Sikhs Muslims killing Hindhus and Sikhs, Sikhs killing both.
This did not happen for the majority of the time of British rule.
Ask yourself why .
Ask yourself why all that pent up hostility emerged in the run up to and during the Independence process..., Calcutta 1946 being just one of many.
Last edited by EMR; Mar 1st 2019 at 7:38 pm.
Mar 1st 2019 | 7:37 pm
#516
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,295
Re: India and the Wars
So who did sign the agreement that resulted independence, " the minions."
You do post nonsense.
It was Hindhus killing Muslims, and Sikhs Muslims killing Hindhus and Sikhs, Sikhs killing both.
This did not happen for the majority of the time of British rule.
Ask yourself why .
Ask yourself why all that pent up hostility emerged in the run up to and during the Independence process...
You do post nonsense.
It was Hindhus killing Muslims, and Sikhs Muslims killing Hindhus and Sikhs, Sikhs killing both.
This did not happen for the majority of the time of British rule.
Ask yourself why .
Ask yourself why all that pent up hostility emerged in the run up to and during the Independence process...
The Mountbatten plan wasn't 'signed'------it was conveyed to Attlee that this would be agreed and the Independence Bill was drafted. Independence Act 1947.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...9470030_en.pdf
There had been some hostility for years between various factions----as I said partly due to the divide and rule strategy of the British and the separate laws for Muslims and particularly since the formation of the Indian national Congress in 1885, which was thought to be pro-Hindu.
Nehru himself spent a total of about 9 years in prison, twice in 1945.
Last edited by Bipat; Mar 1st 2019 at 7:41 pm.
Mar 1st 2019 | 7:43 pm
#517
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
Re: India and the Wars
The Mountbatten plan wasn't 'signed'------it was conveyed to Attlee that this would be agreed and the Independence Bill was drafted. Independence Act 1947.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...9470030_en.pdf
There had been some hostility for years between various factions----as I said partly due to the divide and rule strategy of the British and the separate laws for Muslims and particularly since the formation of the Indian national Congress in 1885, which was thought to be pro-Hindu.
Nehru himself spent a total of about 9 years in prison, twice in 1947.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...9470030_en.pdf
There had been some hostility for years between various factions----as I said partly due to the divide and rule strategy of the British and the separate laws for Muslims and particularly since the formation of the Indian national Congress in 1885, which was thought to be pro-Hindu.
Nehru himself spent a total of about 9 years in prison, twice in 1947.
Why was there intercommunal violence in the run up to Independence..
Your Nehru comments are irrelevant., he was last in prison in 1945, look at his own memorial site..
Last edited by EMR; Mar 1st 2019 at 7:45 pm.
Mar 1st 2019 | 8:08 pm
#518
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,295
Re: India and the Wars
As I explained to you the British passed the Independence Act 1947/July 18th and on August 15th 1947 India became independent, until then the British were in charge.
It was the British who commissioned the drawing up the border line as I said above. This was published on August 17th. (delay asked for by Nehru so as not to interfere with celebrations) this gave two!!! days for organisation!
The discussions between Mountbatten and the Indian leaders were verbal and the final Mountbatten Plan agreed. This 'Plan' was conveyed to Attlee as agreed.
You do not understand, until the actual day of independence the British 'ruled'.
Mar 1st 2019 | 8:35 pm
#519
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
Re: India and the Wars
(The 1947 was a typo---I edited it)
As I explained to you the British passed the Independence Act 1947/July 18th and on August 15th 1947 India became independent, until then the British were in charge.
It was the British who commissioned the drawing up the border line as I said above. This was published on August 17th. (delay asked for by Nehru so as not to interfere with celebrations) this gave two!!! days for organisation!
The discussions between Mountbatten and the Indian leaders were verbal and the final Mountbatten Plan agreed. This 'Plan' was conveyed to Attlee as agreed.
You do not understand, until the actual day of independence the British 'ruled'.
As I explained to you the British passed the Independence Act 1947/July 18th and on August 15th 1947 India became independent, until then the British were in charge.
It was the British who commissioned the drawing up the border line as I said above. This was published on August 17th. (delay asked for by Nehru so as not to interfere with celebrations) this gave two!!! days for organisation!
The discussions between Mountbatten and the Indian leaders were verbal and the final Mountbatten Plan agreed. This 'Plan' was conveyed to Attlee as agreed.
You do not understand, until the actual day of independence the British 'ruled'.
In your world there is no record of anything until July 1947.
You come up with some strange ideas, but this takes the biscuit..
The British did not rule during the worst of the genocides did they ?.
The armies of India and Pakistan were to busy confronting each other, moving into disputed territories.
Mar 1st 2019 | 9:32 pm
#520
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,295
Re: India and the Wars
So no-one involved in the discussions signed anything, no memorandums of agreement , nothing.
In your world there is no record of anything until July 1947.
You come up with some strange ideas, but this takes the biscuit..
The British did not rule during the worst of the genocides did they ?.
The armies of India and Pakistan were to busy confronting each other, moving into disputed territories.
In your world there is no record of anything until July 1947.
You come up with some strange ideas, but this takes the biscuit..
The British did not rule during the worst of the genocides did they ?.
The armies of India and Pakistan were to busy confronting each other, moving into disputed territories.
Attlee appointed Mountbatten as 'Viceroy', Mountbatten was ordered to produce a plan for independence. This was achieved by Mountbatten (with some help from his wife --who was good at discussion) via conferences and working parties.
Obviously there are written reports of meetings! That is not the same as 'signing agreements'.
The final 'Plan' ---of Mountbatten---was conveyed to Attlee who set in motion the legality involved in granting Independence.
No, once the Independence date was reached the British did not rule. However the partition border commissioned by the British as not published by the British until two days after independence. The position of the border was entirely due to Radcliffe. 'Playing' with the futures of ordinary people.
When at partition the violence started the British were not the rulers----but they were still there----(they didn't disappear over-night!)
Everything started so quickly people involved at the border panicked not knowing their futures. Obviously violence was the fault of those that committed it!
So much has been written about this, by those involved. Remembered by those still alive.
As an aside-- -next time you visit India ---go to the Wagah border ceremony---see the last bus of the day returning to Pakistan--see the people on both sides of the border there for the occasion ---it is 'moving' as well as cheerful.
Mar 1st 2019 | 9:38 pm
#521
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
Re: India and the Wars
Attlee appointed Mountbatten as 'Viceroy', Mountbatten was ordered to produce a plan for independence. This was achieved by Mountbatten (with some help from his wife --who was good at discussion) via conferences and working parties.
Obviously there are written reports of meetings! That is not the same as 'signing agreements'.
The final 'Plan' ---of Mountbatten---was conveyed to Attlee who set in motion the legality involved in granting Independence.
No, once the Independence date was reached the British did not rule. However the partition border commissioned by the British as not published by the British until two days after independence. The position of the border was entirely due to Radcliffe. 'Playing' with the futures of ordinary people.
When at partition the violence started the British were not the rulers----but they were still there----(they didn't disappear over-night!)
Everything started so quickly people involved at the border panicked not knowing their futures. Obviously violence was the fault of those that committed it!
So much has been written about this, by those involved. Remembered by those still alive.
As an aside-- -next time you visit India ---go to the Wagah border ceremony---see the last bus of the day returning to Pakistan--see the people on both sides of the border there for the occasion ---it is 'moving' as well as cheerful.
Obviously there are written reports of meetings! That is not the same as 'signing agreements'.
The final 'Plan' ---of Mountbatten---was conveyed to Attlee who set in motion the legality involved in granting Independence.
No, once the Independence date was reached the British did not rule. However the partition border commissioned by the British as not published by the British until two days after independence. The position of the border was entirely due to Radcliffe. 'Playing' with the futures of ordinary people.
When at partition the violence started the British were not the rulers----but they were still there----(they didn't disappear over-night!)
Everything started so quickly people involved at the border panicked not knowing their futures. Obviously violence was the fault of those that committed it!
So much has been written about this, by those involved. Remembered by those still alive.
As an aside-- -next time you visit India ---go to the Wagah border ceremony---see the last bus of the day returning to Pakistan--see the people on both sides of the border there for the occasion ---it is 'moving' as well as cheerful.
Radcliffe warned that the partition agreement would result in mass movement of population and violence.
Did a single one of the leaders of India or Pakistan ,Nehru or Jinna , demand the intervention of British forces , argued for delaying Independence until the security of the different populations had been arranged..
Leaders of the Muslims had been arguing for a separate nation since the 19th century fearing Hindhu domination in a " one nation independent " India.
Partition was inevitable..
"
Last edited by EMR; Mar 1st 2019 at 9:59 pm.
Mar 1st 2019 | 9:58 pm
#522
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,295
Re: India and the Wars
So are you niwxsayingvthat having agreed to Independence after decades of discussion and final agreement the British should have used its armed forces to do the job of the new nations armed forces in protecting those caught up in genocide..
Radcliffe warned that the partition agreement woukd result in mass movement of population and violence.
Radcliffe warned that the partition agreement woukd result in mass movement of population and violence.
('Pakistan' did not have an 'armed force', how could it have, it didn't exist until Independence day? Indian army was largely British officers some more helpful than others).
Radcliffe did what he was commissioned to do, it wasn't his fault that he was ill equipped.----(I have read that he refused a fee and retired.)
Mar 1st 2019 | 10:27 pm
#523
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
Re: India and the Wars
No I didn't say that. However out of humanity there should have been some preparation, given the speed of matters. The border line was not published until two days after independence but known about for days before.
('Pakistan' did not have an 'armed force', how could it have, it didn't exist until Independence day? Indian army was largely British officers some more helpful than others).
Radcliffe did what he was commissioned to do, it wasn't his fault that he was ill equipped.----(I have read that he refused a fee and retired.)
('Pakistan' did not have an 'armed force', how could it have, it didn't exist until Independence day? Indian army was largely British officers some more helpful than others).
Radcliffe did what he was commissioned to do, it wasn't his fault that he was ill equipped.----(I have read that he refused a fee and retired.)
It was an Indian civil servant who drew up the plan to divide the resources of the old Indian army between that of the two nations created in August 1947.
The troops north of the partition line were almost exclusively Muslim.
There was military intervention, notably by India sending its troops to occupy Kashmir a condition of the Hindhu ruler of a majority Muslim state agreeing to join India..
How many were sent to the border areas to intervene in the slaughter going on there.
The officers of the two armies post the day of Independence received their orders from Delhi and Lahore not London.. .
Both nations seem to prioritise territory over the safety of their own citizens.
Partition was based on majority populations, Muslim or Hindu, it hardly needed a genius to work out which areas would be in which nation..
Radcliffe is a convenient excuse ..
Last edited by EMR; Mar 1st 2019 at 10:33 pm.
Mar 2nd 2019 | 8:56 am
#524
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 11,628
Re: India and the Wars
There are a lot of events in history that could have been changed. There is a lot of dispute about the accession---also about Nehru's various family relationships.
I presume you realise that practically all Hindus that were there have been burned out of their homes ---do you approve this?
However the question is NOW. You must realise that a referendum would create destruction of the State by terrorists.
Elections have shown that the majority want to remain with India, why should their income and lives be disregarded??
We will see how the pending election goes.
You cannot compare Goa ---it is a totally different situation and Morpeth, one which as regards the Goan people you are ignorant about.
I presume you realise that practically all Hindus that were there have been burned out of their homes ---do you approve this?
However the question is NOW. You must realise that a referendum would create destruction of the State by terrorists.
Elections have shown that the majority want to remain with India, why should their income and lives be disregarded??
We will see how the pending election goes.
You cannot compare Goa ---it is a totally different situation and Morpeth, one which as regards the Goan people you are ignorant about.
Did India ever hold a referendum in Goa, Hyderbad, or Kashmir, or any other area it too over by force of arms as to whether the local population was given the choice of being independent ? The question which has been straight forward has been asked many time with no answer.
So let me see if I understand, if you are correct the majority of all of Kashmir today would prefer to be under Indian rule that is fine but in the 1950's it wasn't. I cant think of a better example of subjective emotional Hindu nationalism than that comment.
No on here or elsewhere is justifying any terrorist against civilians- you know that so your comment is just silly.
You are right that concerning the current wishes of people in Goa or Kashmir I know very little but that wasn;t the issue or question raised- and I suspect your pro Hindu nationalist anti British sympathies are well-known to people you know and they tailor their comments accordingly. Your prior comment to the effect if Muslims didnt like it they could leave- hat is how it came across- makes one wonder the true feelings of people in Kashmir..
Mar 2nd 2019 | 9:10 am
#525
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 11,628
Re: India and the Wars
Why "pride and nationalism"?----Do you really think that anecdotes were only positive? You and EMR are obsessed with 'nationalism'. I have said before, if there is one characteristic of Indian people it is the love of gossip! Gossip is not usually positive!
However, why would Indian medical staff be concerned with the frustrations of the British and not frustrations 'ABOUT' the British????
"Some" brilliant and effective Indian doctors"!!!!! A I have said before Morpeth your condescending/patronising remarks are multiple.
Kashmir IS a tourist paradise. That is why these terrorist attacks strike at the local population and a major source of income. Even our children are insisting we cancel our planned May trip. (We are not yet decided---see what others in the group do). Self and children have been several times -----OH never been and as the place of his ancestors wants to visit before he 'goes', As a child said we don't want him to "go" while he is there!
However, why would Indian medical staff be concerned with the frustrations of the British and not frustrations 'ABOUT' the British????
"Some" brilliant and effective Indian doctors"!!!!! A I have said before Morpeth your condescending/patronising remarks are multiple.
Kashmir IS a tourist paradise. That is why these terrorist attacks strike at the local population and a major source of income. Even our children are insisting we cancel our planned May trip. (We are not yet decided---see what others in the group do). Self and children have been several times -----OH never been and as the place of his ancestors wants to visit before he 'goes', As a child said we don't want him to "go" while he is there!
Exactly- hardly would Indian doctors or nurses discuss the difficulties British personnel encountered in training them especially from a family of extreme Hindu anti British nationalists : hence for a balanced picture one would want to hear from all sides. This is only reason I brought up to illustrate ones-sided folk memory is not necessarily objective.
Saying some doctors brilliant could be made about any group of doctor anywhere. Certainly anecdotal evidence doesnt indicate problems with Indian doctors on average today any more than British or French doctors- but I havent studied the opinion of experts in the field ( and I doubt you have) so any opinion I have on the current situation not based on much, and probably same for you
