There is a systematic feeding of only partial information about the freedom struggle that only because of satyagraha movement led by gandhiji India got freedom, which is wrong. Though bose and his followers and others like bhagat singh etc also played a role, again that is also not the reason why british left India. It is a combination of many factors that resulted in India's freedom, the primary reason was that the british empire was in deep trouble after the end of second world war though the allies won the war. Britain had almost collapsed and it was not possible for britain to hold its grip over its colonies due to the very bad condition it was in after the end of the world war. They had to leave their colonies one by one out of sheer helplessness. Otherwise why would the british who were the most cruel and merciless gift away India to some fellows who just sat on fast ? Everybody knows that those who sit on fast will stop fasting after a few days, so why care much about it ? Congress people managed to fool the indian public with false information and managed to rule india for so long slowly and gradually converting the control to one family rule. Indian public was innocent and foolish for quite long and now with education levels improving Indians have starting thinking and that is the result multiparty system is developing and coalitions are happening.
Re: why british left India
by Navi Reyd on Aug 20, 2012 11:58 PM
British were the most cruel and merciless? Really? Wasn't it the British who: 1) united India 2) gave India a fine infrastructure 3) left India with an excellent parliamentary system 4) abolished the inhuman practice of "sati" 5) built India's two largest cities, Bombay & Calcutta 6) gifted India with the English language, because of their good knowledge of which, Indians are so successful all over the world? etc., etc. India, as we know it today, would never have existed, had it not been for the British.
Re: Re: why british left India
by Sridhar n on Aug 21, 2012 12:15 AM
FYI, 1) united India -- British did not united India, while Britishers leaving they splited India into more than 600 coutires, Sardar Patel who took intiation to merge all states into Indian territory only the Kashmir handled by the great Nehru. 2) gave India a fine infrastructure -- Oher than the places where Britishers need transport from India to Britan no where Britished improved infrastucture. 3) left India with an excellent parliamentary system -- current parlament system developed after the independence, FYI centuries earlier itself there was good governing system in India, refer the history 4) abolished the inhuman practice of "sati" -- there is no historic evideneces British faught agaianst inhuman practicies, our freedom figheters Lala Lajpathrai, Veereshalingam fought agianst inhuman practices
5) built India's two largest cities, Bombay & Calcutta -- Centuries ago itself India shined, British destryed our local system for their ruling.
6) gifted India with the English language, because of their good knowledge of which, Indians are so successful all over the world? -- they did not gifted, they want cream of the Indians to communicate to English to serve them for that they distroyed our gurukul system and introduced Makhale education system by which still India sufferinh.
Stop thinking slavary and comeout from slavary thoughts
Re: Re: Re: why british left India
by Navi Reyd on Aug 21, 2012 02:07 AM
That is why Tirthankar Roy in his book "The Economic History of India" wrote: The British "appear to have done far more than what its predecessor regimes and contemporary Indian regimes were able to do".
Re: Re: Re: Re: why british left India
by sanatan upadhaya on Aug 21, 2012 06:07 AM
Compared to Lootgress Chorgress NoProgress Party British was better. That's why b4 leaving they left 2 useless agents Mohammed Koward Gandhi who was a very devoted slave and Janowarlal Nehru who cretaed the Kashmir problem to pleas his Master British.
Even after a lapse of six decades after Netaji's death that the nature of his end requires to be kept under wraps is the mystery. Un-doubtedly he was a patriot and an un-disputed national leader but some people who need a peg to hang their prejudiced ideology have immense pleasure in keeping this myth alive ! It helps to maintain the aura and keep dreaming of an India that will be lead by a revolutionary as opposed to the Gandhi-Nehru clan ! It is time such un-wanted mysteries are given a safe burial ! Many active Generals who fought the British were not accused of criminality and lived their full lives after independence and Subash was not a criminal to go under ground and live in-cognito because he was afraid of his life from compatriots !
Stalin kept Netaji with some great honour until 1946, and then Netaji was exchanged for a very important Soviet General captured by the British ( General Vlasov, who after his return was then executed by Stalin). British took Netaji to Baluchistan-Iran border and executed him. We all know now that Gandhi-Nehru-Patel-Pant were British agents. That is the reason the Congress Government would not do anything so the crime of the British will come out.
Re: Netaji was executed by the British
by Cool Indian on Aug 20, 2012 04:53 PM
why rediffff is colluding with the looters and agents and netaji- killers too???
Re: Netaji was executed by the British
by c v sureshkumar on Aug 20, 2012 07:22 PM
if congress has to hide anything, we had Janata government, VP Singh Government, Deva Gowda and the BJP governments at the centre barring congress. If congress has anything to hide, these non-congress governments must have made it public...so, before commenting blindly, please try to know everything
