that the British left India because the trial of the INA soldiers led to the Indian soldiers in the British army refusing to take orders from the British !
Even if there was mutiny of such sort (of which there is little archival evidence), it was not as widespread among those soldiers all across the sub-continent as is sought to be made out.
The role of the INA in the Indian freedom movement and the supposed *patriotic feelings* the trial of its men raised in Indians are overstated in many fora.
The overriding reality among the natives (as the British used to refer to Indians) was not patriotism or the desire to be independent. It was the more prosaic desire to overcome poverty and get at least two meals a day ! So impoverished and wretched were the great majority of common Indians, enslaved as they had been through several centuries of highly feudalistic despotism under both hyndu and muxlim kings who existed only for the aristocratic classes.
The British, though holding sovereign power over the entire Indian sub-continent land mass, scrupulously followed a policy of letting Indian kings (and there were hundreds of them!) have their own way over their subjects in the name of non-interference in the affairs of those kingdoms (princely states). They were content with receiving their annual tribute from most of these kingdoms in return for offering them protection from aggression by other kingdoms. And those kings did have their way with their subjects
Re: Krishna Murthy, you stated
by piri on Jan 28, 2016 12:00 AM
in entirety !
Through all the tyranny and misrule of the innumerable rajahs and ranis and nawabs and nizams, the British merely collected their tributes and looked on. Only on the occasion of the rare invitation from the princely states did they come in to contribute what they could such as agricultural infrastructure (dams, canals), roads, power generation stations, augmenting the railway network, postal services, building of ports, etc.
And for the impoverished masses, the British Indian army was one of the biggest employers. In comparison to the native princes, the British paid Indian soldiers very well (as evident in innumerable literary works as well as chronicles and archives of the era).
There was really no major reason why there should have been such a massive wave of *patriotic* feelings in soldiers of the British Indian army as is sought to be made out by some segments.
In fact, the INA was so cash strapped all through its existence that pay and allowances for its soldiers were much lower compared to soldiers of the British Indian army.
Winston Churchill has elaborated clearly in his book that the British left India mainly due to being weakened economically as well as militarily by the war effort.
In fact, Churchill had run his campaign for re-election in 1945 just after the end of the war chiefly on his promise that the British empire will be retained intact even while vigorously rebuilding the war ravaged British economy. It is another matter that the Brits
Re: Re: Re: Krishna Murthy, you stated
by yahoo on Jan 28, 2016 09:03 AM
You have very well recited everything that the british have written. I guess only the british tell the truth, all the time??
Fact is whether it is india or SA, successful freedom struggles always had both the non-violent section, and an army. In SA, Mandela managed to keep both of them together. In India due to Gandhi and Nehru's stubbornness, the violent struggle had to be championed by Rebels like Bose and Bhagat Singh.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Krishna Murthy, you stated
by piri on Jan 28, 2016 12:38 PM
Suit yourself, though you will not get further than self delusion !
Poverty and any reference to this gigantic Indian reality are such big inconveniences to most Indian middle class commoners, are they not ?
And the fact that the numerous Indian rulers of the princely states during British rule (the Rajahs and Ranis and Nawabs and Nizams and Regents) invariably were all tyrants who had little concern for their impoverished subjects and chose to enjoy the huge privileges of power without responsibility is so inconvenient to those mouthing *nationalism*, *patriotism*, etc today, right ?
British written or Indian written, Indian history cannot just escape from the reality of extreme poverty and extreme exploitation of the poor by the erstwhile kings that have characterised it all along.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Krishna Murthy, you stated
by Krish G on Jan 29, 2016 03:27 PM
to an extent i guess you are correct and yes, the rulers of princely states were more atrocious to their own subjects than the british were for they in no way belonged to this land..!!!
Re: Re: NSC Bose
by Vinay Gupta on Jan 27, 2016 11:52 PM
Also, Indian Naval Mutiny of 1946 happened after the decision of British to quit India. It may be remembered that the Labour Party under the leadership of Attlee had won the general elections in 1945 with the election promise of granting independence to India.
Netaji was a strong believer of socialism and was much impressed by Marxism. He had serious differences with those in Congress who believed in or were sympathetic to the ideology of Hindu Mahasabha and sister organizations. Due to this, he never saw eye to eye with Patel (both believed in diametrically opposite ideologies) and had much in common with Nehru as regards ideology. He however differed with both Nehru and Patel on the Gandhian method of achieving independence and preferred to take the military help of Japan. Had he been alive today, it is anybody's guess how much he would have agreed with the decision of his grandnephew to join BJP.
Re: Re: Netaji
by gopalakrishnan on Jan 28, 2016 11:12 AM
Now there is not much differance , India was ruled by Italain (muzzolini) for past few decades and still the condtion not fully cleared
I DONT THINK SO OR PROBABLY NO ONE ELSE THINK THAT BRITISH LEFT INDIA BECAZ OF THIS NETA. THE REASON BRITISH LEFT INDIA GOES FOR A COLLECTIVE EFFORT. EVERY INDIAN WHO FOUGHT AGAINST THEM VIOLENTLY OR NON-VIOLENTLY ARE RESPONSIBLE. WE CAN ARGUE AND COUNTER ARGUE ABOUT THE REASONS THEY LEFT INDIA.BUT NO ONE CAN CLAIM THAT ONLY ONE PERSON WAS RESPONSIBLE.
Re: Netaji was the reason why the British left India' -
by Prakash Bedekar on Jan 28, 2016 10:53 PM
Then PM Atlee, made it clear in British Parliament, that with revolt of Indian soldiers in 1944/45, it was impossible for British to govern and that was the main reason for British leaving India. Veer Savarkar was exorting Indian youth to join military for exactly the same reason.
After second world war Britishers faced huge financial crisis. In addition solders of Netaji's Ajad Hind came back to India which was a great threatening factor for Britishers as it was already experienced fear of many revolutionary forces. After second world war Britishers declare liberty to almost all the countries which was in its colonial rule.Except India no country was divided and liberated. Thanks to Nehru-Gandiji's wisdom and took full credit for freedom.
Re: 'Netaji was the reason why the British left India'
by Prakash Bedekar on Jan 28, 2016 10:55 PM
Please do not forget revolt by Indian soldiers in Mumbai, Visakhapattan in 1944/45.
Is the person who is interviewing feeling insecure? Growing intolerance? Have some sense when Questioning As if Syed is under duress and that he has a sense of Saddam Hussein or any Iranian Cleric at the centre?
Re: Re: Growing Intolerance?
by Kundapur Kumar on Jan 27, 2016 10:59 PM
Name along with glorifying falls propaganda indicates everything though creation of falls propaganda is political.
Re: Re: Growing Intolerance?
by Sandip Dhara on Jan 28, 2016 10:04 AM
Then why they start barking with everything what does not suit their religion or religious preacher.
