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 Sandip Dhara on Jan 28, 2016 10:03 AM
Then why start barking with everything what does not suit their religion or preacher.
after accepting the hospitality of an Indian native, perhaps was under moral compulsion to please that host when the latter asked him a pointed question why the British left India.
However, the reason why the British left India is much more elaborately treated in the seminal work "The Second World War" by Sir Winston Churchill. In this work, Churchill makes light of the prevalent view of the Indian government that independence was won by India on account of the labours of Gandhi and Nehru. At best, these served as add on burdens for Britain in the administration of the Indian sub-continent.
So, the claim that the non violent struggle based on non-cooperation and disobedience led by Gandhi and other INC leaders is dismissed by Churchill - who, after all, was the person who held the reigns of the British empire through all the turbulent times extending nearly upto Indian independence.
However, in the same breath, it must also be said that Churchill barely ever makes a mention of the INA or of Netaji Bose in his very elaborate work. At best, the treatment for the INA and for its much touted threat is marginal and indifferent. Sir Churchill obviously did not see the INA as a threat at all. Neither does he give much seriousness to Lord Attlees native-pleasing perception that the trial of the INA led to increasing disloyalty in the British Indian armed forces.
But what Churchill makes amply clear in his book (which is a marathon 6 volume piece) is that Britain was fo
forced to leave India primarily due to the fact that it was rendered economically and militarily too enfeebled by the war effort to hold on to its distant and vast Indian domains.
Administering a country about 9 times its own size (based on population) situated half the globe away required tremendous investments in resources and men. But when much of the homeland (Britain) was reduced virtually to rubble and when there no longer were any resources left to nurse the homeland back to normality, the question of holding a distant empire of increasingly disaffected natives proved too daunting for the British rulers.
In sum, the chief reason why India attained freedom in 1947 was not the efforts of Gandhi and Nehru nor the purported effects the INA and Netaji had on the British Indian army.
Re: Lord Attlee,
by Krishna Murthy on Jan 27, 2016 09:44 PM
You missing a point. There was no threat to British from INA. INA fought for the country against British and 22000 soldiers from INA died. Several were caught alive and were put into trial. And this was the time the patriotic emotions raised at every level including British Indian Army, Navy and Airforce where the Majoirity were Indians who refused to take orders from the Britist Govt.
SO What happens when the three forces refuse to take orders from Govt? The british then realized that they would be no longer be able to rule India without the support ot Indian troops.
Obviously they left India.
Nothing to take away from Gandhi, but Quit India movement failed long back in 1942/43.
Re: Re: Lord Attlee,
by piri on Jan 27, 2016 11:23 PM
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 under 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 practically in entirety ! Famine followed famine, drought followed drought, floods followed floods, feudalistic excesses were the overriding norm, taxes were often back breaking, lands were left fallow in many regions owing to these taxes (which led to famines periodically), tyranny and regal excesses were part of everyday lives....................and the British, in most cases, just
Re: Re: Re: Lord Attlee,
by piri on Jan 27, 2016 11:36 PM
collected their tributes and looked on. Only on the occasion of the rare invitation from the princely states did the British come in to contribute what they could such as agricultural infrastructure (dams, canals), roads, power generation, 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 rise in *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.
Re: Re: Lord Attlee,
by piri on Jan 27, 2016 11:11 PM
Churchill made it amply clear in his book that the war was won only because Britain received generous help in arms and men and funds from the US and also because the Soviet Union joined the Allies.
In fact, Churchill has given very elaborate treatment to the co-ordination among the allies in the war effort.
Re: You are right mr chandra bose
by Pratik Shah on Jan 27, 2016 10:35 PM
netaji was a not a brave person, he cowardly fled india to avoid death. it is very funny that some funny person is claiming that this neta was responsible for independence and we accept this funny story.
