Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

British Raj did more harm than good in Indian subcontinent: UK Supreme Court debate

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by astralis View Post
    BM,
    because the original policymaking would be planned and implemented by the Indian government, which was no longer in the hands of appointed officials from the UK. policies were no longer created by london.
    Well we never saw that in action so shoulda, coulda, woulda.

    it is true the power to overturn a decision was still available to the Viceroy, but creating policy and having a veto power on it is quite different. it dramatically raised the political cost of vetoing. IE, if the british wanted to overturn a decision it had to very publicly be done by the Viceroy...and everyone would know who to blame.

    yup, and accordingly he paid a very high political price for it.
    That didn't stop the British from doing what they wanted.

    but in the context of 1939-1940 indian participation in the war was a life and death matter for the UK. there was no way the UK, an island nation, could fight two continental powers at once without India. and had the Viceroy put it to a vote, there would been stalemate at best, rejection at worst (Muslim League was for the war, the INC was split-- which reflected Gandhi's confused 'i support the fight against fascism but i reject war as a means of doing so' stance).

    note that the british KNEW that there was going to be significant pushback and almost instantly tried to negotiate:

    August Offer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    followed by the Cripps Proposals.

    see how different the British response was compared to their more slow evolution during the First World War.
    And the Indians paid a very high price for that in which they shouldn't have to pay. The Bengal Famine.

    more accurately, SOME indians didn't see it that way. actually the main crux was not Indian mistrust of the British word, but that the INC position was rock-solid and would not be negotiated with: full independence. (that, by the way, was relatively new: as late as 1932, the INC and Gandhi were negotiating parameters of being a Dominion.)
    Independence was not a fairly new concept at that point. There were serious agitators for independence. It was just that INC and Gandhi made it as the platform to garner more supports from the local populace.

    more fought for the British than for the INA, and the Quit India movement faced considerable dissent even within the ranks of the INC. of course indian muslims disagreed with this altogether.
    I think OOE answered that one a couple posts ago.

    probably too absolute of a statement, i think, although you're right about the lack of control. there would certainly have been a huge split. officers tended to side with the British while the NCOs and grunts were definitely, well, disgruntled. in the Navy Mutiny the mutineers threw Indian naval officers out when they tried to order them to stand down.
    No there were officers that were disgruntled with the British and did side with INC and Quit Indian Movement. In fact, some of them became ardent supporters of INC and even became members. There were officers involved in the Indian Naval Mutiny. It wasn't all just NCOs. The dissent in the BIA and in the Indian Navy only died down after INC leaders came onto the scene and told them to stand down and that they would listen to their concerns and address their grievances. The fact that they put more stock and faith in the words of INC leaders over British officers and leaders is very telling.

    feh, then why the difference in enthusiasm between WWI and WWII? i'm sure some went in for the money, but is it really that hard to admit that there was a time when there was considerable sympathy/loyalty for the idea of India being a part of the Empire? remember, Gandhi himself didn't become a supporter for independence, full stop, until WWII.
    There were no huge difference between WWI and WWII. In WWI, there was a 1.5 million man army. In WWII there was a 2 million man army. Not that much of a difference. Again, it goes back to pay. Britain was in need of an large army and was willing to pay.

    Yes Gandhi was a supporter for independence long before WWII. It is just that he was trying to use the status of Dominion to obtain full independence later on as a method of nonviolence and keep true to his faith. Since British was anathema to the idea of full independence and was willing to use violence to quell it down and there were violent revolutionaries and agitators for full independence advocating violence, Gandhi cleverly brought up the idea of Dominion in an attempt to obtain self rule peacefully but all along full independence was the goal. It was just that he wanted to manuever the British peacefully non-violently into accept Dominion status and then 10 years down the road, declare independence and the British couldn't do anything about it because then the loyalty of the BIA would be transferred to the Indians, not British.

    sure, they moved fastest when circumstances forced their hand. but even prior to the wars, the relationship between the British and her subject peoples had been changing. not out of some noble sense of good will, but because of simple self-interest: the costs of an Empire in an age where growing political self-consciousness became too much to bear.
    So again, it wasn't done out of good will but because they were forced to since the growing political self-consciousness that wasn't brought on by British but indigenously forced the costs to be much higher and the British initially tried force and later found out that it was too costly to use. The British were flapping around as to what way to go forward until Gandhi came onto the scene and offered them a "honorable" face saving way out. That was the achievement and legacy of Gandhi. He gave the British a face saving way out where they could live with it.

    Comment


    • British gave us Democracy, what a load of humbug

      Ambedkar went to Columbia University, this is where his love for concept began. Though we didnt make American style Presidential democracy for various other reasons, the idea of democracy and secularism, constitution, separation of church and state, etc mostly came from the Americans more than the Brits.

      Also, Try searching and learning about Indian civilizational history. You will see that we have had our own version of Democracy, much before the Brits figured out sanitation.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
        Again, I did not say they gave you democracy at a national level...but they exposed you to it. Your country found your own path. In the US our local government in many ways differs based on the kind of colony you were....joint stock, royal, etc. that is why we have town meeting(New England) local villages (New York) townships (Pennsylvania). But our national government modeled after the you did not go the way of so many other independence movements. You rapidly grew to a mature democracy and not into massive failed state (see most of Africa).

        All that said a review of the Wiki shows a government set up amazingly similar to the British government.

        So you went your own path....but I think a total denial of British influence is disingenuous.

        But I guess we will agree to disagree.
        They didnt. You dont know our History. It is as simple as that. We are a 6000 year old contingous civilization. We have figured out sanitation, astronomy, democracy, liberalism etc much before than you have, unfortunately we have had series of outside disturbances created by Europeans and Islamics (who were basically genocidal and conservative maniac's)

        Brits could have just send us the book on democracy for dummies, rather murdering, stealing, raping our lands and women.

        Comment


        • I bet you think the Aryans originated in India.;)
          Those who know don't speak
          He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
            I bet you think the Aryans originated in India.;)
            I am not sit here and discuss on unproved theories. Lets please stick to the topic.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
              They didnt. You dont know our History. It is as simple as that. We are a 6000 year old contingous civilization. We have figured out sanitation, astronomy, democracy, liberalism etc much before than you have, unfortunately we have had series of outside disturbances created by Europeans and Islamics (who were basically genocidal and conservative maniac's)

              Brits could have just send us the book on democracy for dummies, rather murdering, stealing, raping our lands and women.
              Theres a thread on here about raping and murdering just recently , whereby young girls going to pee in the bushes were gang raped and hung , weren't the poms matey . Apparently that tradition was going long before the Brits turned up .And asians are still practicing it in Rotherham .etc
              Last edited by tankie; 09 Oct 14,, 11:05.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                I bet you think the Aryans originated in India.;)
                Actually we think Aryan Invasion Theory is a bunch of hogwash not sustained by recent discoveries or shall I say re discoveries that came to light after being ignored by western historians with their own tinted glasses.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tankie View Post
                  Theres a thread on here about raping and murdering just recently , whereby young girls going to pee in the bushes were gang raped and hung , weren't the poms matey . Apparently that tradition was going long before the Brits turned up .And asians are are still practicing it in Rotherham .etc
                  Don't think that it is confined to Asians only. See here: British man raped at Germany's Oktoberfest - Telegraph
                  Last edited by Blademaster; 08 Oct 14,, 16:21.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tankie View Post
                    Theres a thread on here about raping and murdering just recently , whereby young girls going to pee in the bushes were gang raped and hung , weren't the poms matey . Apparently that tradition was going long before the Brits turned up .And asians are are still practicing it in Rotherham .etc
                    Ouch, ruffled your feathers there mate?

                    Do you want me to google up , Brits in thailand and child sex tourism, or the brit who got raped in ocktober fest this year? Or rapes conducted by white people? Americans do more rape in USA than in any other country.

                    You want us to forget what your ancestors did to mine, and stole my future without even apologizing, accepting or even compensating.

                    PS: its not asians, its Pakistani's. Better luck.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
                      stole my future
                      No one stole your future.
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • I realize this thread touches on some sensitive topics for some of the members here, but lets not let it devolve into a pissing contest.

                        Comment


                        • This thread is going downhill rapidly. Keep it civil. Keep it on topic. Warnings and Vacations WILL follow.
                          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                            I bet you think the Aryans originated in India.;)
                            I can bet my a** the aryans went from India towards Europe

                            Comment


                            • Gentlemen,

                              Look at your neighbours who were not ruled by the British. To your north in Central Asia, what kind of democracy did they have? To your West in Iran, a Shah, now a Khomeni. China, an Emperor first in Chiang, then Mao, then Deng. Southeast Asia, a bunch of kings fighting amongst each other. South Korea, a military dictatorship for over 30 years. North Korea, a god-king.

                              Not saying the Brits was a bed of roses but since WWII, you escaped the insanity of your neighbours. At the very least, the Brits established minimum baseline of government that you would accept. They set the bar high enough for you to aspire for more.

                              Because believe me, the bar could have been set much lower. It could have been worst. A lot worst. Some of you failed to see that.
                              Chimo

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                                I realize this thread touches on some sensitive topics for some of the members here, but lets not let it devolve into a pissing contest.
                                Some people are motivated to derail it

                                They see no reason, they parrot out scripts of historic grievances that they weren't even alive to witness. This is not to belittle those grievances but the past is the past and we have to look towards the future.

                                Of late i find too much obsession with the past. Should India create 'museums of national humiliation' now.

                                i find this section of the board challenging almost intimidating, given its immense scope (ancient, medieva, early modern) that too on a board that talks about almost everything :)
                                Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Oct 14,, 18:25.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X