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 Officer of Engineers View Post
    Spices. If it ain't Indians, it would have been the Chinese but either way, the Europeans couldn't care less if it were Persians or Mongols, they just didn't want to pay the middleman for the pepper for their dinner.
    It wasn't India it was Indonesia which the Dutch showed was a gold mine.

    Then the East India company starts on the hope of replicating the Dutch success. Their problem was how to sell British wool in the tropics

    Comment


    • BM,

      starting to get into the weeds here.

      Counterrebuttal to the above link: Rowlatt Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      yes, and look when it -ended-. three years later. the british couldn't centralize power like they used to.

      although Montagu was saved largely due to a strong speech in his defence by Winston Churchill, Lloyd George's secretary reported that some of the Tories could have assaulted him (Montagu) physically they were so angry.
      what's your point? as i said, -Churchill- was horrified. no surprise there would be a group of Tories which hated the result of the Hunter Inquiry. in the end, Dyer was cashiered and his CBE was cancelled. note that the Commission which handed down the report had Indian members as well.

      different Empire than the Empire of 1857.

      So WWI prompted these changes, not British themselves. They were forced to. A huge difference from the dubious argument that the British were going to give democracy as if it was their idea all along.
      it accelerated the process greatly, but the process was already there. that's why the Dominions and the middle-class Indian elite were -hugely- enthusiastic about the outbreak of war: they WANTED to rally around the flag and also demonstrate to the "Mother Country" that they were capable of self-rule while Britain fought for her life.

      1.5 million Indians volunteered to join the fight, either in combatant or non-combatant roles.

      if the British were the pure monsters you're making them out to be, then why did Indians volunteer vice staying home? or listen to German propaganda and try a separatist movement? 1.5 million revolting Indians in WWI would have likely ended British rule in India.

      for that matter even the Quit India movement in WWII largely fizzled out, and that was at a time when the popularity of the Raj was probably at an all-time low.

      there were plans and discussion of slowing down talks of Dominion status after WWII ended.
      the 1945 british Labour party platform explicitly called for indian self-government. and they won.

      moreover by then the British knew they weren't going to hold on to India; note what the Cripps mission in 1942 offered. also, the americans were weighing extremely heavily against the British by this time, to the point where Churchill threatened to resign if the Americans continued to push for independence during the war.

      Only the Indian Naval Mutiny of 1946 and the realization that they just lost the support of the Indian Army and that the Indian Army would listen to INC put an end to such discussions.
      lol, no. the Mutiny was condemned by both Gandhi and the INC...in fact, only the Communist Party supported it.

      Thereafter, in 1947, India reached its independence. Dominionship was a misnomer. There was no way that India would have stayed within the British commonwealth. The status of Dominion was a facesaving way for the British to get out.
      this i agree with. by 1947 it was too late. if India was to stay as a Dominion, the British probably should have devolved to self-ruled Dominion for India in 1926 along with the other Dominions.
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • The difference between the INA and the BIA. Both loved India and hated the British. The BIA loved India more than they hated the British and that was why they would not tolerate new Japanese overlords. The INA hated the British more than they loved India and that was why they would tolerate the Japanese overlords.

        It was as simple as that.
        Chimo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          The difference between the INA and the BIA. Both loved India and hated the British. The BIA loved India more than they hated the British and that was why they would not tolerate new Japanese overlords. The INA hated the British more than they loved India and that was why they would tolerate the Japanese overlords.

          It was as simple as that.
          It was such a fluid situation, it was not possible to call Japanese as overlords. But that is Western propaganda, right up there.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            Oh get off it. The European diseases went all over the place. You do know that they had trade routes all over the Americas. You can trace the progress of the die offs by the trade routes. The Spanish introduced the germs to the Central and South Americans and the Central and South Americans spread it north.
            Ofcourse unlike the spanish cousins, 'real' white Europeans never committed genocide.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
              Some historians say that 95% of the population were already killed by the time English people came to settle in North America.
              Isnt that very convenient! The problem is American history will never tell the truth about native americans, Since Americans do want to drink the kool aid, that they are a better people than the rest etc etc 'all men are created equal' ***not just my black slaves

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                Some historians say that 95% of the population were already killed by the time English people came to settle in North America.
                I live smack dab in an area that records of De Soto's expidition said was full of walled cities (Mississippian Culture) with thousands of warriors who opposed him. A little over a century later when French Jesuits arrived, the area was almost entirely devoid of people, the wooden walls rotting and an over grown and the game so unused to man that you could walk up and pet wild deer.

                Plymouth Rock was actually an abandoned Indian village, the population of North America had collapsed from disease. The disease event in North America from about 1519-1620 easily ranks with the great plagues of human history and might well be the biggest. Not just small pox but measles and other diseases.

                Comment


                • Defcon,

                  It was such a fluid situation, it was not possible to call Japanese as overlords. But that is Western propaganda, right up there.
                  if you're looking for the perfect way to insult pretty much all of East Asia, that's it right there.

                  countries which suffered DECADES under british/dutch/spanish colonial mistreatment rose up in arms within a year or two of Japanese occupation. philippines, china, vietnam, burma....

                  and the Japanese were stopped in 1944 by a British/Indian force at Kohima and Imphal-- what do you think they were there for, to liberate the Indians?
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    Defcon,



                    if you're looking for the perfect way to insult pretty much all of East Asia, that's it right there.

                    countries which suffered DECADES under british/dutch/spanish colonial mistreatment rose up in arms within a year or two of Japanese occupation. philippines, china, vietnam, burma....

                    and the Japanese were stopped in 1944 by a British/Indian force at Kohima and Imphal-- what do you think they were there for, to liberate the Indians?
                    Indian National Army, wasnt fighting for a Japanese overlords, they were allied with Japanese. Do you have any document which proves it to be so, other than western propaganda.

                    Indians were dumb enough to kill their own for the Brits, if Brits showed them Japanese, they will kill them too. Enslaved with Stockholm Syndrome, that is what any Indian who supported the Brits were, nothing less.

                    Japanese, were no different than any other colonial powers; they simply didnt have the propaganda as well as they did it in a different 'recorded' timeline.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
                      It was such a fluid situation, it was not possible to call Japanese as overlords. But that is Western propaganda, right up there.
                      100,000 ethnic Indians in Burma didn't think so.

                      Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
                      Ofcourse unlike the spanish cousins, 'real' white Europeans never committed genocide.
                      Now, who's talking propaganda? You said the Brits and the Americans wiped out millions in North America. There were no millions to be wiped out. The largest tribe when the English landed numbered in the 10s of 1000s. Those millions were long dead.
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
                        Indian National Army, wasnt fighting for a Japanese overlords, they were allied with Japanese. Do you have any document which proves it to be so, other than western propaganda.
                        How about Japanese documentation?

                        Japanese occupation of the Andaman Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          The difference between the INA and the BIA. Both loved India and hated the British. The BIA loved India more than they hated the British and that was why they would not tolerate new Japanese overlords. The INA hated the British more than they loved India and that was why they would tolerate the Japanese overlords.

                          It was as simple as that.
                          That is a characterization I can work with.

                          In response to Astralis regarding the 1.5 million volunteer soldiers. If you were to look at the social conditions at that time and the pay involved, these people joined not because out of loyalty to the British Empire but because of the money involved. The pay was vastly better than anywhere else they could find. There were no other jobs that could pay well and those jobs that do pay well, you literally had to jump through tons of hoops and kiss ass to get those kind of jobs. So I wouldn't take it as a sign that Indians had love and respect for the British Empire. They don't. In fact the strongest supporters of INC and Independence movements were former veterans of the BIA returning from WWI.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
                            Isnt that very convenient! The problem is American history will never tell the truth about native americans,
                            You certainly don't know American history.

                            Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
                            Since Americans do want to drink the kool aid, that they are a better people than the rest etc etc 'all men are created equal' ***not just my black slaves
                            Yes, that is the history. So?
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                              In response to Astralis regarding the 1.5 million volunteer soldiers. If you were to look at the social conditions at that time and the pay involved, these people joined not because out of loyalty to the British Empire but because of the money involved. The pay was vastly better than anywhere else they could find. There were no other jobs that could pay well and those jobs that do pay well, you literally had to jump through tons of hoops and kiss ass to get those kind of jobs. So I wouldn't take it as a sign that Indians had love and respect for the British Empire. They don't. In fact the strongest supporters of INC and Independence movements were former veterans of the BIA returning from WWI.
                              Doesn't explain the bloodlust between the BIA and the IJA.
                              Chimo

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                yes, and look when it -ended-. three years later. the british couldn't centralize power like they used to.
                                That didn't stop British from trying to quell down any further independence movements. Look at various acts that they passed afterwards. See the Government Act of 1935. Under the guise of dominion and self rule, they sought to protect British interests at the expense of Indian interests and sought to retain India under British control. The concept of self rule was an illusion.

                                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                what's your point? as i said, -Churchill- was horrified. no surprise there would be a group of Tories which hated the result of the Hunter Inquiry. in the end, Dyer was cashiered and his CBE was cancelled. note that the Commission which handed down the report had Indian members as well.

                                different Empire than the Empire of 1857.
                                My point was that there was still sufficient majority support in the British to quell down any dissension or talk of independence movement in India. The idea of dominionship for India was never a popular thought. It only became a popular thought after the end of WWII when the British realized they could not hold onto India without incurring even more expensive costs and it may be more costly than WWII in itself and they were fed up with war. So they moved with great speed to get out of India. That was not the prevalent feeling before WWII. They still harbored strong feelings and thoughts that they could keep India.


                                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                it accelerated the process greatly, but the process was already there. that's why the Dominions and the middle-class Indian elite were -hugely- enthusiastic about the outbreak of war: they WANTED to rally around the flag and also demonstrate to the "Mother Country" that they were capable of self-rule while Britain fought for her life.
                                I would call it as a political expediency to get what they really wanted but not what British wanted: Indian independence. They thought that they could get more leverage by working within the system and changing it to get what they wanted. The British people didn't want to do it but allowed Indians in out of necessity and those Indians tried very hard to change the system to get what they wanted. It didn't worked out as they wanted hence the stronger movement for Independence. Dominion was not on the cards afterwards.

                                Even then there was still strong movements of rebellion and insurgency in the Bengal and Punjab regions during that time and Defence of India Act 1915 was passed to deal out harsh punishments against those who would dare to speak out against the British.

                                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                1.5 million Indians volunteered to join the fight, either in combatant or non-combatant roles.

                                if the British were the pure monsters you're making them out to be, then why did Indians volunteer vice staying home? or listen to German propaganda and try a separatist movement? 1.5 million revolting Indians in WWI would have likely ended British rule in India.
                                Refer to my previous post in response to OOE's post as to the reason why 1.5 million Indians enlisted. It wasn't because they had to fight against German aggression but because of the economic opportunity it offered. The British Empire was in desperate need of soldiers and found a readily available large pool of available men in India.

                                The independence movement gained strength in the aftermath of WWI with the aid and support of returning BIA veterans. Check the rolls of INC members in that time period.

                                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                for that matter even the Quit India movement in WWII largely fizzled out, and that was at a time when the popularity of the Raj was probably at an all-time low.
                                It fizzled out because the British arrested all the key players of Quit India Movement. Incidentally at the same time, that is when INA reached its greatest strength.


                                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                the 1945 british Labour party platform explicitly called for indian self-government. and they won.

                                moreover by then the British knew they weren't going to hold on to India; note what the Cripps mission in 1942 offered. also, the americans were weighing extremely heavily against the British by this time, to the point where Churchill threatened to resign if the Americans continued to push for independence during the war.
                                They supported Indian self government because they had their own problems to deal with and didn’t want to deal with it anymore and they knew that they couldn’t get any more money from India.

                                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                lol, no. the Mutiny was condemned by both Gandhi and the INC...in fact, only the Communist Party supported it.
                                And see how fast the Mutiny died out after it was condemned by Gandhi and INC? In that instant, the British effectively lost control of India and control of India was in the hands of INC. Anything else was pure window dressing.



                                Originally posted by astralis View Post

                                this i agree with. by 1947 it was too late. if India was to stay as a Dominion, the British probably should have devolved to self-ruled Dominion for India in 1926 along with the other Dominions.
                                The Government of India Act 1935 says otherwise. They still wanted to keep India and pay lip service to the concept of self rule Dominion for India.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X