Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 44

Thread: Jallianwala Bagh tragedy shameful scar on British Indian history: Theresa May

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,607
    Good luck to you building yet another 'Indian' version of history, but I sincerely hope it is more soundly based than some of the stuff below.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    - 1.3 million Indians fought on the side of the allies in WW1. 75, 000 died and another 70,000 seriously injured. This is more help to Britain in terms of manpower than all other countries combined. Military historians believe without such assistance Britain would likely have lost the war and ended up a German colony. My cursory studies of WW1 revealed a shocking fact. By Nov 1914, a mere three months after outbreak that Britan had lost 85% of her professional fighting force.
    Which military historians said that? I would like to know so as to avoid their work. Clearly they are idiots. Unless India built and crewed a few squadrons of battleships to keep the High Seas Fleet bottled up in Kiel nothing Indian (or Australian or NZ or Canadian) soldiers did saved the UK from 'becoming a German colony'. I am surprised an educated person could read that and not collapse in laughter. It basically requires a person to be completely unaware of the existence of the huge French & Russian armies and the entire Royal Navy

    As for your 'shocking' discovery...Britain's pre-war professional army wasn't very large. A side effect of being a naval power and also of having a lot of manpower wandering the colonies. The old professional army was basically wiped out by October 1915 - I think Loos was the last of it. Of course, in the meantime Britain recruited a whole new army at home. That process began at the very start of the war, so as those old units were wiped out new units were already forming to take their place or new recruits were available to fill the spots.

    By the time manpower from the Empire arrived at the front the risk of a German victory had passed and did not return.

    For perspective, Australia, new Zealand and Canada (combined population 14 million) provided almost 1.2 million troops for the war effort with combined wounded of over 350,000 and combined dead (additional to that figure) of over 140,000 dead.

    South Africa, parts of which had been at war with Britain barely a decade earlier and whose leaders had fought the British, provided over 200,000 soldiers. They fought despite the war leading to an armed Boer uprising. Ireland contributed a similar number of men despite the bulk of the nation being unwilling members of the UK and having their own armed uprising in 1916. Some 50,000 of those men died during the war.

    I have never once heard anyone from any of those nations claim to have 'saved' Britain from German occupation. Maybe someone not worth reading has. Plenty of people in Australia talk up and exaggerate the contribution of the ANZACs and they are the subject of much national pride, but there are limits. I am sure those other nations do the same. So, by all means talk up India's contribution to WW1, but keep it in perspective.

    Same stats with WW2.
    Care to elaborate? Given what is above I am loathe to even attempt to work out what you are claiming here.

    So build a war memorial in England commemorating their sacrifice.
    Sounds good, if only someone had thought of it before...like in 1915

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattri,_Brighton

    ....or 1917

    https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/21353

    ....or subsequently

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_Gates,_London

    https://www.news18.com/news/world/uk...d-1935265.html

    There are also monuments in France & Belgium. Is there a particular number you had in mind that would equal sufficient recognition, or will that do?


    - the people doing the killing in Jallianwallabagh were Indian sepoys. He likens people against India building a grand narrative as Sepoys 2.0. He wants Indians to stop blaming Brits for and for Brits to acknowledge what went on there. So move forward in a win win way as collaborators working together.

    - he's tired of reports on caste oppression coming from the west, overdone support for christian evangelism the way it is done in India in a perjorative way.

    - Brits missed the boat on yoga. Americans picked it up in the 60s and globalised it. Brits had 200 years in India but missed it : D

    - Americans made use of Indian manpower in their tech companies. Result is Indians wanted to go to the US instead of the UK. Americans benefited.

    What's interesting is you get the impression that the UK post Brexit and India are in a similar mental & psychological space. Brits wanted out of the EU because their grand narrative was getting messed with. UK invests heavily in maintaining its narrative, democracy, royalty, literature etc which translates into tourism and general self-esteem. Indians are looking for a grand narrative. Brits can be good partners.
    Not really seeing much of a narrative there, but good luck to you. I hope it isn't just the same mixture of exaggeration, lack of perspective and victimhood narratives that so many national grand narratives consist of.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  2. #17
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    Good luck to you building yet another 'Indian' version of history, but I sincerely hope it is more soundly based than some of the stuff below.
    The idea is it will be better founded than what exists presently

    Which military historians said that? I would like to know so as to avoid their work. Clearly they are idiots. Unless India built and crewed a few squadrons of battleships to keep the High Seas Fleet bottled up in Kiel nothing Indian (or Australian or NZ or Canadian) soldiers did saved the UK from 'becoming a German colony'. I am surprised an educated person could read that and not collapse in laughter. It basically requires a person to be completely unaware of the existence of the huge French & Russian armies and the entire Royal Navy

    As for your 'shocking' discovery...Britain's pre-war professional army wasn't very large. A side effect of being a naval power and also of having a lot of manpower wandering the colonies. The old professional army was basically wiped out by October 1915 - I think Loos was the last of it. Of course, in the meantime Britain recruited a whole new army at home. That process began at the very start of the war, so as those old units were wiped out new units were already forming to take their place or new recruits were available to fill the spots.
    Who needs a military historian when common sense will do. Take away India's contribution and where does the UK stand ?

    By the time manpower from the Empire arrived at the front the risk of a German victory had passed and did not return.
    Then why were troops from India sent over ?

    Clearly you're talking from hindsight. At the time there evidently was a need and more the better.

    For perspective, Australia, new Zealand and Canada (combined population 14 million) provided almost 1.2 million troops for the war effort with combined wounded of over 350,000 and combined dead (additional to that figure) of over 140,000 dead.

    South Africa, parts of which had been at war with Britain barely a decade earlier and whose leaders had fought the British, provided over 200,000 soldiers. They fought despite the war leading to an armed Boer uprising. Ireland contributed a similar number of men despite the bulk of the nation being unwilling members of the UK and having their own armed uprising in 1916. Some 50,000 of those men died during the war.
    So you are disputing that India alone sent more troops than all colonies combined ? the difference is like a 100k give or take. What should not be missed is it still is a MAJOR contribution. As for numbers i'm going by what he said in the talk.

    I have never once heard anyone from any of those nations claim to have 'saved' Britain from German occupation. Maybe someone not worth reading has. Plenty of people in Australia talk up and exaggerate the contribution of the ANZACs and they are the subject of much national pride, but there are limits. I am sure those other nations do the same. So, by all means talk up India's contribution to WW1, but keep it in perspective.
    And ? This guy did and i like the way he phrased it because there is no way to rebut it. It's plugs like that get you noticed.

    Other countries didn't suffer the kind of loss India went through. In the early 18th century India made up 23% of worlds GDP. Come 1947 it was reduced to 3%. So we make our contributions count

    Care to elaborate? Given what is above I am loathe to even attempt to work out what you are claiming here.
    manpower sent by india in ww2 was 2 million. I remember an author who documented India's efforts mentioning that figure. Her figure for WW1 was ~700k though


    Sounds good, if only someone had thought of it before...like in 1915

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattri,_Brighton

    ....or 1917

    https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/21353

    ....or subsequently

    https://www.news18.com/news/world/uk...d-1935265.html
    Brighton & New Forest & west midlands are in the middle of no where

    There are also monuments in France & Belgium. Is there a particular number you had in mind that would equal sufficient recognition, or will that do?
    The French & Belgians weren't even that involved with India and they have acceptable monuments. Modi did lay a wreath when he visited France. First time i heard of an Indian PM doing that. I don't recall him doing the same in the UK, A country we were involved with for over 200 years. Our soldiers went on Britan's behest not France or Belgium.

    He's asking for something more prominent just for Indians. This could have been done earlier if Indian govts pushed for it.

    The point is the average Brit gets it. I don't think many do at all. This bit of info would have come in handy when i lived in the UK. No better way to shut some one up than by saying your people gave their lives to defend them.

    Not really seeing much of a narrative there, but good luck to you. I hope it isn't just the same mixture of exaggeration, lack of perspective and victimhood narratives that so many national grand narratives consist of.
    We don't have one yet because nobody thought of it. It will be just what you said. Like other national narratives. Perhaps minus victimhood. No need, the civilisation survived numerous invasions but still kept its culture. National myths they're called. They fulfill the purpose of nation building of instilling pride in a people. A collective sense of ownership. The collective has been under attack for a while now, people think no further than the individual. That's important.

    For now it is a suggestion by one guy. Whether it ever comes to fruition is another matter entirely. Malhotra pushes the civilization line. Some think that emphasising civilziation weakens the nation state.

    Civilizationism vs the Nation State
    Last edited by Double Edge; 23 Apr 19, at 05:50.

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    The idea is it will be better founded than what exists presently
    Not if it is based on some of the stuff in your post.

    Who needs a military historian when common sense will do. Take away India's contribution and where does the UK stand ?
    So now there aren't any military historians making this claim? That was quick. As for 'common sense', that tends to be code for ill informed statements that stroke a particular prejudice. Your claim was that Indian troops were the reason Britain didn't become a 'German colony'. Like I said, laugh out loud funny stuff that betrays a near complete lack of understanding of WW1.

    Without Indian troops Britain would likely have committed fewer troops to particular fronts. So, perhaps no Gallipoli campaign. Maybe fewer troops in Africa, Mesopotamia, the Balkans or the Italian front. None of our nations were the difference between winning & losing the war - only someone desperate to create a false narrative would claim otherwise.


    Then why were troops from India sent over ?

    Clearly you're talking from hindsight. At the time there evidently was a need and more the better.
    Did you just complain about someone using hindsight in an argument about history? That is one of the most bizarre things I have read in a while. OF COURSE I am using hindsight, in reply to a claim also made in hindsight. At least my observation had the virtue of being factually correct.


    So you are disputing that India alone sent more troops than all colonies combined ? the difference is like a 100k give or take. What should not be missed is it still is a MAJOR contribution. As for numbers i'm going by what he said in the talk.
    No, where did I dispute that? I simply put it in perspective. Canada with 8 million people lost 67,000. Australia with 5 million lost over 61,000. New Zealand with a tiny 1 million lost 16,000. We suffered twice the deaths and five times the casualties Indian troops did from a smaller number. That probably tells you something about the sort of tasks we were given. We all made MAJOR contributions. None of us individually 'saved' Britain from defeat, just from making a different set of decisions. Our sacrifices should be remembered for what they were, not what we want them to be.


    And ? This guy did and i like the way he phrased it because there is no way to rebut it. It's plugs like that get you noticed.
    So he made up stuff that appealed to your national pride so you just didn't bother to do any basic fact checking?

    Other countries didn't suffer the kind of loss India went through. In the early 18th century India made up 23% of worlds GDP. Come 1947 it was reduced to 3%. So we make our contributions count
    What a load of BS. Plenty of countries have suffered. Want to whine to the indigenous people of the Americas about how hard done by you were? Your culture & civilisation still exists. You are only special to you. That is fair enough, but don't downplay the suffering of others just because you want to boost the victimhood narrative in your story.

    manpower sent by india in ww2 was 2 million. I remember an author who documented India's efforts mentioning that figure. Her figure for WW1 was ~700k though
    The figure for India was something like 2.5 million - all volunteers. They did sterling service, mainly in India itself, Burma, Malaya etc. but also significant contributions in Africa. The performance of Indian troops in Ethiopia, and in particular the storming of Keren against superior odds, was impressive by any standards. Sadly post-independence Indian governments treated many of these veterans poorly while celebrating some of the men they fought. Perhaps your new history can sort that out.

    Brighton & New Forest & west midlands are in the middle of no where
    OK, so now that you have been informed that there are memorials you are whining that they were put in the places where the men they are dedicated to were based. One of the definitions of prejudice is to continually shift the goal posts so that the people you dislike can never meet an impossible standard.


    The French & Belgians weren't even that involved with India and they have acceptable monuments. Modi did lay a wreath when he visited France. First time i heard of an Indian PM doing that. I don't recall him doing the same in the UK, A country we were involved with for over 200 years. Our soldiers went on Britan's behest not France or Belgium.
    ....and there are monuments in Britain that remember them. Have been for over 100 years.


    He's asking for something more prominent just for Indians. This could have been done earlier if Indian govts pushed for it.

    The point is the average Brit gets it. I don't think many do at all. This bit of info would have come in handy when i lived in the UK. No better way to shut some one up than by saying your people gave their lives to defend them.
    Great. Start a campaign if you think it will achieve something.


    We don't have one yet because nobody thought of it. It will be just what you said. Like other national narratives. Perhaps minus victimhood. No need, the civilisation survived numerous invasions but still kept its culture. National myths they're called. They fulfill the purpose of nation building of instilling pride in a people. A collective sense of ownership. The collective has been under attack for a while now, people think no further than the individual. That's important.

    For now it is a suggestion by one guy. Whether it ever comes to fruition is another matter entirely. Malhotra pushes the civilization line. Some think that emphasising civilziation weakens the nation state.
    Good luck to you, though I'm not hopeful about the 'minus victimhood' bit.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,490
    ^ So, both of you agree there should be statues commemorating Indian soldiers for their actions (WWI & WWII) in Melbourne & Sydney? And in all major towns/cities in the UK?
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  5. #20
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    ^ So, both of you agree there should be statues commemorating Indian soldiers for their actions (WWI & WWII) in Melbourne & Sydney? And in all major towns/cities in the UK?
    He hasn't mentioned all major towns & cities. I'm thinking he means something in London or nearby. More prominent than exists presently.

  6. #21
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,490
    1.5 million (WWI), 2.5 million (WWII) Indians fought. Maybe a couple of 100K + -. But, it doesn't in any way negate the evil practice of colonialism that the Brits practiced. Bengal famine is just one example. The Brits ruined our textile industry. Divide and rule. Casteism. How is Churchill even considered a war hero, when his achievements are over millions of Indian dead bodies? Consider the border areas - Durand/McMahon line or the idea that Mountbatten gave to Nehru to go to the UN to solve the Kashmir issue. The colonialists were evil. They destroyed India. These things should be taught in British schools so that newer generations of Brits know about their ancestors misrule. War memorials, if erected, should be from the host government, if they think it's worth it to respect those dead Indians. That would show their respect towards fallen Indians in THEIR war.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  7. #22
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    Not if it is based on some of the stuff in your post.
    In this speech only the need for a grand narrative was mentioned. Not the content. He's spoken about that in other talks which i will get into later.

    All of this is new to me as i figure out what this author is about.

    Grand narrative, soft power reparations. New ideas.

    It's a change from the usual blame game the post colonialists harp on about.

    So now there aren't any military historians making this claim? That was quick. As for 'common sense', that tends to be code for ill informed statements that stroke a particular prejudice. Your claim was that Indian troops were the reason Britain didn't become a 'German colony'. Like I said, laugh out loud funny stuff that betrays a near complete lack of understanding of WW1.

    Without Indian troops Britain would likely have committed fewer troops to particular fronts. So, perhaps no Gallipoli campaign. Maybe fewer troops in Africa, Mesopotamia, the Balkans or the Italian front. None of our nations were the difference between winning & losing the war - only someone desperate to create a false narrative would claim otherwise.
    He mentioned military historians. And he says most historians would agree.... I don't know what his sources are as they aren't mentioned when giving this speech. I said i didn't need any historians.

    The question of winning & losing is debatable. You have fewer men to throw at a battle something has to give some where. A major reversal any where on the front creates complications which would not be there with more soldiers. This is common sense.


    Did you just complain about someone using hindsight in an argument about history? That is one of the most bizarre things I have read in a while. OF COURSE I am using hindsight, in reply to a claim also made in hindsight. At least my observation had the virtue of being factually correct.
    Tell me why you think he is using hindsight to make the argument ? i don't think he is.

    it's obvious you are though. When you said the moment manpower from the empire arrived the chance of a German victory had passed. You only know that with hindsight. When people were called up that was not known and hence why the call was made. Without which there could be more losses.


    No, where did I dispute that? I simply put it in perspective. Canada with 8 million people lost 67,000. Australia with 5 million lost over 61,000. New Zealand with a tiny 1 million lost 16,000. We suffered twice the deaths and five times the casualties Indian troops did from a smaller number. That probably tells you something about the sort of tasks we were given. We all made MAJOR contributions. None of us individually 'saved' Britain from defeat, just from making a different set of decisions. Our sacrifices should be remembered for what they were, not what we want them to be.
    What was the highest rank an Aussie could rise to in the military of those days ?

    In India once you made captain that was it. You went no higher. This limits the sort of tasks that could be done. Bear in mind the earliest regiments raised in India date to the 1780's. So there was a long time to WW1. In the meantime under Curzon there were quite a few expeditions around the region including the two opium wars

    The other point is what was the importance to the host country to participate in the world wars ?

    We always say we were conned into them. They weren't our wars. The idea was if Indians contributed to the war effort in WW1 that autonomy would be granted. The Brits reneged on this after the war ended. So what did India get out of this affair ? 77k dead another 70k wounded. What did the Brits get ? they got to win the war. And the assertion being made is not without India's contributions. Not just with manpower but resources as well. That is the point he is hammering in.

    Once the US broke away the Brits needed another source of revenue, manpower and figured it could be India. With the French & Spanish threatening them every where throughout the eighteenth & nineteenth century, India's contribution here is inestimable. Keep in mind he is not making this claim, i am.

    I wonder whether UK would have got to where it was without India by the dawn of the twentieth century. British power & wealth was built off the backs of Indians.


    So he made up stuff that appealed to your national pride so you just didn't bother to do any basic fact checking?
    Fact checking i leave for others to do. I'm presenting what he said in a summary. He made the speech a year earlier. I thought it was relevant


    What a load of BS. Plenty of countries have suffered. Want to whine to the indigenous people of the Americas about how hard done by you were? Your culture & civilisation still exists. You are only special to you. That is fair enough, but don't downplay the suffering of others just because you want to boost the victimhood narrative in your story.
    What others suffered is for them to bring up. He's promoting India's case to a packed house of UK Hindu groups and being applauded in British parliament with three MP's. From a recognition point of view what he says matters given the venue and the reaction. Quite frankly what he proposes is more achievable than what Shashi said at Oxford. In the Q&A he was asked what the difference was.


    The figure for India was something like 2.5 million - all volunteers. They did sterling service, mainly in India itself, Burma, Malaya etc. but also significant contributions in Africa. The performance of Indian troops in Ethiopia, and in particular the storming of Keren against superior odds, was impressive by any standards. Sadly post-independence Indian governments treated many of these veterans poorly while celebrating some of the men they fought. Perhaps your new history can sort that out.
    The point is the contribution to the war effort. The sad thing as you noted is if Indian govts of the day couldn't see fit to credit veterans of these wars then its a tall ask to expect the UK to do so. This went on deliberately for decades. Military is a burden. Nehru wanted a coup proof military and he cut them down size. Their contributions mostly unrecognised. A relative of mine who was in the '62 war with China got a plaque comemerating his effort (evac of the wounded) in 2008. Forty six years later (!)

    OK, so now that you have been informed that there are memorials you are whining that they were put in the places where the men they are dedicated to were based. One of the definitions of prejudice is to continually shift the goal posts so that the people you dislike can never meet an impossible standard.

    ....and there are monuments in Britain that remember them. Have been for over 100 years.
    He is pointing out that what exists is inadequate in proportion to the contribution. I think he's aware of what exists otherwise he'd not make the point.

    There is no impossible standard here. No shifting of goal post. If the UK wants to curry favour with India it's going to have to pander to our ego. Simple as that. They will have to do similar with their erstwhile African holdings in the future too as Africa is where the major growth will come from in the future.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 23 Apr 19, at 21:16.

  8. #23
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    How is Churchill even considered a war hero, when his achievements are over millions of Indian dead bodies?
    His people threw him out of office once WW2 ended. Some thanks for winning the war.

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    His people threw him out of office once WW2 ended. Some thanks for winning the war.
    Yeah, perpetrating a genocide in India in the form of a Churchill made famine. How cool is that. UK is what it is because of what they stole from India. In today's world, they are losing relevance every day.

    Newer Brits don't know as their government don't teach them of their ancestors misrule. I, OTOH, found Brits to be quite nice.
    Last edited by Oracle; 24 Apr 19, at 01:42.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    ^ So, both of you agree there should be statues commemorating Indian soldiers for their actions (WWI & WWII) in Melbourne & Sydney? And in all major towns/cities in the UK?
    Either this is a poor attempt at humour or I have wildly overestimated your intelligence.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  11. #26
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    In this speech only the need for a grand narrative was mentioned. Not the content. He's spoken about that in other talks which i will get into later.

    All of this is new to me as i figure out what this author is about.

    Grand narrative, soft power reparations. New ideas.

    It's a change from the usual blame game the post colonialists harp on about.


    He mentioned military historians. And he says most historians would agree.... I don't know what his sources are as they aren't mentioned when giving this speech. I said i didn't need any historians.

    The question of winning & losing is debatable. You have fewer men to throw at a battle something has to give some where. A major reversal any where on the front creates complications which would not be there with more soldiers. This is common sense.



    Tell me why you think he is using hindsight to make the argument ? i don't think he is.

    it's obvious you are though. When you said the moment manpower from the empire arrived the chance of a German victory had passed. You only know that with hindsight. When people were called up that was not known and hence why the call was made. Without which there could be more losses.



    What was the highest rank an Aussie could rise to in the military of those days ?

    In India once you made captain that was it. You went no higher. This limits the sort of tasks that could be done. Bear in mind the earliest regiments raised in India date to the 1780's. So there was a long time to WW1. In the meantime under Curzon there were quite a few expeditions around the region including the two opium wars

    The other point is what was the importance to the host country to participate in the world wars ?

    We always say we were conned into them. They weren't our wars. The idea was if Indians contributed to the war effort in WW1 that autonomy would be granted. The Brits reneged on this after the war ended. So what did India get out of this affair ? 77k dead another 70k wounded. What did the Brits get ? they got to win the war. And the assertion being made is not without India's contributions. Not just with manpower but resources as well. That is the point he is hammering in.

    Once the US broke away the Brits needed another source of revenue, manpower and figured it could be India. With the French & Spanish threatening them every where throughout the eighteenth & nineteenth century, India's contribution here is inestimable. Keep in mind he is not making this claim, i am.

    I wonder whether UK would have got to where it was without India by the dawn of the twentieth century. British power & wealth was built off the backs of Indians.



    Fact checking i leave for others to do. I'm presenting what he said in a summary. He made the speech a year earlier. I thought it was relevant



    What others suffered is for them to bring up. He's promoting India's case to a packed house of UK Hindu groups and being applauded in British parliament with three MP's. From a recognition point of view what he says matters given the venue and the reaction. Quite frankly what he proposes is more achievable than what Shashi said at Oxford. In the Q&A he was asked what the difference was.




    The point is the contribution to the war effort. The sad thing as you noted is if Indian govts of the day couldn't see fit to credit veterans of these wars then its a tall ask to expect the UK to do so. This went on deliberately for decades. Military is a burden. Nehru wanted a coup proof military and he cut them down size. Their contributions mostly unrecognised. A relative of mine who was in the '62 war with China got a plaque comemerating his effort (evac of the wounded) in 2008. Forty six years later (!)


    He is pointing out that what exists is inadequate in proportion to the contribution. I think he's aware of what exists otherwise he'd not make the point.

    There is no impossible standard here. No shifting of goal post. If the UK wants to curry favour with India it's going to have to pander to our ego. Simple as that. They will have to do similar with their erstwhile African holdings in the future too as Africa is where the major growth will come from in the future.
    It is pretty clear from this that you are incapable of making arguments based on facts and unprepared to defend even your own words. You found some charlatan who tells you nice little lies about your own nation while stoking your sense of grievance. You want to believe him, facts be damned. I have wasted all the time I care to setting you straight. If this is the template for your 'new' history then you are going backwards. The moment you ditch facts for prejudices you are producing propaganda, not history. Perhaps that was always the point.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    Either this is a poor attempt at humour or I have wildly overestimated your intelligence.
    Dead Indian soldiers of the British Empire getting recognition is not humour. It's overdue. I've long been on this board to understand facts, fiction, bias and prejudice. Fun, how anything remotely Indian riles you up.
    Last edited by Oracle; 24 Apr 19, at 03:53.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  13. #28
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    It is pretty clear from this that you are incapable of making arguments based on facts and unprepared to defend even your own words. You found some charlatan who tells you nice little lies about your own nation while stoking your sense of grievance. You want to believe him, facts be damned. I have wasted all the time I care to setting you straight. If this is the template for your 'new' history then you are going backwards. The moment you ditch facts for prejudices you are producing propaganda, not history. Perhaps that was always the point.
    Not for me to defend his words. I'm summarising what he said. You are free to disagree. But your unwillingness to participate is sudden.

    Maybe British parliament should review its door policy and not let charlatans in. What you get wrong is the grievance bit. That is what the other lot do. The post colonialists. His recommendations are simple and achievable and will bring dividends to both countries. He's asking for recognition of what India was to the UK. Positive for positive.

    He's working on a book that isn't even out yet. And you've already slammed the idea. Second guess much ? this happens a lot in this place as well as else where and i've called it out loads of times. The idea that something will happen is more troublesome than what actually happens if ever it does.

    The next thing i notice people do is obsess about words and not actions. Feeding frenzy ensues along with miles of newsprint. Only thing that matters is the actions. Then we talk. But nobody is there.

    When this book comes out what its reception will be and then what comes after. I'm not holding my breath. Your reaction to it i expect will be common with the opposition. Because this work they will see as a threat to the narrative they created. Oh it will be the end of India's secular polity. There will be a flurry of fear mongering. All this will be ignored. News will spread by word of mouth as it does on social media. That will be the acid test.



    The person that introduces him makes a pertinent remark. The west talks about rejecting a master narrative. But when you separate the wheat from the chaff what they really mean is they reject other peoples narratives and their own narrative remains grand. All the great successful countries today have a very clear self-recognition.

    The speaker starts and mentions when he worked in corporate world that people would get together after work. And they talk about their countries. The Americans, French, Chinese etc. When it comes to the Indian and they ask him what his story is about all he can reply is cricket & bollywood. That's why we need a grand narrative. We don't even know who we are. At the time of independence the amount of naysayers as to India's future was there. It would never last. All break up soon and become a mess. No, it became a mess after it was occupied by the UK. It's was the world's #2 economy before they arrived. When the 50s turned into the 60s we heard 1967 would be the last elections India would ever hold. According to that Neville Maxwell. FT journalist famous for his book on the '62 war. But here we are 50 years later at the cusp of yet another election. Stronger than before. About to get still stronger if ever we get our act together.

    And i haven't even finished listening to what he has to say
    Last edited by Double Edge; 24 Apr 19, at 05:56.

  14. #29
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    Which military historians said that? I would like to know so as to avoid their work. Clearly they are idiots. Unless India built and crewed a few squadrons of battleships to keep the High Seas Fleet bottled up in Kiel nothing Indian (or Australian or NZ or Canadian) soldiers did saved the UK from 'becoming a German colony'. I am surprised an educated person could read that and not collapse in laughter. It basically requires a person to be completely unaware of the existence of the huge French & Russian armies and the entire Royal Navy
    Anchor mentions at 2:25 C-in-C in India Claude Auchinleck recorded that without Indian soldiers the Brits could not have won both wars. It's also worth mentioning that Auchinleck proposed deploying British forces during the partition but was turned down by Mountbatten. Had those troops been deployed maybe a million might not have died.



    They're having a exhibition at Sandhurst to commemorate these efforts. This falls short of due credit

    Malhotra wanted a plaque outside Parliament in London to commemorate these efforts. Location matters. Location indicates how central Indian forces were to the British war effort of both wars. More permanent.

    I have never once heard anyone from any of those nations claim to have 'saved' Britain from German occupation.
    You are now.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 30 Sep 19, at 06:42.

  15. #30
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,607
    Last time we did this you made a succession of claims that melted like ice under a blowtorch the moment they were challenged. I spent a great deal more time on it than the topic deserved.

    When you can provide me with a detailed explanation of how Indian military assistance 'saved Britain from becoming German colony' in WW1 and then show a willingness to defend your position rather than changing topic, hiding behind others or just running away then I'll spend more time on this. I would also like some specific references to those military historians you claimed existed and the claims they made (and in case you are wondering I don't waste time watching youtube videos. Adults read, preferably books or articles in respected publications). Until then you are wasting your time. Rather you than me.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Reduction in migration numbers is a British tragedy
    By troung in forum International Politics
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 28 Mar 17,, 21:30
  2. Shameful Israeli Behaviour
    By Bigfella in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 21 Jun 10,, 05:46
  3. Recommendations on books on general Indian history
    By Inst in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20 Jun 09,, 21:01
  4. New British history classes for schools
    By Parihaka in forum International Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 28 Jan 07,, 00:49
  5. Fn Scar
    By Shosties in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 25 Jan 05,, 06:10

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •