Stalin killed Netaji, Subramanian Swamy says

[anil]

OoE,

Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote.

I wasn't presenting bose as a hero to the west (he is actually the opposite of a hero for the west)
Nor was I advocating for any history lessons on him in any textbooks outside india

I was talking specifically to indians

[popillol]

This says a lot. You are a fucking idiot! The BIA saved you from the IJE and you have absolutely zero clue what that meant! This being the WAB and not a BJP mouthpiece, I will say this. You did not deserve what the BIA has done for you, you fucking idiot!

Oh btw, VSDOC, fuck you!

BIA saved India, but could have done the same by joining with Bose. Would have been independence heroes too. I am not saying that BIA's effort was not required, on the contrary India required it with all its might. I am just saying BIA didn't give preference to India's independence. Why couldn't they join forces with Bose and stop him from going over to the Japanese?
If BIA soldiers should get Bharat Ratna, they should have also fought for India's independence. By doing this nobody stopped them from decimating the Japanese.

Are you saying that I am vsdoc? Because I am not.

And I am not praising the BJP or the foolish acts of RSS, why are you accusing me of being a BJP mouthpiece?

[Blademaster]

That's just it. The West doesn't even know him. In the scheme of things, the INA did not rate. While there was a concern amongst the British, Kawabe and the IJA was easily a 100 times more important.

By siding with the 2nd worst colonial power in the 20th Century? Bose is limited to India. Not even Japan knows or cares about him.

Then don't get mad for India not caring about BIA before 1946 when BIA actively started working for India's interests. By your standards, if USA, Britain or Japan didn't care about Indian independence, then why should India care about what America, British, or Japanese think, or for that matter, what you think?

As you basically told popiloi to fuck off for respecting Bose and IJA, so are many Indians telling you to fuck off for dissing Indian freedom fighters. Leave it at that.

[Blademaster]

No, they didn't conquered it. They got stuck with it with the mess of the British India Company and your various principalities trying to take advantage of the BIC's mercenary operations.

I am sorry but that is totally a revisionist version of history designed to make Britain look better and we as Indians strongly resent that very much.

Because they saved your ass.

Only after Gandhi and INC told them that there was a way out with Indian independence.

He's not innocent. If you're asking do I think that he should be shot, yes, whole heartily but that is NOT what happenned and trying to substitute what you want for the facts is complete dishonesty.

And neither was Churchill. He bombed an ally and sank her fleet even though that fleet was trying to escape from the clutches of Nazi. He let Nazi bomb his own town even though he knew he could have warn the people to take shelter. Under his watch, British soldiers carried out atrocities that were considered war crimes in the Nuremburg trials and they didn't get punished for that. Neither was FDR that innocent. See the Japanese-American internment camps. Rapes happened in those camps. Check out De Gaulle's actions during WWII and you will easily find that he was not so innocent either. Neither was Stalin. So what's your point?

And here you go trying to change the subject when the facts don't give you support. The Americans would be idiots to support Bose.

But they would be idiots for telling India that Bose is a monster and a bastard as such as you are doing, indicating that they would be supporting British rule.

That's fine. I will.

For the last time, after the Indian Naval Mutiny, the BIA stopped being your brothers and sisters and became our brothers and sisters. As part of that transformation, the price was that they forget any contributions they made in WWII and we forget their past transgressions and they willingly and fully paid that price voluntarily and in return, we called them the IA and accepted them as ours.

So if you want to honor your brothers and sisters then do so but remember, we will remember them as the tools of the British Empire and their method of oppression. So continue to celebrate and honor them and we will remember you as celebrating the occupation and oppression of the Indian people. You rarely see the IA celebrate certain events of their history because they know that they are now representing a free and independent nation, not the British crown. You do and will be seen under such views.

Again, you don't know the facts. The Americans were damned busy with something called Vietnam. They couldn't take on India even if they wanted to.

So what? India took advantage of that just as Britain took advantage of the fragmentation of the Indian subcontinent and conquered India. You didn't begrudge Britain for that so you should not begrudge India for taking advantage of America being busy in Vietnam.

I am discussing the history. What actually happenned and what it meant. Not what I wanted to happen and then trying to shove that fiction down everyone's throat.

Bullshit!! You wanted us to remember BIA the way you want them to be remembered. So yes you are trying to shove that BS fiction down our throats and we strongly resent that very much.

[Blademaster]

I am discussing this within context of WWII. The Brits did not have another army to quell India and take on Germany and Japan at the same time.

Gandhi and Congress read Cripps right. He came begging with a beggars bowl. To seek co-operation when all the cards were in Indian hands. They needed the British Indian Army and Indians are well capable of denying that army to London. The only thing that they can offer is to give India her self determination peacefully.

And you forgot something else in that bargain. Gandhi and Congress essentially told BIA that they would be accepted afterwards as long as they reject British crown and reject all glories associated with British crown. BIA did that willingly and peacefully and became IA and India celebrated IA's history not BIA's history. Again this was a choice made by the soldiers of BIA and which the people of India demanded and BIA accepted. So for the last time, fuck off and stop cribbing about India not respecting BIA's sacrifices. India did, just not under the banner of BIA but under the banner of IA. If you can't understand it, then it is your fucking problem, not ours.

The House of Windsor is German. Prince Phillip is Greek. Dianna dated a Pakistani and an Eygtian. They're not as closed as you think.

Who the fuck gives a shit. They chose to become British so they are british in our eyes. Doesn't matter if they have Indian ancestry or not. To become prince and princesses and the royal crown, you have to become British. That was the price and we fucking said "hell no motherfucking way" Nehru was the closest and we could barely tolerate him and he wasn't our first choice. He was forced upon us by Gandhi and that was the last time somebody tried to emulate British ways. Even Indira Gandhi knew that and totally reject all English customs and mannerisms.

The context is the Indian domination of the British Empire, shifting the centre of power from London to Dehli.

There was no shift. To allow that shift meant allowing a new class of rulers, only british people just like it happened in South Africa. India would have seen days of apartheid if India had gone down as you suggested. Yeah fucking right we were gonna stand by and allow that to happen.

Palestine did it.

Nobody wanted Palestine. It was essentially worthless.

France was knocked out of the war and was not a key player during the war. India was.

Actually free France could have made a difference to the war if she was allowed to but Churchill saw to that.

[Firestorm]

I am discussing this within context of WWII. The Brits did not have another army to quell India and take on Germany and Japan at the same time.

Gandhi and Congress read Cripps right. He came begging with a beggars bowl. To seek co-operation when all the cards were in Indian hands. They needed the British Indian Army and Indians are well capable of denying that army to London. The only thing that they can offer is to give India her self determination peacefully.

I haven't read anything that suggests that Indian officers and soldiers in the BIA were contemplating a revolt or non-cooperation in the middle of the WW. Gandhi and the Congress could have implored them to give up serving the British any time during the past ten or twenty years. They never really tried, perhaps because they knew their power over the BIA was limited.

In fact, the only time unrest and mutiny in the BIA started really scaring the British was after the war when the INA trials began. The situation was so bad that none of the INA men were sent to prison. So Bose actually did achieve something. He finally made the BIA soldiers think of what they were really fighting (and dying) for, who they were serving and whether those things were perhaps more important than their jobs. Gandhi and the Congress had been unable to do that despite being active for decades.

The House of Windsor is German. Prince Phillip is Greek. Dianna dated a Pakistani and an Eygtian. They're not as closed as you think.

You are really reaching now. There is a long history of European royals marrying each other. Every former and current royal family in Europe has ancestors from pretty much every country in Europe and even Russia. But if you think the English Royal family was going to accept a son/daughter-in-law from amongst the "natives" they had conquered, you are just plain wrong. This is the 40's and 50's we are talking about. Not the 90's. Who Diana dated in the 90's is irrelevant. Her Pakistani paramour was an extra marital affair. Her Egyptian Boyfriend was after she divorced Prince Charles. Neither was ever going to be a part of the Royal family.

The context is the Indian domination of the British Empire, shifting the centre of power from London to Dehli.

Power would have always remained in British hands. And how long would this process have been for enough Princes and princesses to marry into the Royal family and change their character? Decades? India would have still remained an occupied land. No, we needed Independence. A complete break from the British. We had been occupied long enough. Bose understood that and took it upon himself to do something. He wouldn't have been left out like an exile had Gandhi and co. not hounded him out of the Congress in the first place.

Palestine did it.

Palestine was small and insignificant, compared to India. The amount of effort the British were ready to put into retaining India was far greater than that for Palestine. To add to this, most Indians had been taken in by Gandhi's non-violent message. This worked out very well for the Brits. They made sure they gave just enough to make people believe Gandhi was achieving something, without actually changing the ground situation. It is a travesty that many of my countrymen believe even today, that Gandhi's tactics actually worked against the British. They didn't. The British used him like a pawn.

People like Bose (and the few revolutionaries we had) could see that and he decided to take drastic measures when the opportunity presented itself.

The reaction of some BIA soldiers to the INA trials scared the brits far more than the Quit India movement ever did. The BIA was the pillar that was enabling them to hold on to India. They felt it was cracking and decided to leave since they had no strength left for a fight after WW2. Bose and the INA were far more responsible for that (indirectly) than Gandhi and the Congress.

France was knocked out of the war and was not a key player during the war. India was.

Yes, India was still in the war, but serving the British, who were the ultimate enemy as far as Bose was concerned. It would be like the whole of the surrendered French army willingly joining up with the axis powers. What would DeGaulle do differently? Nothing. He would still support the US and UK in their invasion.

[Officer of Engineers]

I am sorry but that is totally a revisionist version of history designed to make Britain look better and we as Indians strongly resent that very much.

Is it? Name me one major campaign instead of a whole bunch of small wars the British took to conquer India. What is the longest war the British fought in India?

Only after Gandhi and INC told them that there was a way out with Indian independence.

And Ghandi and Congress figured it out when Cripps came begging.

And neither was Churchill. He bombed an ally and sank her fleet even though that fleet was trying to escape from the clutches of Nazi. He let Nazi bomb his own town even though he knew he could have warn the people to take shelter. Under his watch, British soldiers carried out atrocities that were considered war crimes in the Nuremburg trials and they didn't get punished for that. Neither was FDR that innocent. See the Japanese-American internment camps. Rapes happened in those camps. Check out De Gaulle's actions during WWII and you will easily find that he was not so innocent either. Neither was Stalin. So what's your point?

What is your point? Popolli was trying to state that Hirohito should have been shot when he wasn't. Who cares? But that changed nothing about mercy neither asked nor received.

But they would be idiots for telling India that Bose is a monster and a bastard as such as you are doing, indicating that they would be supporting British rule.

Bose was a nobody. Maybe as a larger than life myth for India but he had zero power in the overall scheme of things.

For the last time, after the Indian Naval Mutiny, the BIA stopped being your brothers and sisters and became our brothers and sisters. As part of that transformation, the price was that they forget any contributions they made in WWII and we forget their past transgressions and they willingly and fully paid that price voluntarily and in return, we called them the IA and accepted them as ours.

Now, that is revisionism on your part. No such price was asked and the Regiments kept their Honours. Declaring national holidays and such are the preorgative of the politicians but those battle honours, including what was stolen from China, remains Regimental history.

So if you want to honor your brothers and sisters then do so but remember, we will remember them as the tools of the British Empire and their method of oppression. So continue to celebrate and honor them and we will remember you as celebrating the occupation and oppression of the Indian people. You rarely see the IA celebrate certain events of their history because they know that they are now representing a free and independent nation, not the British crown. You do and will be seen under such views.

Defending against a Japanese invasion is oppressing the Indian people.

So what? India took advantage of that just as Britain took advantage of the fragmentation of the Indian subcontinent and conquered India. You didn't begrudge Britain for that so you should not begrudge India for taking advantage of America being busy in Vietnam.

The so what is that the US did not have a dog in that fight. Rightly or wrongly, Indira did not start a war against the US.

Bullshit!! You wanted us to remember BIA the way you want them to be remembered. So yes you are trying to shove that BS fiction down our throats and we strongly resent that very much.

What bullshit? That Bose sided with Japanese monsters and that he was ineffective both on the battlefield and on Japanese policy? That outside of India, no one, not even the Japanese cared about him?

[Officer of Engineers]

I haven't read anything that suggests that Indian officers and soldiers in the BIA were contemplating a revolt or non-cooperation in the middle of the WW. Gandhi and the Congress could have implored them to give up serving the British any time during the past ten or twenty years. They never really tried, perhaps because they knew their power over the BIA was limited.

My point being that Cripps had nothing to offer that Ghandi and Congress correctly saw through that.

In fact, the only time unrest and mutiny in the BIA started really scaring the British was after the war when the INA trials began. The situation was so bad that none of the INA men were sent to prison. So Bose actually did achieve something. He finally made the BIA soldiers think of what they were really fighting (and dying) for, who they were serving and whether those things were perhaps more important than their jobs. Gandhi and the Congress had been unable to do that despite being active for decades.

That I will give you but that still changed nothing that the BIA were extremely vicious against the Japanese. Mercy neither asked nor given.

You are really reaching now. There is a long history of European royals marrying each other. Every former and current royal family in Europe has ancestors from pretty much every country in Europe and even Russia. But if you think the English Royal family was going to accept a son/daughter-in-law from amongst the "natives" they had conquered, you are just plain wrong. This is the 40's and 50's we are talking about. Not the 90's. Who Diana dated in the 90's is irrelevant. Her Pakistani paramour was an extra marital affair. Her Egyptian Boyfriend was after she divorced Prince Charles. Neither was ever going to be a part of the Royal family.

How about the 1700s?

Interracial marriages in 19th century India | UK news | The Guardian

Titles and wealth passe

Power would have always remained in British hands.

The Viceroy was Indian.

And how long would this process have been for enough Princes and princesses to marry into the Royal family and change their character? Decades? India would have still remained an occupied land.

You do realize that by this time, the Royal Family was nothing more than a figure head and even legally speaking, they don't have power to write legislation let alone being in charge of the treasury.

So, we are just discussing imagery here. The real power, the Viceroy, was already manned by Indians.

No, we needed Independence. A complete break from the British. We had been occupied long enough. Bose understood that and took it upon himself to do something. He wouldn't have been left out like an exile had Gandhi and co. not hounded him out of the Congress in the first place.

That's your politics but still changed nothing about the actual events of the war and what the Japanese did to your people.

Palestine was small and insignificant, compared to India. The amount of effort the British were ready to put into retaining India was far greater than that for Palestine. To add to this, most Indians had been taken in by Gandhi's non-violent message. This worked out very well for the Brits. They made sure they gave just enough to make people believe Gandhi was achieving something, without actually changing the ground situation. It is a travesty that many of my countrymen believe even today, that Gandhi's tactics actually worked against the British. They didn't. The British used him like a pawn.

Yet, the British are gone and Congress got VOTED into power more often than not.

People like Bose (and the few revolutionaries we had) could see that and he decided to take drastic measures when the opportunity presented itself.

Drastic alright. How could anyone believe the Japanese benign after Nanking and especially during Burma is beyond me.

The reaction of some BIA soldiers to the INA trials scared the brits far more than the Quit India movement ever did. The BIA was the pillar that was enabling them to hold on to India. They felt it was cracking and decided to leave since they had no strength left for a fight after WW2. Bose and the INA were far more responsible for that (indirectly) than Gandhi and the Congress.

That same BIA nearly killed the IJA to the last man; refusing to accept the new Japanese overlords.

Yes, India was still in the war, but serving the British, who were the ultimate enemy as far as Bose was concerned. It would be like the whole of the surrendered French army willingly joining up with the axis powers. What would DeGaulle do differently? Nothing. He would still support the US and UK in their invasion.

The US and the UK didn't eat French soldiers.

[popillol]

Who said Japanese were benign? Had BIA joined Bose in his fight against the British and the Japanese, what could have either of the two done? The British had no army and the Japanese were to be decimated. You don't expect India to honour someone who didn't fight for India's cause. BIA fought primarily for British crown and hence is not remembered, no matter how brave they were. As you won't expect India to honour and sing songs for Patton/Eisenhower. They were brave but didn't do anything for India.

BIA could have saved Indians from Japanese butchering by joining Bose, yet they didn't.

[Blademaster]

Is it? Name me one major campaign instead of a whole bunch of small wars the British took to conquer India. What is the longest war the British fought in India?

Small wars yes but part of an overall campaign to subjugate the entire subcontinent as the major dominant power. The British wasn't gonna let any other power, foreign or domestic, challenge British supremacy.

And Ghandi and Congress figured it out when Cripps came begging.

And it took Bose to convince the British that Gandhi and Congress was the lesser of two evils so to speak. Without Bose, the British would have not taken Gandhi and Congress seriously.

What is your point? Popolli was trying to state that Hirohito should have been shot when he wasn't. Who cares? But that changed nothing about mercy neither asked nor received.

you were saying that Bose wasn't innocent. I am countering your statement with other examples of leaders that you admire and celebrate and those leaders were not innocent.

Bose was a nobody. Maybe as a larger than life myth for India but he had zero power in the overall scheme of things.

If you think admiration, respect, and following of over a 1 billion people makes a person nobody, sure.... Oh Bose had power. He caused the crown jewel and the biggest tax base of the British empire to break away. Soon after, the British Empire as we knew it was no more. That represented a huge fundamental shift of power. Instead of being one of the superpowers in the Cold War, Britain became a vassal to United States. Without India, Britain could not be a superpower anymore.

Now, that is revisionism on your part. No such price was asked and the Regiments kept their Honours. Declaring national holidays and such are the preorgative of the politicians but those battle honours, including what was stolen from China, remains Regimental history.

We allowed those regiments to keep those regimental honors to allow them prove their combat history and record with the caveat that no honor or respect would be paid towards the British Crown. Sure we see the regiments celebrate the battles they participate but you don't see Indians celebrating the higher commands such as the BIA histor which is a different matter. There is a distinction between regimental history and BIA history.

Defending against a Japanese invasion is oppressing the Indian people.

Not if you were planning to keep the status quo which is continued oppression of the Indian people by a foreign power. That intention only changed in the middle of the war after Gandhi and Congress told BIA that there was a way out.

What bullshit? That Bose sided with Japanese monsters and that he was ineffective both on the battlefield and on Japanese policy? That outside of India, no one, not even the Japanese cared about him?

But he had a huge impact on the course of Indian history whether you can deny it or not and there were strategic fallout. So he didn't make a difference on the tactical level but on the strategic level, he was very much an influence. As Clauwitz says, a conflict begins and ends with political imperatives. I don't understand how you can say that he was a nobody. He had the most instrumental influence in persuading the BIA to change loyalties from the British crown to the Indian people. Not even Gandhi could pull that off on his own. Gandhi needed Bose to tango around the British.

And with the BIA switching loyalties, the balance of power changed. Instead of being a great global power, British's standing was diminished. There was no way that Britain could find another territory that could replace the manpower and tax base that India provided.

[Blademaster]

The Viceroy was Indian.

No he wasn't. He was british throughout.

So, we are just discussing imagery here. The real power, the Viceroy, was already manned by Indians.

Strongly disagree. The power structure was such as that, the British ranked the top, then you had the Anglicized Indians who were born directly from English fathers and Indian mothers (meaning raped or forced how you choose since those Indian women were not legally recognized as wives but as concubines or consorts). Those offspring who were unable to inherit any English titles or property got the next best thing. They inherited the middle structure with the British being the top. The next level after those Anglicized Indians were zumidars or Indian royalty. Then afterwards it was native Indians consisted of British educated Indians and the so called martial races and then the rest of the population. More than half of the power were concentrated in the top two levels. The rest were parceled out to the next two levels depending on the behavior and loyalty or collaboration of those who wanted to participate in the wealth. However those two levels were under no illusion where the pecking order was and where they ranked. The British practiced casteism/class system very well and became very proficient as part of their divide and rule strategy and even more proficient in laying the origins of casteism on the natives when they were the ones actually perpetuating the class system.

A case in point. When India became free, most of the ruling class left for Britain even though under great persuasion, Nehru made four seats available and only reserved for Anglicized Indians in the Parliament as to ensure their representation. Despite that, 90% of them chose to leave India for other countries. The 4 seats are still there. For a population of their current size, they are being represented the largest in Parliament in proportion to their population size as among the various groups and ethnic makeup of the Indian population.

That's your politics but still changed nothing about the actual events of the war and what the Japanese did to your people.

And you keep leaving out events of what the British did to our people. And you keep ignoring the effects of what Bose did to the power structure of the British rule in India and how it played out on the world stage.

Yet, the British are gone and Congress got VOTED into power more often than not.

That was because there was no real national party to challenge Congress. Congress only had a real majority until 1970s and the political power system became fragmented. After 1980 with the exception of 1984 (due to a huge sympathy wave caused by Indira's assassination), Congress never had a real majority and had to rely on coalitions. A real national power party such as the BJP only came into existence in the late 80s and began seriously challenge Congress in the 90s and took power in 98 to 2004. Gandhi lost relevance to more than half of the population by the 70s.

Drastic alright. How could anyone believe the Japanese benign after Nanking and especially during Burma is beyond me.

Put it this way, if it wasn't for the British rule and their oppression, Indians wouldn't have overlook Japanese atrocities.

That same BIA nearly killed the IJA to the last man; refusing to accept the new Japanese overlords.

Only because the Japanese did not allow themselves to surrender. Most of them chose suicide. It was the same story all over Asia from China to Pacific theater.

The US and the UK didn't eat French soldiers.

No they didn't but they certainly did other bad things such as testing them and using them as cannon fodder. See here: Human subject research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Officer of Engineers]

Small wars yes but part of an overall campaign to subjugate the entire subcontinent as the major dominant power. The British wasn't gonna let any other power, foreign or domestic, challenge British supremacy.

Not during the time of the East India Company. The EIC was not prepared to take on Russia.

And it took Bose to convince the British that Gandhi and Congress was the lesser of two evils so to speak. Without Bose, the British would have not taken Gandhi and Congress seriously.

Again, 2.5 million men said other wise. They remained loyal through out the war.

you were saying that Bose wasn't innocent. I am countering your statement with other examples of leaders that you admire and celebrate and those leaders were not innocent.

I'm saying that Bose had absolutely zero effect anywhere during WWII. Did he want his own people from the India Independence League tortured? Hell no. Did he want his countrymen eatened? What man does? Did he had any influence to stop those things? Absolutely none.

So, he was unable to turn 2.5 million men against the British and he was unable to stop the Japanese from torturing, murdering, and eating his own people. What does that say?

If you think admiration, respect, and following of over a 1 billion people makes a person nobody, sure.... Oh Bose had power.

The myth had power. The man did not.

He caused the crown jewel and the biggest tax base of the British empire to break away. Soon after, the British Empire as we knew it was no more. That represented a huge fundamental shift of power. Instead of being one of the superpowers in the Cold War, Britain became a vassal to United States. Without India, Britain could not be a superpower anymore.

That was coming regardless. A 2.5 million man army can say fuck you to London anytime.

We allowed those regiments to keep those regimental honors to allow them prove their combat history and record with the caveat that no honor or respect would be paid towards the British Crown. Sure we see the regiments celebrate the battles they participate but you don't see Indians celebrating the higher commands such as the BIA histor which is a different matter. There is a distinction between regimental history and BIA history.

That might be true if you celebrate Indian Army history but you don't. I see absolutely no distinction in honouring post WWII Indian military history and British India military history.

Not if you were planning to keep the status quo which is continued oppression of the Indian people by a foreign power. That intention only changed in the middle of the war after Gandhi and Congress told BIA that there was a way out.

Again, 2.5 million men said otherwise.

But he had a huge impact on the course of Indian history whether you can deny it or not and there were strategic fallout. So he didn't make a difference on the tactical level but on the strategic level, he was very much an influence. As Clauwitz says, a conflict begins and ends with political imperatives. I don't understand how you can say that he was a nobody. He had the most instrumental influence in persuading the BIA to change loyalties from the British crown to the Indian people. Not even Gandhi could pull that off on his own. Gandhi needed Bose to tango around the British.

That was after the war and Bose was already dead.

And with the BIA switching loyalties, the balance of power changed. Instead of being a great global power, British's standing was diminished. There was no way that Britain could find another territory that could replace the manpower and tax base that India provided.

There was no way Britain could have retained superpower status. The entire industrial output of the British Empire could not match American dominance.

No he wasn't. He was british throughout.

I meant the Office.

Strongly disagree. The power structure was such as that, the British ranked the top, then you had the Anglicized Indians who were born directly from English fathers and Indian mothers (meaning raped or forced how you choose since those Indian women were not legally recognized as wives but as concubines or consorts). Those offspring who were unable to inherit any English titles or property got the next best thing.

Titles and property are the decisions of the Title holder. Only the Lord of the House can choose who can inherit the title and the titles can be refused. The article I posted showed that those children who went back to England with their fathers/grandfathers inherited both title and property.

They inherited the middle structure with the British being the top. The next level after those Anglicized Indians were zumidars or Indian royalty. Then afterwards it was native Indians consisted of British educated Indians and the so called martial races and then the rest of the population. More than half of the power were concentrated in the top two levels. The rest were parceled out to the next two levels depending on the behavior and loyalty or collaboration of those who wanted to participate in the wealth. However those two levels were under no illusion where the pecking order was and where they ranked. The British practiced casteism/class system very well and became very proficient as part of their divide and rule strategy and even more proficient in laying the origins of casteism on the natives when they were the ones actually perpetuating the class system.

So, they're the bureaucrats. From what I gather here, there is very little difference between regulations and legislation, ie the bureaucrats can make up their own rules to enforce. The point here is that these guys had power. Real power.

A case in point. When India became free, most of the ruling class left for Britain even though under great persuasion, Nehru made four seats available and only reserved for Anglicized Indians in the Parliament as to ensure their representation. Despite that, 90% of them chose to leave India for other countries. The 4 seats are still there. For a population of their current size, they are being represented the largest in Parliament in proportion to their population size as among the various groups and ethnic makeup of the Indian population.

And you keep leaving out events of what the British did to our people. And you keep ignoring the effects of what Bose did to the power structure of the British rule in India and how it played out on the world stage.

How did it play out on the world stage? 2.5 million Indian men went to war with a full million of that facing the Japanese.

That was because there was no real national party to challenge Congress. Congress only had a real majority until 1970s and the political power system became fragmented. After 1980 with the exception of 1984 (due to a huge sympathy wave caused by Indira's assassination), Congress never had a real majority and had to rely on coalitions. A real national power party such as the BJP only came into existence in the late 80s and began seriously challenge Congress in the 90s and took power in 98 to 2004. Gandhi lost relevance to more than half of the population by the 70s.

You're blaming that on the Brits?

Put it this way, if it wasn't for the British rule and their oppression, Indians wouldn't have overlook Japanese atrocities.

So what excuse did Bose had? Especially after his GG resigned from "Azid Hind?" That the Brits were worst? How?

Only because the Japanese did not allow themselves to surrender. Most of them chose suicide. It was the same story all over Asia from China to Pacific theater.

They only chose suicide when retreat was not an option. Still does not explain the ferocity between the BIA and the IJA and most of those Japanese deaths were not the result of putting one's own bayonet into one's own belly. The Battles of Imphal and Kohima saw 58,000 Japanese soldiers killed. That's an entire army as in 3 IJA divisions were wiped out.

No they didn't but they certainly did other bad things such as testing them and using them as cannon fodder. See here: Human subject research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those were not war crimes.

[Officer of Engineers]

Who said Japanese were benign? Had BIA joined Bose in his fight against the British and the Japanese, what could have either of the two done? The British had no army and the Japanese were to be decimated. You don't expect India to honour someone who didn't fight for India's cause. BIA fought primarily for British crown and hence is not remembered, no matter how brave they were. As you won't expect India to honour and sing songs for Patton/Eisenhower. They were brave but didn't do anything for India.

You really don't know your history, do you? It was the British who organized and trained that 2.5 million men and produce Indian Officers of worth up to Staff Officers. It was also General Slim who turned the BIA around from a defeated force into a force that destroyed an entire Japanese army.

So, yes, without the British, there would not have been a 2.5 million man victorious Indian army.

BIA could have saved Indians from Japanese butchering by joining Bose, yet they didn't.

Are you really that stupid? Yes, you are. You actually think the Japanese were going to let Bose had that kind of power? You don't think they wouldn't have accidented him off?

[Blademaster]

Not during the time of the East India Company. The EIC was not prepared to take on Russia.

Russia wasn't expansionist during the last quarter of 1700s. It was only after 1850s that Russia was coming down. The Great Game only existed after 1850. Outside of the Mughals there were no other great power besides Britain and Britain already defeated France and anybody who could challenge Britain for supremacy. EIC was an extension of the British Crown, fiction or otherwise.

Again, 2.5 million men said other wise. They remained loyal through out the war.

Only at the behest of Gandhi and Congress.

I'm saying that Bose had absolutely zero effect anywhere during WWII. Did he want his own people from the India Independence League tortured? Hell no. Did he want his countrymen eatened? What man does? Did he had any influence to stop those things? Absolutely none.

Oh he did have effect. A 100,000 man army is not exactly a zero effect thing.

So, he was unable to turn 2.5 million men against the British and he was unable to stop the Japanese from torturing, murdering, and eating his own people. What does that say?

He may have not been able to turn 2.5 million men against the British but he did win their sentiments and understandings. After all, those men didn't allow the British to hang any of the INAs after the war.

The myth had power. The man did not.

Who created the myth?

That was coming regardless. A 2.5 million man army can say fuck you to London anytime.

Only after a political entity was created and that was Gandhi Congress and yes Bose.

That might be true if you celebrate Indian Army history but you don't. I see absolutely no distinction in honouring post WWII Indian military history and British India military history.

Well we just have to agree to disagree.

Again, 2.5 million men said otherwise.

And it took Bose, Gandhi and congress altogether to make the 2.5 million to say otherwise. There had to be leadership.

That was after the war and Bose was already dead.

So even from the grave, he had power.

There was no way Britain could have retained superpower status. The entire industrial output of the British Empire could not match American dominance.

Yes if Britain wasn't so insular looking toward the supremacy of the island. If not matching American dominance, at least they could supersede Soviet Union industrial output and even Chinese output.

I meant the Office.

Titles and property are the decisions of the Title holder. Only the Lord of the House can choose who can inherit the title and the titles can be refused. The article I posted showed that those children who went back to England with their fathers/grandfathers inherited both title and property.

You need to read up the history of the British Raj. When I read the article, it says that with the Victorian Age, those practices went away and even before, those heirs of mixed ancestry did not inherit the top titles but only lesser titles and they had to become English or convert to English practices. so in essence, you had to be British in every way.

So, they're the bureaucrats. From what I gather here, there is very little difference between regulations and legislation, ie the bureaucrats can make up their own rules to enforce. The point here is that these guys had power. Real power.

Illusionary. They only had real power as long as they toe the London line or British line. If you didn't, your power were taken away. There are stories of how Indian princes and rulers lost their kingdoms because they didn't toe the British line whenever they demanded.

How did it play out on the world stage? 2.5 million Indian men went to war with a full million of that facing the Japanese.

Still that doesn't deny the effect on the overall power structure once the war ended and the shooting stopped. Again I refer to Clauswitz.

You're blaming that on the Brits?

No but you were the one that brought up that Gandhi was looked up to until now. I am merely disputing that statement.

So what excuse did Bose had? Especially after his GG resigned from "Azid Hind?" That the Brits were worst? How?

I fail to understand how you can ignore what the Indian soldiers did not do or did when the British asked them to go after the INA and Bose after the war. They basically told the British to fuck off even though THEY WERE FIRSTHAND WITNESSES TO JAPANESE ATROCITIES!!!!! What does that fucking tell you?!!!! Their actions and behavior totally contradicts everything you are saying!!!! They excused INA and Bose but not the Japanese and NEITHER THEY DID EXCUSE THE BRITISH!!!!

They only chose suicide when retreat was not an option. Still does not explain the ferocity between the BIA and the IJA and most of those Japanese deaths were not the result of putting one's own bayonet into one's own belly. The Battles of Imphal and Kohima saw 58,000 Japanese soldiers killed. That's an entire army as in 3 IJA divisions were wiped out.

So were other Japanese armies wiped out in the Soviet Japanese front and the pacific front. Japanese were losing a division per island taken. Japan had the option of retreating from the Soviet line but got wiped out.

Those were not war crimes.

So what Mengele did was not a war crime?

[troung]

Fat boy died after abandoning "his" Japanese run auxiliaries to die in the jungle and now people are claiming he got further in his attempt to get as far as possible from the British. Whether an air plane crash over China or a decade later in a Siberian prison, dude was a joke. Debating over how many time zones he crossed running proves the point.

He doesn't even look good on a tee-shirt.

I guess "reasonably non-violent" (less than totally violent) protests and boring protracted political negotiations isn't dramatic enough for some...