Stalin killed Netaji, Subramanian Swamy says

[Officer of Engineers]

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.

EIC was a land based privateer company. They got a license from the crown and pay a hefty price for that license but the Crown did not control the EIC. That being said, the EIC was ill equipped to take on the Russians and frankly, India, requiring the Crown and its vaster resources to take over after the events of 1857 but you know all of this.

Only at the behest of Gandhi and Congress.

That's only true for 200,000 men, the original size of the BIA. 2.3 million signed up for the war and neither Gandhi nor Congress encouraged enlistment ... and frankly, Bose's pleas fell on deaf ears to refuse British service.

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

First off, let's be accurate. The INA at its height was only 45,000 men. Second, they were not an army but six regiments, armed with captured stock and given duties that can be trusted by the Japanese. At no time did the INA had an divisional, let alone an army HQ and they were all foot infantry with no engineering, artillery, nor armoured combat arms.

Second, they were assigned tasks that had zero effect on the outcome of any battle.

What they were assigned, they achieved but both the BIA and the IJA can afford to give the INA those small victories. They meant nothing more than propaganda.

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.

Here is where you and I differ. You will not understand this for another 20 years. I am old and I am tired. I do not want another war and hell to the fucks that force another war on me.

Who created the myth?

It wasn't Bose. He was just the source material.

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

Bose was dead. I will let you think this one through.

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

Bose was dead. Again, think this through.

So even from the grave, he had power.

Bose was dead. Who can use him when he's dead. It ain't the Brits.

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.

Britain was stronger than China up until the 2000s and even to the 2010s. And never mind India, Britain lost Canada and Australia after WWII. These two countries no longer answered to London. WWI started it. WWII was the nail in the coffin. Combined, without India, Canada, and Australia, no way in hell could Britain match the USSR and her slave labour force.

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.

Well, no shit Sherlock but you are missing the point. The point is that this is not British policy but family policy. Family title holders decided, not the Crown.

How many bastard first born in any country got shit all from his father ... and that includes India.

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.

Again, no shit Sherlock! Never mind the Brits, you cross the local crime lord, what happens?

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.

Overall power structure? Well, let's see, the two biggest victors, the US and the USSR, became superpowers. Germany and Japan got reduced to Somalia existence. The supporting players got their due, Commonwealth countries, Britain, all got their status due to their participation. The only two countries who did not deserve what they got, France and China, paid for their status with decades of blood.

What were you trying to say?

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

I know shit all about the Gandhi Dynasty except that they were in power for the longest time.

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!!!!

IT TELLS ME THAT THEY WERE NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT ANYONE'S ELSE'S INDIA BUT THEIR OWN! Not Bose's Japanese India and Not the British India.

And HERE IS THE POINT YOU'RE MISSING. Bose was MORE THAN WILLING TO LET THE JAPANESE TORTURE, KILL, AND EAT HIS OWN PEOPLE! That was the India the BIA REFUSED to accept! Actually, FAR MORE THAN THAT! They would rather side with British India to fight againt Bose's Japanese India!

Bose was dead. He didn't have to answer that ugly question. Why did he allow the Japanese do what they did?

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.

No, they were not wiped out in Manchuko. The Soviets had 100,000+ prisoners up until the 60s when they finally let them go home.

So what Mengele did was not a war crime?

What he did was both a war crime (on a legally defined occupied population) and a crime against humanity. What the Brits did was not a war crime because they were British subjects.

[antimony]

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.

In case you are not keeping up, folks want the truth, instead of the lies and legends

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

Better than Churchill does, I would say

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

I guess you failed to understand the points being made

[Deltacamelately]

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...

There is a reason why I have abstained from participating here, but that doesn't mean I will allow you spew that sh!t from your back about things you have apparently ZERO idea. Stop your lousy brain farts.

[troung]

There is a reason why I have abstained from participating here, but that doesn't mean I will allow you spew that sh!t from your back about things you have apparently ZERO idea. Stop your lousy brain farts.

The only thing less heroic about his fleeing with his Japanese masters, as fast as the air planes of the day could carry him, would be if he was wearing a dress.

In case you are not keeping up, folks want the truth, instead of the lies and legends

Then they would do better to put him on a U-boat to Argentina to hide out with Nazis or in a lake with a sword. Seriously the man fled so far the Soviets caught him then kept him to placate the British who left India...

Better than Churchill does, I would say

Winston, horribly overrated as he often is, had successes and swag.

[Blademaster]

EIC was a land based privateer company. They got a license from the crown and pay a hefty price for that license but the Crown did not control the EIC. That being said, the EIC was ill equipped to take on the Russians and frankly, India, requiring the Crown and its vaster resources to take over after the events of 1857 but you know all of this.

There was no Russian threat until the early 1800s when EIC already had India well under control with its vast resources. Yes, EIC was equipped to take on the Russians. After all, they just took down the mighty Tipu Sultan and rendered the Mughals ineffective.

That's only true for 200,000 men, the original size of the BIA. 2.3 million signed up for the war and neither Gandhi nor Congress encouraged enlistment ... and frankly, Bose's pleas fell on deaf ears to refuse British service.

Yes at any other time, the British would have not allowed 2.3 million to sign up. It was only out of desperation and necessity that they allow a standing army of 2.3 million Indians. At any other time, it would have meant an instant loss of control because it meant that the army could be used to control India and India would be unified as a whole and once that army decided to change its loyalty, the British would be out of luck. Gandhi and Congress saw that and were the first one to capitalize on that and used Bose. Bose, unwittingly or wittingly, played as the bad guy. Gandhi and Congress built their leadership on those men. How else did you think those men quickly change their loyalty once the war ended? How quickly the Indian Naval Mutiny ended once Congress said no?

First off, let's be accurate. The INA at its height was only 45,000 men. Second, they were not an army but six regiments, armed with captured stock and given duties that can be trusted by the Japanese. At no time did the INA had an divisional, let alone an army HQ and they were all foot infantry with no engineering, artillery, nor armoured combat arms.

Second, they were assigned tasks that had zero effect on the outcome of any battle.

But the INA did scare the British for a time.

Here is where you and I differ. You will not understand this for another 20 years. I am old and I am tired. I do not want another war and hell to the fucks that force another war on me.

The 1948 war beg to differ.

It wasn't Bose. He was just the source material.

Bose was dead. I will let you think this one through.

Bose was dead. Again, think this through.

May be the source material but at least he made it long lasting. It takes two to tango not one.

Bose was dead. Who can use him when he's dead. It ain't the Brits.

You underestimate his effect when he was alive.

Britain was stronger than China up until the 2000s and even to the 2010s. And never mind India, Britain lost Canada and Australia after WWII. These two countries no longer answered to London. WWI started it. WWII was the nail in the coffin. Combined, without India, Canada, and Australia, no way in hell could Britain match the USSR and her slave labour force.

Britain couldn't say anything to Deng Pi when he threatened to march all the way to Hong Kong and take it. They meekly agreed to set a time for a handover. Contrast with the time when Britain marched all the way to Beijing and demanded Hong Kong with the aid of its Indian troops. What does that tell you?

Well, no shit Sherlock but you are missing the point. The point is that this is not British policy but family policy. Family title holders decided, not the Crown.

How many bastard first born in any country got shit all from his father ... and that includes India.

You may get the title but it doesn't mean you get the goods. If you were not British enough, you could find yourself easily out on the street. A paper is not enough. You had to be one of their own and that means converting to British ways and culture.

Again, no shit Sherlock! Never mind the Brits, you cross the local crime lord, what happens?

Sometimes the local crime lord wins sometimes it doesn't win. But the end result was that the British got their way.

Overall power structure? Well, let's see, the two biggest victors, the US and the USSR, became superpowers. Germany and Japan got reduced to Somalia existence. The supporting players got their due, Commonwealth countries, Britain, all got their status due to their participation. The only two countries who did not deserve what they got, France and China, paid for their status with decades of blood. What were you trying to say?

Britain just went from a world superpower to a supporting player in the space of 6 years. That's huge. Same thing with France. With India declaring independence, other occupied territories started declaring their independence and the tide was unstoppable. Pretty soon Britain and France lost their vast overseas land holdings and their source of raw materials and cheap manpower.

I know shit all about the Gandhi Dynasty except that they were in power for the longest time.

Ok then your reference to the Gandhi family didn't make sense in the first place.

IT TELLS ME THAT THEY WERE NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT ANYONE'S ELSE'S INDIA BUT THEIR OWN! Not Bose's Japanese India and Not the British India.

Bose was not gonna let Japanese rule India either. Japan was a means to an end.

And HERE IS THE POINT YOU'RE MISSING. Bose was MORE THAN WILLING TO LET THE JAPANESE TORTURE, KILL, AND EAT HIS OWN PEOPLE! That was the India the BIA REFUSED to accept! Actually, FAR MORE THAN THAT! They would rather side with British India to fight againt Bose's Japanese India!

No Bose was not that willing to do as you suggested. As for the Japanese atrocities, let me bring up the Bengal famine. The British killed a lot more Indians than the Japanese ever could hope for and don't tell me that this was a mismanagement policy issue. That is bullshit. They very well knew what was going on and did it anyway. Again it goes to my original point in the very beginning which you have so obliquely ignored. BIA chose the lesser evil out of two evils. Bose thought that the Japanese was the lesser of two evils considering that the British has killed and tortured far more Indians than Japanese ever did. Bose didn't see that at the end of the war India could be free of British. But WW2 BIA did after Gandhi and Congress promised them that there would be an independent India very soon.

Bose was dead. He didn't have to answer that ugly question. Why did he allow the Japanese do what they did?

Why did Gandhi and Congress allow the British Crown to kill off 6 million Bengalis with its grossly negligent management policies?

What he did was both a war crime (on a legally defined occupied population) and a crime against humanity. What the Brits did was not a war crime because they were British subjects.

It is the splitting of hairs that you engage in that leads me to question your sincerity of your arguments. I am sorry but the Indians were not British subjects. They were occupied by the British and therefore an occupied population. If you want to make that argument, I can make the dubious and flimsy equivalent argument that those subjects were German subjects because Germany annexed those territories and any subjects found therein automatically became citizens of Germany, i.e., not an occupied population and therefore not war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Your attempts of alleviating and differentiating British actions and atrocities from war crimes is not going to persuade me anything further.

[Officer of Engineers]

There was no Russian threat until the early 1800s when EIC already had India well under control with its vast resources. Yes, EIC was equipped to take on the Russians. After all, they just took down the mighty Tipu Sultan and rendered the Mughals ineffective.

Siberia was already under Russian control as with Northern Central Asia and the population in Siberia doubled with Russian onslaught by 1709. How is that not a chalenge?

Yes at any other time, the British would have not allowed 2.3 million to sign up. It was only out of desperation and necessity that they allow a standing army of 2.3 million Indians.

Oh, it was far, far, far mroe than that. The British also decided to Indianized the Army, meaning, they decided to train Indian officers up to brigade commanders, giving the Indians a decent officer corps.

At any other time, it would have meant an instant loss of control because it meant that the army could be used to control India and India would be unified as a whole and once that army decided to change its loyalty, the British would be out of luck.

Yes, and everybody saw it, including the Brits, hence, the Cripps debacle.

Gandhi and Congress saw that and were the first one to capitalize on that and used Bose. Bose, unwittingly or wittingly, played as the bad guy. Gandhi and Congress built their leadership on those men. How else did you think those men quickly change their loyalty once the war ended? How quickly the Indian Naval Mutiny ended once Congress said no?

Does not explain how 2.3 million men signed up. There was no "Sign up and India will be free" campaign.

But the INA did scare the British for a time.

I say concernned. Not scared. There were no KGB style machine gun nests ready to mow down disloyal troops retreating from battle. The worst effort the Brits came up with was propaganda.

The 1948 war beg to differ.

No, it was exactly that. War was forced

May be the source material but at least he made it long lasting.

Bose was dead. He didn't do anything of the sort.

It takes two to tango not one.

You have just erased the history of 2.3 million men from the minds of the Indian populace and you twisted the truth about a man who sided with Japanese monsters. I am not asking why this was done. I'm asking you who did it? The why should be self-evident.

You underestimate his effect when he was alive.

Zero. 2.5 million men did not change loyalties and the Japanese continued to tortured, murdered, and eat Indians,.

Britain couldn't say anything to Deng Pi when he threatened to march all the way to Hong Kong and take it.

It is Deng Xia Peng, not Deng Pi. Hong Kong was not defensiable but that does not change the fact that the UK was willing and able to fight and drive the USSR from Europe. The best that China could hoped for was to tied down the Soviet Army until NATO won.

They meekly agreed to set a time for a handover. Contrast with the time when Britain marched all the way to Beijing and demanded Hong Kong with the aid of its Indian troops. What does that tell you?

It tells me that Britain chosed her battles. The RN then and now could have sunk the entire Chinese Navy.

You may get the title but it doesn't mean you get the goods. If you were not British enough, you could find yourself easily out on the street. A paper is not enough. You had to be one of their own and that means converting to British ways and culture.

Again, that is family policy. I decide where my money and my title goes; not the crown.

Sometimes the local crime lord wins sometimes it doesn't win. But the end result was that the British got their way.

The Brits did not always get their way. Afghanistan and uncontrolled Indian opium trade into Tibet and China.

Britain just went from a world superpower to a supporting player in the space of 6 years. That's huge. Same thing with France. With India declaring independence, other occupied territories started declaring their independence and the tide was unstoppable. Pretty soon Britain and France lost their vast overseas land holdings and their source of raw materials and cheap manpower.

Pre-WWII Britain and France was and is no match for postwar USSR and the US. The technology and sheer military power owned by these two dwarfs the entire pre-WWII world. How is that surprising?

Ok then your reference to the Gandhi family didn't make sense in the first place.

Maybe it's an outsider looking in but why is BIA history erased from your history books and INA history twisted to support a myth? Who had the power to do so?

Bose was not gonna let Japanese rule India either. Japan was a means to an end.

Oh come on, Hitesh! You mean to tell me that a man who is incapable of ruling two small islands from the Japanese, got played around by the Japanese (if we take that he was deliberately mislead during his tour of the two islands) was going to stop the Japanese from accidenting him off? If nothing else, don't you think even just observing the GC for Indian POWs not wanting to join the INA would have done wonders.

No Bose was not that willing to do as you suggested.

History proved otherwise.

As for the Japanese atrocities, let me bring up the Bengal famine. The British killed a lot more Indians than the Japanese ever could hope for and don't tell me that this was a mismanagement policy issue. That is bullshit. They very well knew what was going on and did it anyway. Again it goes to my original point in the very beginning which you have so obliquely ignored.

No, you are ignoring the historic facts. The Bengal Famine has been well studied by Indian historians. There were three contributing factors. Two of which the British had no control over. The British took the surplus stock the year before the famine (that is their fault and no one can deny that). They lost Burma and their rice fields (no one predicted such Japanese military superiority) and the Monsoon that wiped out that year's harvest. Yes, you are absolutely right that had the Brits not taken the surplus stock the year before, there would not have been a famine but you cannot blame the monsoon and the lost of Burma on the British.

BIA chose the lesser evil out of two evils. Bose thought that the Japanese was the lesser of two evils considering that the British has killed and tortured far more Indians than Japanese ever did. Bose didn't see that at the end of the war India could be free of British. But WW2 BIA did after Gandhi and Congress promised them that there would be an independent India very soon.

Cripps was the writing on the wall. Bose didn't see it.

Why did Gandhi and Congress allow the British Crown to kill off 6 million Bengalis with its grossly negligent management policies?

Explain to me how Gandhi and Congress saw the loss of Burma and the monsoon?

It is the splitting of hairs that you engage in that leads me to question your sincerity of your arguments. I am sorry but the Indians were not British subjects. They were occupied by the British and therefore an occupied population. If you want to make that argument, I can make the dubious and flimsy equivalent argument that those subjects were German subjects because Germany annexed those territories and any subjects found therein automatically became citizens of Germany, i.e., not an occupied population and therefore not war crimes and crimes against humanity.

India inherited everything from the British Indian Empire. Her borders. Her subjects. Her laws. Her Parliament. Her treaties. They were NOT an occupied people. Otherwise, India would and should have erased EVERYTHING from British India. This was NOT Vichy France where everything the Vichy government did was tossed out the window. You might had an arguement had India did a violent revolt but she didn't. She gained her independence through law. British law. And hence, those laws were recognized as the legal basis for her independence. Otherwise, her independence would not have been legal unless clearly defined by force which it wasn't.

Sorry, the historic facts are against you.

Your attempts of alleviating and differentiating British actions and atrocities from war crimes is not going to persuade me anything further.

They're not my attempts. They're the reading of the facts. Here is another fact for you. Not all British India shared the same view of Bose. Pakistan certainly don't.

[Blademaster]

Sorry, the historic facts are against you.

No they are not. They are selective and deliberately twisted to support your assertions. There were many violent struggles. As for laws, no India didn't adopt everything. For one thing, they tossed out the mandate charter governing India. They refused to declare the British monarchy as the head of state even though Pakistan did for a while. They created a new constitution that was the overriding authority. If any law that was created before the Constitution and was not compatible, it was rendered null and void and ceased to have any effect. And no India did not gain independence through British law. There was no British law recognizing Indian independence. India was going to be independent. British just passed a law to feel good and high mighty about themselves even though they knew that they had no choice. In fact, British law did not allow for Indian independence before.

Yes India's independence was defined by force through the threat of a massive and bloody revolution by the WW2 BIA. And no India did not inherit everything from Britain. For one thing, half of India was not under direct British control but made of small kingdoms and princedoms. They had their own laws.

They're not my attempts. They're the reading of the facts. Here is another fact for you. Not all British India shared the same view of Bose. Pakistan certainly don't.

Your reading influenced by your bias, prejudices, and way of thinking. As for Pakistan not sharing the same view of Bose, I am not surprised. Why should they? They were the ones who were advocating for more muslim control and Bose didn't share that thinking at all.

Siberia was already under Russian control as with Northern Central Asia and the population in Siberia doubled with Russian onslaught by 1709. How is that not a chalenge?

Russia never seriously moving down into South Asia until after 1850s especially after the Crimea War.

Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
Yes at any other time, the British would have not allowed 2.3 million to sign up. It was only out of desperation and necessity that they allow a standing army of 2.3 million Indians.
Oh, it was far, far, far mroe than that. The British also decided to Indianized the Army, meaning, they decided to train Indian officers up to brigade commanders, giving the Indians a decent officer corps.

Only after great agitation and it wasn't exactly a stellar success. Look at wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiani...itish_India%29

"Indianisation was considered a failure by the Indians, due to the refusal of the British Government to increase the extremely slow rate of induction and the reluctance of the British to accept Indian officers on an equal footing, both professionally and socially.[2] The scheme was suspended at the outbreak of the Second World War, at which point only a handful of military units had been Indianised. The process was never reintroduced, as there was a wartime influx of Emergency Commissioned Officers, posted into all units. In 1947, India became independent, and Indian officers immediately became eligible to fill senior appointments, with accelerated promotion."

So only real and true indianisation occurred after WW2 and it was only made possible when the Indian Army downsized to allow the small number of Indian officers to better control the army and create a highly trained and educated officer cadre. It was only after the 1962 war that there was a great drive for Indian officers and men. At that time the IA was a little more than 250k. The 14 year period allowed the IA to adequately set up and develop a competent officer cadre.

[Officer of Engineers]

No they are not. They are selective and deliberately twisted to support your assertions. There were many violent struggles.

I'm speaking strictly within the confines of WWII and its results.

As for laws, no India didn't adopt everything.

I said that they inherited everything. I didn't say they accepted everything. India took the entire British Indian Empire lock, stock, and barrel and then proceeded to discard and change things as she saw fit. Until new legislation and new policies were enacted, the old ones remained in force.

For one thing, they tossed out the mandate charter governing India.

And? This was done legally. They made a legislation that said that the old legislation no longer applies. This still require acknowledging the old legislation had the power of law until they said it no longer did.

They refused to declare the British monarchy as the head of state even though Pakistan did for a while. They created a new constitution that was the overriding authority.

That does not mean that the old laws were not recognized before the consitution was written.

If any law that was created before the Constitution and was not compatible, it was rendered null and void and ceased to have any effect.

AND THAT required legal work. Not just grabbing the old law book and throwing it into the fire.

And no India did not gain independence through British law. There was no British law recognizing Indian independence. India was going to be independent. British just passed a law to feel good and high mighty about themselves even though they knew that they had no choice. In fact, British law did not allow for Indian independence before.

What the hell is this?

Indian Independence Act 1947 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes India's independence was defined by force through the threat of a massive and bloody revolution by the WW2 BIA. And no India did not inherit everything from Britain. For one thing, half of India was not under direct British control but made of small kingdoms and princedoms. They had their own laws.

You mean to tell me the second the Brits left, Indian bureaucrats had zero power to collect revenue? Cops don't have laws to enforce? That it was a free for all?

Your reading influenced by your bias, prejudices, and way of thinking. As for Pakistan not sharing the same view of Bose, I am not surprised. Why should they? They were the ones who were advocating for more muslim control and Bose didn't share that thinking at all.

But if facts are facts that Bose won independence for Pakistan as well, shouldn't they also acknowledge his contribution? After all, they acknolweged Mountbatten.

Russia never seriously moving down into South Asia until after 1850s especially after the Crimea War.

The Great Game was always about Central Asia.

Only after great agitation and it wasn't exactly a stellar success. Look at wiki: Indianisation (British India) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Within the confines of WWII. I will grant you that it was British desperation since there wasn't enough Officers to go around but a hell of a lot of good Indian Officers were trained and battle hardened with the British.

[Blademaster]

I'm speaking strictly within the confines of WWII and its results.

I said that they inherited everything. I didn't say they accepted everything. India took the entire British Indian Empire lock, stock, and barrel and then proceeded to discard and change things as she saw fit. Until new legislation and new policies were enacted, the old ones remained in force.

And? This was done legally. They made a legislation that said that the old legislation no longer applies. This still require acknowledging the old legislation had the power of law until they said it no longer did.

That does not mean that the old laws were not recognized before the consitution was written.

AND THAT required legal work. Not just grabbing the old law book and throwing it into the fire.

What the hell is this?

Indian Independence Act 1947 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I said before, the British passed a law knowing that India was going to be free whether there was a law or not granting independence. They just gave themselves a facesaving way out and Gandhi obliged them even though other members of Congress were saying that we don't need British permission. The Indian Naval Mutiny proved that.

The only reason why INC waited and let them passed a law was because of the obstinacy of JInnah and the Muslim League. If it wasn't for Jinnah, independence would have been achieved in 1945 or 1946 or even before that.

You mean to tell me the second the Brits left, Indian bureaucrats had zero power to collect revenue? Cops don't have laws to enforce? That it was a free for all?

Sure... in the princedoms and kingdoms. Congress had to send in troops to enforce the law of the land which was the Indian version, not British. After all, there was great land reform and powers were taken away from princes and rulers. See the State of Hyderbad and how it was taken by force. As for British ruled territories, they had to kick out the tax collectors and revamp the IAS. Before the IAS was based on inheritance based on the anglicized bloodlines and zamindari bloodlines. India made it as a meritocracy and did away with inheritances and right by birth.

But if facts are facts that Bose won independence for Pakistan as well, shouldn't they also acknowledge his contribution? After all, they acknolweged Mountbatten.

Of course they acknowledged Mountbatten. He was the one that allowed the creation of Pakistan against Gandhi and Nehru's wishes.

The Great Game was always about Central Asia.

Then Russia was not a player in South Asia. Britain was the dominant power in South Asia.

Within the confines of WWII. I will grant you that it was British desperation since there wasn't enough Officers to go around but a hell of a lot of good Indian Officers were trained and battle hardened with the British.

yes a large majority of them only arosed to Lts and Captains. Rarely did they go up to Majors or Lt Cols.

[Officer of Engineers]

As I said before, the British passed a law knowing that India was going to be free whether there was a law or not granting independence. They just gave themselves a facesaving way out and Gandhi obliged them even though other members of Congress were saying that we don't need British permission. The Indian Naval Mutiny proved that.

The only reason why INC waited and let them passed a law was because of the obstinacy of JInnah and the Muslim League. If it wasn't for Jinnah, independence would have been achieved in 1945 or 1946 or even before that.

And prevented a civil war.

Sure... in the princedoms and kingdoms. Congress had to send in troops to enforce the law of the land which was the Indian version, not British. After all, there was great land reform and powers were taken away from princes and rulers. See the State of Hyderbad and how it was taken by force. As for British ruled territories, they had to kick out the tax collectors and revamp the IAS. Before the IAS was based on inheritance based on the anglicized bloodlines and zamindari bloodlines. India made it as a meritocracy and did away with inheritances and right by birth.

How is that any different from what I stated? This was not Vichy France that they just grabbed old Third Republic Laws and re-instated them. The old rules were stayed in place until India changed them.

Of course they acknowledged Mountbatten. He was the one that allowed the creation of Pakistan against Gandhi and Nehru's wishes.

Well, the obvious question is how did this happen? (I'm being sarcastic) Didn't Bose and the INA inspire Indian independence? Didn't the Muslim League and therefore, Muslim soldiers, followed Bose's dream?

Then Russia was not a player in South Asia. Britain was the dominant power in South Asia.

Still doesn't change the fact that the EIC was ill equipped to handle Russia.

yes a large majority of them only arosed to Lts and Captains. Rarely did they go up to Majors or Lt Cols.

In 4 years? What did you expect? Only exceptional people make Field Grades so fast. And 4 years is way too short to teach new Generals Operational Art.

[Blademaster]

And prevented a civil war.

No it didn't. War broke out. Partition happened. Nearly a million people died.

How is that any different from what I stated? This was not Vichy France that they just grabbed old Third Republic Laws and re-instated them. The old rules were stayed in place until India changed them.

Then what's your point? You just admitted that India changed the laws, not inherited them and still practiced them.

Well, the obvious question is how did this happen? (I'm being sarcastic) Didn't Bose and the INA inspire Indian independence? Didn't the Muslim League and therefore, Muslim soldiers, followed Bose's dream?

Well Bose did inspire independence in the Bengal region. Speak ill of Bose in that region and you can expect to find yourself in a hospital shortly. Bose is a hero in Bangladesh.

Still doesn't change the fact that the EIC was ill equipped to handle Russia.

Because at that time, Russia was not a threat. Was not geared up to face against Russia.

In 4 years? What did you expect? Only exceptional people make Field Grades so fast. And 4 years is way too short to teach new Generals Operational Art.

So indianization only occurred during WW2 when British were desperate for manpower, not out of their volition and free will.

[Officer of Engineers]

No it didn't. War broke out. Partition happened. Nearly a million people died.

War. Not Civil War.

Then what's your point? You just admitted that India changed the laws, not inherited them and still practiced them.

My point is that India did not throw out everything lock stock and barrel and imposed Martial Law 15 August, 1947. Until India changed the laws, the old laws still had force, up to and including the Princes and their Principalities.

Well Bose did inspire independence in the Bengal region. Speak ill of Bose in that region and you can expect to find yourself in a hospital shortly. Bose is a hero in Bangladesh.

Kim Jong Ill is a hero in North Korea but that doesn't mean I believe that he was the first nuclear physicist who invented the anti-matter bomb.

In fact, the North Koreans are the only other peoples I know who erased an entire army from their history books up to and including hiding the graves of that army.

Because at that time, Russia was not a threat. Was not geared up to face against Russia.

Again, the population in Siberia doubled with the Russian onslaught and the First Anglo-Afghan War was a pre-emptive strike to prevent the Russians from coming in.

So indianization only occurred during WW2 when British were desperate for manpower, not out of their volition and free will.

Oh for Pete sakes, you're mistaking me for saying the British are saints. They ain't. At times, they were more efficient than the Gestapo and the KGB.

But that does not make anything the BIA did during WWII wrong. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination. The BIA were the good guys and like it or not, Bose and the INA sided with the bad guys. Very bad guys.

[bolo121]

The BIA were the good guys and like it or not, Bose and the INA sided with the bad guys. Very bad guys.

A very enjoyable debate, it reminded me of why i joined wab in the first place.
But this is a hot potato comment which 99% of us Indians will never agree to.
From the time we are in grade school we are taught that Netaji was a hero who fought the evil british raj.
The japanese were barely a footnote and I can recall no mention of the chinese at all.
His myth is ingrained as part of the freedom struggle.

I only learnt otherwise well into my adult years when I began reading history for myself and came across Slim's excellent memoir.

[Blademaster]

War. Not Civil War.

You said prevented a civil war. Partition was a civil war.

My point is that India did not throw out everything lock stock and barrel and imposed Martial Law 15 August, 1947. Until India changed the laws, the old laws still had force, up to and including the Princes and their Principalities.

No the princes and principalities lost the rule and force in very short order. The GoI had nearly complete control over India by 1949 with few exceptions such as the Portuguese Goa territories.

Kim Jong Ill is a hero in North Korea but that doesn't mean I believe that he was the first nuclear physicist who invented the anti-matter bomb.

In fact, the North Koreans are the only other peoples I know who erased an entire army from their history books up to and including hiding the graves of that army.

No graves were hidden and the events were not erased from the history books. We just don't celebrate it the same way you did and demand of us to do.

But that does not make anything the BIA did during WWII wrong. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination. The BIA were the good guys and like it or not, Bose and the INA sided with the bad guys. Very bad guys.

INA were also good guys too and the soldiers of BIA sided with very bad guys too.

[Officer of Engineers]

You said prevented a civil war. Partition was a civil war.

The Domonions of Pakistan and India. Sorry. NOT A CIVIL WAR.

No the princes and principalities lost the rule and force in very short order. The GoI had nearly complete control over India by 1949 with few exceptions such as the Portuguese Goa territories.

1949. Two years in which India recognized the rule of law of the British Indian Empire.

In case, you missed it, Hitesh, those experiments, legally speaking, and I find this surprising with you being a lawyer, were NOT WAR CRIMES. India was NOT an occupied population with India accepting EVERYTHING from the British Indian Empire on 17 August, 1947.

No graves were hidden and the events were not erased from the history books. We just don't celebrate it the same way you did and demand of us to do.

Really? The BIA is NOT mentioned in your schools and the graves are now in Burma. Yeah, hidden.

INA were also good guys too

They were the smoke screen for a monster that you and them were too blind to see.

As much as we detet Hitler and Stalin, we had to respect their abilities to mobolize two entire populations. Bose? Not even a wannabe.

and the soldiers of BIA sided with very bad guys too.

And yet, you are blind to the history. This is the most surprising thing of all, Hitesh. You came from a military family with uncles in the US military. Through all our years together, this is the first time I've seen you ignored military brilliance. Never mind that you hate the guy.

But you cannot bring yourself to admit that Albert Slim was the best General in WWII and that the BIA went from a defeated army to a war winning army in a matter of 10 months.

And Bose? What did he actually do? I mean seriously. What did he do? The INA was not his creation. It was Mohan Singh's and he actually devised the best strategy to win Indian independence.

Never mind the Japanese occupied islands, which speaks for themselves, what was Bose doing when the Japanese lost the invasion of India. I mean, why was he holding court with the IIL instead of saving his army?

And yet, you cannot bring yourself to examine Albert Slim. Just 10 months before, the BIA was kicked out of Burma. He took that same army and reversed the outcome of the war. Yeah, he was British but you can't turn around and respect what he did.

Instead, you want to tell me that Bose was this brilliant freedom fighter. Was he? He couldn't inspire a defeated army to join the winning Japanese.