Shashi Tharoor: Britain owes reparations to India

[jackprince]

Bec

I don't understand why he is in Congress!!!

Don't go overwhelmed with the speech. He obviously cannot lose the debate, can he? He had to support and eloquence is his talent. He was literally trained for this!

He joined Congoons, for money, simple. Congress is a industry which actually makes money for its people in the business of politics. No other company, e.g. BJP, or Lefts, make money as much as Congoons, nor does any other has as much reach or deep pockets as Congress, at least when he joined Congress.

 

[Mad Indian]

By the same logic ,Hitler was a great man who saved you cunts from being raped by Russians. Now bow before Hitler for saving your asses from Russians.

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

i haven't been a student of history beyond school (where still details of WW2 battles, much less the south-asian theatre were taught in deep details), hence, since there was mention of the 'battle of malaya' earlier, this is what uncle google provided me with on wiki....some excerpts:

The Japanese were initially resisted by III Corps of the Indian Army and several British Army battalions. The Japanese quickly isolated individual Indian units defending the coastline, before concentrating their forces to surround the defenders and forcing their surrender.

In addition, the Japanese military intelligence service had managed to recruit a British officer, Captain Patrick Heenan, an Air Liaison Officer with the Indian Army.

The Malayan island of Penang was bombed daily by the Japanese from 8 December and abandoned on 17 December. Arms, boats, supplies and a working radio station were left in haste to the Japanese. The evacuation of Europeans from Penang, with local inhabitants being left to the mercy of the Japanese, caused much embarrassment for the British and alienated them from the local population. Historians judge that "the moral collapse of British rule in Southeast Asia came not at Singapore, but at Penang".[21]

On 23 December, Major-General David Murray-Lyon of the Indian 11th Infantry Division was removed from command to little effect. By the end of the first week in January, the entire northern region of Malaya had been lost to the Japanese. At the same time, Thailand officially signed a Treaty of Friendship with Imperial Japan, which completed the formation of their loose military alliance. Thailand was then allowed by the Japanese to resume sovereignty over several sultanates in northern Malaya, thus consolidating their occupation. It did not take long for the Japanese army's next objective, the city of Kuala Lumpur, to fall. The Japanese entered and occupied the city unopposed on 11 January 1942. Singapore Island was now less than 200 mi (320 km) away for the invading Japanese army.

The 11th Indian Division managed to delay the Japanese advance at Kampar for a few days, in which the Japanese suffered severe casualties in terrain that did not allow them to use their tanks or their air superiority to defeat the British. The 11th Indian Division was forced to retreat when the Japanese landed troops by sea south of the Kampar position. The British retreated to prepared positions at Slim River.

At the Battle of Slim River, in which two Indian brigades were practically annihilated, the Japanese used surprise and tanks to devastating effect in a risky night attack. The success of this attack forced Percival into replacing the 11th Indian Division with the 8th Australian Division.

By the end of January, Patrick Heenan—British Indian Armycaptain convicted of treason, after spying for Japan—had been court-martialled and sentenced to death.[19] On 13 February, five days after the invasion of Singapore Island, and with Japanese forces approaching the city centre, Heenan was taken by military police to the waterside and was hastily executed. His body was thrown into the sea.

source

a short read from an Australian govt.'s website:

Invasion of Malaya

The Malayan campaign, 8 December 1941 - 31 January 1942.
The invasion of Malaya began shortly after midnight on 8 December 1941. Two hours later, No 1 Squadron RAAF, based at Kota Bahru, in north-east Malaya, was airborne. Soon, two of the Hudson bombers were shot down, and Flying Officer John Dowie, the only survivor of the two crews, became the first Australian prisoner of war captured in Malaya. That same morning, an Australian corvette, HMAS Maryborough, patrolling off south-east Malaya, intercepted a Japanese fishing boat, the Fukuyu Maru, the first Japanese vessel captured by an Allied warship. On the west coast of Malaya, No 21 Squadron RAAF at Sungei Patani suffered devastating air raids and by the evening of 8 December both Sungei Patani and Kota Bharu airfields had been evacuated.

On 9 December, No 8 Squadron, which also had gone into action, was evacuated from Kuantan airfield. On 10 December, the destroyer HMAS Vampire became the first Australian ship in action against the Japanese when HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales were sunk off the east coast of Malaya by enemy aircraft. Vampire and the three other escorting destroyers were able to rescue over 2000 survivors from the two British ships.

On the ground, British and Indian troops were also pushed back during December and early January. Some Australian transport and ambulance drivers saw early action alongside Indian troops, but the first major Australian battle was not until 14-15 January 1942. A company of the 2/30th Battalion, commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Frederick Galleghan, mounted an ambush which cut down hundreds of Japanese soldiers riding bicycles through a cutting and over a bridge on the Sungei Gemencheh river. Their plan was to withdraw and let the main battalion group at Gemas fight the main battle. As the ambush party withdrew, they found themselves encircled by Japanese patrols but most managed to get through. The battle for Gemas raged that night and next day and on the afternoon of 15 January the Japanese called in aircraft and tanks and the Australians withdrew.

On 15 January 1942, the 45th Indian Brigade on the west coast, defending the line of the Muar River, was also involved in a battle with the veteran Japanese Imperial Guards Division. Two battalions from the 8th Australian Division were despatched as reinforcements: the 2/29th and the 2/19th Battalions. The Indian brigade was pushed back towards Bakri where, north of the village, the 2/29th and some gunners of the 4th Anti-Tank Regiment provided blocking action. Japanese forces penetrated between the 2/29th and the 2/19th at Bakri. The 2/29th had to fight their way back to Bakri. The Australians held on to enable some Indian troops to also reach them, but they came under heavy ground and air attacks. Nearly all staff at the 45th Indian Brigade's Headquarters were wounded or killed when a bomb hit their headquarters. Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Anderson, Commanding Officer of the 2/19th Battalion, took command of all troops and decided to withdraw towards Parit Sulong. While he waited for a missing Indian unit, the Australians became heavily engaged front and rear, and on 20 January they had to start fighting their way south through Japanese positions. Anderson's men attacked to re-open their escape route, and by the early morning of 22 January they had reached the village of Parit Sulong, but were in a parlous situation. A strong enemy force blocked their escape route, many of the Australian and Indian troops had been killed or wounded, and a British relief force was blocked. Anderson was forced to order his men to escape in small parties through the countryside, first destroying all guns and vehicles, and had to leave the wounded behind. Just 271 members of the 2/19th and 130 of the 2/29th - less than a quarter of the Australians at the start of the battle - escaped. For his valour and leadership, Lieutenant-Colonel Anderson was awarded the Victoria Cross, the highest decoration for valour.


The 110 wounded Australians and 40 wounded Indians left behind at Parit Sulong were brutally stabbed and incinerated by the Japanese with just one man, badly hurt, surviving to tell the story at war's end.

Over on the west coast, on the night of 26-27 January, the Australian 2/18th Battalion successfully ambushed a Japanese force at Jemaluang, south of Mersing. Under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur Varley, supported by two batteries of the 2/10th Field Regiment, the 2/18th sprang their ambush between 2 am and 3 am. Brigade headquarters ordered Varley to withdraw after first light, after they encountered heavier attacks from the enemy. Nevertheless, the Australian action was a stunning success which turned the Japanese force inland, rather than continue pushing south along the west coast. The 2/18th lost 98 troops killed or missing, but Japanese losses were heavier.

Air and naval forces also continued to be heavily engaged. Hudson bombers of Nos 1 and 8 Squadrons RAAF bombed enemy positions, and patrolled out to sea, and Nos 21 and 453 Squadrons RAAF with Buffalo fighters, outclassed by Japanese 'Zero' fighters, fought on. Other Australians flew in British squadrons, some in outdated Vildebeest biplane torpedo-bombers that lost heavily. On 27 January, HMAS Vampire, together with HMS Thanet, took part in an attack on a superior Japanese surface force off Endau on the east coast. The British ship was lost during the battle and HMASVampire only narrowly escaped being sunk. Australian corvettes endured many air attacks escorting incoming convoys, one of which included the cruiser HMAS Hobart.

By 30 January 1942, the Japanese XXV Army had advanced to the Strait of Johore at the southern tip of Malaya. The weary British, Australian and Indian troops made their way over the Causeway to Singapore Island and on 1 February, after the last man had crossed, engineers blew up sections of the Causeway to isolate the island.

source


since the Sikhs were also termed 'cowardly' earlier (may be in the heat of the moment?!), a short read on their role during the Malayan war (this is from apparently a fundamentalist website, so Sikhs are mentioned separately)

When the history of this titanic struggle comes to be written in mature perspective none of its many sides will, we believe, excite more wonderment and more ungrudging admiration than the part the Sikhs soldiers have played in it.

As of 7th December, 1941, the summary of strength of army in Malaya was 86,895 troops. Two third of the total force were Indian soldiers. Sikhs represented more than 60 percent of the total Indian force.

Sikh troops disembarking from ships into Malaya

December 8th, 1941 at 12.15 am local time, Japanese 18th. Divisions troops hits the sandy beaches of Sabak-Badang Beach , Kota Bahru and at 4am (Tokyo Time) Japanese 5th Divisions forces splash ashore unopposed at Singora (now Songkhla) and Patani.


As the first disgorging invaders hit the junction of the Badang and Sabak beaches, they come under withering machinegun fire from pillboxes manned by the 3/17th Dogra (Indian) Regiment. The invaders lose one third of their initial assault forces of 5,300 men in fearful beach fighting before annihilating the Indian defenders who die in their pillbox positions, refusing neither to withdraw nor to surrender.

An armoured train, with 30 men from the 2/16th Panjab Regiment and some engineers, advancing into Thailand from Padang Besar in Perlis reached Khlong Ngae, in southern Thailand, and successfully destroyed a 200 foot bridge before withdrawing back to Padang Besar.

On 22nd December, 3/2nd Panjab Regiment engineered an ambush on the Japanese at Grik Road, Perak which results heavy casualties on the invaders. The regiment fought fierce delaying actions against the Imperial Guards.

Sikh Gunners in a rubber plantation in Sahum, Kampar Perak

On December 30th, 1941 to 2nd January, 1942, a battle between 3000 British personnel and over 6000 Japanese soldiers erupted. The 11th Indian Division managed to delay the Japanese advance at Kampar for a few days, in which the Japanese suffered severe casualties in terrain that did not allow them to use their tanks or their air superiority to defeat the British. A Sikh company of the 1/8th Panjab Regiment throws back a furious attack with a classic bayonet charge through massive mortar and machine– gun fire. Only 30 members of the company survive the action but the position holds. The Japanese lost more then 500 men here and Japanese commanders, for the first time in the war, consider retreating.

On 30th January, 1942, a Sikh Battalion made an ambush on a strong Japanese party north of Kluang, Johor. The Japanese squealed with absolute panic when charged with bayonets. Sikhs captured 250 motor cycles and 150 bicycles when they charged the Japanese positions and machine-gun post. Further details of the attack made by the Sikh Battalion North of Kluang reveals that the enemy casualties numbered at least 400, 2 small field guns and many mortars which was tied on their bicycles and tommy-guns were also destroyed.

During the Battle of Muar, members of both the Australian 8th Division and the 45th Indian Infantry Brigade were making a fighting withdrawal when they became surrounded near the bridge at Parit Sulong. The Allies fought the larger Japanese forces for two days until they ran low on ammunition and food. Able-bodied soldiers were ordered to disperse into the lush jungle, the only way they could return to Allied lines.

The wounded prisoners of war were kicked and beaten with rifle butts by the Imperial Guards. At least some were tied up with wire in the middle of the road, machine-gunned, had petrol poured over them, were set alight and were "after their incineration — were systematically run over, back and forwards, by Japanese driven trucks." Anecdotal accounts by local people also reported POWs being tied together with wire and forced to stand on a bridge, before a Japanese soldier shot one, causing the rest to fall into the Simpang Kiri River and drown. 110 Australians and 35 Indians are massacred by the Japanese. In the face of death, the Sikh prisoners sat with dignity.

This photograph was found among Japanese records, when British troops re-entered Singapore. This picture shows the inhumane brutality practiced by the Japanese on Sikh prisoners.

History speaks for itself on the valour, bravery displayed by the Sikhs. The never-say-die spirit of the Sikhs gave us the impetus and inner strength and resilience to face any challenges that came our way. Sikh soldiers adhered to the faith and never flinched nor surrendered in the face of adversity.

It is recommended that the reader have a geographical knowledge of the location of Peninsular Malaysia, to be able to envisage where the above incidents unfolded. The pictures reveal the genuine expression of the bravery, dedication and the unity of the Sikhs exemplified by the Sikhs in battlefields and evidently, they faced any challenge without any fear or trepidation.

source


also, soldiers of the INA (it wasn't 'british indian army') will understandably and obviously be 'traitors' (even though they had left BIA after being taken as POW after the defeat of the allies at Malaya and Singapore) and 'scum' for the british, but for their homeland, they were and are nothing less than heroes (for obvious reasons). several of them were tried and court-martialled (publicly tried too), while some being said to have been executed (information on that was deliberately curtailed by the british govt. in order to avoid an uprising and mass protest in the country; BBC was forbidden from airing the story about this).

the picture in the link shared by LethalForce is of 'HMS Repulse'. although yes, the royal merchant navy had suffered tremendous losses during the course of the battle of the atlantic alone, but the page whose link is shared above mentiones only about the naval vessels, and 'NOT fleet and sloop minesweepers and armed merchant cruisers' (in its own words).

you had suggested others to 'read a book' in an earlier post; could you please share the name of the book you might have wanted others to read, or from where you've picked up your info? will look up if its available to read on google books or scribd or elsewhere.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Britain was more or less bankrupt upto ww2 -saved by USA

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/business/worldbusiness/28iht-nazi.4042453.html

Britain to make its final payment on World War II loan from U.S. - Business - International Herald Tribune

LONDON — Britain will transfer £43 million to the U.S. Treasury on Friday, the final payment on a debt used to finance the World War II defeat of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.
The U.S. extended $4.34 billion in credit in 1945, allowing Britain to stave off bankruptcy after devoting almost all its resources to the war for half a decade. Since 1950 Britain has made payments on the debt, the final payment of which is worth $84 million, at the end of every year except six.
At the time it was granted, the loan strained trans-Atlantic relations. British politicians expected a gift in recognition of the country's contribution to the war effort, especially for the lives lost before the United States entered the fight in 1942.
"The U.S. didn't seem to realize that Britain was bankrupt," said Alan Sked, a historian at the London School of Economics. The loan was "denounced in the House of Lords, but in the end the country had no choice."
The loan, the equivalent of £119 billion in today's money, was double the size of the British economy at the time. Today it's a tiny fraction of Britain's £550 billion debt burden, about 36.4 percent of the economy.
Ed Balls, the British Treasury minister, hailed the loan as a mark of friendship between the two countries, which currently are allied in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those conflicts have cost Britain £8 billion since 2001.
"It was vital support which helped Britain defeat Nazi Germany and secure peace and prosperity in the postwar period," Balls said in a statement. "We honor our commitments to them now as they honored their commitments to us all those years ago."
The need to borrow followed a decision in 1945 by the administration of President Harry Truman to end the lend-lease program used to supply Britain since 1941.
By that time, Britain owed £4.2 billion to foreign creditors, while its income from overseas investments and exports had been halved since before the war.
John Maynard Keynes, the economist and lawmaker who was then the top adviser to the British Treasury, likened his country's financial situation to the military rout at Dunkirk. Prime Minister Clement Attlee dispatched Keynes to Washington to seek support.
Instead of a subsidy, Keynes came back with the loan, fixed at 2 percent interest to be reimbursed in annual payments that were structured like a mortgage. The payments were mostly interest in the early years and shifted toward capital later on.
In addition to the U.S. funds, Canada granted a loan of 1.25 billion dollars, or $1.08 billion at current exchange rates. Britain will also clear that debt with a final repayment Friday.
Germany, the former enemy of Britain, the United States and Canada, takes over the leadership of both the European Union and the Group of 8 industrialized countries on New Year's Day.


A Largely Indian Victory in World War II


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/w...n-world-war-ii-mostly-forgotten-in-india.html


KOHIMA, India — Soldiers died by the dozens, by the hundreds and then by the thousands in a battle here 70 years ago. Two bloody weeks of fighting came down to just a few yards across an asphalt tennis court.
Night after night, Japanese troops charged across the court’s white lines, only to be killed by almost continuous firing from British and Indian machine guns. The Battle of Kohima and Imphal was the bloodiest of World War II in India, and it cost Japan much of its best army in Burma.
But the battle has been largely forgotten in India as an emblem of the country’s colonial past. The Indian troops who fought and died here were subjects of the British Empire. In this remote, northeastern corner of India, more recent battles with a mix of local insurgencies among tribal groups that have long sought autonomy have made remembrances of former glories a luxury.
Now, as India loosens its security grip on this region and a fragile peace blossoms among the many combatants here, historians are hoping that this year’s anniversary reminds the world of one of the most extraordinary fights of the Second World War. The battle was voted last year as the winner of a contest by Britain’s National Army Museum, beating out Waterloo and D-Day as Britain’s greatest battle, though it was overshadowed at the time by the Normandy landings.
Photo

A military cemetery in Kohima, India. Credit Gardiner Harris/The New York Times
“The Japanese regard the battle of Imphal to be their greatest defeat ever,” said Robert Lyman, author of “Japan’s Last Bid for Victory: The Invasion of India 1944.” “And it gave Indian soldiers a belief in their own martial ability and showed that they could fight as well or better than anyone else.”
The battlefields in what are now the Indian states of Nagaland and Manipur — some just a few miles from the border with Myanmar, which was then Burma — are also well preserved because of the region’s longtime isolation. Trenches, bunkers and airfields remain as they were left 70 years ago — worn by time and monsoons but clearly visible in the jungle.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
This mountain city also boasts a graceful, terraced military cemetery on which the lines of the old tennis court are demarcated in white stone.
A closing ceremony for a three-month commemoration is planned for June 28 in Imphal, and representatives from the United States, Australia, Japan, India and other nations have promised to attend.
“The Battle of Imphal and Kohima is not forgotten by the Japanese,” said Yasuhisa Kawamura, deputy chief of mission at the Japanese Embassy in New Delhi, who is planning to attend the ceremony. “Military historians refer to it as one of the fiercest battles in world history.”
A small but growing tour industry has sprung up around the battlefields over the past year, led by a Hemant Katoch, a local history buff.
But whether India will ever truly celebrate the Battle of Kohima and Imphal is unclear. India’s founding fathers were divided on whether to support the British during World War II, and India’s governments have generally had uneasy relationships even with the nation’s own military. So far, only local officials and a former top Indian general have agreed to participate in this week’s closing ceremony.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
“India has fought six wars since independence, and we don’t have a memorial for a single one,” said Mohan Guruswamy, a fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, a public policy organization in India. “And at Imphal, Indian troops died, but they were fighting for a colonial government.”
Rana T. S. Chhina, secretary of the Center for Armed Forces Historical Research in New Delhi, said that top Indian officials were participating this year in some of the 100-year commemorations of crucial battles of World War I.
“I suppose we may need to let Imphal and Kohima simmer for a few more decades before we embrace it fully,” he said. “But there’s hope.”
The battle began some two years after Japanese forces routed the British in Burma in 1942, which brought the Japanese Army to India’s eastern border. Lt. Gen. Renya Mutaguchi persuaded his Japanese superiors to allow him to attack British forces at Imphal and Kohima in hopes of preventing a British counterattack. But General Mutaguchi planned to push farther into India to destabilize the British Raj, which by then was already being convulsed by the independence movement led by Mahatma Gandhi. General Mutaguchi brought a large number of Indian troops captured after the fall of Malaya and Singapore who agreed to join the Japanese in hopes of creating an independent India.
The British were led by Lt. Gen. William Slim, a brilliant tactician who re-formed and retrained the Eastern Army after its crushing defeat in Burma. The British and Indian forces were supported by planes commanded by the United States Army Gen. Joseph W. Stilwell. Once the Allies became certain that the Japanese planned to attack, General Slim withdrew his forces from western Burma and had them dig defensive positions in the hills around Imphal Valley, hoping to draw the Japanese into a battle far from their supply lines.
But none of the British commanders believed that the Japanese could cross the nearly impenetrable jungles around Kohima in force, so when a full division of nearly 15,000 Japanese troops came swarming out of the vegetation on April 4, the town was only lightly defended by some 1,500 British and Indian troops.
The Japanese encirclement meant that those troops were largely cut off from reinforcements and supplies, and a bitter battle eventually led the British and Indians to withdraw into a small enclosure next to a tennis court.
The Japanese, without air support or supplies, eventually became exhausted, and the Allied forces soon pushed them out of Kohima and the hills around Imphal. On June 22, British and Indian forces finally cleared the last of the Japanese from the crucial road linking Imphal and Kohima, ending the siege.
The Japanese 15th Army, 85,000 strong for the invasion of India, was essentially destroyed, with 53,000 dead and missing. Injuries and illnesses took many of the rest. There were 16,500 British casualties.
Ningthoukhangjam Moirangningthou, 83, still lives in a house at the foot of a hill that became the site of one of the fiercest battles near Imphal. Mr. Ningthoukhangjam watched as three British tanks slowly destroyed every bunker constructed by the Japanese. “We called them ‘iron elephants,’ ” he said of the tanks. “We’d never seen anything like that before.”
Andrew S. Arthur was away at a Christian high school when the battle started. By the time he made his way home to the village of Shangshak, where one of the first battles was fought, it had been destroyed and his family was living in the jungle, he said.
He recalled encountering a wounded Japanese soldier who could barely stand. Mr. Arthur said he took the soldier to the British, who treated him.
“Most of my life, nobody ever spoke about the war,” he said. “It’s good that people are finally talking about it again.”

 

[Mad Indian]

Having been born to a single dad, I would consider it the biggest shame if someone suggests that my motherland or mom would be better off under neighbor(foreign rule) or dad.

But bastards being born to multiple dads have no such compulsion and would be more than willing to accept how neighbor or a foreigner raping/ruling his mom /motherland.

Oh well. It's probably my fault for assuming everyone has a single father and self respect like me

 

[pmaitra]

Listen pea brain

I did not mention one naval battle so fuck off

Well said.

@apple, is a grade-A twat.

Pea-brain he is indeed. Even a Jack Russel Terrier has more intelligence than this sorry excuse of a primate.

 

[CrYsIs]

Having been born to a single dad, I would consider it the biggest shame if someone suggests that my motherland or mom would be better off under neighbor(foreign rule) or dad.

But bastards being born to multiple dads have no such compulsion and would be more than willing to accept how neighbor or a foreigner raping/ruling his mom /motherland.

Oh well. It's probably my fault for assuming everyone has a single father and self respect like me

I find this kind of rabid nationalism just too dangerous.

Nobody here is justifying the colonialism or praising British rule over India.

What someone us are saying is that you cannot judge history and branch it into good and evil since you have to look at that event from that particular context of time and not from current time.

British rule was neither good nor bad for India.You should know that large parts of Assam,Nagaland,Manipur,Meghalaya,Tripura,Sikkim,Arunachal,Mizroam,parts of North India merged with Indian union because of the British conquest and had the British wanted, being a P5 member they could have done things to stop unification of India.What would have happened had Nizams request for Independent status been accepted by the Viceroy ?

That does not absolve them of their colonial crimes but are we in a position to point fingers at them ?

British starved Indians because they were indifferent,but what is the justification of the post independent Indian government to starve it's own people?15% ie 195 million people are starving currently as i speak and that too in a food surplus country.This is paramount to the same criminal negligence which we are accusing Churchill of.

When we have our own hands soaked in blood we have no right to chide others as bloody.

 

[Bhadra]

I find this kind of rabid nationalism just too dangerous.

Nobody here is justifying the colonialism or praising British rule over India.

What someone us are saying is that you cannot judge history and branch it into good and evil since you have to look at that event from that particular context of time and not from current time.

British rule was neither good nor bad for India.You should know that large parts of Assam,Nagaland,Manipur,Meghalaya,Tripura,Sikkim,Arunachal,Mizroam,parts of North India merged with Indian union because of the British conquest and had the British wanted, being a P5 member they could have done things to stop unification of India.What would have happened had Nizams request for Independent status been accepted by the Viceroy ?

That does not absolve them of their colonial crimes but are we in a position to point fingers at them ?

British starved Indians because they were indifferent,but what is the justification of the post independent Indian government to starve it's own people?15% ie 195 million people are starving currently as i speak and that too in a food surplus country.This is paramount to the same criminal negligence which we are accusing Churchill of.

When we have our own hands soaked in blood we have no right to chide others as bloody.

Sir read " What is History by EH Car ".... it would be great enlightenment .....

 

[jackprince]

I find this kind of rabid nationalism just too dangerous.

Nobody here is justifying the colonialism or praising British rule over India.

Your every word, nuances and argument says you are justifying the British rule. You would not know what nationalism is or what pride for your nation is, even if that came and slapped you in face or rolled over you!!!!

What someone us are saying is that you cannot judge history and branch it into good and evil since you have to look at that event from that particular context of time and not from current time.

Okey, then Jews Holocaust is not either good or bad. Just an historical event. I see the holocaust from the context that Jews were targeted as Germans needed to vent there anger and rally up when the intellectual Jews and business class Jews were looting the German's with help of rest of the europe. So they were hated and Hitler needed a group of hated people to focus his people's ire on to revive nationalism. So, the holocaust happened, but there's no longer any need to condemn it. Is that your argument? Okey, I buy it, now sell it to others.

British rule was neither good nor bad for India.

Fvck me. But, had this been from a man 2 generations earlier like some old people I know, it would have been understandable. But, only explanation of such thing coming from a so called educated(?) young generation has only two explanation - 1. Dropped by parents on head once or twice during childhood, or 2. severe case of coconut-syndrome or Jindianism (I like the word, kudos to the man who coined it).

You should know that large parts of Assam,Nagaland,Manipur,Meghalaya,Tripura,Sikkim,Arunachal,Mizroam,parts of North India merged with Indian union because of the British conquest

Hmm... so if Brits would not have conquered, we would have not had the NE in India. So you are glad that the Brits caused such amount of misery and poverty and destruction of civilization, but at least got the NE for Indian union? Are you sure you are completely sane? I am sure you aren't. NE would have stayed a seperate nation or multiple seperate nation, and or would have joined the union, if there would have been one - what difference would it have been as long as India had prospered or million after millions hadn't died or forced into poverty?

and had the British wanted, being a P5 member they could have done things to stop unification of India.

Could they? What created that unity of India, Brits or people of India? May be you do need to read some standard VI books of history to learn about Indian National movement. Brits could only try to stop liberation of India, if they were ready to fight for it with a military. Now, which country had over 3 million war hardened soldiers who were already showing sings of mutiny? Remember Royal Indian Army, Royal Indian Air Force and Royal Indian Navy? Those serving there were neither feeling Royal or loyal anymore to the Brits. You think Brits gave up the golden goose because of change of their hearts? Those canny bastards read the writing in the wall, to get out then with dignity and part of the influence and assets intact or get massacred. P5 was in its infancy, and Brits were not in a militarily strong position and USA was seeing an opportunity in Indi with British withdrawal. So, membership in P5 would have helped the Brits fvck all. As a matter of fact such an act might have consolidated India more and the Nehruvian dynasty might not have hod the opportunity to bud and India might have been better off. But, it is not a game of might have beens.

What would have happened had Nizams request for Independent status been accepted by the Viceroy ?

We'd have gone in and done what we did in 1948 anyway. The princely states had options not to join either India or Pakistan, the wiser ones knew that it was just words, and joined up almost from the beginning, the others were brought in later - by force or show of force when necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princ...egration_of_princely_states_in_1947_and_after
In a speech in January 1948, Vallabhbhai Patel said:

As you are all aware, on the lapse of Paramountcy every Indian State became a separate independent entity and our first task of consolidating about 550 States was on the basis of accession to the Indian Dominion on three subjects. Barring Hyderabad and Junagadh all the states which are contiguous to India acceded to Indian Dominion. Subsequently, Kashmir also came in... Some Rulers who were quick to read the writing on the wall, gave responsible government to their people; Cochin being the most illustrious example. In Travancore, there was a short struggle, but there, too, the Ruler soon recognised the aspiration of his people and agreed to introduce a constitution in which all powers would be transferred to the people and he would function as a constitutional Ruler.[39]

The Brits had no power once they were gone. actually they did not have power even before the independence, as it is clear the power was lying with Jinnah and Nahru. The Brits were the mediator and became the unseen puppeteer, who used Jinnah and Nehru and in turn got used by them. ANd, India and Indians got screwed over.

That does not absolve them of their colonial crimes but are we in a position to point fingers at them ?

obviously, we as in people with same mentality as you, apparently are not.

British starved Indians because they were indifferent,but what is the justification of the post independent Indian government to starve it's own people?15% ie 195 million people are starving currently as i speak and that too in a food surplus country.This is paramount to the same criminal negligence which we are accusing Churchill of.

You are so bilnd in love with the Brits, it is nauseating! Yes, there's been instances where a few unfortunates died of starvation and that is a blight on the history of independent India. But comparing that to systematic man-made famine and trying to justify that by calling the Brit's indifference. Are you even an Indian?

Yes, there are people in poverty in India, and we are doing not enough to alleviate it. But, have your little brain told you that the today's condition always is a result of yesterday's action? The systematic loot by the Brits destroyed Indian economy and it is developing upwards from a position where it once had to depend of charity of USA and USSR for feeding its people - not only a section, but almost all of the people. The British industrial revolution was at the cost of Indian poverty.

When we have our own hands soaked in blood we have no right to chide others as bloody.

Now, we have our own hands soaked in blood, do we? You sanctimonious british bootlicker scum. You are worst kind of creature that India has ever had to bear.

A jindian among us.

 

[Mad Indian]

It's because of the pathetic daughter selling losers in india that what would pass off as "normal patriotism" in other countries becomes rabid nationalism in India.

I can rip apart the pos reply I have gotten but I lack the energy and interest to do so. I will let these scum stew on how much "dad" or " foreigner" fucking his mom or mother land has no significant difference mentality. I don't think how worse I can describe these pieces of shit.

I thought these pathetic losers will shut up their mouth after I gave the single father analogy but boy was I wrong. For fuck sake even I had guilt when I was writing it for being so mean, but seeing the reply, I think feeling bad for writing it is a mistake. These pieces of shit deserve everything I wrote and more.

 

[thethinker]

I find this kind of rabid nationalism just too dangerous.



British starved Indians because they were indifferent,but what is the justification of the post independent Indian government to starve it's own people?15% ie 195 million people are starving currently as i speak and that too in a food surplus country.This is paramount to the same criminal negligence which we are accusing Churchill of.

When we have our own hands soaked in blood we have no right to chide others as bloody.

You seem to have an agenda of your own by using terms like "indifference" by British to downplay what was done.

Let's expose your "indifference" claims :

Are these the actions of an indifferent British government when specifically asked to address the starvation issue in Bengal ?

• Wheat from Australia (which could have been delivered to starving Indians) was instead transported to British troops in the Mediterranean and the Balkans.
• British colonial authorities (again under Churchill’s leadership) actually turned down offers of food from Canada and the U.S.

Source : http://www.ibtimes.com/bengal-famine-1943-man-made-holocaust-1100525

But it is easy to see the type of mindset people like you possess.

Not only would you ask your female family members to be whores to foreigners, you would even reprimand them for resisting by accusing them of not being open minded.

Next, you would apologize to foreigners for the inconvenience caused to THEM.

Such a gem of person. Take a bow! @CrYsIs :biggrin2:

 

[CrYsIs]

Your every word, nuances and argument says you are justifying the British rule. You would not know what nationalism is or what pride for your nation is, even if that came and slapped you in face or rolled over you!!!!

Yes i know what nationalism is and what kind of nationalism is good for a country.One thing is clear xenophobic extreme nationalism that you display is not good for the country.

I am more inclined towards pragmatic nationalism.Unlike you i am not blind to the realities of the country.

Hmm... so if Brits would not have conquered, we would have not had the NE in India. So you are glad that the Brits caused such amount of misery and poverty and destruction of civilization, but at least got the NE for Indian union? Are you sure you are completely sane? I am sure you aren't. NE would have stayed a seperate nation or multiple seperate nation, and or would have joined the union, if there would have been one - what difference would it have been as long as India had prospered or million after millions hadn't died or forced into poverty?

I am not defending the Brits here but merely pointing out certain facts,had the British colonization not taken place,India,the country of 3.27 srq km you see today wouldn't have come into existence.

Could they? What created that unity of India, Brits or people of India? May be you do need to read some standard VI books of history to learn about Indian National movement. Brits could only try to stop liberation of India, if they were ready to fight for it with a military. Now, which country had over 3 million war hardened soldiers who were already showing sings of mutiny? Remember Royal Indian Army, Royal Indian Air Force and Royal Indian Navy? Those serving there were neither feeling Royal or loyal anymore to the Brits. You think Brits gave up the golden goose because of change of their hearts? Those canny bastards read the writing in the wall, to get out then with dignity and part of the influence and assets intact or get massacred. P5 was in its infancy, and Brits were not in a militarily strong position and USA was seeing an opportunity in Indi with British withdrawal. So, membership in P5 would have helped the Brits fvck all. As a matter of fact such an act might have consolidated India more and the Nehruvian dynasty might not have hod the opportunity to bud and India might have been better off. But, it is not a game of might have beens.

Britain gave independence solely because for the war and pressurization from the US not because of the threat by royal Indian army or airfroce.
Limited International recognition of India's sovereignty would have adversely affected us just like it is happening with states like Israel and Taiwan

Britain with their global clout(albeit declining) could have harmed India(at that time in an extremely fragile state) by backing political resolutions against us.They helped us by staying neutral.

We'd have gone in and done what we did in 1948 anyway. The princely states had options not to join either India or Pakistan, the wiser ones knew that it was just words, and joined up almost from the beginning, the others were brought in later - by force or show of force when necessary.

Ofcourse but the difference would have been that India's border would have been marked by dotted lines on international maps with limited international recognition of India's take over.
And don't forget,Pakistan besides Kashmir would have made out a huge international issue out of it with western backing.

You are so bilnd in love with the Brits, it is nauseating! Yes, there's been instances where a few unfortunates died of starvation and that is a blight on the history of independent India. But comparing that to systematic man-made famine and trying to justify that by calling the Brit's indifference. Are you even an Indian?

You just justified why you are a rabid nationalist.Because only a rabid nationalist is blind to the plight of the country.

15% of population starving are not a few unfortunate ones.And the starvation is happening not due to food shortage or due to low production or due to any kind of natural disaster but due to shear criminal negligence.
.Therefore as i said we have no moral right to point fingers at the British for their inaction during the famine when we are virtually doing the same thing.

Yes, there are people in poverty in India, and we are doing not enough to alleviate it. But, have your little brain told you that the today's condition always is a result of yesterday's action? The systematic loot by the Brits destroyed Indian economy and it is developing upwards from a position where it once had to depend of charity of USA and USSR for feeding its people - not only a section, but almost all of the people. The British industrial revolution was at the cost of Indian poverty.

India's misery is it's own sole creation.India is suffering due to past inaction of the Indian government and the poor economic model that they adopted to govern the country.

As said before,Countries which were in a similar situation as us back then are miles ahead of us now,Even Bangladesh has overtaken us.So we don't really have any excuses but to blame ourselves for our own failure.

Had India capitalized on post war growth era which was like once in a millennium opportunity,today India would have been been a top country and not a bottom ranker.

Now, we have our own hands soaked in blood, do we? You sanctimonious british bootlicker scum. You are worst kind of creature that India has ever had to bear.

A jindian among us.

Tell me, isn't our hands soaked in blood ?

 

[CrYsIs]

You seem to have an agenda of your own by using terms like "indifference" by British to downplay what was done.

Let's expose your "indifference" claims :

Are these the actions of an indifferent British government when specifically asked to address the starvation issue in Bengal ?

• Wheat from Australia (which could have been delivered to starving Indians) was instead transported to British troops in the Mediterranean and the Balkans.
• British colonial authorities (again under Churchill’s leadership) actually turned down offers of food from Canada and the U.S.

Source : http://www.ibtimes.com/bengal-famine-1943-man-made-holocaust-1100525

But it is easy to see the type of mindset people like you possess.

Not only would you ask your female family members to be whores to foreigners, you would even reprimand them for resisting by accusing them of not being open minded.

Next, you would apologize to foreigners for the inconvenience caused to THEM.

Such a gem of person. Take a bow! @CrYsIs :biggrin2:

Do you know what indifference is ?

1) Keeping the country in an absolute state of poverty for 70 years

2) Not spending money on health,education,sanitation

3) Playing divide and rule caste politics and creating divisions and fractures in the society

4) Hoarding of food while people starve

5) Denying people employment opportunities and source of livelihood


Tell me how are the actions of post independent government different from that of Churchill ?

 

[Mad Indian]

^^^^Urgh. These people have no shame . So I can just say how much better India today is compared to 1930s, but lets for argument's sake accept that Indian living condition has stayed the same in both British rule and Indian rule. Does that justify the Britshit cunts looting India?


Thats like saying since "dad was not satisfying the motherland, so it was ok for the unknown man to come and rape her".


Even now, these pathetic POS are yet to get why the very notion of being ok with foreign rule is disgusting. Well its a shame that some people have no self respect whatsoever and that my motherland has to bear such shameless pathetic POS in her lands.

 

[thethinker]

Do you know what indifference is ?

1) Keeping the country in an absolute state of poverty for 70 years

2) Not spending money on health,education,sanitation

3) Playing divide and rule caste politics and creating divisions and fractures in the society

4) Hoarding of food while people starve

5) Denying people employment opportunities and source of livelihood


Tell me how are the actions of post independent government different from that of Churchill ?

Don't wiggle out of your earlier claims.

You claimed that British caused misery (e.g: Bengal famine) due to "indifference" and "criminal negligence" when the fact is that this was a proactive policy and with clear criminal intent.

It is of no surprise to anyone sane or with self-respect that Churchill was racist to the core when it came to dealing with Indians, so much so he stated "Indians are ghastly people with ghastly religion". This was not "indifference" or "criminal negligence" but extreme prejudice.

What is surprising is that why are YOU so much of an apologist about a popular debate speech. Even the British audience voted in favour of former colonies supporting the argument that British rule was bad.

As I stated before, it is easy to see the mindset that people like you possess.

 

[CrYsIs]

^^^^Urgh. These people have no shame . So I can just say how much better India today is compared to 1930s, but lets for argument's sake accept that Indian living condition has stayed the same in both British rule and Indian rule. Does that justify the Britshit cunts looting India?

Even now, these pathetic POS are yet to get why the very notion of being ok with foreign rule is disgusting. Well its a shame that some people have no self respect whatsoever and that my motherland has to bear such shameless pathetic POS in her lands.

Let me give you an example,A money lender comes across a poor man and offers him an investment deal which is too good to be true.He claims that the money invested would be doubled within a year.
The poor man is lured by the scheme and without thinking for a second gives the money.A year later when the man arrives at the lender's office to claim his money,he finds that the lender has run off with it.

Now i would like to ask you,who is the guilty party here ? The poor man or the money lender ?

The answer is the ignorant poor man is responsible for his own fate.He didn't verify the legality of the scheme,never went through terms and conditions,never checked the RBI guidelines on this and henceforth paid the price.

Similarly India's colonization and the subsequent pillaging by he British happened because we allowed them to do so.In the words of Dr Sashi Tharror "we literally financed our own exploitation".

For gods sake,The British were colonizers ,what did you expect them to be? Benevolent rulers? They came here for the specific purpose of stripping the country of it's resources and we facilitated them in doing so.

henceforth we cannot claim to be victims.

 

[CrYsIs]

Don't wiggle out of your earlier claims.

You claimed that British caused misery (e.g: Bengal famine) due to "indifference" and "criminal negligence" when the fact is that this was a proactive policy and with clear criminal intent.

It is of no surprise to anyone sane or with self-respect that Churchill was racist to the core when it came to dealing with Indians, so much so he stated "Indians are ghastly people with ghastly religion". This was not "indifference" or "criminal negligence" but extreme prejudice.

What is surprising is that why are YOU so much of an apologist about a popular debate speech. Even the British audience voted in favour of former colonies supporting the argument that British rule was bad.

As I stated before, it is easy to see the mindset that people like you possess.

I am simply stating that whatever Churchill did was done by the governments after Independence and hecefroth we are not in no position to blame

Churchill chose to feed the Greeks instead of feeding the starving Indians,Similarly post independence our leaders chose to feed their own instead of the people.Have you ever heard of any other food secure country and a food surplus country with the highest number of hungry people ?

Africa is starving due to political instability and food scarcity,North Korea is starving because of low food production where as India is starving because of criminal negligence on part of the government.

 

[jackprince]

I thought I would not reply to your pathetic posts, but I cannot control myself.

Let me give you an example,A money lender comes across a poor man and offers him an investment deal which is too good to be true.He claims that the money invested would be doubled within a year.
The poor man is lured by the scheme and without thinking for a second gives the money.A year later when the man arrives at the lender's office to claim his money,he finds that the lender has run off with it.

Now i would like to ask you,who is the guilty party here ? The poor man or the money lender ?

The answer is the ignorant poor man is responsible for his own fate.He didn't verify the legality of the scheme,never went through terms and conditions,never checked the RBI guidelines on this and henceforth paid the price.

wow!!! I hope you are studying law? If not get on to it!!! Sarada to Sahara to Rose Valley, all of them are waiting for such an intelligent and eloquent person to represent them.

I mean you are one of the most diseased minded people I have the misfortune of knowing.

You change goalposts so frequently, no wonder you are in crisis.

By, your own logic the Govt. of India doesn't have any responsibility at all for the poor people of India, as it was (must have been) their own stupidity and inability to protect their own interest that they are poor now.

Similarly India's colonization and the subsequent pillaging by he British happened because we allowed them to do so.In the words of Dr Sashi Tharror "we literally financed our own exploitation".

For gods sake,The British were colonizers ,what did you expect them to be? Benevolent rulers? They came here for the specific purpose of stripping the country of it's resources and we facilitated them in doing so.

henceforth we cannot claim to be victims.

How moronic can a person be? What kind of environment and rearing and education can cause the above sentences? I no longer will be able to have fun with stupidity of Pakistanis knowing we have our own share, who are criminally stupid.

We allowed, as in voluntarily stood aside when the pillaged and looted, was it so? May be your forefathers actually did, as we all know that many traitors were in deed in cahoot with British in selling off our motherland. May be my forefathers too. But, most of present day Indians actually strive to be patriot and have pride for the motherland as well as anguish for past-wrong done to her and tour forefathers. Before knowing you, I'd have said all the Indians. Now I have to tune it down to 'most', funny it would have been, had it not been so pathetic.

You seem to have no understanding of the issue before opening you r trap. The British of the past did wrong and the British of the present, who claim to have achieved civilization and claim that they literally spread civilization and benefited to India, were markedly and pointedly told that it was not so.

Btw, I am not xenophobic, but vengeful. I wish we taught the same lesson to the British what they had done to the Indians before they were allowed to scoot before independence. It is not called xenophobia, but exacting the price.

 

[thethinker]

I am simply stating that whatever Churchill did was done by the governments after Independence and hecefroth we are not in no position to blame

Churchill chose to feed the Greeks instead of feeding the starving Indians,Similarly post independence our leaders chose to feed their own instead of the people.Have you ever heard of any other food secure country and a food surplus country with the highest number of hungry people ?

Africa is starving due to political instability and food scarcity,North Korea is starving because of low food production where as India is starving because of criminal negligence on part of the government.

The crux of the thread was about British rule not beneficial to it's colonies at all.


Don't keep going in circles or obfuscate your arguments by introducing false hypothetical substitutes (Japan would have been a worse colonial rule etc etc) or downplay crimes of British by trying to soften them up saying it was negligence/indifference or that we are same as them.

Again, I won't be surprised if you have some strong NGO affiliations to rabidly defend what you do.

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

Oxford Speech: Shashi Tharoor's eloquence and a shallow understanding of colonial history

Why did Indian social media revel in Shashi Tharoor’s eloquent arguments at a debate in Oxford union that Britain must pay reparations for its colonial excesses? The point is not to refute or agree with the suave Tharoor or be oblivious to the history of Europe’s colonial plunder. But the collective pride over Tharoor’s comments is misplaced because it emerges from a deep-seated sense of inferiority. By the standards of today, most values and actions of the past (acceptable at the time) would seem morally degenerate. In the twelfth century one ruthless Bakhtiyar Khilji razed to the ground many esteemed institutions of higher learning in what is present day north India — the most prestigious among which wasNalanda University (revived currently amidst some unnecessary controversy).


Many of those who celebrated Tharoor’s comments that modern day Britain must pay for its past (mis)deeds would not exactly spring into action and seek retribution of Bakhtiyar Khilji’s brutality.

Of course, the impact of the actions of Khilji, Mahmud of Ghazni and their likes, no matter how savage, were far more superficial than the depth of the moral offense of British colonialism. But that is not exactly why those who thought Tharoor’s arguments were “cool” would not clamour for justice from the perceived successors of the West Asian invaders.

The Empire crushed our self-confidence, the criminality of which is as grave as the figures that Tharoor shared at the Oxford debate and comforted an upcoming elite India that is seeking a voice in the global arena — the fact that India slipped from 23 to 4 per cent in its share of world economy during the 200 years of colonial rule. Thus, we are not to be blamed for our economic “backwardness”! What is far more serious, however, is that the cultures, structures of thoughts and ways of seeing of our societies were deemed inferior, thanks to the master tropes of the colonial project — democracy, civil society, democratic justice and most importantly progress and development. We perpetually fell short of the high standards set by the coloniser.

In the 1950s, Jawaharlal Nehru asserted self-confidence with a novel idea — non-alignment. That Third World countries like India (the expression, developing nation, was yet to be coined) need not affiliate with either the United States (the “neo-imperial” power of post-War era) or the Soviet bloc and thus be sovereign in real sense. Nehru and non-alignment have long been out of fashion! But have we successfully overcome the cultural legacy of the coloniser? The answer is complex but one can safely claim that there are still so many things about the “superior” culture — from their cities to the elite universities — that we would like to emulate. When one of our politicians promises to make a “London” out of a metropolitan centre, she merely reflects a popular sentiment, albeit in a crude form.

In Britain and the United States there exist an industry of current affairs items that routinely evoke celebrities’ ancestral connections to the Atlantic slave trade and make tabloid news out of their nations’ “dark past”. For instance, it made for high drama recently when it was discovered on the US-reality TV show, Finding Your Roots, that Hollywood star Ben Affleck had slave-owning ancestors. It is this pop culture milieu that ups the appeal of Tharoor’s comments. The collective jubilation is detached from any serious effort to deal with British colonialism, which would mean understanding why certain things about contemporary India (and the rest of the modern world) are what they are and what can be “redone”.

The author recently wrote a PhD in communication studies at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore


what does the author actually want to point at/prove?! reads like a khichadi of words and motives to me. does she really have anything substantial or worthwhile to convey, or wrote just for the heck of it because she has a PhD degree which needs to be shown off?!