Did India liberate itself from the British through freedom fighters?

[Rajdeep]

Kangana Ranaut's statement where she says India got freedom in 1947 as 'Bheekh' has made me thinking. Obviously the language used in that statement does not sound well but was she really wrong though?

Britisher came to India in 17th century and ruled for 400 years. Freedom struggle was going on for hundreds of years but why they choose to leave only in 1947?

If we look into the history, after world war 2 British economy was in doldrums. The bombings (known as Blitz) that Hitler's nazi party did in England has ruined country's economy totally. So much so that Britain was struggling for its own survival survival. In such a situation, there was no way they could have sustain a colony 4000 miles away in India. So they decided to leave India and handover India to Indians.

So I dont buy this theory that Britishers left India in 1947 due to freedom fighters. They proactively handed over India to Indians (Bheek in Kangana's word) because their economy was crippled due to the war.

Will Britishers have left India in 1947 without World War 2? Definitely not.

Was kangana totally wrong? Lets Debate

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Kangana Ranaut's statement where she says India got freedom in 1947 as 'Bheekh' has made me thinking. Obviously the language used in that statement does not sound well but was she really wrong though?

Britisher came to India in 17th century and ruled for 400 years. Freedom struggle was going on for hundreds of years but why they choose to leave only in 1947?

If we look into the history, after world war 2 British economy was in doldrums. The bombings (known as Blitz) that Hitler's nazi party did in England has ruined country's economy totally. So much so that Britain was struggling for its own survival survival. In such a situation, there was no way they could have sustain a colony 4000 miles away in India. So they decided to leave India and handover India to Indians.

So I dont buy this theory that Britishers left India in 1947 due to freedom fighters. They proactively handed over India to Indians (Bheek in Kangana's word) because their economy was crippled due to the war.

Will Britishers have left India in 1947 without World War 2? Definitely not.

Was kangana totally wrong? Lets Debate

She wasn't totally wrong but you can't discredit the movement totally.

It was the combination of growing independence movements and the fact that the British were incredibly stretched from an economic perspective after WW2 that resulted in them leaving.

So while they proactively handed India over primarily due to economic constraints, the handover may have been hastened by the fact that stretched British were under resourced to potentially fight on another front.

 

[street cricketer]

She is both right and wrong.

She is right when she says that India wasn't granted freedom due to freedom fighters. There was no real armed struggle mounted against the British by either the hindus or the muslims or the sikhs. They all liked the status quo, or didn't mind enough to mount any real organised armed struggle against the British. In fact, a lot of them fought for the British during the world war.

My hindi is patchy but I'm assuming 'bheekh' means to give charity. If that's the case, she's wrong when she says that the Brits gave freedom as charity. Charity is something you do on your own will without any compulsion and you can also afford to not do charity if you so will. That was not the case with British India which became unsustainable to maintain for Britain after the world war II, in the same way keeping all the erstwhile Soviet countries together became unsustainable for the Soviet Union at the end of the cold war era.

 

[JaDed]

If Kangana was given her first movie as a bheek and most movies after that until Queen , then yes British gave India freedom as bheekh too.

 

[pillionrider]

Maybe those who seek inspiration from an uneducated big mouth/mediocre-to-bad actress should understand what 17th century means, and how many years the British actually ruled over India.

Now that the BJP has been unsuccessful in claiming any role in the freedom movement through its ancestors, and now that Savarkar is no longer seen as Veer, looks like they want to wipe out something they didn't have any meaningful hand in.

On to the question - WW2 made it harder to hold on to India. I've anyway for a while believed the freedom movement was overhyped, but trying to wipe it out is like saying Nehru was totally useless.

The BJP couldn't dream of putting together a movement to match the freedom struggle, gain international attention or create a symbol in Gandhi who has gone on to inspire leaders in other countries, irrespective of who he actually was.

Whom does the BJP's most famous leader, Modiji, inspire?
No one, other than the keyboard warriors and trolls he gives employment to

Also history will never put Nehru in the same sentence as Modi. That's how bad Modiji has been

If Kangana was given her first movie as a bheek and most movies after that until Queen , then yes British gave India freedom as bheekh too.

She had Uncle Aditya Pancholi to help her out though

 

[ElRaja]

brits werent stupid, as long as they could project the image of being strong and dominant they could hold on to india, as soon as the subcontinent wanted independence the brits would have always had to strategise an organised retreat.

brits understood how indians thought tho, they simply replaced themselves at the top of a system of nobility and aristocracy as chief governors, it didnt really matter to regular indians daily lives whether the ppl on top were white or brown, and the independence movement itself was a product of the intellectual classes.

so its wrong to say indians got independence as bheek, more accurate to say brits had rule as an "amanat" that most learned classes on both sides knew theyd have to return one day.

 

[NishanKonar]

Post WW2 , the British were too weakened to hold on to India. They simply did not have the mental strength and resources to hold on to India. On top the Naval mutiny in 1946 sowed seeds of doubt in British minds about the loyalty of British Indian army to help maintain law and order in case of large uprisings by Congress leaders. There were fears of repeat of 1857. Not to forget the Americans were putting immense pressure on Briitish to withdraw from India in a sensible manner to avoid Indian leaders getting into the Soviet camp

So they thought this was the opportune time to leave India with grace and dignity and ensure orderly transition of power

 

[Napa]

Kangana Ranaut's statement where she says India got freedom in 1947 as 'Bheekh' has made me thinking. Obviously the language used in that statement does not sound well but was she really wrong though?

Britisher came to India in 17th century and ruled for 400 years. Freedom struggle was going on for hundreds of years but why they choose to leave only in 1947?

If we look into the history, after world war 2 British economy was in doldrums. The bombings (known as Blitz) that Hitler's nazi party did in England has ruined country's economy totally. So much so that Britain was struggling for its own survival survival. In such a situation, there was no way they could have sustain a colony 4000 miles away in India. So they decided to leave India and handover India to Indians.

So I dont buy this theory that Britishers left India in 1947 due to freedom fighters. They proactively handed over India to Indians (Bheek in Kangana's word) because their economy was crippled due to the war.

Will Britishers have left India in 1947 without World War 2? Definitely not.

Was kangana totally wrong? Lets Debate

1. The Brits did not rule India for 400 years. They acquired sovereign power over a part of the country after the Battle of Plassey in 1757. They acquired sovereign power over rest of the country after their victory in the War of Independence 1857. They exited in 1947, so their sovereign power in India was either 190 years or 90 years.

2. The position of the British in India was becoming untenable, and WWII dealt it the coup de grace. There were two aspects of the freedom struggle which the British position untenable. The first is the well known civil disobedience movement led by Gandhi/Congress. The second was the armed struggle for freedom.

However, the combination of the two was decisive. Gandhi had a huge contribution in bringing Indians together, but the British could have hung on to power even if the Indians were united if it were not for the threat posed by the armed revolutionaries. They realized that if they did not give up power the armed struggle would only intensify, so they chose to negotiate with the Congress which would talk to them, rather than the armed revolutionaries who would not talk to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_movement_for_Indian_independence

As Congress wrote history for school textbooks, only the first of the above was publicized, the latter mostly ignored. That is why we have posters making statements like "There was no real armed struggle mounted against the British by either the hindus or the muslims or the sikhs."

When a young man or a young woman chooses to sacrifice her life for the sake of her country, the impact on the rest of the population is huge. Bhagat Singh, Benoy Basu, Badal Gupta and Dinesh Gupta may have been hanged by the British and Pritilata Waddedar may have chosen to sacrifice her life rather than be captured by the British, but that only meant that there would be millions of them in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pritilata_Waddedar

Besides the individual revolutionaries, there were a larger number of organized armed revolts like the Chittagong Armory Raid, Indian National Army, the Indian Naval Mutiny etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chittagong_armoury_raid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Indian_Navy_mutiny

Basically the British realized that the situation was going to become untenable as an increasing number of Indians would join the armed struggle, and they gracefully exited by negotiating with Congress for the transfer of power. India was a huge source of wealth for the British, and anyone who thinks they gave up power if they had to the means to remain is delusional.

 

[KB]

It was the combination of growing independence movements and the fact that the British were incredibly stretched from an economic perspective after WW2 that resulted in them leaving.

So while they proactively handed India over primarily due to economic constraints, the handover may have been hastened by the fact that stretched British were under resourced to potentially fight on another front.

I think this is a sound assessment.

 It can be argued that the nationalist movement was never on its own a sufficient force in pushing Britain out. The steady erosion of India’s economic worth to Britain, the idea after the war that British strategic interests could be served better by India being a Commonwealth partner rather than a colony, the deterioration of the administrative ‘steel framework’, the communal conflict in the 1940s and the desire to avoid being caught up in it, and of course the impact of the second World War which enfeebled the British economy, and resulted in it being for the first time in debt to India, were all factors contributing to the ultimate departure of Britain from India in 1947.

But these factors cannot be seen in isolation from the nationalist movement. After the war the cost of clinging to its Indian empire would have required a significant reinforcement of British forces, and this was in large measure due to the efforts of the nationalist movement. The withering of the administrative framework was also in no small part down to the nationalist movement. A movement sustained over many years did unsettle the moral foundations of colonial rule. With important exceptions, by the late 1930s, the Congress was seen as an ‘alternative Raj’ by many Indians. The Congress was also able to fashion - not wholly but at least amongst a critical mass - a sense of nationhood in the midst of tremendous diversity.

As a note in conclusion, it is also important to stress that 1947 represented, to use the official terminology, a transfer of power. This was not a revolution; not a violent ejection. As such historians have more generally pointed to the continuities across the 1947 'divide' between imperial and independent India, for instance in the ethos and structure of government. The Constitution, for example, drew heavily on the 1935 Government of India Act.

Imperial 'endings' greatly affected what was to come after the moment of independence.

 

[gani999]

The British loved India because it was their biggest source of cheap raw material and the biggest market for their finished goods. The Indian market kept the British factories running. The British would have given anything to keep India after WWII, when the Marshal Plan allowed for the reconstruction of the British industry. A source of cheap raw material and a big market would have been invaluable to them.

That the British decided to leave India only shows how frustrated they were with all the civil disobedience happening. Added to that, there was a real fear of the Crown's ability to hold on to India by force following the mutiny by the British Indian armed forces in 1946. Hence the independence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal... flashpoint in,troops and Royal Navy warships.

History and academics aren't the average Bollywoodista's strong points. I wouldn't give much credibility to Kangana Ranaut ahd her 'Bheek' theory.

 

[street cricketer]

1. The Brits did not rule India for 400 years. They acquired sovereign power over a part of the country after the Battle of Plassey in 1757. They acquired sovereign power over rest of the country after their victory in the War of Independence 1857. They exited in 1947, so their sovereign power in India was either 190 years or 90 years.

2. The position of the British in India was becoming untenable, and WWII dealt it the coup de grace. There were two aspects of the freedom struggle which the British position untenable. The first is the well known civil disobedience movement led by Gandhi/Congress. The second was the armed struggle for freedom.

However, the combination of the two was decisive. Gandhi had a huge contribution in bringing Indians together, but the British could have hung on to power even if the Indians were united if it were not for the threat posed by the armed revolutionaries. They realized that if they did not give up power the armed struggle would only intensify, so they chose to negotiate with the Congress which would talk to them, rather than the armed revolutionaries who would not talk to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_movement_for_Indian_independence

As Congress wrote history for school textbooks, only the first of the above was publicized, the latter mostly ignored. That is why we have posters making statements like "There was no real armed struggle mounted against the British by either the hindus or the muslims or the sikhs."

When a young man or a young woman chooses to sacrifice her life for the sake of her country, the impact on the rest of the population is huge. Bhagat Singh, Benoy Basu, Badal Gupta and Dinesh Gupta may have been hanged by the British and Pritilata Waddedar may have chosen to sacrifice her life rather than be captured by the British, but that only meant that there would be millions of them in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pritilata_Waddedar

Besides the individual revolutionaries, there were a larger number of organized armed revolts like the Chittagong Armory Raid, Indian National Army, the Indian Naval Mutiny etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chittagong_armoury_raid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Indian_Navy_mutiny

Basically the British realized that the situation was going to become untenable as an increasing number of Indians would join the armed struggle, and they gracefully exited by negotiating with Congress for the transfer of power. India was a huge source of wealth for the British, and anyone who thinks they gave up power if they had to the means to remain is delusional.

Most of the incidents you shared barely troubled the British except the loss of an odd life or two within India. The INA itself fought the British forces by allying with the Axis forces from outside India and couldn't do so from within India, and were defeated and taken as POWs. Armed struggle to liberate a region must come from within and must spread spontaneously within the populace to be remotely even successful or at least be a source of trouble for the British forces in India. The odd revolutionary group comprised of a few men here and there taking out the odd collector or administrative officer does not constitute an organised armed struggle to end British occupation.

 

[sweep_shot]

World War 2 definitely helped.

Without WW2, liberation of Indian subcontinent might have taken longer.

 

[Napa]

Most of the incidents you shared barely troubled the British except the loss of an odd life or two within India. The INA itself fought the British forces by allying with the Axis forces from outside India and couldn't do so from within India, and were defeated and taken as POWs. Armed struggle to liberate a region must come from within and must spread spontaneously within the populace to be remotely even successful or at least be a source of trouble for the British forces in India. The odd revolutionary group comprised of a few men here and there taking out the odd collector or administrative officer does not constitute an organised armed struggle to end British occupation.

Your understanding of armed struggle is deficient.

"Armed struggle to liberate a region must come from within and must spread spontaneously within the populace". By "spontaneously" if you mean in a short period of time, you are wrong.

After the defection of the INA soldiers, and the Indian Naval Mutiny, the British saw the writing on the wall. The British had only 25 years ago faced another revolt in Ireland, one which they could have temporarily crushed militarily (with large civilian casualties), but lost over the long term They accepted defeat in Ireland, a country with about 0.5% the population of India. They had no chance if a large number of Indians took to armed struggle, which would inevitably happen with time.

The great admiration received by the armed revolutionaries who were executed by the British meant that the armed struggle was only going to expand. From personal experience I know that Surya Sen, Pritilata Waddedar, Benoy Basu, Badal Gupta, Dinesh Gupta etc. received far greater reverence from many Bengalis that Gandhi ever did. There were many many more ready to follow in their footsteps.

The British were no fools, having lost Ireland they knew they had no chance in India. The chose the best option, which was an honorable negotiated withdrawal.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

brits werent stupid, as long as they could project the image of being strong and dominant they could hold on to india, as soon as the subcontinent wanted independence the brits would have always had to strategise an organised retreat.

brits understood how indians thought tho, they simply replaced themselves at the top of a system of nobility and aristocracy as chief governors, it didnt really matter to regular indians daily lives whether the ppl on top were white or brown, and the independence movement itself was a product of the intellectual classes.

so its wrong to say indians got independence as bheek, more accurate to say brits had rule as an "amanat" that most learned classes on both sides knew theyd have to return one day.

Sardars were the mercenaries given power yet always rewriting history with tales of exaggerated valiance

 

[Varun]

The understated hero of our independence was actually Adolf Hitler.

Couldn't have done it without Mr. Funny Moustache.

 

[street cricketer]

Your understanding of armed struggle is deficient.

"Armed struggle to liberate a region must come from within and must spread spontaneously within the populace". By "spontaneously" if you mean in a short period of time, you are wrong.

After the defection of the INA soldiers, and the Indian Naval Mutiny, the British saw the writing on the wall. The British had only 25 years ago faced another revolt in Ireland, one which they could have temporarily crushed militarily (with large civilian casualties), but lost over the long term They accepted defeat in Ireland, a country with about 0.5% the population of India. They had no chance if a large number of Indians took to armed struggle, which would inevitably happen with time.

The great admiration received by the armed revolutionaries who were executed by the British meant that the armed struggle was only going to expand. From personal experience I know that Surya Sen, Pritilata Waddedar, Benoy Basu, Badal Gupta, Dinesh Gupta etc. received far greater reverence from many Bengalis that Gandhi ever did. There were many many more ready to follow in their footsteps.

The British were no fools, having lost Ireland they knew they had no chance in India. The chose the best option, which was an honorable negotiated withdrawal.

Perhaps your definition of armed struggle means groups of 5-10 men ransacking an office or assassinating an officer or two, but armed struggles in most insurgencies around the world to liberate themselves from occupation, past or present, is organised more widely than whatever examples you've given. Now the 1857 mutiny was a proper armed struggle. The naval mutiny of 1946 or the Chittagong and other incidents don't even compare.

The naval mutiny that you speak of received no support from either the Congress or the Muslim League and funnily enough, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, someone who has been co-opted by the hindutva as a strongman leader was the one who negotiated with the mutineers and put an end to the "struggle" along with Jinnah on behalf of the Muslim League.

 

[Robert]

Kangana Ranaut's statement where she says India got freedom in 1947 as 'Bheekh' has made me thinking. Obviously the language used in that statement does not sound well but was she really wrong though?

Britisher came to India in 17th century and ruled for 400 years. Freedom struggle was going on for hundreds of years but why they choose to leave only in 1947?

If we look into the history, after world war 2 British economy was in doldrums. The bombings (known as Blitz) that Hitler's nazi party did in England has ruined country's economy totally. So much so that Britain was struggling for its own survival survival. In such a situation, there was no way they could have sustain a colony 4000 miles away in India. So they decided to leave India and handover India to Indians.

So I dont buy this theory that Britishers left India in 1947 due to freedom fighters. They proactively handed over India to Indians (Bheek in Kangana's word) because their economy was crippled due to the war.

Will Britishers have left India in 1947 without World War 2? Definitely not.

Was kangana totally wrong? Lets Debate

The Blitz didn’t ruin the economy. UK emerged from WW2 with 5% GDP surplus and manufacturing industry at its strongest output ever.

What changed was colossal war debt. Food rationing carried on for ten years of peacetime. Hanging onto a very large colony far away was no longer an economic option. Britain had other priorities such as setting up the Welfare state.

 

[Napa]

Perhaps your definition of armed struggle means groups of 5-10 men ransacking an office or assassinating an officer or two, but armed struggles in most insurgencies around the world to liberate themselves from occupation, past or present, is organised more widely than whatever examples you've given. Now the 1857 mutiny was a proper armed struggle. The naval mutiny of 1946 or the Chittagong and other incidents don't even compare.

The naval mutiny that you speak of received no support from either the Congress or the Muslim League and funnily enough, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, someone who has been co-opted by the hindutva as a strongman leader was the one who negotiated with the mutineers and put an end to the "struggle" along with Jinnah on behalf of the Muslim League.

Armed struggles take time to grow. However those who choose to willingly sacrifice their lives with time acquire more prestige and followers than those who choose to stop eating in protest.

Suppose the British had not negotiated and compromised with Gandhi, what would have happened? The number of those who chose the path of armed struggle for freedom would have increased exponentially.

The British constantly compromised, starting with the formation of elected local governments and ending with complete independence. The armed revolutionaries were a constant reminder of what would otherwise happen, a bloody war ending in their defeat.

It is naive to think that the British willingly gave up their source of great wealth, nobody does that. A civil disobedience movement by itself won’t shame anyone to give up great itself. I am intimately familiar with the communities Surya Sen, Pritilata Waddedar, Benoy Basu, Badal Gupta, Dinesh Gupta etc. came from. I can assure you that their torture (read about Surya Sen) and execution only made their communities more determined rather than intimidated. What happened in Ireland would also happen in India, the British were smart enough to realize that.

 

[Technics 1210]

India got lucky, WW2. Story of their life.

 

[Technics 1210]

The Blitz didn’t ruin the economy. UK emerged from WW2 with 5% GDP surplus and manufacturing industry at its strongest output ever.

What changed was colossal war debt. Food rationing carried on for ten years of peacetime. Hanging onto a very large colony far away was no longer an economic option. Britain had other priorities such as setting up the Welfare state.

You forgot national debt which was 200% of GDP.

Welfare state was hindsight; at the time of WW2, Hitler was a priority, welfare state was a footnote not a priority.

 

[Rajdeep]

India got lucky, WW2. Story of their life.

Indian subcontinent, lets not confuse with that. Without WW2 there wont be any Pakistan either.

 

[Robert]

You forgot national debt which was 200% of GDP.

Welfare state was hindsight; at the time of WW2, Hitler was a priority, welfare state was a footnote not a priority.

That’s why i said the debt was colossal.



The Welfare State was the key priority of the Attlee government which swept to power in 1945.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Maybe those who seek inspiration from an uneducated big mouth/mediocre-to-bad actress should understand what 17th century means, and how many years the British actually ruled over India.

Now that the BJP has been unsuccessful in claiming any role in the freedom movement through its ancestors, and now that Savarkar is no longer seen as Veer, looks like they want to wipe out something they didn't have any meaningful hand in.

On to the question - WW2 made it harder to hold on to India. I've anyway for a while believed the freedom movement was overhyped, but trying to wipe it out is like saying Nehru was totally useless.

The BJP couldn't dream of putting together a movement to match the freedom struggle, gain international attention or create a symbol in Gandhi who has gone on to inspire leaders in other countries, irrespective of who he actually was.

Whom does the BJP's most famous leader, Modiji, inspire?
No one, other than the keyboard warriors and trolls he gives employment to

Also history will never put Nehru in the same sentence as Modi. That's how bad Modiji has been



She had Uncle Aditya Pancholi to help her out though

It was due the revolts in the British Indian Army and the British Indian Navy that made the British realise that they cannot hold India anymore.
Remember, more 80 percent of the force that was used to control the land was made up of natives. Once they couldn't depend upon the natives to enforce their writ, they decided to leave.

Both Congress and the Muslim league condemned the mutinies.

None of mutineers from the 1946 mutiny, who were court martialed were reinstated even after Independence. Neither in India, nor in pakistan.

None of the member of Subhash Chandra Bose's INA, all of whom were British Indian Army recruits were reinstated in the Indian Army post 1947.

Savarkar is not veer according to whom? Next you will say Subhash Bose was a war criminal and Bhagat Singh was a terrorist.

Freedom movement doesn't belong to the congress party. Gandhi had asked that the original congress party be dissolved. But Nehru wanted to steal the legacy. Any idea in which party the descendants of Lal Bahadur Shastri or Vallabhbhai Patel join? Or is the freedom movement just the legacy of the Nehru family?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Perhaps your definition of armed struggle means groups of 5-10 men ransacking an office or assassinating an officer or two, but armed struggles in most insurgencies around the world to liberate themselves from occupation, past or present, is organised more widely than whatever examples you've given. Now the 1857 mutiny was a proper armed struggle. The naval mutiny of 1946 or the Chittagong and other incidents don't even compare.

The naval mutiny that you speak of received no support from either the Congress or the Muslim League and funnily enough, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, someone who has been co-opted by the hindutva as a strongman leader was the one who negotiated with the mutineers and put an end to the "struggle" along with Jinnah on behalf of the Muslim League.

Patel was sent by Gandhi and Congress to negotiate. At that point in time it Gandhi who was running the show and except Bose no one could defy him.

That reached a breaking point, when the congress committee by majority votes had elected patel as the 1st PM candidate but Gandhi forced patel to decline the proposal and made Nehru the PM. This created a lot of bad blood within the congress

Post 1947 Patel was finally able to act independently as Gandhi could no more influence Patel and a few other leaders. Post Gandhi's death, the likes of Patel, CRaja, etc became even more independent of Nehru's policy.

 

[Napa]

Patel was sent by Gandhi and Congress to negotiate. At that point in time it <b>Gandhi who was running the show and except Bose no one could defy him.</b>

That reached a breaking point, when the congress committee by majority votes had elected patel as the 1st PM candidate but <b>Gandhi forced patel to decline the proposal and made Nehru the PM.</b> This created a lot of bad blood within the congress

Post 1947 Patel was finally able to act independently as Gandhi could no more influence Patel and a few other leaders. Post Gandhi's death, the likes of Patel, CRaja, etc became even more independent of Nehru's policy.

Gandhi, for all his humility and commitment to non-violence, was an absolute power hog. He gave India the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty as PMs, and by 1980 51% of the population was in extreme poverty. The Congress spoke Gandhi's talk, but in reality everyone knew that Congress leaders were in it to get rich.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

I have said this maybe a year before kangana

In my opinion only Pakistan won independence. India was handed independence.

British were leaving india anyway so the achievement was to make them hand over Pakistan rather than just pull out as is

 

[KingKhanWC]

Brits controlled India with only 40,000 troops. Reason, Indians in power sold out like a bag of chips.

When they started to resist the rule, things changed.


If Indians hadnt revolted Brits would still be there now, even with WW2.

Aggressors, invaders, occupiers only leave when you start to resist them. The cost of both lives and money fighting them makes it not as attractive.

 

[Napa]

Brits controlled India with only 40,000 troops. Reason, Indians in power sold out like a bag of chips.

When they started to resist the rule, things changed.


If Indians hadnt revolted Brits would still be there now, even with WW2.

Aggressors, invaders, occupiers only leave when you start to resist them. The cost of both lives and money fighting them makes it not as attractive.

That's why we should have the greatest respect for those who chose to fight the occupiers with arms, knowing they would likely die.

After the millions dead in the Bengal Famine in 1943, it was essential that India be liberated to ensure that did not happen again.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Brits controlled India with only 40,000 troops. Reason, Indians in power sold out like a bag of chips.

When they started to resist the rule, things changed.


If Indians hadnt revolted Brits would still be there now, even with WW2.

Aggressors, invaders, occupiers only leave when you start to resist them. The cost of both lives and money fighting them makes it not as attractive.

They controlled present day pakistan with the same strategy.

 

[PakLFC]

It was more to do with WW2 that the British had to leave. This rubbish of Gandhi's salt marches are overstated.

 

[Napa]

It was more to do with WW2 that the British had to leave. This rubbish of Gandhi's salt marches are overstated.

Gandhi’s great contribution was that he made Indians less fragmented. He did not get them to the point where there were no divisions, but he did enough to get them present a moderately united front. Coupled with the threat of an armed revolution if they didn’t negotiate with Congress was enough to get the British to leave.

 

[PakLFC]

Gandhi’s great contribution was that he made Indians less fragmented. He did not get them to the point where there were no divisions, but he did enough to get them present a moderately united front. Coupled with the threat of an armed revolution if they didn’t negotiate with Congress was enough to get the British to leave.

He had a few positives but to say he drove the Brits out is very much exaggerated. It was the circumstances of the time that made the Brits leave otherwise they had planned to rule for at least another hundred years. The Indian unity displayed then against the British can not be credited to Gandhi alone. Indeed Quaid Jinnah and others were also responsible for that too,

 

[Napa]

He had a few positives but to say he drove the Brits out is very much exaggerated. It was the circumstances of the time that made the Brits leave otherwise they had planned to rule for at least another hundred years. The Indian unity displayed then against the British can not be credited to Gandhi alone. Indeed Quaid Jinnah and others were also responsible for that too,

I didn't say he was the only contributor to Indian unity, but he was a great factor.

A combination of factors drove the British out, the biggest ones being Indian unity, the civil disobedience movement and the threat of an escalating armed revolution.

WWII had a mixed impact. While it did weaken the British, it also made more acceptable violence as a means of state policy. But the option of violent suppression of the Indian independence movement was taken away by growing Indian unity and the threat of a violent retaliation.

 

[Robert]

WW2 marked the beginning of the end of Empire everywhere, not just the Raj.

 

[Napa]

WW2 marked the beginning of the end of Empire everywhere, not just the Raj.

Britain had to let neighboring Ireland go even before WWII began.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

They controlled present day pakistan with the same strategy.

That would be impossible as there was no Pakistan then, only India.

 

[Napa]

That would be impossible as there was no Pakistan then, only India.

Which is probably why he used the adjective phrase "present day".

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Which is probably why he used the adjective phrase "present day".

But it's still just mental gymnastics, as it was India back then, there was no such nation as Pakistan. India as a nation would have a very different ethos to Pakistan.

I can only assume that the reason for trying to co-opt association is that KKWC's words must have stung.

 

[Napa]

But it's still just mental gymnastics, as it was India back then, there was no such nation as Pakistan. India as a nation would have a very different ethos to Pakistan.

I can only assume that the reason for trying to co-opt association is that KKWC's words must have stung.

I really don't have the time to teach you English.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I really don't have the time to teach you English.

You need to learn history instead of English. There was no Pakistan during British rule of India, so you can't talk about Pakistan in the 18th century.

 

[PakLFC]

I didn't say he was the only contributor to Indian unity, but he was a great factor.

A combination of factors drove the British out, the biggest ones being Indian unity, the civil disobedience movement and the threat of an escalating armed revolution.

WWII had a mixed impact. While it did weaken the British, it also made more acceptable violence as a means of state policy. But the option of violent suppression of the Indian independence movement was taken away by growing Indian unity and the threat of a violent retaliation.

One of the factors that is overstated was this freedom fighting nonsense that Indian's like to overstate and glorify. Thing is the main reason was the Brits were gonna go bankrupt having overspread their wings too much. It was simply not possible for them to sustain themselves in almost half of the world anymore.

Gandhi was overrated and no more or less important then the Quaid Jinnah in fact I consider the founder of Pak to be ahead of him in both influence and intelligence. They more or less exited other parts of the world simultaneously, the British empire was collapsing everywhere.

I don't buy your Indian unity rubbish when Hindu's and Muslim's had already began turning against each other.

 

[Napa]

One of the factors that is overstated was this freedom fighting nonsense that Indian's like to overstate and glorify. Thing is the main reason was the Brits were gonna go bankrupt having overspread their wings too much. It was simply not possible for them to sustain themselves in almost half of the world anymore.

India was a wealth producer for the Brits, not an expense.

No more replies.

 

[PakLFC]

India was a wealth producer for the Brits, not an expense.

No more replies.

And it was the Muslim Moghuls' who merged India and made it so wealthy. Remember that.

 

[Robert]

Britain had to let neighboring Ireland go even before WWII began.

1922 actually.

The 1918 Irish General Election saw Sinn Fein win 75% of the MPs and declare a republic, setting up a parliament. Guerrilla warfare by the IRA carried on for three years at which point a peace treaty was drafted, the Six Counties of Ulster opted out of Free State membership, and Ireland was partitioned.

 

[cricketjoshila]

And it was the Muslim Moghuls' who merged India and made it so wealthy. Remember that.

No. They invaded India and looted the wealth for their personal debauchery. India was a rich civilization long before the Mughals came.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

No. They invaded India and looted the wealth for their personal debauchery. India was a rich civilization long before the Mughals came.

Mughals took the region from other Muslims

 

[PakLFC]

No. They invaded India and looted the wealth for their personal debauchery. India was a rich civilization long before the Mughals came.

Totally false. There was no India prior to the Mughal's, it was a dirt poor region until they arrived and made it in to a golden pigeon. Invaders they were yet contributed most to Indian civilisation and culture. There are so many Hindu intellectuals and writers who admit this. I am not painting a picture perfect image of them either. They did indeed inflict harm as well, it is never totally one sided.

 

[jaisan]

Totally false. There was no India prior to the Mughal's, it was a dirt poor region until they arrived and made it in to a golden pigeon. Invaders they were yet contributed most to Indian civilisation and culture. There are so many Hindu intellectuals and writers who admit this. I am not painting a picture perfect image of them either. They did indeed inflict harm as well, it is never totally one sided.

What is the name of the book did megasthanese wrote in 2ndcentury BC?
You may have learned the oxford history of india brother but it was not written by historians but by employers of east india company.

 

[Technics 1210]

Indian subcontinent, lets not confuse with that. Without WW2 there wont be any Pakistan either.

Don't confuse Pakistan gaining independence from India, with India gaining independence from Britain.

 

[PakLFC]

What is the name of the book did megasthanese wrote in 2ndcentury BC?
You may have learned the oxford history of india brother but it was not written by historians but by employers of east india company.

You've missed me. What's you point? Come again.

 

[KingKhanWC]

That's why we should have the greatest respect for those who chose to fight the occupiers with arms, knowing they would likely die.

After the millions dead in the Bengal Famine in 1943, it was essential that India be liberated to ensure that did not happen again.

I do, those who resist invaders are the bravest of people. Problem is Brits only managed to take control because many Indians esp ruling class sold out their nation.

They controlled present day pakistan with the same strategy.

Of course. Sellouts don't have ethnicity or religion.

 

[rhony]

Totally false. There was no India prior to the Mughal's, it was a dirt poor region until they arrived and made it in to a golden pigeon. Invaders they were yet contributed most to Indian civilisation and culture. There are so many Hindu intellectuals and writers who admit this. I am not painting a picture perfect image of them either. They did indeed inflict harm as well, it is never totally one sided.

That's blatantly false. Your history probably starts after 7th century and ends after the moghul rule. The Guptas and Mouryas ruled large swathes of lands. Heck when Newton was writing his laws of physics, Aurangzeb was drinking and gambling away money while wasting time with archaic laws. India lost out on industrialization under Moghuls when the rest of the world was progressing.The successive rulers were just duds and gave into British.

 

[Napa]

That's blatantly false. Your history probably starts after 7th century and ends after the moghul rule. The Guptas and Mouryas ruled large swathes of lands. Heck when Newton was writing his laws of physics, Aurangzeb was drinking and gambling away money while wasting time with archaic laws. India lost out on industrialization under Moghuls when the rest of the world was progressing.The successive rulers were just duds and gave into British.

Generally true, but Aurangzeb was a puritan and didn't drink and gamble. He actually did worse by starting the Deccan war in which 3 million died and devastated the country. The Mughals became so weak after this war that invaders like Nader Shah devastated North India and the Mughals were unable to protect their country.

The Mughals did well with emperors like Akbar who was tolerant and worked with his Hindu subjects and collapsed after the fanatical Aurangzeb.

Those who do not know about their own ancestors like the Mauryas and the Guptas and instead look to the dysfunctional Mideast for heritage will suffer.

 

[mustang]

Brits controlled India with only 40,000 troops. Reason, Indians in power sold out like a bag of chips.

When they started to resist the rule, things changed.


If Indians hadnt revolted Brits would still be there now, even with WW2.

Aggressors, invaders, occupiers only leave when you start to resist them. The cost of both lives and money fighting them makes it not as attractive.

But it's still just mental gymnastics, as it was India back then, there was no such nation as Pakistan. India as a nation would have a very different ethos to Pakistan.

I can only assume that the reason for trying to co-opt association is that KKWC's words must have stung.

Well his point was that KKWC's post is misquoted and he was making it clearer. Indians meaning people both in present day India and present day Pakistan folded like a bag of chips under British rule. But deliberate ambiguity in calling them India in a historical context without clarification is cheap point scoring and you seem to be defending the cheap point scoring with your own mental gymnastics.

Reality: People in both present day India and Pakistan were without social/political coherence and were masses of dummies ruled over by a few due to their incompetence.

Pakistanis pretending that they were not part of those dummies under British rule just because of the new nomenclature of their nation is pointless mental gymnastics at best and serious inferiority complex at worst.

 

[mustang]

The biggest reason for India's independence IMO is the hold of American bankers and the US govt on British economy. The Anglo-American lend lease program financed through war bonds, tax payers, and the US bankers meant Britain had to pay back all of that loan. They had already sucked India dry to whatever extent they could. By post WW2, I think the economic benefit of India was probably getting close to break even or negative -- it cost more to hold/maintain it than what could be sucked out of it or maybe the profit margin was getting thinner and it was not worth it.

Bear in mind that Britain's WW2 debt load was on top of the preexisting WW1 debt owed to the US that Britain had already incurred.

Some interesting links regarding this

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/britain-only-settled-debts.html

https://ehsthelongrun.net/2018/08/21/the-uks-unpaid-war-debts-to-the-united-states-1917-1980/

https://www.encyclopedia.com/defense/energy-government-and-defense-magazines/financing-world-war-ii

At the end of the day most of these major geopolitical shifts can be attributed to money.

 

[Robert]

The biggest reason for India's independence IMO is the hold of American bankers and the US govt on British economy. The Anglo-American lend lease program financed through war bonds, tax payers, and the US bankers meant Britain had to pay back all of that loan. They had already sucked India dry to whatever extent they could. By post WW2, I think the economic benefit of India was probably getting close to break even or negative -- it cost more to hold/maintain it than what could be sucked out of it or maybe the profit margin was getting thinner and it was not worth it.

Bear in mind that Britain's WW2 debt load was on top of the preexisting WW1 debt owed to the US that Britain had already incurred.

Some interesting links regarding this

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/britain-only-settled-debts.html

https://ehsthelongrun.net/2018/08/21/the-uks-unpaid-war-debts-to-the-united-states-1917-1980/

https://www.encyclopedia.com/defense/energy-government-and-defense-magazines/financing-world-war-ii

At the end of the day most of these major geopolitical shifts can be attributed to money.

Lend-Lease wasn’t that dear in terms of regular payments, and UK had traded its way out of most debt by 1970. UK got a lot of tanks, planes, guns and trucks at ten cents on the dollar.

Roosevelt drove a hard bargain otherwise though, front-loading payments by requiring all the Empire’s African gold reserves and seizing all assets held by British firms based in the USA. This was a deliberate attempt to break the British Empire, and it worked.

 

[PakLFC]

That's blatantly false. Your history probably starts after 7th century and ends after the moghul rule. The Guptas and Mouryas ruled large swathes of lands. Heck when Newton was writing his laws of physics, Aurangzeb was drinking and gambling away money while wasting time with archaic laws. India lost out on industrialization under Moghuls when the rest of the world was progressing.The successive rulers were just duds and gave into British.

Just coz your Gupta's and all were educating people in mathematics does not mean India was one country at the time. It was still divided in to many lands until the Moghuls united them all to make it one "Hindustan". The Moghuls may have taken but they gave you plenty as well no doubt about it. You can't imagine India today without all the culinary and costumes they introduced that even your Cricketers today have been told to only eat halal. You people wouldn't even know what halal is without the Moghuls'!
https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cr...beef-pork-ban-netizens-ire-1879981-2021-11-23

Aurangzeb even protected your temples and their were plenty of interfaith marriages. There are plenty of Hindu scholars who praise the Muslim period of India where as today your Hindu's brothers are obsessed with hatred of Muslims. Hindu's are incapable of ruling over minorities fairly.
https://qz.com/india/918425/mughal-...u-temples-more-often-than-he-demolished-them/

 

[Napa]

Just coz your Gupta's and all were educating people in mathematics does not mean India was one country at the time. It was still divided in to many lands until the Moghuls united them all to make it one "Hindustan". The Moghuls may have taken but they gave you plenty as well no doubt about it. You can't imagine India today without all the culinary and costumes they introduced that even your Cricketers today have been told to only eat halal. You people wouldn't even know what halal is without the Moghuls'!
https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cr...beef-pork-ban-netizens-ire-1879981-2021-11-23

Aurangzeb even protected your temples and their were plenty of interfaith marriages. There are plenty of Hindu scholars who praise the Muslim period of India where as today your Hindu's brothers are obsessed with hatred of Muslims. Hindu's are incapable of ruling over minorities fairly.
https://qz.com/india/918425/mughal-...u-temples-more-often-than-he-demolished-them/

More lack of knowledge about your own heritage. The Mauryans united most of India 1,700 before the Mughals came to India. With time their empire fell apart just like the Mughal empire also did. Both the Mauryans and Mughals could not incorporate the very south of India in their empires.



https://www.britannica.com/place/Mauryan-Empire

Of course, Ashoka the Great was also well known for his culture and export of Buddhism to faraway lands. Cusine ranks very low compared to philosophy and science.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

More lack of knowledge about your own heritage. The Mauryans united most of India 1,700 before the Mughals came to India. With time their empire fell apart just like the Mughal empire also did. Both the Mauryans and Mughals could not incorporate the very south of India in their empires.

View attachment 113346

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mauryan-Empire

Of course, Ashoka the Great was also well known for his culture and export of Buddhism to faraway lands. Cusine ranks very low compared to philosophy and science.

Cuisine ranks low?

Ask 100 people in any country and the things they would mention about india is cuisine (usually North Indian food) or architecture (usually Taj Mahal).

So maybe you need to ask people to start thinking differently as to how they identify india

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Well his point was that KKWC's post is misquoted and he was making it clearer. Indians meaning people both in present day India and present day Pakistan folded like a bag of chips under British rule. But deliberate ambiguity in calling them India in a historical context without clarification is cheap point scoring and you seem to be defending the cheap point scoring with your own mental gymnastics.

Reality: People in both present day India and Pakistan were without social/political coherence and were masses of dummies ruled over by a few due to their incompetence.

Pakistanis pretending that they were not part of those dummies under British rule just because of the new nomenclature of their nation is pointless mental gymnastics at best and serious inferiority complex at worst.

It's not point scoring, it's historical fact. There was no Pakistan during the days of British rule, there was only India/Hindustan when referred to as a general region. If you want to get more granular then there would be Bengal, Punjab, Kahmir, Sindh etc. You won't find any mention of Pakistan in historical literature at all and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

 

[Napa]

Cuisine ranks low?

Ask 100 people in any country and the things they would mention about india is cuisine (usually North Indian food) or architecture (usually Taj Mahal).

So maybe you need to ask people to start thinking differently as to how they identify india

You give importance to what the common person knows, that's your choice. The common person knows about Armenian-Americans by the Kardashian sisters, rather than by Kirk Kerkorian. Your tastes are similarly common.

Most people do not know that Buddhism originated in India because they have not been educated about these matters. I prefer the educated lot for whom Buddhism and mathematics are more important than what spices to add to meat and how long to cook it.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

You give importance to what the common person knows, that's your choice. The common person knows about Armenian-Americans by the Kardashian sisters, rather than by Kirk Kerkorian. Your tastes are similarly common.

Most people do not know that Buddhism originated in India because they have not been educated about these matters. I prefer the educated lot for whom Buddhism and mathematics are more important than what spices to add to meat and how long to cook it.

You can have that opinion but it doesn’t matter much if the majority doesn’t know. That’s how modern societies and democracies work and isn’t changing any time soon

 

[Napa]

You can have that opinion but it doesn’t matter much if the majority doesn’t know. That’s how modern societies and democracies work and isn’t changing any time soon

I didn’t know the value of a culture was decided by voting in democracies )

 

[PakLFC]

More lack of knowledge about your own heritage. The Mauryans united most of India 1,700 before the Mughals came to India. With time their empire fell apart just like the Mughal empire also did. Both the Mauryans and Mughals could not incorporate the very south of India in their empires.

View attachment 113346

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mauryan-Empire

Of course, Ashoka the Great was also well known for his culture and export of Buddhism to faraway lands. Cusine ranks very low compared to philosophy and science.

You have no idea what you are on about ace! If Britannia is your source of information then I pity you even more. These was no"India" like you see it today during the times of the empires your are glorifying! I find it so strange that Indian people are so ignorant over this issue thinking the India of today was a massive and prosperous land before various invasions. The point here is not what empires ruled various parts of the subcontinent rather that India was never one country to begin with.

 

[Napa]

If Britannia is your source of information then I pity you even more.

Indeed! I should trust you more for history than Encyclopedia “Britannia” [sic]

These was no"India" like you see it today during the times of the empires your are glorifying.

If there was no India during the Maurya Empire, then by the same reasoning there was no India during the Mughals.

Mughal power lasted from 1527 to 1707, a mere 180 years in long Indian history.

No more replies.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The biggest reason for India's independence IMO is the hold of American bankers and the US govt on British economy. The Anglo-American lend lease program financed through war bonds, tax payers, and the US bankers meant Britain had to pay back all of that loan. They had already sucked India dry to whatever extent they could. By post WW2, I think the economic benefit of India was probably getting close to break even or negative -- it cost more to hold/maintain it than what could be sucked out of it or maybe the profit margin was getting thinner and it was not worth it.

Bear in mind that Britain's WW2 debt load was on top of the preexisting WW1 debt owed to the US that Britain had already incurred.

Some interesting links regarding this

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/britain-only-settled-debts.html

https://ehsthelongrun.net/2018/08/21/the-uks-unpaid-war-debts-to-the-united-states-1917-1980/

https://www.encyclopedia.com/defense/energy-government-and-defense-magazines/financing-world-war-ii

At the end of the day most of these major geopolitical shifts can be attributed to money.

Pakistan didn't exist. Present day Pakistanis are very much different to the people living in land at that time. Simple reason is different mindset, different politics and different unity.

Both nations have nukes so if any Yank terrorist invasion took place they would be ok. But if there were no nukes India would be easier to conquer. Muslims conquered the Hindu masses, the Brits came next etc./

 

[PakLFC]

Indeed! I should trust you more for history than Encyclopedia “Britannia” [sic]



If there was no India during the Maurya Empire, then by the same reasoning there was no India during the Mughals.

Mughal power lasted from 1527 to 1707, a mere 180 years in long Indian history.

No more replies.

That is right! There was a "Hindustan" during the Mughal's, it was them who merged so many lands then called it that. Afterwards the Brits came and further expanded the territory calling it "India". The funny thing is how Indian people think their country existed during the time of dinosaurs like it does today. You can't reason with such ignorant minds. Your Hindu empires existed but not in the India as we know it today.

Yeah go on runaway as always when you can't win a logical debate it is better to hide your face! Even the series "Mahabharata" showed Bharat as a very small land in one of it's earliest episodes.

 

[Technics 1210]

Why argue with one who fled post 1947 - booming - India? If his country was so great he wouldn't be sitting behind a keyboard in the western hemisphere. FACT.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Mughals took the region from other Muslims

Only a part of north India. Those guys were invaders too. The biggest empire in India when Babur invader India was the Vijaynagar empire, and the city of Vijay Nagar was the 2nd biggest city in the world. The east was ruled by others. Rajputana was ruled by hindu rajputs.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Totally false. There was no India prior to the Mughal's, it was a dirt poor region until they arrived and made it in to a golden pigeon. Invaders they were yet contributed most to Indian civilisation and culture. There are so many Hindu intellectuals and writers who admit this. I am not painting a picture perfect image of them either. They did indeed inflict harm as well, it is never totally one sided.

Lol. India was poor? Where did you read this? This region was one of the richest in the world and muslim invaders raided it to loot.

And they were not even the first bringers of Islam to this region.

Megasthenes mentions India in his book Indica. The europeans were searching for a route to India.

 

[Robert]

Pakistan didn't exist. Present day Pakistanis are very much different to the people living in land at that time. Simple reason is different mindset, different politics and different unity.

Both nations have nukes so if any Yank terrorist invasion took place they would be ok. But if there were no nukes India would be easier to conquer. Muslims conquered the Hindu masses, the Brits came next etc./

Military conquest is passé. India is more at risk from Chinese neo-imperialism, through weaponisation of debt and data.

 

[PakLFC]

Lol. India was poor? Where did you read this? This region was one of the richest in the world and muslim invaders raided it to loot.

And they were not even the first bringers of Islam to this region.

Megasthenes mentions India in his book Indica. The europeans were searching for a route to India.

It was the Moghuls who made India rich, silly! It was divided in to many parts prior to their invasion. I am not buying this myth that cows once gave honey instead of milk and the roads were made of gold. These are just fantasies propagated by the Hindu family to support their version and hatred of Muslim's.

Damn right Islam was probably in the region much before the Moghul's. You are one of those who believes India existed during the time of dinosaurs.