Indian Politics and Democracy

As a bong, we are Bose worshippers, so we've never liked Nehru and gandhi. However, the narrative in Bengal is/was 'Gandhi and Nehru cut Bose out of the equation coz he was thornier/more embarassing for the British, inorder to gain political glory and power themselves in new independent India'. It hasnt been ' Nehru & Gandhi are moles/traitors etc'.

Then, about 20 years ago, i met a Russian dude in Canada ( highly educated, fellow was graduate from MSU). He pointed out to me that Gandhi and Nehru were obviously treasonous collaborators with the Brits- which shocked me, especially since this dude was a commie himself and most commie russians LOVE the socialism of Gandhi-Nehru.
Taken aback, i asked for an explanation and what came back was so succinct and simple it blew my mind.

He said ' well, i dont know much about the details of Indian history. Just your independence day, colonisation era and the rebellion that failed(1857). But i do know this - Gandhi and Nehru are LOVED by the British. Ask yourself- why would your enemy, that you are fighting for freedom, an enemy that is a world power (britain still had a fleet of 250+ capital ships at end of WW2, which ended up being less than 50 by 1985), who's world power will be shaken by your freedom, love the leaders who lead you to freedom ? Do the British love George Washington as much - one of their own kindred, who's brothers went to England for education ?'

And this one line changed my whole perspective.

The British loved Nehru and Gandhi because those two people made the British look like the good guys and saints which they were not and gave the British a face saving way out when they knew that prolonged occupation of India was no longer tenable.

Counterpoint: Those two managed to avoid a bloody revolution and largely managed to secure India's freedom without relatively much bloodshed. I know it wasn't bloodless. Who could forget the Partition aftermath? But the British was able to get away scot-free and blame the Partition on the Indians themselves which was the point. Not only that the British manage to get away without paying any reparations. Gandhi and Nehru left them off the hook.
 
The British loved Nehru and Gandhi because those two people made the British look like the good guys and saints which they were not and gave the British a face saving way out when they knew that prolonged occupation of India was no longer tenable.

Counterpoint: Those two managed to avoid a bloody revolution and largely managed to secure India's freedom without relatively much bloodshed. I know it wasn't bloodless. Who could forget the Partition aftermath? But the British was able to get away scot-free and blame the Partition on the Indians themselves which was the point. Not only that the British manage to get away without paying any reparations. Gandhi and Nehru left them off the hook.

The point of 'they managed to avoid a bloody revolution' is a contentious one. At the eve of independence, there was absolute ZERO movement anywhere for local independence. Except for Myanmar & Sri Lanka, which was always treated as a separate administrative unit of British India, there was never any desire for 'free bangal or free marathwada' or any such. There was hindu vs muslim vs sikh wanting their own homelands on RELIGIOUS basis.
Ergo, one can evaluate it as to what might've happened if Bose type had 'won' over the Gandhi-nehru ones. A potential scenario is 'religious wars' with similar fate as the partition, with similar borders but more bloodshed. Another potential scenario is Jinnah's 'federated islamic republic within india'. Another is 'hindus & muslims compete like whites and blacks in USA'.

However, what DID India lose ? For starters, as you mentioned, reparation or even basic loan payment the british borrowed from British India to finance the war.

One angle of why British created & backed Pakistan along with their western cabal and why the British officers in Pak/Kashmir 'acted independently' to secure Kashmir for Pakistan can be explained by one salient fact : The British were HIGHLY interested in listening outposts in the Gilgit-Hunza region, to monitor Lop Nur- the chinese nuclear test site & central asia - the one 'giant hole' in the anglo-saxon global network and in post independent pakistan, the British DID establish such listening posts.

One can easily argue that Nehru 'froze' the kashmir conflict, despite us winning on all fronts, as a ' i scratch your back coz you scratched mine' move to the British.

There's plenty of geopolitical & economic freebies independent India handed out to the British that is not in alignment with the actions of a supposedly 'breakaway nation that got free by beating your ass' move. Note that even USA-UK were on very hostile terms till the revolution of 1852 ended.
Which makes sense, because they became independent about 70 years prior and the generation that grew up betwen 1780 and 1852 had to die for that freedom related animosity to end.
 
The point of 'they managed to avoid a bloody revolution' is a contentious one. At the eve of independence, there was absolute ZERO movement anywhere for local independence. Except for Myanmar & Sri Lanka, which was always treated as a separate administrative unit of British India, there was never any desire for 'free bangal or free marathwada' or any such. There was hindu vs muslim vs sikh wanting their own homelands on RELIGIOUS basis.
Ergo, one can evaluate it as to what might've happened if Bose type had 'won' over the Gandhi-nehru ones. A potential scenario is 'religious wars' with similar fate as the partition, with similar borders but more bloodshed. Another potential scenario is Jinnah's 'federated islamic republic within india'. Another is 'hindus & muslims compete like whites and blacks in USA'.

However, what DID India lose ? For starters, as you mentioned, reparation or even basic loan payment the british borrowed from British India to finance the war.

One angle of why British created & backed Pakistan along with their western cabal and why the British officers in Pak/Kashmir 'acted independently' to secure Kashmir for Pakistan can be explained by one salient fact : The British were HIGHLY interested in listening outposts in the Gilgit-Hunza region, to monitor Lop Nur- the chinese nuclear test site & central asia - the one 'giant hole' in the anglo-saxon global network and in post independent pakistan, the British DID establish such listening posts.

One can easily argue that Nehru 'froze' the kashmir conflict, despite us winning on all fronts, as a ' i scratch your back coz you scratched mine' move to the British.

There's plenty of geopolitical & economic freebies independent India handed out to the British that is not in alignment with the actions of a supposedly 'breakaway nation that got free by beating your ass' move. Note that even USA-UK were on very hostile terms till the revolution of 1852 ended.
Which makes sense, because they became independent about 70 years prior and the generation that grew up betwen 1780 and 1852 had to die for that freedom related animosity to end.
One hypothesis is that the old industrial houses of India, like Birla and Tata, also favored a nonviolent revolution, and thus, they heavily funded the Congress and Gandhi. If India had a violent revolution, these wealthy businessmen would likely have been prosecuted as British collaborators and their wealth confiscated!
 
What exactly is man child in that? Every serious socially stable country today went through a revolution/ civil war/ or mass ethnic cleansing.
On a public forum you imply that killing some good chunk of people would lead to Indias Salvation. Even tho plenty of killing did happen and estimates the total deaths at 700,000 to 2,000,000. Did it have any affect? Where did such mass killing happend similarly which impacted the country in the long term. Did you expect the number to go 20 to 30 million? Would that suffice. Do you think the world would watch with such things unfolding?

Your statement seems like you don't put a minute of thought before typing it.

The forum has some retarded takes on things does not mean we shoukd join the bagawond and start making statements that are not rooted in reality.
Easier economically maybe, but how exactly would that stop the infiltration problem?

99% infiltration could have been stopped with proper fencing that never happened even after independence.
 
The Indian government has passed a bill to amend the Waqf Act, aims to curb Waqf Board's powers on property claims.

 
Here comes the blue-eyed youth messiah of the NDA fam and IT cell.

The entire system is flawed. When there's reservation in educational institutions, it's illogical to have it in employment and promotions as well.

What the heck is untouchability? And what does it have to do with reservation? You already have the SC/ST Act to curb and fight the so-called untouchability. What difference is reservation making other than creating unnecessary rifts within Hindus.


View: https://x.com/ANI/status/1819983215643562483?t=w2j66oomgyMj7rQ29WdN4A&s=19
 
State governments have started playing on front foot now. They realise the danger, and no more sarva dharma vadapav.


Although there will be a pushback from judiciary, but it's net positive.
 
The Indian government has passed a bill to amend the Waqf Act, aims to curb Waqf Board's powers on property claims.

Ahh Modi ji and his love for "August 5" :cmegusta:
 
Ahh Modi ji and his love for "August 5" :cmegusta:
PR Stunt, its going to be rejected and ruled against "constitution" by queen serving mylords.....this government is playing stunts, anyone really see any intent here based on what is happening recently? When they had full majority they didn't do shit but with sicular naidu and nitish, clowns spinning 11D and its consumers the soulless society consuming it as 56D
 

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Donate via Bitcoin - bc1qpc3h2l430vlfflc8w02t7qlkvltagt2y4k9dc2

qrcode
Back
Top