[Raj_Copi_Jin]

I want to be clear that I am not saying that the British were angels or that they were not responsible for the problems. But there are two things. Firstly, our leaders were in a weak bargaining position, not a strong one like you say. The British did not even NEED our consent to leave India. They could just have pulled out if they pleased! And they knew this! This was a threat Mountbatten made many times, that the British would set the timetable for withdrawal as it suited them. Our leaders could not bargain against this!

Secondly, our leaders made a mess of what we got from the British. This makes me skeptical of whether things would have been any better even if they had been able to bargain better. The only thing which would have saved us was a transition which took another two or three years. But they could not bargain for this because of the point I made above.

Please read my replies below in the context of these two points.

1.Deploy British troops in areas of high tension esp Bengal and Punjab.

Engirindhu vandhirikkum indha padai? Are you saying they should have sent their army from Europe? They could not have - what was not occupying Germany was being demobilised so a civilian economy could be restarted. The British Indian army was big and better able to operate in Indian. Its ineffectiveness was because the command was split at OUR insistence. If there had been a transitional unified command until 1950 or so things would have been different.

2.Give us our due compensation for having supported them in WWII, in terms of monetary benefit. Instead they set up commonwealth which was simply an eye wash.

The Congress refused to give more than moral support to the British in WW-2, and openly accused them of hypocrisy! From what position should they demand material benefit? Because Indians gave material support despite the opposition of our leaders?

3.Push for talks between the leaders. They did not care for that but the british actually wanted India to be divided and thats one of the reason that 1946 talks failed.

Division when they ruled suited them and they encouraged it, but I don't agree that they wanted India to be partitioned. People like Wavell were against it. I think it is more correct to say that Atlee did not care what happened to India as long as the UK left.

There was a very big problem on the talks from our side as well. We were not prepared to make any concessions! Read Nehru's speech in the Constituent Assembly Debates in response to the Cabinet Mission Plan! How can you expect to solve a problem if you do not want to move and your only solution is that the other side must accept the correctness of your position?

4.Why was Wavell's plan put it in the bin?

Very simple. Labour's domestic agenda was for a quick withdrawal, and they forced it to be quick. That is why they went for Mountbatten and forgot Wavell who would have taken time. This was the last great wrong which the British Raj inflicted upon India, where in leaving they callously tossed us to the lions to suit their agenda. But there was nothing our leaders could have done about it.

5.You are right, the british could not force the Raja of Kashmir. But when he requested the British to help, why did they not send troops to help Kashmir. If India had stayed out of Kashmir may be history could have been different.

We had taken over their army here. I don't think they had troops to send or money to send troops from Europe. If we had agreed to their suggestion of a joint command, it would have been different. On the point of the army, I think it is wrong to point a finger at them because the problem was caused by our rejecting their advice.