DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**MannoFr** · 07-12-2006, 05:19 AM

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!

Hmm that is true to an extent. If our leaders were in fact in a weak bargaining position then how can we glorify them? Cunning and tact has to be won by that and none in our pack were prepared to do that. Thats why i think we never had a strong leader with a vision in the last 500 years or so. So how can we portray them as 'Great'.

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.

Any leader who fought hard for what he achieved will know the value of it enough not to make a mess. To our leaders it was placed in a platter and good God they made a mess of handling it.

Originally Posted by dsath 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. Can't argue with that. Gandhi and the other leaders were taken in by the partition of Germany and thought it was inevitable. Partition or more than that handling of it was the greatest mistake ever.

Originally Posted by dsath 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? True, but at the end of the day India did help Britian and we had the cards on our table, just happened to pick up the wrong one.

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?

That has been one of the main reasons for partition. The Congress was never willing to accommodate neither the opposition/minority nor any dissent. Many leaders left Congress for the same reason. For some strange reason Gandhi was never comfortable with anyone except Nehru as the head of Congress.

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.

Did the British suggest a unified army? Didn't know abt that, could you tell us more P?

07-12-2006, 05:19 AM	#23
MannoFr Join Date Mar 2007 Posts 4,451 Senior Member	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! Hmm that is true to an extent. If our leaders were in fact in a weak bargaining position then how can we glorify them? Cunning and tact has to be won by that and none in our pack were prepared to do that. Thats why i think we never had a strong leader with a vision in the last 500 years or so. So how can we portray them as 'Great'. 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. Any leader who fought hard for what he achieved will know the value of it enough not to make a mess. To our leaders it was placed in a platter and good God they made a mess of handling it. Originally Posted by dsath 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. Can't argue with that. Gandhi and the other leaders were taken in by the partition of Germany and thought it was inevitable. Partition or more than that handling of it was the greatest mistake ever. Originally Posted by dsath 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? True, but at the end of the day India did help Britian and we had the cards on our table, just happened to pick up the wrong one. 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? That has been one of the main reasons for partition. The Congress was never willing to accommodate neither the opposition/minority nor any dissent. Many leaders left Congress for the same reason. For some strange reason Gandhi was never comfortable with anyone except Nehru as the head of Congress. 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. Did the British suggest a unified army? Didn't know abt that, could you tell us more P?
	Quote