The South Asia File

[Guest]

I am importing the relevant posts from the Gandhi thread. The thesis of this discussion has been set forth in detail in a chapter called the 'South Asia File" in a book jointly authored by acharya and me


It was Sarojini Naidu, in a now famous quote was overheard remarking to Mountbatten (and i paraphrase)_that' you would be surprised Lord Louis, at how much it costs the Congress to keep Gandhiji in poverty'. It was well known that Gandhi was a fastidious man in many respects. Simply wearing a loin cloth does not make for simple living.

But that is not the crux of my assertion. My point is that Gandhi (and to a large extent Nehru) were afforded many facilities like writing materials and books and a desk during their incarceration which were not afforded to those like Savarkar who were sentenced to hard labor. What is the point of this assertion ? The point is that such an incarceration was not such a great hardship and was relatively benign compared to those who were sentenced to hard laborand therefore did not indicate a high level of courage on the part of Gandhiji knowing that the punishiment was easily bearable. The issue of whether Gandhiji cared for these luxuries is irrelevant, but the fact that they were there, puts a question mark on whether there was any real courage involved in his courting arrest.

Another point needs to be made. During his entire stay in South Africa, Gandhiji remained a staunch friend of the brits. It was not till jallianwallahbagh that it dawned on him that the presence of the brits in india was the problem

You must recall also that the reason i wrote the post was that i felt it was unnecessary to label Gandhiji a wimp, which i find to be unnecessarily derogatory. My view is that Indians tend to pigeonhole their leaders into saints or sinners. Well Gandhiji was neither and this constant tendency to deify our leaders takes away from the ability to look upon their achievements in an objective manner. BTw i do not deify any leader, while i find it distasteful to attack the personality of any leader, but criticism of his or her actions is quite another matter

QUOTE
So we are to believe that since one of the founding members of INC was a Brit, the INC in 1885 was no differrent once the leadership had passed from his generation (Dadabhai et al) to Tilak to Gandhi and Nehru. Far from revolting in any great numbers, Indians by and large actively helped and sustain the british government


I am not sure where you are going with this line of argument , but one minor point is that IIRC the majority of the founding members were brits. My point was that the Brits set the tone of the debate by starting the INC. They ensured that any nationalist movement that arose would be largely confined to the english speaking elite and that many avenues of action would not even be considered acceptable because the elite were already building a considerable stake in theeconomy and almost believed that without the Brits there would be no recovery possible for India. The point is that the INC was a British plant and it is to the credit of Indians like Tilak that they finally broke away from the ideological umbilical cord that the Brits had surreptitiously wrapped around the INC. You have to admit that starting the INC was a master stroke by the Brits

In reality their expectation were right on the button until Jallianwallahbagh . It was only then that the educated elite in India realized that the brits would resort to any measure to retain their hold in India.

Also , I have to be careful and not be unduly harsh on the average Indian during that period. The average Indian was poverty stricken and barely able to survive after 7 centuries of semislavery. My remarks were directed at the elite. It was well known that the Birts did not believe they would overcome the uprising of 1857 (which was ignited bottoms up by the aam janata) if the Maharaja of Scindia did not come through to their aid. Sure enough Scindia did not disappoint and the rest is history. The point being a large majority of the educated elite supported British rule , Again my reading of this is that after 7 centuries of mayhem and looting and impoverishment and lawlessness in the land the elite found the Brits to be relatively an improvement and were willing to settle for a small sliver of a loaf instead of a full loaf of bread (poorna swaraj).

One final point . I do not wish to give the impression that had i been alive during those time i would have unconditionally advocated violent resistance on every occasion, but at the same time I do not see the need to make ahimsa a central principle in the freedom struggle. The leader that i find myself in ideological proximity is clearly Tilak. Gandhiji has been conveniently deified by the western world after his death, but it is a matter to ponder that during his life he had very little support from the ruling elite of any country(let alone Britain for whom he did yoeman service during the Boer war In Africa), who were generally dismissive of his tactics.

This post has been edited by Kaushal: Nov 25 2005, 03:16 PM

post by shaurya
Kaushal,

You believe that Gandhi/Nehrus incarceration was benign and that the INC started as a british plan. What can I say, lucky for them and us (on that count alone) that they had the British and not the mongols as their rulers. As far as the INC being a British plan, I did say they managed this pretty poorly that they lost control of it in a single generation ! The British are not known for such shoddy management of affairs. My response to you is sarcastic becuause I do not find merit in your assertions. I will be more than glad to discuss anything more than what you feel about it. I have never read anywhere that the INC started as a british plan!

Shaurya said
QUOTE
As far as the INC being a British plan, I did say they managed this pretty poorly that they lost control of it in a single generation ! The British are not known for such shoddy management of affairs. My response to you is sarcastic becuause I do not find merit in your assertions. I will be more than glad to discuss anything more than what you feel about it. I have never read anywhere that the INC started as a british plan!

post by Kaushal


Obviously the Brits are not going to advertise that the INC at least in the first few decades after it was founded, was their vehicle for controlling the future direction of the freedom movement and while Congress was in power for most of the time of post Independent India,they would be hardly likely to admit that the venerable INC was a plant by the Brits. That would certainly take the shine of the official version of Indian history that the Congress was primarily instrumental in securing India's freedom.

The genesis and evolution of British policy towards the Indian subcontinent(later to be referred to as South Asia) and how the Brits crystalllized their stance towards India in the nineteenth century makes for interesting reading

In a recent book by Chandrasekhar Das Gupta (War and diplomacy in Kashmir) he makes it clear that Mountbatten called the shots in the Kashmir issue even after August 15, 1947 and prevented India from overrunning Kashmir and dealing a deathblow to the infant monstrosity called Pakistan. That this was the case is of course no surprise to most discerning Indians who have long since abandoned the starry eyed nonsense about Mountbatten being a friend of India. see for instance the relevant archived thread in BR.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/phpBB2/vie....php?t=238

The question is why did Britain ( and later the US) go to such extraordinary lengths to prop up a frankenstein like Pakistan. It is commonly assumed in India that it was Nehru's tilt towards the FSU (former soviet union) that resulted in the tilt of the west towards the terrorist state of Pakistan (TSP), That may explain the US stance after Hungary and 1956 , but it does not explain why the brits took such an anti Indian stance right from 1947. After all the first GG of India , at the express request of the Indians, was Mountbatten (who outwardly claimed to despise Jinnah) and the chiefs of staff were all British till 1950, and Nehru relied extensively on Sir PMS Blackett(who was almost a scientific adviser to the GOI) till his death, on the formation of Indian science policy and the development of Nuclear weapons. These are not the actions of a man who was anti west much less distrusted them. The chronology of events certainly does not bear out such a hypothesis as the tilt by the Anglo/US alliance predates the so called tilt by Nehru towards the FSU. No, there was more to it than that.


The real answer, as far as I can discern, goes back to the aftermath of the 1857 uprising. I have attempted to answer this question after doing some extensive research (jointly with acharya). The analysis is summarized in a presentation we recently made at a joint meeting of BR and IF, titled the South Asia File . see for instance my post dated Nov 24 2005, 08:06 AM in the India US thread

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index....1090&st=30

The details including an extensive list of additional materials to read are available in a forthcoming book by me which can be read online here
The reason i went into the lengthy explanation was your self confessed assertion that you were being sarcastic. Well it is time to educate oneself on the subterannean strands in Indian history and if i were you, i would abandon sarcasm as a weapon of choice. It impresses neither friend nor foe

post by shaurya

And educate myself I did. Read your reports and your blog and the introductory chapter of your book. First, Let me respectfully congratulate you on your ability to compile all this material. Having said that let me provide some critique to your writings. I found your writings to be uninsightful and felt you are seeing dangers, where none exist. Your premise that there is some kind of an anglo saxon plan led by the US to prop up TSP and make India fail falls flat against KNOWN facts established by all sides the US, the TSP and India. The root cause for the importance of Pakistan post 1947 has been its location and subsequent events such as access to China, cold war front in Afghanistan, border with Iran post 1979 and access to Afghnistan post 9/11 (all to primarily do with location). India firmly siding with the USSR and the US with TSP started post 1965. Your theory of Mountbatten's role on Kashmir policy matters the least. You should know better that the post of GG post Independence was a ceremonial post and the powers of the executive were with the provisional government led by Nehru. As the leader of a sovereign nation, I hold him to be solely responsble for the decision to refer the case to the UN, regardless of the advice of a Mountbatten.

I simply do not agree with the conclusions you have drawn. You fundamentally believe that there has been some kind of a deliberate plan by the British and then by the US post 1947 to work against the Indic civilization. In making these assertions, you fail to give proofs, which can by scientifically evaluated.

Understand that britain or the INC will not claim INC to be be a british plan. I see the creation of INC as nothing but an attempt by some british symathizers of India to give a organizational voice to Indian polity. Its shape and character changed with time, people and events. There is no more to it. You may continue to see ghosts, where none exist. I have no illussions of inherent goodness of the western civilization and/or christendom. I am under no illusions that they were shouldering the white man's burden in the colonization of Asia and Africa.

I do not wish to open your entire book up for scrutiny, but would encourage forum members to read it and post their own views.

post by Kaushal

Nov 27 2005, 09:18 PM | Post #183|


Bharatya


Group: Moderators
Posts: 1209
Joined: 12-August 03
Member No.: 6



Shaurya,The emphatic manner in which you reject the thesis of the book and all that it contains without a shadow of a doubt within the space of a few hours,tells me you have obviously not read the book(or at least the first 4 chapters - about 200 pages) which is well documented with extensive footnotes,or if you have read it you must have done so in a cursory manner, because otherwise you would not make the statement that we did not provide proofs. It is clear from Chandrasekhar Das Gupta's (IFS cadre) book that Mountbatten moved heaven and earth to prevent Kashmir from falling into India's hands. That Britain took such an emphatic anti Indian stand all of a sudden in 1947 in what was regarded then as the most peaceful transfer of power in all of history is not easily explainable, especially with a labor government at the helm,ostensiby sympathetic to demands of Indian independence All this was from documentation released by Britain's India office only in the last five years , so it is not reflected in the conventional wisdom which prevailed during the first fifty years of independence.

One does not have to believe that the British ruling class (or the Americans for that matter) were an especially devious people to believe them capable of doing what i have painstakingly l laid out. After all it was Britains Lord Acton who emphasized that 'Nations do not have permanent friends or permanent enemies only permanent interests' . An aphorism we as Indians should recall more than any other but conveniently forget in the emotion of the moment , resulting in inanities like 'hindi Chini Bhai Bhai'.

The governing dispensation in Britain believed strongly in maintiainiing the Imperial majesty of Britain (" I will not preside over the dissolution of the British empire' thundered Winston Churchill while reacting to the plans for indian independence)and failing that it became an article of faith that it was (perceived to be) in the permanent interest of Britain that the subcontinent should not be left intact should they have to leave. IOW, they wanted to establish an alternate center of sunni power to encircle and contain a resurgent India should it ever achieve independence. The notion that Indian and Muslim league leaders were instrumental in creating partition misses the whole crux of the issue that the foundations of such a policy were laid in the aftermath of the 1857 uprising when the Brits were stunned at the extent of the unity between Hindus and Muslims and thereby worked systematically to destroy the cohesiveness of Indian society using myriad means at their disposal during the ensuing decades.

Oh well we are left with at least one agreement -to agree to disagree. so be it

Kaushal,
A lot what you've written in the above post is also documented in Durga Das' book "India - Curzon to Nehru". Durga Das served as journalist/reporter for over 50 years and editor of Hindustan times. He had access direct access to people like Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Azad, Prasad, and most British policymakers in India. Someday, I'll take time to post from his book.


Kaushal Yesterday, 06:44 PM | Post #185|


Bharatya


Group: Moderators
Posts: 1209
Joined: 12-August 03
Member No.: 6



Viren, it has been many years since i read DurgaDas' book.It appears i should revisit it





Shaurya Yesterday, 07:41 PM Post #187|





Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 5-October 05
Member No.: 946



Kaushal,

First a correction, I said, I read the introductory chapter of your book and not the whole book. I have re-read your introductory chapter only. While i have no argument with much of what you have written (the information was very basic and without much insight) there is no proof or persuasive reasoning leading up to the thesis of your book. The key points being:

1. It was the intent of Britain to break India before leaving
2. The UK was particularly against India post independence (prove their actions did not follow the cold war centric actions of the US and were hostile through the 50's)
3. The US as the inheritor of the anglo-saxon global leader, continued to work against India and is still doing so. (delinked from geo-political events)
4. The US/UK strategy has been and is to bolster a Sunni Islamic state within the subcontinent and encourage the eventual extinction of the Indic civilization in its ancestral homeland.

Also, please provide some motives, After all, Nations do not have permanent friends or enemies but they do have motives --- What would be the motive behind such actions. Motives such as the need of imperial britain to expand trade and power in the 18th and 19th centuries. The need for Islam to be in a state of war or peace, as dictated by the political ideology in the Quran and other such mundane motives such as the US aligning with India as a hedge against china in a possible future Asian security scenario, etc.

I hope you realize that most watchers of Indo US relations today will not believe points 3 and 4. If you can indeed prove these and i have an open mind on this, it will be a revelation to me and other forum members. Please let me know, if i have not understood your key points, the mistake would be in my understanding and not deliberate.




Viren Today, 06:35 AM | Post #188|


Bharatya


Group: Moderators
Posts: 4798
Joined: 12-August 03
Member No.: 5



Kaushal/Shaurya:
Perhaps this dialogue can take place in a separate thread?


ben_ami Today, 06:48 AM | Post #189|





Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 5-October 05
Member No.: 944



QUOTE(Viren @ Nov 29 2005, 08:05 PM)
Kaushal/Shaurya:
Perhaps this dialogue can take place in a separate thread?






YES please.... i was hooked the moment i read it.


will someone please give the lowdown on what their intentions ACTUALLY are??


i am new here. and there will be newer guys here in future too.

so to the mods i have a request.

that you start a "must read" thread in the main part of the forum that should have links to some of the best and most pertinent threads (and if possible to individually brilliant posts from the not-so-good threads) as well.

the compilation can be done slowly with new links added as and when necessary.

this will help to serve as a "highlights package" to the contents of this forum.
which will come in very handy... for example look at me... i dunno which ones to read first and which could wait.