The South Asia File

[Guest]

I wouldnt go so far as to call them puppets (personally there is no need to demonze them just as there is no need to deify them). But there are several reasons. Remember they had both spent considerable time in britain and fundamentally did not have any animus against Britain (neither do i for that matter but that is neither here nor there).

there is need to demonise them - just so that we could un-deify them.

else bulidings and bridges in 2047 will also be named after beevis and butthead.

btw, you provide a beautiful reason to demonise them regardless of whether they have been deified, in your post, when you say -
"and fundamentally did not have any animus against britain" !!!!

what do we call them freedom fighters??

Secondly they did not back Gandhi nor Nehru till the very end when they had little choice.

yes.

first there was only the moderates. the poms didnt back them, then.

then came the extremists. the poms had no choise now but back the moderates as the lesser of the 2 "evils".

They obviously did not like the demands for freedom put forward by either of them.

they did demand freedom did they??
swaraj is my birth right and i shall have it?? from the fakir ???

haha.

6 month ultimatum from butthead eh ??
recruiting hindus in the raj army to lay the groundwork for a future assault by these 2 eh ??

But the reason they preferred Nehru and Gandhi was that they were non violent.

and had no animus towards britain as you rightly pointed out.

As long as opposition to British rule remained nonviolent they could rule India indefinitely.

ergo, the moment the opposition turned violent, it would be "time up" for the damnpoms.

why are we even discussing these two ??

Particularly so, since by that time they had unleashed the Muslim League to thwart the Congress at every turn.

cometh the hour cometh the man.

sarvarkar.

If you read the interview with Lord Ismay(aide to Mountbatten) he makes it quite clear that Gandhhiji had very little do with granting of independence to India.

even without reading that or any other interview anyone can put two and two together and understand the real truth. more so since a lot many other countries who produced no gandhi also achieved independence just after a particular global event.

In fact they achieved quite a bit by agreeing to hand over power to Nehru. Nehru appointed Lord Moountbatten as the first GG of India. Remember at that time there was no constitution and in reality Mountbatten presided over the cabinet meetings regularly and was privy to a lot of confidential material. Mountbatten convinced Nehru to take the Kashmir case to the UN where the Brits and the Americans promptly scuttled it and made it look like India was the agressor.

yes.

few doubt the real intentions/motives of mtbt and the poms.

even fewer doubt the puppeticity of nehru.
churchill called him a showboy from harrow or something similar. other have called him worse. indians have called him god, but thats another matter.

Nehrus mistrust of the Indian military leaders was legendary,so much so that he preferred to have British military officers as Chiefs of staff till 1950

it should have been matched my an equal mistrust of nehru by indians but that was not to be.

read the following inter view of LG Vas

not needed.

we know exactly why india is as fawning torards to the west, as she is.

did you ask why we demonise him ??

From a British point of view, having Nehru at the helm of Inidia was the best thing that could havehappened.

yes, post independence butthead was a great help for them.

as was beevis in pre-independence days.

Till 1965 Britaiin was the sole supplier of military gooos to India as a result.[/color]
[right][snapback]42333[/snapback][/right]

thats not a big surprise, since we get our books, our history, our culture, everything supplied from them too.



these two, are the father and godfather of the nation !!!


but then, the fault lies in us, not them.