<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Nov 28 2005, 08:30 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Nov 28 2005, 08:30 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> He wrote several bestselling books on Gandhiâs killing. Written in Marathi, they were translated into several Indian languages.
can someone let us know what those books are and how we could lay our hands on the english translations thereof ??
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 27 2005, 03:42 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 27 2005, 03:42 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Shaurya said <!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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! <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
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
A lot what you've written in the above post is also documented in Durga Das' book "<i>India - Curzon to Nehru</i>". 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.
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Nov 29 2005, 08:05 PM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Nov 29 2005, 08:05 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Oct 10 2004, 12:49 AM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Oct 10 2004, 12:49 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is so depressing.. Altho not related to Gandhi, a sidenote from the same essay..
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(This was also the case in 1962 when China attacked India. The country rose as one, prepared to fight the Chinese, but Nehru - an effete though voluble 'leader' with no tradition or even comprehension of the military - completely lost his nerve. When his emissary went to see Kennedy, begging for help, Kennedy asked the hapless man: "The British were able to stand up to the Germans for three years before we came to their help, and you couldn't hold out for three days?" This undeserved humiliation was heaped on the country entirely because of Nehru's failure of nerve.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if NDTV reports are to be believed, the china war was lagao-ed by nehru's orders to the indian army to cross an agreed upon line and "capture" a hill/mountain which was actually in china.
once the soldiers acted upon nehru's orders, china made sure india had hell to pay. nehru promptly ditched Assam leaving their fate to the chinese, got lata mangeskar to sing chart busting numbers and went to Kennedy to beg for millitary aid and food.
clowns should stick to the circus and avoid parliament.
Gandhi never said anything, in Gopal Godse's own words:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->TIME: You mean that he did not say "Hey Ram" as he died?
Godse: No, he did not say it. You see, it was an automatic pistol. It had a magazine for nine bullets but there were actually seven at that time. And once you pull the trigger, within a second, all the seven bullets had passed. When these bullets pass through crucial points like the heart, consciousness is finished. You have no strength.
When Nathuram saw Gandhi was coming, he took out the pistol and folded his hands with the pistol inside it. There was one girl very close to Gandhi. He feared that he would hurt the girl. So he went forward and with his left hand pushed her aside and shot. It happened within one second. You see, there was a film and some Kingsley fellow had acted as Gandhi. Someone asked me whether Gandhi said, "Hey Ram." I said Kingsley did say it. But Gandhi did not. Because that was not a drama.
I had read the TIME article before, and very well agree with Gopal G that they put the words into Gandhi's mouth. But on the other hand, why is this being brought up *NOW*.. Fifty eight years after his death? Is there a ploy to remove the words HAE RAM from his grave and engrave something more 'secular' there ? The public made aware of his last words is one thing. Mark my words, I suspect the extra-constitutional authority of India will surely remove the words from Gandhi's resting place.