Pledge of Allegiance

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I repeat, what's your evidence for the following assertion:

"... the mutiny of large parts of the Indian armed forces in 1946-47 and the threat of open armed rebellion probably had a lot more to do with the English leaving India than Gandhi's actions"

Further, where was the threat of "open armed rebellion"?

I could ask you to read a history book as well.

How about the lips of Clement Atlee:

An extract from a letter written by P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30 1976, reads thus:

When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in post war years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan Calcutta for two days. I put it straight to him like this: ‘The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?’ In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN Mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’.

Accessed on 17-Jul-2006

Originally posted by lucifershammer
When you have a history that goes back 4000 years, it's not easy to remember every single insignificant event.

LMAO! Arrogance and snotnosery, but apparently the British authorities didn't find a rebellion in the Indian armed forces "insignificant".

Originally posted by no1marauder
How about the lips of Clement Atlee:

Nonsense. Attlee was clearly terrified that Ghandi would give him an enema. Which way would his lips have curled then?

Originally posted by Palynka
Efficient - Action that achieves its goals with the minimum possible cost (or not significantly different).

Effective - Action that achieves its goals.

Why exactly would one CHOOSE to be effective rather than efficient as LH claimed Gandhi did?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why exactly would one CHOOSE to be effective rather than efficient as LH claimed Gandhi did?

Can I quote you?

Originally posted by Palynka
Can I quote you?

You may go away unless you have something relevant to add to the topic under discussion; these silly little personal vendettas posters like yourself seem to always want to get into are tiresome and childish. Nor do I think it is particulary useful to parse every single word someone uses in a post where the difference is minimal. Perhaps "effective" would have been a better one to use in my original post if LH wants to win a cookie, but I don't see it would make any significant difference to my point.

Originally posted by no1marauder
How about the lips of Clement Atlee:

An extract from a letter written by P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30 1976, reads thus:

When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in post war years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India a ...[text shortened]... ps widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’.

Accessed on 17-Jul-2006[/b]

Oh sure.

Bose's "army" of about 20,000-odd nominal members, outside India, who had sided with the Nazis and the Japanese during WWII "weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India"? LOL!

The RIN Mutiny may have been the last straw on the camel's back, but even there Attlee's response does not suggest a mass armed rebellion. What mass armed rebellion was there in 1942?

EDIT: Besides, neither Churchill nor Attlee would want to admit that they got beat by a "naked fakir", would they?

EDIT2: That was only meant half-seriously. In any case, both the British and the Indians realised that the Congress was the most powerful organisation in India at the time (why do you think Bose had to go outside India for his INA "soldiers"?) and commanded the loyalty of virtually the entire population (with some exceptions).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Oh sure.

Bose's "army" of about 20,000-odd nominal members, outside India, who had sided with the Nazis and the Japanese during WWII "weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India"? LOL!

The RIN Mutiny may have been the last straw on the camel's back, but even there Attlee's response does not suggest a mass armed rebellion. What ma ...[text shortened]... chill nor Attlee would want to admit that they got beat by a "naked fakir", would they?

So Atlee was wrong and you are right. I didn't notice India became independent in 1942; it became independent after there was unrest and rebellion in the Indian armed forces. Your musings on the psychology of Atlee and Churchill are your usual unsupported assertions; as I said, it would certainly be more in the interests of the power elites to encourage nonviolent resistance rather than armed rebellion. Perhaps you'd care to "substantiate YOUR assertion or stop making it".

Originally posted by no1marauder
You may go away unless you have something relevant to add to the topic under discussion; these silly little personal vendettas posters like yourself seem to always want to get into are tiresome and childish. Nor do I think it is particulary useful to parse every single word someone uses in a post where the difference is minimal. Perhaps "effective" would ...[text shortened]... wants to win a cookie, but I don't see it would make any significant difference to my point.

If you read LH's post where he made the difference, you'd see it's quite important to understand what he said.

Originally posted by Palynka
If you read LH's post where he made the difference, you'd see it's quite important to understand what he said.

Tell me how it does or shut up.

EDIT: More precisely, how does:

I do not think, however, that these ideas are efficient when facing a certain level of oppression or a certain level of ruthlessness to maintain the status quo.

differ in any significant degree from:

I do not think, however, that these ideas are effective when facing a certain level of oppression or a certain level of ruthlessness to maintain the status quo.

Particulary because this discussion was started by jee's claim that the Indian non-violence movement of Gandhi caused the British to leave India?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Oh sure.

Bose's "army" of about 20,000-odd nominal members, outside India, who had sided with the Nazis and the Japanese during WWII "weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India"? LOL!

The RIN Mutiny may have been the last straw on the camel's back, but even there Attlee's response does not suggest a mass armed rebellion. What ma ...[text shortened]... and commanded the loyalty of virtually the entire population (with some exceptions).

To your edit2: A) It's irrelevant to the discussion of what happened in 1946-47; and B) The Congress by 1946-47 was hardly solid in its belief in nonviolent resistance and "virtually the entire population" even with the disclaimer "with some exceptions" is an exaggerration.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So Atlee was wrong and you are right. I didn't notice India became independent in 1942; it became independent after there was unrest and rebellion in the Indian armed forces. Your musings on the psychology of Atlee and Churchill are your usual unsupported assertions; as I said, it would certainly be more in the interests of the power elites to encourage ...[text shortened]... than armed rebellion. Perhaps you'd care to "substantiate YOUR assertion or stop making it".

I've already shown how Attlee was wrong about Bose and the INA. Even with the Mutiny (which, incidentally, was called off because the Congress refused to support it), if you look at the timelines you can see that the British Govt had been thinking about leaving India well before the Mutiny happened. For starters, look at the timeline for when the Cabinet Mission arrived in India -- barely a month after the Bombay Mutiny (factor in travel time and the Cabinet Mission probably left Britain as soon as the Mutiny had started!)

Originally posted by no1marauder
Tell me how it does or shut up.

EDIT: More precisely, how does:

I do not think, however, that these ideas are efficient when facing a certain level of oppression or a certain level of ruthlessness to maintain the status quo.

differ in any significant degree from:

I do not think, however, that these ideas are effective wh ...[text shortened]... jee's claim that the Indian non-violence movement of Gandhi caused the British to leave India?

He was claiming that it's possible to achieve political goals through non-violence, although it takes longer and even IF it costs more lives. But that enables you to keep the moral high-ground.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I've already shown how Attlee was wrong about Bose and the INA. Even with the Mutiny (which, incidentally, was called off because the Congress refused to support it), if you look at the timelines you can see that the British Govt had been thinking about leaving India well before the Mutiny happened. For starters, look at the timeline for when the Cabi ...[text shortened]... n travel time and the Cabinet Mission probably left Britain as soon as the Mutiny had started!)

You are ridiculous when you claim you've "shown" something when you have merely made a baseless assertion. The Bombay Mutiny and other unrest in the military followed the trials of members of the INA; I suppose this was a mere coincidence in your view. Of course, the British had been "thinking about leaving India" before but the immediate catalyst was, as Atlee says, their concern that they could no longer maintain EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT control without the loyalty of the Indian armed forces. That's logical; whereas the fairy tale that they left because of the moral shaming Gandhi gave them is not.

Originally posted by Palynka
He was claiming that it's possible to achieve political goals through non-violence, although it takes longer and even IF it costs more lives. But that enables you to keep the moral high-ground.

Since there's nothing immoral about resisting forcible oppression by force, if that was his claim I strongly disagree. Even more so if the "moral high ground" is only obtainable at the cost of extra innocent blood.