14 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauder(A) No, it isn't. Read the history of the RIN Mutiny. Specifically, why it was called off. Incidentally, that also answers your question of the Congress's commitment to nonviolent resistance. Sure, it wasn't about to launch another massive nation-wide movement -- but that's not the point here.
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.
(B) It is an exaggeration without adding in the Muslim League. But, between the INC and ML, they pretty much did have virtually the entire population. Take a look at the post-independence election results, for instance.
14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI suggest YOU read the wiki article BDN provided. While wiki isn't the greatest source, I'm curious as to how your views dovetail with the following excerpts:
(A) No, it isn't. Read the history of the RIN Mutiny. Specifically, why it was called off. Incidentally, that also answers your question of the Congress's commitment to nonviolent resistance. Sure, it wasn't about to launch another massive nation-wide movement -- but that's not the point here.
(B) It is an exaggeration without adding in the Muslim ...[text shortened]... the entire population. Take a look at the post-independence election results, for instance.
The navy itself was marginal in terms of state power; Indian troops were at this time being swept by a wave of nationalist sentiments, as would be proved by the mutinies that occurred in the Royal Indian Air Force.In the after-effect of the mutiny, Weekly intelligence summary issued on the 25th of March, 1946 admitted that the the Indian army, navy and air force units were no longer trust worthy, and, for the army, "only day to day estimates of steadiness could be made". [7]. It came to the situation where, if wide-scale public unrest took shape, the armed forces could not be relied upon to support counter-insurgency operations as they had been during the Quit India movement of 1942. [8]
AND
Along with this, the assessment may be made that it described in crystal clear terms to the government that the British Indian Armed forces could no longer be relied upon for support in crisis, and even more it was more likely itself to be the source of the sparks that would ignite trouble in a country fast slipping out of the scenario of political settlement.
Still think the RIN mutiny was an "insignificant event"?
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat baseless assertion? That the INA had just about 20,000 members (okay - it was 40,000), mostly nominal (maybe not) and mostly outside India (that one's correct)? That it had sided with the Germans and the Japanese?
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, a ...[text shortened]... hereas the fairy tale that they left because of the moral shaming Gandhi gave them is not.
Also, the Bombay Mutiny took place while the Red Fort trials (where the accused, incidentally, were also defended by Congress leaders!) were in progress, not following them. I'm not saying it was a coincidence, but if you're going to argue psychological factors, then you cannot also discount the cumulative effect of nearly three decades of mass non-violent resistance.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's easy enough. Read what your quote says:
I suggest YOU read the wiki article BDN provided. While wiki isn't the greatest source, I'm curious as to how your views dovetail with the following excerpts:
The navy itself was marginal in terms of state power; Indian troops were at this time being swept by a wave of nationalist sentiments, as would be proved by the mutinies that occurred i ...[text shortened]... political settlement.
Still think the RIN mutiny was an "insignificant event"?
"... if wide-scale public unrest took shape, the armed forces could not be relied upon to support counter-insurgency operations as they had been during the Quit India movement of 1942 ..."
The Quit India Movt. was certainly not violent, yet it is described as an "insurgency" and requiring armed forces.
Still think the RIN mutiny was an "insignificant event"?
In the larger scheme of things, yes. As I said before, you only have to look at the timelines to see that the RIN Mutiny could not even have triggered the Cabinet Mission (whose purpose was to negotiate the conditions for leaving India).
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe nitpicking rolls on; I should have said "following THE START OF". Pardon me. Again, this makes utterly no difference to the point made.
What baseless assertion? That the INA had just about 20,000 members (okay - it was 40,000), mostly nominal (maybe not) and mostly outside India (that one's correct)? That it had sided with the Germans and the Japanese?
Also, the Bombay Mutiny took place while the Red Fort trials (where the accused, incidentally, were also defended by Congress lead ...[text shortened]... t also discount the cumulative effect of nearly three decades of mass non-violent resistance.
The members of the INA were Indians fighting outside India because that was where the frontlines of the war were. The fact that 40,000 Indians were willing to risk death AND trials for treason to fight for the Japanese might be a matter of "minimal" import to you, but I doubt if the British autnorities felt the same way. Esp. since the INA was formed by Bose who had been twice elected head of the Indian Congress (you know, the party which virtually every Indian supported)!
You seem to view events the same way as you post, failing to see the interconnections between them. First, we have a long, largely nonviolent (though not exclusively so) resistance, than we have a substantial group of Indians led by a major political figure willing to fight for the Japanese against the British and then we have mutinies in the British Indian armed forces when some of them are put on trial! Do the dots really need to be connected any further to realize that the British quite logically inferred that the possibility of armed rebellion led by members of the British Indian armed forces was real and growing? You may also add to that the fact that open rebellion had broken out in several European colonial possessions in Asia and Africa by 1947. So why is Atlee's assessment sooooooooooo clearly wrong to you?
14 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerWere armed forces used against the Quit India movement? Yes, over 100,000 were jailed. You seem to nitpick one word even in an article.
It's easy enough. Read what your quote says:
"... if wide-scale public unrest took shape, the armed forces could not be relied upon to support counter-insurgency operations as they had been during the Quit India movement of 1942 ..."
The Quit India Movt. was certainly not violent, yet it is described as an "insurgency" and requiring armed ed the Cabinet Mission (whose purpose was to negotiate the conditions for leaving India).
From the wiki article on Indian Independence:
On August 8, 1942 the Quit India resolution was passed at the Bombay session of the All India Congress Committee (AICC). At Gowalia Tank, Mumbai Gandhi urged Indians to follow a non-violent civil disobedience. Gandhi told the masses to act as an independent nation and not to follow the orders of the British. The British, already alarmed by the advance of the Japanese army to the India–Burma border, responded the next day by imprisoning Gandhi at the Aga Khan Palace in Pune. The Congress Party's Working Committee, or national leadership was arrested all together and imprisoned at the Ahmednagar Fort. They also banned the party altogether. Large-scale protests and demonstrations were held all over the country. Workers remained absent en masse and strikes were called. The movement also saw widespread acts of sabotage, Indian under-ground organisation carried out bomb attcks on allied supply convoys, government buildings were set on fire, electricity lines were disconnected and transport and communication lines were severed.
The British swiftly responded by mass detentions. A total over 100,000 arrests were made nationwide, mass fines were levied, bombs were airdropped[citation needed] and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement#Quit_India
Sounds like an "insurgency" to me.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't pretend to speak for LH, I'm just glad you see the difference now.
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.
14 Sep 06
Here's perhaps a more "scholarly" site:
T he 'Quit India' movement was followed, nonetheless, by large-scale violence directed at railway stations, telegraph offices, government buildings, and other emblems and institutions of colonial rule. There were widespread acts of sabotage, and the government held Gandhi responsible for these acts of violence, suggesting that they were a deliberate act of Congress policy.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Gandhi/Quit.html
Now whether the violence was part of or "followed" the Quit India movement isn't terribly relevant to the point at issue; whether the British in 1947 thought they could rely on the British Indian armed forces to deal with such violence as they had done previously. Note also that the Congress itself declared a policy of "neutrality" in the war between Britain and Nazi Germany and Japan' where was the "moral high ground" in that?
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderBecause a catalyst is not a major cause. The British were already on their way out (quite probably weakened by WWII). The Mutiny probably didn't even make their minds up for them -- the fact that the Cabinet Mission set sail so soon after the mutiny started strongly suggests that Attlee had been thinking about leaving for a while and internal Cabinet discussions were already near completion (if not outright complete).
The nitpicking rolls on; I should have said "following THE START OF". Pardon me. Again, this makes utterly no difference to the point made.
The members of the INA were Indians fighting outside India because that was where the frontlines of the war were. The fact that 40,000 Indians were willing to risk death AND trials for treason to fight f ...[text shortened]... in Asia and Africa by 1947. So why is Atlee's assessment sooooooooooo clearly wrong to you?
The members of the INA were Indians fighting outside India because that was where the frontlines of the war were.
Really? And I thought the best place to fight the British would have been within India itself!
The fact that 40,000 Indians were willing to risk death AND trials for treason to fight for the Japanese might be a matter of "minimal" import to you, but I doubt if the British autnorities felt the same way.
Compared to the millions who took part in the Satyagraha, and the sizes of the Axis armies, 40,000 wasn't that great a number. In any case, I didn't say they were of "minimal import" -- are you up to your lawyer tricks again? Trying to cast aspersions on the character of the witness?
Esp. since the INA was formed by Bose who had been twice elected head of the Indian Congress (you know, the party which virtually every Indian supported)!
Yes, and was forced to step down and leave the Congress because of its commitment to non-violence. (Your history is getting better, but still needs improvement.)
You seem to view events the same way as you post, failing to see the interconnections between them.
No, I don't. But I also recognise the relative weightings of those events and, unlike you, don't adopt a myopic localised view of the situation.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerApparently many Indians were resisting the British in India; see the above post. But it's not surprising that the INA would have joined up with the Japanese; after all, the Japanese army had inflicted a number of overwhelming defeats on the British in the early part of the war (ever hear of Singapore?). Probably, Bose thought he could march with the Japanese to India itself, a not unreasonable supposition in 1942 (in fact, Japanese forces did reach eastern India, I believe).
Because a catalyst is not a major cause. The British were already on their way out (quite probably weakened by WWII). The Mutiny probably didn't even make their minds up for them -- the fact that the Cabinet Mission set sail so soon after the mutiny started strongly suggests that Attlee had been thinking about leaving for a while and internal Cabinet ...[text shortened]... of those events and, unlike you, don't adopt a myopic localised view of the situation.
You seem to put great stock in some British politicians taking a boat ride to India; I prefer to look at the events in their totality. A breakdown of military discipline in the forces the British used to keep a restive population in line is a revolutionary development; ask the Shah of Iran.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAre you trying to tell me that 100,000 people were arrested for acts of violence?
Here's perhaps a more "scholarly" site:
T he 'Quit India' movement was followed, nonetheless, by large-scale violence directed at railway stations, telegraph offices, government buildings, and other emblems and institutions of colonial rule. There were widespread acts of sabotage, and the government held Gandhi responsible for these acts of ...[text shortened]... ween Britain and Nazi Germany and Japan' where was the "moral high ground" in that?
Read the paragraph that follows in the Wiki article, which you forgot to quote:
"The British swiftly responded by mass detentions. A total over 100,000 arrests were made nationwide, mass fines were levied, bombs were air-dropped and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging[citation needed]. Hundreds of resisters and innocent people were killed in police and army firings. Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets, and establishing parallel governments. The British sense of crisis was strong enough that a battleship was specifically set aside to take Gandhi and the Congress leaders out of India, possibly to South Africa or Yemen, but such a step was ultimately not taken out of fear of intensifying the revolt[citation needed]."
14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks for the history refresher. Your point being?
Apparently many Indians were resisting the British in India; see the above post. But it's not surprising that the INA would have joined up with the Japanese; after all, the Japanese army had inflicted a number of overwhelming defeats on the British in the early part of the war (ever hear of Singapore?). Probably, Bose thought he could march with the Japa ...[text shortened]... used to keep a restive population in line is a revolutionary development; ask the Shah of Iran.
You seem to put great stock in some British politicians taking a boat ride to India
No, I put great stock in logic. Generally, when event A follows event B, we don't say that event A caused* event B.
EDIT: * I am not committing to a theory of causation being unidirectional in time with this. Just that the kind of effects we are talking here about have that property.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerOf course not. I'm saying that the British Indian armed forces aided in the arrest of those 100,000. That is the point; you seem unusually thick today.
Are you trying to tell me that 100,000 people were arrested for acts of violence?
Read the paragraph that follows in the Wiki article, which you forgot to quote:
"The British swiftly responded by mass detentions. A total over 100,000 arrests were made nationwide, mass fines were levied, bombs were air-dropped and demonstrators were subjected to ...[text shortened]... such a step was ultimately not taken out of fear of intensifying the revolt[citation needed]."
14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerOf course your Event A is an irrelevancy. And events of the sort of B not merely of B were the cause of the British leaving India as Attlee conceded.
Thanks for the history refresher. Your point being?
[b]You seem to put great stock in some British politicians taking a boat ride to India
No, I put great stock in logic. Generally, when event A follows event B, we don't say that event A caused event B.[/b]
I guess directly addressing your assertions confuses you. You seemed to think that because the INA fought with the Japanese outside India, that this seemed to imply something; I'm not sure what. However, in fact the INA did reach India with the Japanese. From the wiki article on the INA:
Although Japanese troops saw much of the combat in India against the British, the INA was certainly by itself an effective combat force, having faced British and allied troops and making their mark in the Battle of Imphal, as well as the battles of Arakan and Burma . On 18 April 1944 the suicide squads led by Col. Shaukat Malik broke through the British defence and captured Moirang in Manipur. The Azad Hind administration took control of the this independent Indian territory.[8]. Following Moirang, the advancing INA breached the Kohima road, posing a threat to the British positions in both Silchar and Kohima. Col. Gulzara Singh's column had penetrated 250 miles into India. The Azad Brigade advanced, by outflanking the Anglo-American positions.