Iran ceremony for India war dead

Im afraid I cannot agree with the INA was fighting for free India while british Indian army was fighting fror england hypothesis.

I dont expect you to since you are not an Indian. The INA was not fighting for Nazi or Japanese rule over India. They were fighting for "Indian" rule over India.

The BIA was prmarily employed for the defense of INDIA against the Empire of Japan. Im no fan of the british ruling India. But I dont think I would have been a fan of "railroad of death" Tojo ruling India either. Mark my words, the Japanese were in no mood to "liberate" India.

Let me tell you that kind of argument have no takers among Indians. The British were defending the "British Empire" not India. For us, we wanted neither the British Empire nor the Japanese Empire. Indians were never in doubt about the Japanese intentions but that does not make British Empire a better choice. Its no use saying the Japs would have been worse than the Brits. The British Empire was bad enough and that is that.

And the Indian troops who fought in the BIA by and large believed that they were fighing a just and good war, AND defending the motherland.

The Indian Army fought in places like North Africa, Easter Europe, Middle East, Afghanistan, Persia, Indo-China, and South east Asia. In none of these places they were defending their "mother land". They were defending British imperialism by being cannon fodder. The poverty of India under the British drove many people to join the Army not to defend their country but to make a living.

The INA was the only army that fought for "INDIA".

Moreover, most of the wars where Indians fought and died far away from home during the 200 years of British rule weren't even our (India's) war. We had nothing to do with it except that Indian lives were expended to further Britian's cause.

More often the British used the BIA to supress or kill Indian civilians during periods of unrest.

Given the Japanese track record in China (Documented in 'Flyboys' by James Bradley, same guy who is the son of one of the Iwo Jima flag raisers and who also wrote 'Flags of Our Fathers') and elsewhere, I would go with ketelone.

Well thats because you dont know much about Britains track record in India. Its the victors who always writes the history and so the Brits according to today's history are the "good guys" and the Japs and Nazis are "bad guys". We Indians know our history very well and we dont buy the lies churned out by the British press and their propaganda machinery.

Of course the Brit record (especially in 1942) ......

1942 was hardly much as comapared to what happened for 150 years before that.

British to be the much lesser of the two evils.

All I can say is that you have no idea. For starters, ever heard of the history's worst man made famine that took place in Bengal, that killed 5 million people, which dwarfs even the Cultural Revolution in Communist China? British was an equal evil if not more.

The Japanese would have raped the country.

So did the Britis.

But that does not make traitors of those who fought for the British traitors.

I didnt say they were traitors. It was good that Indians contributed to the destruction of Nazism and the axis power and its a thing to be proud of. But the INA was the only army that fought for India.

This is one of the reasons that INA veterans were not well receieved by their fellow soldiers when they came back to India (although the genral public may have felt otherwise).

You don't know how wrong you are. In India S.C Bose is an icon as big as Gandhi himself. In fact in the India National Congress elections Bose had actually defeated Gandhi.

The INA enjoys tremendous respect among the Indian masses (and they still do) so much so that Nehru (although he was very much against the INA) was forced to come to the defense of INA. Far from not being well received, the INA actually inspired a mutiny in the British Indian Navy and Army that ultimately brought an end to British empire.

But of course for the British propaganda machine, the INA was the villain and S.C Bose a war criminal. His only crime being that he fought for his own country.

Besides the BIA was essentially a British institution with most of their top ranking officers being British. They would always treat the INA the way Britain would want them to.

Whatver is the case...the soldiers from India whereever and any side they fought on has some contribution to India's independence..

The British, out of necessity of war trained 2/3 million soldiers from India...During the war the whole British fighting capable generation got wiped out to a large degree..

These two factors meant that the british could no longer hold onto India...They were afraid that there would be large scale revolution and masaccare of British soldiers/civilions in India with this 2.5 million trained manpower standing by with nothing to do after the war...That was a major contributing factor in how India got independence..

Well thats because you dont know much about Britains track record in India.

Actually I have read quite a bit of Indian history. Not as much as, say, a student of history, but more than the average person.

We Indians know our history very well and we dont buy the lies churned out by the British press and their propaganda machinery.

Sure there was extreme racism and abuse of power. But a 'propaganda machinery'is a bit over the top. It is a term more appropriate for Herr Goebbels.

All I can say is that you have no idea. For starters, ever heard of the history's worst man made famine that took place in Bengal, that killed 5 million people, which dwarfs even the Cultural Revolution in Communist China? British was an equal evil if not more.

When I referred to the British record in 1942 it included the Bengal famine (1942-45) when Churchill refused to export food to India, and also the government's vicious response to Gandhi's 'Do Or Die' movement. That is why I referred to the British record in 19542. On a seperate note you might want to read Bipan Chandra's classic, 'India's Struggle For Independence'. I thought it a great read.

...which dwarfs even the Cultural Revolution in Communist China?

I think a proper comparison to a famine in Bengal would be the Great Leap Forward campaign which created the conditions for famine in the early 60s and which resulted in an estimated 20 million dead in China. The Cultural Revolution was Mao's attempt to establish his own creed, using the Red Guard and purging 'counter-revolutionaries'. You are comparing apples and oranges, just as you seem to think that a Japanese occupation would have like the British.

I think the difference between your POV and mine is that I do not believe in the attitude that the Brits were all evil monsters. It is a popular opinion but often not infused by research. I try to read and find out for myself and form my own opinion, instead of relying on knee jerk reactions. At the same time I am always willing to be corrected if proven wrong. I have no love for the British rule in India but I am not willing to equate them to what the Japanese or Nazis did.

India needs to INVADE Iran, not visit them for the weekend.

Actually I have read quite a bit of Indian history. Not as much as, say, a student of history, but more than the average person.

I am not sure what source you have read but judging from your POV I am sure its no different from the propaganda machinery.

But a 'propaganda machinery'is a bit over the top. It is a term more appropriate for Herr Goebbels.

I dont think so.

According to Dr Gideon Polya :

The Great Bengal Famine of 1769-1770 that killed 10 million Bengalis i.e one third of the population of Bengal. Over-taxed Bengalis who could not meet the escalating price of grain simply starved.

Bengal under the Mughal Empire was one of the most prosperous states that led India in food production.

There after two centuries of British rule in India saw recurrent famines that killed near about 30 millions people in Bengal.

Until the dissolution of the British colony in the year 1947, some thirty more famines occurred, some sources even mentioning about 40, depending on how a famine is defined. Consequently, India's former corn center Bengal was transformed to the poorhouse of Asia within only two centuries.

The cholera took a toll of estimated 25 million lives in the 19th century. Bengal suffered repeated famine in the 1860s and 1870s and at the turn of the century.

The British traded Bengali opium to China for tea and silver, this trade precipitating the 19th century China Opium Wars and the subsequent Tai Ping rebellion that took 20-100 million lives

The last big famine in Bengal under British occupation occurred between 1942 and 1945. The death toll from the man-made Bengal famine was 4 million.(The victims of British hunger holocast.)

"In an astonishing collective act of racist white-washing, the Bengal famine has been largely expunged from British historical writing."

According to Nobel laureate Amartya Sen:

Calcutta was experiencing a war-time boom and effectively sucked food out of a food-producing countryside. Those who could not afford rice at 4 times the normal price simply starved under a callous British administration.

Now all of this is just in one part of India that is Bengal. We arn't even talking of the rest of India. The rape of Nanking can be compared to the British purges post First war of Independence and then you had the "gun boat diplomact" and "Punitive Military Actions" i.e to burn down entire villages along with all its inhabitants.

And in all of these the catastrophes which were caused by British imperialism are not limited to the Indian subcontinent alone

An extraordinary characteristic of this horrible list of genocides and worldwide mass murders, triggered by British imperialism (through war, epidemics, and famines), is the total absence of any public awareness in Britain. The analysis of writings about British history shows for example, that the Irish famine of the years 1845-1847 is covered by a few lines at most. And it can hardly surprise that the famine in Bengal is not mentioned at all.

just as you seem to think that a Japanese occupation would have like the British.

You are probably right. Even the Japanese occupation wouldn't have been as bad.

Now if only the Japanes or Nazis had been victorious (god forbid) and had written the history of the British Empire.......

And I think US need to invade PAKISTAN, not give them billions of dollars in military aid and arm them with F-16s, PC-3 Orions.

A few things you should be doing before you advise others on what they should be doing.

..judging from your POV I am sure its no different from the propaganda machinery.

Flamboyant statements and dramatic accusations are not debating points. All I can say is that I do not consider my views to be that of any propaganda machinery.

On the famine(s)you are repeating back to me part of what I have myself stated in my previous post.

According to Nobel laureate Amartya Sen:

Calcutta was experiencing a war-time boom and effectively sucked food out of a food-producing countryside. Those who could not afford rice at 4 times the normal price simply starved under a callous British administration.

Please show me where Sen has made this quote. I don't say he did not make it; I would love to know where he said these exact word ("callous British administration"). Do you have a source?

My reading of Sen's work suggest to me that his theory was on the nature of hunger and the impact of distribution on famine.

The nature of colonialism was pretty much the same the world over. But believing that Japan and Britain as imperialist equals in what they did, to the regions they occupied, is as dangerous as the belief that Britain spread peace and good cheer wherever she went.

Flamboyant statements and dramatic accusations are not debating points.

Its not an accusations but just an observation.

Please show me where Sen has made this quote. I don't say he did not make it; I would love to know where he said these exact word ("callous British administration"). Do you have a source?

http://www.newscentralasia.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=798

Towards the end of the 12th paragraph it says:

"However, as analysed by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, Calcutta was experiencing a war-time boom and effectively sucked food out of a food-producing countryside. Those who could not afford rice at 4 times the normal price simply starved under a callous British administration."

The nature of colonialism was pretty much the same the world over. But believing that Japan and Britain as imperialist equals in what they did, to the regions they occupied, is as dangerous as the belief that Britain spread peace and good cheer wherever she went.

I would appreciate if you can go beyond parroting mere statements comming straight from the British propaganda press and prove whatever that is you claim. Here we are arguing on the hard facts about how bad the 200 years of British rule has been for India as against how bad a "hypothetical" Japanese rule over India could have been, which is no argument at all. The systematic decimation of Indian economy, draining of Indian wealth to brink of acute poverty resulting into frequent and intermittent mass starvation holocausts (for an India that never knew hunger prior to the British) may not sound as dramatic as the Jewish holocaust or the rape of Nanking but is no less criminal in nature.

Had the Japanese been the victors at war and had they ruled India for 200 years, I am sure the logical course for them to follow would be to expung every detail of their crimes atrocities, genocides, plunder and rapine from their written history and collective memory and for the next 200 years churn out vast amounts of literature on how much beneficial Japanese rule over India had been and along side demonise and denigrate the the "native" culture and religion as primitive "savages" and go into greath lengths to create grandiose lies about the history and culture of India and the "civilising effect" the influence of Japanes Empire had on it. And this kind of indoctrination would have ready and blind acceptance in the wide Japanese speaking world. And even the Japanese Empire would go into history as a benevolent empire just like the British.

Fortunately or unfortunately we Indians rarely forget our history. My original point was that, for an average Indian farmer, life under the British was not worth dying for even under an impending Japanese invasion except for the fact that joining the Army provided the only viable source of income in an India that was reeling under extreme poverty and mass starvation. Indians joining the British army by droves is no indication that the general masses prefered the British empire over the Japanese empire as the British lies would have you believe. It was the only means to escape poverty at that time.

For all those self styled British "Indologists" harping on the greatness and benevolence of the British Empire, I would like to see them living as Indian peasants grueling under a repressive and cruel British regime. Then perhaps they would consider revising their curriculum.

Towards the end of the 12th paragraph it says: "However, as analysed by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, Calcutta was experiencing a war-time boom and effectively sucked food out of a food-producing countryside. Those who could not afford rice at 4 times the normal price simply starved under a callous British administration."

Here we are arguing on the hard facts..

It would help then if your 'hard facts' were appropriately sourced and your sourcing more pertinent. First you compare a famine to the Cultural revolution in China. Then you attribute a quote to Amartya Sen, go on to imply that Amartya Sen made that statement in a second post, when - by your own link- that statement seems to be made by Polya. Go back to your own link and recheck. It sure seems that way to me.

According to Sen, India did not have a famine post independance because it had a free press and a democracy. Despite examples such as Kalahandi in the past few decades, his theory (Democracy prevent famine, to put it loosely) is still is an indictment of British rule. I do not argue that.

....about how bad the 200 years of British rule has been for India as against how bad a "hypothetical" Japanese rule over India could have been, which is no argument at all.

Sure it is. And that is exactly what you are arguing as a response to my statement. My argument is not whether the British rule was bad (it was), not whether the British ruled India more or less for their own ends(they did), not whether they destroyed local industry (they did) but whether they were a systematic, organized, and evil society like the Nazis or the pre war Japanese (which they were not). You can't switch the premise of the debate, which began in a hypothetical, by accusing me of being hypothetical.

Had the Japanese been the victors at war and had they ruled India for 200 years, I am sure the logical course for them to follow would be to expung every detail of their crimes atrocities, genocides, plunder and rapine from their written history and collective memory and for the next 200 years churn out vast amounts of literature on how much beneficial Japanese rule over India had been and along side demonise and denigrate the the "native" culture and religion as primitive "savages" and go into greath lengths to create grandiose lies about the history and culture of India and the "civilising effect" the influence of Japanes Empire had on it. And this kind of indoctrination would have ready and blind acceptance in the wide Japanese speaking world. And even the Japanese Empire would go into history as a benevolent empire just like the British.

That is a well written paragraph and I agree with it, except one fact: Not many people would have forgotten as easily as you think. Japan tried that in Korea for years, and in China. The Koreans and Chinese have not forgotten. The Turks have not forgotten the Armenians and vice versa, nor have the Poles the Russians. And the Japanese would not have been forgotten in India either

My original point was that, for an average Indian farmer, life under the British was not worth dying for even under an impending Japanese invasion except for the fact that joining the Army provided the only viable source of income in an India that was reeling under extreme poverty and mass starvation.

In fact it was worse. British rule in India was worse than that - 11 % literacy by 1947 (Romila Thapar), and life expectancy of around 25 years in 1925 (See that classic 'Late Victorial Holocausts')

But if Indian of that time thought that the British were as bad as you think the Japanese were, why did Independance not come about before 1947? One estimate has it that there were less than 120,000 white British in India (in 1857 it was even less) for a population that was in the hundreds of millions. Had this been a purely evil empire, surely Indians would not have tolerated such an oppressive rule for more than a few decades? Surely they would have thrown out the British long before.

Indians joining the British army by droves is no indication that the general masses prefered the British empire over the Japanese empire as the British lies would have you believe.

I don't believe any of it and no one's trying to convince me. I agree with you.

For all those self styled British "Indologists" harping on the greatness and benevolence of the British Empire, I would like to see them living as Indian peasants grueling under a repressive and cruel British regime. Then perhaps they would consider revising their curriculum.

Again this is purely an emotional reaction. I do not think you know what it is to live as an "Indian peasant grueling under a repressive and cruel British regime" either. Not unless you are more than a hundred years old.

Sorry for the belated response, was busy with Diwali.

Then you attribute a quote to Amartya Sen, go on to imply that Amartya Sen made that statement in a second post, when - by your own link- that statement seems to be made by Polya.

Well I was expecting you to raise issues about validity of the source since your own argument wasnt solid enough. The article was sure written by Polya, but according to Polya the statements were made by Amartya Sen. And I would have it on his (Polya's) authority.

but whether they were a systematic, organized, and evil society like the Nazis or the pre war Japanese (which they were not).

Granted the British society was not evil but then neither were the German or the Japanese society evil. Nazism was evil, Japanese imperialism was evil ........and even British imperialism was evil. Which happens to be my original premise.

Not many people would have forgotten as easily as you think. Japan tried that in Korea for years, and in China. The Koreans and Chinese have not forgotten. The Turks have not forgotten the Armenians and vice versa, nor have the Poles the Russians.

Many Indians have not forgotton the purges post First War of Independence, the genocides plunder and rape of Delhi, Agra, Meerut and Kanpur. And of course many such rebellions crushed with ruthless ferocity in parts of India. The Indians have not forgotton but perhaps the world has, under the onslaught of British media overreach. And so I said all the Japanese needed to do was expunge all records of their atrocities and endlessly harp on the "good things" given to the world by the Japanese Empire, to get into the good books of History.

But if Indian of that time thought that the British were as bad as you think the Japanese were, why did Independance not come about before 1947? One estimate has it that there were less than 120,000 white British in India (in 1857 it was even less) for a population that was in the hundreds of millions. Had this been a purely evil empire, surely Indians would not have tolerated such an oppressive rule for more than a few decades? Surely they would have thrown out the British long before.

They did rise up against the British empire as early as 1857 and thereafter intermittently in differently pockets of India in a disorderly and disorganised manner. It did not directly result into independence because every such rebellion were crushed by the ruthless military might of the British empire.

In any case I think its a meaningless question. Its like asking if Islamic fundamentalism/terrorism was so bad why did the world tolerate it for thousands of years? Had the Nazis ruled over India how early do you think they would have been thrown out? There is no way to tell.

I do not think you know what it is to live as an "Indian peasant grueling under a repressive and cruel British regime" either. Not unless you are more than a hundred years old.

But I can certainly imagine what it might have been like ............being forced grow opium or indigo, beign flogged under the sun, being taxed to the point of starvation. As I said I dont expect you to know.

BTW Happy Diwali !

Well I was expecting you to raise issues about validity of the source since your own argument wasnt solid enough.

That is what you think. In my opinion the basis for most solid arguments is good sources. And yours weren't solid enough. In any case you were the one who said that you were arguing on fact, when your facts were not correctly sourced.

The article was sure written by Polya, but according to Polya the statements were made by Amartya Sen. And I would have it on his (Polya's) authority.

Sorry that does not hold. Quoting someone who is quoting someone is not sound. And I have taken a second look at that article. I now also disagree that Polya even implied that the statement was made by Sen. He has put nothing in quotation marks. And that second sentence ("callous")is his opinion. All he has done is to attribute Sen's theory(first sentence) and then wirte his own opinion in the second sentence.

... but then neither were the German or the Japanese society evil. Nazism was evil, Japanese imperialism was evil ........and even British imperialism was evil.

You are right- I over-reached in calling German and Japanese societies evil. However my original premise is not that British imperialism was not evil, but it was not as evil as Japan or Nazi Germany imperialism. And now I think we seem to be arguing at cross-purposes.

And Happy Diwali to you too!