Is India independent?

Is it really independent or did the British govt simply transfer power of a bankrupt nation to their puppets at the Indian National Congress? The British were given a good farewell party. Doesn't sound like they were 'thrown out' but rather left because it was too much hassle to run the nation after they had already sucked it dry. Plus, the British had their own shit to fix after WWII. So they broke up the country, left their puppets in charge and left.

Anybody read 'Animal Farm'?

Er..is this the same mind that also evaluates impact of various events on asset valuations and gives out financial advice? Suddenly, I feel scared, very scared, for your advisees.

That was profound with great logical basis. Great to see common Indian also catch up with Brit rioter in thinking.

artood2 wrote:That was profound with great logical basis. Great to see common Indian also catch up with Brit rioter in thinking.

You know what would have made it perfect? The obligatory "what India needs is a benevolent dictator" line.

What India needs is free markets, small government and less welfare.

India needs property rights, better law and order and defense. Defense and law are probably the only two things that need to be handled at the federal level. The rest can be managed at the state level. All the other shit must be liberalized.

harharmahadev wrote:What India needs is free markets, small government and less welfare.

India needs property rights, better law and order and defense. Defense and law are probably the only two things that need to be handled at the federal level. The rest can be managed at the state level. All the other shit must be liberalized.

I am still trying to figure out how is it related to British puppets?

artood2 wrote:

harharmahadev wrote:What India needs is free markets, small government and less welfare.

India needs property rights, better law and order and defense. Defense and law are probably the only two things that need to be handled at the federal level. The rest can be managed at the state level. All the other shit must be liberalized.

I am still trying to figure out how is it related to British puppets?

Here are my views on the "Indian Independence Movement":

THE PRIMARY REASON INDIA GOT INDEPENDENCE WAS BECAUSE OF THE MUTINY IN THE INDIAN ARMED FORCES.

Here are some facts to support my theory:

- The RIN Mutiny
(Royal Indian Navy), also called the Bombay Mutiny, called a total
strike and subsequent mutiny by the Indian sailors of the Royal Indian
Navy on board ship and shore establishments at Bombay (Mumbai) harbor
on 18 February 1946. From the initial flashpoint in Bombay, the mutiny
spread and found support through India, from Karachi to Calcutta and
ultimately came to involve 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000
sailors.

- The RIN mutiny was called because of the racist behavior of british officers.

Here is the real beauty of buried facts:

- Vallabhbhai Patel and Mohammed Ali Jinnah asked the mutineers to CALL
OFF their strike - this inspite of the Quit India Movement....something
worth pondering about!!

- After the mutiny was called off, there were large scale court
martials. NONE OF THE DISMISSED OFFICIALS WERE RE-INSTATED INTO THE NAVY
AFTER INDEPENDENCE. This was supposed to be a pre-condition for
independence.

- Atlee himself stated that the main reason for leaving India was because of the mutiny....

Here is some informatio on the RIN Mutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Mutiny)

Corollary to my theory is:

- The Congress Party's actions caused headaches and heartburns, but not
strong enough to topple the British administration. The noise that
Congress led the freedom movement is mostly propoganda....

- I'm not belittling their contribution, but I don't want to give them credit which they don't deserve.

- The congress leaders, Nehru & co, sip tea in British country
clubs, bang British women, and then claim to have fought them?? Oh
please! Something is obviously not right!

- Who funded the Indian National Congress? It was the British administration...

- The Congress party is adept at using the 'Sandwich Tactic' - a
political ploy where the TOP ELITE partners with the bottom scum and
create pressure (and crush) the majority middle-class. It worked before
independence, and it still works today.

- The British stole as much as they could from India to sponsor WWII. We lost
millions of men to fight in their stupid war. When they left India, the
British owed India 300 millions pounds or something like that..they
wiped the slate clean when they left. These facts are well documented in
a book called The British Raj
(http://www.amazon.com/Raj-Making-Unmaking-British-India/dp/0312263821/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-1005717-0194544?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174702132&sr=8-2)

In India, the common perception is that Gandhi and Nehru fought for
freedom and brought freedom to India...basically, that is BS to a large
extent...

Great article. A compulsory read if you are an Indian history buff!

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060212/spectrum/main2.htm

When the last straw breaks the Camel's back, it is the ONLY the last straw that is responsible. Your single impact theory is flawed on multiple levels. Why did the officers listen to Indian leaders? Was there mutiny inspired by the civilian movements? Were there other mutinies before?



It is time you show some respect to the freedom fighters. A lot of them sacrificed a lot to see you here and you should be showing more respect.

artood2 wrote:When the last straw breaks the Camel's back, it is the ONLY the last straw that is responsible. Your single impact theory is flawed on multiple levels. Why did the officers listen to Indian leaders? Was there mutiny inspired by the civilian movements? Were there other mutinies before?



It is time you show some respect to the freedom fighters. A lot of them sacrificed a lot to see you here and you should be showing more respect.

The officers DID NOT listen to the Indian leaders. Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, etc - NONE of them supported the mutiny and were very critical of it.

The mutiny was inspired, partly because people were completely disillusioned by the civilian movements and partly because of the success of the INA movement by Subhash Chandra Bose, Dhillon, etc.

Gandhi's "truth-nonviolence" campaign was falling apart well before Aug 15th 1947. There was a good chance that the country was going to break out into a civil war or an armed revolution. So the british gathered all the treasures they could muster, broke the country up and left. The revolution movement took an ugly turn and Hindus and Muslims turned against each other. This was orchestrated by the INC in order to cover up their sins of the past. After that, Nehru and Gandhi re-emerged as knights in shining armors.

harharmahadev wrote:

artood2 wrote:When the last straw breaks the Camel's back, it is the ONLY the last straw that is responsible. Your single impact theory is flawed on multiple levels. Why did the officers listen to Indian leaders? Was there mutiny inspired by the civilian movements? Were there other mutinies before?



It is time you show some respect to the freedom fighters. A lot of them sacrificed a lot to see you here and you should be showing more respect.

The officers DID NOT listen to the Indian leaders. Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, etc - NONE of them supported the mutiny and were very critical of it.

The mutiny was inspired, partly because people were completely disillusioned by the civilian movements and partly because of the success of the INA movement by Subhash Chandra Bose, Dhillon, etc.

Gandhi's "truth-nonviolence" campaign was falling apart well before Aug 15th 1947. There was a good chance that the country was going to break out into a civil war or an armed revolution. So the british gathered all the treasures they could muster, broke the country up and left. The revolution movement took an ugly turn and Hindus and Muslims turned against each other. This was orchestrated by the INC in order to cover up their sins of the past. After that, Nehru and Gandhi re-emerged as knights in shining armors.

Yeah Gandhi's non-violence campaign was supposed to be over mulitple time: after non-cooperation movement, civil disobediance movement, QI movement etc etc. Somehow it always seemed to garner support. And as for your notion about it being not impacted by civilian movement



"In Madras and Pune, the British garrisons had to face revolts within the ranks of the Indian Army. Widespread rioting took place from Karachi to Calcutta. Notably, the mutinying ships hoisted three flags tied together — those of the Congress, Muslim League, and the Red Flag of the Communist Party of India (CPI) , signifying the unity and demarginalisation of communal issues among the mutineers.

The mutiny was called off following a meeting between the President of the Naval Central Strike Committee (NCSC), M. S. Khan, and Vallab Bhai Patel of the Congress, who had been sent to Bombay to settle the crisis. Patel issued a statement calling on the strikers to end their action, which was later echoed by a statement issued in Calcutta by Mohammed Ali Jinnah on behalf of the Muslim League. Under these considerable pressures, the strikers gave way. However, despite assurances of the good services of the Congress and the Muslim League widespread arrests were made. These were followed up by courts martial and large scale dismissals from the service. None of those dismissed were reinstated into either the Indian or Pakistani navies after independence."



Anyways none of this is rellevant to India being under British puppets or India needing independence now. That is just rhetoric with no basis.